|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 11, 2022 19:12:38 GMT -5
Yeah, they lost to that Yankees dynasty which then lost to the Diamondbacks (only their fourth season--first was 1998) in one of the best World Series ever. Just being realistic. Dream series is Yankees Dodgers but it's looking very doubtful that it will happen. Neither team has enough aces to get that far. Really hoping I'm wrong. Considering they haven't faced each other since 1981 it's long overdue IMO. Really tired of Houston. Hmm, for me, I'd probably rather see Cleveland and San Diego. Longest World Series drought vs team who has never won the World Series.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 12, 2022 17:52:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 13, 2022 10:22:19 GMT -5
Big loss for the Padres, as Fernando Tatis Jr. just got popped for PEDs and is facing an 80-game suspension. He also had an amusing excuse, per usual.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 13, 2022 11:29:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 14, 2022 23:38:57 GMT -5
Mauer is more worthy than Ted Simmons and Parker was a better player than Baines. I just think if you measure a hall of famer by the intangibles as well as the hard numbers those two guys eventually getting a plaque is not unreasonable. Mauer: 55 WAR, (40ish at catcher), 124 OPS, 921 games at catcher Simmons: 50 WAR (46ish at catcher), 118 OPS, 1771 games at catcher Yes, Mauer's first numbers are similar as Simmons, but he played half as long at catcher. There's a great deal to be said for longevity combined with excellence. Mauer played 140g/season five times. Simmons did it like a dozen and caught 140+ games in something like five consecutive seasons. If character/personal stuff is used as critera, Parker doesn't go in. He was a heavy cocaine user, etc. Very good? Sure. But he committed more errors than any 20th century RF--you just remember his big arm. The errors aren't in highlights. He's not near the top of any leaderboards in stats, etc. His big argument is "he was better than Baines". On that, I got nothing because it's a 100% correct statement. Baines is in the HOF because LaRussa and Reinsdorf were part of the process. His selection is just as bad as all the Veteran Committee picks of the 50s/60s. Bill James had Simmons ranked 10 in his historical baseball abstract so if one takes James's word as gospel, then sure Simmons is quite worthy of the hall of fame. . But I was more interested in the comparison between Dave Parker and Harold Baines. Both were right fielders so that seems like an apples to apples comparison. Parker ranks 14, Baines 42. The 13 right fielders ahead of Parker: babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, frank Robinson, Mel ott, Pete rose, Tony Gwynn, Reggie Jackson, Roberto Clemente, Paul Waner, Sam Crawford, al kaline, ends slaughter and Dave Winfield. I think other than rose all the others are in the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 15, 2022 22:16:58 GMT -5
Mauer: 55 WAR, (40ish at catcher), 124 OPS, 921 games at catcher Simmons: 50 WAR (46ish at catcher), 118 OPS, 1771 games at catcher Yes, Mauer's first numbers are similar as Simmons, but he played half as long at catcher. There's a great deal to be said for longevity combined with excellence. Mauer played 140g/season five times. Simmons did it like a dozen and caught 140+ games in something like five consecutive seasons. If character/personal stuff is used as critera, Parker doesn't go in. He was a heavy cocaine user, etc. Very good? Sure. But he committed more errors than any 20th century RF--you just remember his big arm. The errors aren't in highlights. He's not near the top of any leaderboards in stats, etc. His big argument is "he was better than Baines". On that, I got nothing because it's a 100% correct statement. Baines is in the HOF because LaRussa and Reinsdorf were part of the process. His selection is just as bad as all the Veteran Committee picks of the 50s/60s. Bill James had Simmons ranked 10 in his historical baseball abstract so if one takes James's word as gospel, then sure Simmons is quite worthy of the hall of fame. . But I was more interested in the comparison between Dave Parker and Harold Baines. Both were right fielders so that seems like an apples to apples comparison. Parker ranks 14, Baines 42. The 13 right fielders ahead of Parker: babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, frank Robinson, Mel ott, Pete rose, Tony Gwynn, Reggie Jackson, Roberto Clemente, Paul Waner, Sam Crawford, al kaline, ends slaughter and Dave Winfield. I think other than rose all the others are in the HOF. And the only reason Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame has nothing to do with his playing ability. That said, Parker's 40 WAR is very low for a Hall of Fame outfielder. He is a bit ahead of Baines, true, but that just means that Baines probably shouldn't have been elected by the veterans' committee.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,617
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 16, 2022 8:05:53 GMT -5
Bill James had Simmons ranked 10 in his historical baseball abstract so if one takes James's word as gospel, then sure Simmons is quite worthy of the hall of fame. . But I was more interested in the comparison between Dave Parker and Harold Baines. Both were right fielders so that seems like an apples to apples comparison. Parker ranks 14, Baines 42. The 13 right fielders ahead of Parker: babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, frank Robinson, Mel ott, Pete rose, Tony Gwynn, Reggie Jackson, Roberto Clemente, Paul Waner, Sam Crawford, al kaline, ends slaughter and Dave Winfield. I think other than rose all the others are in the HOF. And the only reason Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame has nothing to do with his playing ability. That said, Parker's 40 WAR is very low for a Hall of Fame outfielder. He is a bit ahead of Baines, true, but that just means that Baines probably shouldn't have been elected by the veterans' committee. Bill James can be rather critical of WAR as being the final arbitrator of value - and he considered Dave Parker's WAR as being absurd in relation to how good he was. This doesn't mean that Bill James is right. Here is quick article from Bill James on why he thinks Dave Parker was a superstar and Rice and Foster were not. This doesn't get to where Parker fits in with Baines or HOF - but it does cause me pause in evaluating his career based on his bWAR of 40.4. www.billjamesonline.com/parker_rice_and_foster/
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 16, 2022 9:04:05 GMT -5
And the only reason Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame has nothing to do with his playing ability. That said, Parker's 40 WAR is very low for a Hall of Fame outfielder. He is a bit ahead of Baines, true, but that just means that Baines probably shouldn't have been elected by the veterans' committee. Bill James can be rather critical of WAR as being the final arbitrator of value - and he considered Dave Parker's WAR as being absurd in relation to how good he was. This doesn't mean that Bill James is right. Here is quick article from Bill James on why he thinks Dave Parker was a superstar and Rice and Foster were not. This doesn't get to where Parker fits in with Baines or HOF - but it does cause me pause in evaluating his career based on his bWAR of 40.4. www.billjamesonline.com/parker_rice_and_foster/I'll read the article when I have some time. I tend to agree that baseball writers rely on WAR too much in some cases (MVP voting is a big one). I will say that if Dave Parker played in Boston instead of Pittsburgh, he would be in the Hall of Fame right now. The pro-Boston media bias (see also: David Ortiz) is very grating.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,617
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 16, 2022 9:26:47 GMT -5
Bill James can be rather critical of WAR as being the final arbitrator of value - and he considered Dave Parker's WAR as being absurd in relation to how good he was. This doesn't mean that Bill James is right. Here is quick article from Bill James on why he thinks Dave Parker was a superstar and Rice and Foster were not. This doesn't get to where Parker fits in with Baines or HOF - but it does cause me pause in evaluating his career based on his bWAR of 40.4. www.billjamesonline.com/parker_rice_and_foster/I'll read the article when I have some time. I tend to agree that baseball writers rely on WAR too much in some cases (MVP voting is a big one). I will say that if Dave Parker played in Boston instead of Pittsburgh, he would be in the Hall of Fame right now. The pro-Boston media bias (see also: David Ortiz) is very grating. The drugs hurt Parker. Also - he was great for 5 years than almost immediately fell off a cliff for several years (drugs) before being pretty good towards the end of his career. He didn't have the normal arc one would see with a HOF player. Going from Great to Junk to pretty good doesn't work as well as Great to pretty good to junk. The latter will keep that greatness still in the public minds while the player is starting to slip/age.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 16, 2022 10:03:50 GMT -5
I'll read the article when I have some time. I tend to agree that baseball writers rely on WAR too much in some cases (MVP voting is a big one). I will say that if Dave Parker played in Boston instead of Pittsburgh, he would be in the Hall of Fame right now. The pro-Boston media bias (see also: David Ortiz) is very grating. The drugs hurt Parker. Also - he was great for 5 years than almost immediately fell off a cliff for several years (drugs) before being pretty good towards the end of his career. He didn't have the normal arc one would see with a HOF player. Going from Great to Junk to pretty good doesn't work as well as Great to pretty good to junk. The latter will keep that greatness still in the public minds while the player is starting to slip/age. I forgot about the cocaine with Parker. I'm too young to remember Parker (the first World Series I watched was 1991, which was the year he retired), but it looks like he was really good from 1975 to 1979. He only had one really good season later in his career (1985). I don't know. Out of curiosity, what's your opinion on Dale Murphy? His career WAR (46.5) is higher, his peak was a bit longer (1980-1987), his career was cut short by injuries, and by all accounts, he's one of the best ambassadors for baseball ever. The Hall of Fame voters sure like to cite the character clause in a negative way, but it doesn't seem to be used positively.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,617
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 16, 2022 10:52:15 GMT -5
The drugs hurt Parker. Also - he was great for 5 years than almost immediately fell off a cliff for several years (drugs) before being pretty good towards the end of his career. He didn't have the normal arc one would see with a HOF player. Going from Great to Junk to pretty good doesn't work as well as Great to pretty good to junk. The latter will keep that greatness still in the public minds while the player is starting to slip/age. I forgot about the cocaine with Parker. I'm too young to remember Parker (the first World Series I watched was 1991, which was the year he retired), but it looks like he was really good from 1975 to 1979. He only had one really good season later in his career (1985). I don't know. Out of curiosity, what's your opinion on Dale Murphy? His career WAR (46.5) is higher, his peak was a bit longer (1980-1987), his career was cut short by injuries, and by all accounts, he's one of the best ambassadors for baseball ever. The Hall of Fame voters sure like to cite the character clause in a negative way, but it doesn't seem to be used positively. Dave Parker (for a second) - was one of my favorite players in the late 1970's. I was a big Roberto Clemente fan as a young kid and always liked the Pirates. As a young kid, I would try and argue why Manny Sanguillen was a better player than Johnny Bench (Ha). Parker burst on the scene as it had become clear that the Reds/Dodgers were much better - and also the Phillies were clearly better than the Pirates. Clemente was dead (and his career was coming to an end anyway), Stargell was a shell of his prime, etc... Then, out of nowhere comes 'We are Family' in 1979. Parker was the best player on the team, it was also his last great season. 'Pops' Stargell wins co-MVP with cocaine using Keith Hernandez. Stargell winning that MVP may have been one of the worst selections of all-time (however Stargell was a great 'character guy'). In summary - Parker was in his 5th season of his super-prime, finally makes the playoffs and wins the WS. He was clearly the best player on the team, but a teammate wins MVP and is mostly credited with the team winning the WS. Dale Murphy - I was starting college in 1982 - about the time that Dale Murphy was the best player in baseball. It was also the time when Turner Station was carrying every Braves game on TV (at that time, every Braves and Cubs game was on TV and other than one's hometown team - they were the teams that everyone could watch). There was a story going around - there was a bench clearing brawl that involved the Braves - players from other team's first reaction was 'Did Murphy get injured?'. He had the reputation of being a pure/great character guy that everyone beloved. And what usually happens with those guys - we find out that it was 95% act and not real (see Steve Garvey). As time as passed - and the willingness to find/search character flaws - it would appear that Murphy was/is a 'great' guy. The problem with Murphy - outside his 8 year peak - he wasn't even an average hitter (and one of those years in his 8 year peak he was a below average hitter). He has 6 or 7 full seasons of being average to below average as a hitter. I mean, Dave Parker had like only 3 average hitting seasons over a 17 year span.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 16, 2022 11:02:37 GMT -5
I forgot about the cocaine with Parker. I'm too young to remember Parker (the first World Series I watched was 1991, which was the year he retired), but it looks like he was really good from 1975 to 1979. He only had one really good season later in his career (1985). I don't know. Out of curiosity, what's your opinion on Dale Murphy? His career WAR (46.5) is higher, his peak was a bit longer (1980-1987), his career was cut short by injuries, and by all accounts, he's one of the best ambassadors for baseball ever. The Hall of Fame voters sure like to cite the character clause in a negative way, but it doesn't seem to be used positively. Dave Parker (for a second) - was one of my favorite players in the late 1970's. I was a big Roberto Clemente fan as a young kid and always liked the Pirates. As a young kid, I would try and argue why Manny Sanguillen was a better player than Johnny Bench (Ha). Parker burst on the scene as it had become clear that the Reds/Dodgers were much better - and also the Phillies were clearly better than the Pirates. Clemente was dead (and his career was coming to an end anyway), Stargell was a shell of his prime, etc... Then, out of nowhere comes 'We are Family' in 1979. Parker was the best player on the team, it was also his last great season. 'Pops' Stargell wins co-MVP with cocaine using Keith Hernandez. Stargell winning that MVP may have been one of the worst selections of all-time (however Stargell was a great 'character guy'). In summary - Parker was in his 5th season of his super-prime, finally makes the playoffs and wins the WS. He was clearly the best player on the team, but a teammate wins MVP and is mostly credited with the team winning the WS. Dale Murphy - I was starting college in 1982 - about the time that Dale Murphy was the best player in baseball. It was also the time when Turner Station was carrying every Braves game on TV (at that time, every Braves and Cubs game was on TV and other than one's hometown team - they were the teams that everyone could watch). There was a story going around - there was a bench clearing brawl that involved the Braves - players from other team's first reaction was 'Did Murphy get injured?'. He had the reputation of being a pure/great character guy that everyone beloved. And what usually happens with those guys - we find out that it was 95% act and not real (see Steve Garvey). As time as passed - and the willingness to find/search character flaws - it would appear that Murphy was/is a 'great' guy. The problem with Murphy - outside his 8 year peak - he wasn't even an average hitter (and one of those years in his 8 year peak he was a below average hitter). He has 6 or 7 full seasons of being average to below average as a hitter. I mean, Dave Parker had like only 3 average hitting seasons over a 17 year span. Well, my understanding with Murphy is that the reason he fell off was because of injuries. I'm not so eager to give a player a pass for a decline related to self-inflicted problems like cocaine abuse while just saying "them's the breaks" if they were injured. And If we look at OPS+ as a measure of whether someone was above or below average as a hitter, Parker has three years that were below average. Murphy has four (I'm not counting years where he played less than 30 games). And their career OPS+ numbers are the same at 121, so I don't think Parker really has an edge here. Anyway, I appreciate the response. I don't necessarily think either will get into the Hall of Fame (though if Baines can get in, you never know), but they have interesting cases.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,617
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 16, 2022 12:00:54 GMT -5
Dave Parker (for a second) - was one of my favorite players in the late 1970's. I was a big Roberto Clemente fan as a young kid and always liked the Pirates. As a young kid, I would try and argue why Manny Sanguillen was a better player than Johnny Bench (Ha). Parker burst on the scene as it had become clear that the Reds/Dodgers were much better - and also the Phillies were clearly better than the Pirates. Clemente was dead (and his career was coming to an end anyway), Stargell was a shell of his prime, etc... Then, out of nowhere comes 'We are Family' in 1979. Parker was the best player on the team, it was also his last great season. 'Pops' Stargell wins co-MVP with cocaine using Keith Hernandez. Stargell winning that MVP may have been one of the worst selections of all-time (however Stargell was a great 'character guy'). In summary - Parker was in his 5th season of his super-prime, finally makes the playoffs and wins the WS. He was clearly the best player on the team, but a teammate wins MVP and is mostly credited with the team winning the WS. Dale Murphy - I was starting college in 1982 - about the time that Dale Murphy was the best player in baseball. It was also the time when Turner Station was carrying every Braves game on TV (at that time, every Braves and Cubs game was on TV and other than one's hometown team - they were the teams that everyone could watch). There was a story going around - there was a bench clearing brawl that involved the Braves - players from other team's first reaction was 'Did Murphy get injured?'. He had the reputation of being a pure/great character guy that everyone beloved. And what usually happens with those guys - we find out that it was 95% act and not real (see Steve Garvey). As time as passed - and the willingness to find/search character flaws - it would appear that Murphy was/is a 'great' guy. The problem with Murphy - outside his 8 year peak - he wasn't even an average hitter (and one of those years in his 8 year peak he was a below average hitter). He has 6 or 7 full seasons of being average to below average as a hitter. I mean, Dave Parker had like only 3 average hitting seasons over a 17 year span. Well, my understanding with Murphy is that the reason he fell off was because of injuries. I'm not so eager to give a player a pass for a decline related to self-inflicted problems like cocaine abuse while just saying "them's the breaks" if they were injured. And If we look at OPS+ as a measure of whether someone was above or below average as a hitter, Parker has three years that were below average. Murphy has four (I'm not counting years where he played less than 30 games). And their career OPS+ numbers are the same at 121, so I don't think Parker really has an edge here. Anyway, I appreciate the response. I don't necessarily think either will get into the Hall of Fame (though if Baines can get in, you never know), but they have interesting cases. I am more of a fangraphs person - and was looking at wRC+ (with 100 being league average). Agree about what caused the decline. I just don't/didn't remember injuries being the downfall of Murphy. Hew was essentially an iron man from 1982 to 1991. He was 36 in 1992, so I would have considered this past his normal playing career - so don't see injuries as a 'cause' for his problems. But then, he could have been playing hurt a lot. Don Mattingly was someone that had chronic back issues while playing that probably impacted his career. I don't think either Parker or Murphy should be in the HOF. I don't have a strong opinion either way on who was the better player. They were great in their prime, but not enough outside that prime.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Aug 16, 2022 12:14:33 GMT -5
Well, my understanding with Murphy is that the reason he fell off was because of injuries. I'm not so eager to give a player a pass for a decline related to self-inflicted problems like cocaine abuse while just saying "them's the breaks" if they were injured. And If we look at OPS+ as a measure of whether someone was above or below average as a hitter, Parker has three years that were below average. Murphy has four (I'm not counting years where he played less than 30 games). And their career OPS+ numbers are the same at 121, so I don't think Parker really has an edge here. Anyway, I appreciate the response. I don't necessarily think either will get into the Hall of Fame (though if Baines can get in, you never know), but they have interesting cases. I am more of a fangraphs person - and was looking at wRC+ (with 100 being league average). Agree about what caused the decline. I just don't/didn't remember injuries being the downfall of Murphy. Hew was essentially an iron man from 1982 to 1991. He was 36 in 1992, so I would have considered this past his normal playing career - so don't see injuries as a 'cause' for his problems. But then, he could have been playing hurt a lot. Don Mattingly was someone that had chronic back issues while playing that probably impacted his career. I don't think either Parker or Murphy should be in the HOF. I don't have a strong opinion either way on who was the better player. They were great in their prime, but not enough outside that prime. Ah, I see. I'm 100% a BRef person, especially after I discovered the nonsensical way that FanGraphs does pitcher WAR. Though that's just for looking up stats. I still think FanGraphs does a lot of great work in their columns and other analysis. I just never really go to them when I'm looking up stats. As for Murphy, this is before my time, but my understanding is that injuries caused him to be less effective as a player, not that they prevented him from playing altogether. And that makes sense--it would be a bit unusual for a healthy person to be a great player from ages 24-31 but suddenly not be very good by the age of 33.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,617
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 16, 2022 13:36:49 GMT -5
I am more of a fangraphs person - and was looking at wRC+ (with 100 being league average). Agree about what caused the decline. I just don't/didn't remember injuries being the downfall of Murphy. Hew was essentially an iron man from 1982 to 1991. He was 36 in 1992, so I would have considered this past his normal playing career - so don't see injuries as a 'cause' for his problems. But then, he could have been playing hurt a lot. Don Mattingly was someone that had chronic back issues while playing that probably impacted his career. I don't think either Parker or Murphy should be in the HOF. I don't have a strong opinion either way on who was the better player. They were great in their prime, but not enough outside that prime. Ah, I see. I'm 100% a BRef person, especially after I discovered the nonsensical way that FanGraphs does pitcher WAR. Though that's just for looking up stats. I still think FanGraphs does a lot of great work in their columns and other analysis. I just never really go to them when I'm looking up stats. As for Murphy, this is before my time, but my understanding is that injuries caused him to be less effective as a player, not that they prevented him from playing altogether. And that makes sense--it would be a bit unusual for a healthy person to be a great player from ages 24-31 but suddenly not be very good by the age of 33. I am trying to remember the methodology differences between bWAR and fWAR. I am thinking there were 2 main differences. 1) fWAR uses FIP while bWAR uses ERA. I think this is a minor difference - I tend to like FIP better than ERA. Over the course of a career, there is usually very little difference between the two. 2) fWAR factors in pitch framing in defense for catchers, bWAR doesn't. This is why Salvador Perez has only 15.3 fWAR, but 30.8 bWAR. This is a major difference. Or Jonathan Lucroy has 17.7 bWAR and 37.0 fWAR. Those two players are among the extremes in pitch framing (Perez one of the worst in baseball history, Lucroy one of the best). I am just annoyed with the idea that pitch framing is a factor in baseball today - we should already be at robo balls/strikes. IDK if fangraphs also factors in pitch framing for pitchers WAR?
|
|