MLB Thread

[Myshkin]

[quote name='Dinsdale!' post='1518871' date='Sep 15 2008, 12.40']Ned Yost fired!

[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/09/15/yost.fired.ap/index.html"]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/base...d.ap/index.html[/url]

You knew it was coming if they didn't make the playoffs, but in the midst of the stretch run!?[/quote]
It seems a bit ridiculous.

[mcbigski]

Well, if Sveum's tenure as 3rd base coach for the Red Sox is any guide, moving him to the dugout has to help the Brewers' chances.

[▲Jim▲]

Wow, I never knew the Phillies could get a manager fired, other than their own of course.

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1519561' date='Sep 16 2008, 01.51']I can't wrap my head around the Yost firing. Huh? It makes no frickin's sense. This is the best year for the Brewers just about ever. The timing is so suspicious. I don't even have any theories.


In other news, someone other than Pujols will undeservedl win the MVP in the NL.[/quote]

Irregardless of where they sat in terms of playoff chances, this season, Yost has been hanging by a thread all year. No playoffs = no job for Ted come the day after the season. Someone in the front office suddenly decided that it was Yost holding the team back, and that a change now might still give them a fighting chance. It's hard to think they were completely wrong.

Still and all, a sweep of the Brewers over the next three days would be nice. Lock up the division this week and work on getting ramped up for the playoffs for the Cubs.

[Caliban]

The Yost firing makes sense because hes one of the worst managers ever, and teams often get a solid bump right after replacing a managwer (team gets loose, and in this case Yost doesnt make ridiculously bad moves). Yost should have been fired a long time ago, but its never a bad time to fire a guy like Yost.

[Caliban]

Ok Vets committee, If Santo isnt announced in on Dec 8th, im done with the Hall of Fame. The BBWAA and the Vets committee both suck ass.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Caliban' post='1521175' date='Sep 16 2008, 22.59']Ok Vets committee, If Santo isnt announced in on Dec 8th, im done with the Hall of Fame. The BBWAA and the Vets committee both suck ass.[/quote]

Meh...marginal. A number of players with better numbers who aren't even being considered.

[Ser Hippie]

[quote name='EHK for Obama' post='1521184' date='Sep 16 2008, 21.16']Meh...marginal. A number of players with better numbers who aren't even being considered.[/quote]

Curious - who do you have in mind that's better than Santo?

[Bronn Stone]

No question as to Gil Hodges.

Almost identical numbers, but a catcher - a position horribly underrepresented in the HOF - especially if you separate those who performed primarily in the Negro Leagues - and one where the natural wear and tear drags players down over the course of the years. Hodges is undoubtedly among the top twelve all time among catchers either in the Hall or currently eligible - the same cannot be said even by Santo's most fervent advocates, when compared to other 3B.

Dick Allen is also probably a better candidate. Fewer great players have been less appreciated in their cities than Allen, much to the detriment of the city of Brotherly Love. The mid 60's in baseball were not a good time for an angry black man.

[Caliban]

[quote name='Bronn Stone' post='1521272' date='Sep 17 2008, 03.01']Almost identical numbers, but a catcher - a position horribly underrepresented in the HOF - especially if you separate those who performed primarily in the Negro Leagues - and one where the natural wear and tear drags players down over the course of the years. Hodges is undoubtedly among the top twelve all time among catchers either in the Hall or currently eligible - the same cannot be said even by Santo's most fervent advocates, when compared to other 3B.[/quote]

There are only 10 true 3rd baseman in the hall, least of all positions in terms of HOFers. I can easily say that Santo is firmly in the top 12 at the position, even including the hot corners who have come in the 30 years since his eligiblitly started.

Of the 10 MLB 3rd basemen in the Hall, Home Run Baker and Jimmy Collins were pre WW1, of the remaining eight

Santo is Better career and peak wise then:

George Kell
Freddie Lindstrom
Pie Traynor
Brooks Robinson

That leaves

Schmidt
Boggs
Eddie Matthews
George Brett

as the only HOFers at his position that played in modern era MLB. He belongs. No question. A top 5-7 hitter at his position among eligables and current HOFers and a 5 time gold glover.

I guess read the whole Bill James argument to any naysayer.

[Ser Hippie]

[quote name='Bronn Stone' post='1521272' date='Sep 17 2008, 01.01']No question as to Gil Hodges.

Almost identical numbers, but a catcher - a position horribly underrepresented in the HOF - especially if you separate those who performed primarily in the Negro Leagues - and one where the natural wear and tear drags players down over the course of the years. Hodges is undoubtedly among the top twelve all time among catchers either in the Hall or currently eligible - the same cannot be said even by Santo's most fervent advocates, when compared to other 3B.[/quote]

Hodges was a 1B, not a catcher.

Caliban has pretty well laid out Santo's credentials at 3B (Bill James, FWIW, had him as 6th best 3B of all time as of the 2000 season).

[quote]Dick Allen is also probably a better candidate. Fewer great players have been less appreciated in their cities than Allen, much to the detriment of the city of Brotherly Love. The mid 60's in baseball were not a good time for an angry black man.[/quote]

Some of why Allen isn't in is his image as a supremely negative force on his teams - I've read some debates on how much damage he actually did, and I don't think he was quite as bad as people made him out to be. As you noted, the Phillies weren't exactly all that...[i]supportive[/i] of an angry black player, especially as they had him play in the minors in places well in the South, not exactly the best thing to do. That being said, even being generous, Allen's personality also contributed heavily to the perception that he wasn't worth the trouble of having around - it wasn't [i]all[/i] on the Phillies.

Santo was not the hitter Allen was, but he was much more durable (12 seasons of 140 games or more versus 6 for Allen), lacked the personality 'quirks', and was a Gold Glove 3rd baseman, while Allen was, putting it charitably, an indifferent fielder at best. I think Allen might well deserve to go in (his career's a bit short and uneven though), but I'd put Santo (who I'd also put in my top 10 3B of all time) in well before Allen.

[Week]

Props to Derek Jeter for setting the record for most hits in Yankee stadium. Pretty awesome that he was able to do it in the last week of its existence as a major league ballpark.

[EHK for Darwin]

I'm against most position considerations when it comes to the Hall of Fame. How well you fielded versus someone at the same position is a legitimate consideration, but how good your bat was compared to other 3rd basemen is or should be irrelevant. It doesn't matter what part of the field you were in the half inning before, everyone's the same in the batter's box. And the offensive statistic comparisons should be made across the league at all positions, not just against those who played your spot. Otherwise we're essentially operating on a position-based handicap that punishes achievement at over-producing spots while undeservedly rewarding lesser hitters at other spots.

If there's an argument for Santos that disregards position (except for defense, which with 5 Gold gloves would certainly be a consideration), fair enough. But top 10-15 third basemen is fairly meaningless to me if that only translates into top 250 or so actual hitters.

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='EHK for Obama' post='1521972' date='Sep 17 2008, 14.39']I'm against most position considerations when it comes to the Hall of Fame. How well you fielded versus someone at the same position is a legitimate consideration, but how good your bat was compared to other 3rd basemen is or should be irrelevant. It [b]doesn't matter what part of the field you were in the half inning before, everyone's the same in the batter's box.[/b] And the offensive statistic comparisons should be made across the league at all positions, not just against those who played your spot. Otherwise we're essentially operating on a position-based handicap that punishes achievement at over-producing spots while undeservedly rewarding lesser hitters at other spots.[/quote]

Bolding mine.

While it might be true it shouldn't matter what position you were in during the defensive half of the inning, you're deluding yourseld if you think "everyone's the same in the batter's box".

[Ser Hippie]

[quote name='Jaxom 1974' post='1522190' date='Sep 17 2008, 15.41']Bolding mine.

While it might be true it shouldn't matter what position you were in during the defensive half of the inning, you're deluding yourseld if you think "everyone's the same in the batter's box".[/quote]

Indeed. You [i]must[/i] to consider defensive position when comparing hitters because otherwise you'll have a system that has the HoF made up of far too many corner outfielders and 1st basemen.

Take Jeff Kent for example. If he was a LF or a RF or a 1B, people would consider him an average to (perhaps) slightly above-average player. A .289/.355/.499 career hitter with 376 homers and 1516 RBIs would be a marginal candidate as an outfielder, which is why you have to consider those numbers in the context of what position he was playing. Somebody who can hit that well as a middle infielder is inherently more valuable than someone who can only do it playing in left field or first base - it's (generally) much easier to find someone to hit at one of those positions than it is at 2nd or SS.

Or, for a more historically-minded argument, let's look at the top 50 (51 actually) home run hitters of all time.

C: Piazza, Bench (2)
1B: McGwire, Killebrew, Palmeiro, Thome, Foxx, McCovey, Thomas, Murray, Gehrig, McGriff, Delgado, Bagwell, Galarraga, Giambi (14)
2B:
3B: Schmidt, Mathews, Evans (also played a lot of 1B), Jones, Nettles (5)
SS: Rodriguez, Banks (actually played more games at 1B), Ripken (also 3B) (3)
LF: Bonds, Ramirez (or RF), Williams, Ott, Musial, Stargell, Yastrzemski, Kingman, Williams (9)
CF: Mays, Griffey, Mantle, Dawson, Snider, Murphy (6)
RF: Aaron, Ruth, Sosa, Robinson, Jackson, Sheffield, Winfield, Canseco (also a DH), Juan Gonzalez, Kaline, Carter, Guerrero (12)

Going by number of players on the list, you've got the following order:

1B - RF - LF - CF - 3B - SS - C - 2B

This counts Banks as a SS and Evans solely as a 3B as well; Santo is #80 all time, if you're curious.

Note how that is relatively close to the defensive spectrum Bill James came up with - it's harder to find good hitters at those positions (in this case, HR = good hitter, admittedly a rough argument), so when you have a good hitter there (a Santo, or a Sandberg earlier in this topic), they're more valuable. They have a stat for that - comparing a player's OPS to the average OPS of their position (and VORP also measures it), but I don't know where to easily find that.

A 1st baseman who has a 100 OPS+ is actually below average (as the average 1st baseman hits better than the average hitter does), while SS who manages that is much more valuable, which is why outfielders get criticized with the "hits like a middle infielder" line after all. Looking at offensive numbers without regard to position ignores that, and assumes that anyone should be able to hit the sam regardless, which fails to take into account the increased wear and tear/energy spent playing certain defensive positions. If teams could easily find great hitters who could stick to tough defensive positions, they would.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote]Indeed. You need to consider defensive position when comparing hitters because otherwise you'll tend to have only corner outfielders and first basemen appearing as the best players ever.[/quote]

So? We don't need to affirmative action the Baseball Hall of Fame. Yeah, good hitters at those positions may be rarer and valuable in the sense that they're harder to find, but that doesn't make them better hitters than the 2,000 other guys putting up better numbers at other positions. For an All-Star game you're required to field a full team with backups, so someone with an ounce of power and a decent average at a poor hitting position gets selected more. But the Hall of Fame is under no such practical restrictions. If there's no third or second basemen that can sniff the jock strap of 200+ 1st basemen and outfielders offensively, there's no reason for them to get in over the other guys unless their numbers are close and their defense puts them over the top. If you weigh the defense that importantly, fair enough. But their numbers should be considered against everyone elses numbers, not just those at their position.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='EHK for Obama' post='1522281' date='Sep 17 2008, 17.00']Yeah, good hitters at those positions may be rarer and valuable in the sense that they're harder to find, but that doesn't make them better hitters than the 2,000 other guys putting up better numbers at other positions.[/quote]

I would say that C, 3B, SS, and 2B, are quantifyably more difficult postions to play than 1B, or OF. It's not all about hitting either. There is a middle ground.

[Ser Hippie]

[quote name='EHK for Obama' post='1522281' date='Sep 17 2008, 17.00']So? We don't need to affirmative action the Baseball Hall of Fame. Yeah, good hitters at those positions may be rarer and valuable in the sense that they're harder to find, but that doesn't make them better hitters than the 2,000 other guys putting up better numbers at other positions.[/quote]

Again, you're somewhat missing the point. It's not that a .220 hitter at shortstop is really valuable simply by playing shortstop, but rather someone with "good" hitting stats who plays a key defensive position is better than someone with the same stats at a hitter's position. Unless you believe that their similar hitting stats make them inherently equal as hitters?


[quote]For an All-Star game you're required to field a full team with backups, so someone with an ounce of power and a decent average at a poor hitting position gets selected more. But the Hall of Fame is under no such practical restrictions. If there's no third or second basemen that can sniff the jock strap of 200+ 1st basemen and outfielders offensively, there's no reason for them to get in over the other guys unless their numbers are close and their defense puts them over the top. If you weigh the defense that importantly, fair enough. But their numbers should be considered against everyone elses numbers, not just those at their position.[/quote]

They [i]are[/i] considered against everyone else - it's a matter of [i]adjusting[/i] their numbers to compare them in the right context. Derek Jeter, for example, has only finished in the top 10 for OPS+ once in his entire career, yet the general public considers him a good hitter. Why? Because he puts up great numbers for a shortstop - we recognize that his performance is more unique than if it came from a rightfielder (as his defense isn't what makes him so good).

As for the "HoF isn't fielding a baseball team", that is correct. However, the HoF [i]does[/i] base (in theory) its inductions on contributions on the field, which is why position is important. A guy providing offense from a defensive position is more valuable to his team. I'll use my example of sorts from my last post.

Let's say there are two HoF candidates, neither are particularly good defenders - one is a 1st baseman, one is a shortstop. They both hit .290/.350/.450 or whatever, and we'll call that a 115 OPS+. Are they equal offensively? Only if you ardently subscribe to the theory that context is unnecessary. The average first baseman has over a 100 OPS, while the average SS will have an OPS+ under 100, which differentiates the two quite distinctly.

This is why position matters - two hitters with the same stats will have very different values based on what positions they play. And even though the average first baseman will hit better than that, you have to figure in that it's not as physically demanding as playing catcher or short or second.

------------------------------

-Edit-

Lord O'Bones put it better than me :P. It's not that the defensive position should be used to include mediocre players in the HoF, but rather that looking only at stats without considering position misses a lot.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Lord O' Bones' post='1522296' date='Sep 17 2008, 19.12']I would say that C, 3B, SS, and 2B, are quantifyably more difficult postions to play than 1B, or OF. It's not all about hitting either. There is a middle ground.[/quote]

No I'd agree. I think their defensive play and the fact that they are more difficult defensive positions should factor in. As well as a catcher's ability to call a good game, insofar as such things can be measurable. I'm just against unofficial quotas or 'he's a great hitter for a second basemen' rationales. The offensive statistics should be judged independently of everything else and against the offensive statistics of everyone else. I'm not saying that good defense at a tougher position can't put someone close offensively over the edge, but if their statistics are only remarkable due to their position, than they're not remarkable enough for the Hall.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote]They are considered against everyone else - it's a matter of adjusting their numbers to compare them in the right context. Derek Jeter, for example, has only finished in the top 10 for OPS+ once in his entire career, yet the general public considers him a good hitter. Why? Because he puts up great numbers for a shortstop - we recognize that his performance is more unique than if it came from a rightfielder (as his defense isn't what makes him so good).[/quote]

The public considers him a good hitter because he's the fricken Yankees mascot and MLB + ESPN is forever on New York's dick.

[quote]The average first baseman has over a 100 OPS, while the average SS will have an OPS+ under 100, which differentiates the two quite distinctly. Unless the defense makes up for it (and in my example it wouldn't), the shortstop is clearly a more valuable player.[/quote]

If its that close, than yeah position difficulty + quality of defense can be the edge. But if its not close, than he waits behind the better hitters unless you rate defense exponentially higher than most.