Andre Dawson should be in the HoF, yes or no?

[NEP Dynasty]

DON JUAN, do you take into account part of a great player being great is his ability to carry his team even if the other members of it aren't very good (e.g. Lebron James last year).

Kinda hurts your prior argument.

[donjuan]

Last I checked, you "carry" your team by being productive. This would be what Bonds did with the Giants for the enitre first half of this decade? I guess his career OPS+ of 182, insane OBP of .444, total WARP3 of 229.9 and EqA adjusted for all time of .350 doesn't have anything to do with it.

[babaoriley]

Last I checked, you "carry" your team by being productive. This would be what Bonds did with the Giants for the enitre first half of this decade? I guess his career OPS+ of 182, insane OBP of .444, total WARP3 of 229.9 and EqA adjusted for all time of .350 doesn't have anything to do with it.

Clear. Cream. Needles. He won the triple crown in PE drugs.

[donjuan]

Clear. Cream. Needles. He won the triple crown in PE drugs.

This is true and will have to be considered when he is eligible for the HOF. However, it is completely irrelevant to the fact that players who "carry" their teams are incredibly productive.

[donjuan]

Bueller? Bueller?

[NEP Dynasty]

Write a book on it, reform the MLB Hall of Fame selection process, then come back and we can talk about how important WARP3 is.

[NEP Dynasty]

Until then, players with good statistical numbers should be in the HOF. That's just how things are. And by stats, I mean RBI, HR, Runs, Hits etc. Sure WARP3, EqA and things like that might be important, but the people who care about those things are few and far between in terms of HOF voting. Not that HOF voters are smart, I agree they are not, but thats just how things are right now.

[donjuan]

Until then, players with good statistical numbers should be in the HOF. That's just how things are. And by stats, I mean RBI, HR, Runs, Hits etc. Sure WARP3, EqA and things like that might be important, but the people who care about those things are few and far between in terms of HOF voting. Not that HOF voters are smart, I agree they are not, but thats just how things are right now.

So players should be in the HOF based on arbitrary stats that aren't particularly useful in evaluating players? The whole "that's just how things are" argument doesn't carry much weight either.

1920: Black players are not allowed in MLB. Should they be? Nah, that's just how things are right now.

1941: Pearl Harbor gets bombed. Should we defend ourselves and go to war? Nah, let's just keep the status quo.

1997: Hey I'm Billy Beane and I've just been hired as GM of a team with one of the lowest payrolls in baseball. Should I evaluate players based on stats that mean something or based on traditional stats that everyone else uses leading to gross inefficiencies in the player market? I'm going to go with the meaningless stats because that's just the way it is.

Also, you seem to be amused by WARP3, perhaps because of it's nerdy sounding name. It only measures, you know, how valuable a player was to his team in all aspects of the game. Silly stat, indeed.

[NEP Dynasty]

How many playoff series has Billy Beane won as a GM?

[donjuan]

Wow, it's almost as if you're a veritable endless sea of logical fallacies. You do realize single digit sample sizes are basically meaningless, I hope. Let me guess, clutch hitters exist too?

[NEP Dynasty]

Do you watch sports? Tell me David Ortiz is not a clutch hitter. All you are is a stat geek.

Yea, people that continually get hits in the 9th inning when their team needs them, and in the playoffs are clutch (David Ortiz), and those that don't, are not (A-Rod). Your face is probably buried in Billy Beanes lap or in a math statistics book so you miss out on the event that actual takes place between the lines.

[donjuan]

Do you watch sports? Tell me David Ortiz is not a clutch hitter. All you are is a stat geek.

Yea, people that continually get hits in the 9th inning when their team needs them, and in the playoffs are clutch (David Ortiz), and those that don't, are not (A-Rod).

The logic behind this post almost made my head explode. Clutch hitting has been pretty much proven to not exist by every study ever done. This is what I like to call fun with sample sizes. But hey, screw math, science and reason when we have selective anecdotal evidence to back ourselves up!

Your face is probably buried in Billy Beanes lap or in a math statistics book so you miss out on the event that actual takes place between the lines.

Yeah, and I live in my mom's basement and have never seen the sun. You aren't a member of the BBWAA, by chance, are you?

[donjuan]

FYI, here are some stats for super-duper-clutchman David Ortiz:

Career: .288 AVG, .383 OBP, .940 OPS
RISP, 2 outs: .278 AVG, .405 OBP, .915 OPS

So this concludes us to believe that David Ortiz is marginally better at walking and worse at hitting when "in the clutch". Riveting stuff.

[durito]

you won't find a bigger ortiz fan than me, and yes he was huge at some of the most needed times over the years -- but the stats just don't back up anything significant going on there.

[babaoriley]

you won't find a bigger ortiz fan than me, and yes he was huge at some of the most needed times over the years -- but the stats just don't back up anything significant going on there.

Again, it was WHEN he came through in the clutch... Would anyone on here say Robert Horry was NOT a clutch player. Looking back at Horry's career, won;t that be his legacy? What about MJ? Was he NOT clutch? You can't tell me that he didn't thrive in those moments when everyone else puckered up.

[donjuan]

Again, it was WHEN he came through in the clutch... Would anyone on here say Robert Horry was NOT a clutch player. Looking back at Horry's career, won;t that be his legacy? What about MJ? Was he NOT clutch? You can't tell me that he didn't thrive in those moments when everyone else puckered up.

Did these players' abilities improve in the clutch or did they simply not fold?

[babaoriley]

Did these players' abilities improve in the clutch or did they simply not fold?

Both, in the case of Horry and Jordan. They thrived in those situations. They longed for the last shot.

[babaoriley]

You're saying, as a self proclaimed stat geek, that there is no such thing as a clutch player. According to your statistical models, I believe you 100%. As someone who watches sports, I can say that we, as fans, perceive certain players to be "clutch" and through the process of recurring "clutch" plays, the legacy of Player X being "Clutch" is borne and, through time, passed on... Like it or not, that element of sports will never disappear.

[donjuan]

You're saying, as a self proclaimed stat geek, that there is no such thing as a clutch player. According to your statistical models, I believe you 100%.

Not my studies or models.

As someone who watches sports, I can say that we, as fans, perceive certain players to be "clutch" and through the process of recurring "clutch" plays, the legacy of Player X being "Clutch" is borne

Ah, I'm obviously not a fan. I AM A ROBOT WHO CREATED A MACHINE TO CONVERT GAMES ON TV INTO BINARY.

1010001110000001000010000100101001010010 1001011111000001100010100101010101011111 00011111111100000000100001100

RED SOX WIN!

and, through time, passed on... Like it or not, that element of sports will never disappear.

I have hope. There is this phenomenon called progress.

[NEP Dynasty]

Stick to union rugby guy. Leave these sports to us.

[babaoriley]

And with your "progress" sports would be condensed into sets of all encompassing data to be endlessly analyzed as the sole indicator of success? Sounds boring as hell.

[donjuan]

Stick to union rugby guy. Leave these sports to us.

I like ballbase, ballfoot, and just about every other sport under the sun, too.

[donjuan]

And with your "progress" sports would be condensed into sets of all encompassing data to be endlessly analyzed as the sole indicator of success? Sounds boring as hell.

Look, we're all (well most of us, at least) fans of certain teams in sports. It makes sports enjoyable and it's fun to root for a team. I'm a huge (SF) Giants, (Sacramento) Kings, Raiders and Sharks fan. I get sad when they lose big games and am happy when they win big ones (not often). However, if you are actually trying to compare individual players or talk about basic concepts, let's try to be objective. The time for subjectivity and non-objectivity is during the game when the beer is flowing, not after.

Also, as this is a gambling forum objectivity should be pretty important, just in general.

[babaoriley]

Look, we're all (well most of us, at least) fans of certain teams in sports. It makes sports enjoyable and it's fun to root for a team. I'm a huge (SF) Giants, (Sacramento) Kings, Raiders and Sharks fan. I get sad when they lose big games and am happy when they win big ones (not often). However, if you are actually trying to compare individual players or talk about basic concepts, let's try to be objective. The time for subjectivity and non-objectivity is during the game when the beer is flowing, not after.

Also, as this is a gambling forum objectivity should be pretty important, just in general.

Perhaps the only post of yours that I completely agree with. That said, the original argument was whether Murphy (or Dawson) should be included in the HOF, based not on the stats that you are providing, but based on what the historically inept and erratic BBWAA considers to be HOF-worthy. Because I followed the '80's pretty close as a young kid, I admit to bias, but looking back there were a few players that defined that era and Murph was one of them. He played on a horrific team and put up big stats, while maintaining a positive role model-type presence that again, defined baseball during what could be considered the unofficial last decade in which baseball was worthy of being referred to as "America's national past time". Not huge stats, but HOF worthy stats, especially when placed in the correct context and taking into account awards and overall status within the NL during the '80's.

[donjuan]

That said, the original argument was whether Murphy (or Dawson) should be included in the HOF, based not on the stats that you are providing, but based on what the historically inept and erratic BBWAA considers to be HOF-worthy.

I don't see anywhere in the title or original post that says anything of the sort. What I see is a basic question in the title "Should Andre Dawson be in the HOF?" followed by a post that starts off with the most subjective judgment of all followed by a few silly stats. Nowhere does it say, "based on these criteria, should Andre Dawson be in the HOF?"

[babaoriley]

duplicate

[babaoriley]

I don't see anywhere in the title or original post that says anything of the sort. What I see is a basic question in the title "Should Andre Dawson be in the HOF?" followed by a post that starts off with the most subjective judgment of all followed by a few silly stats. Nowhere does it say, "based on these criteria, should Andre Dawson be in the HOF?"

It was implied, donjuan. A man of your statistical intellect should also possess a certain amount of common sense, as I expect you do. You just prefer to be "that guy".

[donjuan]

Both, in the case of Horry and Jordan. They thrived in those situations. They longed for the last shot.

I hesitate to say, "I missed this," but I'm going to anyway. Are you suggesting that Jordan and Horry were rather lazy the rest of the game/season and only saved their best for the times when it was a close game at the end?

[donjuan]

It was implied, donjuan. A man of your statistical intellect should also possess a certain amount of common sense, as I expect you do. You just prefer to be "that guy".

Silly me for even thinking the HOF should be about merit.

[babaoriley]

I hesitate to say, "I missed this," but I'm going to anyway. Are you suggesting that Jordan and Horry were rather lazy the rest of the game/season and only saved their best for the times when it was a close game at the end?

No, I'm saying that MJ kicked it up a notch above his normal superior play. His will to win, though immeasurable by any statistic I know of, was certainly one of his defining characteristics and was unrivaled by any of his peers.

[donjuan]

No, I'm saying that MJ kicked it up a notch above his normal superior play. His will to win, though immeasurable by any statistic I know of, was certainly one of his defining characteristics and was unrivaled by any of his peers.

Basically what you're saying there is he didn't try his hardest the rest of the game and only tried his hardest at the end of close games. Sounds like a glory hunter, to me.

[babaoriley]

Basically what you're saying there is he didn't try his hardest the rest of the game and only tried his hardest at the end of close games. Sounds like a glory hunter, to me.

Right, kinda like the people who are able to summon up seemingly unexplainable amounts of strength when confronted with life or death scenarios. Look, as much as you want everything to be black or white, gray does exist.

[babaoriley]

And I'll give you the closing word here. I have to cook dinner for my family and arguing with you is taking away "moments".

[donjuan]

Right, kinda like the people who are able to summon up seemingly unexplainable amounts of strength when confronted with life or death scenarios. Look, as much as you want everything to be black or white, gray does exist.

So confronted with the complete life or death scenario of a sporting event, players improve...their hand eye coordination. Classic stuff. Get that published in a peer-reviewed journal. Please.

[purecarnagge]

He counts Ortiz being walked intentionally against him.

Who wants to give odds on if this guy wears a pocket protector?

Ah the vaunted Purecarnagge Gut Feel Test. Dawson has a GFF+ (Gut Feel Factor adjusted for daily McDonald's consumption) of 22.3. Unfortunately for Dawson, the cut off is an arbitrary 25.4. Better luck next life, Andre.

you eat at mcdonalds? you really are friggen weird.