huntsvillefan

I doubt it - it didn't seem to hurt Ernie Banks' case. I also find it surprizing that Santo doesn't even seem to have collected any votes in recognition of his struggle with diabetes throughout his career. The guy was expected to be dead by age 25. I actually wonder if his career in broadcasting has hindered rather than helped his cause.

I guess it's just preference, but I like Fielding Runs. After making my last post I felt desperately unfair and a bit of a Luddite. Who am I to dismiss Pete Palmer's probably hard researched FR theory on the basis of first hand accounts. I realized just how much I respect the first hand accounts of the guys on baseball tonight (hardly at all) and started to wonder why I was believing that accounts from back then were any more reliable. So, I've spent the last two hours looking into Fielding Runs while following the Sounds game. I honestly was prepared to be converted - anything has to be better than relying on the web gem collectors to define good fielding. What I found was a set of idiosyncratic values codified into a stat (for example any assist is somehow magically worth exactly twice as much as any putout). The guys at Baseball Think Factory do a far fairer critique than I'm capable of HERE Suffice it to say I prefer my personal opinions to be presented as such and not disguised as stats (referring to Palmer here, not Bret in any way) and I'm feeling marginally less guilty about accepting the majority of first hand accounts of Robinson & Santo's relative fielding merits. EDIT I could be mistaken, but aren't the fielding wins you quoted simply calculated from fielding runs and therefore a repetition of the same stat? And do Baseball Prospectus by any chance use a version of FR to calculate their 'rate'?

If you like fielding stats, I can definitely see your logic and what you quote certainly suggests that the stats don't love Brooks Robinson as much as the observers did. I admire your consistency but I'm afraid it just makes me think that fielding stats really aren't much good at all and obviously I'm in reasonably good company on the Santo / Robinson debate. At least we both agree that Santo should be in.

Fair enough, I completely agree that no one source should ever be taken as gospel. But in this case Palmer seems to be the one source that is completely out of step with the rest. Are there other sources to back him up or do you have a reason for believing him above others?

My whole beef is that Robinson got much more face time, thus won a bunch of Gold Gloves based on reputation, even when he was quite poor We're obviously going to disagree on this and short of arguing the nitty gritty of Palmer's stat method, there is impasse. I am curious though that you think a guy as respected in the stat community as Bill James who actually saw them both play, could be fooled by 'face time'

Morong spends a lot of that article quoting Bill James, so we may as well include this Bill James quote in the discussion too, "I will agree that Santo was not a brilliant defensive third baseman. Had Brooks Robinson or Clete Boyer been in the national league, Santo's Gold gloves would have been few and far between." I remember reading a book called player's choice, where ex players had been circulated and asked for their views on the best in each category. Not very scientific, but I remember being impressed that Brooks Robinson as best defensive 3B was one of the few categories where there was no real argument or difference of opinion. I just quoted James' view and I'm pretty certain that the vast majority of informed commentators who actually saw them both play agree with him. I even seem to recall a recent post of yours that allowed for a degree of questionability about most defensive stats. I think there are a lot of reasons why Santos should be in the HOF, but claiming he had superior D to Robinson is likely to discredit his claim rather than add to it in most people's eyes IMO.

Just a note really, many people have mentioned the shortness of his career, but I think he actually ranks 8th in games actually played at 3B, which underlines just how tough a position it is. I'm not sure that its totally fair to compare him to Robinson as (rightly or wrongly, its all we have to go on) consensus at the time was that Robinson was the best defensive 3B ever and also of outstanding character. Both of those attributes are in the HOF criteria and they obviously played a bigger part in his selection than his prowess with the bat did.

I just want to check - are you saying that Santo was better defensively than Brooks Robinson and if so why? On the main question this seems like another slam dunk, Santo was better offensively than most of the 3B's already in the Hall and its pretty much an under represented position. Unless we want to start a new higher standard its hard to see why he is out.

I look at RBM's above post and think what wonderful sense it makes and how very persuasive it is. Then I look at how closely OPS (or OXS) correalates with actual runs scored and I find it very difficult to look beyond it. Like it or loathe it, it seems to be the key to run production and it comes close enough, often enough, that even a hardened sceptic like me finds it hard not to see it as the single key offensive stat. For what its worth RBM is in good company when using the 'solo home run' argument, Bill James uses exactly the same argument to show why Craig Biggio is a better player than Ken Griffey Jnr. My gut feeling is that neither Overbay nor Tracy (or probably anyone) is good enough to deliberately save their homeruns until there is someone on base in front of them - but if it could be shown that someone did it reguarily enough over a career, I'd start to believe.

Do you think you could email this article to Don Money & frank Kremblas?????

Just checked out of interest Hall put up a 654 OPS in AA (I think he spent about 10 minutes here, I still remember him arriving, no-one knew he was coming, he got a taxi from the airport arrived mid game and took a seat in the stands about three rows up from me. He looked young, lost and confused) Scar dominated AA prior to his promotion, I wish we could check the numbers, but it was at least an 850 OPS before he was promoted. Hall was totally dominated by AA. As most people would see AA as a major proving ground, I find it difficult to see how they could be thought to have similar minor league careers.

Both of them had one good minor league year...at High Desert of course. One of my least favorite players, Scar certainly earned his promotion from Huntsville to Indy. He had an amazing first half season here. Then he was promoted to Indy and then the wheels came off. He didn't hit at all and even after he was sent back down to Huntsville later that year he didn't recover his form Despite his slump after his return, he still put up an 820 OPS in AA, more than reasonable for a 2B/SS as he was then. Weeks put up 742 and still got his promotion to AAA - just for comparison.

I had this problem with Nelson Cruz earlier in the year. While you were all looking at his numbers and raving, I was looking at a guy who would come to the plate with the game on the line and take 3 ugly hacks at the ball striking out with the tying and winning runs on base. He looked so unconcerned that I started to hate him. If he had taken it to a 3-2 count fouled a couple off and holed out on a long fly, I'd have been much more impressed - BUT the result would have been exactly the same. Once I looked at the numbers, I had to swallow my prejudices and admit that he was doing an absolutely awesome job for the team. The fact that I didn't enjoy his particular style of batting and that I had been able to feed my own prejudice by picking out a couple of key ugly at bats, just didn't come close to outweighing the overwhelming evidence that the numbers provided. Once you have a look at how closely OPS (or OXS) correalates with actual runs scored, it becomes darn near impossible to argue against it as the most significant batting stat. The only way an argument in favor of RISP stats or other stats could be convincing, would be if they were shown to tie in even more closely with runs scored. Until that happens every other batting stat in an argument is going to be overcome with a reference to OPS. Now that doesn't mean that personal observation is irrelevant. If, instead of being down on Cruz for looking ugly when he struck out , I could have honestly said - He hasn't seen many breaking balls and everytime he faces a guy with a good curve he doesn't produce. Then my personal observation might have been worth something and might have been an indicator that his OPS would suffer when he came up against better pitchers. But saying I thought he had a bad AB is really pretty meaningless apart from an aesthetic point of view. Now, once we get to pitching and defense stats, I'm a lot more sceptical, simply because no-one has tied them closely to runs allowed, so it all does become much more a matter of opinion. But even then, if I want to argue against them, I have to state a reason why I find them flawed, not just state a counter opinion based on nothing but my own intuition.

EDIT: I decided to withdraw my post on the basis of not adding more fuel to the fire.

I want to throw in my agreement with that statement. As my sig shows, I'm far from a 'stat junkie', but the mixture of SABR like stats with more traditional discussion is one of the things that elevates this forum from most others. Contributors here are compelled to be at least aware of some of the statistical analysis of the game that is going on and even if they disagree with some of the conclusions presented, it at least gives a framework to some of the better and more constructive discussions here. I'd also like to go on record with my own observations of the on-going feuds that seem to have developed between the 'stat-lovers' and the 'stat-loathers'. I've had more than my share of arguments with a lot of the 'stat-guys' who post here and with rluz in particular. I've enjoyed most of them thoroughly and found them both courteous and constructive. My own observation is that every time stats get a mention recently, no matter how constructive or neutral the post is, someone takes immediate offense. Its almost like anyone who actually uses a non-traditional stat is seen as an automatic target by certain posters. I'm as sceptical about some of the stats around as anyone, but could we call off the witch hunt and just discuss them without throwing labels around.

I have a couple of questions - Is it 98% accurate (Al) or 95% accurate (Rluz), I know statistics is an imprecise science but both these numbers aren't correct. Does 98% (or 95%) accurate mean that it always comes to within 98% of the actual runs scores - or that it correctly comes to actual runs scored 98% of the time?

I was just having a look at the Nashville site with thoughts about travelling to see some of their potential playoff games. I could be wrong, but the site seems to be offering tickets for games 3,4&5 (4&5 if necessary) on Fri, Sat,Sun. I'm not sure how the AAA playoffs work (do 1 or 2 qualify from each section?, who gets home advantage? etc) - so does anyone know if its already a done deal that Nashville will have those home games or is this just a sale on the basis of likely games? I know I could always phone the ticket office, but you usually get a much more complete answer by asking here.

blank message -sorry posted twice trying to get sig right

I checked the revised Historical abstract and James has him as 8th best LF of all time and the 81st best player of all time. Total Baseball actually rates him higher still in their all time top 100, but I'm not sure exactly what position.

I might have overlooked his offensive shortcomings if he had played CF. But he played LF, a bigger offensive position. In general, I'm an instinctive 'no' voter and I thought long and hard about that as a reason to rule him out. In the end I used the Molitor comparison. Molitor had an almost identical OPS and wasn't as good a base stealer. If Molitor can make it without a fielding position then surely actually playing LF shouldn't be held against Raines. I know there is a need to be wary of the type of argument that says if x is in then y should be too. But in this case he made up for any perceived defensive inadequacies, by being one of the greatest base stealers who ever played.

I've voted no to every proposition so far without the slightest temptation to vote yes. Yet I see Tim Raines as a complete 'no brainer' yes vote. As Robert pointed out, it was his misfortune to play at the same time as Rickey Henderson, but being the second greatest leadoff man of all time isn't exactly chopped liver! Certainly more deserving than many of the OFers already in the Hall and if you think Molitor belongs (on the whole I do) its very hard to see how you can keep Raines out. I'm surprized how close the vote is on this one and I'd love to hear some of the justification from the no voters.

Just wanted to say, that though I obviously don't mind pontificating on D http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif , I really don't feel that I can talk with any authority on pitching. I can see if a fastball moves, I can look how well someone is locating their stuff, I can see if a breaking ball actually breaks -But the finer nuances of the slider, curve and slurve are well beyond me. A good change fools me a lot more than it fools the batter and I've been known to mistake a splitfinger for a curve. I really do end up judging all the off speed stuff, more by result than by anything I understand about it technically, which really isn't the right way to go, especially over any sort of small sample. I've now seen Ty twice and the first time just wasn't representative (he never topped 89). and to some extent I'm still trying to work out what all the fuss is about. That doesn't mean I think he's a bad pitcher, just that I know that I haven't seen him nearly often enough to have any real concrete thoughts about him. I know that scouts get used to making good quick judgements, but I really want to see someone at least 5 times, before I start thinking about how good they are. Sometimes a guy will have a pitch that really stands out, Dennis' fastball, Hendrickson's curve(s) but usually it takes a lot longer for me to appreciate what a pitcher is doing. For example I still haven't really worked out why Dana was so successful and I never came to terms with what Housman did at all - even though they both did great here.

I'd love to say yes to this one. He did all the things I love to watch . He defended well and he ran well, but he just didn't hit well enough and there are too many OF there already. So regretfully , no.

Dennis Sarfate winning me over this evening Another pure piece of Dennis tonight. Desperately needing an out, he sprints off the mound in an attempt to catch a foul pop up on the first base line, and just misses it. Yet, when he picks up the ball, he still manages to smile and toss it to a crowd of kids. I honestly think that most of us there tonight, cared more about him getting out of that fourth inning intact, than we did about winning the game. One of the few shining lights in an otherwise dismal year and someone who has surely earned a September call up, I'm pretty certain that you'll love him as much in Milwaukee as we do in Huntsville.

Greg, any time that you feel grumpyabout lack of fun prospects to follow, just think about us poor souls who actually go watch Huntsville http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/ohwell.gif