Jimmy Rollins: HOF?

Aren't batting average, on-base percentage and slugging percentage also somehow factored into WAR and OPS-plus? Why mention those and leave out stolen bases? Could it be that the massive edge Rollins has in stolen bases doesn't serve your argument, but the comparable ratios do?

Also, how much those things are factored into statistics such as WAR is a subjective, human decision. That is one reason that baseballreference.com lists three different versions of WAR since May 2012.

 

Consult a doctor if your intellectual erection lasts longer than 4 hours.

 

Got statistical data to back up your opinion on this one? Because that one is most definitely in dispute.

I'm not going to claim that I can prove your second paragraph is a lie because I can't read minds and you would never admit it, but there is a good bit of evidence to suggest that it is not the truth and that you are absolutely in this to win. The question is how you define a win. Is it winning the argument or is it simply getting people to engage when you troll them?

 

Here is a perfect example of why I basically think you are a total fucking dumb fuck with no ability to navigate social situations, and why everyone else thinks you are, too, and why you are essentially a boil on the ass of this site and always have been. Here is why as much as I get under shottie's skin, I actually have some sympathy for him, and want him to understand where I'm coming from and sharpen his arguments, where as I, now, and, for the foreseeable future, will continue to think you are a total fucking dumb fuck with no ability to navigate social situations:

See, it's never enough - never, ever enough - for you to simply point out, "Rollins also had more stolen bases, which, although it might not totally tip the scales in his favor, at least would narrow the gap, I would argue."

Noooooooo, not you. Not the bot. You can never, ever leave it at that. Never. Not ever can you simply state your case.

You - being the total fucking dumb fuck with no ability to navigate social situations that you are - have to impugn the motives of the other poster. And, by proxy, the poster's character. Always. Every time. Without fail. It's your M.O. It's in nearly ever responsive sentence you write. And it's beyond fucking annoying at this point.

And I'm not mad. I'm not even slightly angry. I'm just trying to help you see why everybody hates you.

Now go get your fucking shine box.

 

I started with the premise that a walk is in some measure a gift. And yes, Dick, those walk numbers for Votto et al are only partly attributable to the hitters themselves. No matter how you cut it, the pitcher still has to throw four balls out of the strike zone, regardless of the reason.

Sorry. I know I said I was done. Just felt like I didn't explain my view very well.

 

Now that is almost a BYH quality rant, but at least he had the decency to admit when I pissed him off.

You are trolling the board and you actually lost your temper because I wasn't nice to you in response? That's funny. Thank you for making me smile.

 

I didn't lose my temper. Not one bit. You're an idiot. Everyone hates you. And you need to know why.

 

Now, THIS post deserves some congratulatory PMs.

Get to it, SJ elites.

 

You're so obsessed with the notion of posters like Dick being "trolls" who are "trolling the board", and seem to think yourself much above that sort of thing. Yet it's just fact that nearly everyone here likes Dick and his posts much MUCH more than you and yours. Why do you think that is, oop?

 

It's still ridiculous. If that were the case walk numbers would be far closer between all players. It's one hell of a skill.

 

You, in part, base your straw argument on Grich’s better WAR, OPS+ and slash line than Jimmy Rollins, who is not in the HoF, and whom most would likely say is not going to the HoF. This is the straw argument upon which the entire thread is based - an anecdotal reference you heard during a broadcast. In effect, you say he should be in HoF because he is better than another player, who also is not in the HoF.

Speaking of straw arguments, you are using a measure - OPS+ - that was not in wide application when Grich received only 2.6 percent of the vote. He came off the ballot before the measures to which you point were widely applied.

To reiterate, he received 2.6% support from voters whose recollection was less clouded by time. You seem to think their opinion is invalid and he should be considered based OPS+. You seem to want to retroactively measure him based on stats that were not in wide use in 1986 when he retired or 1992 when he went on the ballot, when he garnered only 2.6% voter support. He was an all-star eight times in 16 years and finished eighth in MVP voting in 1979. Contemporary assessment seems to indicate he was considered very good but not great.

And they weren’t measuring him against Jimmy Ro in 1992, and Jimmy Ro’s not getting into the HoF anyway.

You are using criteria today to argue against the all-star voting and HoF voters of decades ago.

I’m not arguing in favor of the eye test or against it. We all know, including you, it’s a catch-all phrase to encompass subjective judgment. I’m simply accepting that subjectivity exists as an element in the evaluation of greatness.

 

A little hyperbole as a rhetorical device to make a point - the baseball HoF is the only one that is really relevant because it is the most difficult to achieve.