2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

Hmmm ... well here now I am confused, because I thought the point of the A's and the last 10 years was that getting to first base was getting to first base no matter how you did it. Seems to me that two players with the absolutely same OPS and OPS+ are two players with pretty similar stat lines according to the new way of looking at things.

Regardless, in the interest of not taking this toward a new age vs. old age argument, I will simply say that based on their career totals there would not be a reason to expect a large gulf between Biggio and Ichiro, and yet there will be one. Another example of the excitement factor.

Jim Rice being in and Dwight Evans not being in would fit similarly in this discussion, although Rice did have a higher peak.

 

Musial has the better numbers.

So why isn't he the avatar of the new statistical truth?

Why did Talese chase DiMaggio not Musial? Why did Simon and Garfunkel namecheck him?

There certainly seem to be some unquantifiable aspects to "fame."

 

Sure.

Does being more fame-y help teams win more baseball games, though?

 

Where have you gone, Stanley Musial? doesn't quite roll off the tongue as well.

 

So then you're agreeing with me? Because I put at the beginning of my post, which you didn't quote...

 

I thought we were talking about the Hall of Fame?

 

Sure. But to me, it comes back to: Did he help his team win baseball games? And to what degree? Otherwise, there is a risk of overestimating the importance of things like: (1) Where a player played, New York or, say, Kansas City; (2) Speed. Speed is exciting. But its importance might not be proportional to how "exciting" it is to watch; and (3) Personality.

 

You take that literally?

 

High peak.

Quite famous.

Electric stuff.

3.3 percent of the vote.

Off the ballot in one year.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/goodedw01.shtml

 

^^^ 132-53 before he wasn't that guy anymore. Did throw a no-hitter for the Yanks, though.

 

Do I think the Hall of Fame is something different than the "Hall of Those With the Best Statistics"?

Yes.

To what degree you consider things other than statistics is up to each voter. I don't give those things a whole lot of weight, but I don't dismiss them entirely.

 

I find the argument being upfront about excitement as a non-production criteria to be refreshing.