Particularly in a pitcher's era.Quote:
Originally Posted by 70charger
Really? I think that's pretty elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by greengoblinrulz
Printable View
Particularly in a pitcher's era.Quote:
Originally Posted by 70chargerReally? I think that's pretty elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by greengoblinrulz
If we adjust simply for league averages, here is Tony's batting average if he played 2004-2011:Quote:
Originally Posted by greengoblinrulz
Note that he would have won 4 batting titles instead of 3, taking 2 away from Mauer. What do these numbers scream?
Year Rank BA Pts
Year Rank Adj BA Pts
1964 1 .323 6
2004 2 .353 -19
.247/.270 1965 1 .321 9
2005 1 .355 24
.242/.268 1966 2 .307 -9
2006 1 .351 4
.240/.275 1967 8 .289 -37
2007 5 .332 -31
.236/.271 1968 3 .289 -12
2008 1 .336 8
.230/.268 1969 2 .309 -23
2009 3 .335 -30
.246/.267 1970 3 .325 -4
2010 2 .338 -21
.250/.260 1971 1 .337 6
2011 1 .352 8
.247/.258 Total
.313
.344
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtIf we adjust simply for league averages, here is Tony's batting average if he played 2004-2011:Quote:
Originally Posted by greengoblinrulz
Note that he would have won 4 batting titles instead of 3, taking 2 away from Mauer. What do these numbers scream?
Year Rank BA Pts
Year Rank Adj BA Pts
1964 1 .323 6
2004 2 .353 -19
.247/.270 1965 1 .321 9
2005 1 .355 24
.242/.268 1966 2 .307 -9
2006 1 .351 4
.240/.275 1967 8 .289 -37
2007 5 .332 -31
.236/.271 1968 3 .289 -12
2008 1 .336 8
.230/.268 1969 2 .309 -23
2009 3 .335 -30
.246/.267 1970 3 .325 -4
2010 2 .338 -21
.250/.260 1971 1 .337 6
2011 1 .352 8
.247/.258 Total
.313
.344
I'm not arguing one way or the other for Oliva's HOF candidacy, but I absolutely hate league adjusted numbers. You can do that for any player of that era and they suddenly look amazing offensively. The numbers are what they are and shouldn't need adjusting.
Dont get me wrong, I would love Tony to make it as those 8 years are very good. However they just arent HOF as you need more than 8yrs of very good/great play. Look at other OFs during his era that dwarfed those numbers (esp during their peak 8 yrs) that did make it. To me, Tony is more in the Roger Maris/Vada Pinson/Dick Allen type of player .....great player during his era who didnt have the extended success to be a HOF. Nothing wrong with that. He is one of the very greatest players NOT to make the HOF tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by 70chargerReally? I think that's pretty elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by greengoblinrulz
What I dont get is how voters have him at his peak of 47% but only 30% the next year. How did he get worse. IMO, if a player makes a voters card he should HAVE to be on their card untill his eligibility is over.
Dont get me started tho as there are several players (older generation) who I dont believe deserve it when looking back.
You absolutely hate league adjusted numbers? They are not meant to harm your children or take money out of your pocket. They are meant to provide perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by notoriousgod71
A little perspective, for instance... in 1930, 44 players qualified for the batting championship in the National League. 33 of those hit .303 or higher. The average BA among those 44 was .325. In 1968, the AL league batting average was .230. Only one player hit over .300... Carl Yastrzemski hit .301 to win the title. Surely, you are not arguing that the 33 guys who hit over .303 in the National League in 1930 were better than Yaz, Oliva, and every other player in the 1968 American League?
Tony Oliva and Carl Yastrzemski were every bit as good as the best players from both 1930 and 2012. You would never know it from their stat lines though. Unless you look a little deeper than the surface.
As for your statement that any player of that era suddenly looks amazing, well, those that were amazing in their day look amazing. Those that were mediocre still look mediocre... only by today's standards rather than 1968's.
Making these adjustments didn't suddenly make Oliva look like he won the batting title every year. His rank for each year is, imo, remarkably stable with the differences being accounted for by individual performances such as Ichiro hitting .372 in 2004, eclipsing Tony's batting title season of 1964.
There is no perfect way to compare eras but ignoring the differences is not an option.
Is a .900 OPS the same in Colorado as it is in San Diego?Quote:
Originally Posted by notoriousgod71
Tony is not a slam dunk and the reason is longevity. But, as you imply, there are a lot of players in the HOF who are not slam dunks. Most of them, in fact. If I were to go through them, I would expect maybe 50 or 60 out of about 300 that are slam dunks. Even among those there will be dissenters. Six guys didn't vote for Ty Cobb and I think fifteen or so did not vote for Babe Ruth. Joe DiMaggio didn't make it until his third try. But that leaves about 75% of them that are marginal.Quote:
Originally Posted by greengoblinrulz
You mention Dick Allen. Ignoring Joe Jackson and Pete Rose, I think that Dick Allen is the single most deserving player not in the HOF. I think Tony Oliva is right behind him. I think they are both discounted due to their eras. That is unfortunate.
Dick Allen also got the anti-Puckett media treatment.
Right. I can't help giving him extra credit for that. I'd bet he doesn't give a rat's rear that he isn't in the HOF either. I would give him extra credit for that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by snepp
Too short of a career, numbers depressed in a pitching-rich era, and playing in Flyoverville, Tony woulda/shoulda/coulda been in the Hall, but all of those factors work against him. He was a great all-around player--surprising speed, rocket arm--who always could hit, even on one leg.
We certainly don't need a formula to figure out what his numbers would be if this, that, and the other thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by sneppIs a .900 OPS the same in Colorado as it is in San Diego?Quote:
Originally Posted by notoriousgod71