Retire Jason Varitek's number?

[Spudboy]

Which reminds me of a story!!!!!!!

 

 

I was about 7-8 years old and living in Louisville, Ky. My friends and I were running yard to yard playing war. We each had toy guns. I had a Man From Uncle Camera / Gun! Anyway, we all ran into my back yard creaming all types of things but primarily "BANG, BANG". I was yelling "SPLAT - SPLAT".

 

My mom hung her head out of the side door and asked me what I am doing? Why was I yelling splat? "Mom, they are shooting bullets. I'm shooting s***."

[a700hitter]

Which reminds me of a story!!!!!!!

 

 

I was about 7-8 years old and living in Louisville, Ky. My friends and I were running yard to yard playing war. We each had toy guns. I had a Man From Uncle Camera / Gun! Anyway, we all ran into my back yard creaming all types of things but primarily "BANG, BANG". I was yelling "SPLAT - SPLAT".

 

My mom hung her head out of the side door and asked me what I am doing? Why was I yelling splat? "Mom, they are shooting bullets. I'm shooting s***."

 

Lol! Did you have the Man from UNCLE brief case with the weapons inside? You could fire the gun while in the briefcase by pressing a button on the side of the briefcase.

[cp176]

I'm ok with anyone's opinion. We're all just shooting the s***, right?

 

That is all I'm doing here. It's good to having something to talk about. I don't mind being called older either - had a good run.

[Spudboy]

Lol! Did you have the Man from UNCLE brief case with the weapons inside? You could fire the gun while in the briefcase by pressing a button on the side of the briefcase.

 

You know it Ted!!!! I had the good stuff!!!

 

I also had a Mattell Vroom Bike! Not just the motor, the whole bike!!!!

[Kimmi]

On the topic of HOF voting, here's something I read from Sherman earlier:

 

"My suspicion is that the 100 or so eliminated voters skewed older and, thus, probably were more resistant to newer analytics that burnish the candidacies of, say, Mussina and Raines, and also were probably more strident in not voting for players associated with PEDs such as Bonds and Clemens.

 

The Internet and advanced analytics have had a huge impact. The percentage of voters who see 300 wins or 3,000 hits or 500 homers as the key stats is dropping. Advanced analytics provided a stronger case for Bert Blyleven and the relentless support (and harangue) by his backers ultimately got Blyleven over the Cooperstown goal line. In a pre-Internet world, Blyleven never gets in."

 

It's nice to see that HOF voting is trending in the right direction.

[Bellhorn04]

On the topic of HOF voting, here's something I read from Sherman earlier:

 

"My suspicion is that the 100 or so eliminated voters skewed older and, thus, probably were more resistant to newer analytics that burnish the candidacies of, say, Mussina and Raines, and also were probably more strident in not voting for players associated with PEDs such as Bonds and Clemens.

 

The Internet and advanced analytics have had a huge impact. The percentage of voters who see 300 wins or 3,000 hits or 500 homers as the key stats is dropping. Advanced analytics provided a stronger case for Bert Blyleven and the relentless support (and harangue) by his backers ultimately got Blyleven over the Cooperstown goal line. In a pre-Internet world, Blyleven never gets in."

 

It's nice to see that HOF voting is trending in the right direction.

 

Which specific advanced analytics got Blyleven in the Hall though?

[a700hitter]

You know it Ted!!!! I had the good stuff!!!

 

I also had a Mattell Vroom Bike! Not just the motor, the whole bike!!!!

 

Pete, you were a child of privilege. Lol!

[cp176]

On the topic of HOF voting, here's something I read from Sherman earlier:

 

"My suspicion is that the 100 or so eliminated voters skewed older and, thus, probably were more resistant to newer analytics that burnish the candidacies of, say, Mussina and Raines, and also were probably more strident in not voting for players associated with PEDs such as Bonds and Clemens.

 

The Internet and advanced analytics have had a huge impact. The percentage of voters who see 300 wins or 3,000 hits or 500 homers as the key stats is dropping. Advanced analytics provided a stronger case for Bert Blyleven and the relentless support (and harangue) by his backers ultimately got Blyleven over the Cooperstown goal line. In a pre-Internet world, Blyleven never gets in."

 

It's nice to see that HOF voting is trending in the right direction.

 

If you mean that people who have not been covering the game of baseball for the past 10 years, I agree. Why should they be in a position to vote for something that they have lost interest in? I don't think that this realization, tells us that these people lost their votes due to not embracing the role analytics play in today's game. They lost interest in covering the game thus they lost their votes. Took quite awhile for it to happen as well. Maybe they did not embrace advanced analytics. I don't think that is what cost them their votes. I don't think any of us really know that. What we do know is that they have not been covering the game for awhile.

[Kimmi]

Which specific advanced analytics got Blyleven in the Hall though?

 

That's a good question. I'm not sure but I would guess WAR? Maybe FIP, but I doubt it.

 

Blyleven, IMO, was a probable HOFer, but by no means a shoe in. He has good stats, but not necessarily HOF worthy when it comes to the traditional type of things that the voters look for, such as 20 win seasons or a great W-L record, sub 3 career ERA, Cy Young or MVP awards, etc.

[Kimmi]

If you mean that people who have not been covering the game of baseball for the past 10 years, I agree. Why should they be in a position to vote for something that they have lost interest in? I don't think that this realization, tells us that these people lost their votes due to not embracing the role analytics play in today's game. They lost interest in covering the game thus they lost their votes. Took quite awhile for it to happen as well. Maybe they did not embrace advanced analytics. I don't think that is what cost them their votes. I don't think any of us really know that. What we do know is that they have not been covering the game for awhile.

 

No, I did not at all mean to imply that the voters lost their voting privilege because they did not embrace analytics. I agree with you, I don't think that's the case at all.

 

I am just saying that because most of the voters that are no longer voting were old school, the percentage of voters who are old school is lower.

[cp176]

No, I did not at all mean to imply that the voters lost their voting privilege because they did not embrace analytics. I agree with you, I don't think that's the case at all.

 

I am just saying that because most of the voters that are no longer voting were old school, the percentage of voters who are old school is lower.

 

I'm suggesting that many of those older voters could be learning many of the new analytical ways of looking at things. It is also quite possible that some of the younger voters are not embracing the new metrics . We don't know. We make assumptions based on age. I know a great many old young people. I hope the HOF voters don't limit themselves by pigeon holing themselves into one way of looking at things. Often times we have seen players not voted for or even left off ballots simply because someone just didn't like them.

[Kimmi]

I'm suggesting that many of those older voters could be learning many of the new analytical ways of looking at things. It is also quite possible that some of the younger voters are not embracing the new metrics . We don't know. We make assumptions based on age. I know a great many old young people. I hope the HOF voters don't limit themselves by pigeon holing themselves into one way of looking at things. Often times we have seen players not voted for or even left off ballots simply because someone just didn't like them.

 

I do not disagree with any of this.

[Elktonnick]

Most of the criticism I've heard about the HOF voting process is that it is the prerogative of the BBWAA which means that some voters are no longer active day to day baseball writers. Another is that broadcasters don't have a vote. The question is the BBWAA the best body to select members of the HOF.

[SoxnCycles]

I do not disagree with any of this.

 

Yeah, the old cranks on this board are in a huge rush to adopt analytics. LOL

[a700hitter]

Hey s*** for Brains, take your obnoxious act elsewhere.

[SoxnCycles]

Hey s*** for Brains, take your obnoxious act elsewhere.

 

Aww, is your ignore button not working today? lol

 

Truth hurts , I guess.

[Kimmi]

Most of the criticism I've heard about the HOF voting process is that it is the prerogative of the BBWAA which means that some voters are no longer active day to day baseball writers. Another is that broadcasters don't have a vote. The question is the BBWAA the best body to select members of the HOF.

 

If it were up to me, I'd add a saber component to the voting, much like has been done with the Gold Gloves. There is too much bias in the voting as it is right now.

[Kimmi]

Yeah, the old cranks on this board are in a huge rush to adopt analytics. LOL

 

Truth of the matter is that most, not all, of the old schoolers or traditionalists are older, and most of the people who really embrace sabermetrics are younger. I think it's that way with most things in life, not just baseball.

 

When you've believed something all your life, like batting order really matters, it's hard to accept that it's simply not true. You are going to stick with your old school views that a manager must switch the #4 and 6 batters. However, if you came into baseball hearing how negligible such a switch is, then you're more likely to accept it.

 

FTR, I'm no spring chicken. I was really not even aware of sabermetrics until about 2009, until I was having a debate about Ryan Howard versus Albert Pujols. The guy I was debating with opened my eyes to a whole new world, and I have not looked back. It makes so much sense to me.

[Northern Star]

Anyone with me? They're lowering the standards, and frankly Tek might have made it in under the old standards since he played his whole career here. I think it would be a great way to recognize the guy who was one of the smartest catchers we've ever seen and made a lot of sacrifices for this team, as well as leading them to their first 2 World Series rings in the modern era. As starting catcher of both versions of the team he had a big role in how they got those Series titles. As much as I do think Boggs should be recognized, or at least I don't have a problem with the decision to recognize him, when it comes down to real contributions to the team Tek probably deserves it a little more.

 

Are we retiring the number because he played his whole career here and was a good leader? Or are we retiring it based on his numbers? Because neither is a good enough reason imo. I hate that teams seem to lower the standards, it cheapens the whole thing.

[a700hitter]

 

FTR, I'm no spring chicken. I was really not even aware of sabermetrics until about 2009, until I was having a debate about Ryan Howard versus Albert Pujols. The guy I was debating with opened my eyes to a whole new world, and I have not looked back. It makes so much sense to me.

What was the revelation about Howard versus Pujols that opened your eyes?

[Kimmi]

What was the revelation about Howard versus Pujols that opened your eyes?

 

It was a debate about who should win the MVP vote (2008, I believe) between Pujols and Howard. While we both agreed that Pujols should win, the other guy argued that Howard should not even be in the discussion. I pointed out Howard's flashy HR and RBI totals. The other guy threw out all these advanced stats at me.

 

I don't remember the exact numbers or stats that were pointed out to me, but up until that time, I did not really even have much of an idea of what sabermetrics was. He explained a few things. I did a lot of reading and research. Like I said, the debate opened my eyes to a whole new world.

[a700hitter]

It was a debate about who should win the MVP vote (2008, I believe) between Pujols and Howard. While we both agreed that Pujols should win, the other guy argued that Howard should not even be in the discussion. I pointed out Howard's flashy HR and RBI totals. The other guy threw out all these advanced stats at me.

 

I don't remember the exact numbers or stats that were pointed out to me, but up until that time, I did not really even have much of an idea of what sabermetrics was. He explained a few things. I did a lot of reading and research. Like I said, the debate opened my eyes to a whole new world.

You needed advanced sabremetrics to prove to you that Ryan Howard shouldn't have been in the discussion with Pujols?

[Bellhorn04]

You needed advanced sabremetrics to prove to you that Ryan Howard shouldn't have been in the discussion with Pujols?

 

Sure. Howard led the majors in HR and RBI that year, well ahead of Pujols in both categories. And his team won the division, while Pujols's team finished 11.5 games out.

 

In the traditional criteria, Howard had a lot going for him.

[a700hitter]

Sure. Howard led the majors in HR and RBI that year, well ahead of Pujols in both categories. And his team won the division, while Pujols's team finished 11.5 games out.

 

In the traditional criteria, Howard had a lot going for him.

Howard also played in a ridiculously small bandbox that is 360 feet in the power alleys. and strikes out a ton. Pujols is so clearly the superior ballplayer just with the eye test and he had a great Pujols' year. Anyone who thought he was in the discussion with Pujols was letting the stats tell them a lie. In that case, the eye test was enough.

[Kimmi]

You needed advanced sabremetrics to prove to you that Ryan Howard shouldn't have been in the discussion with Pujols?

 

Yes, I did.

[Kimmi]

Sure. Howard led the majors in HR and RBI that year, well ahead of Pujols in both categories. And his team won the division, while Pujols's team finished 11.5 games out.

 

In the traditional criteria, Howard had a lot going for him.

 

Thank you.

[Kimmi]

Howard also played in a ridiculously small bandbox that is 360 feet in the power alleys. and strikes out a ton. Pujols is so clearly the superior ballplayer just with the eye test and he had a great Pujols' year. Anyone who thought he was in the discussion with Pujols was letting the stats tell them a lie. In that case, the eye test was enough.

 

This is a mostly BS post. First off, the eye test is never enough unless you watch both players play the vast majority of their games. We are not talking about the overall careers of the players, we are talking about one year.

 

As far as the stats telling a lie, that is kind of my point. The traditional stats "told a lie". Hence, the need for the sabermetrics.

 

Lastly, for a player for whom it was supposedly so easy to 'see' that he shouldn't have even been in the discussion, Howard received 12 first place votes to Pujol's 18, and 308 voting points to Pujols' 369. He was very much in the discussion.

[a700hitter]

This is a mostly BS post. First off, the eye test is never enough unless you watch both players play the vast majority of their games. We are not talking about the overall careers of the players, we are talking about one year.

 

As far as the stats telling a lie, that is kind of my point. The traditional stats "told a lie". Hence, the need for the sabermetrics.

 

Lastly, for a player for whom it was supposedly so easy to 'see' that he shouldn't have even been in the discussion, Howard received 12 first place votes to Pujol's 18, and 308 voting points to Pujols' 369. He was very much in the discussion.

There are plenty of idiot sportwriters. Even being a so-called traditionalist, I would not have let a handful of so called traditionalist stats fool me into thinking Howard should have been in the running with Pujols for MVP that year.

[Kimmi]

There are plenty of idiot sportwriters. Even being a so-called traditionalist, I would not have let a handful of so called traditionalist stats fool me into thinking Howard should have been in the running with Pujols for MVP that year.

 

If you are not looking at advanced stats, and you are not using the eye test (which again doesn't work unless you watched both players play almost all of their games), then how do you know that Howard should not have been in the running?

 

In terms of traditional thinking, Howard was a beast in HRs, RBIs, and getting his team into the postseason, as Bellhorn posted. He also was a beast during the month of September, batting .352/.422/.852/1.247 , which leaves an impression on voters.

 

Pujols had the clear advantage in BA and strikeouts, but his team was not playoff bound.

 

As I posted earlier, I agreed that Pujols should win. However, based on the traditional criteria, there is no way to say that Howard should not have been in the discussion unless you are using advanced stats, the eye test, which you can't, or basing that opinion on reputation.

 

BTW, thank you for making the point for me about how traditional views are so often so very wrong.

[a700hitter]

If you are not looking at advanced stats, and you are not using the eye test (which again doesn't work unless you watched both players play almost all of their games), then how do you know that Howard should not have been in the running?

 

In terms of traditional thinking, Howard was a beast in HRs, RBIs, and getting his team into the postseason, as Bellhorn posted. He also was a beast during the month of September, batting .352/.422/.852/1.247 , which leaves an impression on voters.

 

Pujols had the clear advantage in BA and strikeouts, but his team was not playoff bound.

 

As I posted earlier, I agreed that Pujols should win. However, based on the traditional criteria, there is no way to say that Howard should not have been in the discussion unless you are using advanced stats, the eye test, which you can't, or basing that opinion on reputation.

 

BTW, thank you for making the point for me about how traditional views are so often so very wrong.

 

I watch a lot of baseball and I saw a lot of Pujols when he was a Cardinal and I have seen a lot of Howard too. This may disturb you but I would never even consider picking Howard over Pujols in any year unless his stats completely overwhelmed Pujols' stats -- and then I would resort to advanced stats for more information.

 

BTW, I didn't make the point that traditionalist views are so often wrong. You conflate traditionalist views with someone who lets their opinions be dictated by basic or (as you would term them) traditional stats. That assumption is incorrect.

 

The point that I did make is that there are a lot of sports writers who are idiots.