Jump to content

official off topic thread.


pumpkin cutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Not even close, only 23 years old and has 565 games under his belt as of today (about 3.5 seasons' worth).  If he keeps producing at his current levels for another 7-8 years, he gets in.  

Agreed. I was kind of just pointing out the ridiculous hyperbole. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Agreed. I was kind of just pointing out the ridiculous hyperbole. 

A great case at the moment is Mike Trout...guy obviously has Hall of Fame talent and is a beast, but is suddenly having a much harder time staying on the field (despite only being almost 31).  If this continues, does he go to the Hall of Fame, despite a good chance that he'll come up short, as far as several milestone numbers go?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Agreed. I was kind of just pointing out the ridiculous hyperbole. 

I don’t think it’s ridiculous hyperbole. Imagine trading for McDavid at 23 and then saying “oh yeah McDavid also has a Stanley Cup ring and probably should’ve won the conn smythe too” Is that not a future Hall of Famer?

Without a catastrophic injury, Juan Soto will be a hall of famer. CR just listed two players in the past thirty years that had electrifying starts that fell short of the Hall, and neither of those two players had accumulated event HALF the career WAR that Soto has at this age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

A great case at the moment is Mike Trout...guy obviously has Hall of Fame talent and is a beast, but is suddenly having a much harder time staying on the field (despite only being almost 31).  If this continues, does he go to the Hall of Fame, despite a good chance that he'll come up short, as far as several milestone numbers go?  

your argument is a guy who is already a lock for the Hall of Fame? He could’ve retired 2 years ago and would’ve been first ballot. 

baseball reference has a Hall of Fame tracker that is easy to follow and bang-on accurate and he’s a no-brainer HoFer? 

there’s 0.0% chance he falls short unless he goes full heel turn and starts doing horrible things that ruin his image publicly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MB3 said:

I don’t think it’s ridiculous hyperbole. Imagine trading for McDavid at 23 and then saying “oh yeah McDavid also has a Stanley Cup ring and probably should’ve won the conn smythe too” Is that not a future Hall of Famer?

Without a catastrophic injury, Juan Soto will be a hall of famer. CR just listed two players in the past thirty years that had electrifying starts that fell short of the Hall, and neither of those two players had accumulated event HALF the career WAR that Soto has at this age.

If he has an entire career like the last 5 seasons, yes, he’s a first ballot lock.

if he blows out a knee, plays at half his previous production for 2 years and then retires, he isn’t. 

If he gets a less catastrophic injury and loses production from it, maybe he’s not. 

Calling a guy a lock after 565 games is pretty hyperbolic, and very optimistic. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MB3 said:

your argument is a guy who is already a lock for the Hall of Fame? He could’ve retired 2 years ago and would’ve been first ballot. 

baseball reference has a Hall of Fame tracker that is easy to follow and bang-on accurate and he’s a no-brainer HoFer? 

there’s 0.0% chance he falls short unless he goes full heel turn and starts doing horrible things that ruin his image publicly. 

He's been a beast so far, could definitely be a short-term dominance case.  A 1.000 career OPS is obviously sick.  3-time MVP.  

When I said "come up short" for Trout, I was referring to lifetime accumulated numbers...naturally the short-term dominant guys aren't going to rank as high on all-time lists as guys who stayed healthier and productive longer (not to mention the compilers who are merely good, but are able to be very consistently good for 15+ years).  The question for some will be did Trout do it for long enough?  Are the 2012-2019 seasons on their own (before he started missing a lot of games) enough?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

He's been a beast so far, could definitely be a short-term dominance case.  A 1.000 career OPS is obviously sick.  3-time MVP.  

When I said "come up short" for Trout, I was referring to lifetime accumulated numbers...naturally the short-term dominant guys aren't going to rank as high on all-time lists as guys who stayed healthier and productive longer (not to mention the compilers who are merely good, but are able to be very consistently good for 15+ years).  The question for some will be did Trout do it for long enough?  Are the 2012-2019 seasons on their own (before he started missing a lot of games) enough?  

again, Baseball reference has this stuff. they have “black ink” ratings (total accumulated stats), “gray ink” ratings (advanced stats), 7-year peak ratings, and JAWS scores. In all 4 of those metrics he is an easy, waltz-in Hall of Famer. He already has better career stats than Joe DiMaggio for fvcks sake lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

If he has an entire career like the last 5 seasons, yes, he’s a first ballot lock.

if he blows out a knee, plays at half his previous production for 2 years and then retires, he isn’t. 

If he gets a less catastrophic injury and loses production from it, maybe he’s not. 

Calling a guy a lock after 565 games is pretty hyperbolic, and very optimistic. 

that just doesn’t happen all that often. I’d say I’m being realistic and you’re being pessimistic, unless you can point me to all of those “on pace to break Willie Mays career records but then doesn’t” players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MB3 said:

again, Baseball reference has this stuff. they have “black ink” ratings (total accumulated stats), “gray ink” ratings (advanced stats), 7-year peak ratings, and JAWS scores. In all 4 of those metrics he is an easy, waltz-in Hall of Famer. He already has better career stats than Joe DiMaggio for fvcks sake lol. 

They aren’t putting a guy into the Hal of Fame based on metrics after 5 years. 

Saying he has “better career stats than Joe DiMaggio” is doubling down on the ridiculous hyperbole lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MB3 said:

that just doesn’t happen all that often. I’d say I’m being realistic and you’re being pessimistic, unless you can point me to all of those “on pace to break Willie Mays career records but then doesn’t” players.

You are assuming what the next 15 years of his career will be and calling him a lock for the hall of fame. I’m saying to wait for the next 15 years and see what happens. 

I am sure there are hundreds of examples of players who were a flash in the pan and didn’t live up to their potential. I’m not saying it will happen, I’m just saying calling a guy a lock for the first ballot when he hasn’t even finished his 5th year is ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

You are assuming what the next 15 years of his career will be and calling him a lock for the hall of fame. I’m saying to wait for the next 15 years and see what happens. 

I am sure there are hundreds of examples of players who were a flash in the pan and didn’t live up to their potential. I’m not saying it will happen, I’m just saying calling a guy a lock for the first ballot when he hasn’t even finished his 5th year is ridiculous. 

Yeah that was kind of my point...guys do break down and decline at completely different rates, in all sports.  Guys sometimes lose their skills surprisingly out of nowhere...in baseball, you never know who's going to wind up with that bad back that sadly starts sapping their ability.  You can have Hall of Fame talent and even display that for a while, but doesn't always translate to a Hall of Fame career.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mfitz804 said:

They aren’t putting a guy into the Hal of Fame based on metrics after 5 years. 

Saying he has “better career stats than Joe DiMaggio” is doubling down on the ridiculous hyperbole lol. 

are you so determined to be correct that you missed where the topic switched from Juan Soto to Mike Trout? Or are you unaware that Mike trout has already surpassed Joe Dimaggio in career WAR? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

A great case at the moment is Mike Trout...guy obviously has Hall of Fame talent and is a beast, but is suddenly having a much harder time staying on the field (despite only being almost 31).  If this continues, does he go to the Hall of Fame, despite a good chance that he'll come up short, as far as several milestone numbers go?  

He will...hell Pujols will be a first-ballot guy (barring a 'roid link) and look at the last decade of his career.

I get what you're saying about compiler numbers but by the time Trout retires most of the people voting for the HOF will be ones raised in the analytic age, they won't care about compiling stats as much as voters did in 1970 (and even then you had a Sandy Koufax make it on the first ballot off of five-six transcendent seasons).

Edited by NJDevs4978
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MB3 said:

are you so determined to be correct that you missed where the topic switched from Juan Soto to Mike Trout? Or are you unaware that Mike trout has already surpassed Joe Dimaggio in career WAR? 

I’m not determined to be right, I am right about Soto and you have zero way to argue I’m not. But yes, I didn’t realize you had changed gears into an argument you could potentially sustain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NJDevs4978 said:

He will...hell Pujols will be a first-ballot guy (barring a 'roid link) and look at the last decade of his career.

I get what you're saying about compiler numbers but by the time Trout retires most of the people voting for the HOF will be ones raised in the analytic age, they won't care about compiling stats as much as voters did in 1970 (and even then you had a Sandy Koufax make it on the first ballot off of five-six transcendent seasons).

Looking at the WAR chart (not that I’m bullish on that metric), yeah, Trout will get in…the only guys in his neighborhood not to get in are Pete Rose (we know why) and Curt Schilling (because he’s not a swell guy).  A couple of others around him will get in once eligible.  

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I’m not determined to be right, I am right about Soto and you have zero way to argue I’m not. But yes, I didn’t realize you had changed gears into an argument you could potentially sustain. 

Would it've been crazy to say McDavid at 23 years old plus a Stanley Cup was a HoF lock barring any significant career-ending injuries? Because players like Soto, players like Mcdavid, players like Crosby, they don't just "fall off a cliff". There are no examples of a player of Soto's abilities simply turning into a pumpkin. CR is as close to a baseball historian as we have on this forum and his best examples are guys who didn't even have *half* -- 50%, 1/2, 1:2 -- of the career at 23 years old as Soto has. That isn't hyperbole, that's "google it" territory. 

EDIT: And CR brought up Trout, not me. And that's already been proven to be a poor example, since Trout could say literally right now "ahhhh I'm gonna go be a part time weatherman for my local CBS affiliate. I'm too tired" and he's be a first-ballot player the second he was eligible. 

Edited by MB3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MB3 said:

Would it've been crazy to say McDavid at 23 years old plus a Stanley Cup was a HoF lock barring any significant career-ending injuries? Because players like Soto, players like Mcdavid, players like Crosby, they don't just "fall off a cliff". There are no examples of a player of Soto's abilities simply turning into a pumpkin. CR is as close to a baseball historian as we have on this forum and his best examples are guys who didn't even have *half* -- 50%, 1/2, 1:2 -- of the career at 23 years old as Soto has. That isn't hyperbole, that's "google it" territory. 

EDIT: And CR brought up Trout, not me. And that's already been proven to be a poor example, since Trout could say literally right now "ahhhh I'm gonna go be a part time weatherman for my local CBS affiliate. I'm too tired" and he's be a first-ballot player the second he was eligible. 

I mentioned Trout mostly wondering aloud that if he’s to be banged up from here on out and playing 100 games or less most seasons, did he do enough while healthy to merit HOF consideration?  Based on WAR (again, not a huge proponent of that metric, but many do take it seriously), yeah, sure looks that way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MB3 said:

Would it've been crazy to say McDavid at 23 years old plus a Stanley Cup was a HoF lock barring any significant career-ending injuries? Because players like Soto, players like Mcdavid, players like Crosby, they don't just "fall off a cliff". There are no examples of a player of Soto's abilities simply turning into a pumpkin. CR is as close to a baseball historian as we have on this forum and his best examples are guys who didn't even have *half* -- 50%, 1/2, 1:2 -- of the career at 23 years old as Soto has. That isn't hyperbole, that's "google it" territory. 

Yes, calling anyone a first ballot lock hall of famer based on less than 5 seasons would be ridiculous hyperbole. 

And, you engaged in even more ridiculous hyperbole when you looked at WAR and said:

2 hours ago, MB3 said:

He already has better career stats than Joe DiMaggio for fvcks sake lol. 

Trout doesn’t have better career stats. You can Google that. DiMaggio had like 700 more hits, 700 more RBI, more homers (only a few), almost 400 more runs scored. Batting average is 22 points higher, and all of that while missing three of his prime years to serve in the military. DiMaggio played under 400 games more than Trout has so far, and Trout hasn’t played a full season in 3 years and who knows what his numbers will be at the end of the day. 

But certainly saying he has better career numbers than DiMaggio, which is easily disproven with a simple comparison of their stats, is another example of hyperbole. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MB3 said:

did I time travel to 1996 or am I actually having a baseball debate where WAR isn’t important but (checks notes) HITS?!? are hahahahahah 

We weren’t debating which was more important. You said that Trout had better career stats than DiMaggio. He doesn’t. You were talking out of your ass.

Trying to spin it and adding a bunch of ahahahahaha at the end doesn’t make your position more valid. 
 

Edited by mfitz804
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

We weren’t debating which was more important. You said that Trout had better career stats than DiMaggio. He doesn’t. You were talking out of your ass.

Trying to spin it and adding a bunch of ahahahahaha at the end doesn’t make your position more valid. 
 

he currently has more WAR than DiMaggio. WAR is a cumulative stat. You’re being a clown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, MB3 said:

he currently has more WAR than DiMaggio. WAR is a cumulative stat. You’re being a clown. 

That is ONE stat. You said he has better “career stats”. That’s why it’s hyperbole.

At least not without trying to spin things, I mean I posted 5-6 stats where DiMaggio has better numbers and your response is that someone is debating that hits are better than WAR. That never happened, and you didn’t mention any of the other stats I mentioned. 

On top of that, hits are still a career stat, and DiMaggio’s is better, along with a dozen others. How many guys are in the Hall of Fame based solely on their WAR? Zero. 

True to form, you have to go back to insulting people when you can’t otherwise sustain an argument, but truthfully the only clown here is the one who keeps posting comical takes that cannot be backed up.

Edited by mfitz804
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

That is ONE stat. You said he has better “career stats”. That’s why it’s hyperbole.

At least not without trying to spin things, I mean I posted 5-6 stats where DiMaggio has better numbers and your response is that someone is debating that hits are better than WAR. That never happened, and you didn’t mention any of the other stats I mentioned. 

On top of that, hits are still a career stat, and DiMaggio’s is better, along with a dozen others. How many guys are in the Hall of Fame based solely on their WAR? Zero. 

True to form, you have to go back to insulting people when you can’t otherwise sustain an argument, but truthfully the only clown here is the one who keeps posting comical takes that cannot be backed up.

plus minus is a stat. how heavily do you weigh that?

how about for scott stevens. he doesn’t have as many goals as most HoFers. should that matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MB3 said:

plus minus is a stat. how heavily do you weigh that?

how about for scott stevens. he doesn’t have as many goals as most HoFers. should that matter?

Again, the discussion was not about weighing which stat is more valuable, it’s your ridiculous take that Trout has better career stats, based on one stat, when in fact there are tons of stats that DiMaggio has the edge. And, let’s be honest, do you really think the people who vote for the Hall of Fame don’t include hits, home runs, runs scored, RBI or batting average in their decision? Even you couldn’t say that. 

Your Scott Stevens argument is flawed because he was a defenseman. That’s like asking if Tom Seaver belongs in the Hall of Fame based on his batting statistics. Plus, Stevens is 24th overall all-time in goals by a defenseman, look at the guys above him and count how many guys are not in the Hall of Fame or likely to be there when they retire. 

On top of that, you’re trying to pivot again because the conversation we were having wasn’t about what the criteria are to get into the Hall of Fame, but rather which guy has better career stats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.