Joe Mauer...HOF yay, or nay?

[Rain King]

Very good cases can be made against Mauer's hall-of-fame worthiness. "He's not a catcher" is not one of them.

[Airdrop01]

.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

Anyone here other than Conn Chris and me know what catching 75% of your teams innings or more is like, year after year? Didn’t think so. There’s a huge difference between catching 75 games and 120 or 130. 600 innings is nothing like 1000+ innings, especially for a decade or more. I sure as hell couldnt do it that long. That’s my subjective opinion. If I had the will, or the time, I could make up a metric to allegedly quantify it, but that’s unnecessary because that’s the point, these subjective metrics are just opinion based anyway.

I don’t expect you’ll concede the point. I’ve seen more recalcitrance and obstinate refusal to concede the most basic things here I give up. Enjoy yourselves.

I absolutely believe that stuff (everybody does)...it is why the best hitting catchers are usually moved off of catching. Mauer caught those 1000 innings a number of times. He was a catcher, to protect him and prolong his career they had him play a different position as he got older. That does not mean he was not a catcher. WAR factors this stuff in. He loses value when he is not catching.

[Airdrop01]

Rain King, what you just wrote is exactly why is is NOT a HOF player in my opinion. Everything you wrote there is true. But that's also why he should definitely NOT be in the HOF.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

Rain King, what you just wrote is exactly why is is NOT a HOF player in my opinion. Everything you wrote there is true. But that's also why he should definitely NOT be in the HOF.

As I said, there is a valid argument for that opinion. Yelling about WAR and calling him "not a catcher" just weren't good ways to go about that. Nobody here has said he is an obvious or shoe-in candidate. He is a borderline case that depends on how you value certain things.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

It hasn't changed because batting average was created soon after baseball became organized. If it was created today, it would have been changed to something closer to OBP or slugging or wOBA.

Batting average wouldn't exist if it was attempted to be created today, it falls into the same criteria you are describing. Today, there isn't one person creating all the stats. There are hundreds of thousands of people judging and assessing all of this.

1. All mumbo jumbo, speculation, and what if's. Batting average is still a fact. What you are arguing is whether it is useful or not. That is not the original question I asked. Stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

2. Since there are 100's of 1000's each with their own way of doing things, IT MAKES IT AN OPINION.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Mauer caught those 1000 innings a number of times.

That number being two.

Ultimately that's what kills his HOF chances to me. When he was a catcher he couldn't stay in the lineup, when he was a DH/1B he was just an average hitter for those positions.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

1. All mumbo jumbo, speculation, and what if's. Batting average is still a fact. What you are arguing is whether it is useful or not. That is not the original question I asked. Stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

2. Since there are 100's of 1000's each with their own way of doing things, IT MAKES IT AN OPINION.

We are just talking past each other here.

I never denied it being an opinion or didn't say it wasn't subjective. I said it falls into the same category that batting average does.

It was created with an imperfect formula. It is man made, it has it's flaws.

And yes, one is significantly more useful than the other.


You are treating batting average like it's this objective 1 plus 1 data point, and it's not. It was created based on Chadwick's opinion, and really based on how it was created in cricket.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by pilight

That number being two.

Ultimately that's what kills his HOF chances to me. When he was a catcher he couldn't stay in the lineup, when he was a DH/1B he was just an average hitter for those positions.

He had a season with 999.2, two more over 900. Why is 1,000 the arbitrary number that matters?

The entire reason that he didn't catch as many innings is that he was a good enough hitter (and fielder) to play somewhere else. That was just good player management on the Twins part...and the WAR stats "punish" him for those innings at 1B (or DH) by in kind devaluing his offensive output for those innings. He still won an MVP going away. Anyone using WAR is already punishing him for the amount of time he didn't spend as a catcher, we don't need it explained to us.

He was still an elite catcher for a period of time and the Hall is short on the position (because voters don't seem to want to adjust for the durability issues it causes).

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

We are just talking past each other here.

I never denied it being an opinion or didn't say it wasn't subjective. I said it falls into the same category that batting average does.

It was created with an imperfect formula. It is man made, it has it's flaws.

And yes, one is significantly more useful than the other.


You are treating batting average like it's this objective 1 plus 1 data point, and it's not. It was created based on Chadwick's opinion, and really based on how it was created in cricket.

I'm not treating BA like anything else but a fact. Whether it is useful or not, I'm not going to say one way or the other. That's for each individual fan to decide for himself. But it can't be subjective. Three hits in 10 @bats is a .300 batting average no matter what any of our feelings are about it. We can't change that fact.

And if you didn't think it was an opinion, why did you thank Themaus2's post when he said batting average was a made up stat? Did I misunderstand his post? And why did you try to offer an explanation when I asked the reasoning behind saying it was subjective?

[Rain King]

BA's creation was subjective in the same way that the creation of the different versions of WAR are. OBP could just be considered a different interpretation of BA.

[Rain King]

The results of each stat are not subjective. They don't change on some kind of whim, whether it is BA, OBP, rWAR, fWAR, whatever...they take their inputs and turn them into an output.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I'm not treating BA like anything else but a fact. Whether it is useful or not, I'm not going to say one way or the other. That's for each individual fan to decide for himself. But it can't be subjective. Three hits in 10 @bats is a .300 batting average no matter what any of our feelings are about it. We can't change that fact.

Except it's not.

Walks and sacrifices aren't included.

Why? Because Henry Chadwick didn't value those when it was created because walks weren't a value added stat at the time (and rarely happened in 1860).

It's as subjective as rWAR

rWAR was created based on the importance that Sean Smith put into each category.

Batting average was created based on the important that Henry Chadwick put into each category (or lack thereof).

It's the EXACT same thing.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Rain King

BA's creation was subjective in the same way that the creation of the different versions of WAR are. OBP could just be considered a different interpretation of BA.

exactly, 100%

[Curve Ball Dave]

Walks were counted as hit one season in the 1880s, can't recall the year.



Batting average is strictly the percentage of hits per at bats. Walks are not hits, hence there is no reason to include them. We have on base percentage for that.



There is nothing subjective about it. 3 hits in 10 at bats is .300 or 30%.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Walks were counted as hit one season in the 1880s, can't recall the year.



Batting average is strictly the percentage of hits per at bats. Walks are not hits, hence there is no reason to include them. We have on base percentage for that.



There is nothing subjective about it. 3 hits in 10 at bats is .300 or 30%.

This entire back and forth isn't about the formulas themselves.

There is nothing subjective about what creates 1.0 rWAR either. It's a set formula.

There is nothing subjective about what creates 1.0 fWAR as well. It's a set formula.

There is nothing subjective about what creates a .400 OBP reaching base 2 out of every 5 PA.

There is nothing subjective about what creates a .333 Batting average, getting a base hit once every 3 at bats.

But what is subjective is what was driven and determined to create these stats and their purposes.

Nobody is adjusting rWAR on a whim and based on feelings or opinions. It's a set formula, it's the same always.

Same thing with batting average.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Walks were counted as hit one season in the 1880s, can't recall the year.



Batting average is strictly the percentage of hits per at bats. Walks are not hits, hence there is no reason to include them. We have on base percentage for that.



There is nothing subjective about it. 3 hits in 10 at bats is .300 or 30%.

THANK YOU! Why is this so hard for them to get their heads around? They continue to argue on value of the stat. That is not the issue.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

THANK YOU! Why is this so hard for them to get their heads around? They continue to argue on value of the stat. That is not the issue.

Where has anyone argued the value and merits of these stats? That was pages ago.

Right now, you guys don't seem to understand that stats like rWAR and Batting average are both completely set. They do not change. They are exact same in that reference.

And they were both created based on subjective measurements based on knowledge and value at the time.

1.0 rWAR doesn't change or fluctuate. It's the same formula to create it, just like it's always the same formula to create a .333 batting average.

[Curve Ball Dave]

WAR is based on an assumption of what a "replacement level" player is and that is subjective.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

WAR is based on an assumption of what a "replacement level" player is and that is subjective.

What?

No. A replacement level player is based on league averages every year.

A .296 winning percentage, 48-114

If the league is hitting a lot of home runs, then replacement level for an offensive player is higher. If the league is weak offensively, then a replacement level player offensive can be a worse hitter.

It's based on what the league does overall. Not some subjective, random number determined by a think tank.