Jump to content

Presenting your Hall of Fame Voters!


DrungoHazewood

Recommended Posts

OK, but do the numbers say that Brooks belong in the HOF, or is that just a sentimental attachment to his glove-legend? Did his glove generate enough DR's to make up for his barely-above-average career-bat?

Yes, the numbers show he belongs. A 114.6 WARP3(over 100 and you have a case), almost 3,000 hits, over 1,200 runs and 1,300 rbi, tied for most gold glove awards ever I believe, 18 time all star, and 1 time MVP.

If you're just to look at his offensive numbers, he wouldn't get my support, but considering the defense, yes, he should be in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply
WTF is personal objectivity? Is that what we're calling subjectivity these days?

Yeah, I make mistakes when I am "multi-tasking". :o

I guess I have to be more careful and do a better job of proof reading my posts.

There is always a member of the grammer police "gotcha" patrol out there lurking.........ready to pounce.

Drungo (who the original post was directed at) knew what I meant, apparently.

BUt, thank you for pointing it out for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I make mistakes when I am "multi-tasking". :o

I guess I have to be more careful and do a better job of proof reading my posts.

There is always a member of the grammer police "gotcha" patrol out there lurking.........ready to pounce.

Drungo (who the original post was directed at) knew what I meant, apparently.

BUt, thank you for pointing it out for me.

Hey, just checking - not policing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the numbers show he belongs. A 114.6 WARP3(over 100 and you have a case), almost 3,000 hits, over 1,200 runs and 1,300 rbi, tied for most gold glove awards ever I believe, 18 time all star, and 1 time MVP.

If you're just to look at his offensive numbers, he wouldn't get my support, but considering the defense, yes, he should be in.

Yea, Brooks is quite obviously a HOFer. He wasn't a great hitter, but he was a good one. From 1960-71 he was above average all but two years with the bat. Most years 3-5 wins above average. His numbers look only so-so in the context of today, but he was playing in the second deadball era (the 1960s) in a pitcher's park (Memorial Stadium). In 1969 he hit a very Tony Batista-like .234/.298/.395, but that was only a fraction below a league-average third baseman. When you pile 3-5 wins over replacement on defense on top of better-than-average offense, for 25 years, that's a clear HOFer.

Brooks' career is almost a perfect storm of what adjusting for context and evaluating defense properly can mean. Almost everything was working against him - park, league, and having great defensive teammates who could steal chances from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brooks' career is almost a perfect storm of what adjusting for context and evaluating defense properly can mean. Almost everything was working against him - park, league, and having great defensive teammates who could steal chances from him.

I'm curious about the bolded-part. How did that happen? I remember lots of times that Brooks would go to his left and get a ball on the grass that Belanger would have backhanded on the dirt if Brooks hadn't bothered (hitting a ball between the two of them wasn't exactly a great strategy for success)... but who took plays from Brooks? Maybe Belanger on a pop-up down the line, I could see that, but that seems pretty normal. What else? (No biggie, just curious.)

ps: I know guys do stuff in-the-moment without tons of thinking. But can you imagine the thought process? "Um, this ball could be fielded by the best 3Bman in history... but, no... I think I better take a chance on it instead... we don''t wanna risk #5 screwing it up..." ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious about the bolded-part. How did that happen? I remember lots of times that Brooks would go to his left and get a ball on the grass that Belanger would have backhanded on the dirt if Brooks hadn't bothered (hitting a ball between the two of them wasn't exactly a great strategy for success)... but who took plays from Brooks? Maybe Belanger on a pop-up down the line, I could see that, but that seems pretty normal. What else? (No biggie, just curious.)

ps: I know guys do stuff in-the-moment without tons of thinking. But can you imagine the thought process? "Um, this ball could be fielded by the best 3Bman in history... but, no... I think I better take a chance on it instead... we don''t wanna risk #5 screwing it up..." ;-)

This was an off-the-cuff remark, simply based on the fact that all teams must record 27 outs in nine innings. A team of nine Greg Luzinskis will record 27 outs, just like a team of nine Omar Vizquels. At a team level the nine Luzinskis will have the same number of putouts, and thus the same range factor (or similar once you consider assists) as the Vizquels.

So given identical parks and identical pitching staffs any given player on a great defensive team will tend to have worse raw defensive stats than one on a poor defensive team. Every ball that Kiko Garcia can't field that Mark Belanger might have is another opportunity for the rest of the team to get a defensive chance - and that includes Brooks Robinson.

The Orioles of Brooks' era were often exceptional defensive teams meaning that Brooks had less of a chance to stand out, at least in the raw numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...