To make this argument, you have to be saying Kent's offensive stats as compared to Ryne's FAR outweigh the gap defensively. Right?

 

Absolutely NOT. I think Sandberg was the MOST over-rated defensive player of all time. He carried this honor of his errorless streak like a badge of honor, but he almost never made a play on a ball that wasn't hit right at him. MANY other second-basemen got to balls that Ryno never dreamed of getting to. He seldom dove for a ball, so while he was solid (very solid) on balls hit at him, I wouldn't put his defensive prowess much ahead of Kent at all.

Absolutely NOT. I think Sandberg was the MOST over-rated defensive player of all time. He carried this honor of his errorless streak like a badge of honor, but he almost never made a play on a ball that wasn't hit right at him. MANY other second-basemen got to balls that Ryno never dreamed of getting to. He seldom dove for a ball, so while he was solid (very solid) on balls hit at him, I wouldn't put his defensive prowess much ahead of Kent at all.

 

If we were comparing him to Bobby Grich or Joe Morgan, I'd agree.

 

However, we're comparing him to a Jeff Kent.

 

You know where us stat geeks stand on using errors and FLD% to measure defense.

What assumptions must we make if we use FLD% as a way to compare two players of the same position?

Fielding % defines the ability, based off chances you have. It has nothing to do with range, foot speed or lateral movement as we know but it measures, the effectiveness of chances, you get.

 

I don't always see why players must be compared to others, in the HOF. Not all players are created equal and not all, bring the same style of play to the field. One may be exceptional speed, contact style hitter and is consistent on the defensive side. The other, may hit for more power, better average and generate RBI's, while being consistent on the defensive side.

 

Separately one could say, I would prefer him or that one....but to say because this guy is a HOF and former 2B, doesn't mean, he's undeserving. If we're going that route, no catcher after Johnny Bench, should ever get in. No pitcher after Cy Young, should have ever made it. Let them stand on their abilities and importance, in the game and not always have to win, a comparison.

 

I always thought the HOF was a reward of excellence, not a place of measurement against anyone being considered.

Fielding % defines the ability, based off chances you have. It has nothing to do with range, foot speed or lateral movement as we know but it measures, the effectiveness of chances, you get.

 

I don't always see why players must be compared to others, in the HOF. Not all players are created equal and not all, bring the same style of play to the field. One may be exceptional speed, contact style hitter and is consistent on the defensive side. The other, may hit for more power, better average and generate RBI's, while being consistent on the defensive side.

 

Separately one could say, I would prefer him or that one....but to say because this guy is a HOF and former 2B, doesn't mean, he's undeserving. If we're going that route, no catcher after Johnny Bench, should ever get in. No pitcher after Cy Young, should have ever made it. Let them stand on their abilities and importance, in the game and not always have to win, a comparison.

 

I always thought the HOF was a reward of excellence, not a place of measurement against anyone being considered.

 

K3 - I agree with your initial statement on what FLD% does not measure. I asked because I read into your post that you consider Kent and Morgan equals defensively.

 

Since there are no objective measures that get one into the HOF the only way to determine one's right to enter or not is to compare . If not, we'd sayy everone with X number of hits, RBIs, runs,etc would be in without a vote.

K3 - I agree with your initial statement on what FLD% does not measure. I asked because I read into your post that you consider Kent and Morgan equals defensively.

 

Since there are no objective measures that get one into the HOF the only way to determine one's right to enter or not is to compare . If not, we'd sayy everone with X number of hits, RBIs, runs,etc would be in without a vote.

It's subjective, to the stats then....I can see some voters and MLB fans, giving higher value to the HR totals of Kent. I can see others, giving preference to Morgan's footspeed and base-stealing. It's all subjective and varies.

 

At the same time, Kent's role is to produce runs, generate power and be productive. Morgan hit in the 2 hole often and took on a much different role, behind Rose.

It's subjective, to the stats then....I can see some voters and MLB fans, giving higher value to the HR totals of Kent. I can see others, giving preference to Morgan's footspeed and base-stealing. It's all subjective and varies.

 

At the same time, Kent's role is to produce runs, generate power and be productive. Morgan hit in the 2 hole often and took on a much different role, behind Rose.

 

Not to be nitpicky but Lil' Joe batted 3rd behind Griffey.

 

I think we're saying we agree that voting is subjective. My point that I'm trying to make is that since it is subjective many factors are taken into account (those that you mention ) AND they are then compared to like players currently in the HOF.

Not to be nitpicky but Lil' Joe batted 3rd behind Griffey.

 

I think we're saying we agree that voting is subjective. My point that I'm trying to make is that since it is subjective many factors are taken into account (those that you mention ) AND they are then compared to like players currently in the HOF.

I agree, there will always be comparisons to current and potential HOF members but it should never be, as I'm certain you will agree, the ultimate analysis or measuring component, as to whether a player makes it or not.

 

May want to do a little research on Morgan, he moved to the 3 spot, most of the time in '75. I believe, he hit almost exclusively in the 2 hole, in '73 and other years....not splitting hairs.

Absolutely NOT. I think Sandberg was the MOST over-rated defensive player of all time. He carried this honor of his errorless streak like a badge of honor, but he almost never made a play on a ball that wasn't hit right at him. MANY other second-basemen got to balls that Ryno never dreamed of getting to. He seldom dove for a ball, so while he was solid (very solid) on balls hit at him, I wouldn't put his defensive prowess much ahead of Kent at all.

The nine Gold Gloves he won would seem to indicate otherwise. Not to mention that, in those nine seasons, Sandberg's range factor was consistently well above the leage average.

 

Kent isn't even in the same ballpark defensively. And Sandberg would have eclipsed the 300-HR mark is he hadn't retired for nearly two full seasons because of his marital problems.

The nine Gold Gloves he won would seem to indicate otherwise. Not to mention that, in those nine seasons, Sandberg's range factor was consistently well above the league average.

 

Kent isn't even in the same ballpark defensively. And Sandberg would have eclipsed the 300-HR mark is he hadn't retired for nearly two full seasons because of his marital problems.

Remember, the Gold Glove Award was voted on by Coaches and Managers. Sandberg was very good but even more popular, with fans, teammates and the opposing teams. It's not a statistical award but often, a result of popularity and excelling.

The nine Gold Gloves he won would seem to indicate otherwise. Not to mention that, in those nine seasons, Sandberg's range factor was consistently well above the leage average.

 

 

No they don't. Rawlings Gold Gloves, as you well know, are nothing more than a freaking popularity contest. Ryno was a cherished, over-hyped, beacon of baseball; him winning Gold Gloves told me nothing. I, like millions of objective other people, was able to watch him with my own two eyes daily and I can tell you any "stat" you give me supporting his "range factor" is crud. His defense was vastly over-rated, and if your eyes tell you different, than we'll simply have to disagree.

 

Is it our fault his "marital problems" made him retire early? Let me get my pity-violin out....give me a second....:cry:

No they don't. Rawlings Gold Gloves, as you well know, are nothing more than a freaking popularity contest. Ryno was a cherished, over-hyped, beacon of baseball; him winning Gold Gloves told me nothing. I, like millions of objective other people, was able to watch him with my own two eyes daily and I can tell you any "stat" you give me supporting his "range factor" is crud. His defense was vastly over-rated, and if your eyes tell you different, than we'll simply have to disagree.

 

Is it our fault his "marital problems" made him retire early? Let me get my pity-violin out....give me a second....:cry:

Wow ... such hostility.

Gold Gloves are often awarded for reasons other than simply a player's defensive ability ... Derek Jeter is a prime example. But Ryno was legitimately a great defensive second baseman.

 

And he only won nine of them ... surely he deserved at least a couple of them.

Remember, the Gold Glove Award was voted on by Coaches and Managers. Sandberg was very good but even more popular, with fans, teammates and the opposing teams. It's not a statistical award but often, a result of popularity and excelling.

 

So how many Gold Gloves do we take away because of popularity?

 

The question I ask is: How many 2nd basemen are better than Ryno in his era? With Kent there are not many if ANY more powerful and run producing than him. Are there ANY better at defense than Ryno during his time? Because with the Hall-Of-Fame, the main concern is how dominant IN THEIR ERA were they

To all the people who have said the Ryno didn't deserve 9 Gold Gloves, did Morgan deserve his 5, or Mazeroski his 8? What about Castillo's 3, or Pokey Reese's 2? Players usually get one or two and will continue to get them until someone comes along and is SIGNIFICANTLY better than them or they retire.

 

I will agree that sometimes a player is given too many or an award is given away because of SUPER popularity. We all know that Abreu was not Gold Glove worthy in the outfield but he got one in 2005. the point that I am trying to get at is that Gold Gloves are not just given away to mediocre player or even average players, they are given to Great players.

Westy, a "great defensive second baseman?" Wow -- that is all I can say. He was a likable guy with a great stick on TV every day when no one else was. Heck, off the top of my head, I'd take Manny Trillo over Ryno defensively.