Tim Raines had a much higher hits/PA there, TrentOnJoe. Thats one of the many problems with the little OPS stat people think is so cute.

Can you normalize that Chief? I figure with your dizzying intellect you can handle it.

Morgan did play from 65-72 (and then some) which was more or less the most dominant pitching era of the last 50 years.

Raines time was during pitching eras as well (except for 1994) but Morgan played in a much tougher setting.

Did you just ask me to normalize hits/pa? lol.

Well, maybe normalize was the wrong word...whatever the "+" symbol means.... year adjusted? league adjusted? Regardless of the vocabulary term, I am sure you can see the value in that, Chief.

Also, Morgan's "bases"/PA ([TB+bb]/PA)is higher than Raines. I did it real quick but it was .514 to .492. It's hard to argue that Raines was a better hitter than Morgan.

Quote: Originally Posted By Trentonjoe on 2/16/2010 It's hard to argue that Raines was a better hitter than Morgan.

I agree, but its pretty easy to argue that they were the same thing.

If you only look at their raw hitting stats.

I went back and double checked, Raines has about 2200 PA (around 20% of his career PA) after 1994. He was 34-42.

I just kinda eyeballed it but from 65-79 (Morgan's core years) it looks like he league BA was probably an average of .245ish.

From 85-92 (Raines core years) it was probably about .252ish.
After 1993 it gets ridiculous, I didn't even bother to look.

I didn't bother comparing 79-84 when they both played.

This has to give Morgan a significant advantage n hitting if you adjust his raw stats to the years he played..

I still think TJ (or anyone else) trying to argue that Raines is not a Hall of Famer based on statistical evidence while completely igoring the fact that Raines is statistically THE BEST BASE THIEF IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME is really missing the forest for the trees here...

Quote: Originally Posted By Trentonjoe on 2/16/2010Well, maybe normalize was the wrong word...whatever the "+" symbol means.... year adjusted? league adjusted? Regardless of the vocabulary term, I am sure you can see the value in that, Chief.

Also, Morgan's "bases"/PA ([TB+bb]/PA)is higher than Raines. I did it real quick but it was .514 to .492. It's hard to argue that Raines was a better hitter than Morgan.

How 'bout you try modifying that to (TB + BB + SB - CS)/PA.

Raines: .556
Morgan: .561

Very close numbers now. Am I trying to argue that Raines is basically an equal player to Morgan? Unlike boogerlips, no, I am not. But I shouldn't have to. If I can place him in the same statistical stratosphere, and if everyone assumes Joe Morgan was a shoe-in 1st ballot HoFer, then it seems that Raines should at least be in.

I don't think positional arguments are very strong here because Morgan was not an exemplary fielder. The fact that he could play a mediocre second base doesn't blow me away at all...

Quote: Originally posted by dahsdebater on 2/16/2010I don't think positional arguments are very strong here because Morgan was not an exemplary fielder.  The fact that he could play a mediocre second base doesn't blow me away at all...

That's a touch of an exaggeration. Morgan did win 5 gold gloves and his defensive stats from that period (73-79) look good to me.

Quote: Originally posted by Trentonjoe on 2/16/2010

Quote: Originally posted by dahsdebater on 2/16/2010I don't think positional arguments are very strong here because Morgan was not an exemplary fielder.  The fact that he could play a mediocre second base doesn't blow me away at all...

That's a touch of an exaggeration. Morgan did win 5 gold gloves and his defensive stats from that period (73-79) look good to me.

That's what separates them apart, the awards. 5 Gold gloves with 2 MVP. Awards weigh more than raw stat unless the stats also become historical (3k hits, 500 hrs, etc.).

Quote: Originally Posted By Trentonjoe on 2/16/2010

Quote: Originally posted by dahsdebater on 2/16/2010 I don't think positional arguments are very strong here because Morgan was not an exemplary fielder. The fact that he could play a mediocre second base doesn't blow me away at all...

That's a touch of an exaggeration. Morgan did win 5 gold gloves and his defensive stats from that period (73-79) look good to me

Jeter's won a number of gold gloves as well, yet statistically he's been a below-average fielder in every gold-glove season and one of the worst in the league in several. Voters always give gold gloves to guys who actually hit, we know that... Look at Morgan's ratings on here - 3 good seasons, another 1 or 2 decent, otherwise unimpressive.

Quote: Originally Posted By tianyi7886 on 2/16/2010

That's what separates them apart, the awards. 5 Gold gloves with 2 MVP. Awards weigh more than raw stat unless the stats also become historical (3k hits, 500 hrs, etc.).

Best stolen base percentage of anyone with over 500 steals. By a decent margin. Also well over 500 steals. Once again, the best statistical base thief in history and in the opinion of very many the best base thief in general. That's historical to me...

Number of players with 3000 hits: 27
Number of players with 500 home runs: 25
Number of players with 800 steals: 5

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.