Angelsjunky

Gold Member
  • Content Count

    12,006
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Angelsjunky last won the day on March 12 2019

Angelsjunky had the most liked content!

About Angelsjunky

  • Rank
    Substantial Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,895 profile views
  1. Well the entire 79-86 run was largely built on imports, but there some really good ones. After 1986, Grich retired, Carew had left the year before, and DeCinces was on his last legs, and the youth movement--Joyner, White, Howell, Schofield, McLemore, etc--wasn't quite as good as hoped, so they turned back to free agency and started a run of signing a ridiculous number of aging former all-stars. A sampling: Dave Winfield, Tony Armas, Bill Buckner, Gary Gaetti, Kelly Gruber, Bert Blyleven, Claudell Washington, Dave Parker, Fernando Valenzuela, Von Hayes, Hubie Brooks, Alvin Davis, and others. Lance Parrish actually worked out decently well, and Chili Davis was really good in two stints, probably my favorite Angel bridging Joyner and Salmon.
  2. Not a good list. @Brandon, Lance Parrish was a bad-ass for the Tigers in the 80s, probably the second best catcher of that decade after Gary Carter. He had a couple off years for the Phillies and was in obvious decline, so the Angels did what they always did during that era: sign a declining former All-star in his 30s. Looking at the numbers, he did have one really good bounce-back year in 1990 and was decent enough in 89 and 91.
  3. Swap Aybar and Simmons and I'm happy with that.
  4. I just found this which uses Bill James' formula: https://www.thebaseballgauge.com/hof.php?tab=active
  5. He has a point. Monte Irvin has the lowest career fWAR among HoF batters at 20.8, but he spent his 20s in the Negro Leagues, where he was a superstar, so has extenuating circumstances. Next up from the bottom is Ray Schalk with 22.4 fWAR. He hit .253/.340/.316 with an 88 wRC+ in 1762 games, but was a defensive specialist during a time when there were no good defense stats. The Veterans Committee voted in a ton of players from the first half of the century as some kind of nostalgia binge. There are currently 269 players--including 35 Negro Leaguers--in the Hall. Considering that over 19,000 people have played in MLB--a number that would rise to well over 20K if we include the Negro Leagues--then we can say that a Hall of Famer is a player who is among the best 1% or so to play the game. One in a hundred has a certain ring to it. If we tighten the criteria a bit and say 500 PA and 150 IP--or roughly equal to a qualifying season--then the total is closer to 10K, meaning one in 40-50 guys to have substantial careers. Given that about 850-900 guys play MLB in a given year, that means that means there should be 8-9ish active Hall of Famers in a typical year. Let's take another look (active players only): Definite: Pujols, Cabrera, Trout, Verlander, Kershaw, Scherzer. Maybe-to-Probably: Posey, Votto, Cano, Greinke, Yelich, Betts, Altuve, Arenado. Probably not, but possible: Donaldson, Goldschmidt, Freeman, Rendon, Stanton, Lindor, deGrom, Simmons, Y Molina, Chapman, Kimbrel, etc. Hall Talents But Too Soon: Harper, Machado, Acuna, Soto, Correa, Chapman, Bellinger, Bregman, etc. So the definites gives us six; if we take half of the next group, we're already at 10 (and probably more than half of those guys make it); if we take one-third of the next group and sprinkle in a few more, we're in the 15-20 range...about twice what would have been expected from the historical numbers. I'm not quite up for the task, but probably the only way to get to the bottom of this would be to look year by year and see how many active Hall of Famers there were, and look for fluctuations. Maybe we're just in an upswing of Hall of Fame talent.
  6. I also don't think it would make much of a difference for their better years as most top 20 players are qualifiers.
  7. I understand your logic but don't think it applies as qualifying numbers are different--they don't necessarily evenly translate, and the key point is how they rank relative to ALL hitters or pitchers. To get a better relative ranking you'd have to look at a similar pool of players. For example, 100 PA and 30 IP both have a bit over 400 players in each category. I'd do the numbers but my keyboard is wonky so typing is rather aggravating and more time-consuming (broken space bar).
  8. OK, here are some more numbers. Finley's MLB WAR ranks from 1989-2002: 19, 12, 40, 72, 8, 19, 11, 14, 44, 18, 14, 15, dnq, 18 So other than a few off years, Finley was consistently in the top 20--or among the top 20-25% of starters in most years, peaking at #8. He had 10 years in the top 20 for pitcher WAR, while Vlad had only 5 years in the top 20 for batter WAR. If we look at Vlad's hitting only through the lense of wRC+, he looks a bit better (1998-2008): 21, 26, 8, 39, 10, (9), 11, 10, 23, 16, 31. Actually, not much better, just a few more years in the 8-11 range but never among the very best.
  9. As a general rule, there are about 140-145 qualified hitters every year, or about five per team.
  10. During Finley's career there were typically 80-90 qualified pitchers in a given year.
  11. I never said I'm broke. I'm just a socialist.
  12. Agreed. It isn't far from the Academy Awards, which are usually given to the films that most hit a cultural nerve and whatever Hollywood's in vogue ethical issue is (see, for instance, Crash).
  13. Obviously a combination of factors are required. I would simplify them into peak dominance, career value, and intangibles. The Jay Jaffe JAWS system combines the first two, by averaging career WAR and best seven years. The intangibles part is entirely subjective; or rather, it is inter-subjective, meaning it is a kind of consensus combination of qualities: uniqueness of a player's skills (Vlad does well), reputation (boo to Hamilton), etc. The average Hall of Famer is around 55 JAWS, except for catchers who are 43.5. We could say that anyone 50 or above is a good candidate, with 40+ being borderline and 60+ being almost a sure thing. John Hamilton is all the way down at 27.6, so is far from being even borderline, and due to his crummy intangibles, isn't a candidate at all. Not to mention that he isn't even eligible, having played in only 9 seasons. Now if he had three more seasons like 2010, or five more like 2012, he'd have a JAWS around 50 and be a serious candidate, even with the reputation. Tulo has a JAWS of 42.4 because he was so damned good for a few years, with six star-level seasons. But he just lost too much time to injury and won't make it. Prince Fielder (24.4, 1611 games) is another one who lost too much to injury, and Bautista (37.5, 1798 games) got going too late--he wasn't a full-time player until age 28. Donaldson (37.7, age 34 this year) is interesting. He's been the second best player during his full-time years (2013-19), with 40.6 WAR. But he probably needs at least another three seasons like 2019 to have a serious chance, and he's getting up there in age. But you're right about Betts: he isn't sure-fire. But with a 41.8 JAWs through age 26, he's in very good shape. As long as he's relatively healthy and continues at his 2019 level, he'll probably compile at least close to a Hall of Fame record by the time he turns 30. Two more seasons like 2019 gets him to 50+. Another five or so and he's over 60, and is there. I call him "sure-fire" (or close to) because all he has to do is stay healthy for another half decade and he's in - and that's without any more monster seasons like 2018. If he has another 8+ WAR MVP-caliber season and four more "lesser" 5-6 WAR seasons to get to the 10-year minimum, he'll be around 60 WAR and has a good chance. I do also think that the Hall tends to favor guys who get to certain benchmarks in less time. A 10-year career of 60 WAR is generally more impressive than a 15-year one. That's where JAWS comes in. But yeah, Trout is in his own class. It isn't an exaggeration to compare him to Mantle, and considering he isn't a boozer, his total career numbers could be better. Even if he declines in his early 30s like Mantle did, he'll still easily surpass 100 WAR. He should be there by the end of 2023, his age 31 season, and that's even with only half a year in 2020. That would make him the 21st position player to reach triple-digits WAR. But he probably won't stop there. Assuming he doesn't have a Griffey-caliber collapse, 120 should be easily within reach (he'd be the 12th), with 140+ a possibility (he'd be the 5th). We don't know how Trout will age. There's reason to be skeptical due to a change in his launch angle, as Tony Blengino pointed out. If that holds true, we'll likely see Trout change from a 9 WAR, .300/.440/.630 beast, to something more like a 6 WAR, .270/.400/.550 slugger. Meaning, he'll change from non-roids peak Bonds to Giancarlo Stanton, and maybe not even that. But I'd counter Blengino with Trout's best quality: his ability to adjust. So I remain hopeful he'll be able to rectify this issue. But it bears watching.