There were only a handful of rookie catchers. Patrick Bailey is elite defensively but well below avg offensively. Francisco Alvarez isn't as good defensively but still up there. He's not awful at the plate. Yainer is really the only candidate that swings a big stick. Outside of framing, he killed it behind the dish.
***Official Houston Astros 2023-24 Offseason Thread*** [Staff Warning - OP]
985,488 Views |
11245 Replies |
Last: 8 mo ago by Lonestar_Ag09
Been looking at a bunch of HOF stuff recently and was thinking of our boy, Berkman. I really think he got the short end of the stick.
Here is a comparison of the last few entrants plus a few expected to make it.
My takeaways:
Here is a comparison of the last few entrants plus a few expected to make it.
My takeaways:
- Berkman should have stuck around to get a for me counting #s
- Berkman didn't get credit for his postseason #s. Top 5 OPS for min 200 PA.
- On pure offense alone, Berkman has a strong argument for #1 in this group.
- We pick and choose when we care about defense [and steroids in Big Papi's case]. See Helton, Ortiz, and even Jeter vs Berkman.
- Similar to Biggio, Beltre gets in on longevity. 115 wRC+ is not overly impressive. Defensive was a big plus too.
Until Yordan and Altuve showed up, Berkman is the guy who I would say is the best pure hitter the Astros have ever had.Farmer1906 said:
Been looking at a bunch of HOF stuff recently and was thinking of our boy, Berkman. I really think he got the short end of the stick.
Here is a comparison of the last few entrants plus a few expected to make it.
My takeaways:
- Berkman should have stuck around to get a for me counting #s
- Berkman didn't get credit for his postseason #s. Top 5 OPS for min 200 PA.
- On pure offense alone, Berkman has a strong argument for #1 in this group.
- We pick and choose when we care about defense [and steroids in Big Papi's case]. See Helton, Ortiz, and ever Jeter vs Berkman.
- Similar to Biggio, Beltre gets in on longevity. 115 wRC+ is not overly impressive. Defensive was a big plus too.
We've had the question about who we would chose to build an offense around - Berkman is a guy I would seriously consider the answer to that question. Not saying that's who I would ultimately choose, but he would be in consideration.
I loved watching that guy hit.
That is putting it lightly.Farmer1906 said:
Been looking at a bunch of HOF stuff recently and was thinking of our boy, Berkman. I really think he got the short end of the stick.
Here is a comparison of the last few entrants plus a few expected to make it.
My takeaways:
- Berkman should have stuck around to get a for me counting #s
- Berkman didn't get credit for his postseason #s. Top 5 OPS for min 200 PA.
- On pure offense alone, Berkman has a strong argument for #1 in this group.
- We pick and choose when we care about defense [and steroids in Big Papi's case]. See Helton, Ortiz, and ever Jeter vs Berkman.
- Similar to Biggio, Beltre gets in on longevity. 115 wRC+ is not overly impressive. Defensive was a big plus too.
Berkman got hosed. He is one of the best switch hitters of all time.
For switch hitters, he is:
2nd in SLG
2nd in OBP
2nd in OPS
2nd in WRC+
2nd in WOBA
6th in HR (366)
10th in RBI
9th in runs
5th in BB
7th in XBH
And -- all this -- he was 17th in PA for switch hitters.
Chipper (468) and Beltran (435) have more HR -- but each had roughly 3000+ more PAs than Berkman.
For non SH -- his numbers overall were comparable to Edgar Martinez.
He had better WAR than HOFs Ralph Kiner, Jim Rice and Lou Brock.
For switch hitters, he is:
2nd in SLG
2nd in OBP
2nd in OPS
2nd in WRC+
2nd in WOBA
6th in HR (366)
10th in RBI
9th in runs
5th in BB
7th in XBH
And -- all this -- he was 17th in PA for switch hitters.
Chipper (468) and Beltran (435) have more HR -- but each had roughly 3000+ more PAs than Berkman.
For non SH -- his numbers overall were comparable to Edgar Martinez.
He had better WAR than HOFs Ralph Kiner, Jim Rice and Lou Brock.
Berkman got royally hosed
Lance Berkman is 31st all-time in OPS.
He's ahead of Willie Mays, Edgar Martinez, Vlad Guerrero, David Ortiz, Chipper Jones, Alex Rodriguez, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, Tris Speaker, Mike Piazza, Albert Pujols, Ken Griffey Jr, Mookie Betts, Miguel Cabrera.
The only active players ahead of him are Mike Trout, Aaron Judge, & Juan Soto. None of those guys have end-of-career slowdowns to weigh down his #s.
He's ahead of Willie Mays, Edgar Martinez, Vlad Guerrero, David Ortiz, Chipper Jones, Alex Rodriguez, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, Tris Speaker, Mike Piazza, Albert Pujols, Ken Griffey Jr, Mookie Betts, Miguel Cabrera.
The only active players ahead of him are Mike Trout, Aaron Judge, & Juan Soto. None of those guys have end-of-career slowdowns to weigh down his #s.
What's laughable about Fat Elvis isn't that he didn't make the HOF after 10 tries. It's that he was dropped from the ballot after 1 year for not meeting the minimum.
Michael Young got more votes than Berkman.
Let those facts sink in.
Michael Young got more votes than Berkman.
Let those facts sink in.
Absolutely. Absolute shame.Mathguy64 said:
What's laughable about Fat Elvis isn't that he didn't make the HOF after 10 tries. It's that he was dropped from the ballot after 1 year for not meeting the minimum.
Michael Young got more votes than Berkman.
Let those facts sink in.
Trying to be objective about Lance is tough - I knew him a bit in my first job out of A&M with Rice University during his monstrous 1997 campaign, but there are some factors at play that certainly damaged his cause.
The first is that he played just 32 and 73 games his last two seasons. So he retired with most people thinking he was already done. At the end of the 2011 season, he was at 358 home runs and 1,822 hits. Two years later when he wrapped it up, he was only up to 366 HR and 1,905 hits.
For a lot of voters, there are floors that if you don't reach them, you're not getting in unless you're a special case like a Kirby Puckett. 3,000 is the guaranteed hit threshold and so is 500 home runs. Berkman didn't get to 2,000 hits or 400 home runs. He batted .293 but everyone is looking for that number to be .300 to be a HOFer.
He didn't ever win an MVP or even finsih second; that's another bo that he can't check.
And by no fault of his own, he played with Biggio and Bagwell,and then also with Clemens and Petitte, so at no time before 2005 was he ever more than the 4th or 5th most well known player on his team.
His best years after they mostly left were 2006 and 2008, but the Astros didn't make the playoffs those years so that extra level of exposure on TV never came.
He was great for the Cards in the 2011 WS and had a really good year, but then injuries caused him to vanish.
None of those factors are very fair to judge him on but they a lot of optics that voters look at. If making the HOF was really important to him, he should have hung around another 3 seasons DHing somewhere to get over 400 HR and 2,000 hits. He retired 78 doubles shy of 500 as well, another important #.
If you have him play 3 more years, and give him 25 HR, 75 RBI, and 25 2B a year, his career #s go like this.
Home runs: Real 366 (85th); +3 years, 441 (44th)
RBI: 1,234 (143rd) +3 years 1,468 (60th)
Doubles: 422 (156th); +3 years 497 (70th)
Getting those three numbers into the top 75 ever probably would have gotten him over the top to at leaste stay on the ballot.
The first is that he played just 32 and 73 games his last two seasons. So he retired with most people thinking he was already done. At the end of the 2011 season, he was at 358 home runs and 1,822 hits. Two years later when he wrapped it up, he was only up to 366 HR and 1,905 hits.
For a lot of voters, there are floors that if you don't reach them, you're not getting in unless you're a special case like a Kirby Puckett. 3,000 is the guaranteed hit threshold and so is 500 home runs. Berkman didn't get to 2,000 hits or 400 home runs. He batted .293 but everyone is looking for that number to be .300 to be a HOFer.
He didn't ever win an MVP or even finsih second; that's another bo that he can't check.
And by no fault of his own, he played with Biggio and Bagwell,and then also with Clemens and Petitte, so at no time before 2005 was he ever more than the 4th or 5th most well known player on his team.
His best years after they mostly left were 2006 and 2008, but the Astros didn't make the playoffs those years so that extra level of exposure on TV never came.
He was great for the Cards in the 2011 WS and had a really good year, but then injuries caused him to vanish.
None of those factors are very fair to judge him on but they a lot of optics that voters look at. If making the HOF was really important to him, he should have hung around another 3 seasons DHing somewhere to get over 400 HR and 2,000 hits. He retired 78 doubles shy of 500 as well, another important #.
If you have him play 3 more years, and give him 25 HR, 75 RBI, and 25 2B a year, his career #s go like this.
Home runs: Real 366 (85th); +3 years, 441 (44th)
RBI: 1,234 (143rd) +3 years 1,468 (60th)
Doubles: 422 (156th); +3 years 497 (70th)
Getting those three numbers into the top 75 ever probably would have gotten him over the top to at leaste stay on the ballot.
All those words just to say "HOF voters are morons".The Porkchop Express said:
Trying to be objective about Lance is tough - I knew him a bit in my first job out of A&M with Rice University during his monstrous 1997 campaign, but there are some factors at play that certainly damaged his cause.
The first is that he played just 32 and 73 games his last two seasons. So he retired with most people thinking he was already done. At the end of the 2011 season, he was at 358 home runs and 1,822 hits. Two years later when he wrapped it up, he was only up to 366 HR and 1,905 hits.
For a lot of voters, there are floors that if you don't reach them, you're not getting in unless you're a special case like a Kirby Puckett. 3,000 is the guaranteed hit threshold and so is 500 home runs. Berkman didn't get to 2,000 hits or 400 home runs. He batted .293 but everyone is looking for that number to be .300 to be a HOFer.
He didn't ever win an MVP or even finsih second; that's another bo that he can't check.
And by no fault of his own, he played with Biggio and Bagwell,and then also with Clemens and Petitte, so at no time before 2005 was he ever more than the 4th or 5th most well known player on his team.
His best years after they mostly left were 2006 and 2008, but the Astros didn't make the playoffs those years so that extra level of exposure on TV never came.
He was great for the Cards in the 2011 WS and had a really good year, but then injuries caused him to vanish.
None of those factors are very fair to judge him on but they a lot of optics that voters look at. If making the HOF was really important to him, he should have hung around another 3 seasons DHing somewhere to get over 400 HR and 2,000 hits. He retired 78 doubles shy of 500 as well, another important #.
If you have him play 3 more years, and give him 25 HR, 75 RBI, and 25 2B a year, his career #s go like this.
Home runs: Real 366 (85th); +3 years, 441 (44th)
RBI: 1,234 (143rd) +3 years 1,468 (60th)
Doubles: 422 (156th); +3 years 497 (70th)
Getting those three numbers into the top 75 ever probably would have gotten him over the top to at leaste stay on the ballot.
Mathguy64 said:All those words just to say "HOF voters are morons".The Porkchop Express said:
Trying to be objective about Lance is tough - I knew him a bit in my first job out of A&M with Rice University during his monstrous 1997 campaign, but there are some factors at play that certainly damaged his cause.
The first is that he played just 32 and 73 games his last two seasons. So he retired with most people thinking he was already done. At the end of the 2011 season, he was at 358 home runs and 1,822 hits. Two years later when he wrapped it up, he was only up to 366 HR and 1,905 hits.
For a lot of voters, there are floors that if you don't reach them, you're not getting in unless you're a special case like a Kirby Puckett. 3,000 is the guaranteed hit threshold and so is 500 home runs. Berkman didn't get to 2,000 hits or 400 home runs. He batted .293 but everyone is looking for that number to be .300 to be a HOFer.
He didn't ever win an MVP or even finsih second; that's another bo that he can't check.
And by no fault of his own, he played with Biggio and Bagwell,and then also with Clemens and Petitte, so at no time before 2005 was he ever more than the 4th or 5th most well known player on his team.
His best years after they mostly left were 2006 and 2008, but the Astros didn't make the playoffs those years so that extra level of exposure on TV never came.
He was great for the Cards in the 2011 WS and had a really good year, but then injuries caused him to vanish.
None of those factors are very fair to judge him on but they a lot of optics that voters look at. If making the HOF was really important to him, he should have hung around another 3 seasons DHing somewhere to get over 400 HR and 2,000 hits. He retired 78 doubles shy of 500 as well, another important #.
If you have him play 3 more years, and give him 25 HR, 75 RBI, and 25 2B a year, his career #s go like this.
Home runs: Real 366 (85th); +3 years, 441 (44th)
RBI: 1,234 (143rd) +3 years 1,468 (60th)
Doubles: 422 (156th); +3 years 497 (70th)
Getting those three numbers into the top 75 ever probably would have gotten him over the top to at leaste stay on the ballot.
No. Some guys have standards of what the HoF means that differ from yours.
You can make a case Bergman was marginal for the HOF. I get it. His counting stats because of games played are low.
To get bounced for being below the min after one year was a joke.
He got 5 votes. 5.
In 2019 Michael Young got 9. Placido Polanco got 2 that year. So he's somewhere between Michael Young and Placido Polanco. Right.
In 2020 Jason Giambi got 6 and Paul Konerko got 10.
I'm sticking with "HOF voters are morons".
To get bounced for being below the min after one year was a joke.
He got 5 votes. 5.
In 2019 Michael Young got 9. Placido Polanco got 2 that year. So he's somewhere between Michael Young and Placido Polanco. Right.
In 2020 Jason Giambi got 6 and Paul Konerko got 10.
I'm sticking with "HOF voters are morons".
The Porkchop Express said:Mathguy64 said:All those words just to say "HOF voters are morons".The Porkchop Express said:
Trying to be objective about Lance is tough - I knew him a bit in my first job out of A&M with Rice University during his monstrous 1997 campaign, but there are some factors at play that certainly damaged his cause.
The first is that he played just 32 and 73 games his last two seasons. So he retired with most people thinking he was already done. At the end of the 2011 season, he was at 358 home runs and 1,822 hits. Two years later when he wrapped it up, he was only up to 366 HR and 1,905 hits.
For a lot of voters, there are floors that if you don't reach them, you're not getting in unless you're a special case like a Kirby Puckett. 3,000 is the guaranteed hit threshold and so is 500 home runs. Berkman didn't get to 2,000 hits or 400 home runs. He batted .293 but everyone is looking for that number to be .300 to be a HOFer.
He didn't ever win an MVP or even finsih second; that's another bo that he can't check.
And by no fault of his own, he played with Biggio and Bagwell,and then also with Clemens and Petitte, so at no time before 2005 was he ever more than the 4th or 5th most well known player on his team.
His best years after they mostly left were 2006 and 2008, but the Astros didn't make the playoffs those years so that extra level of exposure on TV never came.
He was great for the Cards in the 2011 WS and had a really good year, but then injuries caused him to vanish.
None of those factors are very fair to judge him on but they a lot of optics that voters look at. If making the HOF was really important to him, he should have hung around another 3 seasons DHing somewhere to get over 400 HR and 2,000 hits. He retired 78 doubles shy of 500 as well, another important #.
If you have him play 3 more years, and give him 25 HR, 75 RBI, and 25 2B a year, his career #s go like this.
Home runs: Real 366 (85th); +3 years, 441 (44th)
RBI: 1,234 (143rd) +3 years 1,468 (60th)
Doubles: 422 (156th); +3 years 497 (70th)
Getting those three numbers into the top 75 ever probably would have gotten him over the top to at leaste stay on the ballot.
No. Some guys have standards of what the HoF means that differ from yours.
I agree with this. And I am willing to bet large sums of money the majority of voters who have different standards for Berkman do not apply them to everyone else.
I'm not trying to get into an argument with you, but when you paint with such a broad brush it's hard to take your opinion seriously.Mathguy64 said:
You can make a case Bergman was marginal for the HOF. I get it. His counting stats because of games played are low.
To get bounced for being below the min after one year was a joke.
He got 5 votes. 5.
In 2019 Michael Young got 9. Placido Polanco got 2 that year. So he's somewhere between Michael Young and Placido Polanco. Right.
In 2020 Jason Giambi got 6 and Paul Konerko got 10.
I'm sticking with "HOF voters are morons".
Mathguy64 said:
You can make a case Bergman was marginal for the HOF. I get it. His counting stats because of games played are low.
To get bounced for being below the min after one year was a joke.
He got 5 votes. 5.
In 2019 Michael Young got 9. Placido Polanco got 2 that year. So he's somewhere between Michael Young and Placido Polanco. Right.
In 2020 Jason Giambi got 6 and Paul Konerko got 10.
I'm sticking with "HOF voters are morons".
Sean or Dave? Anyway, I don't think either Bergman is deserving of mlb hof
https://ts.la/eric59704
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/39230557/yoshinobu-yamamoto-opt-outs-tied-elbow-health
Interesting opt out structure in his deal
Interesting opt out structure in his deal
The Porkchop Express said:I'm not trying to get into an argument with you, but when you paint with such a broad brush it's hard to take your opinion seriously.Mathguy64 said:
You can make a case Bergman was marginal for the HOF. I get it. His counting stats because of games played are low.
To get bounced for being below the min after one year was a joke.
He got 5 votes. 5.
In 2019 Michael Young got 9. Placido Polanco got 2 that year. So he's somewhere between Michael Young and Placido Polanco. Right.
In 2020 Jason Giambi got 6 and Paul Konerko got 10.
I'm sticking with "HOF voters are morons".
There's no need to be snarky. We all have opinions, and they all have the same value- or lack of value- collectively.
Berkman is one of my all time favorites and was my childhood favorites. But he's not a hall of famer nor should he be. If he played 3 more healthy years then he'd probably have the numbers.
Less than 2,000 hits and less than 400 HR won't cut it when talking HOF.
Less than 2,000 hits and less than 400 HR won't cut it when talking HOF.
36 HOFers are under 2k Hits & 400 HR or about 22% of the non pitchers.
Farmer1906 said:
36 HOFers are under 2k Hits & 400 HR or about 22% of the non hitters.
Yes, but how many of them played after 1960?
Things against Lance.
He played 15 seasons, 2 of which were less than 40 games each and 1 more of roughly 80 games. So effectively he had 12 full seasons and his counting stats reflect that. Hits, HR, WAR, 2B. All of them. As a result he didn't hit big milestones of 2000 hits, 400 HR, WAR above 60, etc. If you are a counting stat voter that's a big negative.
Things for Lance.
His WAR7 was 39.2. As a comparison the average HOF LFer has a WAR7 of 41.6.
9 of his 10 main seasons his OPS was above .900. His OPS+ in those seasons was 130 or higher with 7 of those 140 or higher. His career OPS was .943 and his career OPS+ was 144. 6 times MVP top 10. All that in a steroid era where his body type screamed "I'm not doing steroids".
Those numbers compare with Edgar. They compare with Chipper. From a different era they compare with Santo.
If you want to say "didn't play long enough" fine. If you want to say "he didn't play any position well enough to be a field player" fine
But that's the argument.
His career was not long. But in that 10 year window he was as good as any HOF player. He was dismissed out of hand.
He played 15 seasons, 2 of which were less than 40 games each and 1 more of roughly 80 games. So effectively he had 12 full seasons and his counting stats reflect that. Hits, HR, WAR, 2B. All of them. As a result he didn't hit big milestones of 2000 hits, 400 HR, WAR above 60, etc. If you are a counting stat voter that's a big negative.
Things for Lance.
His WAR7 was 39.2. As a comparison the average HOF LFer has a WAR7 of 41.6.
9 of his 10 main seasons his OPS was above .900. His OPS+ in those seasons was 130 or higher with 7 of those 140 or higher. His career OPS was .943 and his career OPS+ was 144. 6 times MVP top 10. All that in a steroid era where his body type screamed "I'm not doing steroids".
Those numbers compare with Edgar. They compare with Chipper. From a different era they compare with Santo.
If you want to say "didn't play long enough" fine. If you want to say "he didn't play any position well enough to be a field player" fine
But that's the argument.
His career was not long. But in that 10 year window he was as good as any HOF player. He was dismissed out of hand.
Arguing about HOF candidacy is so funny. It's one of the most subjective things. 100% opinion based and there's no right or wrong answer since there's no clear definition of what defines a hall of famer.
If I was a voter, I don't think Lance would have made the cut for me. He was a fantastic player- just not a HOFer in my eyes. If you think he was, that's totally fine.
Scott Rolen also was not a HOFer to me. Obviously most voters disagreed- and that's fine.
I thought Omar Vizquel should have been a HOFer. I thought 11 gold gloves and a 24 year career playing primarily shortstop (arguably the hardest position in baseball) is spectacular. Most voters disagreed with me. That's okay too.
Why do I have Omar in and Rolen out? I don't know. Looking at numbers, it looks like I'm probably wrong about Rolen. Just shows how hard this whole thing is I guess.
Again, there's no clear definition of what defines a hall of fame baseball player. People will never agree across the board and that's what makes for fun discussions. But arguing about something so subjective is just dumb IMO.
If I was a voter, I don't think Lance would have made the cut for me. He was a fantastic player- just not a HOFer in my eyes. If you think he was, that's totally fine.
Scott Rolen also was not a HOFer to me. Obviously most voters disagreed- and that's fine.
I thought Omar Vizquel should have been a HOFer. I thought 11 gold gloves and a 24 year career playing primarily shortstop (arguably the hardest position in baseball) is spectacular. Most voters disagreed with me. That's okay too.
Why do I have Omar in and Rolen out? I don't know. Looking at numbers, it looks like I'm probably wrong about Rolen. Just shows how hard this whole thing is I guess.
Again, there's no clear definition of what defines a hall of fame baseball player. People will never agree across the board and that's what makes for fun discussions. But arguing about something so subjective is just dumb IMO.
I think most people arguing for Lance would have been fine with him not making it into the HOF. It really comes down to not even getting enough votes to stay on ballot for more than a year. If he would have fallen off a few years into it, then it would have just been that he was not a strong enough candidate.
Vizquel is a curious case. He is arguably one of the best defensive SS ever.
He was seemingly on track for the HOF, then he was accused of domestic violence by his ex wife, and then later accused of sexual harassment by an adult autistic bat boy when he was the manager of the Birmingham Barons.
His HOF votes have fallen off from about 50% after all that stuff came out in the last few years.
There is a new article about Vizquel in USA Today by Bob Nightengale: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2023/12/31/omar-vizquel-unwelcomed-sexual-harassment-lawsuit-hall-of-fame/72057157007/
Also -- I had no clue he lives in Richmond.
And -- I agree that Rolen should not be in the HOF.
As for Lance, I think he could and should be a HOF, but if he didn't get in -- I'd understand it. It was just a travesty that he was only on for one year. He deserved more consideration than that.
He was seemingly on track for the HOF, then he was accused of domestic violence by his ex wife, and then later accused of sexual harassment by an adult autistic bat boy when he was the manager of the Birmingham Barons.
His HOF votes have fallen off from about 50% after all that stuff came out in the last few years.
There is a new article about Vizquel in USA Today by Bob Nightengale: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2023/12/31/omar-vizquel-unwelcomed-sexual-harassment-lawsuit-hall-of-fame/72057157007/
Also -- I had no clue he lives in Richmond.
And -- I agree that Rolen should not be in the HOF.
As for Lance, I think he could and should be a HOF, but if he didn't get in -- I'd understand it. It was just a travesty that he was only on for one year. He deserved more consideration than that.
n_touch said:
I think most people arguing for Lance would have been fine with him not making it into the HOF. It really comes down to not even getting enough votes to stay on ballot for more than a year. If he would have fallen off a few years into it, then it would have just been that he was not a strong enough candidate.
I think this is the point several are missing or dismissing prematurely. Not sure if he is HOF worthy, but he deserved more than a courtesy glance. The point of staying on for several years, or more, is for the baseball community to argue the merits of a player's case. Is Berkman's position in baseball history so weak that it did not garner any consideration? I think that is the bigger issue.
Yeah, I wasn't thinking about the off the field stuff. That's a different conversation- but an interesting one.
At the time Lance was up, I was pretty on the fence. I was much more pro counting stats at the time. My evaluation has changed somewhat. I now prefer guys who truly excelled at something valuable for a regular prime, not guys who were good enough for long enough. Lance's offensive through his career, and especially from 01-08 was ridiculous.
01-08
5269 PA
150 wRC+
.980 OPS
44.4 WAR
Take the last 8 seasons of baseball. Who can match that?
Min 3000 PA
Trout - 173, 1.025, 46.6
Judge - 165, 0.982, 41.8
Soto - 154, 0.946, 28.4
Freeman - 149, 0.946, 43.5
Altuve - 144, 0.887, 40.4
That's a pretty elite group and only Freeman is close in PA. The top 3 aren't even close to 4000 PA.
I think all 5 of those guys are locks assuming no one falls off a cliff. Lance matched (topped?) the best of the best today and added another 4 strong seasons and 3 partial okay seasons.
A stat I wish would gain more popularity is RE24. It basically tell you how many runs you created above or below Avg. It give context to what you did instead of grading a solo HR in the 7th of a blowout vs a grand slam in the 11th down 3 as the same.
Lance is 555.13 in his career, 453.56 for the 01-08 prime. To put that into context, Berkman's career (shorter than most) is ahead of Tony Gwynn, Freddie Freeman, Larry Walker, Ken Griffey Jr, Eddie Murray, Fred McGriff, Edgar Martinez, Rafael Palmer, Tim Raines, Mike Piazza, Paul Goldschmidt, Dave Winfield, Vlad Guerrero, Paul Molitor, Derek Jeter, Craig Biggio, Joe Morgan, Rod Carew, Reggie Jackson, and I could keep going. 51 non PITCHERS are in the HOF since this stat started being tracked. Berkman would be ahead of all but 8 of them - Frank Thomas, Chipper, Baggy, Henderson, Thome, Schmidt, Ortiz, & Brett.
01-08
5269 PA
150 wRC+
.980 OPS
44.4 WAR
Take the last 8 seasons of baseball. Who can match that?
Min 3000 PA
Trout - 173, 1.025, 46.6
Judge - 165, 0.982, 41.8
Soto - 154, 0.946, 28.4
Freeman - 149, 0.946, 43.5
Altuve - 144, 0.887, 40.4
That's a pretty elite group and only Freeman is close in PA. The top 3 aren't even close to 4000 PA.
I think all 5 of those guys are locks assuming no one falls off a cliff. Lance matched (topped?) the best of the best today and added another 4 strong seasons and 3 partial okay seasons.
A stat I wish would gain more popularity is RE24. It basically tell you how many runs you created above or below Avg. It give context to what you did instead of grading a solo HR in the 7th of a blowout vs a grand slam in the 11th down 3 as the same.
Lance is 555.13 in his career, 453.56 for the 01-08 prime. To put that into context, Berkman's career (shorter than most) is ahead of Tony Gwynn, Freddie Freeman, Larry Walker, Ken Griffey Jr, Eddie Murray, Fred McGriff, Edgar Martinez, Rafael Palmer, Tim Raines, Mike Piazza, Paul Goldschmidt, Dave Winfield, Vlad Guerrero, Paul Molitor, Derek Jeter, Craig Biggio, Joe Morgan, Rod Carew, Reggie Jackson, and I could keep going. 51 non PITCHERS are in the HOF since this stat started being tracked. Berkman would be ahead of all but 8 of them - Frank Thomas, Chipper, Baggy, Henderson, Thome, Schmidt, Ortiz, & Brett.
You keep saying "non-hitters".
What do you mean by this?
Do you mean DHs? Because most of the guys you listed were 1st base / DH guys.
What do you mean by this?
Do you mean DHs? Because most of the guys you listed were 1st base / DH guys.
I'm glad I'm not the only one confused by that.AgLA06 said:
You keep saying "non-hitters".
What do you mean by this? Why would non hitters be compared to a guy who's best attribute was hitting?
Do you mean DHs? Because most of the guys you listed were 1st base / DH guys.
HAH... my bad. It should say nonpitchers. I take out pitcher's hitting stats.AgLA06 said:
You keep saying "non-hitters".
What do you mean by this? Why would non hitters be compared to a guy who's best attribute was hitting?
Do you mean DHs? Because most of the guys you listed were 1st base / DH guys.
It has been corrected.
I thought he was talking about Maldonado.AgLA06 said:
You keep saying "non-hitters".
What do you mean by this?
Cool. I was really confused the first time I read it. After the second time, I figured it was worth asking a potentially dumb question in front of the class.
The Porkchop Express said:I thought he was talking about Maldonado.AgLA06 said:
You keep saying "non-hitters".
What do you mean by this?
Featured Stories
See All
'High energy' key for Texas A&M in SEC/ACC tilt against Wake Forest
by Olin Buchanan
34:57
6h ago
3.6k
44:30
36m ago
373
Reed Report: Preparing for A&M vs. Wake with Antanas Kavaliauskas
by Luke Evangelist
71:21
1d ago
17k
65:46
22h ago
16k
Barnyard96
Another "never again" new Texas Aggies United member
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
108