 |
View Old Forum Thread
AceDevil
AVERAGE HOF BATTING NUMBERS
.295 avg, .493 slg, .858 ops, 362 SB, 400 HR, 2846 H, 1559 RBI, 1631 R
MAX BATTING NUMBERS:
.333 avg, .568 slg, .960 OPS, 787 SB, 2359 RBI, 651 HR, 3994 H, 2717 R
AVERAGE HOF PITCHING NUMBERS:
SP: 250 wins, 137 loss, 2568 Ks, 100 CG, 1.19 WHIP, 3.32 ERA, Win 46.07% of Gms Pitched
RP: 465 Svs, 768 Ks, 1.26 WHIP, 3.48 ERA, 53.7% of Gms Pitched Saved.
HOF PITCHING MAXIMUMS
351 Wins, 887 Saves, 1.01 WHIP, 2.19 ERA, 2 No Hitters, 64 Shutouts, 188 Complete Games, 4097 Ks
Hope this helps with voting and arguments in the future. Thanks again for making this a great league.
JFL Hall of Fame
June 18, 2009 at 03:49PM View BBCode
Since I have joined this league (which is great by the way) there seems to be a yearly debate about who makes the Hall, and why players from "your" teams deserve consideration. Decided to take 20 minutes and get some data from an excel spreadsheet about our HOF. Wanted to share with the group.AVERAGE HOF BATTING NUMBERS
.295 avg, .493 slg, .858 ops, 362 SB, 400 HR, 2846 H, 1559 RBI, 1631 R
MAX BATTING NUMBERS:
.333 avg, .568 slg, .960 OPS, 787 SB, 2359 RBI, 651 HR, 3994 H, 2717 R
AVERAGE HOF PITCHING NUMBERS:
SP: 250 wins, 137 loss, 2568 Ks, 100 CG, 1.19 WHIP, 3.32 ERA, Win 46.07% of Gms Pitched
RP: 465 Svs, 768 Ks, 1.26 WHIP, 3.48 ERA, 53.7% of Gms Pitched Saved.
HOF PITCHING MAXIMUMS
351 Wins, 887 Saves, 1.01 WHIP, 2.19 ERA, 2 No Hitters, 64 Shutouts, 188 Complete Games, 4097 Ks
Hope this helps with voting and arguments in the future. Thanks again for making this a great league.
AceDevil
June 18, 2009 at 03:53PM View BBCode
I guess I should add, that of the 5 players up for nomination this year, only Hinrichs is the only player close the the averages current Hall of Fame members.
earlofduke2
We have done an excellent job of ensuring that only the very best of the best make it to the HOF. I think that your average numbers bears testiment to that.
Still it is hard to not be a bit partial to "one of your guys".
I voted for Fothergill purely on a sentimental basis. Does he belong in the HOF? No! Had my vote made a potential difference in the final outcome I would not have voted for him.
Thanks agasin for the number crunching.
JIM
June 18, 2009 at 04:50PM View BBCode
Great stuff there. Thanks for the imput!We have done an excellent job of ensuring that only the very best of the best make it to the HOF. I think that your average numbers bears testiment to that.
Still it is hard to not be a bit partial to "one of your guys".
I voted for Fothergill purely on a sentimental basis. Does he belong in the HOF? No! Had my vote made a potential difference in the final outcome I would not have voted for him.
Thanks agasin for the number crunching.
JIM
spinelli1234
June 18, 2009 at 05:24PM View BBCode
that's great stuff... we should anchor that to the top of the league's message board
Creescalade
Thanks for running that!
June 18, 2009 at 08:52PM View BBCode
I agree as to the sticky at the top of the message board. I wonder how the averages of our league compare to the averages of the HOF in real baseball?Thanks for running that!
fredc73
Batting (I think these numbers may be skewed by hitting pitchers and inducted managers who didn't have stellar playing careers because these numbers are way too low):
6 All Star Games / 1322 runs / 1212 rbis / 2395 hits / 208 hr / 227 sb / .303 ba / .376 obp / .462 slg / .838 ops
Pitching (which is correct seeing as babe ruth is the only hitter whose numbers pitching are included but SP and RP numbers are combined):
4 asg / 251 W / 176 L / .588 W-L% / 2.95 era / 274 cg (really high because of the old-timers who had rubber arms) / 41 sho / 40 sv / 2030 so / 1.20 whip
June 18, 2009 at 10:44PM View BBCode
These numbers of the true HOF are thanks to baseball-reference.com:Batting (I think these numbers may be skewed by hitting pitchers and inducted managers who didn't have stellar playing careers because these numbers are way too low):
6 All Star Games / 1322 runs / 1212 rbis / 2395 hits / 208 hr / 227 sb / .303 ba / .376 obp / .462 slg / .838 ops
Pitching (which is correct seeing as babe ruth is the only hitter whose numbers pitching are included but SP and RP numbers are combined):
4 asg / 251 W / 176 L / .588 W-L% / 2.95 era / 274 cg (really high because of the old-timers who had rubber arms) / 41 sho / 40 sv / 2030 so / 1.20 whip
The_Old_Bear
Pre 1918 there were no great power hitters by modern standards and pitcher numbers were way better than anything that the modern era has produced. Complete games are almost lost currently but in 1900 a guy might have 30 or 40 CGs in a season easy.
Our early inductees numbers ... guys that retired with less than 10 years in the league also make our averages lower than they really are since say 1960.
If you pull the guys from 1950-1960 and just average the guys we have inducted from 1961 onward I think you would find for the most part we have had a very good standard for the HOF. IF anything it has been high vs low.
My thought would be that BA would be higher amongst the early guys and ERA would be lower. Overall totals would be lower as those guys just did not have they years to have the huge totals in the majors.
Thanks for the work this is a great league.
[Edited on 6-19-2009 by The_Old_Bear]
June 19, 2009 at 12:41PM View BBCode
You must also remember in the real HOF there are some significantly different eras which the Old-Timers committee takes into account when bringing guys from the past into the Hall.Pre 1918 there were no great power hitters by modern standards and pitcher numbers were way better than anything that the modern era has produced. Complete games are almost lost currently but in 1900 a guy might have 30 or 40 CGs in a season easy.
Our early inductees numbers ... guys that retired with less than 10 years in the league also make our averages lower than they really are since say 1960.
If you pull the guys from 1950-1960 and just average the guys we have inducted from 1961 onward I think you would find for the most part we have had a very good standard for the HOF. IF anything it has been high vs low.
My thought would be that BA would be higher amongst the early guys and ERA would be lower. Overall totals would be lower as those guys just did not have they years to have the huge totals in the majors.
Thanks for the work this is a great league.
[Edited on 6-19-2009 by The_Old_Bear]
AceDevil
Let me know if you'd like this updated periodically.
June 19, 2009 at 07:05PM View BBCode
I am touched that this was so well received. I will update it periodically to keep it up to date if the members would like. It is quick and easy with the spreadsheet I have set up combined with the table that our Hall Of Fame is in on the game.Let me know if you'd like this updated periodically.
Pages: 1