Why stats are not the whole picture.

[matfanofold]

Was talking to a friend today at work and it became apparent that stats were his whole basis for accomplishment in baseball. It reminded me of so many around here, I just wanted to share... Lets say a player played for 20+/- years and compiled carear stats akin to:

Hits: 2200+/-
RBI's: 1400+/-
HR's: 350 +/-
Runs: 1150+/-
SB: 50+/-
BA: 280+/-

Now, based on stats, how would you rank his carear? Good? Very Good? The best ever? Personally, I'd probablly say he had a real good carear, probablly a well known player but not HOF or anything...

Now, what if I added he was a he was a .270+/- post season hitter with a .990 Fielding percentage lifetime? Well, he had a very good glove but seemed to lack average in the post season, so my origonal opinion only grew a bit more favorable because of his defensive abilities.

Ok, so lets now add he has never really led any league in any statistical catagory and is best compared to the likes of Gary Carter, Ken Boyer, and Ron Santo. Thinking HOF fixture yet? Well you should!

As soon as I add the man won 4 MVP's, 10 world series rings and was a 18 time all-star, and played for the Yankees, the picture becomes clear. Yogi Berra, although had what I consider to be above average stats for a 20+/- year carear, is considered one of the greatest Yankee's and a HOF Legend. And was this because of his stats? No.

Put his stats and abilities on any other player, on any other team of his day, take away the WS rings, and it my opinion that on any other team the MVP's would go as well, and all you would have is a quality player no one would remember....

Is this opinion? I suppose, but it just goes to show there is more to greatness than stats. Context is everything! Happy prospecting!

 

[phillyfan0417]

Was talking to a friend today at work and it became apparent that stats were his whole basis for accomplishment in baseball. It reminded me of so many around here, I just wanted to share... Lets say a player played for 20+/- years and compiled carear stats akin to:

Hits: 2200+/-
RBI's: 1400+/-
HR's: 350 +/-
Runs: 1150+/-
SB: 50+/-
BA: 280+/-

Now, based on stats, how would you rank his carear? Good? Very Good? The best ever? Personally, I'd probablly say he had a real good carear, probablly a well known player but not HOF or anything...

Now, what if I added he was a he was a .270+/- post season hitter with a .990 Fielding percentage lifetime? Well, he had a very good glove but seemed to lack average in the post season, so my origonal opinion only grew a bit more favorable because of his defensive abilities.

Ok, so lets now add he has never really led any league in any statistical catagory and is best compared to the likes of Gary Carter, Ken Boyer, and Ron Santo. Thinking HOF fixture yet? Well you should!

As soon as I add the man won 4 MVP's, 10 world series rings and was a 18 time all-star, and played for the Yankees, the picture becomes clear. Yogi Berra, although had what I consider to be above average stats for a 20+/- year carear, is considered one of the greatest Yankee's and a HOF Legend. And was this because of his stats? No.

Put his stats and abilities on any other player, on any other team of his day, take away the WS rings, and it my opinion that on any other team the MVP's would go as well, and all you would have is a quality player no one would remember....

Is this opinion? I suppose, but it just goes to show there is more to greatness than stats. Context is everything! Happy prospecting!

Stats are almost everything, those stats put him among the greatest catchers of all time and certainly among the elite of his era.

 

[matfanofold]

Was talking to a friend today at work and it became apparent that stats were his whole basis for accomplishment in baseball. It reminded me of so many around here, I just wanted to share... Lets say a player played for 20+/- years and compiled carear stats akin to:

Hits: 2200+/-
RBI's: 1400+/-
HR's: 350 +/-
Runs: 1150+/-
SB: 50+/-
BA: 280+/-

Now, based on stats, how would you rank his carear? Good? Very Good? The best ever? Personally, I'd probablly say he had a real good carear, probablly a well known player but not HOF or anything...

Now, what if I added he was a he was a .270+/- post season hitter with a .990 Fielding percentage lifetime? Well, he had a very good glove but seemed to lack average in the post season, so my origonal opinion only grew a bit more favorable because of his defensive abilities.

Ok, so lets now add he has never really led any league in any statistical catagory and is best compared to the likes of Gary Carter, Ken Boyer, and Ron Santo. Thinking HOF fixture yet? Well you should!

As soon as I add the man won 4 MVP's, 10 world series rings and was a 18 time all-star, and played for the Yankees, the picture becomes clear. Yogi Berra, although had what I consider to be above average stats for a 20+/- year carear, is considered one of the greatest Yankee's and a HOF Legend. And was this because of his stats? No.

Put his stats and abilities on any other player, on any other team of his day, take away the WS rings, and it my opinion that on any other team the MVP's would go as well, and all you would have is a quality player no one would remember....

Is this opinion? I suppose, but it just goes to show there is more to greatness than stats. Context is everything! Happy prospecting!

Stats are almost everything, those stats put him among the greatest catchers of all time and certainly among the elite of his era.

Funny how opinions can differ, but the fact he was a catcher = context. The fact it was in that era = context, see my point? Thanks for trying to play though. Oh, and stats are only half the story, but I appreciate your opinion.

 

[phillyfan0417]

Was talking to a friend today at work and it became apparent that stats were his whole basis for accomplishment in baseball. It reminded me of so many around here, I just wanted to share... Lets say a player played for 20+/- years and compiled carear stats akin to:

Hits: 2200+/-
RBI's: 1400+/-
HR's: 350 +/-
Runs: 1150+/-
SB: 50+/-
BA: 280+/-

Now, based on stats, how would you rank his carear? Good? Very Good? The best ever? Personally, I'd probablly say he had a real good carear, probablly a well known player but not HOF or anything...

Now, what if I added he was a he was a .270+/- post season hitter with a .990 Fielding percentage lifetime? Well, he had a very good glove but seemed to lack average in the post season, so my origonal opinion only grew a bit more favorable because of his defensive abilities.

Ok, so lets now add he has never really led any league in any statistical catagory and is best compared to the likes of Gary Carter, Ken Boyer, and Ron Santo. Thinking HOF fixture yet? Well you should!

As soon as I add the man won 4 MVP's, 10 world series rings and was a 18 time all-star, and played for the Yankees, the picture becomes clear. Yogi Berra, although had what I consider to be above average stats for a 20+/- year carear, is considered one of the greatest Yankee's and a HOF Legend. And was this because of his stats? No.

Put his stats and abilities on any other player, on any other team of his day, take away the WS rings, and it my opinion that on any other team the MVP's would go as well, and all you would have is a quality player no one would remember....

Is this opinion? I suppose, but it just goes to show there is more to greatness than stats. Context is everything! Happy prospecting!

Stats are almost everything, those stats put him among the greatest catchers of all time and certainly among the elite of his era.

Funny how opinions can differ, but the fact he was a catcher = context. The fact it was in that era = context, see my point? Thanks for trying to play though. Oh, and stats are only half the story, but I appreciate your opinion.

Its not an opinion, anyone who buys into the "stats are only half the story" BS is living in the dark ages of talent analysis. Players are looked at in terms of numbers as well as the position they play. You dont have to throw in the other stuff, those numbers for a catcher make them a Hall Of famer, period. The rest is impressive but only adds to his credentials.

 

[markakis8]

which is why Mike Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez are locks and if by some miracle, Jason Kendall can get 500 more hits, he's in too.

Its not an opinion, anyone who buys into the "stats are only half the story" BS is living in the dark ages of talent analysis. Players are looked at in terms of numbers as well as the position they play. You dont have to throw in the other stuff, those numbers for a catcher make them a Hall Of famer, period. The rest is impressive but only adds to his credentials.

 

[UMich92]

Was talking to a friend today at work and it became apparent that stats were his whole basis for accomplishment in baseball. It reminded me of so many around here, I just wanted to share... Lets say a player played for 20+/- years and compiled carear stats akin to:

Hits: 2200+/-
RBI's: 1400+/-
HR's: 350 +/-
Runs: 1150+/-
SB: 50+/-
BA: 280+/-

Now, based on stats, how would you rank his carear? Good? Very Good? The best ever? Personally, I'd probablly say he had a real good carear, probablly a well known player but not HOF or anything...

Now, what if I added he was a he was a .270+/- post season hitter with a .990 Fielding percentage lifetime? Well, he had a very good glove but seemed to lack average in the post season, so my origonal opinion only grew a bit more favorable because of his defensive abilities.

Ok, so lets now add he has never really led any league in any statistical catagory and is best compared to the likes of Gary Carter, Ken Boyer, and Ron Santo. Thinking HOF fixture yet? Well you should!

As soon as I add the man won 4 MVP's, 10 world series rings and was a 18 time all-star, and played for the Yankees, the picture becomes clear. Yogi Berra, although had what I consider to be above average stats for a 20+/- year carear, is considered one of the greatest Yankee's and a HOF Legend. And was this because of his stats? No.

Put his stats and abilities on any other player, on any other team of his day, take away the WS rings, and it my opinion that on any other team the MVP's would go as well, and all you would have is a quality player no one would remember....

Is this opinion? I suppose, but it just goes to show there is more to greatness than stats. Context is everything! Happy prospecting!

Stats are almost everything, those stats put him among the greatest catchers of all time and certainly among the elite of his era.

Funny how opinions can differ, but the fact he was a catcher = context. The fact it was in that era = context, see my point? Thanks for trying to play though. Oh, and stats are only half the story, but I appreciate your opinion.

Exactly where I was going. Stats by themselves are only part of the story and are in need of context (position and era played).

Alex

 

[phillyfan0417]

Was talking to a friend today at work and it became apparent that stats were his whole basis for accomplishment in baseball. It reminded me of so many around here, I just wanted to share... Lets say a player played for 20+/- years and compiled carear stats akin to:

Hits: 2200+/-
RBI's: 1400+/-
HR's: 350 +/-
Runs: 1150+/-
SB: 50+/-
BA: 280+/-

Now, based on stats, how would you rank his carear? Good? Very Good? The best ever? Personally, I'd probablly say he had a real good carear, probablly a well known player but not HOF or anything...

Now, what if I added he was a he was a .270+/- post season hitter with a .990 Fielding percentage lifetime? Well, he had a very good glove but seemed to lack average in the post season, so my origonal opinion only grew a bit more favorable because of his defensive abilities.

Ok, so lets now add he has never really led any league in any statistical catagory and is best compared to the likes of Gary Carter, Ken Boyer, and Ron Santo. Thinking HOF fixture yet? Well you should!

As soon as I add the man won 4 MVP's, 10 world series rings and was a 18 time all-star, and played for the Yankees, the picture becomes clear. Yogi Berra, although had what I consider to be above average stats for a 20+/- year carear, is considered one of the greatest Yankee's and a HOF Legend. And was this because of his stats? No.

Put his stats and abilities on any other player, on any other team of his day, take away the WS rings, and it my opinion that on any other team the MVP's would go as well, and all you would have is a quality player no one would remember....

Is this opinion? I suppose, but it just goes to show there is more to greatness than stats. Context is everything! Happy prospecting!

Stats are almost everything, those stats put him among the greatest catchers of all time and certainly among the elite of his era.

Funny how opinions can differ, but the fact he was a catcher = context. The fact it was in that era = context, see my point? Thanks for trying to play though. Oh, and stats are only half the story, but I appreciate your opinion.

Exactly where I was going. Stats by themselves are only part of the story and are in need of context (position and era played).

Alex

Stats by themselves are the story. In order to look at them in the proper context you need to consider their position and to a far lesser extent, the era they played in.

 

[trademhigh]

Was talking to a friend today at work and it became apparent that stats were his whole basis for accomplishment in baseball. It reminded me of so many around here, I just wanted to share... Lets say a player played for 20+/- years and compiled carear stats akin to:

Hits: 2200+/-
RBI's: 1400+/-
HR's: 350 +/-
Runs: 1150+/-
SB: 50+/-
BA: 280+/-

Now, based on stats, how would you rank his carear? Good? Very Good? The best ever? Personally, I'd probablly say he had a real good carear, probablly a well known player but not HOF or anything...

Now, what if I added he was a he was a .270+/- post season hitter with a .990 Fielding percentage lifetime? Well, he had a very good glove but seemed to lack average in the post season, so my origonal opinion only grew a bit more favorable because of his defensive abilities.

Ok, so lets now add he has never really led any league in any statistical catagory and is best compared to the likes of Gary Carter, Ken Boyer, and Ron Santo. Thinking HOF fixture yet? Well you should!

As soon as I add the man won 4 MVP's, 10 world series rings and was a 18 time all-star, and played for the Yankees, the picture becomes clear. Yogi Berra, although had what I consider to be above average stats for a 20+/- year carear, is considered one of the greatest Yankee's and a HOF Legend. And was this because of his stats? No.

Put his stats and abilities on any other player, on any other team of his day, take away the WS rings, and it my opinion that on any other team the MVP's would go as well, and all you would have is a quality player no one would remember....

Is this opinion? I suppose, but it just goes to show there is more to greatness than stats. Context is everything! Happy prospecting!

Too bad he won 3 MVPs and not 4.

 

[matfanofold]

Was talking to a friend today at work and it became apparent that stats were his whole basis for accomplishment in baseball. It reminded me of so many around here, I just wanted to share... Lets say a player played for 20+/- years and compiled carear stats akin to:

Hits: 2200+/-
RBI's: 1400+/-
HR's: 350 +/-
Runs: 1150+/-
SB: 50+/-
BA: 280+/-

Now, based on stats, how would you rank his carear? Good? Very Good? The best ever? Personally, I'd probablly say he had a real good carear, probablly a well known player but not HOF or anything...

Now, what if I added he was a he was a .270+/- post season hitter with a .990 Fielding percentage lifetime? Well, he had a very good glove but seemed to lack average in the post season, so my origonal opinion only grew a bit more favorable because of his defensive abilities.

Ok, so lets now add he has never really led any league in any statistical catagory and is best compared to the likes of Gary Carter, Ken Boyer, and Ron Santo. Thinking HOF fixture yet? Well you should!

As soon as I add the man won 4 MVP's, 10 world series rings and was a 18 time all-star, and played for the Yankees, the picture becomes clear. Yogi Berra, although had what I consider to be above average stats for a 20+/- year carear, is considered one of the greatest Yankee's and a HOF Legend. And was this because of his stats? No.

Put his stats and abilities on any other player, on any other team of his day, take away the WS rings, and it my opinion that on any other team the MVP's would go as well, and all you would have is a quality player no one would remember....

Is this opinion? I suppose, but it just goes to show there is more to greatness than stats. Context is everything! Happy prospecting!

Stats are almost everything, those stats put him among the greatest catchers of all time and certainly among the elite of his era.

Funny how opinions can differ, but the fact he was a catcher = context. The fact it was in that era = context, see my point? Thanks for trying to play though. Oh, and stats are only half the story, but I appreciate your opinion.

Exactly where I was going. Stats by themselves are only part of the story and are in need of context (position and era played).

Alex

I'm happy someone gets it. I did not expect some here to, as you can see by said post(s). However, the FACT remains context is half the story. Obviously, this is not talent analysis because the carear is OVER. We have definitive stats, nothing to speculate or guess, no need to analyze or extrapulate. What we have is stats and context. Both go hand and hand at this point. Kudos to you for being perceptive enough to enjoy the truth!

 

[matfanofold]

Was talking to a friend today at work and it became apparent that stats were his whole basis for accomplishment in baseball. It reminded me of so many around here, I just wanted to share... Lets say a player played for 20+/- years and compiled carear stats akin to:

Hits: 2200+/-
RBI's: 1400+/-
HR's: 350 +/-
Runs: 1150+/-
SB: 50+/-
BA: 280+/-

Now, based on stats, how would you rank his carear? Good? Very Good? The best ever? Personally, I'd probablly say he had a real good carear, probablly a well known player but not HOF or anything...

Now, what if I added he was a he was a .270+/- post season hitter with a .990 Fielding percentage lifetime? Well, he had a very good glove but seemed to lack average in the post season, so my origonal opinion only grew a bit more favorable because of his defensive abilities.

Ok, so lets now add he has never really led any league in any statistical catagory and is best compared to the likes of Gary Carter, Ken Boyer, and Ron Santo. Thinking HOF fixture yet? Well you should!

As soon as I add the man won 4 MVP's, 10 world series rings and was a 18 time all-star, and played for the Yankees, the picture becomes clear. Yogi Berra, although had what I consider to be above average stats for a 20+/- year carear, is considered one of the greatest Yankee's and a HOF Legend. And was this because of his stats? No.

Put his stats and abilities on any other player, on any other team of his day, take away the WS rings, and it my opinion that on any other team the MVP's would go as well, and all you would have is a quality player no one would remember....

Is this opinion? I suppose, but it just goes to show there is more to greatness than stats. Context is everything! Happy prospecting!

Too bad he won 3 MVPs and not 4.

 

[matfanofold]

phillyfan0417, just out of interest, but why do you continually present your opinion as fact? Have you diluted yourself to the point you feel your opinion is fact? Weither stats, context, or stats and context equates the whole story, it's a matter of opinion, period! The way you are smearing this thread with your opinion and shoving it in as fact, only to be dismissed by thoes 'living in the dark ages' is insulting. I get it, I understand your opinion, could you please move on?

 

[pujolsjunkie]

phillyfan0417, just out of interest, but why do you continually present your opinion as fact? Have you diluted yourself to the point you feel your opinion is fact? Weither stats, context, or stats and context equates the whole story, it's a matter of opinion, period! The way you are smearing this thread with your opinion and shoving it in as fact, only to be dismissed by thoes 'living in the dark ages' is insulting. I get it, I understand your opinion, could you please move on?

Are you kidding man? You're doing the exact same thing two posts up.

 

[matfanofold]

phillyfan0417, just out of interest, but why do you continually present your opinion as fact? Have you diluted yourself to the point you feel your opinion is fact? Weither stats, context, or stats and context equates the whole story, it's a matter of opinion, period! The way you are smearing this thread with your opinion and shoving it in as fact, only to be dismissed by thoes 'living in the dark ages' is insulting. I get it, I understand your opinion, could you please move on?

Are you kidding man? You're doing the exact same thing two posts up.

Are you not reading properly? I presented my opinion, and would debate it as such, but no where do I present it as undebatable and insult thoes who disagree. There is a fine line there, can you see it? By the way, re read the last paragraph of my 1'st post and you will see it's presented as opinion.

I cant help but feel the fact remains that context holds water. To what degree is debatable, but to say it does not belong factually is absurd.

 

[pujolsjunkie]

I'm happy someone gets it. I did not expect some here to, as you can see by said post(s). However, the FACT remains context is half the story. Obviously, this is not talent analysis because the carear is OVER. We have definitive stats, nothing to speculate or guess, no need to analyze or extrapulate. What we have is stats and context. Both go hand and hand at this point. Kudos to you for being perceptive enough to enjoy the truth!

You are stressing that your opinion is fact and that the guy who agreed with you is enjoying the "truth." You're being equally closed-minded. And quite blatantly, I might add.

 

[matfanofold]

I'm happy someone gets it. I did not expect some here to, as you can see by said post(s). However, the FACT remains context is half the story. Obviously, this is not talent analysis because the carear is OVER. We have definitive stats, nothing to speculate or guess, no need to analyze or extrapulate. What we have is stats and context. Both go hand and hand at this point. Kudos to you for being perceptive enough to enjoy the truth!

You are stressing that your opinion is fact and that the guy who agreed with you is enjoying the "truth." You're being equally closed-minded. And quite blatantly, I might add.

Well, I guess you are right. After re-reading my post(s), I can see that. I am sorry for that. However, I feel it's fact that context + stats = whole story. And although I may be closed minded, I was not insulting, nor am I trying to force my opinion on anyone. I just put it out there.

 

[Sly]

Was talking to a friend today at work and it became apparent that stats were his whole basis for accomplishment in baseball. It reminded me of so many around here, I just wanted to share... Lets say a player played for 20+/- years and compiled carear stats akin to:

Hits: 2200+/-
RBI's: 1400+/-
HR's: 350 +/-
Runs: 1150+/-
SB: 50+/-
BA: 280+/-

Now, based on stats, how would you rank his carear? Good? Very Good? The best ever? Personally, I'd probablly say he had a real good carear, probablly a well known player but not HOF or anything...

Now, what if I added he was a he was a .270+/- post season hitter with a .990 Fielding percentage lifetime? Well, he had a very good glove but seemed to lack average in the post season, so my origonal opinion only grew a bit more favorable because of his defensive abilities.

Ok, so lets now add he has never really led any league in any statistical catagory and is best compared to the likes of Gary Carter, Ken Boyer, and Ron Santo. Thinking HOF fixture yet? Well you should!

As soon as I add the man won 4 MVP's, 10 world series rings and was a 18 time all-star, and played for the Yankees, the picture becomes clear. Yogi Berra, although had what I consider to be above average stats for a 20+/- year carear, is considered one of the greatest Yankee's and a HOF Legend. And was this because of his stats? No.

Put his stats and abilities on any other player, on any other team of his day, take away the WS rings, and it my opinion that on any other team the MVP's would go as well, and all you would have is a quality player no one would remember....

Is this opinion? I suppose, but it just goes to show there is more to greatness than stats. Context is everything! Happy prospecting!

You do realize that practically EVERYTHING you state in here are based on stats.

You mention post season average (a statistic). You mention fielding percentage (again a statistic).

You mention MVP's...you do know that MVP awards are practically based on statistics. All-star apperances are generally based on...statistics.

You then mention world championships...but I hate to say it, those do not make one a HOFer.

Scott Brosius has three World Series rings, but his stats do not make him a HOFer.

Allie Reynods was on six of those World Series teams with Berra, but he is not a HOFer, because his statistics do not stack up to others at his position.

The only non-statistic piece you mention that has any real bearing on this person is his position, and actually, you DON'T mention that early on. What makes this guy so great is because he was one of the greatest AT HIS POSITION, which is what makes one a HOFer.

Are stats everything? No, but they are 95%.