Interesting discussion on Facebook

[Joe the Panther Fan]

In what way? Does it have to be the most fantastical athleticism? Or what about if you're steady and pile up huge numbers over a long time and win championships, but aren't spectacular?

Every Hall of Fame has different definitions of what they are supposed to be looking for. Perhaps you could look them up and then get back to us.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Lloyd Waner has a lifetime BA of .316 when hitting .300 meant something.

In Waner's best season by batting average, 1930 (he only played 68 games that season so I am assuming he was hurt), the overall National League batting average was .303.

So yes, batting .300 meant something. That you were only slightly below average.

Context matters. It is much, much harder to hit .300 today that it was back then.

 

[BFo8]

Lloyd Waner has a lifetime BA of .316 when hitting .300 meant something. Consider Clemente's lifetime BA is .317. Four times Waner had more than 200 hits in a season. I'm sure the list of those players that had more than 200 hits in a season four times or more is a short and impressive one. Eleven seasons Waner hit .300 or better.

There is nothing very impressive about an outfielder averaging .316 in the jackrabbit ball era of the 20’s and 30’s, especially when considering Clemente compiled his .317 in the pitching friendly era of the 60’s and 70’s. It was not uncommon for whole team batting averages to be over .300 for a season in Waner’s time.

Waner is one of the few Hall of Famers with a sub 30 WAR and is one of the first mentioned anytime the least deserving members are discussed.

I’m not saying the guy wasn’t a good player, just that he has no business being in the Hall of Fame.

 

[CJsE]

Lloyd Waner has a lifetime BA of .316 when hitting .300 meant something. Consider Clemente's lifetime BA is .317. Four times Waner had more than 200 hits in a season. I'm sure the list of those players that had more than 200 hits in a season four times or more is a short and impressive one. Eleven seasons Waner hit .300 or better.

When hitting .300 meant something? My grandmother could have ripped those 74-mph meatballs through the gap.
In 1930 there were 76 players (on only 16 teams) that his .300+, last year there were 9 (out of 30 teams). There are people from that era with .330 BA that didn't make the HOF, because half the lineups would have made it (And many did thanks to the Veteran's Committee).

Bill Sweeney hit .295 in nearly 500 at bats in 1931 but got benched and sent down to the minors because the peanut vendor was hitting .317.

edit: It appears I stopped reading this thread a page too soon and now just feel like I'm piling on.

 

[cbpitt2]

There is nothing very impressive about an outfielder averaging .316 in the jackrabbit ball era of the 20’s and 30’s, especially when considering Clemente compiled his .317 in the pitching friendly era of the 60’s and 70’s. It was not uncommon for whole team batting averages to be over .300 for a season in Waner’s time.

Waner is one of the few Hall of Famers with a sub 30 WAR and is one of the first mentioned anytime the least deserving members are discussed.

I’m not saying the guy wasn’t a good player, just that he has no business being in the Hall of Fame.

Out of the more than 20,000 players that have played major league baseball, Lloyd Waner is 61st all-time in career batting average, but you dismiss it. Ok.

MLB Baseball Career Batting Leaders - Major League Baseball - ESPN

Look for your favorite MLB slugger in this impressive list of baseball's top 500 career batting leaders.

www.espn.com

 

[JS School]

Well, I would say Bill Mazeroski, but let's face it, him making the HOF didn't really make him all that famous in any event.

And you absolutely can recognize, honor and celebrate fame. But that is most certainly NOT what a sports Hall of Fame is supposed to be doing. If it was, Roger Maris, for example would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer. Hall of Fames are not supposed to be recognizing famous people, they are supposed to be recognizing the best performers. That many of them happen to be famous before they were given the honor is certainly true, and absolutely irrelevant to the honor.

The best performers are going to be at least somewhat famous to the fans. I just disagree that a Hall of Fame induction is what bestows fame upon someone. They already have it to some degree. In fact, Maz might have gained more fame for all the times he didn't make it and the debate about it. If a player's career stats are borderline Hall of Fame worthy, I have no problem with their fame being the deciding factor. Namath or Fred Couples for example.

 

[Pitt79]

Every Hall of Fame has different definitions of what they are supposed to be looking for. Perhaps you could look them up and then get back to us.

YOU DO IT! You're the one who made a vague statement. THEN YOU post the answer here.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

YOU DO IT! You're the one who made a vague statement. THEN YOU post the answer here.

The difference between you an I (or, well, at least one of the differences) is that I already know the answer. In your best SMF style, you have no idea what the answer is so you want someone to spoon feed it to you.

Of course even when someone does that, if it's not what you wanted to hear you don't believe it anyway.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Out of the more than 20,000 players that have played major league baseball, Lloyd Waner is 61st all-time in career batting average, but you dismiss it. Ok.

Once again, context matters.

Clemente's .317 isn't a wee little bit better than Waner's .316, it's better by leaps and bounds. Can you seriously not understand that?

 

[CJsE]

Out of the more than 20,000 players that have played major league baseball, Lloyd Waner is 61st all-time in career batting average, but you dismiss it. Ok.

MLB Baseball Career Batting Leaders - Major League Baseball - ESPN

Look for your favorite MLB slugger in this impressive list of baseball's top 500 career batting leaders.

www.espn.com

Oh, you like stats?

There are only 19 HOF Center Fielders, Lloyd Waner is one of them.

He is 89th among CF in WAR. with a career of 29.8 (The average HOF CF has a 71.7 WAR).
His 7-year Peak WAR is 23.7, good enough for 111th out of all CF (Average HOF CF Peak-7 is 44.7).
He has 27 career Home Runs (Average HOF CF has 242).
He has 596 RBIs (104th among CFs).
He has a -2.1 dWAR (351st among CFs).
He has a .747 OPS (187th among CFs).
His black ink total is 10 (Average HOF player has 27).
His Gray Ink is 71 (Average HOF player has 144).

 

[cbpitt2]

Once again, context matters.

Clemente's .317 isn't a wee little bit better than Waner's .316, it's better by leaps and bounds. Can you seriously not understand that?

When did I say it wasn't???? You're the one dissing a hall of famer with a lifetime .316 average that is 61st all-time. Pay attention. This discourse is over.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

When did I say it wasn't???? You're the one dissing a hall of famer with a lifetime .316 average that is 61st all-time. Pay attention. This discourse is over.

Of course it's over. It's been over for a while now. The rest of us are just humoring ourselves at your expense at this point.

 

[Pitt79]

The difference between you an I (or, well, at least one of the differences) is that I already know the answer. In your best SMF style, you have no idea what the answer is so you want someone to spoon feed it to you.

Of course even when someone does that, if it's not what you wanted to hear you don't believe it anyway.

You don't know the answer, you're just a stupid, arrogant, know it all blowhard that is clueless but still pounding your chest as if you got 800 on the SAT, but really didn't do that good.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You don't know the answer, you're just a stupid, arrogant, know it all blowhard that is clueless but still pounding your chest as if you got 800 on the SAT, but really didn't do that good.

If you only knew....