Is Gary Sheffield a Hall of Famer?

Is this the same RickStain that argues that all the voo doo new age stats are the only way to judge someone's performance during a season/postseason?

 

Not the only way. Simply the most reliable one.

 

Read my post, read your '?" and read my answer. I was talking mainly about Allen and asked if Sheffield was in the same boat? Apparently, reading comprehension is on not of your strengths when compared to stats.

 

Unless you want to hide behind "I could make an argument" not meaning you are actually making the argument, which I guess I'd have to concede, you clearly implied that Sheffield "rarely did anything to help his teams win," which is patently ridiculous.

Gary Sheffield reached base more than 4,100 times in his career. He hit a little more than 1,000 extra base hits, including 509 home runs. He was also a member of six playoff teams and has a World Series ring to go with his .401 career OBP in the postseason.

If you want to argue that his attitudes or unwillingness to do the little things hurt his value to his teams, I can buy that.

If you want to argue that he shouldn't be a Hall of Famer, sure.

But if you want to say with a straight face that "rarely did anything to help his teams win" is anywhere in the same continent as the truth, then I think merely replying "?" was a kindness. Nobody can make that argument with a straight face and clear mind.

 

The person who compared Sheffield and Henderson is way off the mark. Henderson was the top base-stealer and almost certainly the greatest leadoff man of all time. And the infamous card game aside, he was known as a good clubhouse presence. Sheffield? Not among the best ever at anything, and not so hot as a teammate.

And to paraphrase Bill James, any system that says someone should be in the Hall of Fame based on "13th all-time in win probability added and 30th in adjusted batting wins" has issues.

 

For the record, I don't think anyone actually put forth that Sheffield should be in based on those stats.

WPA isn't generally taken seriously by anybody, stathead or not. And even besides the many flaws behind the stat, baseball-reference only calculates it from 1974 onward, so that's why he shows up so high on the list.

 

Ahem...

 

I read that as sarcasm, though I could be wrong.

 

You may be right (cue Billy Joel)

 

So much goes back to what a longtime seamhead told me when I was covering baseball. "If you have to think for more than a few seconds if a guy is a Hall of Famer, then he's not."

I think there are a few exceptions, but it works for Sheffield.

He's not.

 

Ok, well, since you made the good argument for him, I will make the argument then as to why he could be considered a guy who rarely did anything to help his team win. He has greats stats. HOF stats, but my question did the stats win games or help win game?. There is a difference and I think that is where you and I disagree.

My argument is that great stats are fun to look at, but not always help win a game. Example, what is the help of a seventh-inning home run when your team is winning 8-0? Yes, it helps, but it means little. Does a strikeout in the ninth lose a game? No, but it doesn't win it either. Does a strikeout in the fifth with two men on in a scoreless game lose it? No, but it doesn't help. My theory is (based on interviews and stats) is that Sheffield might have been the guy who did his own thing all the time regardless of situation.

Let's start with postseason. You bring up his .401 on base percentage. It is better than is regular season of .398. That is good. However, would it be fair to say that Sheffield was needed to drive in runs? His career slugging pct. is .514, but in the postseason it is .398. His OPS for his career is .907, but his post season is .799. Also he was absolutely terrible in the 02, 03, 05 and 06 playoffs.

Ok, so a lot of players (even big-name, sure-fire Hofers) struggle in the post season.

How about defense: He was a well below average third-baseman and shortstop when he came up, and morphed into a mediocre right fielder and eventually a poor right fielder. Again, yes, other Hofers were not great fielders. Some on this thread have stated he was lazy in the field more than anything, which does not help win games

Intangibles: Yes, we will differ on the meaning. And yes, I will state beforehand that MVP voting is flawed and subject, but I will throw this out there. His best statistical season (using OPS) was 1996. He led the league in OPS that year to boot. He finished sixth in the voting. That means despite being statistically the best offensive player in the NL, the voters found him lacking. What was the cause? I will surmise that the guys who interviewed him at home and on the road, found him lacking. Could not complying with the media be seen as not being a team player? Yes. Is that fair? No because he may have been a heck of a clubhouse guy, who took extra fielding practice, helped rookies and talked to his managers about ways to make the team better. Could not complying with the media show that he was a me-first dick, who didn't give a shit and only about his stats? Yes, and that is likely the case.

So basically, I agree Sheffield won games with his bat, but he also hurt his team repeatedly by poor defense and not playing well in the postseason.