01-07-2010, 03:48 PM | #51 | ||
Pro Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: In the thick of it.
|
McGwire gets F'ed in the A again. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't already 20+ "juicers" in the HOF already. This whole thing is completely backwards. I don't pay attention to anything but the games on the field anymore.
__________________
I'm still here. Don't touch my fucking bacon. |
||
01-07-2010, 04:54 PM | #52 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
My thoughts...
Dawson isn't a hall of famer...good player, nice guy, could have been more but the key words are could have been. Same goes for Mattingly. Edgar Martinez...how in the world do people think this guy is a hall-of-famer? He isn't even close. If all you're going to do is be a DH and not play the field you better put up some insane numbers and he doesn't have anything close. Alomar over Morgan? A lot closer than people think but I'd still take Morgan. Alomar put his numbers up in an era where steroids were rampant and I have no problem believing he used them. He was in Baltimore at the same time Palmeiro was and that spitting incident screams of Roid rage. The HOF has become a joke...these writers want to act as if they are moral leaders instead of writers who are judging the game's greatest players. Steroids happened, they need to get over it. That said, they need to adjust their thinking for that era unfortunately. It's sad that a guy like Fred McGriff, who I believe was clean most, if not all of his career as opposed to some others, is going to get shafted because he played with these guys. In a different time, McGriff would be a no-brainer. As for Dawson getting in, well...somebody needs to take a look at Dave Parker's stats and explain to me how in the world Dawson's numbers are better...especially 45% voting record better. Vada Pinson not getting in is extremely unfortunate now as well. I wonder how much tv the growth of TV exposure for baseball in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, plays into so many more of these guys getting in. Before, you saw a guy only when he rolled into town to play your home team. Now? Flip on a channel and see them. You learn to like more players and in the end, a lot of these guys get support. How much of Blyleven's support is because of the internet and all the info out there? 20 years ago, there would be no way he would be getting in but now we have all kinds of stuff to look at, discuss, etc. Times have changed and the HOF voting needs to as well. 1st vote -- I have no trouble accepting certain guys get in on the 1st ballot compared to others. 2nd vote -- if you don't make it, the next time you're up is in year 5. 3rd vote -- crucial moment in the year five vote. If you don't get at least 50% you're gone for good. If you get 50% but don't get in, you get one last chance in year 10. 4th vote -- if you still don't have it, then you don't get in...just the way it goes. |
01-07-2010, 05:44 PM | #53 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwest
|
ERIC KARROS HIT A HOMERUN IN HIS FIRST START OF HIS ROY SEASON! THAT'S CLUTCH! |
01-07-2010, 05:53 PM | #54 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwest
|
|
01-07-2010, 06:24 PM | #55 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
|
Quote:
A career OPS+ of 147 doesn't qualify as "insane"? That's 43rd on the all-time list (there are 292 players in the Hall of Fame, 230 of which are hitters). It'd be one thing to say he's a borderline candidate - his career wasn't as long as it could've been (though that's mostly the fault of inept Mariner's management in the '80's who didn't call him up when he was clearly ready and didn't give him a full-time job soon enough). And I get that people are biased against the DH, but a few points on that: - For everyone that says "a DH doesn't contribute anything on the field" - well, that's true, but they're also not costing their team anything by being a bad fielder - The DH is a legit position in the AL, so I don't think it's fair to disqualify someone simply for being primarily a DH - Edgar was clearly enough of a hitter that he would've played 1B for an NL team, and for the M's too if they didn't have other decent options, and he probably would've been OK - he was a pretty good 3B when he played the field earlier in his career - While the DH is kind of a specialty position, so is a RP, and a number of them have already been enshrined - why not the best DH? - Paul Molitor had a longer career than Edgar and thus more counting totals, but he wasn't as a hitter, and he likely wouldn't have gotten into the Hall had he not been able to extend his career by 8 years by playing DH |
|
01-07-2010, 06:29 PM | #56 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
|
I dont understand why it would even take 4 ballots. IMO you are either a HOF'er or you arent. I am guessing some voters didnt think he was first ballot worthy which is just silly to me.
Im not sure about all of you but I dont pay much attention to what ballot they were finally elected in and I certainly dont judge how I feel about a player according to what these clowns we call sportswriters think. Its kind of like these sportswriters think they are intelligent enough to decide for everyone how a player rates among the all time greats. |
01-07-2010, 06:31 PM | #57 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Alabama
|
Quote:
I don't think he gets in. I know that I would not vote for him. In terms of votes 31% in your first year is a big challenge to over come. we shall see over the next two years if he really becomes a legitamite candidate. |
|
01-07-2010, 06:37 PM | #58 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
|
Quote:
I change my feeling on Edgar quite often. He was one of the best right handed hitters to play the game in the past 50 years and he was as big of a threat in that loaded Mariner lineup as Griffey or ARod was. He was also as good as Kirby Puckett(HOF'er) as a hitter. I wish he would have played 2 more years than he was certain IMO. Voters tend to put too much stock in overall stats and not enough in peak years. I have used the DH argument to say maybe he wasnt deserving but you make some great points in response to that. Last edited by jbergey22 : 01-07-2010 at 07:28 PM. |
|
01-07-2010, 06:39 PM | #59 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
All rate stats in barely 7000 ABs. He played till he was 41 years old without playing defense the entire 2nd half of his career and he couldn't even manage 2500 hits or 400 homeruns? And this is a HOFer? Without the DH, his career is over in the mid 90s. Now you can argue he is the best pure DH of all time and I could buy that but there's no way he has HOF numbers. But if you're going to put in a pure DH, he better put up 500 homeruns without even blinking.
|
01-07-2010, 06:40 PM | #60 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Alabama
|
Even though I do disagree with the folks that the BBWAA put in the hall, they do get it right most of the time. I was not a big Jim Rice guy, but that might be cuz I a,m a NL boy. The Hawk was a borderline guy I think.
That being said, I believe there is absolutely no reason to cut the number of years eligible. I do wish that broadcasters were given at least some sort of role in the process. I am also looking forward to both Blyleven and Alomar getting in the Hall soon. Some of the names that had been brought up belong no where near the Hall as far as I am concerned... Parker and Murphy should not get in. I think Walker might have a case, but Ineed to look at his numbers. |
01-07-2010, 06:47 PM | #61 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
|
Quote:
So you dont count his 1400 walks?3 His career OBS+ is 147. His career batting average is 312. He had over 500 doubles and 300 homers. His 1995-2000 seasons were as good any 6 year span in recent history. Im not sure how you can argue with him as a hitter. Edgar Martinez Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com Because his career wasnt long doesnt make him a non-HOF'er IMO. If he had played 2 more seasons and hit .220 with 10 homers in 600 At Bats. Does he then become a Hall of Famer? Last edited by jbergey22 : 01-07-2010 at 06:51 PM. |
|
01-07-2010, 06:47 PM | #62 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Puyallup, WA
|
Quote:
Based on the shit I've heard from broadcasters over the years I want them as far away from any award/HoF voting as possible. I'll take the worst of the BWAA over the likes of Joe Morgan and Tim McCarver any day. |
|
01-07-2010, 06:50 PM | #63 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
Quote:
I don't argue with him as a hitter. I argue with him as a hall of famer. |
|
01-07-2010, 06:53 PM | #64 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
Edgar Martinez's top 10 similar players:
|
01-07-2010, 06:53 PM | #65 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
|
|
01-07-2010, 06:59 PM | #66 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
Quote:
The guy that gets in if Rice and Dawson get in is Parker. I really don't like Dawson in the HOF...I'm lukewarm on Rice. I think the scary trend is they let Rice in last year so now Dawson gets in. Now that Dawson gets in, someone like Dwight Evans or Harold Baines suddenly starts to say, wait a minute...I'm right there with this guy. There's a strong part of me that thinks that if you have to make a case or lookup a guy's stats then he isn't a hall of famer. Just throw his name out there...first thought...HOFer or not. I think you can make a lot of players HOFers who aren't and vice-versa. You can make a guy's stats say what you want them to say. |
|
01-07-2010, 07:04 PM | #67 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
One other question that is needing to be considered more and more...how long does a player's great period need to last? I think that has changed and is affecting how some guys get in. I think it used to be you really needed to be great for 12-15 seasons. (war years players excluded) Now, I think if you're great for 7-8 you're getting consideration.
|
01-07-2010, 07:15 PM | #68 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Puyallup, WA
|
Quote:
If the bar is set at 12-15 great seasons the HoF would have about 20 people in it. Probably less. |
|
01-07-2010, 07:21 PM | #69 | |||
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
01-07-2010, 07:26 PM | #70 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
|
Quote:
|
|
01-07-2010, 07:27 PM | #71 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
|
01-07-2010, 07:29 PM | #72 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
|
Also keep in mind that the M's didn't call him up until he was 24, and didn't hand him a full-time job until he was 27 - not because he wasn't worthy or ready, but because the M's at that time were idiots.
|
01-07-2010, 07:31 PM | #73 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
|
Quote:
|
|
01-07-2010, 07:31 PM | #74 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
|
|
01-07-2010, 07:36 PM | #75 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
|
01-07-2010, 07:42 PM | #76 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
Quote:
I said a part of me...I always end up looking at the guys...I've spent the last 15 minutes looking at Edgar to see if I'm missing something. His rate stats are outstanding and as you mentioned, his doubles and walks are what really help that. Great hitter but I just don't see him as a HOFer...as you said...my standards might be quite a bit higher than yours or others. |
|
01-07-2010, 07:50 PM | #77 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
|
Quote:
Man, dawg, anyone ever tell ya you need to get a sense of humor? Sheesh...
__________________
. . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready. |
|
01-07-2010, 08:04 PM | #78 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland
|
Quote:
Dwight Evans >> Harold Baines, IMO. Evans was a hell of a fielder, as opposed to a slug/DH. Evans is LONG gone from the ballot of course.
__________________
null |
|
01-07-2010, 08:39 PM | #79 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Puyallup, WA
|
|
01-07-2010, 11:00 PM | #80 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Quote:
You are missing quite a bit if you think Edgar Martinez was "A LOT" better than Dave Parker. You can make a reasonable argument that Martinez was better, but I think you can just as easily make the argument that Parker was a lot better when you consider his value as a rightfielder during his prime. Parker finished in the top 5 of the MVP voting five times and won it once (and was runner up once). Martinez only finished in the top 5 once (w/ one 3rd place finish). Parker had significantly more hits and RBI and more HRs. Parker was also on two World Series champions, won 3 gold gloves, and was a 7-time all-star, while Martinez never won a World Series (despite playing with 4 or 5 probable Hall of Famers, with all but Randy Johnson in the same lineup with him) and was also a 7-time all-star. Parker won 3 Silver Sluggers (even though it wasn't awarded until 1980 -- he likely would have won at least 3 more) as the best player at his position, while Martinez won "only" 5 over the course of his career. To me, that indicates that Martinez didn't exactly dominate the "position" of DH. Once you factor in Parker's ability to play right field pretty well (he was well known for his arm) and consider the eras that the two played in, I think you can make a reasonable case that Parker, at his peak, was better than Martinez at his peak (based on MVP voting) and, based on their career lengths and numbers, that Parker had better career milestone numbers. I'm not advocating that either should be in the Hall of Fame. I'm just saying that if we are considering guys like Rice, Dawson, or Edgar Martinez, then Dave Parker (along with Tim Raines and Dale Murphy) are equally, if not more, deserving. |
|
01-07-2010, 11:14 PM | #81 |
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: san jose CA
|
Some good stuff on Edgar Martinez in this article.
The Baseball Analysts: In Which a Baseball "Expert" Asserts Jack Morris Was Better Than Curt Schilling I think he clearly belongs and should eventually make it. |
01-07-2010, 11:43 PM | #82 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
|
Quote:
Come on Swaggs. You havent learned to not trust the voters in making smart decisions yet? They voted Palmeiro a gold glover despite playing 28 games at 1st base one year and 1 of them actually managed to find a way to give Miguel Cabrera a MVP vote this year despite getting in trouble the morning before their biggest series of the year. Edgar has a career OPS+ of 147 while Parkers is at 121. Parkers best 5 year span(prime) had OPS+ numbers of 149, 133, 145, 166, and 141 an average of 146.8 while Edgars best 5 year span(prime) had OPS+ numbers of 185, 166, 165, 158, and 152 for an average of 165.2. Edgar was clearly a lot better hitter. OPS+ takes league average(era) and ballparks into its figures. Now Parker did play defense but if you look at the links I just sent you in the fielding area/more stats and you look for rtot/yr(total fielding runs above average per 1250 innings) you will see that Parker actually cost the teams he was playing on an average of 1.4 runs per year by being a below average fielder. So because he was a below average fielder is that better than a DH that doesnt hurt the team defensively? Edgar Martinez Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com Dave Parker Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com Last edited by jbergey22 : 01-08-2010 at 01:05 AM. |
|
01-07-2010, 11:53 PM | #83 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
I'm torn on Dawson. Part of me says he's a real good player from that era but not a Hall of Famer. The other says that for parts of his career, he was an elite player. I think part of being a Hall of Famer is that at some point in your career, you had to be one of the top players at your position (if not the best). That's why I don't believe guys like Palmeiro even without the steroid issue belong in. There was never a time where you looked at Palmeiro and said he's one of the best in the league. With Dawson, there was a time. He did virtually everything well and a lot of his prime was stolen by the unforgiving turf up in Montreal.
I used to be of the belief that the Hall should be very picky. I've changed over the years. I don't think it should be like the NFL, but it should be more inclusive. If there is a strong debate over a player like Dawson, then the player should get the benefit of the doubt. I also think it's a travesty that Ron Santo isn't in the Hall of Fame. |
01-08-2010, 12:49 AM | #84 | |
High School Varsity
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Houston, TX
|
Quote:
Dawson falls into the same category as Jim Rice - players whose reputations have improved vastly with time. I don't think I'd ever consider Dawson an 'elite' player. Only 3 times was he in the top 10 in the NL in OPS+, and only once in the top 5 - that doesn't scream elite to me. Sure he had a lot of pop, and he had a great arm, and he stole 30 bases a year until his knees gave out, but it doesn't add up to elite. His MVP season was a complete sham ... explain to me how he was more valuable than Jack Clark in 1987 (or Dale Murphy or Eric Davis or Mike Schmidt for that matter)? Clark slugged 30 points higher and, oh by the way, bested Dawson by 130 points (!) in OBP. Clark's OPS+ was 176 against Dawson's 130. I want to cut the award voters some slack since this was the era when leading the league in HR & RBI was an automatic MVP, but when his resume is being examined for HoF credentials, that bogus award is always at the top of the list.
__________________
I failed Signature 101 class. Last edited by Hammer755 : 01-08-2010 at 12:57 AM. |
|
01-08-2010, 11:08 AM | #85 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
Yeah, but with a peak similarity score of 902, you're talking about guys who aren't all that similar. SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
01-08-2010, 11:27 AM | #86 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
Clark should have won the MVP that year but it was before OBP mattered to baseball guys. I still don't think it was a horrible pick as hitting 49 homers was a really rare feat. This was a time when 40 homers was a big deal. Clark also missed like 30 games that season. Dawson also did it with zero protection in that lineup. |
|
01-08-2010, 11:28 AM | #87 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Thought this was interesting about how bad some of the HOF voters are.
Presenting The Absolute Worst Hall Of Fame Voter - Bill Conlin - Deadspin |
01-08-2010, 12:13 PM | #88 | |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Quote:
Actually, Rice was considered Elite when he was playing. When you went to see the Red Sox in the late 70s and early 80s, you didn't go to see Dewey Evans, Fisk or Lynn. You went to see Jim Rice. In fact, he seemed like pretty much a shoe-in by 1982-1983 for the HOF. What was amazing was how fast he tailed off after 1984-1985. But since he's in, let's move on... As for some of the other guys mentioned: Edgar Martinzez - Good stats, bordering on great ones. But I don't think he's a HOFer. I think if he had played in the field, he'd have a better shot. If I'm not convinced Moises Alou (.303 BA, 2134 hits, 421 doubles, 106 steals and 332 HRs in 17 seasons) should get in, then I'm really not sure I'm convinced that a DH who puts up similar stats (.312 BA, 2247 hits, 514 doubles, 49 steals and 309 HRs in 18 seasons) should get in. Heck, the late 80s and early 90s were so juiced that a guy like Ellis Burks put up similar stats (.291, 2107, 402, 181, 352)...and Burks doesn't get anywhere near the HoF without a ticket. Alomar - In, next year. Keeping him out this year was punishment. Jack Morris - Out, barely. He was a great pitcher at times with an excellent postseason record and the longevity, but that 3.90 ERA and that he couldn't finish better than 3rd in Cy Young voting works against him. Tim Raines - It's a travesty that he's not in. A lead-off hitter that gets on base 38% of the time and steals a whopping 808 bases? Yea, that's a game-breaking player. Barry Larkin - He's got the longevity (19 years), but was he truly great? He has good stats (.295 hitter, 2340 hits, 441 doubles, 198 HRs, 379 steals, .371 OBP) and was good in the field. Alan Trammell in 20 years had (.285, 2365, 412, 185, 236, .352) and was probably better in the field. Both were comparable in the field. I'd say if you think Trammell deserves to be there, you have to vote Larkin in. Personally, I'd vote him him on the basis that he also made 12 All-Star games (Trammell made 6). Mark McGwire - The 'roids don't matter. He was never tested positive. I'm a Big Mac fan. I love the guy. But he's a career .263 hitter (in a hitters' era), was below average in the field and didn't steal bases. What he did offer up is 583 homers and a .394 OPB. He also helped save the game of baseball in the mid-90s and, like Jim Rice, was the guy you came to see in the ballpark. And it's on that basis that I'd probably vote for McGwire. That leads me to the most difficult case, Bert Byleven. In large part because he played 22 years, he has the stats. He's 5th all time in strikeouts. He's 9th all time in shutouts. 242 complete games. 287 wins. Yet for every positive, there's a negative. 250 losses. 135th all time in adjusted ERA. 8th in the most home runs given up. Here's what kills me about Byleven. He was never considered great in his own time. 2 All-Star games in 22 years. Never finished higher than 3rd in Cy Young voting and made the top 10 only 4 times in his career. That really says something. I understand how you can say a guy was under appreciated, but either Bert must be the most under appreciated player ever, or perhaps he just wasn't as good as his compiled stats suggest. He was good and pitched a shitload of innings. But was he ever great? His best season was at 22, where he went 20-17 with a 2.52 ERA and a whopping 9 shutouts. But when a guy is, on average, 13-11 with a 3.31 ERA, does that make him a HoFer? His best argument is that Robin Roberts, a guy with a very similar profile, got into the HoF. Personally, I'd leave Byleven out, but he'll make it next year. Last edited by Blackadar : 01-08-2010 at 12:15 PM. |
|
01-08-2010, 12:38 PM | #89 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwest
|
Quote:
|
|
01-08-2010, 12:41 PM | #90 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
I agree with just about everything you said there. When I look at Rice's decline, I also factor in that they weren't taking roids and other stuff like they do today. When your body went, it went. No drugs to keep you in your prime through your late 30's. For a few years in the late 70's, you could argue he was the best player in baseball.
I'd give Larkin the nod because it was in an era before you had SS hitting 30+ homers a year on a regular basis. You could make the case he was the best SS in baseball for about a 5-10 year stretch. Good in the field and stole some bases too. Bert is a real tough one. While people say that his longevity is why his numbers are good, it's also a case for why he should get in. If a guy can pitch at a high enough level for that long, that says something. But as you said, he was never considered a top pitcher in the game at any point in his career. He had some good years but 2 All-Star appearances in over 20 years isn't impressive. If he had a stretch in there where he was a perennial Cy Young candidate for 4-5 years, I'd give him the nod, but it just seemed to me like he was a really good pitcher for a really long time. |
01-08-2010, 01:20 PM | #91 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
He was never considered a top pitcher mostly because he played on craptastic teams, so never got the 20 win seasons. That's a ridiculous thing to hang your hat on as to whether a guy should be a HOFer.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
01-08-2010, 01:40 PM | #92 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
You can be considered a top pitcher on a bad team. Tom Seaver only pitched for a couple top flight teams in his career and was on some really bad ones too. I guess the issue to me is that if you were able to pick lets say 5 pitchers from any year, would Bert Blyleven consistently show up on that list? Was he regularly someone who was considered on a yearly basis to be one of the best pitchers in the league? His 2 all-star game appearances would seem to indicate he wasn't. The other problem I have with adding Bert is you have to add in others who had long careers like it. It should make Tommy John a lock for the Hall of Fame since they had nearly identical numbers. Guys who have similar statistics too outside of Wins-Losses would have to make it like David Cone who actually was considered a top pitcher for a few years. Was Blyleven a great pitcher or a really good one for a really long time? |
|
01-08-2010, 02:12 PM | #93 | |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Quote:
What, comparison to ones' peers is now a ridiculous thing to hang your hat on? It seems to me that's the first thing you should hang your hat on. It's how you judge players within their era. As RainMaker said, plenty of pitchers on bad teams have been acknowledged. Blyleven was either the most overlooked pitcher in history, or he was just an above-average pitcher who played a really long time. One of the interesting comparison with Blyleven is Warren Spahn. They both had a really crappy ERA+ (118), good enough for 135th of all time (with guys like Willie Hernandez and Alexandro Pena). Yet one is in the HOF and the other is not. The difference? Spahn made 17 All-Star games and won a Cy Young (top 3 five times). Blyleven barely sniffed a Cy Young and made 2 All-Star games. Yet Spahn played on teams that only made the post-season 3 times versus Byleven's teams making it 5 times (though it was harder for Spahn's teams to make it). How does that happen? It's because, compared to his peers, Spahn was deemed a great pitcher, even playing in the small market of Milwaukee. Blyleven was not deemed to be a great pitcher while playing. What makes him so good now? By the way, it's a myth that Blyleven played for bad teams. Blyleven played 22 seasons and his teams were actually pretty average. If my count is correct, his teams had 10 winning seasons, 10 losing seasons and 2 seasons at .500. So lets toss out the "good pitcher on bad teams" theory. I disagree that wins aren't important. Great players find a way to win and I'm firmly convinced of that. Wins aren't the end-all-be-all of any discussion, but they're not a throwaway statistic. Last edited by Blackadar : 01-08-2010 at 02:13 PM. |
|
01-08-2010, 02:13 PM | #94 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Let's see, Blyleven was in the Top 5 in ERA+ 7 times in his career. He was top 5 in K/BB 13 times in his career. As stated, his is 146th all time in ERA+. He is 50th all time in K/BB (and of course 5th in K's).
How does Tommy John compare? His 110 career ERA+ is 311th all time. He was only in the Top 5 in ERA+ twice. He was never in the Top 5 for K/BB. And he's 49th in career strikeouts. Seems a very silly comparison.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams Last edited by ISiddiqui : 01-08-2010 at 02:25 PM. |
01-08-2010, 02:25 PM | #95 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
This is a good blog posting too:
Sports: A Game Of Inches: Call Me Crazy, But Bert Blyleven Deserves To Be In The Hall Of Fame Quote:
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
01-08-2010, 02:29 PM | #96 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
In addition, there is a stat called "Wins Above Replacement", stands for the wins a player is responsible for above a replacement player (obviously).
Hall of Fame 2010 Ballot: The Book Blog and Fangraph readers decided… | FanGraphs Baseball Quote:
That's not a typo. Blylevens WAR is 90, which is 26 wins above Roberto Alomar.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
01-08-2010, 02:30 PM | #97 |
College Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Out of Grad School Hell :)
|
Just out of curiosity, would you guys put in Schilling?
|
01-08-2010, 02:50 PM | #98 |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
The main thrust of the article is that Blyleven was good for a long time. I don't think anyone is denying that. It's the same thing with the WAR stat (which I think is a very suspect statistic in the first place, especially when it suggests Blyleven was more valuable than someone like Steve Carlton). Everything is based on longevity and no one is denying that he played for a long time. It appears he was a good pitcher who played for a long time. Maybe that's enough for you. But I want a player to be great to be in the HoF. Where's any proof that he was ever a great pitcher, especially as compared to his peers? Last edited by Blackadar : 01-08-2010 at 02:51 PM. |
01-08-2010, 02:53 PM | #99 |
Dark Cloud
Join Date: Apr 2001
|
No wonder the economy sucks, all of the dudes who should've been economists are baseball eggheads who make up stats.
__________________
FBCB / FPB3 Mods |
01-08-2010, 02:57 PM | #100 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
I don't know anything about that stat, but I'd like to see where other starting pitchers fall on it other than Kevin Appier. Appier is a little too close to Dale Murphy and Andre Dawson there for me to put too much weight in a pitcher v. hitter comparison. Last edited by molson : 01-08-2010 at 03:00 PM. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|