hall of fame, next vote...

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=halloffame/roundtable/041222

how do you rate the arguments contained herein?

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 23:29 (fourteen years ago) link

I don't think Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Lee Smith and Bert Blylevyn were Hall of Famers. Morris, Sandberg, Sutter and Goosage have much better arguments in their favor, but of the lot only Sandberg has to me to have really unimpeachable arguments (i.e. he was clearly the best 2nd basemen of his era and one of the best 2nd basemen ever.) Morris was a monster and at his best (which he was for a large part of 80s) he was one of the best pitchers in baseball, but his numbers aren't incredible and even though that shouldn't matter, it will. Sutter burned out too quick, only seven really great years even though when he was at his height he probably had more impact on any given game than maybe any of these guys. Gossage was around FOREVER and he was also amazing, but I'm not sure he was really as good as Fingers, Eck or Sutter and if he was as good how long he was. That hurts him a little, but really he should be in the hall. I think relievers belong in the Hall, BUT I think they really have to have great #s and either hang around forever at a really high level (like Fingers, Gossage and Riviera) or have had a really respectable career as a starter to boot (like Eckersley).

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 23:50 (fourteen years ago) link

For the record I am glad that Blyleven didn't win 300 games, because his "automatic" inclusion on that basis would be even more ridiculous than Sutton's. You get some points for longevity, but the hall really should be reserved for players who were at some point GREAT, not players who just managed to play pretty good for a long period of time.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 23:57 (fourteen years ago) link

Here is the link for anyone who hasn't read last years HOF thread.

Hall of Fame Ballot 2004

Bruce Sutter was the pitcher that brought back and popularized the split finger fastball, which considering how popular a pitch it has become in the past 25 years, it is something that he should get some credit.

"Boggs, for instance, is not a classic Hall of Famer, in my eyes, despite his 3,000 hits; he was a very, very good player, but not a dominant player."

Appearantly Buster forgets the mid 80s when Boggs career batting average was at .355 or so, he won 5 of 6 batting titles and his on base percentage was at a SABERMETRIC stoner high. He also won two of those batting titles by more than twenty points! After age 32, he only once hit over .330, but a bunch of players peak around that time in their career. Boggs average with runners on base and the bases loaded is also off the chart.

Oddly enough, I don't think Boggs was quite the same player after that whole scandal with Margo Adams broke. I think opposing teams quit putting chicken on the buffet when Boston was in town or something.

I think it would be interesting to know how many hits Boggs would have put up if he would have been brought up in 81, when he was 21 instead of 24. Boggs always claimed that he was just a good a hitter at 21, but since he played 1b was always behind Yaz in the depth chart and never got the chance to play in the bigs until he learned how to play 3b. He didn't get called up in 84 until they were wracked with injuries, then he hit over .400 for a month or so and stayed in the lineup from then on.

I grew up mostly watching NL baseball, but Boggs was one of my favorite players to follow and watch hit. Maybe not as fearful as some of the great power hitters of his day, but like Tony Gwynn, he was one of those hitters that seemed to dumbfound pitchers on how to get them out.

Earl Nash (earlnash), Thursday, 23 December 2004 01:02 (fourteen years ago) link

The Page 2 discussion was really good.

Earl OTM about Boggs, the guy was an offensive powerhouse.

It's the usual BS with guys like Sandberg -- 2B and 3B are underrepresented positions in the HoF because their offensive numbers aren't at the level of 1B or OF, they're not remembered for being "flashy" like SS, and they're not "on-the-field leaders" like C. Sandberg is a no-brainer.

Gossage should be in, I hear the arguments for Sutter that he wasn't great for as long as some other guys, but a) he was dominant for about the same length of time that Mo Rivera has been (and a lot of people consider him a future HoF player -- yeah, I know Mo's postseason performance is part of that, but still), and b) he INVENTED a pitch, which is a damned significant contribution to the game.

The Blyleven arguments boil down to the fact that he WAS great, but was pitching for bad teams. I think people are wising up to the idea that there are guys like Sutton who are in only because they pitched for good teams.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 01:29 (fourteen years ago) link

Rob Neyer's done some great columns on Blyleven, I don't have the time to look for them now ... maybe someone else has a link to them?

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 01:29 (fourteen years ago) link

Rivera's been dominant for longer than Sutter at this point (by two more years), MIR. And Rivera wouldn't even be mentioned as a future HOFer if it weren't for the postseason stuff.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 03:04 (fourteen years ago) link

The funny thing about Morris, as I recall, is that he always seemed to pitch just good enough to stay ahead. If his team had 7 runs he'd give up 6 and if his boys only managed 1 run he'd throw a shut-out. It was the weirdest thing.

Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 23 December 2004 03:07 (fourteen years ago) link

The 1984 Tigers never get much call when they talk about great all-time teams, that team didn't really have any "superstars" but they were really deep and talented team. I think Sparky Anderson platooned at about half of the positions. Lance Parrish, Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker all three also had really good careers and don't get quite the props that they deserve.

That season I remember seeing Jack Morris throw a no hitter on TV against the White Sox as it was the game of the week Saturday Afternoon on NBC. I can remember my dad was working in the garage and coming in every so often to check it out how the game was going, as he joked after the first inning or so wouldn't it be funny if he threw a no hitter.

Earl Nash (earlnash), Thursday, 23 December 2004 03:42 (fourteen years ago) link

>the hall really should be reserved for players who were at some point GREAT, not players who just managed to play pretty good for a long period of time.

But if that were the case, there'd be 80 or 90 members, except for what, 240 now?

By the established standard, Blyleven belongs. If you're "very good" for long enough (BB was in the top 10 in league Adjusted ERA 11 times from '71-89), that's worth 5-6 years of dominance (the peak vs career, Koufax vs Spahn argument). There was some research I read in the last year that showed Bert didn't suffer quite as much from his teammates' inadequacy as generally thought, but it wasn't enough for him to drop off my "ballot."

>The funny thing about Morris, as I recall, is that he always seemed to pitch just good enough to stay ahead.

"I know not seems..." I'll try to find a link for you, Thermo, but someone recently did a study of Morris's career in this regard, and it showed *no* special ability to pitch that way. He threw 1150 fewer innings than Blyleven and his career ERA was only 5% better than the league's (Bert 18%) -- that's not a negligible difference. Morris had a good career, but not a HOFer.

I'd vote for Gossage on greatness and longevity, Sutter on peak and pioneer role, close but unconvinced for Lee Smith. Rest of ballot: Boggs, Sandberg, and TRAMMELL, most deserving SS of that era below Ozzie. Dawson and Rice fall short.

It's sad that the Vets Committee process has obviously been fucked up to the point where they may never elect anyone, as I fear Ron Santo will die before his deserved induction.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 14:52 (fourteen years ago) link

I'll try to find a link for you, Thermo, but someone recently did a study of Morris's career in this regard, and it showed *no* special ability to pitch that way
Well even if that's true & it debunks my theory - it at least means someone else has noticed!

Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 23 December 2004 15:32 (fourteen years ago) link

"But if that were the case, there'd be 80 or 90 members, except for what, 240 now?"

I'm not sure that would be worst thing ever actually, but my problem with Blyleven is that during his time he was never really recognized as being one of the best in the game. He wasn't voted to All Star games, he didn't make Cy Young top 10s, he wasn't talked about as being a great pitcher. And I think that hurts him. NOW if the reason why none of those things occurred was that he toiled entirely in obscurity for shitty teams and if he'd been on the Dodgers, the Red Sox, the Yankees and the Reds for those years instead that there would be a complete about face and he'd be considered among the best pitchers of his era, well all I can say geez that's bad luck for Bert, but I think that's a hard argument to make conclusively.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 16:17 (fourteen years ago) link

That Bert was named to only 2 All-Star teams just shows how debased that is as a criterion.

MIR, here's a 4-year-old Neyer column on Blyleven... Alex, I think it's conclusive:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2000/1213/943398.html

And he later wrote:

"Blyleven was, over the course of his career, a better pitcher than Ted Lyons or Early Wynn or Bob Lemon or Red Ruffing or Rube Waddell or Red Faber or Catfish Hunter or Lefty Gomez, all of whom are in the Hall of Fame... It's not Blyleven's fault that he generally pitched for unspectacular teams that played in hitter's parks. In fact, Blyleven pitched for 22 seasons, and in only four of those 22 seasons did Blyleven's home ballpark favor the pitcher, statistically..."

And to appeal to the butch old-timers: 242 complete games!

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:41 (fourteen years ago) link

>he didn't make Cy Young top 10s

Four of 'em (third twice).

http://baseball-reference.com/b/blylebe01.shtml

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:47 (fourteen years ago) link

When you start out your argument claiming that Blyleven was a better pitcher than Sutton (who wasn't even close to a great pitcher and doesn't deserve to be in the Hall IMO) and Ryan (who was a complete statistical anomaly and does deserve to be in the Hall for that, but was also not a great pitcher) you've already undercut your case tremendously, Rob.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:58 (fourteen years ago) link

Here's the BP article about Jack Morris that attempts to determine where Morris had the ability to pitch to the score:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1815

It concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that he could.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:59 (fourteen years ago) link

to determine *whether* Morris had the ability to pitch to the score

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:59 (fourteen years ago) link

I'm not sure how many pitchers in history meet your def of "great," Alex -- let's deal with the Hall you have, rather than the one you wish to have -- but the argument he makes is that Blyleven was better than several HOF pitchers, and comparable to *many* others. And he was.

That's the article I meant, MIR, thanks.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:07 (fourteen years ago) link

Alex, to be fair to Neyer, he didn't bring Sutton and Ryan into the discussion. He was responding to the examples of Sutton and Ryan as mentioned in the reader's letter.

I think he's written a couple of other columns on Blyleven, maybe I can find them ...

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:13 (fourteen years ago) link

Thanks for the link.

Those are some mind-numbing stats!

Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:14 (fourteen years ago) link

Michael Wolverton makes the case for Blyleven:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2002/0728/1411078.html

This, and many other articles stating his HoF case are collected -- where else? -- on Blyleven's web page:

http://www.bertblyleven.com/hall_of_fame.shtml

xpost -- yeah, the Morris article is a bit of a numbers slog, but it's well done.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:21 (fourteen years ago) link

"I'm not sure how many pitchers in history meet your def of "great," Alex"

Enough, believe me. And I saw him compare him to two HOF pitchers, one of whom is IMO a mistake and the other who is basically in the Hall because he had a zillion strikeouts and a slew of no hitters. Compare him to Carlton or Seaver or Hunter or any of the really great pitchers from his era, if you want to make your point (that this guy is getting job) don't just claim he was "better than Don Sutton" cuz my response to that is so the fuck what.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:38 (fourteen years ago) link

getting jobbed, ahem.

That second ESPN article is much better btw and makes a pretty good case.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:40 (fourteen years ago) link

Catfish "really great"? Come now... talk about a guy who lucked out. Look at Hunter vs Blyleven (or Sutton, for that matter) and tell me how Hunter's better.

No, Bert is not Seaver or Carlton.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 December 2004 18:58 (fourteen years ago) link

Bert's website is great btw. He should get in just for having that.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 19:04 (fourteen years ago) link

Well I didn't see Hunter, but the perenial All Star games, the Cy Young, the top 4 in Cy Young voting four times, the fact that he supposedly one of the most respected pitchers of his era, the postseason accolades, the biggest free agent coup ever for his time and the very impressive statistics kinda indicated to me that he might have been good. Obv you know better though.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 19:48 (fourteen years ago) link

All that stuff about Hunter is true, and of course that's why he got in. Looking deeper into the numbers though ... he pitched in extreme pitchers parks for his entire career, played for great teams, and generally didn't have great ERA's (he was in the top 3 three times, but never in the top 10 otherwise). He threw a lot of innings, but was overworked at a young age which is why he was washed up at 30, which is hella young for a HoF'er.

He played for fifteen years, and he had about four great years, four good years, and the rest were downright BAD. If he'd pitched for anyone other than the 70's A's and Yankees dynasties, there's no way he'd be anywhere near a serious HoF discussion.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 20:51 (fourteen years ago) link

"He threw a lot of innings, but was overworked at a young age which is why he was washed up at 30, which is hella young for a HoF'er."

See this is where I get the impression that cold-dispassionate analysis of the stats lies a little. For 5 years (71-75), Hunter was probably hands down the most feared pitcher in baseball. No he might not have been Koufax, but he was still by all accounts pretty amazing. Those five years count for more to me than 20 some odd years of just pretty good workmanlike pitching (I will admit that these breakdowns of Blyleven's stats are making a pretty case that he was better than that.) (I do have to wonder WHY if Bert was so great, he um didn't get snatched up by better teams? I mean that can't all be bad luck, right?)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 21:23 (fourteen years ago) link

Burt Blyleven:

Postseason Pitching


Year Round Tm Opp WLser G GS ERA W-L SV CG SHO IP H ER BB SO
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
1970 ALCS MIN BAL L 1 0 0.00 0-0 0 0 0 2.0 2 0 0 2
1979 NLCS PIT CIN W 1 1 1.00 1-0 0 1 0 9.0 8 1 0 9
WS PIT BAL W 2 1 1.80 1-0 0 0 0 10.0 8 2 3 4
1987 ALCS MIN DET W 2 2 4.05 2-0 0 0 0 13.3 12 6 3 9
WS MIN STL W 2 2 2.77 1-1 0 0 0 13.0 13 4 2 12
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
3 Lg Champ Series 2-1 4 3 2.59 3-0 0 1 0 24.3 22 7 3 20
2 World Series 2-0 4 3 2.35 2-1 0 0 0 23.0 21 6 5 16
5 Postseason Ser 4-1 8 6 2.47 5-1 0 1 0 47.3 43 13 8 36
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+

He didn't get many chances, but Blyleven pitched well in the playoffs and was a part of two World Series Champions.

Earl Nash (earlnash), Thursday, 23 December 2004 21:37 (fourteen years ago) link

I seem to remember Bert looking pretty good in the series with the Cardinals (aka the original You Don't Win If You Don't Play At Home series.)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 21:48 (fourteen years ago) link

I do have to wonder WHY if Bert was so great, he um didn't get snatched up by better teams?

Many of his best years came before free agency, so he didn't have much choice in the matter.

Even with free agency, it's only during the last ten years or so that all the best players end up on big-market winning teams at some point, since eventually those are the only teams that can afford them. If Jaret Wright can bounce around for a while, have one good season after a slew of crappy ones, and end up with a multi-year deal from a perennial contender, then Blyleven would have ended up playing for more winning teams too, if he was playing today.

Even so, every era has a few great players who toil away in relative obscurity. Look at Bobby Abreu, or even Carlos Delgado. If Delgado goes to the Mets, maybe in 20 years people will be saying "if he was so good, why did his teams always finish in third place?"

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 23 December 2004 22:54 (fourteen years ago) link

Nobody says that about hitters (as their stats aren't at all dependent on their team being good.) They just look at the stats and marvel that nobody noticed at the time.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 23 December 2004 23:22 (fourteen years ago) link

I have no idea why previous subjective honors (Cy Youngs, All-Star selections) would be used as criteria for another subjective honor.

Alex, nobody's saying Hunter wasn't GOOD, just that Blyleven was better for MUCH longer, and that "good press" shouldn't be a measure of excellence. And I don't see Hunter '71-75 being "amazing" ... His most "impressive statistics" are wins (ie, having good teammates) and innings pitched (which blew out his arm, as MIR says). I think he got extra credit for the pennants and the sexy nicknames. And it's cute how you use high Cy Young finishes as relevant to Hunter, not relevant for Blyleven. (Also, I don't see Hunter's status as the first Big Splash free agent being relevant; see Marvin Miller's book for how clownishly Catfish handled that situation.)

The "cold-dispassionate analysis of the stats" is the most reliable evidence there is. Not "what you heard" (from Joe Morgan?). And it isn't so much that Blyleven toiled for bad teams (they were more often mediocre), but pitched in hitters' parks.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 26 December 2004 03:58 (fourteen years ago) link

Speaking of Marvin Miller, what are the odds of him getting in this year (the nu-Vets Committee votes this year, right?).

I hope it happens soon so that he lives to attend his own induction.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 26 December 2004 08:04 (fourteen years ago) link

blah blah blah. my opinon is better than your opinion and i have proof! blah blah blah.


otto midnight (otto midnight), Monday, 27 December 2004 07:32 (fourteen years ago) link


I generally agree, OM. HOF debates generally bore me, especially when one side is "he was MONEY" or "folks sure wrote boilerplate hosannas about him in the '70s."

It's not lookin' good for Marv, MIR -- when the Vets voted last in '03, no one came close to getting 75% ... and of the 60 votes required for election, Miller got 35. He got three FEWER votes than Walter O'Malley -- or as we call him in Brooklyn, Satan.

Miller and other non-players are on the "composite" ballot. Here's this year's players' ballot:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/2005/2005_vc_candidates.htm


The only one I'm sold on is Santo, but Dick Allen and Tony Oliva have decent cases -- as does Curt Flood for courage and legal pioneering.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 14:28 (fourteen years ago) link

Rocky Colavito was a bit like Jim Rice, he hit like he was going to the Hall until he hit his early 30s, then it was over. I have a dog eared card of his when he played in Cleveland.

Mickey Lolich won't get in the Hall, but his pitching in the 68 World Series may be the best performance ever in the fall classic by a starter. The guy out pitched Bob Gibson in Game Seven on TWO days rest. ESPN Classic was showed that game a few months back and it was great. Harry Caray was doing the play by play.

While I don't know if he is good enough player to make the hall, Al Oliver had a pretty good career and never gets put on these kind of lists.

Earl Nash (earlnash), Monday, 27 December 2004 16:38 (fourteen years ago) link

I don't think it looks good for anybody to get voted in by the nu-Vets committee anytime soon ... as Morbs said, nobody came close to getting 75% last time. If they go through two or three voting years with nobody getting elected, they'll probably change the rules.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:12 (fourteen years ago) link

Al Oliver was just "pretty good," ie a hitter not any more suitable for enshrinement than Rusty Staub or Vada Pinson. (His top BaseballRef comparables are Steve Garvey and Bill Buckner -- same story.)

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:29 (fourteen years ago) link

Just out of curiousity how old are you Dr Morbius?

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:43 (fourteen years ago) link

Exactly 5 years younger than Jesse Orosco!

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 17:55 (fourteen years ago) link

(I suspected as much.) Anyway, I was talking with my family about Blyleven this weekend and apparently he had a reputation of not being particularly well-liked and kind of an odd duck to boot (although I'm guessing that being Dutch was probably considered totally bizarre enough for a lot of people.)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:05 (fourteen years ago) link

Al Oliver didn't walk much

Riot Gear! (Gear!), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:22 (fourteen years ago) link

I hear that a few people didn't like Ty Cobb either.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:27 (fourteen years ago) link

Yes well luckily for Cobb he was a couple of generations removed from the people who were voting on his HOF induction so his jerkiness was more anecdotal than personal.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 18:38 (fourteen years ago) link


Cobb's last season: 1928
Inducted into HOF: 1936

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:15 (fourteen years ago) link

Cobb retired in 1928 and was elected in 1936. So many of the voters would have seen him play.

My general point is that "b...b...but he was a bit of an asshole" is a criticism that's used far too often despite being irrelevant most of the time. As long as the guy didn't compromise the game of baseball (Pete Rose being the most obvious example) then I couldn't care less if he was moody and didn't get along with everybody. If he could bring it on the field, then that's the most important thing.

(xpost)

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:16 (fourteen years ago) link

It wasn't a criticism. I was just pointing out that it might be a reason why he'd been snubbed (that and of course that people are overly fixated on 300 wins, which is also not a very fair reason.) Of course, people who can't read for shit might have trouble distinguishing the two.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:21 (fourteen years ago) link

"Cobb's last season: 1928
Inducted into HOF: 1936"

Haha I need to learn to check baseballreference.com before I say stuff sometimes.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:23 (fourteen years ago) link

And I didn't say that YOU specifically were the one doing the criticising. I was saying that anyone who would withhold a HoF vote in part because they felt that player needed an attitude adjustment are themselves in need of an attitude adjustment.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 27 December 2004 19:33 (fourteen years ago) link

I was thinking Lance Parrish might be a good analog for McCann. The list on Baseball Reference looks about right.

Brian McCann Similar Batters

Jorge Posada (894.9)
Lance Parrish (891.0)
Bill Freehan (879.3)
Javy Lopez (868.9)
Benito Santiago (860.5)
Jason Varitek (847.9)
Russell Martin (839.7)
Ernie Lombardi (831.1) *
Darrell Porter (830.2)
Sherm Lollar (827.8)

earlnash, Tuesday, 15 October 2019 23:19 (one week ago) link

and fwiw, we know that the clubs have more advanced data than is publicly available, and good framing catchers do not seem especially valued in the market -- at least not enough to pay a premium for it

― mookieproof, Tuesday, October 15, 2019 4:08 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

There is two things I want to mention: 1, I think we nerds ignore how much salaries are determined by marketability rather than advanced metrics. 2, undervaluing by ownership might just be more sinister than discussions about skill evaluations.

Absolutely agree that it is getting frustrating WAR allows for less and less catchers across different eras/ballparks/offensive factors etc.

Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:21 (one week ago) link

As for '67-68 Cardinals' "mystique"... the reason they dominated MVP voting is that the BBWAA seemed even lazier when there was a 10-team single pennant race. ie 1) pennant winner 2) basic counting stats 3) "intangibles" that could be made up on the spot. Ballot done.

While they were one of the more integrated teams to win at that point, I find the '50s Dodgers and '70s Pirates more compelling on that score.

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:43 (one week ago) link

Salaries are also determined by star power (sells merch/seats) which is why teams tend to overpay for over-the-hill talent.

I'll keep saying it until you guys ban me: defensive WAR is fool's gold. It pains me how much the BBWAA have relied/will rely on such a flawed metric for end of year (and HOF!) votes.

Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:49 (one week ago) link

speaking of banning, who are the ILB mod(s)? just the dearly departed steve shasta?

mookieproof, Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:54 (one week ago) link

I'll keep saying it until you guys ban me: defensive WAR is fool's gold. It pains me how much the BBWAA have relied/will rely on such a flawed metric for end of year (and HOF!) votes.

― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 11:49 AM (nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Do you mean that we will never figure out good metrics for defensive evaluation or that right now those evaluations are inadequate?

Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 16 October 2019 15:59 (one week ago) link

i don't think defensive WAR is a bedrock stat for the writers; it is a factor among many in which they judge a player's defense

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 16 October 2019 16:15 (one week ago) link

That McCann/Pujols '08 fWAR thing above is...

timellison, Wednesday, 16 October 2019 22:43 (one week ago) link

I don’t really trust any of the defensive catching metrics

k3vin k., Wednesday, 16 October 2019 22:55 (one week ago) link

shouting at guys who jog to first on pop-ups counts as an extra out, which fWAR accounts for.

omar little, Wednesday, 16 October 2019 23:14 (one week ago) link

The '64-'68 Cardinals had mystique--deserved or otherwise, that's just a fact. I was aware of that as a young fan in the early '70s, having read Roger Angell's accounts of the three World Series they were in. The Dodgers of the '50s had more, sure--tied in with a certain book--but the Cardinals had their own.

http://media1.fdncms.com/riverfronttimes/imager/u/blog/2573864/si_comparison_covers.jpg?cb=1454773020

clemenza, Thursday, 17 October 2019 00:38 (six days ago) link

so, cc sabathia

It is my great honor to post on this messageboard! (Karl Malone), Friday, 18 October 2019 04:30 (five days ago) link

Epic career, but no. He had a Cy Young and made it to 3,000 Ks - best thing he had going for him was spending 10 years on the Yankees. Got him a lot of wins and post season games. But he never dominated or lead in much else aside from just pitching a lot. If he’d spent the last 10 years on the Twins, I don’t think he would be getting the same hof attention.

FRAUDULENT STEAKS (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 18 October 2019 04:50 (five days ago) link

One man's "mystique" is another's "lotta press."

CC fairly close to Don Sutton's BWAR, while pitching a third less innings.

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 18 October 2019 10:06 (five days ago) link

close comp to Drysdale too

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 18 October 2019 11:47 (five days ago) link

Are you saying the Cardinals didn't have it or that it doesn't exist at all? A lot of press could just as easily explain Babe Ruth or Michael Jordan.

Obviously, Sutton's in for the 300 wins--if he'd fallen short, he'd probably be out there with Tommy John and Jim Kaat. (Sabermetrics rescued Bert Blyleven; I doubt that would have happened with Sutton, who's ahead of John in WAR but still short of 70.0.) Maybe, if WAR sticks around, a widely recognized benchmark will be established--70 seems to be the number right now for Jaffe-types. Sabathia's at 62.5, right where Kaat is. I'm on the fence with CC, and I think he'll be one of those guys who starts in the 40-50% range, and then, who knows.

clemenza, Friday, 18 October 2019 12:06 (five days ago) link

Drysdale's in for...mystique!

clemenza, Friday, 18 October 2019 12:07 (five days ago) link

Don’t forget to the fun name factor (1.01x)

It is my great honor to post on this messageboard! (Karl Malone), Friday, 18 October 2019 13:17 (five days ago) link

Don’t forget to add all the words to your sentences, either

It is my great honor to post on this messageboard! (Karl Malone), Friday, 18 October 2019 13:18 (five days ago) link

I don't know what Mystique (TM) *is*, other than it didn't get its Yankees tickets this week.

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 18 October 2019 14:48 (five days ago) link

i keep going back and forth on CC, bc he did have a decent string of peak seasons but at the same time he does really seem sometimes like he's closer to a David Wells type than a Mike Mussina type, when looking at his entire career.

omar little, Friday, 18 October 2019 17:39 (five days ago) link

def not quite in Mussina's tier, careerwise

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 18 October 2019 17:47 (five days ago) link

i don't want to mutter "compiler" but if we discuss peak there are a lot of pitchers out there who were much better and didn't last long enough at a diminished level to build up the career totals. Johan and Felix, to name a couple.

omar little, Friday, 18 October 2019 17:58 (five days ago) link

agnostic on his induction, but i kinda believe all hall of famers should have had a transcendent period during which they were, however fleetingly, the best in the game. and for cc, that second half with the brewers in 2008 counts.

mookieproof, Friday, 18 October 2019 18:03 (five days ago) link

CC was arguably not even the best lefty Cy Young winner Cleveland had during the '00s.

i thought for awhile he was going to wind up similar to Verlander, in that both had these good early indoctrination periods where they mastered their inherent talents before they peaked and won the Cy, followed by a depressing early decline, but Verlander's was just a blip on the radar and a bit of a mirage. CC wound up just having this very good middle period and a decline marked by occasional fine performances and outright terrible ones.

omar little, Friday, 18 October 2019 18:12 (five days ago) link

for me i guess the closest comparison is maybe Pettitte? a really fine and occasionally great pitcher who seems just outside HOF-worthy (though CC was better than Pettitte in terms of a consistent peak).

omar little, Friday, 18 October 2019 18:43 (five days ago) link

agnostic on his induction, but i kinda believe all hall of famers should have had a transcendent period during which they were, however fleetingly, the best in the game

Mostly agree with this, except 1) I think you can play/pitch at a slightly lower level if you do it long enough (something like Palmeiro, I guess), and 2) for me, Sabathia's transcendent period is too fleeting--I'd want two or three seasons where you're viewed as one of the best (half-dozen?) in the game.

clemenza, Friday, 18 October 2019 19:26 (five days ago) link

i, too, prefer hall of famers to achieve transcendence (i'd say "among" the best in the game, not necessarily the very best) - the lower the height of peak transcendence, the longer it has to last. and then take that and divide by 5

It is my great honor to post on this messageboard! (Karl Malone), Friday, 18 October 2019 20:18 (five days ago) link

and then there's the VC and Harold Baines

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 18 October 2019 20:20 (five days ago) link

wow i don't think there's any need to bring venture capital or the viet cong into this

mookieproof, Friday, 18 October 2019 20:25 (five days ago) link

The Victory Condition for HOF has been lowered to “be at least as hall of famey as Harold Baines, at the very minimum”

It is my great honor to post on this messageboard! (Karl Malone), Friday, 18 October 2019 20:29 (five days ago) link

Harold is a HOF with so many career highlights, baseball card companies had trouble narrowing it down to just one to cite

https://www.tradingcarddb.com/Images/Cards/Baseball/594/594-232Bk.jpg

omar little, Friday, 18 October 2019 20:35 (five days ago) link

hall of fame, next vote i care about... Bonds and Clemens

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 18 October 2019 20:44 (five days ago) link

appreciate that they included a photo of harold getting fooled by a changeup

mookieproof, Friday, 18 October 2019 20:58 (five days ago) link

That card's perfect for Brendan C. Boyd's The Great American Baseball Card Flipping, Trading and Bubble Gum Book. "Harold & his wife have 4 children." Not to diminish the importance of repopulating the world, but I somehow can't see that turning up on Willie Mays' or Greg Maddux's card.

clemenza, Friday, 18 October 2019 22:09 (five days ago) link

If CC doesn’t get in, the bar for the new generation is going to be really high. Pitchers with 70+ WAR won’t come up like it used too.

Van Horn Street, Friday, 18 October 2019 23:36 (five days ago) link

Great pitchers are the exception to whatever prevailing trends are around, so I don't know if usage patterns will much affect the existence or 70+ guys or not. Verlander's there, Greinke and Kershaw are about to be, Scherzer's close to a sure bet, Sale has a good shot, and Hamels, deGrom, Strasburg, Cole, Nola, and who knows who else are making realistic progress.

Not sure how that would compare to a snapshot of 1998 or 1984...There'll be more than that lost '80s generation of starters, for sure.

clemenza, Saturday, 19 October 2019 17:39 (four days ago) link

I don’t see how pitchers pitching fewer innings *couldn’t* lead to fewer guys passing a certain threshold...WAR is a counting stat after all

k3vin k., Saturday, 19 October 2019 18:30 (four days ago) link


I'd want two or three seasons where you're viewed as one of the best (half-dozen?) in the game.

From 2007-9 he was certainly one of the best two or three pitchers in the game.

NoTimeBeforeTime, Saturday, 19 October 2019 18:31 (four days ago) link

(xpost) I should have been clearer--when a Verlander or Scherzer comes along, they don't follow the prevailing trends.

clemenza, Saturday, 19 October 2019 18:35 (four days ago) link

He averaged > 6 WAR from 2007-2011, he was as dominant and consistent (230+ IP) as anyone in the game at his peak.

xpost

NoTimeBeforeTime, Saturday, 19 October 2019 18:37 (four days ago) link

(xpost) True:

Sabathia -- 18.2
Greinke -- 18.0
Lincecum -- 17.5
Halladay -- 16.7
Santana -- 15.4
Beckett -- 14.8

I used the bWAR total for those three years (checked about a dozen pitchers...may have missed someone).

I have one foot dangling off the fence, pointing in the direction of Cooperstown.

clemenza, Saturday, 19 October 2019 18:52 (four days ago) link

he was as dominant and consistent (230+ IP) as anyone in the game

Consistent definitely. Dominant relative to the league--he totals 30.4 bWAR for those five years, 6.1 a year, which is a moderate HOF peak.

clemenza, Saturday, 19 October 2019 18:55 (four days ago) link

You're making a good case...maybe the thing that gets in the way for me is that he's only somewhat effective after the age of 31. Whether it should or shouldn't be, that's always a stumbling block for me.

clemenza, Saturday, 19 October 2019 18:59 (four days ago) link

Verlander's there, Greinke and Kershaw are about to be, Scherzer's close to a sure bet, Sale has a good shot, and Hamels, deGrom, Strasburg, Cole, Nola, and who knows who else are making realistic progress.

Hamels seems like at best an extreme long shot and at worst a no-brainer to be outside the HOF. His WAR is good but I don’t think any voters are gonna be inspired to look closely at him, barring a late career renaissance. He’s kinda the Ian Kinsler of hurlers.

Despite my comments CC is one of those guys who could get in and I’d be totally okay with it, he was obviously great for a period of time and while not up there with some of these guys it’s not like he’s Jack Morris. A compiler in a lot of ways but ultimately, whatever. Definitely Pettitte-like for his career but yeah, better.

omar little, Saturday, 19 October 2019 20:19 (four days ago) link

What I mean by on the fence--if he gets, I'm fine with that. Honestly, I can't even get worked up about Harold Baines' induction. As I've said before, I simultaneously a) find HOF arguments extremely interesting and b) just don't care.

In relation to CC, though, I wouldn't be so quick to discount Hamels. Except for wins (huge advantage CC) and IP (ditto), Hamels has him beat in some key categories: WHIP, K/BB, ERA, ERA+, and FIP. He's just barely behind in bWAR (62.5-58.7), and--the key difference--Hamels is still pitching pretty well. Hamels is a free agent, so I don't know where (or if) he'll land, but he pitched 140 effective innings last year at age 35. His peak (2010-2014) is, as Karl Malone might say, a little less peaky than CC (27.2 bWAR, 5.4 per season), but for his career, he's been more consistent than CC.

clemenza, Saturday, 19 October 2019 21:19 (four days ago) link

Jaffe's assessment of CC sounds right: "...while he’s a bit short in the JAWS department, his milestones and the esteem with which he’s held will probably win the day."

http://blogs.fangraphs.com/cc-sabathias-storied-career-reaches-a-rough-ending/

clemenza, Saturday, 19 October 2019 21:29 (four days ago) link

Per Fangraphs, he’s as good as Glavine.

Van Horn Street, Sunday, 20 October 2019 04:10 (three days ago) link

fp for bumping during a championship game

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 20 October 2019 04:55 (three days ago) link

.... and not mentioning Altuve.

FRAUDULENT STEAKS (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Sunday, 20 October 2019 05:09 (three days ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.