|
| Posted by: JeffG
- Dude [01584348] Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 16:31
This year's Veteran's Committe ballot (3 year cycle) includes players, managers, umpires, executives whose most significant impact was from 1973.
Results announced December 6. Veterans Comittee Ballot has the following 12 nominees, must appear on 75% of the 16 ballots for enshrinement:
Vida Blue, Dave Concepcion, Steve Garvey, Pat Gillick, Ron Guidry, Tommy John, Billy Martin, Marvin Miller, Al Oliver, Ted Simmons, Rusty Staub, George Steinbrenner
Next year they vote on a list from 1947-1972, the year after 1871-1946 and then it cycles back.
The 2011 BBWA nominees includes those who had 5% or more last year and have not yet hit 15 years as a nominee.
Bert Blyleven, Roberto Alomar, Jack Morris, Barry Larkin,Lee Smith, Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly, Dave Parker, Dale Murphy, Harold Baines
Plus 2011 first time nominees:
Jeff Bagwell, Rafael Palmeiro, John Olerud, Kevin Brown, Larry Walker, Juan Gonzalez, Tino Martinez, B.J. Surhoff, Marquis Grissom, John Franco, Bret Boone, Al Leiter, Benito Santiago, Carlos Baerga, Raul Mondesi, Bobby Higginson, Wilson Alvarez, Rey Sanchez, Charles Johnson, Jose Offerman, Ugueth Urbina, Ismael Valdez, Dan Wilson, Paul Quantrill, Cal Eldred, Kirk Rueter, Steve Reed |
| | | 1 | weykool
ID: 138481617
Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 16:59
|
Would like to see Mattingly get in....beyond that I'm not sure I see anyone who is really deserving.
|
|
| | | 2 | JeffG
Dude
ID: 01584348
Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 17:10
|
Out of the veterans comittee, if the players has their say, it may be time to acknowledge the contribution Marvin Miller made. Steinbrenner maybe has some merrits and sentimental value. Imagine if those two get in, the HOF may need to set up a 'villains wing'.
I'd put Tommy John's doctors in the HOF before Tommy John himself.
Perhaps nobody makes it from that group.
From the BBWA group, Blyleven gets closer every vote so this may be the year. Out of the rest, Alomar, Lee Smith and Bagwell should get serious consideration but not sure they make it.
MacGwire and Palmeiro would have been locks if not for the steroids issue. We'll see them carried over year after year and they'll either use up their 15 years unless something unlikely and something unforeseen makes it all blow over.
|
|
| | | 3 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 17:13
|
Returning candidates: Blyleven, Alomar, Larkin,
1st timers:
Bagwell
Still torn on McGwire and now Palmeiro. Just staing my internal struggle, not looking to restart the PED debate. We all know both sides.
|
|
| | | 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 17:41
|
Maybe Bagwell (who played at a high level for a long time) from the new group. Otherwise, Blyleven, Alomar and Larkin.
|
|
| | | 5 | Electroman
ID: 10833614
Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 19:04
|
Tim Raines deserves to go in. Played most of his career a market that made him not a visible as most players. The only thing that I think that people hold against him was his drug problem.
|
|
| | | 6 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 19:45
|
I like Raines too. 5th all time in career steals (3rd among players who finished their careers in the last 80 years). And definitley much better than an Otis Nixon/Vince Coleman type who ddn't distinguish himself much beyond collecting a lot of steals. Raines was the best table setter in the NL for the better part of a decade, and there were a lot of really good ones in those days.
|
|
| | | 7 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 23:19
|
Marvin Miller - the fact the is not already in is an embarrassment. The greatest contributor to professional sports who never played, period.
Blyleven will make it this year. I'd also like to see Robbie Alomar. I'm not voting for Barry Larkin.
If Rafael Palmeiro is not elected to the HOF, you might as well just end the institution right now. He only had 3000 hits and is 12th all time with 569 HRs. 1800+ RBI. One supposed dirty urine sample and you are going to keep him out?
What makes everyone so certain that Jeff Bagwell did not also take steroids? Just by eyeballing both of them, I'd suspect Bagwell first. To vote for Bags and not Palmeiro just doesn't fly with me. Yes, Bags had a higher OBP and OPS+, but Raphi surpassed the ultimate career goals. If you choose to go down this road, you are not going to like hearing about who else used these substances, you are going to look foolish when its all said and done.
I would also vote for Larry Walker. Why? He was awesome, simply awesome. Didn't end up with great career counting stats, but a .313/.400/.565 is a HOF career. A couple of amazing seasons at the end of the 90's - I mean he slugged over SEVEN HUNDRED in 1997 & 99! His .565 career slugging is better than Stan Musial, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle, it's 15th all time. Just want you to know that the first person who whines, "but he played in Colorado" gets shot.
Ballot: Marvin Miller, Blyleven, Alomar, Palmeiro, Bagwell, Larry Walker. I know that I have ever believed six people deserved a vote in a single year. Lots a great players on this year's list.
weykool - putting to rest any doubts about your qualifications for an insanity defense.
|
|
| | | 8 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 23:20
|
weykool - putting to rest any doubts about your qualifications for an insanity defense.
That said, if it was a dig at MITH, well, then... well played!
|
|
| | | 9 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 23:44
|
Would like to see Mattingly get in....beyond that I'm not sure I see anyone who is really deserving.
222 career homers. never more than 35 in a season, playing 1B.
he was a good player. maybe even great. and maybe deserves to be in the HoF. MAYBE.
but heck, Larry Walker goes in before he does. Walker had 161 more career homers, a higher career batting average, significantly higher OBP and SLG, and so on.
and Juan Gonzalez. DOUBLE the homers Mattingly hit. similar Avg and OBP.
and Palmeiro and McGwire? they need to be in. period. they didn't break any MLB rules. period.
|
|
| | | 10 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 00:27
|
they didn't break any MLB rules. period.
Really? Except for the steroidal thing, maybe.
|
|
| | | 11 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 00:47
|
Except for the steroidal thing, maybe.
when they did it, it wasn't against the rules.
|
|
| | | 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 00:54
|
Anabolic steroids were specifically banned by Fay Vincent in 1992, as a result of their being re-classified by the FDA as a Schedule III drug.
In addition, any prescription drug taken without a doctor's prescription was banned at any time for any reason.
It is true that testing was part of the 2002 CBA. But the use of steroids was already banned in MLB and had been for ten years.
|
|
| | | 13 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 01:03
|
Treebarter having this conversation every year for a decade are you really still oblivious to the notion of era? 35 hr in 1986 was like hitting 50 in the steriod era.
Larry Walker played in Colorado during the steriod era, a time and place that made players like Jeff Cirillo replicate some Dave Winfield's best seasons.
And what cold possibly be your point saying that steriods weren't against the rules. This falsehood has been stuffed many times here over the years. Yes, they were against the rules. And even if they weren't, the notion of claiming such in response to the point that juiced players accounts for some of the difference can only suggest that you think players who didn't use deserve no recognition for managing their accomplishments cleanly.
|
|
| | | 14 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 09:22
|
Post 3, meant to have Palmeiro listed with Bagwell as getting my vote for first time balloteers and meant to have McGwire listed as returning candidates. Was double checking and editing what I was putting in and missed cutting another sentence out where I included them.
|
|
| | | 15 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 09:48
|
In order:
Raines, Bagwell, Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Palmeiro, McGwire, Miller
Closests Misses:
Steinbrenner, Brown, Edgar, Olerud, Morris, Gillick
|
|
| | | 16 | Great One
ID: 20955287
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 10:17
|
Steinbrenner is a Hall of Famer, no? I hate the guy, but his impact has been significant.
|
|
| | | 17 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 10:49
|
His biggest innovation was selling cable rights to the Yankees (first to do that). Otherwise, having nothing more than tossing money around (and loudly proclaiming he wasn't getting his money's worth) and the Howie Spira incident keeps him out, in my book.
|
|
| | | 18 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 11:13
|
Larry Walker played in Colorado during the steroid era...
MITH, look, you have a lovely wife, but I warned you!
Steinbrenner is a Hall of Famer, no You answered your own question correctly.
Blue Hen - Really? Really? John Olerud is a closer miss than Larry Walker? You are so skinny because of all the CRACK!
It is also against the rules to fraternize with the players of the other team. That rule is quite vague, but it sure is a lot clearer than Vincent's prohibition against anabolic steroids. I want a George Mitchell led investigation into the whole Fraternization Era and I want to start blacklisting all of those cheaters, keeping them out of the HOF!
|
|
| | | 19 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 11:21
|
Steroids were both against the rules and performance-enhancing, and thus, should be taken into account when evaluating a player's career for inclusion into the Hall of Fame.
I'd take Steinbrenner, Larkin, Trammell, Alomar and Blyleven. Need more time to think about Raines and Bags. The rest are fairly clear "no's".
|
|
| | | 20 | Great One
ID: 20955287
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 11:50
|
I'm a Sox fan, and even I can't ignore Steinbrenner. His teams went to 11 World Series' and won 7 of them in his 30+ years. Yeah, I get he "bought" a lot of it at the start of free agency and especially later with the all star teams they trot out there lately... but he changed the business of baseball.
"He deserves to be here," former Red Sox catcher Carlton Fisk said as Hall of Famers gathered Friday for Sunday's induction ceremony. "There aren't many owners, if any, who've had the impact that George has had on the game of baseball. Whatever way you view it, good or bad, he was very influential and such a powerful guy in the game."
|
|
| | | 21 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 12:20
|
Some people seem on the fence about Jeff Bagwell but I'm not sure why. Is it just is low hit total? (2314)
He had 449 HR. At the time of his retirement only 30 players had hit more HR than him in the history of the game (he's since been passed by a few more).
Was it his 1529 RBi's? A number only surpassed by 44 other players in the history of the game?
How about his .297 Career BA, .948 career OPS, .408 career OBP or .540 career Slg?
Or maybe its that he's a hard hitting, slugging 1st baseman with 202 career SB?
Perhaps his .993 career fielding % isn't good enough for the Hall?
NL RoY in 1991, MVP in 1994, 4 AS appearances, 3 sliver sluggers.
The only real strikes against him are low hit total and relatively few Allstar appearances (only 4 out of 13 seasons). He had to contend with Albert Pujols and mark mcgwire at 1st for the second half of his career for allstar votes.
|
|
| | | 22 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 12:34
|
It's easy to pick stats apart to make an argument, but I think he was very good for a long period of time, but not great.
His counting stats were helped by being around a long time (at a high level, granted, but not a HoF level).
His fielding percentage? 61 other first basemen have better career fielding percentage numbers, in a position which isn't exactly demanding.
On the bubble, IMO. I certainly don't see him getting in next election with Blyleven, Alomar, and Larkin still out there.
|
|
| | | 23 | loki
SuperDude
ID: 4211201420
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 12:44
|
Veterans Committee:
Marvin Miller did more to change the game of baseball than most anyone else, and most likely is not yet in the HOF because of antipathy of the owners towards him for shifting the balance of power to the players. Of course without free agency the players would still be virtual serfs of the owners and ticket prices might be affordable.
Steinbrenner was a great businessman who made the Yankees into a billion dollar franchise (give or take a few hundred million dollars), but aside from that I see no reason meriting entrance into the HOF.
Steve Garvey was a very good player but not a dominant one. However he should be considered only if the Hall continues to admit marginal players.
Ron Guidry was dominant for a number of years, but the time frame was too short to be elected. Even with his 25-3 season the Koufax argument cannot be used.
Tommy John was a very good but not dominant pitcher. He had nearly 300 wins , and had he made that number, he would be elected as a compiler ala Don Sutton.
Don Mattingly was dominant at his position, but for too short a time as his career was curtailed by a bad back. If you consider Mattingly worthy, then you might as well consider his contemporaries Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden whose careers were also shortened by illness, i.e., drug addiction. None of these players belong in the HOF.
The 1st baseman most deserving to be in the HOF and not on this list is Gil Hodges. He qualifies both as a player and a manager. I realize that this opinion is influenced by having been a Brooklyn→LA Dodger fan and by watching Hodges manage the Mets.
BBWA 2011
The HOF is constantly being diminished by election of near great players In my opinion the only 2 players on the list who should be elected this year are Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro. I am of the opinion that most ball players of that era used some type of PED, whether it was steroids, HGH, or greenies, but only a few unfortunate players were caught, so why discriminate?
Bert Blyleven with 287 wins (along with 250 losses) belongs in the HOF, but then so does Tommy John, 288-231.
|
|
| | | 24 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 12:59
|
It's not about the number of wins. Blyleven was better than Tommy John by just about any metric.
Larry Walker was great, but playing in Coors he should have had seasons like that. Look up Dante Bichette or Vinny Castilla or even Andres Galarraga. Coors Coors Coors.
I guess you're right about Steinbrenner. Hard to ignore.
|
|
| | | 25 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 13:32
|
now we're going to penalize a guy because he played in a hitter's park?? come on. it's absurd.
|
|
| | | 26 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 13:35
|
It's called taking weighting things appropriately. A .340 average in Coors Field in 1997 does not equal a .340 average in Dodger Stadium in 1968.
|
|
| | | 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 13:47
|
Take away Coors Field, and Walker becomes Fred Lynn.
|
|
| | | 28 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 14:07
|
They actually have a stat to measure performance in a park-based context, called Adjusted OPS. This adjusts for era and park factors.
Walker's 140 is tied for #72 of all time, which is better than I thought. He's tied with Jesse Burkett and Duke Snider (HOFers) and Gary Sheffield and Ryan Howard (both have a decent shot to be HOFers). But he's behind Kevin Mitchell, Albert Belle, and Edgar Martinez, who will struggle to get elected, and Vlad Guerrero, Jim Thome, Lance Berkman, Miguel Cabrera, and Alex Rodriguez, who have better cases. Other discussion fodder near Walker includes Darryl Strawberry, Will Clark, Jack Clark, Travis Hafner, Pedro Guerrero, and Brian Giles.
From my perspective, Walker is clearly better than average, but falls short.
|
|
| | | 29 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 14:08
|
Oh, and here are some players tied with Tony Gwynn and Joe Morgan in adjusted OPS+:
Juan Gonzalez, Jim Edmonds, Jose Canseco, Rafael Palmeiro, Mo Vaughn, Ken Singleton, Rocky Colavito, and Rico Carty. Interesting.
|
|
| | | 30 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 14:15
|
Don't misuse OPS+. It ignores some incredibly crucial factors, like playing time, position, baserunning, defense and, in the case of some of these guys, presence of PED's.
|
|
| | | 31 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 14:21
|
One doesn't have to use adjusted OPS to adjust for Coors Field. You can just use away stats.
I wasn't kidding about Walker turning into Lynn when you remove Coors Field--all of his non-counting stats drop. He becomes a .281 hitter.
|
|
| | | 32 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 14:41
|
I think there's a strong case for Bagwell but he's certainly not a shoe-in. Like I said about Walker and Mattingly, you have to compare players with their peers from their own era.
Seattle Zen, even my lovely wife knows that Larry Walker's stats in Colorado went places they'd have never gone had he never played there.
|
|
| | | 33 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 14:47
|
Copes Field should not be a HOF ticket for very good but not great players. You have to weigh the conditions under which they played. Hitting 25 - 35 hr for the better part of a decade in 70s or 80s is a far more impressive feat than in the 90s. Why is that so hard to understand?
|
|
| | | 34 | loki
SuperDude
ID: 4211201420
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 15:41
|
Tommy John
GS CG SHO W L PCT ERA WHIP K/IP BB/IP
700 162 46 288 231 0.555 3.34 1.28 0.48 0.27
Bert Blyleven
685 242 60 287 250 0.534 3.31 1.21 0.74 0.27
Re 24: I am not pushing Tommy John, but look at these stats for both pitchers.
|
|
| | | 35 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 15:54
|
Thanks, Loki - looks like you made the case for me.
John: 3.34 1.28 0.48
Bert: 3.31 1.21 0.74
|
|
| | | 36 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 09:23
|
Neither of those career compilers belongs in the HoF.
|
|
| | | 37 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 11:09
|
True. The HOF is a place for someone who is 244th in career OPS in a short career despite playing a power position. Did you know that Mattingly has essentially the same OPS as Alvin Davis, who was a contemporary who played the same position?
|
|
| | | 38 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 11:35
|
Neither of those career compilers belongs in the HoF.
Umm, isn't every set of 'career stats' we have actually a 'career compilation.'
Throwing that term out with a negative implication actually proves or disproves nothing. Blylevens stats were the results of his full career from day 1 to the last. Just like Mickey Mantles, Wade Boggs, Nolan Ryans, Don Mattinglys, Rob Deeres or Alvin Davis. If we don't have 'career compilations' of stats to go on, we have nothing but reputation then.
Why does Blyleven fall short for the HoF in your eyes?
|
|
| | | 39 | loki
SuperDude
ID: 4211201420
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 13:20
|
Tommy John was a very good but not dominant pitcher. He had nearly 300 wins , and had he made that number, he would be elected as a compiler ala Don Sutton.
My point was not that Tommy John did not belong in the HOF, but rather that had he won 300 games he would now be in the Hall. I followed his career when he was with the Dodgers and Yankees and do think that he should be elected. I made the comparison to Blyleven because the CW of this thread is for Blyleven's election to the HOF.
MitH-I was never a Yankee fan but always enjoyed watching Mattingly hit because during his peak years he was as good as anyone of his era. It was a shame that his back curtailed his career; if it had not, he would be in the HOF. When the Mets were touting Strawberry as a superstar, I still remember Steinbrenner telling the media in no uncertain terms that he had the better player. I would love to see Gil Hodges in the Hall, but his chances are about the same as Mattingly's.
|
|
| | | 40 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 13:47
|
Because the HOF should be a measure of greatness and he was never really great, just usually good to very good. We have long established thresholds for when career "very good" longevity becomes greatness: 300 wins, 3000 hits, 500 hr. The most recent era might challenge the usefulness of some or all of those thresholds, but Blyleven isn't from the most recent era.
Blyleven racked up 280 wins during a time when at least dozen other guys put up similar or better numbers. There's nothing that distinguishes him from the rest of that pack. In 22 years he never won a cy young award, never led the league in wins or era, never had a 20 win season (during a time when there were usually 2 or 3 in each league every year) and went to all of 2 All Star games.
|
|
| | | 41 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 13:49
|
#40 responds to #38.
|
|
| | | 42 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 14:16
|
Umm, isn't every set of 'career stats' we have actually a 'career compilation.'
Sure, but compiled career statistics isn the measure for every inductee. Sorry, Blyleven just wasn't ever really "great". I honestly try to not bring up Mattingly in these discussions since Ive already said all that needs to be said on that topic over the years. But it seems that the first person who disagrees with anything I say about any other player will inevitably raise the issue to challenge my point or my credibility. The question wrt Mattingly isn't whether he compiled enough career stats to be regarded as great. It's whether his period of undenyable greatness was long enough.
My contention is that, similar to Koufax in his day, you won't find another player who dominated the league for 6 years as Mattingly did during that era who isn't in the HOF. An I woul add that his career stats shouldn't be that much of a detriment since they are quite similar to other HOFers who's induction few people question (most significantly, Kirby Puckett).
|
|
| | | 43 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 14:35
|
Those who played against Blyleven are pretty clear that he was great. And he compiled pretty damn good numbers on awful teams. In 1985 for example, he placed 3rd for the CYA despite only 17-16? Holding up his 280 total wins (while playing on dreadful teams) implies that the wins & losses were completely the pitcher's deal.
(To demonstrate this, just look at his Wins Above Replacement number, which is 13th all time).
Look at the other things under his control: K's (5th all time) shutouts (60th all time), even putouts.
The guy played 22 years and only played in 8 postseason games (and, to be fair, he was a postseason monster when he got there).
|
|
| | | 44 | Mith
ID: 2210551019
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 16:17
|
while playing on dreadful teams
Have you acaully looked at the records of teams he played on? If he played on some dreadful teams he also played on some excepional ones. Lets call a 20-game differential the mark of a very good or very bad team, look at teams he played on that qualify and the record he compiled that year.
First, very bad:
1983 Indians: 70-92. 1983 Blyleven: 7 - 10
1985 Indians: 60-102. 1985 Blyleven with Cleveland (traded to MIN at mid-season) 9-11
1986 Twins: 71-91. 1986 Blyleven: 17-14
The very good:
1970 Twins: 98-64. 1970 Blyleven: 10-9
1977 Rangers: 94-68. 1977 Blyleven: 14-12
1979 Rangers: 98-64. 1979 Blyleven: 12-5
1988 Twins: 91-71. 1988 Blyleven: 10-17
1989 Angels: 91-71. 1989 Blyleven: 17-5
Overall, teams Blyleven played on were 1,573 and 1,595, including the full-season records of teams he was traded to/from mid-season (including the 1985 Indians, where he only played half a season). By my count that's twice as many very good teams as very bad ones. I think the dreadfulness of teams he played on over his career is quite overstated.
|
|
| | | 45 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 16:25
|
Sorry Mith, Mattingly was not in the same stratosphere of dominance as Koufax during their peak stretches.
|
|
| | | 46 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 16:29
|
So Blyleven captured between 10-20% of a teams wins over a season. Sounds pretty damn good, even if we are overly fixated with wins as the most important measure of a pitcher's greatness.
Baseball encyclopedia gives him a 36 APW (adjusted pitching wins) score -- 19th best. Would you feel better, then, if Blyleven had 316 wins?
I think it would be a crime to keep the guy who has the 5th best K total of all time out of the Hall.
|
|
| | | 47 | Mith
ID: 2210551019
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 19:29
|
PD
I didn't know he was 5th in career strikeouts. That makes his case a little more compelling than I thought, but still doesn't put him over the hump for me. His Ks are his strongest attribute but even there, he was a very good but not elite strikeout pitcher, leading the league once (tho there's no shame in finishing 2nd to Ryan 3 years in a row during his peak as a strikeout pitcher). But the fairest measure I think is that his 6.702 K/9ip is good for 13th best among the 24 pitchers with 2800 or more career strikeouts.
I just don't see the point in inducting players because they were able to stay "pretty good" long enough to almost compile enough stats to meet established HoF thresholds.
Razor
I don't know what a stratosphere is in terms of a baseball player's dominance but for the record I make no case that Mattingly, who over the course of his peak was arguably the best hitter in the league was as dominant as Koufax, who in his peak probably enjoyed one the top 5 or so half-decades for a pitcher in history. I was just citing him as another example of a player who's compiled career numbers (particularly his counting stats) have little to do with why he was inducted.
|
|
| | | 48 | weykool
ID: 138481617
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 19:36
|
How can you say 10-20% is pretty damn good when he started 20% of the games?
His totals were 16% of the wins and 14% of the losses.
How do those numbers compare to other HOF pitchers?
I would expect the average to be somewhere around 15%.
I would agree that 5th in career K's is something that needs to be considered but slightly above average on wins/losses doesnt make the case for HOFer.
|
|
| | | 49 | Mith
ID: 2210551019
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 21:00
|
20% is damn good. That's like winning 20 games for a 100-win team. 10%, obviously, is mediocre at best. Looking at post 44.
I was mistaken about the 1979 Rangers. They won 83 games that year, not 98. Not sure how I got that wrong.
Still, it strikes me that in what looks like 3 of his 4 best opportunities to make the playoffs, he didn't really step up and pitch like an ace.
|
|
| | | 50 | Mith
ID: 2210551019
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 21:27
|
Just realized he was with the Pirates in 79, who did go 98-64 and of course won the WS.
|
|
| | | 51 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 22:19
|
My point is: Which stat is the pitcher more in control of? And which did he succeed at?
We've got lots of pitchers with higher win totals but fewer Ks that are considered (and have made it) for the Hall, who benefited from being on good teams (i.e., teams with good hitters).
I understand--this is all subjective. But his individual stats, IMO, stand out.
|
|
| | | 52 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 11:46
|
Red: 42 and 45 on Mattingly. Yeah, that's not a good comparison at all. I count maybe three years that look eerily similar to Albert Belle in 1996 and 1998 or so. And he falls far short.
|
|
| | | 53 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 13:41
|
There is no room in the hall for a singles hitting first baseman who had one post-season playoff series. None.
|
|
| | | 54 | Great One
ID: 4110471110
Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 15:24
|
John Olerud?
|
|
| | |
| | | 56 | Great One
ID: 4110471110
Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 15:47
|
Forgot he was on the Jays back then.
Dave Magadan! my favorite singles hitter of all time.
|
|
| | | 57 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 17:20
|
Hal Chase, but he was from a different era when nobody hit homeruns.
|
|
| | | 58 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 17:57
|
Olerud, if you ask me, is pretty far ahead of Mattingly. He's more like Will Clark. In fact, the best comps according to baseball reference are Will Clark and Edgar Martinez. Mattingly is actually 9th.
Mattingly's career high in OBP? .397 in 1994. Olerud beat that total seven times. The OPS+'s are actually about the same, but Olerud had 1300 more plate appearances.
|
|
| | | 59 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 18:53
|
Olerud played most of his career in the juiced ball era. Mattingly did not. While there is some overlap, it didn't occur during Mattingly's time as an elite player. Comparing Mattingly to Albert Belle is like comparing Bruce Sutter to Jack Chesbro.
Very little has been offered to counter the primary case for Mattingly's induction. There are simply no players from Mattingly's era who dominated the league for 6 years as he did who are not in the Hall of Fame. I doubt you'll find many players from any period in the game who dominated their era for 6 years as well as Mattingly did who aren't in the HOF.
|
|
| | | 60 | blue hen
ID: 266191021
Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 20:27
|
Sure there are. Dale Murphy. Dave Parker. Andres Galarraga. The aforementioned Will Clark. Keith Hernandez. Darrell Evans. Dwight Evans. Those are all exact contemporaries of Mattingly who had periods of dominance and will likely never sniff the Hall of Fame.
|
|
| | | 61 | Mith
ID: 1610231620
Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 21:23
|
Among them you'll find similar OPS' and more HR but I believe DM hit .327 with his 162 game average working out to over 120 rbi for 1984 - 1989, not to mention an MVP award, a batting title, 6 all star selections, 5 gold gloves and 3 silver sluggers. Murphy might come closest and I was surprised at Parker's numbers from 1975 - 1980 but each falls short in side by side comparisons.
|
|
| | | 62 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 00:48
|
I don't believe Mattingly deserves to be in the Hall (mostly, because all he really had were those 6 years), but I don't think a guy who led the lead three years in a row in doubles should be slammed for being a "singles hitter."
He was also one of the finest fielding first basemen I've ever seen.
|
|
| | | 63 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 00:52
|
Very little has been offered to counter the primary case for Mattingly's induction.
Literally rolling on the floor laughing my ass off. John Olerud was better than Don Mattingly. Case closed. Mattingly never "dominated", he had three good years. I'd pick Kent Hrbek over Donny in a heartbeat.
I honestly try to not bring up Mattingly in these discussions since Ive already said all that needs to be said on that topic over the years.
You really should have stuck with that.
|
|
| | | 64 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 10:13
|
I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up. And for the record, despite playing the bulk of his career in the juiced ball era, I'm not sure how Olerud's career was better than Mattingly's, since you insist.
Despite the difference in eras played in (not as pronounced as comparing DM with someone who's full career was in the juiced ball era but still significant) Mattingly's career numbers show .012 higher batting average and a slightly higher OPS+. Despite playing 4 seasons longer, Olerud only managed 30HR, 602B, 130R and 130RBI more over his career. In the 162 game average, Mattingly beats him in every single counting category and the only averaged category Olerud has on him is OBP. Olerud struck out more frequently than Mattingly, only went to two all star games, only won 3 gold gloves, never won a silver slugger and certainly never won an MVP award.
If you were building a baseball team and your options for 1st base were Mattingly at the beginning of his career or Olerud at the beginning of his, you'd be a moron if you chose Olerud.
|
|
| | | 65 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 11:28
|
I'm a moron. Same OPS+, longer career, both extensively lauded for defense. Granted, I do give Mattingly credit for having a higher peak, since you can fill in a league average guy (or sign a high-priced free agent if you're the Yankees), but it's not MUCH higher (see 1993 or 1998).
By the way - check out Dale Murphy from 1982-1987. Pretty sure he beats Mattingly in almost every way.
|
|
| | | 66 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 11:31
|
and a slightly higher OPS+
Actually, no, Olerud's OPS+ was higher, slightly.
If you were building a baseball team and your options for 1st base were Mattingly at the beginning of his career or Olerud at the beginning of his, you'd be a moron if you chose Olerud.
Man, that's one depressingly bare cupboard. I wouldnt' take Olerud simply because he was a WSU Cougar. I'd take Mattingly, offer him straight up for Dan Uggla and get rejected. I'd have to include Glen Hubbard, who, by the way, did not play in the Juiced Ball Era.
Just so you don't forget...
|
|
| | | 67 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 13:21
|
Murphy also played 1000 games in CF and 80 at catcher. He won five Gold Gloves. I think he wins the defense argument.
|
|
| | | 68 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 14:01
|
re 67: Over Mattingly? Winning one of three Gold Gloves in the OF is impressive, but Mattingly owned that award -- no one has won more AL GG at first. He's also the top ten all time in fielding % at his position?
Murphy was a very good player. But Mattingly played better defense.
Neither should be in the Hall.
|
|
| | | 69 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 14:56
|
Centerfield is a MUCH more important position than first base, according to the defensive spectrum. And I don't buy your "one of three" argument - there are three times as many outfield starters as first base starters.
|
|
| | | 71 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 15:04
|
Rob Neyer with some good stuff on why Murphy isn't a Hall of Famer.
|
|
| | | 72 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 15:06
|
Yes, Murphy won a little over half as many Gold Gloves as Mattingly, who was one of the best at his position ever.
This isn't the definition of "win."
...there are three times as many outfield starters as first base starters.
Which is why there are three times as many winners.
|
|
| | | 73 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 15:09
|
Winning one of three Gold Gloves in the OF is impressive
Aren't you saying "but not as impressive as first base, where there's only one"? Either way, you have a 1 in 14 chance.
|
|
| | | 74 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 15:25
|
I think Mattingly was far better at his position than Murphy was at his, and it is reflected in the number of Gold Gloves, career fielding percentage, etc.
Honestly, career-wise I don't think it was even close. Which is why the argument that Murphy "wins" a defensive comparison to Mattingly is so laughable.
I realize that they are different players playing different positions, but when Murphy, playing Matthingly's position, leads the league in errors you really don't have to look very deeply to spin it any other way.
|
|
| | | 75 | Mith
ID: 1610231620
Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 15:45
|
I'm a moron.
OK now we're getting somewhere! :)
it's not MUCH higher (see 1993 or 1998).
How is two seasons, seperated by 4 years in between, anything we could call a "peak" in comparison to a 6 year period in which DM was arguably the best position player in the game?
JO had two terrific seasons, one of which was good enough to contend for an MVP award (but not win it) amid a career that was above average through his prime years and pretty mediocre toward the end.
Again, the case for Mattingly is with the period in which he was an elite player. John Olerud was never an elite player for any period of time longer than 1 season.
both extensively lauded for defense
I also won't dismiss the defensive side of the comparison as a wash. Mattingly boasts the highest fielding % in the history of the game. I agree he doesn't score a lot of defensive points against Ozzie Smith for that, but JO most certainly does not match his excellence at 1B.
|
|
| | | 76 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 09:58
|
"in comparison to a 6 year period in which DM was arguably the best position player in the game?"
Hogwarts. Please re-check your Don Mattingly baseball cards. Mattingly did not have five consecutive years with an OPS over 830. He was putrid in a partial 1983 season and modest in 1988. He was far below average in 1990 - a worse season than Olerud ever had.
Also check your stats again - Mattingly is exactly one point ahead of Olerud in fielding percentage: .996 to .995.
The only people who "argued" that Mattingly was the best position player in the game were biased New Yorkers. Wade Boggs was MUCH better, and Trammell, Ripken, Henderson and Yount were all undeniably better too.
|
|
| | | 77 | Mith
ID: 1610231620
Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 20:12
|
I don't mean he was arguably the best player in the game for each of 6 consecutive years. I mean that over the period of 1984 - 1989 he was arguably the best player.
Trammel's 162 game avg in that period:
.292ba .804ops 19hr 81rbi 98r 19sb
Yount:
.305ba .839ops 18hr 89rbi 100r 18sb
Boggs:
.351ba .928ops 10hr 71rbi 118r 2sb
Henderson:
.289ba .853ops 21hr 69rbi 138r 88sb
Mattingly:
.327ba .902ops 29hr 122rbi 103r 2sb
Its subjective of course but the only one that looks inarguably better to me is Henderson. But I'm in this discussion with the luxury of having regularly watched Henederson though most of the period in question, since his entire tenure with the Yankees fell within it. And I recall him arriving in NYC like gangbusters and putting up one of his finest seasoins in his first year and then pretty much dogging it after that. I recall him dropping easy fly balls in the OF that he tried to "snatch catch", refusing to play in CF, not bothering to leg out extra base hits and Lou Pinella trashing his ethic and demanding that he be traded, off the top of my head. I doubt many Yankee fans in those days regarded Henderson as highly as Mattingly, even if most people who didn't watch the two of them every day might have thought differently.
|
|
| | | 78 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 09:51
|
How about Mike Schmidt? Not his peak, but he was certainly better than Mattingly - power, speed, walks, defense.
And I think Boggs is inarguably better too - 26 points of OPS and played a more important defensive position.
Plus Yount, and we can even bring Murphy back into the discussion.
|
|
| | | 79 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 10:07
|
MITH, some of those numbers should kind of be expected. Of Course Mattingly is going to be ahead of Boggs and Henderson in rbi's. And of course Boggs and Henderson are going to be ahead of Mattingly in runs.
Boggs and Henderson were top of the order hitters. They're not power hitters and SHOULD be below Mattingly in the power stats and SHOULD be above mattingly in the other stats.
You give 6 categories and Mattingly only leads Boggs in 2 of those yet you think that only Henderson might be considered better?
|
|
| | | 80 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 12:24
|
In that time Mattingly slugged .530 with an OBP of .372. Boggs slugged .482 with a .446 OBP.
Boggs hit 1st or 2nd in the overwhelming majority of those games, while Mattingly hit 3rd, in a time when OBP was not stressed for rbi guys. .026 isn't very far apart. Boggs was an OBP machine. Mattingly was an RBI machine with triple Boggs' HR production. If it matters that much to you, the average of Mattingly's OPS with RISP for those six years is .931.
And for the record, Boggs never finished in the top 3 in MVP voting in that time (or in his career) and finished in the top 5 only once. In fact Mattingly finished higher in the MVP voting in 5 of those 6 seasons.
And I don't care what position Boggs played. He was a mediocre 3rd baseman.
Mike Schmidt 162 game average 1984 - 1989:
.274ba .884ops 34hr 110rbi 93r 3sb
Yeah that's inarguable.
Anyway, while I enjoy looking at these snippets from great players' careers, it sounds like you're beginning to confuse two things I said. First, that he was arguably the best player in the game from 1984 - 1989 and second, that you won't find a similar 6 year period of dominance from a player in his era who is not in the HOF.
Dale Murphy's 1982 to 1987 (while it certainly doesn't beat Mattingly's peak "in every way") might be an exception to that last sentence. They are very close. Murphy is .038 behind in ba but has more hr and double digit steals. Murphy has .011 better OPS and 145 OPS+ to DM's 147.
I haven't put a lot of thought into Murphy's case for the HOF.
|
|
| | | 81 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 12:40
|
With all due respect to the points you are making, you're not making the full point (or, you are mashing two different points together).
To demonstrate whether two players were dominant over two different periods, you don't compare the players to each other but to other players of the time period in question.
I'm not making this to be argumentative (really, I'm not). I just don't think you get there from what you are saying.
|
|
| | | 82 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 12:41
|
The key for me with Murphy is centerfield. That's an important defensive position to matter how skilled you are. And he was skilled.
|
|
| | | 83 | filthy
ID: 568191312
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 12:58
|
If you let Mattingly's 6 year peak count for double, then it almost matches Schmidt's 12 year peak. Not bad for a first baseman.
Boggs is so far above Mattingly's league during 1984-1989. He's even out of Henderson's league. Wade Boggs might have had the best six-year peak of any star from the 80's. Cal Ripken and Ozzie Smith would join Boggs and Henderson ahead of Mattingly in the Hall of 1984-1989, but Mattingly has a strong case for being the 5th greatest player of that time period.
Ryne Sandberg, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell and Tony Gwynn all had very similar peaks to Mattingly, around the same time too, but they all had multiple other great seasons during their careers. Robin Yount, George Brett, Dale Murphy, all in the same boat.
Oh yeah, can't forget to mention that Rickey Henderson was a huge part of Mattingly's success. Say if Rickey was hitting in front of Strawberry instead of Mattingly from 85-89ish, I bet Strawberry would have lapped Mattingly's stats and maybe even have Mattingly's current spot on the ballot.
Olerud is extremely similar to Mattingly. His peak six years are a nose worse than Mattingly's, and he lacks some personal awards in comparison, but Olerud contributed outside of a six year window, and also played for many winners throughout his career in comparison. Too close to call.
This is how I'd rank if we're picking the Hall of 1984-1989: (without factoring in # of great seasons outside of 84-89)
1) Wade Boggs (5)
2) Rickey Henderson (8)
3) Cal Ripken Jr. (6)
4) Ozzie Smith (3)
5) Don Mattingly (0)
6) Alan Trammell (5)
7) Tim Raines (3)
8) Tony Gwynn (3)
9) Darryl Strawberry (1)
10) Ryne Sandberg (3)
For the actual Hall of Fame, deserving new members next year would be: Alan Trammell, and Bert Blyleven. Closest misses: Larkin, Alomar, Raines, Morris.
|
|
| | | 84 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 13:49
|
1) Wade Boggs (5)
2) Rickey Henderson (8)
3) Cal Ripken Jr. (6)
4) Ozzie Smith (3)
5) Don Mattingly (0)
6) Alan Trammell (5)
7) Tim Raines (3)
8) Tony Gwynn (3)
9) Darryl Strawberry (1)
10) Ryne Sandberg (3)
That's pretty damning. Let's not forget, this list is the cherry picked 6 year period that was Mattingly's peak.
You forgot someone: Kent Hrbek
.288/.370/.502 .872OPS, 31HR, 103 RBI, 88 runs
Just a shade below Donnie. I would never dare call donnie's 6 year peak "dominance" and as filthy points out, he was at best the fifth best player during the six years you have shown as his peak.
Speaking of Kent Hrbek, if we were to expand the time frame, from 1982-1991, here's what you get. (Hey, if you get to choose a time frame, so do I)
.290/.370/.492 28HR 102RBI 87 runs OPS .862
(oh, and two WS titles)
Mattingly
.314/.360/.491 23HR 106RBI 93 runs OPS .851
That batting average is what every fan hung his hat on back in the eighties. Today, everyone would rightfully point out that Donnie couldn't take a walk to save his life, his on base percentage was league average.
I'm as big a Kent Hrbek fan as you are of Donnie, yet I do not sully my reputation as a baseball stathead by arguing that Herbie belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Let this be your Waterloo, MITH, and put this argument to bed. I've encouraged you a few years back to change the M in MITH to Mussina. It's something to think about.
|
|
| | | 85 | filthy
ID: 568191312
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 14:12
|
Hrbek was quite good. Doesn't make the list. Kirby Puckett is closer, but he doesn't even make the list. Based on WAR from BaseballReference. 6 of the 10 in the Hall. Strawberry is the only one that isn't a candidate. The other three still have hope.
Mattingly was easily the best hitter at the best hitting position in the league during that stretch. He could've had a career like Gwynn or a career like Strawberry, I think that's what holds him back.
Mattingly should be in over Puckett, but I think the playoff performances and the Clemente Award put Puckett over.
|
|
| | | 86 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 14:14
|
You've also got to toss in Mattingly's great fielding. First base rightly gets put down as a fielding position, but the guy was one of the best ever.
Still doesn't make it, IMO, but there is more to Mattingly than his hitting stats.
|
|
| | | 87 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 14:28
|
Anyway, while I enjoy looking at these snippets from great players' careers, it sounds like you're beginning to confuse two things I said. First, that he was arguably the best player in the game from 1984 - 1989 and second, that you won't find a similar 6 year period of dominance from a player in his era who is not in the HOF.
The HoF represents the whole of a players career. Nobody denies that during a 6 yr period, Mattingly was ONE of the best in the game. But to flat out say he was the best? Not by a long shot.
But 6 years falls short for the Hall. Don's career as a whole did not last long enough to support him being one of the best of all time.
Mattingly is 109th all time in career BA (boggs is 32). Nothing to sniff at being 109th all time. Give him a plus in the hall consideration for that, though
Mattingly is 251st all time in HR. You prop him up as a power hitter talking about his homers and ops and slugging. Big negative here. Only 251st.
Rbi's. This was his job. Drive them in. 1099 total. Good for only 195th all time.
Yes, during a 6 year period, Don Mattingly was one of the best players. He was fun to watch, he played hard, he did his job better than most. But over the entirety of a career, he just doesn't stack up due to longevity reasons.
|
|
| | | 88 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 15:28
|
The HoF represents the whole of a players career.
Who told you that? More than anything else the Hall represents the standards of those who are inducted into it. Mattingly surpasses that standard.
|
|
| | | 89 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 15:34
|
Mattingly surpasses that standard.
Really? A power hitting first baseman (even in an era where 30-35 HR was a monster season) who only has 220 career HR and 1100 career rbi's meets the standards of induction?
|
|
| | | 90 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 16:01
|
I've made my case. Believe it or not I do get tired of being asked to repeat it.
|
|
| | | 91 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 17:18
|
Khahan
Mattingly is tied for 476th all time in On Base Percentage (.3583), tied with Cliff Floyd and Lyle Overbay and behind Dave Hollins. Would this also be considered a "big negative"? Yeah, I think so.
I've made my case.
Do you think it is compelling? No one else does, not a single supporter piped in.
|
|
| | | 92 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 18:51
|
Of course I do, and I'll stick by everything I've said. I've been through enough of these discussions that I'm confident enough in my position.
For the record, his career OBP was .029 higher than the league over the same period and is also higher than the career marks of 14 of the past 20 hitters inducted, the exceptions being Henderson, Gwynn, Boggs, Molitor, Murray and Puckett, the last two just edging him by .001 and .002, respectively.
I'd tell you where Ozzie Smith's .299 career OBP ranks but basball-reference.com's leaderboard only lists the top 999, so it's cut off just below 981-ranked Gary Carter's .3347 mark.
|
|
| | | 93 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 20:29
|
So Ozzie doesn't deserve to be in the Hall? Or are you saying he's so bad we might as well let Mattingly in?
I think, at this point, you are just cherry picking.
Ozzie is in because he played defense throughout his long career as one of the best ever in the most demanding field position. He also finished his career in the top 20 all-time in SB.
The fact that he was a completely different player than Mattingly doesn't mean he wasn't worthy.
|
|
| | | 94 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Sat, Nov 20, 2010, 08:59
|
Actually I do very much question Ozzie's worthiness but I wasn't making a case that his induction means Mattingly belongs there. There are numerous 1st basemen and outfielders less deserving than Mattingly already in the HoF who are better comparisons to cite for that argument.
No, I was simply refuting the contention that a .358 career OBP should be any detriment when considering a player from that era, and citing Smith and Carter by name since they happen to have particularly low scores. The greater point, as noted, is that the majority of players from Mattingly's era who have been inducted in fact have a lower career OBP than than Mattingly. A "big negative"? Seattle Zen used to understand very well the need to consider some of the particulars of a player's era when arguing for Jim Rice (he of a career .3519 OBP, #600 overall) such as that in the 1970s and 1980s, a walk by a middle-order rbi hitter with runners on base used to be considered a wasted opportunity. But he seems to have forgotten some of the points he relied on all those years now that he doesn't have to make them for Rice any more.
|
|
| | | 95 | Khahan
ID: 13126822
Sat, Nov 20, 2010, 18:05
|
I've made my case
Yes, you've made your case that Mattingly was a dominate player for a 6 year period. I agree with you 100%. But no, I do not believe that is sufficient to get into the baseball Hall of Fame
And SZ, I actually purposefully didn't go the route of OBP because it just wasn't a big deal with Mattingly was a player. Seems a little unfair to hold it against him (though only 476 all time is a little lower than I thought he'd be).
|
|
| | | 96 | loki
SuperDude
ID: 4211201420
Sat, Nov 20, 2010, 23:37
|
I've made my case. Believe it or not I do get tired of being asked to repeat it.
I do believe that you get tired of repeating your arguments re Mattingly, but but I like the posts that appear on the boards because of your ardent defense of your position. I would like to lobby for Gil Hodges with the same ardor that you do for Mattingly because as I have posted, I think that he is the first baseman who belongs in the HoF.
I agree that for about 6 seasons Mattingly was the predominant first baseman in MLB, but the Koufax argument cannot be applied because unlike Koufax, Mattingly was not the best at his position in the history of the game. Had this not been true, 6 seasons of greatness would not have gotten Koufax into the Hall.--My opinion of Koufax as well as that of many others.
|
|
| | | 97 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sun, Nov 21, 2010, 16:37
|
the best at his position in the history of the game...
Had this not been true, 6 seasons of greatness would not have gotten Koufax into the Hall.
For the record I'd submit that Lefty Grove was better from 1928 to 1933 than Koufax was from 1961 - 1966, if you take the respective eras in which they pitched into consideration. And if you dismiss the era, there were surely superior stats put up by several pitchers in the Dead Ball days, such as Pete Alexander and Christy Matthewson.
And while it occurred after Koufax' induction, Greg Maddux 1992 - 1997, Pedro Martinez 1997 - 2002 and Randy Johnson from the same period of time can both make a case that they were just as good as Koufax' best 6 seasons.
Hal Newhauser from 1944 - 1949 might also have a case, as well as Carl Hubbell from 1932 - 1937. I suspect further poking around will lead to a few more.
Koufax' best 6 years are easily among the best 6 consecutive seasons any pitcher has had but lets not forget that those years (particularly the best of them) came during the best time in MLB hstory to be a pitcher since the Dead Ball Era and that he played his home games at pitching-friendly Dodger Stadium to boot.
|
|
| | | 98 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Nov 21, 2010, 16:45
|
I'm not so sure why we're looking at 6 years when the player's career is what we are looking at--not just their best 6 years.
This isn't figure skating where they throw out the low scores.
I have no problem looking at contextual statistics. But combined with only a six year term (what a coincidence--six years is exactly how long Mattingly dominated) it all seems like cherry picking.
|
|
| | | 99 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sun, Nov 21, 2010, 17:15
|
what a coincidence--six years is exactly how long Mattingly dominated
There's no need for sarcasm.
Koufax was (and is often) cited as a player who's career numbers alone don't warrant induction and who made it in because of the impressive peak in his career. I'd personally cite a 5 year period when referring to Koufax in this regard since, despite leading the league in Ks, his 1961 isn't particularly memorable.
Loki offered that Koufax is a special case because his peak was the best in history and stuck with the 6 year metric. Thanks for informing us that no coincidence was involved.
If Hall of Fame Commissioner Perm Dude's new rule is that we're not allowed to cherrypick Koufax' best stats as a measure of his greatness and can only look at the career as a whole, do we kick Koufax out of the HOF tonight or do we call an emergency meeting of the veteran's committee to induct Ron Guidry?
|
|
| | | 100 | blue hen
ID: 266191021
Sun, Nov 21, 2010, 17:51
|
Personally, I find Mattingly's induction far less offensive than Andre Dawson's.
|
|
| | | 101 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sun, Nov 21, 2010, 18:11
|
Hey Dawson was great... in 1987. And pretty darn good a few times besides that.
Three is a few.
But he was consistantly better than bad for long enough that he managed to get more than 80% of the way to the 500 hr and 3,000 hit clubs, which apparently is the stuff of a HOFer these days.
|
|
| | | 102 | blue hen
ID: 266191021
Sun, Nov 21, 2010, 18:15
|
Disagree. Dawson wasn't even THAT good in 1987.
|
|
| | | 103 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sun, Nov 21, 2010, 18:31
|
I'll give him great for 1987. He led the league in 3 categories, HR, RBI and TB. In each he put up the high mark for a 15 - 18 year period in the NL (most single season HR by anyone from 81 - 96, most single season RBI from 1978 - 1995, most single season TB from 1978 - 1992).
|
|
| | | 104 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Nov 21, 2010, 18:48
|
You were the one who originally wanted to slice out 6 years, MITH. Loki's point is that if you want to just use 6 years you still won't get entry when comparing him to Koufax. Mattingly was very good in his prime, but he wasn't as good all-time as Koufax was all-time, even at his best.
Being among league leaders for a large hunk of your career isn't good enough, IMO. You should put a dent into some all-time numbers as well.
Dawson was very good for a long period of time. Never a Famer, IMO, but unlike others he kept playing at a high rate for a very long time.
|
|
| | | 105 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sun, Nov 21, 2010, 19:15
|
Loki's point is that if you want to just use 6 years you still won't get entry when comparing him to Koufax.
Very good. And then I challeneged the specifics that he offered in support of that point. Are we all caught up now?
but unlike others [Dawson] kept playing at a high rate for a very long time.
You're under the impression the last 6 years of Dawson's career were better than the last 6 years of Mattingly's?
DM 90 - 95:
.286ba 58hr .345obp .405slg 392r 382rbi 274bb 206k
AD 91 - 96:
.268ba 92hr .304obp .456slg 243r 360rbi 89bb 310k
|
|
| | | 106 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 09:22
|
You're under the impression the last 6 years of Dawson's career were better than the last 6 years of Mattingly's
No, my belief that Dawson belongs in the Hall is not based on any given 'period' of his career, rather its based on the whole of his career.
|
|
| | | 107 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 10:18
|
Mattingly's two highest walk seasons were 1993 and 1994. Maybe he shouldn't have retired.
I struggle to call Dawson great in 1987. He was 10th in the league in OPS and played at Wrigley. Remember, all kinds of home run feats happened that year. He was better in 1981 and as good in 1990. But that's the point. Dawson had two great years nine years apart, and neither one is the one we associate with him. He was also the Rookie of the Year in 1977 (and deserved it - Steve Henderson was better but played less). Dawson has plenty of interesting moments throughout a long career. While I don't think he's a HOFer, I can see how it happened.
|
|
| | | 108 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 10:33
|
Khahan
my belief that Dawson belongs in the Hall is not based on any given 'period' of his career
Who said it was? You're responding to something I addressed to someone else, which was in response to a specific thing he wrote. And then you went took it wildly out of context.
Personally I fail to see why the "look at the whole career" argument is supposed to favor someone who's career not only disaplays a full array of entirely pedestrian percentage stats, but also falls short of the HOF thresholds for compiled counting stats.
|
|
| | | 109 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 10:35
|
He was "The Hawk" and considered a God in Kazakhstan. Maybe the Kazaks flooded the voters with propaganda and death threats?
|
|
| | | 110 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 10:45
|
Maybe he shouldn't have retired.
Can't help but think that if he'd hung around for 5 more entirely unHOF-like mediocre seasons at about 120 hits per, his hits, rbi and runs would all be right in line with Dawson, with still notably better ba and obp.
Of course Harold Baines can already say that for himself...
|
|
| | | 111 | loki
SuperDude
ID: 4211201420
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 12:08
|
I have visited the HOF twice, the last time about 15 years ago, and what impressed me both times was seeing the plaques of the all time great players. Whether it was Ruth, Williams, Matthewson, Mantle, and of course Koufax, the feeling even for an adult was one of awe. The talent in baseball has been watered down with expansion over the years, but I hate that that has also happened to the HOF. It has been said before, the HOF fame should be for the greats, not the near greats.
|
|
| | | 112 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 13:25
|
I watched a World Series game in the plaque room once. Pretty sweet. But tainted because of the lesser names. And they're not all recent guys either...
|
|
| | | 113 | C1-NRB
ID: 2672611
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 18:01
|
Here's a little game for you. The first line is Mattingly's career 162 numbers, the second line is a Mystery Player's career 162 numbers:
.307ba .830ops 20hr 100rbi 91r 1sb
.312ba .933ops 24hr 99rbi 96r 4sb
Mystery Player played 4 more seasons, but wasn't a regular until his fourth season.
Does Mystery Player belong in the Hall of Fame?
|
|
| | | 114 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 20:00
|
Does Mystery Player belong in the Hall of Fame?
Of course not. Any player that is comparable to Mattingly is per se not HOF material.
Okay, that's a bit too tongue in cheek. Don't you think we need to at least know which position this player played?
|
|
| | | 115 | Razor
ID: 265539
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 20:45
|
It's Edgar Martinez, and no, he doesn't belong in the Hall. I don't know why people insist on ignoring little things like position and playing time.
|
|
| | | 116 | C1-NRB
ID: 401412422
Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 23:21
|
It's Edgar Martinez, and no, he doesn't belong in the Hall.
Correct on both accounts. He doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. He was very good, but not Hall of Fame worthy.
|
|
| | | 117 | blue hen
ID: 266191021
Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 08:21
|
Well wait. Edgar played a LOT of games at third base. I'd venture to say that a mediocre 3B (which is admittedly a stretch for Edgar) is similar value to a good 1B as far as overall defensive value.
|
|
| | | 118 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 12:08
|
1B gets a bad name because you can get away with sticking a Jason Giambi there if you have to. But a good fielding 1B can be a significant defensive asset and can easily be a more valuable defensive player than a poor fielder at another position.
It's absurd that a good fielding 1st baseman gets very little credit above a Giambi/Ortiz type of player. This stuff about playing any other position poorly is as good or better than being an elite defensive 1B has been taken for granted for too long around here.
Teixeira has had better range at 1B than Alex Rodriguez has at had at 3B since his hip surgery. Teixeira fields his position, ranges toward the hole, gets rid of the ball quickly and accurately and starts double plays instinctively.
Teixeira played 149 games at 1B this year. Aside from over 1200 total putouts and being involved in over 1300 total plays, Teix had 153 unassisted putouts, 80 assists and started 16 double plays.
Nick Swisher played 134 games in RF this year. Swish was involved in 279 total plays, had 265 putouts and 10 assists. He doesn't get a good jump on balls, isn't particularly fast and I don't believe his arm holds a lot of runners.
Is Nick Swisher a more valuable defensive player than Mark Teixeira?
|
|
| | | 119 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 12:18
|
And I'd put Edgar Martinez at about 95% likely to be voted in.
|
|
| | | 120 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 12:29
|
But what's replacement level at 1B? I'm fairly certain many players who played 1B in college could play there in the majors if they could hit. I don't feel the same way about any of the other positions, except maybe corner outfielders.
|
|
| | | 121 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Tue, Nov 23, 2010, 18:31
|
A college 1st baseman isn't going to handle a hot smash up the right side any better than a college 3rd baseman handles one up the left. The difference is that we'll more often let the 1st baseman slide if he gets eaten up. Who cares where the bar for 'minimally accepable' is set if you're talking about a 1b who fields his position like the other infielders?
|
|
| | | 122 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 10:09
|
What percentage of plays a 1B handles are "hot smashes" as opposed to a 3B? I'm just saying that defense at first base just doesn't matter that much.
|
|
| | | 123 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 10:47
|
Shouldn't the ratio be about the same as RHB to LHB? Do more lefties go the other way?
|
|
| | | 124 | Da Bomb
ID: 508161517
Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 11:14
|
Is there a huge difference between a great fielding 3b an an average one? And is that difference any larger than a great fielding 1b and an average one?
|
|
| | | 125 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 11:19
|
The difference in ability between the worst fielding 1b an the best 1b is far greater than the difference between the worst and best 3b.
Mostly because some teams choose to get by with a power-hitting statue at 1b, who's offensive production will offset his defensive liabilities there. You can't as easily do tht at 3b.
|
|
| | | 126 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 11:32
|
That is true, which should tell you something about how difficult it is to play 1B. A fine defensive 1B has value, clearly, but not as much value as a fine defender at any other position except maybe LF.
|
|
| | | 127 | Mith
ID: 4982142
Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 11:48
|
A fine defensive 1B has more defensive value, I would argue, than an average RF or LF, a below-average 3b and a very poor defender at any other position.
|
|
| | | 128 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 550421116
Mon, Nov 29, 2010, 16:01
|
"And I'd put Edgar Martinez at about 95% likely to be voted in."
If you are saying you are giving 20-1 odds that Martinez make HOF...I want some of that action. I think the odds of him getting voted in is far less than 50%.
|
|
| | | 129 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Mon, Nov 29, 2010, 16:20
|
gotta agree. I don't see Edgar getting in.
|
|
| | | 130 | Mith
ID: 28646259
Mon, Nov 29, 2010, 19:34
|
Who was the last person to get over 36% of the vote on his first ballot and not get inducted? Has it ever happened?
|
|
| | | 131 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Nov 29, 2010, 21:09
|
Always a first time.
For many decades, the writers were discouraged from voting for any first ballot players, no matter who they were. Bob Feller was the first first ballot player since the original (1936) induction class.
|
|
| | | 132 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Fri, Dec 03, 2010, 16:28
|
Ron Santo rules
|
|
| | | 133 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Mon, Dec 06, 2010, 10:40
|
The abomination continues.
Stand Pat gets voted in while Marvin Miller ends up one vote short. Someone needs to be shot.
|
|
| | | 134 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Dec 06, 2010, 10:46
|
Wow. He probably would have gotten in, IMO, if he hadn't asked to be excluded.
|
|
| | |
| | | 136 | blue hen
ID: 266191021
Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 23:12
|
Joe Posnanski had a pretty convincing case for Larry Walker on his website. I am now officially "on the fence" with Walker, which is a significant step after being on the "no" side for the most part.
Posnanski also made a pretty good argument for Kevin Brown, who obviously falls short, and Posnanski admits that. I think his reputation is only going to get worse with time due to the magnificent nature of his clutch failures (which aren't nearly as big a deal as his injuries).
One last thing - did you know that Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris actually faced each other in the 1987 postseason? Guess who won?
|
|
| | | 137 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 14:11
|
It's Robbie Alomar and Bert Blyleven. Congratulations to both of them.
|
|
| | | 138 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 14:54
|
Congrats to both. After missing out last year it was great to see them have such a great bounce back year in 2010 and make their way in to the HOF.
Maybe Jack Morris and Barry Larkin can give them a call and see what they need to do in 2011 to get in.
|
|
| | | 139 | Electroman
ID: 3170417
Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 16:05
|
My question after seeing the rusults are,Who are the two guys that voted for B.J. Surhoff?
|
|
| | | 140 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 16:25
|
My question after seeing the results are,Who are the two guys that voted for B.J. Surhoff?
Well, one guy is named Barry Stanton of ESPN and he put together the WORST ballot I have ever seen.
No Alomar or Blyleven, but BJ Surhoff, Tino Martinez, Jack Morris, Edgar Martinez, and DON MATTINGLY? You've got to be kidding me. He has no respect for the Hall, period.
|
|
| | | 141 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 16:25
|
One is Barry Stanton, who also voted for Tino Martinez, but not Blyleven, Alomar, Raines, Larkin, or Bagwell. I think he might have punched the wrong holes, accidentally.
|
|
| | | 142 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 16:36
|
Hanging chads, anyone?
|
|
| | | 143 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 16:55
|
More info. Barry Stanton used to work for Surhoff's local paper. Maybe they made a deal in the 80s. Of course, Stanton got fired for plagiarizing Joe Posnanski in 1992.
|
|
| | | 144 | Electroman
ID: 3170417
Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 16:56
|
Wow, he must have an agenda or something. If you do though, just don't vote, and lose your vote. That is more of a repectable statement than the ballot he submitted.
|
|
| | | 145 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 517068
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 08:47
|
Count me as one who doesn't get the Blyleven induction. He only made the All-Star team twice in 22 seasons and never won a Cy Young award. The closest he came to a Cy Young was 3rd place in 1984, when he couldn't beat out two relievers.
He also...
...never led the league in ERA
...never led the league in Wins
...never led the league in K/9
...led the league once in K
...led the league once in WHIP
...led the league once in CG
...led the league twice in IP
...led the league three times in Shutouts
It just doesn't add up for me when I think of the Hall of FAME.
|
|
| | | 146 | Electroman
Donor
ID: 010833614
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 09:16
|
And if he is borderline, Jack Morris is not.
|
|
| | | 147 | R9
ID: 2854239
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 09:28
|
Blyleven would've been the only member of the 3000 strikeout club not to make the Hall. (There are a few active/soon to be voted on guys who are shoo-ins. Schilling is the only ?)
He had a similar statistical career to Ferguson Jenkins. Neither is what I think of either when I think of the best of the best, but someone has to be in the lower tier of the HOF. Its also not like he got in in the first few ballots. Him taking this long is just about right imo.
|
|
| | | 148 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 09:58
|
The Hall of Longevity.
|
|
| | | 149 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 10:01
|
Blyleven was pretty damn good over a long period of time. His Wins Above Replacement is 13th all time for pitchers. He was 5th all time in Ks. Those that played against the guy are pretty clear that he had HoF stuff.
The Hall of Fame isn't about single season stuff (though leading the league in something is a plus, that's for sure). He never lead his league in ERA any year, yet the guy was top 5 in ERA 7 different years. 14 years in the top 5 in K's. 7 years also for WHIP (top 5). 14 years he was top ten in K/9.
The guy was seriously good for a long time.
|
|
| | | 150 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 10:20
|
Those that played against the guy are pretty clear that he had HoF stuff.
I think this is something I hear said about a lot of borderline HOFers. I don't mean to totally discredit the point but have you ever heard a borderline HOF described as falling short by a peer?
I think no one disagrees he was pretty damn good over a long period of time. I think some of us feel the standard should be focused a little differently. But we're the minority; the people trusted with the responsibility to define the Hall came around to find he fits the bill. I'm used to the disappointment.
|
|
| | | 151 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 10:26
|
Good point. This simply might be media self-filtering--the sports media isn't exactly digging deep on the topic. Or any other, for that matter.
|
|
| | | 152 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 517068
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 11:02
|
I really think Blyleven and several others have been (unduly?) helped by all the issues of the "steroid era."
The Congressional steroid hearings occurred in March 2005. Outside of obvious HoFers making it on their 1st or 2nd ballot (Alomar, Henderson, Ripken, and Gwynn), the following players have been inducted in the 6 years since the hearings:
Bert Blyleven (14th YOB)
Andre Dawson (9th; Lone Inductee)
Jim Rice (15th)
Goose Gossage (9th; LI)
Bruce Sutter (13th; LI)
The six years before that?...
Wade Boggs (1st)
Ryan Sandberg (3rd)
Paul Molitor (1st)
Dennis Eckersley (1st)
Eddie Murray (1st)
Gary Carter (6th)
Ozzie Smith (1st)
Dave Winfield (1st)
Kirby Puckett (1st)
Carlton Fisk (2nd)
Tony Perez (9th)
Looking back at 2000 (Fisk and Perez), the next four after them eventually made it in and all but Carter are in that top list (Rice, Sutter, and Gossage). Blyleven was the only other future HoFer receiving votes that year and was 13th in his 3rd YOB.
I suppose there is an added amount of respect that SHOULD be given to those who preceded the "steroid era," but this is starting to come across more like "Screw McGwire, Bagwell, Palmeiro, and the other users or suspected users!" as opposed to "Bert Blyleven, Bruce Sutter, and Jim Rice deserve to be in the Hall of Fame!" and I think that starts to hurt the credibility of both the BBWAA and the HoF.
|
|
| | | 153 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 11:20
|
You think? Blyleven's HOF voting numbers have been fairly steadily increasing since his first year of 1998. Maybe people are voting for Blyleven instead of others who might be steroidally-tainted, but no one is required to vote for anyone.
There might be some anecdotal information about there for people voting for Blyleven than McGuire (for instance) but I haven't heard it.
|
|
| | | 154 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 11:30
|
If it was the Hall of Longevity, Jim Kaat would have been inducted. And KKB, you sound inclined to support Dwight Gooden's introduction.
Post 152 - I don't see how the past 12 years of HOF entries has changed at all. From 99-05 there were 7 first ballot inductees. Since then, three. Eyeballing the two lists, that seems about right. The writers may very well be saying "screw McGwire, et.al.," I don't see any evidence in your post.
|
|
| | | 155 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 517068
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 11:53
|
RE: 154, Dwight Gooden would be VERY fringe for me, but that's just off the top of my head. I honestly haven't looked at his stats enough to gauge one way or the other. Looking him up, I do see that he didn't garner enough support to even get a second year on the ballot, for whatever that's worth.
About #152, there's a clear change after the Congressional hearings occurred. Remove all the 1st and 2nd ballot players and you're left with the following average Years on Ballot:
6 years before hearings: 6.0 (3 players)
6 years since hearings: 12.0 (5 players)
That's a pretty sizable difference. And the fact that there were 3 lone inductees in the 6 years since with YOB of 9, 9, and 13 is a big statement as well. In the 6 years prior to the hearings, the only lone inductee (lone lone inductee?) was Ozzie Smith in his first YOB.
|
|
| | | 156 | R9
ID: 2854239
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 12:16
|
I still don't see the purported bias either. Sure, lots of voters are shunning the roiders. That doesn't require them to vote for someone else in their place. A writers' ballot this year could've looked like this:
1) Roberto Alomar
2) Bert Blyleven
And be handed in like that. I also have never read an article from a voter who said he felt the need to fill out all 10 spots. So there are two different things at work here, and I think you are trying to merge them into the same thing.
|
|
| | | 157 | loki
SuperDude
ID: 4211201420
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 14:45
|
If you are from the NYC area you should recall Len Berman the NBC sportscaster who was fired because of his large salary. His web site had the following take on this year's HOF inductees:
2. The Fame Game
Here's today's Hall of Fame quiz.
1. Do you consider Bert Blyleven one of the greatest pitchers of all time?
2. Do you consider Roberto Alomar one of the greatest infielders of all time?
3. If Blyleven wasn't a Hall of Famer the last 13 times they voted, what suddenly turned him into a Hall of Famer on the 14th try?
4. When you think of Roberto Alomar, is the first thing that comes to mind his spitting in the face of umpire John Hirschbeck?
5. When you think of Bert Blyleven, is the first thing that comes to mind all the gopher balls he yielded?
(My answers. No, no, nothing, yes, yes.)
By the way, Rafael "I never took steroids" Palmeiro, who certainly has "Hall of Fame" stats didn't come close. It's poetic justice that Don Mattingly got more votes than he.
ThatsSports.com
|
|
| | | 158 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 15:09
|
There are lots and lots and lots of Hall of Famers who didn't make first ballot election. The Hall, in fact, went from 1937 through 1961 without electing anyone to the Hall on the first ballot. The feeling for a long time was that first ballot players didn't deserve it.
Any difference in a player's stats between first and second ballot as far as deserving to be in the Hall? Of course not.
The first page of this pdf lists Hall of Famers by Induction Year. By Berman's standards, no one from 1936 through Feller should be in the Hall because they didn't make it the first time.
I agree with the spitting episode being a defining moment for Alomar. I also believe (unmentioned by Berman) that the reconciliation between Alomar and the umpire in question needs to be mentioned as well.
|
|
| | | 159 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 16:01
|
Re: 155
Yes, in the past six years we have seen more players get inducted after being on the ballot for many years. Without more, I don't think you can come your conclusion that this is a response to the Steroid Era. I think it has a lot more to do with the random fact that fewer amazing superstars retired 2000-2005.
Loki: Better questions to ask are:
Is Bert Blyleven better than Ferguson Jenkins, Don Sutton, Bruce Sutter, and other recent inductees? (The answer is "yes")
With the recent sabermetical emphasis on the import of striking out batters, should a pitcher who is fifth all time in strike outs be a HOF? (The answer is "yes")
The first thing I think about when I hear the name Bert Blyleven was a pitcher who was awesome at age nineteen and at age 38, another way of describing a HOFer.
|
|
| | | 160 | loki
SuperDude
ID: 4211201420
Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 21:26
|
Re: 159- My criterion for the HOF is that the inductee be an all time great, maybe not Ruth, Gehrig, Johnson, Koufax, etc., but really great. Very few of the recent inductees including the class of 2011 fit.
|
|
| | | 161 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 00:18
|
Jim Kaat's eligibility occurred to early to get into the Hall of Longevity.
As has been discussed here previously, Mike Mussina matches up quite favorably with Blyleven. He had a much better K-rate and K/BB rate and was among the league's better SPs at least as frequently as Blyleven, in CY Young contention notably more often. They had comparable ERA, WHIP, hit rates, ERA+ and W. The primary differences between the two are Blyleven's 1500 additional IP (for which he has to show only 900 more Ks but 1200 more hits and 530 more walks) Blyleven's 2 WS rings, and the difference in the competition they faced. Moose might also get a few extra points for going out on top of his game.
I personally don't think either has strong HOF credentials but in my opinion Blyleven's induction paves the way for Mussina, making him a very likely eventual HOFer. When it comes time weigh Moose's career, he's going to be compared with the most recently inducted modern era HOF SPs with under 300 wins. It's going to be very hard to look at Blyleven and Jenkins and find many good reasons for why they make the cut and Moose doesn't.
And somewhere down the road, the Veterans Committee is going to come to the conclusion that Jim Kaat belongs in a HOF that includes Fergie Jenkins, Jim Bunning Bert Blyleven and Mike Mussina.
|
|
| | | 162 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 00:29
|
The first thing I think about when I hear the name Bert Blyleven was a pitcher who was awesome at age nineteen and at age 38, another way of describing a HOFer.
Is awesome at age 23 and at age 39 close enough?
|
|
| | | 163 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 01:31
|
You may be right about the Moose, he and Bert are pretty similar.
|
|
| | | 164 | filthy
ID: 568191312
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 02:05
|
Why did Mussina retire after a 200 inning 20 win season? Age seems logical, but he could have clinged on for another year or two to clinch his case, couldn't he? That alone clinches his case for me. Will he get enough votes when on the ballot next to Maddux and Glavine though, maybe even Schilling and Clemens too. Then the following year will be Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, and John Smoltz. Tough crowd.
Mussina definitely will not be voted in right away but it would be outrageous if he didn't earn enough support to stay on the ballot for future consideration.
BTW: Awesome at 19 is rare and impressive. That gives Blyleven the edge in a Mussina comparison. Fergie Jenkins is a very good Mussina comparison though.
|
|
| | | 165 | filthy
ID: 568191312
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 02:53
|
Re: Alomar one of the greatest infielders of all time?
Best second basemen in the last 50 years: Probably Morgan, Sandberg, Alomar, Biggio.
Not that it even needs to be debated but, Alomar was the key bat for four different offensive powerhouses in his career with stunning defense at second. Remember when Toronto was good, they had Alomar. Remember when Baltimore was good, they had Alomar. Remember when Cleveland was good, they had Alomar. Remember when the Mets were good, they had Alomar. Then there's the spitting thing for those that want to ignore all the winning.
|
|
| | | 166 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 02:56
|
I suspect Moose gets in after 6 - 10 years. After the flurry of great SPs becomming eligible in the next few years, the well dries up for a while. Among pitchers listed as active, Moyer, Pettitte and Wakefield are all at the brink of retirement and lead the wins category with 267, 240 and 193, respectively. None are likely HOFers in my opinion.
Looking down the list of active win leaders from there, you don't find a lot of HOF cases. Maybe Tim Hudson or Roy Oswalt if either can string together a few very good seasons at the end of their career. But both seem like an awful stretch to me. Sabathia with 157 wins and a respectable list of accolades at age 29 seems like he could be on his way, though that induction would be at least 10 years from now and of course I wouldn't bet on the longevity of any pitcher with that body type.
After CC, any pitcher who looks good enough to possibly be on his way to eventual induction has at least another decade left in his playing career if he is to have a shot.
|
|
| | | 167 | filthy
ID: 568191312
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 03:02
|
130: Edgar went down in year 2. Crazy stuff.
Lee Smith started out at 42.3% and may not reach 75 at all. Garvey started at 41.6% and didn't make it. Edgar at 36.2% would be the 3rd highest debut that doesn't make it if trends continue. Tiant, Wills, Mattingly, Hodges, McGwire all had semi-strong debuts (+23%) and either didn't make it or likely will not make it. Tim Raines started out at 24.3% but suddenly has a strong case growing. Still time for Smith, Edgar, Mattingly, McGwire too I suppose.
|
|
| | | 168 | Mith
ID: 371138719
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 03:10
|
I don't think a drop of 3.3% is significant one way or the other for Edgar. Some players are just made to wait and I happen to think that's apropriate for sub-elite inductees. I think Smith has time. Mattingly almost definitely does not, with only 4 years left on the ballot.
|
|
| | | 169 | filthy
ID: 568191312
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 03:29
|
Next year's only new addition to the voting that should get any votes is Bernie Williams. There should be a spike in most of the returning names numbers next year.
Edgar will probably top his first year's vote. Lee Smith could see a nice surge, and looks like he just might slide in on his 14th or 15th try. Mattingly will stay on the ballot but doubtful that he even tops his first year's vote at any time. McGwire needs to see some momentum next year for any hope at all. Raines and Larkin are gaining steam early enough to look like locks. Morris looks like another photo finish. Murphy, Trammell and McGriff look to be stuck in limbo with Mattingly for all 15 years. Key years next year for Bagwell, Walker, and even JuanGone and Palmeiro.
|
|
| | | 170 | R9
ID: 2854239
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 08:31
|
I think people who only want the Hall to be for truely great players need to examine the process a bit better. If all you really want is a list of the best-of-the-best in baseball history, go print out a list of all 1st ballot inductees. Pretty sure that will be the best-of-the-best.
After that, there's no reason why some lesser players cannot also be recognized for being better then 90%+ of their peers for a long while. Nobody is going to talk about Maddux and Blyleven in the same breath, even if both are in the Hall. We all know who was better, and for people in 100 years who have never heard of either yet, a simple look at what year of eligibility they were elected in will be a big clue to indicate who was better.
Do I think of Blyleven when I think of the best pitchers of all time? No. Was he still not one of the better pitchers of his generation? Yes he was. There should be room to recognize both.
|
|
| | | 171 | blue hen
ID: 710321114
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 10:59
|
I think I've changed my stripes in recent years, to be on the inclusive side. That doesn't mean B.J. Surhoff, but I really think there is plenty of room for star players, even if they weren't the best of the best. In addition to Kevin Brown, I feel like there are pretty strong cases for Dwight Gooden and people like that. There are twice as many teams now so I'm fine with twice as many candidates.
|
|
| | | 172 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 11:39
|
Kevin Brown is an obvious no. So is Dwight Gooden. Come on, people. Gooden isn't even close.
|
|
| | | 173 | blue hen
ID: 710321114
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 11:56
|
I said the same thing. Is Dwight Gooden as good as Bert Blyleven? No. But when I take Blue Hen III to the Hall of Fame in 50 years, do I want to see a plaque for Dwight Gooden? Yes, I think I do.
|
|
| | | 174 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 12:05
|
Bert Blyleven and Mike Mussina? Meh, not so much...
|
|
| | | 175 | blue hen
ID: 710321114
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 12:18
|
Oh, them too. They were an important part of baseball in my lifetime.
|
|
| | | 176 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 12:55
|
I think its current standards are a pretty good level. The creme of the crop gets in as do a good number of really great players that were either under appreciated or where the lower levels of great.
Guys like kevin brown and Edgar martinez get in the debate (though I don't think either of them belong in the hall) which is very good. They deserve that recognition to be considered.
Raising the bar too high excludes too many deserving players (case in point is blyleven who should have been in years ago). But dropping it too low diminishing the value of getting into the Hall. Its at a good place.
|
|
| | |
| | | 178 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 09:06
|
Congratulatoins to Barry Larkin on a well deserved induction.
|
|
|
|