Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
What's keeping Mussina out?
More of a compiler, I don't really go for those guys. Five all-star games, one top-3 Cy finish for a HOFer is pretty weak. I'm looking for guys who were considered the best of the best when they were playing.
I have everyone seven points and above save Bonds and Clemens. So yes Glavine, no Schilling.
What's the difference between Mussina and Glavine?
Glav made 10 all-star teams and had six top-3 Cys, winning two. There is every indication he was considered one of the greats of his time. So, yeah, there is a difference.
It's not that exclusive, though. Plenty of people think it should be, but it never has been and it seems kinda unfair to modern players to raise the bar that high only now.
If we'd never had a Veterans' Committee, it probably *would* be that exclusive.
Why is Glavine always ahead of Schilling/Mussina? Is it the Cy Young awards? Giving an a award for an award that "you" gave him seems like a self-fulfilling prophesy so to speak. I also don't really see Edgar > Walker or Kent/Sosa > Palmeiro. It's hard to find much fault with the 16 & 8 pointers.
I love TT, but this reeks of arrogance and hubris. It;s made worse by the fact, that I think there is some stuff that is unequivocally wrong, not to mention the things that are at minimum arguable.
Why all the ragging on Tango? He's just throwing some rankings up for comparison, not writing a treatise.
I'd move all of the mentioned 6 pointers into 7 pointers, and also Larry Walker. That way one can earn a perfect score by voting for 10 highly qualified HOFers without necessarily matching Tom Tango's ballot.
No one started throwing rocks until people started calling Tango a dick and complained about his tone for the 50th time. Read Tango's original post, there's nothing even close to "dickish" about it. There's one sentence of commentary after the ranking system. The only complaint you could levy against it is that the ranking system itself is not flexible enough (and indeed I did that in the comments of his blog).
Because he basically had the same peak as both of those guys, and added 1000 innings of league average pitching. I think it's funny that anyone would think that Schilling or Mussina rate ahead of Glavine..
Where do you think WAR is wrong on this?
I've mentioned this on every thread on this... There is either a league adjustment or some other #### that is going on, but ultimately I do not see a difference between Glavine vs Schilling peaks.
You're missing two key elements, which are quality of opposition and quality of defense. Both are included in WAR and both favor Schilling to the tune of about .3 runs per 9 over their careers. That's why you see the discrepancy with raw IP, ERA+ numbers and WAR. Unless you think those two things shouldn't be incorporated or that they are wrong somehow?
Muusina is in danger of getting single digits.
This popular theory is in danger of becoming completely unfounded. Obviously it's way too early in the count, but a 31 percent showing through 47 votes is not what you'd expect from a single-digit guy.
I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong but it seems to be the case. In fairness to your point Moose needs to get just 7% of the vote the rest of the way to get to 10% (assuming the same 569 ballots as last year). The more I think about it the more you are probably right that he won't come in THAT low though I still think his total is going to sharply decline moving forward
Simply that if a player is getting 31 percent in a relatively decent sample (more than 8 percent of the vote), it's probably safe to say that he won't be looking at something so dramatically lower in the overall.
Unless all ballots must be put in at the same time or something, but then I am not sure why the articles and such dribble out over weeks then.
He is a writer. He is SUPPOSED to be opinionated.
Anyone who is debating tone rather than content is really missing the point.
Even the worst player on the 2nd list (McGriff) is better than 4 or 5 of the players from the top list that were actually elected (Rice, Sutter, Gossage, Perez, maybe Puckett). No wonder so many voters think Morris and Lee Smith look like reasonable candidates. In the last 14 years the BBWAA has lowered the standards so much that Perez, Rice, and Sutter are all HOFers, but then seemingly overnight they RAISE the standards so high that Bagwell, Biggio, and Piazza (amongst many others) aren't?
People on here were instead arguing against his level of conviction. That is completely absurd.
And I ignore both elements. Ultimately it's about results, and Glavine and Schilling in their prime got the same results, Glavine then adds another 1000 innings of league average pitching.
It's really, IMO, not as simple as saying there's been an overnight raising of standards. There's some fairly typical voting going on, and some extraordinary circumstances influencing voting (a number of qualified candidates not seen since the initial years of the HOF voting, and a PED mess which the HOF has not given any guidance on).
You're still leaving out hitting, which BR has as such an advantage for Glavine that it puts his career WAR ahead of Schilling's
And yes, I absolutely believe that pitchers can affect the distribution of the type of outs, and that it is easier for non-strikeout pitchers to control that, as they can up their strikeout rate in situations that demand it, while strikeout pitchers are generally at the peak rate they are going to be.
I think it is also quite clear that Glavine pitched in front of some very good defenses
I'm not saying that McGriff is a definite HOFer - I'd vote for him, but I understand that he's below a lot of peoples bar and it doesn't actually bother me much that he's not in. I'm saying that he's not clearly below the recently established HOF line either, not when they're inducting players like Perez, Puckett, and Rice.
The main point of my post was in response to Mike's (I think), who said that 17 seemingly worthy candidates on one ballot is way too many for them all to be HOFers. I don't think that's true at all, so I was comparing the current hopefuls to all the recent electees to compare, much like Steve Balboni did early on the first page of this thread.
And yeah, there are some upper level guys in the first group too (Henderson, Ripken, maybe Boggs), but I still think the current ballot crushes them overall.
I don't think that everyone better than Sutter and Rice should be inducted just because they were
I'm fairly certain that no one is putting Glavine in the HOF because he was such a great pitcher hitter, but sure if you count hitting he's 1 or 2 career WAR ahead of Schilling.
The two that cause me to question that idea most though are Biggio and Piazza. I absolutely think they're the type that usually would get elected first ballot. I know that catchers almost never do, but there just plain hasn't been an MLB catcher with anywhere near Piazza's offensive numbers before, so I'm not sure if Berra/Fisk/Carter are good test cases. Fisk and Carter were very good players for a long time, but they're .265 (ish) hitters who'd crank out 20-30 homers a year and rarely got much MVP notice. Piazza was competing for batting titles and MVP's in his prime while hitting 35-40 homers a year. 427 homers, a .308 avg, and a .545 career slugging percentage for a catcher is just crazy.
If Thomas isn't elected this season (and you could throw Glavine in there too, but it's looking pretty likely that he will be), then I'd be pretty comfortable saying that the standards have surely changed. Right now it's still just a suspicion.
Biggio on the other hand, yes, I fully expected him to go in on either the first or second ballot(until I started hearing the writers grumblings, about potential ped issues, and how he stuck around)
In a world without PEDs, Biggio would not have been elected in 2013 (Clemens, Bonds and Sosa would have been the top 3, and the BBWAA doesn't elect more than that from the freshman class). I don't know why so many people just assumed Biggio would sail in just because the aforementioned trio had unrelated issues, particularly since one could argue that there were two other first-year guys, Piazza and Schilling, who had arguably better cases. Biggio wasn't necessarily viewed as a surefire Hall of Famer in his prime, and he only got to 3K by hanging around past his sell-by date. He was not going to skate in, as I tried to tell you two years ago. (-:
Apparently, WAR is now the perfect statistic, and players should be judged exclusively by that metric.
I don't see Thomas lack of election as any indication of changing standards, as you have pointed out, crowded ballot figures into it.
He missed it by 38 votes on his first ballot. He was pretty close to getting in.
Like I said, Biggio and Piazza are only enough to make me suspect that standards have risen for sillyball era players. But if guys with overwhelming first ballot credentials like Thomas and Glavine don't make it - or if Maddux gets significantly lower percentages than the Ryan/Brett/Ripken types - then it'll be confirmed in my mind. Hopefully the current Gizmo percentages hold up. Electing Thomas and Glavine on the first ballot, Biggio on his 2nd, and Maddux being near unanimous would go a long ways towards convincing me that voters are at least trying to be fair and consistent.
this reeks of arrogance and hubris.
Yay WAR! Yawn.
Really? Outside of Andruw Jones, who were these great defenders?
Now there's certainly reasonable arguments to be made that, from a value perspective or an advanced metrics perspective, relievers still are not worthy of the HOF, but I think it is worth recognizing them, and it's a good thing the voters are trying to figure out how and whom to recognize.
I rate out defensive adjustment, because I think that they are massively over stated in most systems.
And as Sosh is pointing out, the large quantity of deserving candidates is skewing the results more than any changing standards would mean.
As we have been arguing in one way or another on the boards is that there is legitimately 14+ candidates and outside of Maddux, there isn't a clear top candidates.
it flies in the face of the American psyche which has a long history of forgiveness.
I think that WAR is the cumulative impact of all the useful and meaningful metrics that exist to measure the impact of a player's performance.
In the case of Glavine WAR does not pick up his "hockey pluckiness" that is such a big part, along with Andruw Jones, of why Glavine did so well with a poor strikeout rate.
The Kenny Rogers bashing is a bit unfair. He doesn't belong in the HOF, but just going by the numbers, he doesn't belong in the Hall any less than any of the guys in the 2 and 3 point tiers.
The Kenny Rogers bashing is a bit unfair.
I bet if Bonds or Clemens got up and said: "I cheated, it was wrong, and my performance/stats were artificially inflated over what they otherwise would have been.", they'd be forgiven, and elected in short order.
Nothing says more about how the BBWAA would react if given "guidance by the HoF" on handling PED users than what happened with regard to Pete Rose. The HoF and MLB were skewered for taking the decision on Rose out of the hands of the voting population. They'd be raked over the coals again for taking the decision on guys who were never even disciplined by MLB for their transgressions out of the hands of the voting population, and they'd be attacked even worse if they gave explicit guidance that those players were to be judged on their on-field performance without regard to their possible PED usage.
The guardians of morality want to punish the users, but don't want the accountability of being the ones issuing the punishment - so they whine about "needing guidance from the HoF" so that they can be taken off the hook. Personally I think the HoF and MLB are being smart by "not" taking any action, one way or the other, even if it does contribute to the situation we have now, because it makes it all too clear who the real culprits are.
The voters do not want "guidance". They want the Hall to give "guidance" to the people who disagree with them.
this is actually a polarizing issue, the BTF position notwithstanding.
You must be talking about some other BTF.
169: Booey have you looked at the backlog and the ballot strength for those first ballot guys you mentioned? I have a hunch if you do, you'll find both the backlog and the debut candidates were probably pretty weak.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.9835 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed