|
="Gwreck":1tb07hik]It seems like we go through this every year.
Exclude Rafael Palmeiro, fine. McGwire? Nope.
---
The only positive side is that if the writers aren't willing to put McGwire in the hall, it should mean that they won't be willing to put Clemens in, either.[/quote:1tb07hik]
Yup.
|
G-Fafif
Dec 01 2008 12:53 PM
|
|
If the entire purpose of the Hall of Fame becomes keeping Roger Clemens out, then I applaud the Hall of Fame's entire purpose.
|
Benjamin Grimm
Dec 01 2008 12:58 PM
|
|
Those who bring infamy to the game don't belong in Cooperstown.
That includes McGwire, Clemens, and Bonds.
And Pete Rose.
AND Joe Jackson.
|
seawolf17
Dec 01 2008 01:40 PM
|
|
"Infamous"?!?! That must mean REALLY famous!
|
metsguyinmichigan
Dec 01 2008 02:16 PM
|
|
="G-Fafif":2oc4jnsb]If the entire purpose of the Hall of Fame becomes keeping Roger Clemens out, then I applaud the Hall of Fame's entire purpose.[/quote:2oc4jnsb]
Badass!
I'm a little more inclusive. Rickey (in an A's cap, please) Blyleven, Rice, Murphy and I think McGwire gets in eventually when far greater villains are exposed.
|
SteveJRogers
Dec 01 2008 02:49 PM
|
|
="metsguyinmichigan":c8otj9s2]
I'm a little more inclusive. Rickey (in an A's cap, please)[/quote:c8otj9s2]
Yeah but man, you can't discount his time with the Dodgers, or the Angels, and oh man who can forget the 2000 Mariners!
Why yes I'll be making the same joke with Mike Piazza's two week stay in Florida in 1998!
|
G-Fafif
Dec 01 2008 03:00 PM
|
|
I'd like to see Rickey wear a [url=http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/submit/Patterson_Harry1.stm:405dua2r]batting helmet[/url:405dua2r] in honor of those three different guys he played with in Toronto, New York and Seattle who each wore one in the field.
|
Rockin' Doc
Dec 01 2008 03:01 PM
|
|
It won't be funny then, either.
|
G-Fafif
Dec 01 2008 03:21 PM
|
|
Two great Rickey stories, for real:
Tom Verducci, [url=http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1029027/index.htm:2jaxect0]here[/url:2jaxect0];
Ralph Wiley, [url=http://espn.go.com/page2/s/wiley/011005.html:2jaxect0]here[/url:2jaxect0].
|
Nymr83
Dec 01 2008 04:16 PM
|
|
Henderson is a lock. I'd vote for Blyleven, Trammell, and Raines as well. I'd strongly consider Rice.
|
Valadius
Dec 01 2008 06:05 PM
|
|
Henderson
Raines
Rice
Blyleven
Dawson
McGwire
Murphy
Trammell
Morris
|
Nymr83
Dec 01 2008 07:55 PM
|
|
Dawson? really? why not Harold Baines then?
|
seawolf17
Dec 01 2008 08:16 PM
|
|
="Nymr83":3fqtrowr]Dawson? really? why not Harold Baines then?[/quote:3fqtrowr]
Baines was a nice player, but really never a dominant force, except maybe at the beginning of his career. Dawson kicked the hell out of the NL for a long time, with eight All-Star appearances and four top-10 MVP finishes, including a win and two second-place finishes -- and both times, he lost to HoFers in Mike Schmidt and Dale Murphy. (Well, Murph's not in the Hall, but he should be.)
Plus, he won eight Gold Gloves; only five OFs have more. (Say what you will about the Gold Gloves, but they are what they are.)
They're interesting comparisons, but I just don't think Baines comes even close.
|
Nymr83
Dec 01 2008 08:28 PM
|
|
="seawolf17":1q76j0nu]
Plus, he won eight Gold Gloves; only five OFs have more. (Say what you will about the Gold Gloves, but they are what they are.)
[/quote:1q76j0nu]
yeah they are what they are, which is "not very meaningful."
Dawson: 10769 PA .279/.323/.482 119 OPS+
Baines: 11092 PA .289/.356/.465 120 OPS+
so much for your "not even close", I think Baines is the better hitter since OBP is more important than slugging and Baines was alot higher.
|
Edgy DC
Dec 01 2008 08:51 PM
|
|
<table align="right" border="1" bordercolor="black" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"><tr bgcolor="black"><td><font color="white"><b>Dawson Position</td><td align="center"><b><font color="white">Year</td><td align="center"><b><font color="white">Baines Position</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" align="center">CF</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" rowspan="7">RF</td></tr><tr><td align="center">2</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" align="center">GG CF</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="center">6</td></tr><tr><td align="center">7</td></tr><tr><td align="center">8</td><td align="center" rowspan="15">DH</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="center">GG RF</td><td align="center">9</td></tr><tr><td align="center">10</td></tr><tr><td align="center">RF</td><td align="center">11</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="center">GG RF</td><td align="center">12</td></tr><tr><td align="center">13</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" align="center">RF</td><td align="center">14</td></tr><tr><td align="center">15</td></tr><tr><td align="center">16</td></tr><tr><td align="center">17</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="center">DH</td><td align="center">18</td></tr><tr><td align="center">19</td></tr><tr><td align="center">RF</td><td align="center">20</td></tr><tr><td align="center">LF</td><td align="center">21</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="black" align="center"><br></td><td align="center">22</td></tr></table>They're pretty comparable hitters. They even played (almost) the same number of seasons. I'm not supporting either guy, but defensively --- even taking into account how foolishly gold gloves are distributed --- we're talking two different animals.
|
seawolf17
Dec 01 2008 09:29 PM
|
|
Dawson stole more bases, played the field longer, hit more home runs, started more ASGs, got more MVP support -- that's why I say "not close".
I'm not saying Baines was a bad player; I'm just saying when you go beyond the overall numbers -- in two hundred more games, Baines gave you less numbers in every key stat except one, walks, which explains the OBP difference. (And he had eighty more hits, but I don't know that matters much.) An extra 25 walks a season -- one a week over twenty-plus years -- doesn't offset the overall offensive numbers, which Dawson clearly dominates, both overall and on a season-by-season basis.
Baines has more postseason experience -- six appearances -- but in four of those six, he was a late-season acquisition. I don't know what that says about him -- he didn't exactly light up the world with his new team in any of those four seasons, although his postseason stats were good. Dawson was awful in both of his postseason appearances.
|
Edgy DC
Dec 01 2008 10:08 PM
|
|
Bill James, who'd support Nymr's OPS comparison and agree that on-base percentage is more important than slugging, ranked Dawson 19th among rightfielders, and Baines 42nd. And he says that while knocking Dawson's MVP, saying that he wasn't in the top 20 players in the league in 1987.
|
seawolf17
Dec 01 2008 10:18 PM
|
|
Part of the Hall of Fame discussion, I think, is whether a player was considered dominant at the time. You can't say that Andre Dawson wasn't considered among the dominant players in the NL during the bulk of his career. That's where the ASG starts and the MVP votes -- I think -- are so important, because it speaks to the time.
|
Willets Point
Dec 01 2008 10:34 PM
|
|
Did Rickey ever retire, or he did just fade away? I'd like to see him play in MLB in 2009. Just for shits and giggles.
|
Nymr83
Dec 01 2008 11:18 PM
|
|
just look at the guys who have OPS and OPS+ numbers like Dawson's, most aren't hall of famers. There are plenty of guys who were much better hitters (Albert Belle comes to mind) who won't get in.
seawolf, 25 walks a year is significant. you go ahead and raise stolen bases, but dawson only stole 314 (and was caught 109 times) thats 205 net steals that Baines didnt have, aboput 20 a yer... how can you consider 20 steals a year more significant than getting on base 25 more times?
|
Edgy DC
Dec 02 2008 06:27 AM
|
|
I'm getting ignored here.
Baines wasn't a neutral baserunner, but a counterproductive one.
Dawson's vs. Baines' defense isn't an opportunity to indict the Gold Glove system, but a chance to recognize that these guys were on two different planets regarding defensive contributions.
Lastly, Bill James. Fuckin' Bill James.
|
duan
Dec 02 2008 06:48 AM
for me
|
|
Rickey, Raines & Blyleven.
I also think that Tommy John deserves consideration, what he endured has probably had more impact on the pitcher then any other thing, to me, that's Hall of Fame.
|
Nymr83
Dec 02 2008 07:36 AM
|
|
| ]Dawson's vs. Baines' defense isn't an opportunity to indict the Gold Glove system, but a chance to recognize that these guys were on two different planets regarding defensive contributions. |
The GG system itself sucks, i didn't mean that as a knock on Dawson's defense but as a knock on citing GGs as a reason to call him a great defender.
I'm not ignoring you either, You just werent speaking to the point I was making, which is that Baines is a (slightly) better hitter than Dawson and therefore comments about them being "not even close" are wrong.
And if you want Bill James to determine who gets into the hall and who doesn't I'm ok with that, I probably wouldn't agree with everything he'd say but he'd be a hell of a lot better at it than the guys who get to vote now.
|
Edgy DC
Dec 02 2008 07:59 AM
|
|
The point you're making was "If Dawson, why not Baines?" The answer is that, beyond hitting, they're incomparable.
|
Edgy DC
Dec 02 2008 08:05 AM
|
|
I'll color code my table to make my point.
<table border="1" bordercolor="black" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"><tr bgcolor="black"><td><font color="white"><b>Dawson Position</td><td align="center"><b><font color="white">Year</td><td align="center"><b><font color="white">Baines Position</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" align="center" bgcolor="#FF6600">CF</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" rowspan="7" bgcolor="#FF9900">RF</td></tr><tr><td align="center">2</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" align="center" bgcolor="#FF0000">GG CF</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="center">6</td></tr><tr><td align="center">7</td></tr><tr><td align="center">8</td><td align="center" rowspan="15" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">DH</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="center" bgcolor="#FF6600">GG RF</td><td align="center">9</td></tr><tr><td align="center">10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#FF9900">RF</td><td align="center">11</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="center" bgcolor="#FF6600">GG RF</td><td align="center">12</td></tr><tr><td align="center">13</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" align="center" bgcolor="#FF9900">RF</td><td align="center">14</td></tr><tr><td align="center">15</td></tr><tr><td align="center">16</td></tr><tr><td align="center">17</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">DH</td><td align="center">18</td></tr><tr><td align="center">19</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#FF9900">RF</td><td align="center">20</td></tr><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFF33">LF</td><td align="center">21</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="black" align="center"><br></td><td align="center">22</td></tr></table>
He was aflame.
|
duan
Dec 02 2008 08:23 AM
|
|
how's about i say this.
neither of them are hall of famers.
|
seawolf17
Dec 02 2008 08:26 AM
|
|
="Nymr83"]| ]Dawson's vs. Baines' defense isn't an opportunity to indict the Gold Glove system, but a chance to recognize that these guys were on two different planets regarding defensive contributions. |
The GG system itself sucks, i didn't mean that as a knock on Dawson's defense but as a knock on citing GGs as a reason to call him a great defender.
I'm not ignoring you either, You just werent speaking to the point I was making, which is that Baines is a (slightly) better hitter than Dawson and therefore comments about them being "not even close" are wrong.
And if you want Bill James to determine who gets into the hall and who doesn't I'm ok with that, I probably wouldn't agree with everything he'd say but he'd be a hell of a lot better at it than the guys who get to vote now. |
No, Baines was not (slightly) a better hitter than Dawson. He was a much better walker. In every other aspect, Dawson's better (home runs, doubles, triples, stolen bases) or equal (hits). Up and down the board, on any day of the week, in any season, I'd much rather have Dawson on my team than Baines. Dawson spots him two hundred games and STILL beats him overall.
|
Nymr83
Dec 02 2008 08:38 AM
|
|
he wasn't just a "better walker", his batting average was 10 points higher, insignificant over 1 year but hardly so over a career.
counting HR/2B/3B seperately is kinda of silly, because whether you hit a triple and a single or two doubles its all the same. compare their OBPs and their SLG%, thats really all you need to look at to understand all those numbers. Baines had an OBP 33 points higher, that is VERY significant, and its not a knock on him to say he did it via the walk.
Take away walks and Rickey Henderson looks like he's not as good as Dawson either, while in fact Henderson was far superior, because walks really matter.
|
seawolf17
Dec 02 2008 09:36 AM
|
|
="Nymr83":3i4wxh5d]he wasn't just a "better walker", his batting average was 10 points higher, insignificant over 1 year but hardly so over a career.
counting HR/2B/3B seperately is kinda of silly, because whether you hit a triple and a single or two doubles its all the same. compare their OBPs and their SLG%, thats really all you need to look at to understand all those numbers. Baines had an OBP 33 points higher, that is VERY significant, and its not a knock on him to say he did it via the walk.
Take away walks and Rickey Henderson looks like he's not as good as Dawson either, while in fact Henderson was far superior, because walks really matter.[/quote:3i4wxh5d]
I'm not knocking him for walking -- he walked twice as much as Dawson did, and that's obviously significant. My point is that there's no other facet of Baines game -- NONE -- that makes him better than Dawson, and that the other things -- speed, power, defensive ability -- far outweigh the ability to draw more walks. He simply was not the player that Dawson was, overall.
I don't even think Baines could ever have been considered the best player on his own team at any point; that would have gone to Carlton Fisk back in the early 80s, and after the early 80s, he was a role player. During his best seasons, he didn't carry his team. 1996 he supported Robin Ventura and Frank Thomas, in 1999 he played fourth fiddle to Albert Belle, BJ Surhoff, and an aging but still effective Cal Ripken, although he did do enough to make the All-Star team that year... for the first time since 1991.
Dawson, meanwhile, had two dominant stretches. The first was 1977-1983, when he won a ROY, finished in the top 25 in MVP voting five times, and ripped the crap out of National League pitching. He fell apart at the end in Montreal, then was rejuvenated in Chicago in 1987, ripping off another six-season run until his body finally started giving out again.
|
Benjamin Grimm
Dec 02 2008 09:41 AM
|
|
I thought Baines would end up being the first 3,000-hit guy to miss the Hall of Fame (other than Pete Rose, of course) but he fell short by just over 100 hits.
|
metsmarathon
Dec 02 2008 09:50 AM
|
|
per my methodology of using WARP3 and comparing those on the ballot to those who've already been voted in by the bbwaa...
i look at career and peak value over 5, 7, and 10 year spans. i also take a look at a player's best individual season, just for kicks.
rickey henderson is an above average hall of famer in terms of his peak value for 5, 7, and 10 years, and is in the top quarter in terms of career value and single season.
tim raines is an above average hall of vfamer by all of these measures save single season maximum, wherein he is below average.
alan trammel is an above average hall of famer by all of these measures save career value, wherein he is below average.
these are the hitters who would receive my vote, and in the above order (not that that matters)
no other candidate hitter on the ballot ranks among the top half of the existing hall of famers by these measures.
among the other hitters, mark mcgwire is below average for a hall of famer in each measure save 7-year peak value, wherein he is in the bottom quarter.
don mattingly is below average in only 5 year peak and single season maximum value. by all other measures he is in the bottom quarter.
andre dawson is a below average hofer in only career value. by all other measures he is in the bottom quarter.
dale murphy and jay bell are below average hofer in only single season maximum value. by all other measures they are in the bottom quarter.
jim rice, harold baines, mark grace, and matt williams are in the bottom quarter of hall of famers by all measures.
dave parker is in the bottom quarter of hall of famers by all measures save 10-year peak vaule, wherein his value is lower than that of any hall of famer voted in by the bbwaa.
mo vaughn's career value and 10-year peak value fall short of ony elected hall of famer.
ron gant and greg vaughn fall short of any hall of famer by all emasures save single season maximum value, wherin they are in the bottom quarter.
...
among pitchers, bert blyleven ranks in the top quarter of hofers in terms of career value, and is above average in terms of 5-yr peak, 7-yr peak and single season maximum value, but is below average in terms of 10-year peak value.
he is the only pitcher who i would vote for.
only tommy john ranks as above average in any category. he is above average in terms of career value. however, in terms of all three peak values and single season maximum value, he falls short of any elected hall of famer.
by all measures, david cone ranks as a below average hall of famer. he is the strongest candidate whom i would not vote for.
jack morris ranks in the bottom quarter of hall of famers in all categories save 10 year peak, in which he is below average.
lee smith is in the bottom quarter of hall of famers in all categories save single season maximum value, wherein he falls short of any elected hofer.
jesse orosco falls short of any elected hofer in all categories save career value.
dan plesac falls short of any elected hofer by all measures.
the only other comparison worth making would be lee smith versus elected relievers - a subset that includes, i think, only sutter, gossage, and eckersley.
bruce sutter is among the weakest hall of famers elected. he has the lowest career value, and the lowest 7-year peak value. he has the second lowest 10-year peak and the third lowest 5-year peak. he also has the 5th lowest single season maximum value.
goose gossage is in teh bottom quarter in terms of career value and 5-year peak, and ranks as below average in 7-year peak, 10-year peak, and single season maximum.
dennis eckersley is in teh bottom quarter in all measures save career value, wherein he ranks as above average.
lee smith has a higher career value than bruce sutter, but falls short of gossage.
his 5-year max is just higher than sutters, but falls well short of gossage and eckersley.
his 7-year peak is just higher than sutter, but well short of eckersley.
his 10-year peak value is greater than sutter, and actually greater than eckersley, but well short of gossage.
his single season maximum falls well short of sutter.
he also did not, to my knowledge, usher in the use of any new, fancy pitch.
relievers are very difficult to argue for relative to other pitchers, as eck, sutter, and gossage, based on their overall values, are all among the weaker elected hall of famers. the bar should be set fairly high for them. and lee smith does not clear that bar.
oe: this might all be unreadble. maybe i'll make a table after lunch
|
Edgy DC
Dec 02 2008 09:53 AM
|
|
I like Trammell's candidacy. I should add him in.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Dec 02 2008 10:13 AM
|
|
I think its unfortunate for Raines to have played at the same time as Henderson who is as inner-circle a HOFer as we might see in our lifetimes.
Like Henderson Raines was an excellent walker and dynamite base-stealer. He hit for a high average and hardly ever struck out.
I also think he's easy to overlook having come up with Montreal then systematically having been screwed by collusion which prolly diminished his brand image where a similar free agent can use their moment of free agency to enhance it.
So, I'll throw a vote to Raines along with Rickey.
I forget where I stand in relation to Blyleven. I'm pretty sure I suppoort him. I like Trammell too.
|
Edgy DC
Dec 02 2008 10:21 AM
|
|
<table align="center"><tr><td algin="center">Trammell</td><td rowspan="3">=</td><td align="center">Raines</td></tr><tr><td><hr></td><td><hr></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Ripken</td><td align="center">Henderson</td></tr></table>
|
seawolf17
Dec 02 2008 10:36 AM
|
|
="Edgy DC":2rt05iss]<table align="center"><tr><td algin="center">Trammell</td><td rowspan="3">=</td><td align="center">Raines</td></tr><tr><td><hr></td><td><hr></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Ripken</td><td align="center">Henderson</td></tr></table>[/quote:2rt05iss]
Yes, that's about right.
Growing up, though, if you told me that guys like Jim Rice and Dale Murphy and Tim Raines would be "borderline" Hall of Famers, I'd have kicked you in the nuts and told you that you were from outer space. Those guys were lock HoFers back in the day. It's still stunning to me now that they don't get any support.
|
Benjamin Grimm
Dec 02 2008 10:49 AM
|
|
I think Dale Murphy's career faded too soon, which is what hurts his candidacy.
|
Frayed Knot
Dec 02 2008 10:54 AM
|
|
Murphy falls in with Mattingly in my mind -- a half-dozen or so HoF years followed by a longer stretch of mediocrity which killed their chances.
Both are guys who you'd say were headed there during their careers but the problem with that kind of thinking is that it often assumes that same level of production (or gradual decline) for the next number of years.
Raines wasn't as extreme as those two but the second half of his career wasn't as good as his first either. I thought he was better than Rickey early on (possbily a result of NL bias) but Rickey was eventually better and kept up his elite play much longer.
With active players I like to resort to the 'Hit by a train' standard. That's the one where you decide it they'd be in if they never played again and it's a rare player who meets that standard before reaching their mid-30s.
ARod is the youngest active player who meets that level and before him was probably Griffey. 2 or 3 more seasons from Pujols and he'll qualify.
|
Vic Sage
Dec 02 2008 11:13 AM
|
|
i'm a definite [u:2et6bhtk]yes [/u:2et6bhtk]on Henderson and Blyleven, and i could go either way on Rice, Raines and Trammell. No others need apply.
|
metsmarathon
Dec 02 2008 11:30 AM
|
|
and so, here's a bit more intelligible way of looking at what i had said previously...
<table border="1"><tr><td> Player </td><td> Career </td><td> 5-yr peak </td><td> 7-yr Peak </td><td> 10-yr Plateau </td><td> 1-yr Max </td></tr><tr><td> henderson </td><td> TOP </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> TOP </td></tr><tr><td> blyleven </td><td> TOP </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 2nd </td></tr><tr><td> trammell </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td></tr><tr><td> raines </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 2nd </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> cone </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 3rd </td></tr><tr><td> mcgwire </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 3rd </td><td> bottom </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 3rd </td></tr>
<tr><td> mattingly </td><td> bottom </td><td> 3rd </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> 3rd </td></tr><tr><td> murphy </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> 3rd </td></tr><tr><td> dawson </td><td> 3rd </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> john </td><td> 2nd </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td></tr><tr><td> morris </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> 3rd </td><td> out </td></tr><tr><td> rice </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> baines </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> grace </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> bell </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> williams </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> parker </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> out </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> smith </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> out </td></tr><tr><td> vaughn </td><td> out </td><td> bottom </td><td> bottom </td><td> out </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> gant </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> vaughn </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> bottom </td></tr><tr><td> orosco </td><td> bottom </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td></tr><tr><td> plesac </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td><td> out </td></tr></table>
|
Nymr83
Dec 02 2008 03:09 PM
|
|
="Vic Sage":3va03oxw]i'm a definite [u:3va03oxw]yes [/u:3va03oxw]on Henderson and Blyleven, and i could go either way on Rice, Raines and Trammell. No others need apply.[/quote:3va03oxw]
It was my (jewish) New Year's resolution to agree with Vic just once this year.
|
Frayed Knot
Dec 02 2008 03:15 PM
|
|
Dave Parker is another not-good-enough from the Murphy/Mattingly category.
First 5 full seasons were all great, HoF-quality years. At that point he was 28 y/o.
After that he had one great season amid a bunch of good/OK ones in a career that lasted until he was 40.
Parker also became the poster boy for every fan's fear of the player who got the (then new) big long-term contract and got fat (figuratively AND literally) and lazy soon afterward.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Dec 02 2008 03:22 PM
|
|
He was never the same after he got baseball and hockey all confused.
|
John Cougar Lunchbucket
Dec 02 2008 03:23 PM
|
|
and football
|
Edgy DC
Dec 02 2008 04:53 PM
|
|
Teach you to mess with Stoins.
|
Frayed Knot
Dec 03 2008 05:49 AM
|
|
The HoF candidacy of [url=http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/raines-man/:2i8b3myn]Tim Raines gets some love[/url:2i8b3myn] in comparisons with not only sure-fire HoFer Rickey but also with possible one Rice & current member Brock in a piece from 'The Hardball Times'
|
Vic Sage
Dec 03 2008 08:12 AM
|
|
="Nymr83":1lrgong9]="Vic Sage":1lrgong9]i'm a definite [u:1lrgong9]yes [/u:1lrgong9]on Henderson and Blyleven, and i could go either way on Rice, Raines and Trammell. No others need apply.[/quote:1lrgong9]
It was my (jewish) New Year's resolution to agree with Vic just once this year.[/quote:1lrgong9]
even a broken clock is right twice a day.
|
Nymr83
Dec 03 2008 01:44 PM
|
|
They anounced the Veteran's Committee ballot today, i fear they will place the undeserving (like Ron Santo) in the hall while ignoring the best hitter not in the hall (Dick Allen.)
|
metsmarathon
Dec 03 2008 02:00 PM
|
|
<table border="1"><tr><td> Player </td><td> Career </td><td> 5-yr peak </td><td> 7-yr Peak </td><td> 10-yr Plateau </td><td> 1-yr Max </td></tr><tr><td> santo</td><td> 3rd </td><td> TOP </td><td> TOP </td><td> 2nd </td><td> TOP </td></tr><tr><td> allen</td><td> bottom </td><td> 2nd </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 3rd </td><td> 2nd </td></tr></table>
using my methodology, ron santo is probably the best player not in the hall.
|
Nymr83
Dec 03 2008 02:07 PM
|
|
Allen has a 156 OPS+ over 15 years, that should be automatic inclusion.
|
Valadius
Dec 03 2008 04:29 PM
|
|
Santo and Allen both deserve it.
|
seawolf17
Dec 03 2008 07:34 PM
|
|
="Nymr83":1g5y35ta]Allen has a 156 OPS+ over 15 years, that should be automatic inclusion.[/quote:1g5y35ta]
Hey! We agree!
|
Edgy DC
Dec 03 2008 08:12 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 06 2008 07:39 AM
|
|
I don't think there's such a thing as an automatic anything.
Bill James pretty much says he jerked his way out of the Hall of Fame and seems to agree, or at least acknowledge where the writers were coming from.
You don't have to agree, but I think declaring anything to be a no-brainer is intellectually lazy. The time for thinkers has come.
|
Frayed Knot
Dec 06 2008 07:20 AM
|
|
[url=http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/tim-raines-case-for-the-hall-of-fame/]More Raines love[/url]
A rather lengthy treatise on why Tim Raines belongs, comparing him as a leadoff hitter to other leadoffs already in or likely headed for the HoF and reaching concluions like; Take a big part of Rickey Henderson and Pete Rose, add a good size part of Lou Brock, Paul Molitor, and Craig Biggio, and stir in some Ichiro Suzuki, Wade Boggs, Joe Morgan, Derek Jeter, and Barry Bonds, and you get a composite that is a shade inferior to Tim Raines. ...
and then doing the same with Raines as #3 hitter, and then again as an overall career.
I'm convinced.
|
Edgy DC
Dec 06 2008 07:44 AM
|
|
We tend to say we're offended by the use of magic number thresholds reached in compiling career totals, but isn't the failure to reach 3,000 hits the main case against Raines?
And couldn't he have pulled it of pretty easily if he (1) walked a little less, or (2) spent his disease-diminished twilight hitting full-time at league average for a lesser team rather than hitting part-time above league average for contenders?
|
Valadius
Dec 06 2008 09:21 PM
|
|
You can't blame a guy for wanting to win championships.
|
Frayed Knot
Jan 05 2009 09:16 AM
|
|
Results revealed a week from today.
Meanwhile, [url=http://blogs.trb.com/sports/baseball/blog/2008/12/my_2009_hall_of_fame_ballot.html:fmb4ds8p]Newsday's Ken Davidoff[/url:fmb4ds8p] reveals not only his ballot but his reasoning behind each vote while showing a willingness to change his mind and adapt to changing thinking.
Plus I think I agree with him on all his choices (and non-choices).
|
Nymr83
Jan 05 2009 09:39 AM
|
|
="Frayed Knot":3l2ojh0o]Results revealed a week from today.
Meanwhile, [url=http://blogs.trb.com/sports/baseball/blog/2008/12/my_2009_hall_of_fame_ballot.html:3l2ojh0o]Newsday's Ken Davidoff[/url:3l2ojh0o] reveals not only his ballot but his reasoning behind each vote while showing a willingness to change his mind and adapt to changing thinking.
Plus I think I agree with him on all his choices (and non-choices).[/quote:3l2ojh0o]
"The statistics stand the test of time. Our memories are not as reliable."
That should be rule #1 of HOF voting.
|
metirish
Jan 05 2009 09:45 AM
|
|
That's some good stuff there form Davidoff . I like his honesty and that he can change from year to year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
