Master Index of Archived Threads


John Franco in the Hall?

MFS62 Jan 18 2006 07:15 PM

http://www.metsgeek.com/articles/2006/01/16/handicapping-johnny/ What do you think of the writer's analysis? Later

Gwreck Jan 19 2006 01:35 AM

If you have to argue a case for someone, they're not a hall of famer. Seriously now... Sutter, Gossage, Dawson, Rice, Byleven, etc. - NO. Ripken? Gywnn? McGwire? Those are hall-of-famers, because there's no argument.* *Asterisk re: McGwire, but that argument isn't that his stats aren't hall-worthy.

HappyRecap Jan 19 2006 01:48 AM who knows

After Sutter got in, I saw some interesting articles about other relievers who had similar stats (Henke and Quisenberry) so who knows when it comes to relievers. Gossage did what he did for so much longer that I think he should be in too. And then if we are letting relievers of the modern age in the HOF, like Fingers/Eck/Sutter, then after Gossage guys like Rivera will definitely get in. But regarding Franco, I am not sure. He was definitely a compiler of saves so maybe he will get compared to a starter like Don Sutton who for some reason gets grief about being in the HOF with 324 wins. My best Franco memory is of him throwing that somewhat high and tight called 3rd strike to Juiceboy Bonds. Man, that was exciting.

HappyRecap Jan 19 2006 01:55 AM

Gwreck, debating or arguiing about the HOF is pretty much what makes it so much fun. What seems to happen is that a guy gets let in which inferior stats (ex: Bill Mazeroski) and then that opens the door to fun debate and conjecture. The hope is that the HOF takes into consideration (like you mentioned with the *) that players played in certain generations and perhaps those stats were skewed. But imagine if a guy like Dave Kingman or Jose Canseco got to 500 HRs. That would cause HOF discussions that would rage on an on. HAPPY RECAP

Edgy DC Jan 19 2006 08:33 AM

I don't understand the "If you have to argue..." position. There will always be borderline cases. Somebody will always be the weakest player to meet a standard. The intellectual challenge is to clearly define and defend and live with your standard. And when it comes time to yield and adjust it, adust it fairly and not arbitrarily.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 19 2006 08:44 AM

The logic is simple: someone else can elect the borderline cases. If someone is borderline to me, then I vote No. Some of these borderlines (to me) will be voted in by others, and I can live with that. If they don't get a lot of support from others, I can live with that too. If you only support those you're completely positive about, and everybody felt likewise, we'd have fewer cases of "Who the hell is Phlegmy Tripleballs and what the hell is he doing in the Hall of Fame?"

MFS62 Jan 19 2006 11:28 AM

HappyRecap wrote: What seems to happen is that a guy gets let in which inferior stats (ex: Bill Mazeroski) and then that opens the door to fun debate and conjecture. The hope is that the HOF takes into consideration (like you mentioned with the *) that players played in certain generations and perhaps those stats were skewed. (Climbing up on my soapbox) Although there are more than a few players I think don't belong in the Hall, and others I think should be in there (and I've mentioned them before), when someone is the best of all time at what he did, then he belongs in the Hall. Even HOF second baseman Rogers Hornsby, who threw around compliments about modern ballplayers like I can throw around manhole covers, said that Bill Mazeroski was the greatest fielding second baseman ever to play the game. I had a chance to speak to a sarcastic nay-sayer sports talk show host (Pete Franklin, he was on in both New York and Cleveland). He said that when they produced the Spalding Guides in the early 1900's that were a series of books about how to play the game, that Bill Mazeroski could have been used for the book about second base. This is the Hall of Fame. It was established to honor not only individual players, but the history of the game. The Hall is not only about offensive numbers. Those are two long time observers of the game, with their experience tracing back from the 1920's to the modern era. You mention that a player's generation must be taken into consideration. According to them, Maz' "generation" spanned 85 years. And if they say Maz was the best of that generation, that's good enough for me. He certainly was the best I've seen in over 50 years of watching baseball. If Ozzie is in, Maz deserves his place there, too. Now, will somebody please help this old guy down off this soapbox? Later

Nymr83 Jan 19 2006 11:54 AM

When I'm looking at putting a guy in the hall i need to ask a few questions: 1. would he be the "worst" player at his position in the HOF? if the answer is yes then i don't want him in. I think the minimum standards have already been set, and i believe there are even guys in there who don' belong so there is no way i'd want to set an even lower standard. 2. is the player better than others at his position who arent in? 3. how many players would fairly have to "come in with him"? if the answer is few or none (Blyleven, Rice) then thats a good thing, if the answer is "many" then i don't want to open the hall further (this is my issue with Franco, if you let him in there are 10 more relievers pounding on the doors.)

A Boy Named Seo Jan 19 2006 12:03 PM

I thought LOOGY was a CPF-coined term? Are those guys CPeffers?

heep Jan 19 2006 03:49 PM

Unlikely. The save, as a statistic, is too controversial among past relievers.

Frayed Knot Jan 19 2006 04:07 PM

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I thought LOOGY was a CPF-coined term? Are those guys CPeffers? 'LOOGY' has existed in the baseball analysis world for at least a couple of years now. It's not a CPF invention.

seawolf17 Jan 19 2006 04:08 PM

I like to think of everything as being a CPF invention.

Edgy DC Jan 19 2006 04:16 PM

I recently stumbled over the acronym LAIM (League Average Innings Muncher) --- a clear attempt to establish coinage a la LOOGy

vtmet Jan 19 2006 08:08 PM

I guess I missed what everyone's thoughts were on Franco being HOF material...I say a resounding NO...he wasn't even the better reliever in the John Franco trade, let alone HOF material...

Frayed Knot Jan 19 2006 11:14 PM

Franco's getting into the HoF the same way I am ... by buying a ticket -- but the Mets got at least as good out of Johnny F. as any of the 5 teams did out of the remaining career of Randall K. Myers. That trade turned out just fine.

Rockin' Doc Jan 19 2006 11:22 PM

True, but Myers could kick Franco's ass if he attempted to sneak into the hall without purchasing a ticket/

Elster88 Jan 19 2006 11:24 PM

Not if Franco brings his Mafia buddies.

metirish Jan 19 2006 11:29 PM

When I saw this thread title I assumed Franco was going to be inducted into some hall in Staten Island not the big hall in Cooperstown.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 20 2006 04:39 AM

metirish wrote: When I saw this thread title I assumed Franco was going to be inducted into some hall in Staten Island not the big hall in Cooperstown. I assumed he was reduced to hanging out in some corridor. "Sir? A Mr. John Franco's in the hall." "Yeah? Well, telll him I'm busy." "I've told him, sir, but he insists he's going to stay there until you hire him as a lefthanded relief pitcher." "What? This is a shoe factory." "I've tried explaining that, sir. But he keeps mumbling something about 'unfinished business, few more records need to be nailed down,' something like that. It doesn't all make sense, sir. Do you want me to call Security?" "God, yes, No, wait a second--what's Franco doing exactly?" "He's just soft-tossing junk up against the wall, sir." "What do you mean 'junk.'?" "Honestly, sir, I think it's fecal matter." "Does it look like it would be easy to hit?" "Oh, easily, sir." "Oh. Well, that's just what John's been throwing for years then. Probably just a nervous habit by now. He's perfectly harmless." "That's what all the National League batters say, sir." "Well, all I guess we can do is just keep him waiting out in the hall."

PatchyFogg Jan 20 2006 05:15 PM

The Italian WBC team won't even let him pitch for them, so the Hall is out.

metsmarathon Jan 20 2006 06:30 PM

well, the US WBC team prolly wouldn't let bruce sutter on the roster, so its something of a silly point. and, and as far a johnny in the hall... heh, no.

Zvon Jan 20 2006 06:49 PM

I dont like the way the players dont get to choose their hat anymore. And ill admit this is juvenile and selfish and silly and has nothing to do with John Francos actual performance as a player.....if it means having another player wearing a Met hat in the hall of fame, Im all for it. lol.

Edgy DC Jan 20 2006 06:55 PM

If you ask the Hall of Fame president, the players were never really allowed to choose their hats, merely consulted on the decision.

Zvon Jan 20 2006 11:57 PM

Edgy DC wrote: If you ask the Hall of Fame president, the players were never really allowed to choose their hats, merely consulted on the decision. But dont you think that is a most personal thing.... And that the player should have the right to make that call? Is there any situation from the old way of business where a players considerations were overruled?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 21 2006 05:42 AM

It used to be not so much a problem, especially when superstars only left teams that wanted to get rid of them, not when they also had the optoon of leaving. But the main problem of modern times is that players have realized that there's moolah involved in their choice. I think Wade Boggs, was it? really screwed things up for the players by offering to wear the Devil Rays cap (if they paid him a ton of money.) Or was it Dave Winfield? Anyway, one of these multi-team superstars started the bidding on which cap his plaque would publicize, and baseball wisely stepped in before it became an utter freak show, saying "Not your call, asshole. Not any more." I suppose someone like Frank Robinshon, who could make a legitimate case for either Cincinnati or Baltimore, was given a choice as a courtesy. But if he would have chosen L.A. or Cleveland because they were paying him $$$ (or because he was managing Cleveland) I think the ax would have come down then. Just a WAG.

seawolf17 Jan 21 2006 08:30 AM

Boggs had a clause in his TB contract, I believe. Winfield was a big deal too, but I don't remember if it was some shady deal with the Padres or bitterness over the Howie Spira thing.

SI Metman Jan 21 2006 01:02 PM

PatchyFogg wrote: The Italian WBC team won't even let him pitch for them, so the Hall is out. No, but they'll let him be their pitching coach, which is what he is doing. His buddy Matt Galante is the manager and his other buddy Mike Piazza is the catcher.

vtmet Jan 21 2006 09:03 PM

SI Metman wrote: ="PatchyFogg"]The Italian WBC team won't even let him pitch for them, so the Hall is out. No, but they'll let him be their pitching coach, which is what he is doing. His buddy Matt Galante is the manager and his other buddy Mike Piazza is the catcher. In otherwords...the Italian team is gonna get STOMPED...

Frayed Knot Jan 22 2006 10:56 AM

But a different manager and pitching coach would change that, right?

Elster88 Jan 22 2006 08:47 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: I think Wade Boggs, was it? really screwed things up for the players by offering to wear the Devil Rays cap (if they paid him a ton of money.) Or was it Dave Winfield? Anyway, one of these multi-team superstars started the bidding on which cap his plaque would publicize, and baseball wisely stepped in before it became an utter freak show, saying "Not your call, asshole. Not any more." I think it was Winfield.