SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2015 HOF class; The line forms behind Pedro
|
Post by Sammy on Jan 1, 2015 23:48:52 GMT -5
People pick some silly stuff to argue about (I know, welcome to the internet). Obviously Berardino is not going to be sanctioned for voting for certain players over others. You might make the argument that technically he can be sanctioned based on how the BBWAA defines their terms, but as a practical matter that is a non-starter. Django, do you really think the BBWAA is going to get into sanctioning people based on *who* they vote for? Obviously a wholly different matter than selling your ballot.
|
|
|
Post by Sammy on Jan 2, 2015 0:09:10 GMT -5
Am I missing something, or is that link merely the opinion of one random jackrabbit on the internet? I can see the BBWAA drawing a red line on who you can't vote for in certain circumstances (confirmed PED users, gamblers, convicted felons, wife beaters, racists, w/e) but as is well known it's too late to keep some of those categories out anyway. But there's no way they can realistically impose rules on who you must vote for. Because then what's the point of the entire voting process? There's also no way they can force people not to vote for JT Snow or Jacque Jones, short of not putting them on the ballot. Saying that they can discipline someone for who they voted for because they disciplined Le Batard for selling his ballot is like saying that banning Pete Rose for gambling shows that they can ban Bronson Arroyo for playing the guitar, or ban Derek Jeter for dating a R&B singer.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 2, 2015 3:54:38 GMT -5
People pick some silly stuff to argue about (I know, welcome to the internet). Obviously Berardino is not going to be sanctioned for voting for certain players over others. You might make the argument that technically he can be sanctioned based on how the BBWAA defines their terms, but as a practical matter that is a non-starter. Django, do you really think the BBWAA is going to get into sanctioning people based on *who* they vote for? Obviously a wholly different matter than selling your ballot.
Here's what I think...Baseball writers aren't any different than the rest of us. As we've progressed down the rabbit hole known as the Internet and blown right through whatever diaphanous curtain of anonymity that ever existed, individual accountability has suffered. Twenty years ago, the apex of stupidity would seem to have been the average comment made in a Yahoo chat room. Now, you can go to the average person's Facebook page and find a whole mountain of stupid - all of it rationalized with the argument that it's no different than what anyone else is posting to their Facebook page. To give you an example of what I'm talking about, a year ago I was involved in a car accident. Since I was hurt, I didn't manage to get the license plate of the car that hit me (and then drove off). No problem though, since within an hour of the accident, the moron had posted pictures of his car - replete with a perfectly readable license plate number - on her Facebook page. Similarly, now you've got writers with a Hall of Fame vote publicly commenting - generally via Twitter since we're all apparently now incapable of reading more than 140 characters at a time - on what in the past was only rumored to be the case - that they're practically throwing darts at a board to figure out who to vote for. Do you honestly think this is a situation the BBWAA isn't concerned about? My sense is that the Le Batard case was a warning shot for voters given the privilege of voting for major awards and HOF induction to take the process more seriously and to show some restraint in what they write about the process. Le Batard surely wasn't the first writer to ever have assistance in completing his ballot. In the past, how many writers must have talked with their dad or their brother or their son about who they thought was deserving? At its heart, this is a matter not only of integrity but also, in the eyes of the BBWAA, of discretion. Essentially, their saying "We might not be able to bust you in all cases. But, if you give us license, yeah we're going to bust you."
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 2, 2015 7:51:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 2, 2015 10:46:29 GMT -5
I don't know what much about Tomase but that's a very good ballot.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 2, 2015 11:19:24 GMT -5
Dropping Biggio, who is on the cusp of election, is pretty dumb.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 2, 2015 13:07:53 GMT -5
I like Tomases ballot one of the better ones I have seen!!
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 2, 2015 13:31:39 GMT -5
Tomase's ballot is interesting because it is fine, but only includes 4 of the 10 that I would have chosen to vote for.
I do think that if a voter thinks Biggio is a Hall of Famer that they should find a way to include him even if they have him like 11th or 12th. Waiting for the Hall to change its rules will take forever, and getting him in now will distribute all (or nearly all) of his votes to another player next year. So if you think that, say, Mussina is a Hall of Famer (which I absolutely do), there's a better chance he gets in next year if Biggio is off of the ballot.
It would be a real shame to see Sheffield left off. I don't think he's a slam dunk case, but I have him above the threshold where I think he should be in, and it'd be too bad for him not to get a longer look.
Fortunately the glut from the last few years begins to clean out a bit next season. I'm guessing that Pedro, Johnson, and Biggio get in this time through, and Mattingly is (mercifully) at his 15th season. Griffey is a no doubt case, and Trevor Hoffman is the only other player who I could see getting above 5%. Edmonds, like Kenny Lofton a couple years back, deserves a longer look than he'll get. I'm guessing he falls off the ballot in year on.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jan 2, 2015 13:52:45 GMT -5
Per the latest tally, in addition to RJ and Pedro, Smoltz is looking like a pretty good lock, and Piazza and Biggio have very good shots as well. That would be pretty amazing if we had a 5-man HOF class this year - it would basically solve the ballot crowding issue, at least for the near future. Also great to see Mussina, Schilling, and Raines pick up quite a few votes. Of course the full results will probably be a little more disappointing, but at least it gives a little hope that those guys will be elected eventually. For what it's worth (not much), here's how I would have voted, in order of worthiness: 1) Bonds 2) Pedro 3) Clemens 4) Johnson 5) Bagwell 6) Piazza 7) Smoltz 8) Schilling 9) Walker 10) Mussina Okay, this is harder than I thought... Other worthy players: 11) Raines 12) Trammell 13) Edgar
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 2, 2015 13:58:35 GMT -5
Thats one of the worst ballots ive seen.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 2, 2015 14:14:50 GMT -5
Thats one of the worst ballots ive seen. You must not be looking at many ballots.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 2, 2015 15:00:53 GMT -5
The first thing I look for is Edgar Martinez' name checked off. If it doesn't appear, there's a discount applied on the remainder of the choices. I know I shouldn't do that, but I can't help it: I've seen varying analytical estimates, that he was something like one of the 30 greatest to 50 greatest hitters of all time. I suppose such an enormously valuable and respected player can be largely ignored by the BBWA, but it says a hell of a lot more about they, the process, and the HOF that it says about Martinez.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 2, 2015 17:03:43 GMT -5
Relative to the era he pitched in, competition he faced and park he played in, I don't know if I take any pitcher who's ever played the game over Pedro during his peak years with the Red Sox - and that includes Kershaw. The standard for the most dominant prime by a SP used to be Sandy Koufax. The key words there are "used to be" and that's because of Mr. Martinez. Koufax was a pedestrian P before 1961. In the next six years, he put up ERA-plus figures ranging from 122 in '61 to 190 in '66. Between 1997 and 2005, Pedro had five years better than 190. He was 202 in '02, 211 in '03, 219 in '97, 243 in '99 and 291 in '00. Those numbers are nothing short of sick, hilarious, stupid, impossible - pick whatever adjective you want and you'll probably still be understating it. The marvelous Koufax, of course, had a big edge in IP. He pitched 335 in '65, 323 in '66 and 311 in '63. Pedro's high was 241 in '97 with the Expos. So, who was more valuable? Do you take Pedro's superior run suppression or Sandy's dominance over a greater number of innings? If you use WAR, you take Pedro. He had a high of 11.7 in '00, compared to Sandy's high of 10.7 in '63. Koufax had the third best year in WAR between the two with 10.3 in '66. But the next three highest WAR years belong to Pedro. Pedro had a longer peak than Sandy and a better one. He was a very good SP from 1994 to 1996 and an out-of-this world stud from 1997 to 2005. Maddux, Grove and Gibson can also be in the conversation for best peak, but none can touch Pedro's 2000 season in either ERA-plus or WAR. None come close to Pedro's five years of ERA-plus above 200. (Maddux had two, Gibson and Grove one each.) Reflect on the performance Pedro gave us for seven years and feel privileged to have watched. Count your baseball blessings if you were at Fenway on the days he pitched when the electricity outside the park before game time was palpable. You'll be cheating yourself if you don't enjoy and cherish those memories. Thank you, Pedro.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 2, 2015 18:28:12 GMT -5
Relative to the era he pitched in, competition he faced and park he played in, I don't know if I take any pitcher who's ever played the game over Pedro during his peak years with the Red Sox - and that includes Kershaw. The standard for the most dominant prime by a SP used to be Sandy Koufax. The key words there are "used to be" and that's because of Mr. Martinez. And because people finally realized that Koufax's ERAs were massively deflated by the era and park he pitched in.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 2, 2015 19:14:49 GMT -5
The standard for the most dominant prime by a SP used to be Sandy Koufax. The key words there are "used to be" and that's because of Mr. Martinez. And because people finally realized that Koufax's ERAs were massively deflated by the era and park he pitched in. True. But I've sometimes wondered whether Sandy's adj. ERAs (ERA-plus) suffered because of the low-scoring environment. If scoring is depressed as much as it was in the '60s, does that make it harder for a P to get as far under the league average as Pedro did? I mean even in a noodle-bat era, some hitters are going to make contact. The realities of BABIP mean that some of those balls are going to fall in for hits and some of those hits are going to lead to runs. So, even the great P's are going to give up some runs. Another argument a Sandy partisan could make is that he pitched four no-hitters, including a PG. Pedro never pitched a no-hitter. Of course, a lot of great P from Pedro's era - Maddux, Glavine, Schilling, Mussina - never pitched a no-hitter. Clemens never did either and he had help from his magic vitamins.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 2, 2015 20:12:02 GMT -5
I don't think it's necessary to denigrate Sandy Koufax in order to appreciate what Pedro Martinez accomplished. Each was the best in the era during which they pitched. It's also difficult to compare the two given that Sandy's career was cut short by the manner in which the Dodgers used him. During his last two seasons, Koufax pitched a combined 54 complete games. Despite that heavy use, in his last season, at the age of 30, Koufax went 27-9 with a 1.73 ERA and 317 Ks. This from the 1965 World Series season, a year after which Koufax was forced to retire. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_World_Series"During the 1965 Season, the Dodgers relied heavily on the arms of Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale, and would rely on them even more in the World Series, as the Dodgers only used seven pitchers. The Dodgers' strong core of pitchers, which also included Claude Osteen and Ron Perranoski, kept them in the pennant race and into the Series. Koufax, surviving on a steady diet of Cortisone and pain killers for his arthritic left elbow, pitched five times in 15 days down the stretch, winning four (three shutouts), including 13 strikeouts in the pennant winner against Milwaukee." Read Jane Levy's book on Sandy Koufax for a full appreciation of his 1965 season. It's been a couple of years since I read it, so I'm going on memory here. But as I recall, his arm was so bad at the start of the season that the Dodgers decided they would try to limit his starts and innings. When they got into the season, of course, that didn't happen. He made 41 starts and pitched 27 CG and 335 innings. Then he pitched a CG shutout in game 5 of the WS and came back on two days rest to pitch a CG shutout in game 7. Nobody here denigrated Sandy Koufax. He was the epitome of class, dignity, bravery and determination. The Levy book is a great read and I recommend it for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 2, 2015 20:32:08 GMT -5
It's great to read stories about guys like Koufax. But I have a hard time understanding how pitchers are unable to be so heroic today under any circumstances. Not a single pitcher could possibly throw 300 innings today, especially with a shredded elbow and be anything other than a crappy pitcher even if it was Koufax himself. I have to imagine that pitching is a whole lot better today (extremely high effort that isn't possible for 300+ innings). And then when you go back 100+ years, I have to imagine you have glorified BP pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 2, 2015 20:44:53 GMT -5
It's great to read stories about guys like Koufax. But I have a hard time understanding how pitchers are unable to be so heroic today under any circumstances. Not a single pitcher could possibly throw 300 innings today, especially with a shredded elbow and be anything other than a crappy pitcher even if it was Koufax himself. I have to imagine that pitching is a whole lot better today (extremely high effort that isn't possible for 300+ innings). And then when you go back 100+ years, I have to imagine you have glorified BP pitchers. Sure they could do it. They just don't let them.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 2, 2015 21:44:10 GMT -5
Really like this ballot. That's probably about exactly what I'd vote for.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 2, 2015 21:45:56 GMT -5
The Thibs spreadsheet is now showing an even 100 declared ballots, so it's a good time to sum up. Pedro and Unit have 99 votes each. Smoltz is a sure thing with 90 votes. Biggio (82) and Piazza (85) have some cushion.
Bagwell (71) is losing altitude and isn't going to make it. Schilling is still in line for a huge jump from 29.2 percent last year to 60 percent on the Thibs sheet.
It appears that declared ballots are kinder to top candidates than the actual results. Piazza, for instance, went from 67.67 percent on last year's declared ballots to 62.2 percent in the actual voting.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 2, 2015 22:22:20 GMT -5
I think it's more important to look at where he's gained rather than percentages because, as was discussed above, the Thibs spreadsheet is not a representative sample. Schilling, for example, was listed by 48% of the voters currently logged. So 60% is a certain improvement, but there's a good chance he's going to end up under 50% again.
Piazza has picked up 12 votes, but he fell 74 votes short last season. So he's in better shape, and has gotten into good position for 2016 if he misses this year, but I don't think he's a slam dunk by any means.
Biggio is already at +5 and missed by two votes last year. I have to think he's in.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Jan 2, 2015 22:25:13 GMT -5
Really like this ballot. That's probably about exactly what I'd vote for. Please tell me you're joking. Leaving both Pedro and Johnson off is insane. Johnson in particular. There's only two reasons I can think of to leave The Big Unit off; one being "No one should get in the first time" and second "No one should get in unanimously" and they're both equally absurd.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 2, 2015 22:29:26 GMT -5
Really like this ballot. That's probably about exactly what I'd vote for. Please tell me you're joking. Leaving both Pedro and Johnson off is insane. Johnson in particular. There's only two reasons I can think of to leave The Big Unit off; one being "No one should get in the first time" and second "No one should get in unanimously" and they're both equally absurd. You're going to sorry you asked. Very sorry, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jan 2, 2015 22:31:28 GMT -5
I am not necessarily a proponent of this, but there is a third reason, and that is to lend votes to the borderline candidates and try to get them in the HOF as well. Taking a vote or two away from Pedro and Big Unit likely does not impact their chances of getting in the HOF at all, where they can make a difference for borderline candidates. Pedro or RJ get equally enshrined at 100% as they do at 80%, so if they can get someone like Biggio/Bagwell/Piazza/Schilling in the HOF at the same time then I support it. It will clear out some of the congestion and make it a little easier for some other deserving candidates to get in.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 2, 2015 22:31:32 GMT -5
There are a couple pages in this very thread talking about Berardino's ballot. His reasons for voting as he did weren't what you are accusing him of. He wanted to vote strategically, knowing that Pedro and Johnson were certain to get in.
Let's not go down that road again. You can disagree, but just agree to disagree civilly.
|
|
|