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
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 2, 2015 22:59:49 GMT -5
Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in. Seriously, take a look at the breakdown we discussed earlier of Pedro's prime vs. that of Sandy Koufax, the guy who used to be the standard among SP for dominant prime years. Pedro was far better than the great Koufax at run suppression, which is quite obviously what pitching is all about. That's why I crack up at the idea of someone leaving him off a ballot as part of a "strategy" to fulfill the important mission of helping Alan Trammell get 23.1 percent of the vote instead of 22.4 percent or whatever. Someone actually said earlier that he would be Ok with so many voters pursuing The Strategy that it kept Pedro from getting elected on the first ballot. Wow. This is Pedro f---ing Martinez, guys. Watching him perform here for seven years was a treat like none that any other group of fans in the history of the sport got to enjoy. But good luck anyways with the Alan Trammell strategy, Twinkie City writer. I'm going to have to look up whether any voters left Ruth and Cobb off their ballots in 1936 to make sure Stuffy McInnis and Amos Strunk got their due.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 2, 2015 23:03:29 GMT -5
Yes. You've said that.
He's my favorite pitcher of all time too.
Ruth and Cobb were not unanimous.
Just agree to disagree.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 2, 2015 23:19:41 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. What does the bolded sentence mean? I'm seeing on last year's Thibs sheet that Schilling had 35.67 percent of the declared vote and ended up at 29.2 in the actual tally. Was Schilling at 48 percent after 100 declared ballots last year? Clarity, please.
|
|
|
Post by Sammy on Jan 3, 2015 2:41:37 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. What does the bolded sentence mean? I'm seeing on last year's Thibs sheet that Schilling had 35.67 percent of the declared vote and ended up at 29.2 in the actual tally. Was Schilling at 48 percent after 100 declared ballots last year? Clarity, please. I think he means that out of the 100 voters tallied by Thibs, we can see that exactly 48 of them voted for Schill last year. This happens to be a group where Schill was overrepresented last year, so we shouldn't use the same group to project his final overall percentage. In Piazza's case, the numbers bode well for him either way, because he picked up 12 of the 27, or 44%, of those above-listed voters who didn't vote for him in '14. If he continues at that 44% rate, he'll add 95 of the 216 voters who didn't include him last year, which will give him plenty of clearance with 450 votes, assuming no one drops him from their ballot. So while I agree it is not a slam dunk, it seems likely, as the key is not that he added only 12 from a group of 100, it is that he added 12 from a certain group of 27 that didn't vote for him (typical small sample size caveats). He has more room for improvement among the remaining 471 voters than he did among the 100 listed by Thibs. Bagwell would need to gain roughly 46% of the 261 voters who didn't include him last year, without losing any, to edge across the threshold. Schill gained 12, or 23%, of the 52 above-listed voters who didn't include him last year. If he continues at that rate, it will put him at around 45% this year, which would bode very well for his eventual chances. Raines needs to add about 54% of the 308 knuckleheads who didn't vote for him last year (for the sake of argument I based those calculations off a projected 571 votes this year too, even though it is unlikely that the exact same number of ballots will be cast). I would love to see a 5 or 6 man class this year, because they're deserving, and it'll go some ways to clearing up the logjam so Raines can get in within the next 3 years. I'd like to see Trammell get in too, but he doesn't have a realistic shot at this point. Another way to look at it this year is that between the 3 man class of '14, plus Morris, plus the guys who failed to clear 5% of the vote, 1,958 votes freed up. Most of those will go to Pedro, Unit, and Smoltz, but there will still be 300+ to play with.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 3, 2015 8:16:07 GMT -5
I'm just not comfortable of assuming that players will continue to pick up the same rate of voters as they have in a non-representative sample. I was guilty of making the same assumptions last year when it appeared Biggio would sail in. The voters who don't release their ballots publicly are worse voters.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 3, 2015 9:18:36 GMT -5
That's a good explainer, Sammy, and a good way of looking at it. I also expect some decline from the Thibs numbers. At the current pace, two guys, Pedro and Unit, would surpass the highest percentage ever. That just seems unlikely to me. I'm also surprised by how well Smoltz is doing. I thought he was a maybe as a first timer (not that I question his credentials) and he's at 90 percent, so I expect some decline there.
I'm thinking that we'll probably see a flood of new publicly-declared ballots tomorrow morning because a lot of writers will do their unveiling in the Sunday papers. Also, at some point ESPN, which has quite a few voters, will make all those ballots public.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 3, 2015 14:25:52 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. No way. I hate to break it to you, but Koufax was probably throwing mid-80s at best.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 3, 2015 16:29:09 GMT -5
People didn't have bionic shoulders in the 60s. Guys got to those huge innings totals because they weren't throwing nearly as hard.
There's a 100+ year trend in baseball of pitchers throwing progressively fewer innings at higher effort. This isn't even up for debate.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 3, 2015 21:35:30 GMT -5
Oh you know the effort the guys in the 60s threw at? They didn't try as hard? Hate to break it to you buy guys can still get current MLB hitters out throwing in the 80s, happens regularly.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 3, 2015 21:40:46 GMT -5
Rjp, I work with a guy who pitched in the pirates org for a year ('68 I think). This isn't definitive by any stretch, but he's commented to me many times how much harder guys throw today.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 3, 2015 21:45:35 GMT -5
Sure they could do it. They just don't let them. No way. I hate to break it to you, but Koufax was probably throwing mid-80s at best. And it's great you have that opinion on his velocity but anything you read is it was much more than that, but if you don't believe it to be true then it must not be and it can't be up for debate because your opinion is better than everyone elses.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 3, 2015 21:48:03 GMT -5
Rjp, I work with a guy who pitched in the pirates org for a year ('68 I think). This isn't definitive by any stretch, but he's commented to me many times how much harder guys throw today. I have no doubt that on a whole pitchers throw a lot harder today, that's to be expected as Joe Schmo today can throw 95. Radar was after Kofax but reports are he threw in the upper 90s and guys like Feller and Gibson definitely did.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 3, 2015 22:29:34 GMT -5
I would think that the difference is that a bigger percentage of pitchers throw harder and that the big difference is in the bullpen.
The bullpen wasn't structured the way it is today. Guys were expected to go a complete game, especially in the '60s when the mound was high, the strike zone was huge, the offense was terrible, etc.
Today a pitcher is only supposed to go about six to seven innings. Then you have a Herrera, a Davis, and a Holland.
So you have a lot of one inning pitchers throwing gas so that the idea is to have high velocity for all nine innings.
I would think that back then pitchers paced themselves more. You didn't need to throw 95 to blow away the other team's pitcher or their weak hitting SS, etc. I just think that today's pitchers are conditioned to throw as hard as they can for as long as they can and when they're done bring in the high octane bullpen.
I would venture a guess that Feller threw really hard (mid 90s), as did Walter Johnson, and Smokey Joe Wood before him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 2:25:24 GMT -5
No way. I hate to break it to you, but Koufax was probably throwing mid-80s at best. And it's great you have that opinion on his velocity but anything you read is it was much more than that, but if you don't believe it to be true then it must not be and it can't be up for debate because your opinion is better than everyone elses. Amen. Unfortunately, there long has existed a cottage industry of sorts aimed at diminishing Koufax's accomplishments and/or claiming that Koufax is overrated in the annals of baseball history. A segment of Koufax's detractors actually contend that the man doesn't even belong in the Hall of Fame. What can be said about these people other than that they're provocateurs who likely never saw Koufax pitch or perhaps have an axe to grind relating to the man's religious faith. This Sandy Koufax "debate" has been raging for years. This from 2010:
philaphans.com/community/index.php?/topic/58069-slightly-ot-jayson-stark-and-sandy-koufax-was-sandy-overrated/
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 4, 2015 9:04:14 GMT -5
And it's great you have that opinion on his velocity but anything you read is it was much more than that, but if you don't believe it to be true then it must not be and it can't be up for debate because your opinion is better than everyone elses. Amen. Unfortunately, there long has existed a cottage industry of sorts aimed at diminishing Koufax's accomplishments and/or claiming that Koufax is overrated in the annals of baseball history. A segment of Koufax's detractors actually contend that the man doesn't even belong in the Hall of Fame. What can be said about these people other than that they're provocateurs who likely never saw Koufax pitch or perhaps have an axe to grind relating to the man's religious faith. This Sandy Koufax "debate" has been raging for years. This from 2010:
philaphans.com/community/index.php?/topic/58069-slightly-ot-jayson-stark-and-sandy-koufax-was-sandy-overrated/
The fact that you disagree doesn't make it "a cottage industry." Please find an example of someone getting rich or famous because they called Sandy Koufax overrated. Spoiler: there aren't any.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 4, 2015 11:34:19 GMT -5
If Thibs spreadsheet is correct, Rick Gosselin left Pedro off of a Hall of Fame ballot in which he named only nine players. Meaning he apparently doesn't think Pedro is a Hall of Famer?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 13:11:14 GMT -5
Amen. Unfortunately, there long has existed a cottage industry of sorts aimed at diminishing Koufax's accomplishments and/or claiming that Koufax is overrated in the annals of baseball history. A segment of Koufax's detractors actually contend that the man doesn't even belong in the Hall of Fame. What can be said about these people other than that they're provocateurs who likely never saw Koufax pitch or perhaps have an axe to grind relating to the man's religious faith. This Sandy Koufax "debate" has been raging for years. This from 2010:
philaphans.com/community/index.php?/topic/58069-slightly-ot-jayson-stark-and-sandy-koufax-was-sandy-overrated/
The fact that you disagree doesn't make it "a cottage industry." Please find an example of someone getting rich or famous because they called Sandy Koufax overrated. Spoiler: there aren't any. And what is this then? Spoiler. It's a book Jayson Stark wrote in which he devotes a chapter to claiming that Sandy Koufax is the most overrated left-handed starter in history. The first book Stark ever wrote, it was no doubt written out of the goodness of Stark's heart and with no intention of making brash claims that might result in sales.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 4, 2015 14:02:38 GMT -5
If Thibs spreadsheet is correct, Rick Gosselin left Pedro off of a Hall of Fame ballot in which he named only nine players. Meaning he apparently doesn't think Pedro is a Hall of Famer? bit.ly/13R7nQ4It's strange. His ballot is attached to a column by his colleague, Evan Grant, with no explanation of Gosselin's vote. The Pedro omission can't be because of anti-first ballot bias because he has Smoltz and Unit on there. The irony here is delicious. The column is a self-pitying whine about how much criticism HOF voters get and it's presented with a ballot that omits Pedro Martinez. Um, Evan and Rick, maybe ballots like that are the reason HOF voters get so much ridicule. Gosselin voted for steroid cheats Bonds and Clemens, but not for Pedro Martinez. Good call, buddy.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 4, 2015 14:22:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 4, 2015 23:27:21 GMT -5
I really don't get the love for Smoltz. As pointed out by others, I really do not see him as good as Schilling or Mussina. I know many sports writers disliked Schilling, but still...
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 5, 2015 8:12:04 GMT -5
Mussina, Schilling, and Smoltz all have pretty strong Hall of Fame qualifications. Smoltz is likely getting a boost from being linked to Maddux and Glavine, sure. But someone who was legitimately great getting remembered as maybe a tiny bit better than he actually was because of his situation is hardly a travesty. From 1992 to 2008, he had a 135 ERA+. By bWAR he is 39th alltime. He has 209 innings pitched in the playoffs (basically another full season) with a 2.67 ERA). Mussina is ahead of Nolan Ryan according to bWAR and JAWS. I know some of you don't care about advanced stats, but it's not like Ryan just snuck into the Hall. For those of you who are more into traditional stuff, he won 270 games! That's 33rd all-time.
Schilling, I think, is held back by his off-field stuff. On the one hand, I think that's needlessly moralizing - he should be judged for his on field accomplishments, and those accomplishments are easily in line for induction. On the other, committing fraud against the state of Rhode Island is a worse crime than anything Bonds did, and being a general jackass about it (i.e. going on the radio and calling poor folks welfare queens while also being a rich dude who collected $75 million in gvt money) probably makes a lot of voters uncomfortable. So if someone is going to call upon the morals clause for Bonds/Clemens then it's not crazy that they would for Schilling as well. Personally I think he should be inducted but also go away.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 5, 2015 8:49:03 GMT -5
Mussina, Schilling, and Smoltz all have pretty strong Hall of Fame qualifications. Smoltz is likely getting a boost from being linked to Maddux and Glavine, sure. But someone who was legitimately great getting remembered as maybe a tiny bit better than he actually was because of his situation is hardly a travesty. From 1992 to 2008, he had a 135 ERA+. By bWAR he is 39th alltime. He has 209 innings pitched in the playoffs (basically another full season) with a 2.67 ERA). Mussina is ahead of Nolan Ryan according to bWAR and JAWS. I know some of you don't care about advanced stats, but it's not like Ryan just snuck into the Hall. For those of you who are more into traditional stuff, he won 270 games! That's 33rd all-time. Schilling, I think, is held back by his off-field stuff. On the one hand, I think that's needlessly moralizing - he should be judged for his on field accomplishments, and those accomplishments are easily in line for induction. On the other, committing fraud against the state of Rhode Island is a worse crime than anything Bonds did, and being a general jackass about it (i.e. going on the radio and calling poor folks welfare queens while also being a rich dude who collected $75 million in gvt money) probably makes a lot of voters uncomfortable. So if someone is going to call upon the morals clause for Bonds/Clemens then it's not crazy that they would for Schilling as well. Personally I think he should be inducted but also go away. I think you're giving voters entirely too much credit for moral consistency. The reality is that the voting pool has a very hard time electing any pitcher with less than 300 wins, at least in the case of guys who don't also have a few hundred saves as well.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 5, 2015 9:00:19 GMT -5
I see all 3 of Mussina, Schilling and Smoltz as being no-brainer Hall of Fame pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 5, 2015 11:32:50 GMT -5
The fact that you disagree doesn't make it "a cottage industry." Please find an example of someone getting rich or famous because they called Sandy Koufax overrated. Spoiler: there aren't any. And what is this then? Spoiler. It's a book Jayson Stark wrote in which he devotes a chapter to claiming that Sandy Koufax is the most overrated left-handed starter in history. The first book Stark ever wrote, it was no doubt written out of the goodness of Stark's heart and with no intention of making brash claims that might result in sales.
Did you actually read the book? Stark's entire premise wasn't to say that Koufax was a BAD pitcher who is undeserving of the HOF; rather, to say that he's overrated because he's not the greatest LHP to ever live as some people claim.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 5, 2015 17:27:45 GMT -5
At last @rickgosselindmn has explained leaving off Pedro... He doesn't think Pedro is a first ballot hall of famer but Smoltz is cause what he did was amazing. This guy actually covers football, no wonder. I thought it was only the players who go concussions.
I know I know in the grand scheme of things this matters very little as Pedro is going into the Hall anyways.
|
|
|