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.
2018 Hall of Fame vote debate
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 26, 2018 17:20:26 GMT -5
Why is it not fair to compare closers to other players? That doesn't make any sense. Should we let in the best middle relievers then? The best pinch runners? The best pinch hitters? Is it not fair to compare them to other players who had different roles? I'm actually fine with Hoffman going in, but think that his being in ahead of a number of other players currently on the ballot is silly. And Saves are a silly, silly statistic that have only even been kept track of since 1969. It's a sillier statistic than wins. I couldn't care less about a player's career saves. Francisco Rodriguez (the good one not the guy in camp with the Sox this year) is fourth all-time in the stat, and no way is he a hall-of famer. Mainly because from the way we judge value they will never compare. Though recently with things like the fangraph article showing how elite relievers are under valued things seem to be changing. Just not a players career war total. The HOF is for the best players, so the best closer or relief pitchers should be there. If you had a guy spend his career as a dominant middle reliever than yes, but that almost never happens. They are made closers. The best pinch runners? Come on, hope that was a joke. He'd have to be one heck of a base runner, I've yet to see a guy like that. See that's the issue I have, you have no problem with Hoffman, yet have a problem with it. Hoffman is being compared to other relievers and how dominant he was for so long, not to a player like McGriff. McGriff is being compared to other 1st baseman, which is 100% fair in my book. I agree that saves aren't a great stat, but you can't deny that counting stats have always mattered to the HOF. Add the saves to his long great career and he's a HOF in my book. He's not K-Rod, who just wasn't dominate for long enough. You have to compare though. You have a limited amount of choices. So Hoffman was chosen over McGriff. And you asked about post season. Yes he was good in post season. Career .303/.385/.532/.917. And the year in 1995 in which he was a part of the championship team for Atlanta. For the entire playoffs his slash was .333/.415/.649/1.065.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,420
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 26, 2018 18:40:19 GMT -5
Mainly because from the way we judge value they will never compare. Though recently with things like the fangraph article showing how elite relievers are under valued things seem to be changing. Just not a players career war total. The HOF is for the best players, so the best closer or relief pitchers should be there. If you had a guy spend his career as a dominant middle reliever than yes, but that almost never happens. They are made closers. The best pinch runners? Come on, hope that was a joke. He'd have to be one heck of a base runner, I've yet to see a guy like that. See that's the issue I have, you have no problem with Hoffman, yet have a problem with it. Hoffman is being compared to other relievers and how dominant he was for so long, not to a player like McGriff. McGriff is being compared to other 1st baseman, which is 100% fair in my book. I agree that saves aren't a great stat, but you can't deny that counting stats have always mattered to the HOF. Add the saves to his long great career and he's a HOF in my book. He's not K-Rod, who just wasn't dominate for long enough. You have to compare though. You have a limited amount of choices. So Hoffman was chosen over McGriff. And you asked about post season. Yes he was good in post season. Career .303/.385/.532/.917. And the year in 1995 in which he was a part of the championship team for Atlanta. For the entire playoffs his slash was .333/.415/.649/1.065. In fairness, I don't think Hoffman was chosen over McGriff -- if people can vote for 10 and only 4 got in. There was nothing stopping people from voting for both. I think part of the problem with closers is that there is just less to compare them with. Since the closer as we know him is really quite recent, the stats don't have the kind of historical weight of basics like home runs or rbis -- or even, say, wins, strikeouts etc. And there has been a rapid acceleration of saves amassed -- 20 was good; then 30; now getting 40 or more is not necessarily unusual. I mention this because there was a time not so long ago Jeff Reardon was the all-time saves leader. Now, he has nearly 300 fewer saves than the leader. I may be wrong, but I can't think of any other central statistic (that is, one of the ones defining a position) that has seen that rapid a shift. My point is that, in a strange way, it might be too soon to tell with some closers. The case for Reardon certainly seems even harder to make now than it would have when he retired. On the other hand, maybe Lee Smith starts looking better in a decade if no other closer approaches the 475 save mark? Personally, I have little faith in the save as a raw statistic. I don't care too much about amassing saves (Fernando Rodney will pass Bruce Sutter this year). But there are closers who change games in a way that most do not. When you played the Yankees, you game planned an 8 inning, even a 7+ inning game. If you were down late, you were done, because Rivera put the fear of god in you. Goose was like that, too. Eck for a number of years (Kirk Gibson notwithstanding). But even really strong closers like K-Rod never quite felt as automatic. Lee Smith, god knows, did not.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 26, 2018 20:31:06 GMT -5
So, I wouldn't have voted for Hoffman, but man - the guy has a Hall of Fame backstory at least. He lost his right kidney as an infant, so he couldn't play contact sports despite being a top athlete. Then, apparently his father thought his youth coaches were abusing his arm (he was very likely right), so he wouldn't let him pitch anymore either. He moved to shortstop and was excellent, but he was only like 5'7" or something out of high school so he didn't get any attention despite his pedigree (his older brother Glenn was on the Red Sox, among other teams). He grew a bunch while at JuCo and transferred to Arizona. He ended up getting drafted by the Reds as an infielder, and the scout who drafted his an arm an 80, so when he couldn't hit they suggested moving to pitcher or catcher.
He shoved in the minors, but because he had already exhausted a bunch of eligibility, the Reds didn't really have the space to protect him in the '93 expansion draft. So the Marlins nabbed him, and he made the club out of spring training. He pitched relatively well, and ended up one of the prime pieces in the Gary Sheffield-to-Marlins trade that was absolutely bonkers at the time because it was an expansion team trading for Gary Sheffield.
I think a big part of the reason he got overrated, as it were, was because he was so dominant from 1996 to 1999. He and Rivera kind of got thrown into this "best closer in baseball" debate. So, even though Rivera was clearly far, far superior in the 2000's, Hoffman kept racking up saves at the same rate and the two ended up kind of linked.
I always feel bad for a guy who gets more support than he seems to deserve for the Hall, because a definite backlash comes from it.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 26, 2018 20:45:33 GMT -5
You have to compare though. You have a limited amount of choices. So Hoffman was chosen over McGriff. And you asked about post season. Yes he was good in post season. Career .303/.385/.532/.917. And the year in 1995 in which he was a part of the championship team for Atlanta. For the entire playoffs his slash was .333/.415/.649/1.065. In fairness, I don't think Hoffman was chosen over McGriff -- if people can vote for 10 and only 4 got in. There was nothing stopping people from voting for both. I think part of the problem with closers is that there is just less to compare them with. Since the closer as we know him is really quite recent, the stats don't have the kind of historical weight of basics like home runs or rbis -- or even, say, wins, strikeouts etc. And there has been a rapid acceleration of saves amassed -- 20 was good; then 30; now getting 40 or more is not necessarily unusual. I mention this because there was a time not so long ago Jeff Reardon was the all-time saves leader. Now, he has nearly 300 fewer saves than the leader. I may be wrong, but I can't think of any other central statistic (that is, one of the ones defining a position) that has seen that rapid a shift. My point is that, in a strange way, it might be too soon to tell with some closers. The case for Reardon certainly seems even harder to make now than it would have when he retired. On the other hand, maybe Lee Smith starts looking better in a decade if no other closer approaches the 475 save mark? Personally, I have little faith in the save as a raw statistic. I don't care too much about amassing saves (Fernando Rodney will pass Bruce Sutter this year). But there are closers who change games in a way that most do not. When you played the Yankees, you game planned an 8 inning, even a 7+ inning game. If you were down late, you were done, because Rivera put the fear of god in you. Goose was like that, too. Eck for a number of years (Kirk Gibson notwithstanding). But even really strong closers like K-Rod never quite felt as automatic. Lee Smith, god knows, did not. Yes. Yes to you and to the poster umass. My post on this thread was that I didn't think Hoffman was as deserving - actually not close vs McGriff, Walker and Schilling. So when I hear the mention of saves. As you state-- imo it holds little meaning. I think it holds more meaning if there is a stretch in which they're dominant throughout the post season.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 27, 2018 2:40:09 GMT -5
Why is it not fair to compare closers to other players? That doesn't make any sense. Should we let in the best middle relievers then? The best pinch runners? The best pinch hitters? Is it not fair to compare them to other players who had different roles? I'm actually fine with Hoffman going in, but think that his being in ahead of a number of other players currently on the ballot is silly. And Saves are a silly, silly statistic that have only even been kept track of since 1969. It's a sillier statistic than wins. I couldn't care less about a player's career saves. Francisco Rodriguez (the good one not the guy in camp with the Sox this year) is fourth all-time in the stat, and no way is he a hall-of famer. Mainly because from the way we judge value they will never compare. Though recently with things like the fangraph article showing how elite relievers are under valued things seem to be changing. Just not a players career war total. The HOF is for the best players, so the best closer or relief pitchers should be there. If you had a guy spend his career as a dominant middle reliever than yes, but that almost never happens. They are made closers. The best pinch runners? Come on, hope that was a joke. He'd have to be one heck of a base runner, I've yet to see a guy like that. See that's the issue I have, you have no problem with Hoffman, yet have a problem with it. Hoffman is being compared to other relievers and how dominant he was for so long, not to a player like McGriff. McGriff is being compared to other 1st baseman, which is 100% fair in my book. I agree that saves aren't a great stat, but you can't deny that counting stats have always mattered to the HOF. Add the saves to his long great career and he's a HOF in my book. He's not K-Rod, who just wasn't dominate for long enough. I generally tend to agree with you Umass on this subject. If Andrew Miller was pitching in the middle innings like he was 2 years ago for say 5-10 years, then you could make a case for him being a HOF as a example (although I wouldn't trust the BBWAA to vote Miller in because they don't see real value in players). I also agree you can't directly value relievers according to WAR. Yes, closers in particular come in with a lot of clean innings, but not always. Usually they're in really high leverage situations due to the game situations or the score. That stuff can be measured but doesn't figure into WAR for example, at least I'm pretty sure it doesn't (I could be wrong on this, I admit).
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 27, 2018 7:55:27 GMT -5
I don't think we are arguing about the actual steroid use in baseball and whether or not they used. We are talking about the clear cut guys that we know got suspended for steroids versus the guys who didn't get suspended. Pete Rose isn't in the HOF because he got caught for gambling. Neither should Arod or Manny be in the HOF for getting caught with steriods. Pete Rose isn’t in the HOF because he’s banned from Baseball.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 27, 2018 8:20:17 GMT -5
Manny is a no doubt Hall of Famer because he was arguably the best right handed hitter of his generation. I really, really, really hate takes like this, because it can quickly get into "Jack Morris led his generation in wins!" and then "Mark Grace led the 1990s in hits!" territory. Qualifiers and arbitrary endpoints hurt, not help, making a convincing argument. Also, Alex Rodriguez makes this argument incorrect anyway. Stating that someone was arguable the best right handed hitter of his generation is nothing like those things. Also, i said arguably and only referenced his hitting. Look at the numbers from 1995-2006. An argument can be made simply by the Numbers. Then when you go beyond he numbers and were actually there watching them every day, Manny was a hitting savant. His ability was off the charts. His motivation held him back for stretches which shouldn’t be ignored. If you want to say Arod was better purely as a hitter during that time I won’t tell you you are wrong but if you want to tell me Manny isn’t in the discussion, sorry I disagree completely. Arod was unequivocally the better player. Everyone looks at the HOF differently; i get that. I know everyone here gets hung up on everything statistical and that saying anything that you can’t measure with a number is written off as “lazy” and “unprovable” but I don’t really care when it comes to the Hall if Fame argument. Hall of Famers are extra special players that you should know them when you are watching them. Let’s not rewrite history. Everyone here who was old enough during the 1995-2006 stretch knows Manny was one of those players. If you don’t, just try to remember back to every time he stepped into the box and recall why you never wanted to miss one of his at bats. And he did it long enough that it really shouldn’t be questioned unless you want to over think things, which is unfortunately how he Hall of Fame works.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 27, 2018 8:26:05 GMT -5
So I’m going to rant for a minute. Vlad Guerrero getting 93% of the vote is pissing me off to no end. They need to start taking voting privileges away from people. I would love to know what changed for the 22% who decided to vote for him this year but not last.... if the answer is he’s “not first ballot worthy” they need their privileges taken away. The first ballot thing is the dumbest mentality ever. I’ll spare the Freudian psychological analysis of these voters but it’s pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 27, 2018 8:45:13 GMT -5
I don't think we are arguing about the actual steroid use in baseball and whether or not they used. We are talking about the clear cut guys that we know got suspended for steroids versus the guys who didn't get suspended. Pete Rose isn't in the HOF because he got caught for gambling. Neither should Arod or Manny be in the HOF for getting caught with steriods. Pete Rose isn’t in the HOF because he’s banned from Baseball. It's kind of a subject that that goes hand in hand RJP imo. You mess with the game, the game shouldn't allow you to enter legend baseball (baseball HOF). This same concept should apply to players who get caught using steriods and I think it has. Bonds and Clemens are getting over 50 percent of the vote, despite their connections with steroids. Manny only has over 20 percent, because he actually failed 2 tests.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 27, 2018 9:07:13 GMT -5
So I’m going to rant for a minute. Vlad Guerrero getting 93% of the vote is pissing me off to no end. They need to start taking voting privileges away from people. I would love to know what changed for the 22% who decided to vote for him this year but not last.... if the answer is he’s “not first ballot worthy” they need their privileges taken away. The first ballot thing is the dumbest mentality ever. I’ll spare the Freudian psychological analysis of these voters but it’s pathetic. I agree to some extent that it is nuts how much his vote went up, and that it doesn't reflect great on voters. But, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt in this one, because the big 2017 class cleared some space for the voters. It is 100% plausible that someone had Guerrero 11th or 12th last year.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 27, 2018 10:21:04 GMT -5
So I’m going to rant for a minute. Vlad Guerrero getting 93% of the vote is pissing me off to no end. They need to start taking voting privileges away from people. I would love to know what changed for the 22% who decided to vote for him this year but not last.... if the answer is he’s “not first ballot worthy” they need their privileges taken away. The first ballot thing is the dumbest mentality ever. I’ll spare the Freudian psychological analysis of these voters but it’s pathetic. I agree to some extent that it is nuts how much his vote went up, and that it doesn't reflect great on voters. But, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt in this one, because the big 2017 class cleared some space for the voters. It is 100% plausible that someone had Guerrero 11th or 12th last year. That is true, but you know that's not what happened. It's just like Rip said, certain people didn't vote for him just because they didn't want him making it on the first try. They play these games. Just like making Edgar Martinez wait till his last year. Which normally wasn't a huge issue but the steriod back log has clogged the system, so waiting 10 years to vote guys in means guys like Santana fall off after one year which is crazy. He might not have the counting stats the Hall loves, but his war is close to McGriffs in about half the years. Something needs to give, guys like Santana are just going to keep falling off and that sucks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 11:55:27 GMT -5
UMass grad you are exactly right and bring up a great point.The HOF voting is changing we have a new generation of writer that'll be checking out the war stats the be War stats all the new sabermetric stuff is coming in and the old guard that like to punish a player from getting in on his first attempt are going out. The voting criteria needs a change either find a place for the steroid users or just take them off the ballot so players like Johan Santana Fred McGriff and Larry Walker have a better chance to get in.To me David Ortiz is a first-ballot hall-of-famer.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,420
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 27, 2018 13:02:05 GMT -5
I am gunna say it: Santana may as well be one-and-done. For all the irritation people feel at guys creeping up and getting (eg Vlad), there is the other side: the lingering guys who suck idiosyncratic votes without actually being HOFers. Santana was a great pitcher for about 5+ years. But by that standard, Are we going to be arguing for Tim Lincecum? Or... what about Dwight Gooden who was a much better pitcher in his prime AND eeked out a higher career win total? Or Orel Hersheiser, another guy who had a sick prime and had better cumulative numbers. Or Cliff Lee? Ron Guidry? (Guidry had more complete games in 1983 than Santana had in his career).
Now... one can say, yes, but look at something like career ERA+, but this is the advantage of a catastrophic injury in one’s prime. If Santana added 3 pedestrian years, he’d still likely win only 160ish games AND he’d lose some of the luster of those other stats.
Santana falls into a noble category of players who were great for a short period but had careers shortened for one reason or another and tragically fall short.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 27, 2018 16:05:34 GMT -5
Tim Lincecum has 21.1 career bwar, come on. Dwight Gooden, Ron Guidry, Cliff Lee, and Oral Hershiser are all closer to Santana is career war, but there careers weren't cut short by injuries. Sanatana would have blown by all of them. That's the whole point. His career basically breaks down to 9 years and he was basically done after age 31. In that time he had 51.4 war, 2 Cy youngs, a tripple crown, 3 ERA titles and a gold golve. 9 years over 2.6 war, 8 years over 3.3 war, and 7 years over 4.2 war. His 5 year peak of 8.6, 7.2, 7.5, 5.0, and 7.1 for 35.4 an average of 7.08 is HOF level stuff. None of the pitchers you mentioned have more than one Cy Young or a 5 year stretch like that. If he went on to pitch like those guys and added another 15 to 20 war he would be a HOF player.
Not a HOF lock, but at the minimum he deserved 10 years of debate. Just compare him to McGriff, he has like the same war in half the seasons. The fact he dropped off after one year is a shame! What's more HOF worthy a short dominant run or a long very good one? For me the HOF is for the best players, not just the guys that can stay healthy longer.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,420
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 27, 2018 16:24:45 GMT -5
Tim Lincecum has 21.1 career bwar, come on. Dwight Gooden, Ron Guidry, Cliff Lee, and Oral Hershiser are all closer to Santana is career war, but there careers weren't cut short by injuries. Sanatana would have blown by all of them. That's the whole point. His career basically breaks down to 9 years and he was basically done after age 31. In that time he had 51.4 war, 2 Cy youngs, a tripple crown, 3 ERA titles and a gold golve. 9 years over 2.6 war, 8 years over 3.3 war, and 7 years over 4.2 war. His 5 year peak of 8.6, 7.2, 7.5, 5.0, and 7.1 for 35.4 an average of 7.08 is HOF level stuff. None of the pitchers you mentioned have more than one Cy Young or a 5 year stretch like that. If he went on to pitch like those guys and added another 15 to 20 war he would be a HOF player. Not a HOF lock, but at the minimum he deserved 10 years of debate. Just compare him to McGriff, he has like the same war in half the seasons. The fact he dropped off after one year is a shame! What's more HOF worthy a short dominant run or a long very good one? For me the HOF is for the best players, not just the guys that can stay healthy longer. To be in the Hall you need both, more often than not. Santana had a great run. Who knows what would have happened if he’d stayed healthy. His career record is almost exactly Dave McNally’s record from 1968 to 1974. But the Hall is definitely not for what-ifs. Santana broke down. Gooden couldn’t stay clean. Guidry had arm problems. Hersheiser was never quite the same after his miracle season and massive post season. Gooden’s first 5 seasons: 91-35, 2.62 ERA. 134 ERA+. Over 1,000 Ks. ROY, Cy, 4x All-Star. 10 years of 2.5 WAR or over. A triple crown, too. More complete games by age 20 than Santana had in his career. Then... history. 1-and-done for the Hall. If he’d gotten hurt a couple seasons after that period, would his case be better? That makes little sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 27, 2018 16:44:05 GMT -5
Mainly because from the way we judge value they will never compare. Though recently with things like the fangraph article showing how elite relievers are under valued things seem to be changing. Just not a players career war total. The HOF is for the best players, so the best closer or relief pitchers should be there. If you had a guy spend his career as a dominant middle reliever than yes, but that almost never happens. They are made closers. The best pinch runners? Come on, hope that was a joke. He'd have to be one heck of a base runner, I've yet to see a guy like that. See that's the issue I have, you have no problem with Hoffman, yet have a problem with it. Hoffman is being compared to other relievers and how dominant he was for so long, not to a player like McGriff. McGriff is being compared to other 1st baseman, which is 100% fair in my book. I agree that saves aren't a great stat, but you can't deny that counting stats have always mattered to the HOF. Add the saves to his long great career and he's a HOF in my book. He's not K-Rod, who just wasn't dominate for long enough. I generally tend to agree with you Umass on this subject. If Andrew Miller was pitching in the middle innings like he was 2 years ago for say 5-10 years, then you could make a case for him being a HOF as a example (although I wouldn't trust the BBWAA to vote Miller in because they don't see real value in players). I also agree you can't directly value relievers according to WAR. Yes, closers in particular come in with a lot of clean innings, but not always. Usually they're in really high leverage situations due to the game situations or the score. That stuff can be measured but doesn't figure into WAR for example, at least I'm pretty sure it doesn't (I could be wrong on this, I admit). Both fWAR and bWAR include leverage in their pitcher WAR calculations.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 27, 2018 16:59:00 GMT -5
Part of my argument for Gooden and Santana and other pitchers with truly dominant peaks is that pitchers are underrepresented in Cooperstown relative to hitters. And the big reason for that is the attrition rate of pitchers is just so much higher. Hitters who are truly awesome and then just flame out are rare. For pitchers? Seems like there's at least one a decade who is absurdly good for several years and then gets hurt and isn't able to put together the career qualifications necessary. 9 Unlike most of the other pitchers mentioned above, Santana's five-year peak was better than most Hall of Fame pitchers. From 2004 to 2008 he had a 157 ERA+ in well over 1100 innings. He had four other seasons with an ERA+ over 130 in over 100 innings. For comparison's sake, Jake Morris, just elected to the Hall of Fame, had one season with an ERA+ over 130 - his best season was Santana's post-peak.
If he'd pitched 1000 more innings with a 100 ERA+ his career ERA+ would've been the same as Curt Schilling's.
If he'd pitched 11,000 (that is not a typo - eleven thousand) more innings with a 100 ERA+ his career number would've been the same as Jack Morris's.
So, three more pedestrian years would not have taken the luster off his rate stats.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,691
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 27, 2018 17:10:16 GMT -5
Tim Lincecum has 21.1 career bwar, come on. Dwight Gooden, Ron Guidry, Cliff Lee, and Oral Hershiser are all closer to Santana is career war, but there careers weren't cut short by injuries. Sanatana would have blown by all of them. That's the whole point. His career basically breaks down to 9 years and he was basically done after age 31. In that time he had 51.4 war, 2 Cy youngs, a tripple crown, 3 ERA titles and a gold golve. 9 years over 2.6 war, 8 years over 3.3 war, and 7 years over 4.2 war. His 5 year peak of 8.6, 7.2, 7.5, 5.0, and 7.1 for 35.4 an average of 7.08 is HOF level stuff. None of the pitchers you mentioned have more than one Cy Young or a 5 year stretch like that. If he went on to pitch like those guys and added another 15 to 20 war he would be a HOF player. Not a HOF lock, but at the minimum he deserved 10 years of debate. Just compare him to McGriff, he has like the same war in half the seasons. The fact he dropped off after one year is a shame! What's more HOF worthy a short dominant run or a long very good one? For me the HOF is for the best players, not just the guys that can stay healthy longer. Piggybacking a bit on what you're saying, I really wish that they'd expand the number of selections and allow players to remain on the ballot longer. There's so much focus on the PED players and the players who are nearing the end of their window of time, guys on the periphery drop off - and Santana is one of those guys. I filled out my worthless ballot, worthless because my opinion counts for nothing, but in doing so I rattled off 10 guys who were worthy of consideration if not enshrinement, and didn't really study Santana all that closely. So he fell off the ballot and he's not alone in that. There are guys like Evans, Whitaker, Grich, Edmonds, Lofton, Posada, Hershiser, etc. that fall off the ballot really quickly without a chance to do more studies on. We all have our preconceived images of what a no-doubt HOFer are, but there are guys that I know are really good, but I never paid as much attention to them - and Santana is one of those guys. They might not be worthy of enshrinement, but they are worthy of a longer look and closer scrutiny. I just feel these guys fall off the ballot a little too quickly. Now if you're one of those I know a HOFer when I see one, then it doesn't matter, but if you're like me, gear Red Sox-centric and miss out a bit on the other stars of the game, then sometimes it's nice to have more study-time to evaluate if they meet your criteria of somebody worth of being seriously considered for the HOF, and yes all threshold standards vary.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,420
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 27, 2018 17:24:45 GMT -5
Part of my argument for Gooden and Santana and other pitchers with truly dominant peaks is that pitchers are underrepresented in Cooperstown relative to hitters. And the big reason for that is the attrition rate of pitchers is just so much higher. Hitters who are truly awesome and then just flame out are rare. For pitchers? Seems like there's at least one a decade who is absurdly good for several years and then gets hurt and isn't able to put together the career qualifications necessary. 9 Unlike most of the other pitchers mentioned above, Santana's five-year peak was better than most Hall of Fame pitchers. From 2004 to 2008 he had a 157 ERA+ in well over 1100 innings. He had four other seasons with an ERA+ over 130 in over 100 innings. For comparison's sake, Jake Morris, just elected to the Hall of Fame, had one season with an ERA+ over 130 - his best season was Santana's post-peak. If he'd pitched 1000 more innings with a 100 ERA+ his career ERA+ would've been the same as Curt Schilling's. If he'd pitched 11,000 (that is not a typo - eleven thousand) more innings with a 100 ERA+ his career number would've been the same as Jack Morris's. So, three more pedestrian years would not have taken the luster off his rate stats. I actual agree with this in principle. We might need to reconsider pitchers. But if we do (if, for example 130 wins is not a bar), then we’d also need to go back and reconsider other older guys — and other factors. Personally, I’d say complete games matter, innings matter, for example. Yes, times have changed, so the complete game is dead. But if we’ve misjudged starters, maybe we need to appreciate all the more the ridiculous innings numbers even in the 1970s. I’m too lazy to look, but I’ be curious what Jack Morris’s ERA was after 100 pitches or from the the 7th inning on. Yes he had Willie H, but my point is not just Morris... it’s a lot of premiere starters before the era of 6 inning expectations. Or... if part of the issue is Santana’s career being cut short by injury, how do we weigh guys who were abused or other had truncated careers? Anyway, I think maybe we should reevaluate, but to me that comes with a yes to Schilling and probably Halladay — both of whom fall below a traditional win line (except for the Koufaxes and Pedros). Edit: One more comp: Kevin Brown. 1996-2000, 36.9 WAR. 82-41, 2.51 ERA, ERA + of 164. Out in one vote. I accept if he is an example of the kind of pitcher who should be reevaluated (his numerical case seems at least Santana’s equal, though he lacks the hardware). At the same time, I have a hard time with Kevin Brown as all-time great. His post season numbers were not so good (he was brutal when Florida won the WS). He seemed like a guy teams were not reluctant to part with etc. It does seem that what makes a great pitcher has changed more historically than what makes a great hitter far more frequently — making era comparisons hard.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 28, 2018 13:49:30 GMT -5
Kevin Brown ranks 31st all time in war for pitchers. He was the league leader twice and was in the top 10 6 times. He lacks CY Young awards, but come on. He had a great peak and a long career. I always viewed him like Schilling, a guy who people didn't like very much. That being said if the 31st best pitcher all-time in war isn't a HOF, then the HOF voters haven't changed and embraced war yet.
We know this though, because Mussina and Schilling have yet to make the HOF, even though the rank 24th and 26th all-time. I can see saying they aren't first ballot type guys, I don't agree, but I can understand that logic. They should have been year two locks though.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,420
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 28, 2018 14:46:24 GMT -5
Kevin Brown ranks 31st all time in war for pitchers. He was the league leader twice and was in the top 10 6 times. He lacks CY Young awards, but come on. He had a great peak and a long career. I always viewed him like Schilling, a guy who people didn't like very much. That being said if the 31st best pitcher all-time in war isn't a HOF, then the HOF voters haven't changed and embraced war yet. We know this though, because Mussina and Schilling have yet to make the HOF, even though the rank 24th and 26th all-time. I can see saying they aren't first ballot type guys, I don't agree, but I can understand that logic. They should have been year two locks though. I would turn this around and say if WAR says Kevin Brown is the 31st best pitcher of all time, it is a bad measurement — an absurd measurement. I am fine with using it as a very small piece, but there are too many instances where it is a bad distortion. Do you think Mike Mussina is one of the top 25 pitchers of all time? I would call him top 25 since 1985, sure. Low end, though. I know... it doesn’t say BEST — but I don’t know what list all all time greatness would see Kevin Brown at 31st. Edit: and none of this is to mention PED allegations.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 28, 2018 16:53:50 GMT -5
Kevin Brown ranks 31st all time in war for pitchers. He was the league leader twice and was in the top 10 6 times. He lacks CY Young awards, but come on. He had a great peak and a long career. I always viewed him like Schilling, a guy who people didn't like very much. That being said if the 31st best pitcher all-time in war isn't a HOF, then the HOF voters haven't changed and embraced war yet. We know this though, because Mussina and Schilling have yet to make the HOF, even though the rank 24th and 26th all-time. I can see saying they aren't first ballot type guys, I don't agree, but I can understand that logic. They should have been year two locks though. I would turn this around and say if WAR says Kevin Brown is the 31st best pitcher of all time, it is a bad measurement — an absurd measurement. I am fine with using it as a very small piece, but there are too many instances where it is a bad distortion. Do you think Mike Mussina is one of the top 25 pitchers of all time? I would call him top 25 since 1985, sure. Low end, though. I know... it doesn’t say BEST — but I don’t know what list all all time greatness would see Kevin Brown at 31st. Edit: and none of this is to mention PED allegations. Ok so Santana isn't HOF for you, you said great peak and a very long very good career is needed. Now you have an issue with Mussina? The list clearly doesn't say best, it's the top war that pitchers gave there teams. You are looking at the information wrong, nothing wrong with the data. Mussina is basically McGriff but his peak years he was one of the best in the league, unlike McGriff. Heck that's not really true, either as Mussina just had sooo many 5 plus war seasons. Same thing with Brown, heck Brown had a better peak, but Mussina was crazy consistent. 11 years in the top 10 for pitchers in war, including leading the league once, second once and third twice. If Mussina, Schilling, and Brown aren't HOF pitchers, then your saying only Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Pedro type pitchers are. Which would be ok, but we keep electing hitters that are far below that level. To James point there seems to be different levels for hitters and pitchers. For hitters the bar doesn't seem to be is he in the debate for best hitter ever, that seems to be the bar you're using for pitchers though. I would love to see the list of top 25 pitchers since 1985 that has Mussina close to 25. You'd have to have it filled with a ton of pitchers currently pitching, which given your stance on Santana is funny. You know, because this isn't a what ifs type thing.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,420
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jan 28, 2018 17:56:08 GMT -5
I would turn this around and say if WAR says Kevin Brown is the 31st best pitcher of all time, it is a bad measurement — an absurd measurement. I am fine with using it as a very small piece, but there are too many instances where it is a bad distortion. Do you think Mike Mussina is one of the top 25 pitchers of all time? I would call him top 25 since 1985, sure. Low end, though. I know... it doesn’t say BEST — but I don’t know what list all all time greatness would see Kevin Brown at 31st. Edit: and none of this is to mention PED allegations. Ok so Santana isn't HOF for you, you said great peak and a very long very good career is needed. Now you have an issue with Mussina? The list clearly doesn't say best, it's the top war that pitchers gave there teams. You are looking at the information wrong, nothing wrong with the data. Mussina is basically McGriff but his peak years he was one of the best in the league, unlike McGriff. Heck that's not really true, either as Mussina just had sooo many 5 plus war seasons. Same thing with Brown, heck Brown had a better peak, but Mussina was crazy consistent. 11 years in the top 10 for pitchers in war, including leading the league once, second once and third twice. If Mussina, Schilling, and Brown aren't HOF pitchers, then your saying only Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Pedro type pitchers are. Which would be ok, but we keep electing hitters that are far below that level. To James point there seems to be different levels for hitters and pitchers. For hitters the bar doesn't seem to be is he in the debate for best hitter ever, that seems to be the bar you're using for pitchers though. I would love to see the list of top 25 pitchers since 1985 that has Mussina close to 25. You'd have to have it filled with a ton of pitchers currently pitching, which given your stance on Santana is funny. You know, because this isn't a what ifs type thing. There are the obvious ones: Glavine Smoltz Maddux Clemens Johnson Pedro Halladay Schilling Morris Blyleven There are current guys who are better: (and could make better case right now): Greinke Kershaw Scherzer Verlander There are the guys who were active but near the end: Neikro Carlton Ryan Seaver Sutton There are guys who I’d argue were better— don’t conflate that with being HOF worthy — that, Santana was better than Mussina, but not a HOF: Guidry Hersheiser Cone Petite Steib Sabathia Saberhagen Then a host of guys like Tommy John, Reuschel, Appier, Oswalt, Lee, Hamels... none of whom deserve to be but compare. I am, again, not a believer in WAR. People treat it as a kind of certainty, but there are too many examples that fly in the face of performance. Dante Bichette nearly wins the Triple Crown and is not top-10 oWAR, is almost replacement level. He was bad defensively, but... really?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 28, 2018 21:05:12 GMT -5
So your idea of top pitchers since 1985 is to look at a crap load of guys that started pitching well before 1985? If you want to use 1985, you look at the pitchers that started pitching in 1985 or later. I have no problem with Clemens who was 1984, but guys like Jack Morris don't count. Nevermind in no way was Jack Morris better, the guys career era+ is almost league average. If you think that's obvious, then you just value innings over a pitcher doing well. No reason to even continue this debate.
Based on your pitchers, you have to be older. So I get maybe you don't fully understand war, but your example of why you don't trust it is horrible. Dante Bichette had an ops of 1.152 at Coors Field and .802 on the road the year you are talking about and played very poor D. Can you say Coors field effect? He hit 31 of his 40 HRs at home. I actually think that's a great example of why war is so useful. The raw numbers don't even come close to telling the whole story. He went from like best hitter in the league at home, to just above average on the road. That was like the peak of the Coors Field effect and why a guy like Larry Walker is struggling to gain votes.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 28, 2018 21:15:41 GMT -5
I am, again, not a believer in WAR. People treat it as a kind of certainty, but there are too many examples that fly in the face of performance. Dante Bichette nearly wins the Triple Crown and is not top-10 oWAR, is almost replacement level. He was bad defensively, but... really? There's a lot to unpack here, so I'd like to address your Dante Bichette comment first. He was a good, but not great, hitter who was a product of Coors field before they installed the humidor. He was an average baserunner and played as a corner outfielder and not a premiere defensive position. (There are problems with WAR regarding positions, but that's a whole conversation on it's own). Prior to joining the Rockies, Bichette hit .238 with 15 homers followed by .287 with 5 homers for Milwaukee during his age 27&28 seasons, when we would expect him to be in his prime. Not only does the ball fly further in Colorado but it also doesn't break as much due to the thin air, so it's a great place to hit if you can mash hanging breaking balls. But separate from the Coors field effect, Bichette had only a 5.2% career walk rate and in his near triple crown year of 1995 his walk rate was 3.6% (only 22 walks in 612 plate appearances). One thing we know today which was not widely known in previous decades (Ted Williams and many others were always aware of this), is that the most valuable thing a better can do is not create an out. Because his walk rate was so low, Bichette was only average at the most important part of offense (in 1995 he had a .365 obp while the average obp of the Rockies position players was .359, so he was barely above average in obp on his own team in his near triple crown year) If you want to point out a Rockies player who doesn't get a fair shake, look at Larry Walker. He should be in the HoF and WAR agrees (68.7 fWAR)
|
|
|