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 manfred on Jan 28, 2018 21:23:53 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. But would the average replacement player equal Bichette in that Coors effect? I have lots of examples of guys with bloated WARs... often because of the defensive nimbers, which are, again, really hypothetical (zones etc). Bobby Grich, a sabermetric HOF, out WARs Rod Carew in their prime 2B seasons, despite the fact that Carew absolutely blows Grich away offensively. Yes, Grich was a golden globe defender, but, c’mon. I’ve given the Keven Kiermeier example elsewhere — dude had an 8+ WAR season, mostly on an absurd dWAR. And on. I separated out the guys finishing their careers. I don’t need them for numbers to make my 25. You can cut who you want. There still is a solid case for what I said: lower part of top 25.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 28, 2018 21:31:12 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) Please don’t mistake me: I do not think Bichette was a great player. I’m just saying that a guy who leads the keague in home runs, rbis, and slugging... to say that he is close to replacement level seems odd. Presumably that replacement will play where he plays and... lead the league more in those numbers? Yeah, he was a dud in other areas. But the name of the game is not not to get out: it is to produce runs. He did that. Again, this is just one example where you have a guy who did what he did. He led the league in major stats. Then you have a stat that says because of abstruse factors like humidity, his season was actually relatively mediocre. Then we get guys with relatively mediocre numbers but we’re told no no that guy was worth so much more than an abstract replacement would gave been.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 28, 2018 22:44:05 GMT -5
Please don’t mistake me: I do not think Bichette was a great player. I’m just saying that a guy who leads the keague in home runs, rbis, and slugging... to say that he is close to replacement level seems odd. Presumably that replacement will play where he plays and... lead the league more in those numbers? Yeah, he was a dud in other areas. But the name of the game is not not to get out: it is to produce runs. He did that. Again, this is just one example where you have a guy who did what he did. He led the league in major stats. Then you have a stat that says because of abstruse factors like humidity, his season was actually relatively mediocre. Then we get guys with relatively mediocre numbers but we’re told no no that guy was worth so much more than an abstract replacement would gave been. WAR is a cumulative statistic comprised of many other statistics, so if you have an issue with WAR it's important that you identify what statistic you actually have an issue with. I pointed out that Bichette was average in OBP on his team while playing a below average defense as a corner OF and being below average as a base runner. The cumulative statistics that make up WAR believe that despite his strong power numbers, these other factors lead him to being an average (not replacement level) player during the 1995 season. I highly recommend reading up further on WAR as you understand the general idea but not all of the factors which go into WAR or why they are given their respective weights. Even fangraphs and baseball reference don't agree on WAR, but it's important to know the specific reason for not liking WAR or the statistics which comprise WAR.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 28, 2018 22:55:30 GMT -5
Yeah, he was a dud in other areas. But the name of the game is not not to get out: it is to produce runs. He did that. The game of baseball consists of two teams each given 27 outs (less if there is inclement weather or the final 3 outs are not needed for the home team) to score as many runs as possible. If the game is tied after each team has used up their 27 outs then extra innings begin with each team given 3 outs a piece repeatedly until one team has scored more runs than the other team, which has used up all of its outs. Every batter/baserunner tries to score runs while not giving up outs while every fielder/pitcher tries to get outs without giving up runs. Outs and runs are the 2 statistics which determine who wins the game. Every other statistic is a byproduct of trying to get outs or runs. You need to account for both halves of the game (runs and outs).
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 28, 2018 23:18:43 GMT -5
Please don’t mistake me: I do not think Bichette was a great player. I’m just saying that a guy who leads the keague in home runs, rbis, and slugging... to say that he is close to replacement level seems odd. Presumably that replacement will play where he plays and... lead the league more in those numbers? Yeah, he was a dud in other areas. But the name of the game is not not to get out: it is to produce runs. He did that. Again, this is just one example where you have a guy who did what he did. He led the league in major stats. Then you have a stat that says because of abstruse factors like humidity, his season was actually relatively mediocre. Then we get guys with relatively mediocre numbers but we’re told no no that guy was worth so much more than an abstract replacement would gave been. WAR is a commutative statistic comprised of many other statistics, so if you have an issue with WAR it's important that you identify what statistic you actually have an issue with. I pointed out that Bichette was average in OBP on his team while playing a below average defense as a corner OF and being below average as a base runner. The cumulative statistics that make up WAR believe that despite his strong power numbers, these other factors lead him to being an average (not replacement level) player during the 1995 season. I highly recommend reading up further on WAR as you understand the general idea but not all of the factors which go into WAR or why they are given their respective weights. Even fangraphs and baseball reference don't agree on WAR, but it's important to know the specific reason for not liking WAR or the statistics which comprise WAR. I’ll give you one example: DRS. Much of this about range, what you should catch, “good plays,” etc. But that is as much counterfactual as evidence based: it assumes the play would be made (and other gaffes would not be). This ends up being crucial when specific number of runs saved or lost are calculated. That seems to be pretending to have a scientific scale for something usually unknowable (barring the literal... 2 out error with baserunners or catching a homerun). Then, when one looks at the impact defense has on WAR (my Kevin Keirmeier example), it all starts getting less clearly scientific than it seems. I don’t want this to get too far away from my original point: some of the guys that are champuoned by WAR numbers were simply not HOF-level players, and in some cases, the numbers seem unaccountable.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 28, 2018 23:44:52 GMT -5
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? Going to do this here, because of the list. You only list 22 pitchers and that is with me adding in a bunch of guys before 1985, but close. Overall you list 8 oblivious guys, lets just say ok to those for argument sake. You wouldn't have a very good case with the current guys, maybe Kershaw. I just don't agree and after your take on Santana I find this argument funny as heck. Lets not sugar coat this, Mussina is going to be a HOF player. His numbers increasing like they have, basically make it a when, not if. Your whole next group don't count, neither do Stieb or Guidry. Out of that group a good case could be bad for Saberhagen, as injuries really hurt his career, but the others I don't see. I would love to hear an argument as to Appier, Oswalt, Lee and Hamels, epically Appier. Go look at Mussina career, his amount of 5 plus war seasons is something few pitchers every did. If you don't use war, what are you using to compare players? Mussina has the old time counting stats like wins and strikeouts, he ranks 33rd and 20th all-time in those stats, he's 66th all time in innings pitched.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 28, 2018 23:59:52 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. But would the average replacement player equal Bichette in that Coors effect? I have lots of examples of guys with bloated WARs... often because of the defensive nimbers, which are, again, really hypothetical (zones etc). Bobby Grich, a sabermetric HOF, out WARs Rod Carew in their prime 2B seasons, despite the fact that Carew absolutely blows Grich away offensively. Yes, Grich was a golden globe defender, but, c’mon. I’ve given the Keven Kiermeier example elsewhere — dude had an 8+ WAR season, mostly on an absurd dWAR. And on. I separated out the guys finishing their careers. I don’t need them for numbers to make my 25. You can cut who you want. There still is a solid case for what I said: lower part of top 25. You don't understand war, it would have been an average player or likely somewhat close depending on that year, not replacement level. That would be a zero war guy. Have you checked the before and after stats of players that went there? Look them up, the numbers answer your question. As does a home/road split of .350 OPS. KK had a 7.3 war season, based off bwar and was generally considered the best defensive CF in the league. He surely passes the eye test as a great defender. I wouldn't call a 5 dwar crazy, not in CF in a good size park. He's also only done that once. Thing about defensive stars is the more the better, but this isn't like Jeter leading the league in defensive war. Are you arguing that a defender in CF can't add that much value? This comes off like you looked at KK stats and think his war is crazy based off his OPS. Have you not been watching Betts for years now?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 0:18:06 GMT -5
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? Going to do this here, because of the list. You only list 22 pitchers and that is with me adding in a bunch of guys before 1985, but close. Overall you list 8 oblivious guys, lets just say ok to those for argument sake. You wouldn't have a very good case with the current guys, maybe Kershaw. I just don't agree and after your take on Santana I find this argument funny as heck. Lets not sugar coat this, Mussina is going to be a HOF player. His numbers increasing like they have, basically make it a when, not if. Your whole next group don't count, neither do Stieb or Guidry. Out of that group a good case could be bad for Saberhagen, as injuries really hurt his career, but the others I don't see. I would love to hear an argument as to Appier, Oswalt, Lee and Hamels, epically Appier. Go look at Mussina career, his amount of 5 plus war seasons is something few pitchers every did. If you don't use war, what are you using to compare players? Mussina has the old time counting stats like wins and strikeouts, he ranks 33rd and 20th all-time in those stats, he's 66th all time in innings pitched. Well, the Santana humor is because you are comparing apples to oranges. I don’t think Santana deserves to be in the Hall. I do think he was a better pitcher than Mussina... just not longer. Similarly, I’d say a guy like Verlander is a better pitcher than Mussina was. I’d far rather have prime Verlander than prime Mussina. Verlander is not (now) a HOFer. Cliff Lee, for example, was better at his best, but not a HOFer. Sabathia... better at his best, comparable career stats. My argument about Mussina — and the Hall — is you need to have stretch when you are discernibly one of the elite players at your position. Dominant, game-changing, intimidating, have a certain aura etc. When was Mussina that elite guy? He had an ERA under 3.00 once in his whole career. Yes, it was a sick offensive period. But there were still elite pitchers putting up elite ERAs. Then you look at his Yankee years: never an All-Star, ERA in high 3s, etc., more hits than innings pitched, an average of under 200 innings per season, etc. Those years account for nearly half his wins. In an era of improved conditioning, he is a testament to consistency and longevity. Long live Muss, very good pitcher. The Hall is not for very good, though.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 0:23:35 GMT -5
But would the average replacement player equal Bichette in that Coors effect? I have lots of examples of guys with bloated WARs... often because of the defensive nimbers, which are, again, really hypothetical (zones etc). Bobby Grich, a sabermetric HOF, out WARs Rod Carew in their prime 2B seasons, despite the fact that Carew absolutely blows Grich away offensively. Yes, Grich was a golden globe defender, but, c’mon. I’ve given the Keven Kiermeier example elsewhere — dude had an 8+ WAR season, mostly on an absurd dWAR. And on. I separated out the guys finishing their careers. I don’t need them for numbers to make my 25. You can cut who you want. There still is a solid case for what I said: lower part of top 25. You don't understand war, it would have been an average player or likely somewhat close depending on that year, not replacement level. That would be a zero war guy. Have you checked the before and after stats of players that went there? Look them up, the numbers answer your question. As does a home/road split of .350 OPS. KK had a 7.3 war season, based off bwar and was generally considered the best defensive CF in the league. He surely passes the eye test as a great defender. I wouldn't call a 5 dwar crazy, not in CF in a good size park. He's also only done that once. Thing about defensive stars is the more the better, but this isn't like Jeter leading the league in defensive war. Are you arguing that a defender in CF can't add that much value? This comes off like you looked at KK stats and think his war is crazy based off his OPS. Have you not been watching Betts for years now? I’ve been watching Jackie, who has never approached the same defensive WAR. Not even 1/2. 5 is huge. And, yes, I’m saying that I don’t believe he was so good in center that a guy who has 40 RBI, .263/.298/.420 slash, 99 OPS+, 18/23 SBs etc. is 3rd in the league in WAR.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 0:52:36 GMT -5
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? Going to do this here, because of the list. You only list 22 pitchers and that is with me adding in a bunch of guys before 1985, but close. Overall you list 8 oblivious guys, lets just say ok to those for argument sake. You wouldn't have a very good case with the current guys, maybe Kershaw. I just don't agree and after your take on Santana I find this argument funny as heck. Lets not sugar coat this, Mussina is going to be a HOF player. His numbers increasing like they have, basically make it a when, not if. Your whole next group don't count, neither do Stieb or Guidry. Out of that group a good case could be bad for Saberhagen, as injuries really hurt his career, but the others I don't see. I would love to hear an argument as to Appier, Oswalt, Lee and Hamels, epically Appier. Go look at Mussina career, his amount of 5 plus war seasons is something few pitchers every did. If you don't use war, what are you using to compare players? Mussina has the old time counting stats like wins and strikeouts, he ranks 33rd and 20th all-time in those stats, he's 66th all time in innings pitched. Ok on Appier. Again... not a HOFer. But... going to my point about Mussina not being elite — from 1992-2000, which is Mussina’s best stretch and which corresponds with Appier’s, the latter is better. This is a significant chunk of time. Appier has a better ERA+, more WAR, comparable wins, more strikeouts. Appier then has a number of solid seasons later, but he can’t stay healthy. The big case for Mussina vs. Appier comes with those Yankee years. That’s fine, and Muss has better career stats. But Appier was arguably a better pitcher through the 90s, had a better prime, etc. Now, again ... to be plain: Mussina had a better total career. But Hall of Famers shouldn’t really find themselves that close in this sort of comp. That the far better half of Mussina’s career was not as good as Kevin Appier puts a ton of weight on the wins he amassed pitching with the Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 29, 2018 2:16:52 GMT -5
Going to do this here, because of the list. You only list 22 pitchers and that is with me adding in a bunch of guys before 1985, but close. Overall you list 8 oblivious guys, lets just say ok to those for argument sake. You wouldn't have a very good case with the current guys, maybe Kershaw. I just don't agree and after your take on Santana I find this argument funny as heck. Lets not sugar coat this, Mussina is going to be a HOF player. His numbers increasing like they have, basically make it a when, not if. Your whole next group don't count, neither do Stieb or Guidry. Out of that group a good case could be bad for Saberhagen, as injuries really hurt his career, but the others I don't see. I would love to hear an argument as to Appier, Oswalt, Lee and Hamels, epically Appier. Go look at Mussina career, his amount of 5 plus war seasons is something few pitchers every did. If you don't use war, what are you using to compare players? Mussina has the old time counting stats like wins and strikeouts, he ranks 33rd and 20th all-time in those stats, he's 66th all time in innings pitched. Well, the Santana humor is because you are comparing apples to oranges. I don’t think Santana deserves to be in the Hall. I do think he was a better pitcher than Mussina... just not longer. Similarly, I’d say a guy like Verlander is a better pitcher than Mussina was. I’d far rather have prime Verlander than prime Mussina. Verlander is not (now) a HOFer. Cliff Lee, for example, was better at his best, but not a HOFer. Sabathia... better at his best, comparable career stats. My argument about Mussina — and the Hall — is you need to have stretch when you are discernibly one of the elite players at your position. Dominant, game-changing, intimidating, have a certain aura etc. When was Mussina that elite guy? He had an ERA under 3.00 once in his whole career. Yes, it was a sick offensive period. But there were still elite pitchers putting up elite ERAs. Then you look at his Yankee years: never an All-Star, ERA in high 3s, etc., more hits than innings pitched, an average of under 200 innings per season, etc. Those years account for nearly half his wins. In an era of improved conditioning, he is a testament to consistency and longevity. Long live Muss, very good pitcher. The Hall is not for very good, though. Its not apples to oranges though. You have to look at a guys whole career, not just his peak years. Mussina lead the league in war for a pitcher once, was second once and third twice. That's 4 seasons in the top 3. He played in the AL East in the steriod ERA and had a career WHIP under 1.2 for his career. 11 seasons in the top 10 in war for pitchers. Context matters here. This is where war helps when comparing players, as it looks at a ton of different figures, so you can compare players. Like comparing a pitcher with a 4.5 era in coors field, versus a 4.5 era in petco. If you aren't looking at one player playing in a hitters park and one in a pitchers park you aren't being fair. One could be a 5 war pitcher, the other a 1 war player. You can look at the raw stats and think war is BS, but it makes perfect sense. You are basically trying to argue the past 20-30 years of advancements Baseball has made in comparing value is dead wrong. Why not era plus? Are you really trying to argue his age 37 and 39 seasons with era plus of 129 and 131 are bad? Or the 143 and 130?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 29, 2018 2:36:10 GMT -5
Going to do this here, because of the list. You only list 22 pitchers and that is with me adding in a bunch of guys before 1985, but close. Overall you list 8 oblivious guys, lets just say ok to those for argument sake. You wouldn't have a very good case with the current guys, maybe Kershaw. I just don't agree and after your take on Santana I find this argument funny as heck. Lets not sugar coat this, Mussina is going to be a HOF player. His numbers increasing like they have, basically make it a when, not if. Your whole next group don't count, neither do Stieb or Guidry. Out of that group a good case could be bad for Saberhagen, as injuries really hurt his career, but the others I don't see. I would love to hear an argument as to Appier, Oswalt, Lee and Hamels, epically Appier. Go look at Mussina career, his amount of 5 plus war seasons is something few pitchers every did. If you don't use war, what are you using to compare players? Mussina has the old time counting stats like wins and strikeouts, he ranks 33rd and 20th all-time in those stats, he's 66th all time in innings pitched. Ok on Appier. Again... not a HOFer. But... going to my point about Mussina not being elite — from 1992-2000, which is Mussina’s best stretch and which corresponds with Appier’s, the latter is better. This is a significant chunk of time. Appier has a better ERA+, more WAR, comparable wins, more strikeouts. Appier then has a number of solid seasons later, but he can’t stay healthy. The big case for Mussina vs. Appier comes with those Yankee years. That’s fine, and Muss has better career stats. But Appier was arguably a better pitcher through the 90s, had a better prime, etc. Now, again ... to be plain: Mussina had a better total career. But Hall of Famers shouldn’t really find themselves that close in this sort of comp. That the far better half of Mussina’s career was not as good as Kevin Appier puts a ton of weight on the wins he amassed pitching with the Yankees. Top 5 seasons for each, 34.2 war for Appier, 33.6 for Mussina. Appier has the best season of 9.2 war versus 8.2 for Mussina. Appier had a slightly better top 5 years. Thing is look at top 7 years Appier 43.7, Mussina 44.5. Appier has 2 years in top 10 of war, Mussina has 11. Eleven years as one of the top 10 pitchers in Baseball. You seem to be only looking at peak years or top years. A lot of the guys you mention fit this bill, one or two years better than Mussina. That doesn't make them a better pitcher when comparing careers though. They just had a better year. You listed Jack Morris as a guy you thought was clearly better and listed him with truly elite pitchers. Yet he was never elite, like never. You can think a million guys were better, Mussina will be a HOF and he deserves it. Put it this way, you have the chance to start a team and can pick Mussina versus Appier. Knowing you get exactly what they did in there careers, who do you pick? Do you really think a team picks Appier because he had that one better year?
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jan 29, 2018 6:56:28 GMT -5
I have actually enjoyed you 2 guys debate on this subject, which kind of surprises me. You both have done a good job of putting forth information to support your opinions without being demeaning or repetitive. At times I have found myself agreeing with both of you which is a testament to your arguments. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 29, 2018 7:49:24 GMT -5
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 MorrisBlyleven 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? Can you explain to me why Jack Morris is obviously better than Mussina? Even using basic stats, he's not even close. Mussina pitched in a much better hitting environment, including the steroid years. Morris was 254-186 with a career 3.90 ERA and only 2478 K's. Mussina was 270-153 with a career 3.68 ERA and 2813 K's. Also, you really need to open your mind to advanced stats, even if it's just walk and strikeout rates. Morris for his career 5.83 K/9 3.27 BB/9. Mussina: 7.11 K/9 1.98 BB/9 Morris:55.8 fWAR, 43.8 bWAR Mussina: 82.2 fWAR, 82.7 bWAR Jack Morris was nowhere near as good as Mussina, let alone obviously better. There's not a single stat you can use to prove otherwise, even the worthless wins/ERA stats. You could also try doing the same with Dave Stieb, Ron Guidry, Bret Saberhagen or Andy Pettite. I guess now wins or strikeouts don't matter either along with WAR? What stats do you think actually matter? I'm confused.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 10:18:39 GMT -5
There are the obvious ones: Glavine Smoltz Maddux Clemens Johnson Pedro Halladay Schilling MorrisBlyleven 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? Can you explain to me why Jack Morris is obviously better than Mussina? Even using basic stats, he's not even close. Mussina pitched in a much better hitting environment, including the steroid years. Morris was 254-186 with a career 3.90 ERA and only 2478 K's. Mussina was 270-153 with a career 3.68 ERA and 2813 K's. Also, you really need to open your mind to advanced stats, even if it's just walk and strikeout rates. Morris for his career 5.83 K/9 3.27 BB/9. Mussina: 7.11 K/9 1.98 BB/9 Morris:55.8 fWAR, 43.8 bWAR Mussina: 82.2 fWAR, 82.7 bWAR Jack Morris was nowhere near as good as Mussina, let alone obviously better. There's not a single stat you can use to prove otherwise, even the worthless wins/ERA stats. You could also try doing the same with Dave Stieb, Ron Guidry, Bret Saberhagen or Andy Pettite. I guess now wins or strikeouts don't matter either along with WAR? What stats do you think actually matter? I'm confused. Ok, let’s withdraw Morris. I concede he is, perhaps, too far. That said, I will make one small point: it is slightly unfair to make a big deal about the steroid era but then make a straight comp of strikeouts. Most of baseball history, a guy who struck out 100 times would be ashamed of himself. Now, you have guys who strikeout 200 times a season. So Morris has fewer Ks, but that seems a difficult straight comp. Part of my point is this: if I had a chance to trade Mussina in his prime for, say, Appier in his prime, I’d have taken it. Would I get burned in year 7? I guess. But when I think of the obvious HOF games: Maddux, Glavine, Clemens... or the two next up, Schilling and Halladay... there is not a single non-HOF pitcher I’d ever have traded them for for prime years. They were beyond comparing to guys who have no business in these conversations. As for top-10 WAR, I am very impressed in that it made him a really solid pitcher. But he was never — even for a moment — the best, was often not demonstrably his team’s best pitcher, etc etc. I just think the Hall is for legends, superstars. He was really solid for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 29, 2018 10:26:16 GMT -5
And Schilling wasn't the best on his teams either, with Randy Johnson and Pedro as teammates. Smoltz and Glavine weren't the best on their teams either. That means nothing except that they had all-time great pitchers as teammates.
Mussina deserves the Hall of Fame and it's not even much of a debate given the far worse pitchers who are in it already.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 29, 2018 10:31:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 29, 2018 10:32:21 GMT -5
It's not year seven with Appier vs Mussina though, it's year 3 and beyond Mussina was better. Your so called peak is two years. That's crazy when looking at long careers. 9.2, 8.1, 6.0 vs 8.2, 7.1, 6.6, every year after the first two Mussina was better. He was crazy better the farther down you go. If he had a way better peak you might have a point, but almost all the guys you think are better are just like Appier, one or two better years and a lot worse the farther down you go.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 29, 2018 10:35:44 GMT -5
a really solid pitcher. But he was never — even for a moment — the best, was often not demonstrably his team’s best pitcher, etc etc. He led his team in pitching WAR every year from 1994 to 2004, which isn't really a Hall of Fame standard itself, but no - you're very, very wrong about him being "often not demonstrably his team's best pitcher." He was the best pitcher on a team that had Roger Clemens in his second prime on it. Your "I wouldn't have traded for him" argument doesn't really make sense. It's not a reinforcing piece of evidence. You can't say that you think someone isn't good enough, and then your evidence is that you don't think he's good enough. That's not a tangible thing. And your thing about peak doesn't make sense either. Because Mussina spread his best seasons over his career, rather than having him over one stretch, that somehow makes his career less valuable? His best seasons were 1992 and 2001. That doesn't mean his Hall of Fame case should be worse than someone who was less good but put his best years together (like Appier, who, for what it's worth, was probably the second best picther in baseball behind Maddux in the mid-90s). You can think the Hall of Fame is for "legends, superstars" but it never has been. Mussina is better than more than half of the pitchers in the Hall of Fame. He was better than Schilling, Halladay, Smoltz, Eckersley, and even arguably Glavine. He's better - clearly better - than Jim Bunning, Juan Marichal, Jim Palmer, Catfish Hunter, Don Drysdale, Hal Neuhauser - all guys who seem to be considered pretty standard Hall of Fame quality. If you want the Hall of Fame to be limited to Christy Mathewson and Cy Young and Greg Maddux, that's fine, but it's not the standard.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Jan 29, 2018 10:37:40 GMT -5
The Mussina-Appier thing is weird because Appier put up some similar numbers but he was basically just a less durable Mussina with worse control. There was never really any point in time when he was better than MM.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 10:37:56 GMT -5
And Schilling wasn't the best on his teams either, with Randy Johnson and Pedro as teammates. Smoltz and Glavine weren't the best on their teams either. That means nothing except that they had all-time great pitchers as teammates. Mussina deserves the Hall of Fame and it's not even much of a debate given the far worse pitchers who are in it already. I knew the Schilling comp was coming. Greinke wasn’t as good as Kershaw, nor Drysdale Koufax. True... but these are HOF guys (or might be in the Dodgers case). With Mussina, the comps are Pettite, Sabathia etc. Now, maybe those guys deserve to be discussed for the Hall. Maybe. But my ooint was partly about aura. Mussina was never the front line Yankee... never an All Star etc. The WAR case is sort of the opposite of aura: it is the player X argument. To wit: Pitcher x is 34th all time in WAR. He led the league once, was top-10 8 times, ties Mussina with 5x in the top-4. This sounds like a developing case, but Rick Reuschel is no HOFer.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 29, 2018 10:39:23 GMT -5
Mike Mussina was never a teammate of CC Sabathia.
Reuschel's best season was better than Mussina's best season. However: Mussina had two 7.0+ WAR seasons, Reuschel had one. Mussina had four 6.0+ WAR seasons, Reuschel had two. Mussina had ten 5.0+ WAR seasons, Reuschel had six. Mussina had twelve 4.0+ WAR seasons, Reuschel had seven.
EDIT: You're doing the same thing you were doing in the McGriff discussion - finding players who were clearly, demonstrably worse but had some single similar accomplishment and using that to discredit the argument as a whole. It's.... really easy to show Mussina was a better pitcher than Reuschel (who was a damn good pitcher, for what it's worth). Saying Reuschel isn't a Hall of Famer doesn't really move the needle on Mussina.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 29, 2018 10:50:10 GMT -5
It's very simple, what matters more all star teams or value to your team? The all star thing makes zero sense. Nevermind the Yankee years are the tail end of Mussina career, the last 8 years of an 18 year career. Mussina made 5 all star teams, Appier only made one. So if you use that, it clearly shows you who was better.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 29, 2018 10:55:12 GMT -5
It's very simple, what matters more all star teams or value to your team? The all star thing makes zero sense. Nevermind the Yankee years are the tail end of Mussina career, the last 8 years of an 18 year career. Mussina made 5 all star teams, Appier only made one. So if you use that, it clearly shows you who was better. Exactly! Bert Blyleven only made an All-Star team twice in his career, and voters used that against him. Instead of looking back and being all "wow, look at all the times he should have been an all-star," Hall of Fame voting becomes an excuse to under-appreciate a player for being underappreciated. It's like this weird under-appreciation feedback loop of doom.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 11:00:07 GMT -5
You can't say that you think someone isn't good enough, and then your evidence is that you don't think he's good enough. That's not a tangible thing. He was better than Schilling, Halladay, Smoltz, Eckersley, and even arguably Glavine. He's better - clearly better - than Jim Bunning, Juan Marichal, Jim Palmer, Catfish Hunter, Don Drysdale, Hal Neuhauser - all guys who seem to be considered pretty standard Hall of Fame quality. If you want the Hall of Fame to be limited to Christy Mathewson and Cy Young and Greg Maddux, that's fine, but it's not the standard. Sorry... messed the cut. The above is a quote— not my own, despite what it says. . Ok... wait. Now, I would be the first to say Bunning, Hunter, and a few others were poor choices. Catfish is one of the least deserving in the Hall. But a mistake shouldn’t create a new standard. How is Mussina better than Schilling, Smoltz, Glavine, Palmer, Halladay? Did you sincerely watch those years and think, wow, this Roy Halladay is good, but Mike Mussina is better? As for Palmer... if we are doing adjustments for era and stuff, let’s not lose sight of insane achievements, like averaging about 315 innings a season from 1975-1978 with an ERA+ in those years over 140. That’s more than 6 years of Mussina’s career in 4 years. Average of 22 complete games for 4 consecutive years. From 1970-1978 he averaged 20 wins and 288 innings. ERA+ of 138. Mussina averaged under 200 innings a season as a Yankee. In fact, from 1975-1978, Palmer pitched 1253 innings. In Mussina’s 8 years with the Yankees he threw 1553. Perhaps I’m at fault for beginning extreme comparisons, but Mussina, even if he makes the Hall, was not better than most of those guys. [/quote]
|
|
|