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.
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jan 22, 2019 16:34:11 GMT -5
How the hell is Lance Berkman a one-and-done?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 22, 2019 16:51:22 GMT -5
www.bbhoftracker.comI really hope that on top of Rivera, Holladay, Martinez, and Mussina, we get Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling. It would go a long way towards fixing the log jam and we can start debating guys we should be debating. I fully support Mussina for the HOF, yet it will piss me off if he gets in and Schilling doesn't. Very similar numbers yet Schilling was lights out in the Postseason for his career, Mussina was just ok. Just because the guys a jerk shouldn't diminish his on field results. Gotta stop with all the games and just vote these guys in
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 22, 2019 16:57:45 GMT -5
How the hell is Lance Berkman a one-and-done? www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/berkmla01.shtmlGo look at the HOF rating at the bottom. His peak was basically HOF worthy, yet he just didn't maintain it long enough. At the same time I get your point, I don't see him ever making it, but he shouldn't be a one and done either. It's why I want a massive class and just get the true HOF in so we can move onto the true debate. The games being played with guys like Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling is why. Just too many guys on the ballot and you can only pick ten players. Given the players on the ballot it would be a crime to vote for Berkman over the other guys.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jan 22, 2019 17:23:08 GMT -5
How the hell is Lance Berkman a one-and-done? www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/berkmla01.shtmlGo look at the HOF rating at the bottom. His peak was basically HOF worthy, yet he just didn't maintain it long enough. At the same time I get your point, I don't see him ever making it, but he shouldn't be a one and done either. It's why I want a massive class and just get the true HOF in so we can move onto the true debate. The games being played with guys like Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling is why. Just too many guys on the ballot and you can only pick ten players. Given the players on the ballot it would be a crime to vote for Berkman over the other guys. Agreed, but similar players like McGriff and Helton are getting plenty more votes.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 22, 2019 17:51:50 GMT -5
www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/berkmla01.shtmlGo look at the HOF rating at the bottom. His peak was basically HOF worthy, yet he just didn't maintain it long enough. At the same time I get your point, I don't see him ever making it, but he shouldn't be a one and done either. It's why I want a massive class and just get the true HOF in so we can move onto the true debate. The games being played with guys like Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling is why. Just too many guys on the ballot and you can only pick ten players. Given the players on the ballot it would be a crime to vote for Berkman over the other guys. Agreed, but similar players like McGriff and Helton are getting plenty more votes. I 100% agree, but it's counting stats and the extra stuff. Like Berkman doesn't even have 2,000 hits, McGriff has almost 2,500 and almost 500 HRs, Helton has over 2,500. McGriff has the instructional video and being a fixture on those Braves teams to help him. I don't think any of them are HOF guys but I can see why some people vote for one and not the other. Not only does Berkman not have the counting numbers, he doesn't have Heltons GGs, or Batting title, a long post season history, heck almost anything to help him and the majority of his value is his peak years. Then again what do I know if Harold Baines is a HOF then all three of these guys should be also. They were all better by a large margin.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jan 22, 2019 18:40:21 GMT -5
Rivera, Halliday, Martinez and Mussina. Rivera is the first unanimous.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Jan 22, 2019 19:25:28 GMT -5
The nice thing about Edgar being elected: pretty much guarantees Ortiz will be as well.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Jan 22, 2019 19:31:27 GMT -5
Also, Bonds (+2.7%) and Clemens (+2.2%) barely moved from last year (both are still hovering in the high 50% range).
Schilling leapfrogged them, which is a bit surprising, going from 51.2% to 60.9% (+9.7). So he probably gets in either next year or in two years.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 22, 2019 19:49:55 GMT -5
I find it completely bizarre that Mariano Rivera is the first unanimous inductee. Like, I would for sure have voted for him, but unlike with some guys, I can pretty easily imagine an argument against him - pitched under 1300 innings in his career, relievers are by definition not good enough to be starters, etc. If I was voting I'd at least think about this argument, and in general if an argument is conceivable at least one BBWAA member actually makes it (as well as a few arguments that aren't conceivable - see Shaughnessy's "I voted against several guys I used to support because Baines got in," for instance). Whereas what even was the argument against Randy Johnson or Cal Ripken or Willie Mays or a couple dozen other guys?
On top of that you have the ballot crunch, and you'd think there might be one voter with a maxed-out ballot who'd figure, well, Rivera was definitely gonna make it so might as well use the vote on someone who's on the cusp, or in danger of falling off the ballot. (That may or may not be a reasonable argument; I'm just saying you'd think ONE person might've used that logic.)
It's not a good or bad thing - it's just really strange to me.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 22, 2019 20:23:50 GMT -5
I find it completely bizarre that Mariano Rivera is the first unanimous inductee. Like, I would for sure have voted for him, but unlike with some guys, I can pretty easily imagine an argument against him - pitched under 1300 innings in his career, relievers are by definition not good enough to be starters, etc. If I was voting I'd at least think about this argument, and in general if an argument is conceivable at least one BBWAA member actually makes it (as well as a few arguments that aren't conceivable - see Shaughnessy's "I voted against several guys I used to support because Baines got in," for instance). Whereas what even was the argument against Randy Johnson or Cal Ripken or Willie Mays or a couple dozen other guys? On top of that you have the ballot crunch, and you'd think there might be one voter with a maxed-out ballot who'd figure, well, Rivera was definitely gonna make it so might as well use the vote on someone who's on the cusp, or in danger of falling off the ballot. (That may or may not be a reasonable argument; I'm just saying you'd think ONE person might've used that logic.) It's not a good or bad thing - it's just really strange to me. It’s a good thing if it stops the nonsense of leaving guys off the ballot because it’s the first ballot. It’s a bad thing if people start to think he was better than he was because of this. There are countless players, most recently Griffey and Pedro, who should have been unanimous.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 22, 2019 20:51:36 GMT -5
I find it completely bizarre that Mariano Rivera is the first unanimous inductee. Like, I would for sure have voted for him, but unlike with some guys, I can pretty easily imagine an argument against him - pitched under 1300 innings in his career, relievers are by definition not good enough to be starters, etc. If I was voting I'd at least think about this argument, and in general if an argument is conceivable at least one BBWAA member actually makes it (as well as a few arguments that aren't conceivable - see Shaughnessy's "I voted against several guys I used to support because Baines got in," for instance). Whereas what even was the argument against Randy Johnson or Cal Ripken or Willie Mays or a couple dozen other guys? On top of that you have the ballot crunch, and you'd think there might be one voter with a maxed-out ballot who'd figure, well, Rivera was definitely gonna make it so might as well use the vote on someone who's on the cusp, or in danger of falling off the ballot. (That may or may not be a reasonable argument; I'm just saying you'd think ONE person might've used that logic.) It's not a good or bad thing - it's just really strange to me. It’s a good thing if it stops the nonsense of leaving guys off the ballot because it’s the first ballot. It’s a bad thing if people start to think he was better than he was because of this. There are countless players, most recently Griffey and Pedro, who should have been unanimous. True! And it preempts Jeter from being the first unanimous guy, which would have led to all manner of insufferable commentary.
|
|
|
HOF Talk
Jan 22, 2019 21:43:18 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 22, 2019 21:43:18 GMT -5
Schilling will get in I think not next year but the year after. Bonds and Clemens I don’t think ever get in. Only need 25% + 1 to hold the line.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 22, 2019 21:59:52 GMT -5
Schilling will get in I think not next year but the year after. Bonds and Clemens I don’t think ever get in. Only need 25% + 1 to hold the line. Don't know if they have some kind of veteran's committee in December 2019 or whatever, but barring anything coming of that, I honestly think Jeter is the only guy getting elected next year. I honestly don't think Schilling will get in by his last year of eligibility and it's a coin toss if there will be enough converts to get Clemens and Bonds votes in come 2022, which happens to be Big Papi's first year on the ballot. My guess with Big Papi is that he'll be voted in on his 2nd ballot. He'll probably get nicked for PED whispers from 2003, whether true or false, and the DH factor.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 22, 2019 22:02:33 GMT -5
www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/berkmla01.shtmlGo look at the HOF rating at the bottom. His peak was basically HOF worthy, yet he just didn't maintain it long enough. At the same time I get your point, I don't see him ever making it, but he shouldn't be a one and done either. It's why I want a massive class and just get the true HOF in so we can move onto the true debate. The games being played with guys like Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling is why. Just too many guys on the ballot and you can only pick ten players. Given the players on the ballot it would be a crime to vote for Berkman over the other guys. Agreed, but similar players like McGriff and Helton are getting plenty more votes. That's why it would be nice to have a couple of extra spaces for voting, to keep the chances of a Berkman alive for the HOF. Some guys just fall off the ballot too quickly where there are a ton of good HOF candidates and the new guy being considered isn't an obvious pick for the HOF. Not saying Berkman should be in the HOF, but I wouldn't have minded seeing him remain on the ballot for a few more years so more minds could be changed - or not. As far as Fred McGriff goes, I really hope the veteran's committee, or whatever they call themselves, do right by him. This same committee determined that Harold Baines is a HOFer but ignored guys like Luis Tiant or Dwight Evans or Bobby Grich or some others who deserve very strong consideration.
|
|
|
HOF Talk
Jan 22, 2019 22:25:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by swingingbunt on Jan 22, 2019 22:25:57 GMT -5
It’s a good thing if it stops the nonsense of leaving guys off the ballot because it’s the first ballot. It’s a bad thing if people start to think he was better than he was because of this. There are countless players, most recently Griffey and Pedro, who should have been unanimous. True! And it preempts Jeter from being the first unanimous guy, which would have led to all manner of insufferable commentary. This a million times! Rivera, I think, was easily the best at his position to ever play, and he seemed like a stand-up guy. Also, some of my favorite Red Sox moments happened with him on the mound, so that was nice. I just knew if Rivera didn't get 100% then Jeter would - and he's a prick that wasn't even the best shortstop to play on his corner of the infield.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 22, 2019 22:48:55 GMT -5
The retirement party for Rivera by the Twins. Those are broken bats...
|
|
|
HOF Talk
Jan 23, 2019 0:53:42 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 23, 2019 0:53:42 GMT -5
Might be extra fun to be back stage at this year's HOF ceremony. Martinez has been known to turn Rivera into a stuttering mess when he talks about facing him. Very small sample but that appears to have been more than enough for Rivera.
Few respect Martinez more than the Yankees of that era. He owned them.
|
|
|
HOF Talk
Jan 23, 2019 2:50:33 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 23, 2019 2:50:33 GMT -5
Rivera gave up 11 Earned runs in 141 postseason innings in his career. Bill Mueler and Luis Gonzalez had 2 RBI's in 2 of the biggest postseason games of all time. Those 2 runs accounted for less than 20 percent of the runs he's ever given up. No wonder why I don't have any memories of Rivera giving up anything in the postseason beyond that because he literally gave up nothing beyond that.
Over 650 saves, even if that's a counting stat, that might never get touched again.
Yeap. He probably deserved to be the first unanimous guy. When you're literally the best ever at what you did, you deserve that honor. Still ticked Pedro wasn't the first, but at least the argument can be made that he perhaps wasn't the best of all time at his position. Rivera was.
Rivera was one of my worst nightmares as a kid growing up. I literally turned off the TV half the time in the 90's when he came on the mound as a stubborn kid.
Like I had no hope every friggen single time before 2004. I only thought the Sox had a chance to get him in 2004 because Mueler was one of the very few who got to him before that game 4 in 2004. I'm surprised they didn't intentionally walk him because of that reason and thankful that they didn't after Roberts stole that base.
|
|
|
HOF Talk
Jan 23, 2019 3:02:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 23, 2019 3:02:32 GMT -5
Schilling will get in I think not next year but the year after. Bonds and Clemens I don’t think ever get in. Only need 25% + 1 to hold the line. You're probably right about that. Bonds and Clemens needs new HOF voters if they eventually want to get in and that's probably not happening. They'll probably need the player's committee to do it and we will see what players are on there by the time they have a say on it. Ortiz will be a really interesting one.
|
|
|
HOF Talk
Jan 23, 2019 3:13:02 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 23, 2019 3:13:02 GMT -5
Jeff Passan definitely has a point here. Baseball writers are possibly the worst, well some of them at least.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 23, 2019 7:39:29 GMT -5
Rivera gave up 11 Earned runs in 141 postseason innings in his career. Bill Mueler and Luis Gonzalez had 2 RBI's in 2 of the biggest postseason games of all time. Those 2 runs accounted for less than 20 percent of the runs he's ever given up. No wonder why I don't have any memories of Rivera giving up anything in the postseason beyond that because he literally gave up nothing beyond that. Over 650 saves, even if that's a counting stat, that might never get touched again. Yeap. He probably deserved to be the first unanimous guy. When you're literally the best ever at what you did, you deserve that honor. Still ticked Pedro wasn't the first, but at least the argument can be made that he perhaps wasn't the best of all time at his position. Rivera was. Rivera was one of my worst nightmares as a kid growing up. I literally turned off the TV half the time in the 90's when he came on the mound as a stubborn kid. Like I had no hope every friggen single time before 2004. I only thought the Sox had a chance to get him in 2004 because Mueler was one of the very few who got to him before that game 4 in 2004. I'm surprised they didn't intentionally walk him because of that reason and thankful that they didn't after Roberts stole that base. Ehhh... I think it’s pretty ridiculous. Nothing against Rivera, but there should have been 50 guys who went in unanimously by now.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by mobaz on Jan 23, 2019 8:26:40 GMT -5
Honest question: does Halladay get in first ballot if he hadn't had the tragic end? He's kind of the opposite of Mussina: peak was plenty high but just a little short on longevity (he didn't get going until age 25 and ineffective at 35). I think Halladay deserves to be in, but I'm a little surprised he got in first ballot given the waits for other pitchers and the fact that many of his top comps are closer to "Hall of Very Good."
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 23, 2019 8:44:35 GMT -5
Rivera blew over 20% of his saves against the Red Sox. He never really scared me, probably because I knew those Sox teams could get to anyone, including him. He was great and the Sox hardly dominated him but he wasn’t untouchable for them.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 23, 2019 9:07:16 GMT -5
Mariano Rivera, failed starter. He should be the first unanimous guy? I bet if Pedro were a closer he would have been even better. But Pedro was better, so he was a starter, arguably the most dominant of all-time.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 23, 2019 9:12:52 GMT -5
Honest question: does Halladay get in first ballot if he hadn't had the tragic end? He's kind of the opposite of Mussina: peak was plenty high but just a little short on longevity (he didn't get going until age 25 and ineffective at 35). I think Halladay deserves to be in, but I'm a little surprised he got in first ballot given the waits for other pitchers and the fact that many of his top comps are closer to "Hall of Very Good." Eh, he was basically good that whole time though. Had a couple injuries sprinkled in there (including the brutal liner off his ankle when he was absolutely shoving in 2005), but he had 62.6 bWAR from 2002 to 2011. That's... that's some stuff. A little sentimentality pushed him over the top, but he was a lot better than Very Good. Jay Jaffe's JAWS system adds that players WAR7 total to their career total and divides by two (essentially giving double credit to a players peak, which seems sensible for a players HOF profile). Halladay's WAR7 of 50.6 is higher than Kershaw, Schilling, Mussina, Santana, Verlander, Scherzer, and Grienke--all players whose careers overlapped with his. I'm just glad that with Pedro, Halladay, and Mussina, we've moved past the outmoded (and frankly ridiculous) 300 win standard that voters seemed to be really bearing down on in the last decade. If you like Hall of Fame stuff, Jaffe's Cooperstown Casebook is really fun reading and I highly recommend it. He really breaks down the careers of the players he's arguing for in his longer essays. There are players who I was already in his camp on (Lou Whitaker, duh), but it brought me around on Dick Allen and a couple others I would've been on the fence about.
|
|
|