SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2015 HOF class; The line forms behind Pedro
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 30, 2014 14:44:37 GMT -5
What's hilarious about the "he was no better than Kenny Lofton" argument is that Lofton had 68.2 career bWAR. There's a very strong argument for Lofton in HOF but voters completely ignored him for no good reason. It's a case of making one mistake, and rather than acknowledging that mistake, using it as precedent for more bad decisions. It's like how the same writers who were so inept as to keep giving the MVP to guys who happened to be standing next to Chase Utley when Utley was the best player in baseball will, when debating Utley's HOF case years from now, will hold his lack of MVP wins against him. Does that mean I can't use the "But Alan Trammell was way better than Phil Rizzuto" argument? I was merely responding to the poster who didn't see Raines when he was in his prime and doesn't think he's any better than Lofton, who was an excellent player in his own right. We all know why Rizzuto got in. He had Ted Williams' boisterous support, he was the Yankees SS when they won 5 straight Championships and somehow got the 1950 MVP award, and of course, he was pretty funny in the broadcast booth. I personally would have preferred Johnny Pesky or Vern Stephens (check out some of his numbers) for the HOF over Rizzuto.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 30, 2014 16:04:57 GMT -5
Does that mean I can't use the "But Alan Trammell was way better than Phil Rizzuto" argument? One of several hundred valid "X was better than Phil Rizzuto" arguments.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 30, 2014 19:32:20 GMT -5
I'm also surprised at the debate about whether it's acceptable to leave top guys off a ballot to help lesser guys. Really? We want to condone dishonesty? Isn't a voter's obligation to vote for the best candidates and leave other agendas to the side? The Florida voter who was sure Gore was the best candidate but was so disgusted with our political process that he voted for Nader to make a statement probably felt pretty noble. After all, what could possibly go wrong, right? There is no rule or instruction, implicit or otherwise, that says you have to vote for the "best" candidate. You can vote based on whatever criteria you like, which allows for strategic voting like this just like it allows for not voting for some of the best players in baseball history because of vague PED suspicion. Also, holy false equivalency, Batman. This voting strategy certainly does not put Pedro's HOF candidacy in any risk. I think it's common sense that if you're voting to honor a group of people you give your support to those most deserving of the honor. It doesn't have to be spelled out in the rules. It's common sense. The rules don't explicitly say that a voter can't sell his vote to Deadspin either, but the guy who did that lost his voting privileges. And of course this voting strategy puts Pedro's election at risk - if enough voters choose the strategy. Berardino is voting for inferior candidates on the assumption that others will vote for the best candidates. If more than 25 percent think like him, Pedro and Unit don't get elected. From the votes that are public it is clear that that is not happening and that is fortunate. It really isn't any different than the citizen who doesn't go to the polls on Election Day because he thinks his one vote won't mean anything, or the Florida 2000 voters who liked Gore but cast a statement vote for Nader. Happy Great Recession and Iraq War to you, America. I don't think it's a good idea for any voter in any election to vote for an outcome that he doesn't want. It's not complicated.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 30, 2014 22:18:07 GMT -5
You make it sound like it's impossible to project any election, which is ironic since you do exactly that in your very next sentence. He wouldn't vote this way unless it was abundantly clear that it wouldn't jeopardize Pedro's induction, and guess what, it won't. That's why this situation is categorically different from the Gore/Nader example you keep throwing out there, which by the way, also happens to be mostly a myth: www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/06/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 30, 2014 23:09:16 GMT -5
You make it sound like it's impossible to project any election, which is ironic since you do exactly that in your very next sentence. He wouldn't vote this way unless it was abundantly clear that it wouldn't jeopardize Pedro's induction, and guess what, it won't. That's why this situation is categorically different from the Gore/Nader example you keep throwing out there, which by the way, also happens to be mostly a myth: www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/06/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth No election can be predicted in advance with 100 percent certainty, including Pedro's. All we knew going in was that he would be elected if voters voted intelligently and on the merits. That's what we should always want voters to do. But until I started seeing the compilations of declared votes in the last week or so, I wasn't taking Pedro's election for granted. In fact, I worried for months that he might miss out the first time. That's because MLB.com conducted a survey of 40 media members (not all of them are HOF voters) and Pedro got 30 votes, or exactly 75 percent. That was way too close for comfort. ( m.mlb.com/news/article/86232740/how-will-hall-of-fames-class-of-2015-shape-up) We're just not going to agree on this, which is fine and cool. And we can go back and forth forever posting links to opinion pieces on the 2000 election. The bigger point is that folks should vote for the outcome they want, not count on everyone else to do so while they go off to chase their own "strategic" agenda. www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.htmlwww.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Dec 30, 2014 23:33:16 GMT -5
Larry Walker vs. Derek Jeter, nth best season by fWAR:
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 30, 2014 23:56:48 GMT -5
No election can be predicted in advance with 100 percent certainty, including Pedro's. All we knew going in was that he would be elected if voters voted intelligently and on the merits. That's what we should always want voters to do. Pedro and Johnson's election, whether this year or in future years, was as close to 100% guaranteed as you're going to get. As such, as a practical matter, there is really no downside to leaving them off the ballot. That's why you're having to argue this from a principles/morality point of view. The problem with that perspective is that we know certain voters aren't going to vote intelligently, and then it becomes a question of trying to ensure that the right outcome occurs nonetheless, which this strategy tries to do.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 31, 2014 6:14:46 GMT -5
1) Demonstrably wrong. It used to be true, but the BBWAA wouldn't vote for obvious first-ballot guys like Tim Raines because they literally vote as if drawing walks and playing defense don't count at all.* Then they refused to vote for anyone they thought was using PDA's (they certainly would not be voting for Ted Williams had he recently retired). As a result, there are now 15 or 20 guys on the ballot who are inarguable HOFers by classic standards. 2) But this is what the BBWAA has always done, idiotically. The Hall is littered with hitters from the 20's and 30's offensive explosion. If you look at voting patterns too closely (not advised as your brain may explode), it appears as if many HOF voters base their selection of hitters by career hit total. And just that. Really. Honest to God. *Actually not quite true: drawing walks hurts your HOF chances insofar as it lowers career hit totals. Comparing guys across eras is dumb. Saying a player today should be in the HOF because he was better than a guy who made the HOF 50 years ago is poor reasoning. Times change. Players evolve through better training measures and more opportunity and money. The HOF is for the best players in their Era not to compare a 2000s player to a guy from 1930. Most of the guys in the current game should have dominated the game in 1930. Additionally, the bar shouldn't be permanently lowered by some bad choices- all that does is continue to lower the bar. I agree with this. The hall of fame voters in the 1940s and 1950s decisions were based off of how player evaluation was done in that era. It involved looking at reputation and other criteria which people today might disagree with, but it does not mean those elections were wrong. Those elections are merely a snapshot of the era.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Dec 31, 2014 20:39:44 GMT -5
bit.ly/1xAVFnvTwo of my favorite topics: HOF voting and ripping the wretched incompetence and laziness of CHB. The writer of the linked article puts a pretty fearsome take-down on Shank. I found it interesting that he's gone back and forth on voting for Raines and Trammell. He voted for them both in 2012 and 2014 but left them off in 2013. And, the writer points out, he didn't leave them off in '13 because of a crowded ballot. He didn't vote for the maximum 10. He also takes Shank to task for the "They just don't look right" standard he applies to Biggio and Piazza. It's always been amazing to me that the Globe puts up with the embarrassment that is CHB.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 1, 2015 10:01:37 GMT -5
No election can be predicted in advance with 100 percent certainty, including Pedro's. All we knew going in was that he would be elected if voters voted intelligently and on the merits. That's what we should always want voters to do. Pedro and Johnson's election, whether this year or in future years, was as close to 100% guaranteed as you're going to get. As such, as a practical matter, there is really no downside to leaving them off the ballot. That's why you're having to argue this from a principles/morality point of view. The problem with that perspective is that we know certain voters aren't going to vote intelligently, and then it becomes a question of trying to ensure that the right outcome occurs nonetheless, which this strategy tries to do. You are 100% behind this voter so that means you think Larry Walker and Edgar Martinez are hall of famers? How about you show us what your vote would look like. Sure you look at RWARs and they both look like Hall of Famers, but their career numbers in hits and HR is very low for their era they played in. Have you looked at the amount of hitters from their era that have more hits then they do? Marquis Grissom, Carlos Lee, Gary Gaetti, BJ Surhoff, Edgar Renteria, Jim Thome, Andres Galaraga, Bernie Williams, Barry Larkin, Paul Konerko, Chillie Davis and there are more a bunch more! These are two players that got all their value from their bats. Call me old school but just like a pitcher and wins I want to see hits and HR's. They also don't have great numbers in the postseason as both players numbers are below career averages(Walker did have a good 2004 postseason, but was just as bad in 2005). For me this is why Schilling and Ortiz are going to be Hall of Famers one day. They took their teams put them on their backs and won a title.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 1, 2015 11:13:09 GMT -5
Barry Larkin is in the Hall of Fame. Jim Thome will be too. I think Larry Walker and Edgar Martinez are absolutely Hall of Famer quality, and Martinez should be a slam dunk. In terms of this year's class, I would rank them in something close to this order: Bonds, Clemens, Pedro Martinez, Johnson, Mussina, Bagwell, Piazza, Raines, Biggio, Edgar Martinez as my top 10. I also strongly feel that Trammell, Smoltz, Walker, Schilling, and Sheffield deserve induction. I'd also have Palmeiro in if he were still on the ballot. I'm much very on the fence, but currently lean no on McGwire, Kent, and McGriff. I'm a stronger no on Sosa and Delgado, but both are in the range where I could probably be convinced. It is pretty ridiculous that Carlos Delgado, who has a similar Hall case to someone like Jim Rice, is something like the nineteenth or twentieth best player on the current ballot. I think Jay Jaffe is the most thorough analyst out there when it comes to the Hall of Fame. Here are his arguments on Martinez and Walker. Also, that Nader/Gore example is totally backwards. You're claiming that people shouldn't play games and vote for the candidate who they think is best, right? So yeah, the people who were voting for Ralph Nader weren't doing it because they were sure Gore was going to win - they thought Nader was the best candidate.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 1, 2015 13:08:22 GMT -5
No election can be predicted in advance with 100 percent certainty, including Pedro's. All we knew going in was that he would be elected if voters voted intelligently and on the merits. That's what we should always want voters to do. Pedro and Johnson's election, whether this year or in future years, was as close to 100% guaranteed as you're going to get. As such, as a practical matter, there is really no downside to leaving them off the ballot. That's why you're having to argue this from a principles/morality point of view. The problem with that perspective is that we know certain voters aren't going to vote intelligently, and then it becomes a question of trying to ensure that the right outcome occurs nonetheless, which this strategy tries to do. That's actually my point. We know that some voters may do stupid things. That's why it's important for a smart, conscientious voter to do the right thing and ensure that the best guys (which certainly includes Pedro and Unit) get elected. Berardino had no way of knowing going into this election that there wouldn't be others looking to vote "strategically" and leave our guy off. If the so-called strategic voters, those who declined to vote for him on the first ballot, and those who thought his win total was too low added up to 25.1 percent, you'd have a bad result. At that point, would you still be praising the "strategic" voters? I also think there are other things at stake besides Pedro getting in. I'd like to see him get more votes than Johnson. It would be even better if he got the highest percentage ever (Seaver, 98.84 percent in 1992). I'm sure Pedro would love that too. You followed his career the same way I did, so you know what a proud guy he is. At the time of his election, Yaz had the 7th highest percentage ever. I thought that was cool and I still brag on it. I'm also not sure why you thought I was arguing this from a morals standpoint. I want to leave as little room as possible for the most deserving guys to be left out. That's as practical as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 1, 2015 13:16:09 GMT -5
I also think there are other things at stake besides Pedro getting in. I'd like to see him get more votes than Johnson. It would be even better if he got the highest percentage ever (Seaver, 98.84 percent in 1992). Do you think these things are more important than an obviously-qualified player (in this case, Biggio) getting into the Hall of Fame? If so, we approach the vote from such polar opposite viewpoints that finding a middle ground for agreement isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 1, 2015 13:18:42 GMT -5
Call me old school but just like a pitcher and wins I want to see hits and HR's. I guess you're not voting for Pedro and his career 219 wins? Using hit/HR/win totals as your sole HoF criteria is just laughably outdated. Hell, even amongst the hairbrained pool of actual BBWAA voters, there aren't more than a couple dozen guys who still think this way.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 1, 2015 13:28:05 GMT -5
Berardino had no way of knowing going into this election that there wouldn't be others looking to vote "strategically" and leave our guy off. Yes, he absolutely did. It's exceptionally pedantic to continue to insist that you can't predict how the voters are going to vote. The whole point of the strategy is to only vote that way if you know that it won't threaten the election of the guys you left off. Yes, it's an equilibrium strategy that doesn't work if too many people adopt it, but it's not too hard to read the tea leaves and quickly realize that Pedro and Johnson are getting voted in with or without your vote. As for the highest percentages ever stuff: I don't care about that stuff, and the strategic voters don't, either. Under that perspective, there's no downside to leaving him off your ballot and giving that vote to a candidate who needs your vote more.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 1, 2015 13:45:15 GMT -5
Berardino had no way of knowing going into this election that there wouldn't be others looking to vote "strategically" and leave our guy off. Yes, he absolutely did. How did he know? As I mentioned, I became nervous a few months back when I saw the mlb.com poll showing Pedro would get the support of only 30 of the 40 writers surveyed. In the subsequent weeks and months, I did a lot of searching for polls that would re-assure me and there wasn't much out there. I even Googled gambling sites to see if I could find betting odds. No luck. It wasn't until I saw the Ryan Thibs spreadsheet about a week ago that my breathing normalized and blood flow to all parts of my body returned.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Jan 1, 2015 13:59:31 GMT -5
I also think there are other things at stake besides Pedro getting in. I'd like to see him get more votes than Johnson. It would be even better if he got the highest percentage ever (Seaver, 98.84 percent in 1992). Do you think these things are more important than an obviously-qualified player (in this case, Biggio) getting into the Hall of Fame? If so, we approach the vote from such polar opposite viewpoints that finding a middle ground for agreement isn't going to happen. I think it's extremely important that Biggio get in if all the voters take an honest look at the ballot and 75 percent or more believe he is one of 10 worthy of a check mark on this crowded ballot. I have no doubt he's worthy and thus would vote for him. In fact, I think it's dopey that he missed out his first two times. I suppose the solution to this is to eliminate the 10-vote limit. But I have reservations about that. In a couple of years - probably as soon as next year - the ballot will not be nearly as crowded. I'm not sure the HOF should change the rules every few years just to accommodate shifting circumstances. We already have a backstop for guys who miss out and deserve a second look. It's the Vets Committee.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 1, 2015 14:20:12 GMT -5
How did he know? As I mentioned, I became nervous a few months back when I saw the mlb.com poll showing Pedro would get the support of only 30 of the 40 writers surveyed. In the subsequent weeks and months, I did a lot of searching for polls that would re-assure me and there wasn't much out there. I even Googled gambling sites to see if I could find betting odds. No luck. It wasn't until I saw the Ryan Thibs spreadsheet about a week ago that my breathing normalized and blood flow to all parts of my body returned. He's a baseball writer who knows a lot of other BBWAA voters. Plus, there's a common sense element here. Pedro has basically the best peak ever, a fairly long career, and generally a positive public reputation. He was getting in regardless. Besides, what's the worst case scenario here, that Pedro gets in next year? Not something that matters to me (or him).
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jan 1, 2015 15:50:31 GMT -5
I wish I still had the passion to debate who belongs in the hall, like you guys do. The steroid era killed my interest. Just looking forward to Pedro's speech. I could listen to him talk about the game all day.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 1, 2015 18:06:18 GMT -5
And yet we know that writers do whatever they want and there is no accountability or repurcussions. The rules aren't enforced.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 1, 2015 18:25:30 GMT -5
There is no rule or instruction, implicit or otherwise, that says you have to vote for the "best" candidate. You can vote based on whatever criteria you like, which allows for strategic voting like this just like it allows for not voting for some of the best players in baseball history because of vague PED suspicion. Also, holy false equivalency, Batman. This voting strategy certainly does not put Pedro's HOF candidacy in any risk.
Jmei, why do you just make up things like this out of thin air? You can Google as well as the rest of us. The BBWAA Election Rules explicitly state the following criteria to be considered by the voter:
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/bbwaa-rules-for-election
Those are about the vaguest criteria possible.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 1, 2015 18:34:02 GMT -5
There is no rule or instruction, implicit or otherwise, that says you have to vote for the "best" candidate. You can vote based on whatever criteria you like, which allows for strategic voting like this just like it allows for not voting for some of the best players in baseball history because of vague PED suspicion. Also, holy false equivalency, Batman. This voting strategy certainly does not put Pedro's HOF candidacy in any risk.
Jmei, why do you just make up things like this out of thin air? You can Google as well as the rest of us. The BBWAA Election Rules explicitly state the following criteria to be considered by the voter:
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/bbwaa-rules-for-election
That language is just about meaningless. You can consider all of those factors and still come out however you like. Noone is going to argue that Berardino should face any sort of sanction for voting the way he did. The point is that you can vote for whoever you like based on whatever methodology you want.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 1, 2015 23:16:09 GMT -5
Reading comprehension, dude. I specified that Berardino would not face any sanction for his actions (voting strategically by omitting Pedro/Johnson from his ballot). If you disagree, I'll bet you one year's worth of an avatar that he receives no sanction from the BBWAA for his vote (for administrative purposes, let's set the start of Spring Training as the effective date by which discipline has to be announced).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 1, 2015 23:35:59 GMT -5
Again, reading comprehension. I didn't say he couldn't be sanctioned, I said he wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 1, 2015 23:42:07 GMT -5
Call me old school but just like a pitcher and wins I want to see hits and HR's. I guess you're not voting for Pedro and his career 219 wins? Using hit/HR/win totals as your sole HoF criteria is just laughably outdated. Hell, even amongst the hairbrained pool of actual BBWAA voters, there aren't more than a couple dozen guys who still think this way. I knew you were going to say that. Pedro has all the extra's, the type of things that Walker and Martinez don't. He is consider one of the best pitchers to ever play the game. I don't put Martinez and Walker in that group. I also love how you only pick out one sentence and rip it apart. I looked up both players rWAR's and DWAR and did mention that, so I'm not only looking at Hits and HR's. The thing is for me WAR isn't an end all, its just another stat used to look at the player.
Larry Walker got 10.2% and Martinez got 25.2% of the votes last year. So I am not alone in my feelings. Also both players are going the wrong way and losing votes.
|
|
|