2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

[Kepler]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

The essence is that you are like a lot of sports writers... you take your opinions based on your gut emotions and some glib figures which reinforce these opinions.

You say this like it's a bad thing. There will always be people we can take money off in the stock market. Thank the gods most people are not rational actors, if they were we'd have to work a lot harder!

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

The essence is that you are like a lot of sports writers... you take your opinions based on your gut emotions and some glib figures which reinforce these opinions.

Here is one sportswriter's articulation (well done, IMHO) of his votes for the HOF, and why sometimes stats just aren't enough.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jon_heyman/01/04/heyman.hall/index.html?cnn=yes

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Here is one sportswriter's articulation (well done, IMHO) of his votes for the HOF, and why sometimes stats just aren't enough.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jon_heyman/01/04/heyman.hall/index.html?cnn=yes

He's not articulate at all, he's a moron. That's one of the top 5 worst articles he's written and that's saying something.

If he just said, I don't think this guy belongs, that's all he needs to say. He doesn't need to come up with just a flawed logic pattern after flawed logic pattern.

And everything he says about Blyleven is thrown out the window when he votes for an inferior starting pitcher, Jack Morris.

Starting Pitchers are not "compilers": they don't hang on like the Fred McGriff's trying to get to a magical number. Because once they can't pitch anymore, no one brings them in to pitch.

Almost everything he says, including poor percentage totals when they were first eligible: also applies to Morris, Parker and Mattingly.

So exactly what makes his article so great? I'm curious. Is it coming up with points to bash Blyleven while at the same time saying Morris is worthy...without realizing the same reasons he is bashing Bert should be why he shouldn't vote for Morris?

He's obsessed with Cy Young votes and All Star selections but you know what, Bert arguably should have won the CY in 1973. So it's like he wants to use the mistakes of the past to justify the mistakes of the future.

One guy mentioned in the comments for Heyman's article:

For instance. Bert played in 22 seasons. Divide his career innings pitched by 22. You get 226. Bert pitched the equivalent of 22 seasons of 226 innings and a 118 ERA+. How many times did Jack Morris pitch an actual season of at least 226 innings and an ERA+ of at least 118? 4, plus one that misses by 1 point of ERA+. Now I could see it if those 4 seasons were like Randy Johnson 1999-2002, but they weren't. Not even close. In fact, they weren't a whole hell of a lot better than 226 118.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

He's not articulate at all, he's a moron. That's one of the top 5 worst articles he's written and that's saying something.

If he just said, I don't think this guy belongs, that's all he needs to say. He doesn't need to come up with just a flawed logic pattern after flawed logic pattern.

And everything he says about Blyleven is thrown out the window when he votes for an inferior starting pitcher, Jack Morris.

Starting Pitchers are not "compilers": they don't hang on like the Fred McGriff's trying to get to a magical number. Because once they can't pitch anymore, no one brings them in to pitch.

Almost everything he says, including poor percentage totals when they were first eligible: also applies to Morris, Parker and Mattingly.

So exactly what makes his article so great? I'm curious. Is it coming up with points to bash Blyleven while at the same time saying Morris is worthy...without realizing the same reasons he is bashing Bert should be why he shouldn't vote for Morris?

He's obsessed with Cy Young votes and All Star selections but you know what, Bert arguably should have won the CY in 1973. So it's like he wants to use the mistakes of the past to justify the mistakes of the future.

One guy mentioned in the comments for Heyman's article:

I thought the article was well written because he articulated one voter's method of trying to decide who to vote for, and against, and he used a method I have advocated in this thread. Namely, that a candidate's credentials should not rest simply on statistics compiled, but more on the impact that player had, and whether they were truly one of the best in the game during their playing days.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

The announcement will be broadcast live tomorrow on MLB Network. It will be the debut of their new cub baseball reporter....some guy named Pete Gammons.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

The guy largely throws stats out the window and assesses being an impact player and leans on stuff like MVP and Cy Young votes. I can respect the impact player argument somewhat, but leaning on MVP and Cy Young voting so heavily while giving short shrift to much more important stats that reflect performance on the field rather than (to some extent) PR is not a very solid approach.

Voting for Dave Parker, but not Blyleven or Raines? Yikes. His only things he cites for Parker are being in the top 10 for MVP five times, and having three more tools than Rice. Not exactly compelling stuff.

 

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Voting for Dave Parker, but not Blyleven or Raines? Yikes. His only things he cites for Parker are being in the top 10 for MVP five times, and having three more tools than Rice. Not exactly compelling stuff.

And here we see the downside of letting Rice into the Hall of Fame, it strengthens the campaigns of other guys who were equally as good, but not great.

 

[The Paragon of Virtue]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Here is one sportswriter's articulation (well done, IMHO) of his votes for the HOF, and why sometimes stats just aren't enough.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jon_heyman/01/04/heyman.hall/index.html?cnn=yes

And actually, a case could be made that Baines had more greatness, as he made six All-Star teams, three times the number of Blyleven.

Danny Graves made two All-Star games. So did Mark Loretta, Matt Lawton, and Mike Williams. I do not believe he has a case that those four guys are as great as Bert because they made as many AS games.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

And here we see the downside of letting Rice into the Hall of Fame, it strengthens the campaigns of other guys who were equally as good, but not great.

They should have thought about that before they voted in Orlando Cepeda.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Danny Graves made two All-Star games. So did Mark Loretta, Matt Lawton, and Mike Williams. I do not believe he has a case that those four guys are as great as Bert because they made as many AS games.

Sign Butch Wynegar, the 2-time all-star, for the Hall of Fame!

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

They should have thought about that before they voted in Orlando Cepeda.

Yah, with the induction of folks like Cepeda, Tony Perez, and Bill Mazeroski watering down the Hall standards even further, you have to go back and look at a number of players who now look much more Hall-worthy.

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Yah, with the induction of folks like Cepeda, Tony Perez, and Bill Mazeroski watering down the Hall standards even further, you have to go back and look at a number of players who now look much more Hall-worthy.

So you have to screw up more if you screw up once? Usually if you screw up, you learn and try not to repeat the mistake...not continue to do it over and over and over.

 

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Yah, with the induction of folks like Cepeda, Tony Perez, and Bill Mazeroski watering down the Hall standards even further, you have to go back and look at a number of players who now look much more Hall-worthy.

Guys like Cepeda, Mazeroski and Rizzuto were voted in by their friends on the Vets committee - that's an entirely different thing and has since been somewhat rectified as the Vets committee voting standards are different. I'm not saying that makes it better, but at least it's been "fixed" in the mean time.

Things like what happened with Perez and Rice are different because they could've been avoided if not for that pesky reflective legend-making by hometown writers.

 

[jmh]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

I thought the article was well written because he articulated one voter's method of trying to decide who to vote for, and against, and he used a method I have advocated in this thread. Namely, that a candidate's credentials should not rest simply on statistics compiled, but more on the impact that player had, and whether they were truly one of the best in the game during their playing days.

Which would be all well and good, except that the way he goes about determining who was the best player during their playing days is retarded. For instance:

While Martinez was a superb hitter, and his career .418 on-base percentage and .515 slugging percentages are impressive indeed, only twice did Martinez even crack the top 10 in MVP voting (he was third once and sixth once). That suggests something less than dominance.

No, it suggests that MVP voters (read: BBWAA members) perceived a lack of dominance. It's arrogant in that it doesn't allow for the possibility that the might have been wrong at the time. Take 1995, for instance. Edgar had a far better season than MVP Mo Vaughn (for that matter, so did second-place finisher Albert Belle, who generally got the short end of the stick in awards voting because he was obnoxious to the writers and everyone else, speaking of the writers' personal biases having an impact on voting), but the voters failed to recognize his excellence then, and as a result it's being used as an excuse to fail to recognize his excellence now.

The announcement will be broadcast live tomorrow on MLB Network. It will be the debut of their new cub baseball reporter....some guy named Pete Gammons.

Never heard of him.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Guys like Cepeda, Mazeroski and Rizzuto were voted in by their friends on the Vets committee - that's an entirely different thing and has since been somewhat rectified as the Vets committee voting standards are different. I'm not saying that makes it better, but at least it's been "fixed" in the mean time.

Things like what happened with Perez and Rice are different because they could've been avoided if not for that pesky reflective legend-making by hometown writers.

Joe Gordon just got in via the Veteran's Committee in 2009. He was a very nice secondbaseman, but a Hall of Famer? Not in my book. And not in most writers' books, as the highest he ever got on the regular ballot was 28.5%. But he gets in via the backdoor, like Rizzuto, etc.

I know the Vet's Committee was supposed to be fixed, but . . . . .

 

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Joe Gordon just got in via the Veteran's Committee in 2009. He was a very nice secondbaseman, but a Hall of Famer? Not in my book. And not in most writers' books, as the highest he ever got on the regular ballot was 28.5%. But he gets in via the backdoor, like Rizzuto, etc.

I know the Vet's Committee was supposed to be fixed, but . . . . .

Gordon in that day and age was probably one of the best second basemen of the era. Gordon also had some pretty legendary teammates that got a lot of publicity. Comparing Gordon to the others who the Vets committee have let in is crazy.

I'm not excusing it, but the Vets committee isn't the revolving door of invites the way it used to be. Something had to be there for the players on the committee to add him in.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

The essence is that you are like a lot of sports writers... you take your opinions based on your gut emotions and some glib figures which reinforce these opinions. Nothing in any of your posts appear to indicate what the "nerds" are missing. Sure you can use a lot of words but you spend most of your time dancing around the point. You seem to emphasize not why you know something better than the rest of us but rather that you know nothing and that you'll do so in a repetitive fashion.

BTW, Rover, the only situations that tend to "call for a hit" are those situations where the next batter is that much more worse than the one currently up... the presumption is that there are one or two outs and you need to score immediately.

Good, because that means statsnerding will not be used to determine HoF eligibility.

What you're missing for the umpteenth time is that reviewing stats 20 years later does not replace watching the guy's career when it happened. People 'back in the dark ages' had access to plenty of these stats already, as both on base % and slugging % were well known stats (unless of course adding those two together gives some mind blowing insight that people didn't have 20 years ago ). Ever wonder why the guys you want in the Hall aren't in, while the ones I think belong are? Could it be, maybe, that I'm right and you're wrong. Or is the world just out to screw you and the rest of the pocket protector class?

To your second point, talk about wimpily passing the buck to the next guy. Maybe you match up better against the pitcher than the next guy. Maybe the other guy might not get a good pitch to hit like you did (again about how its humans, not machines, playing the game). How about exercising some personal responsibility and taking it upon yourself to drive in that run.

jmh,

I'll bet those top scoring NL teams also led the league in RBI's too which you think is a meaningless stat???

Not sure what your Grich obsession is. He was a good, solid player you'd love to have on your team. Not a Hall of Famer, but nonetheless a good player. Interesting that in his best years you were what....being born and...4 or 5 years old? Yup, I'm sure that qualifies you to know more than people who watched him play.

 

[True Blue Fan]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Gordon in that day and age was probably one of the best second basemen of the era. Gordon also had some pretty legendary teammates that got a lot of publicity. Comparing Gordon to the others who the Vets committee have let in is crazy.

I'm not excusing it, but the Vets committee isn't the revolving door of invites the way it used to be. Something had to be there for the players on the committee to add him in.

Exactly how is comparing Gordon to the others the Veterans committee have let in crazy? He does not deserve to be in, just like 99.99% of the others who the committee have let in.

 

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Exactly how is comparing Gordon to the others the Veterans committee have let in crazy? He does not deserve to be in, just like 99.99% of the others who the committee have let in.

Sometimes the BBWAA screws things up royally... Just like how they might with Bert and Raines.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Gordon in that day and age was probably one of the best second basemen of the era. Gordon also had some pretty legendary teammates that got a lot of publicity. Comparing Gordon to the others who the Vets committee have let in is crazy.

I'll admit it's not as bad as Mazeroski getting in, but if Gordon was that good, he should have garnered a lot more votes on the regular ballot than he did. Just another guy that would be nowhere near the Hall if not for being a Yankee. 1530 career hits. .268 batting average 253 HRs. Won the 1942 MVP in a year when Ted Williams was way better.

Compare Gordon to a similar player of the era, Vern Stephens. Very similar numbers overall, but the difference was Stephens spend the majority of his career with the St. Louis Browns, rather than the Yankees. Switch the teams they played for, and Stephens is in the Hall, and Gordon is not even under discussion. Stick Stephens in a lineup with the protection Gordon had, and Stephens would look even better. Compare Stephens to a fellow SS, Rizzuto, and it's not even close. When Rizzuto won the MVP in 1950, he numbers were .266, 6 HRs, 66 RBIs. Stephens hit .295, 30 HRs, 144 RBI's. And Stephens isn't even in the top 20 for the MVP! Anyone seriously considering MVP voting as a substantive Hall criteria should be barred from future voting. If Stephens doesn't belong, then neither Gordon nor Rizzuto should get a sniff of the Hall. Hey, compare Stephens to Lou Boudreau, and Stephens looks pretty good there also.