mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
No doubt
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
No doubt
JF_Gophers
2147483647
Lets guess!
Raines, Thomas, Maddux, Glavine, Morris, Kent, Benitez, Biggio, Bagwell, Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, McGwire, Piazza, E. Martinez, Palmero.
That's 16.
Last edited:
JF_Gophers
2147483647
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
Agreed. Although, I think there will be a lot of talk comparing Pedro to Koufax.
Personally, I feel that the two are very similar. Both absolutely dominated baseball for a "short" (read: 5-7 years) stretch. They both have 3 Cy Young Awards, while Koufax had the MVP season. Pedro had 8 ASGs, while Koufax had only 6. Of course, Koufax also only pitched 12 seasons to Pedro's 18.
That being said, for Pedro to put up a sub 3 ERA in the "steroid era" is ridiculously good. He should be a first ballot hall of famer. Of course, Biggio should have been too. It's a weird time at the Hall of Fame.
Agreed. Although, I think there will be a lot of talk comparing Pedro to Koufax.
Personally, I feel that the two are very similar. Both absolutely dominated baseball for a "short" (read: 5-7 years) stretch. They both have 3 Cy Young Awards, while Koufax had the MVP season. Pedro had 8 ASGs, while Koufax had only 6. Of course, Koufax also only pitched 12 seasons to Pedro's 18.
That being said, for Pedro to put up a sub 3 ERA in the "steroid era" is ridiculously good. He should be a first ballot hall of famer. Of course, Biggio should have been too. It's a weird time at the Hall of Fame.
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
Applying this to the discussion at hand, this is why when Pedro Martinez has a 2.07 ERA in 1999 (when league average ERA was a whopping 4.71), it resonates more with us than when Bret Saberhagen has a (still excellent) ERA of 2.16 in 1989 (when league average ERA was 3.71). And this is why Pedro's ERA+ in 1999 was 243 and Saberhagen's ERA+ in 1989 was 180 - they were both way, way above league average, but Pedro's was much more so because of the context. And this is also why you can't just look at Pedro's 2.93 career ERA, say "well, Kent Tekulve's career ERA was 2.85 and he fell off the ballot his first year" and call it a day.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling. One more digression...
*Larry Walker was a fantastic hitter for a long time, not just at Coors but also in Montreal at the beginning of his career and in St. Louis into his late 30s, and I was kinda stunned by how little support he got this year. You like average? He won three batting titles. You like on-base? Career .400. You like power? He hit plenty of homers. He's got home/road splits, sure, but like I said he was a great hitter when playing his home games in Montreal and St. Louis too, and no slouch on the road. He stole some bases (33 of them during his MVP year in 1997!) at a decent rate of success. He was a decent enough fielder, if no Mays. And he's Canadian! Played goalie as a kid! And had a fantastic mullet! Ultimately, maybe he's more of a "Hall of Very Good" type, but I think he deserves more love than he's gotten so far.
Right. I mean, if we're going to downplay the offensive numbers put up by some of the contenders because of PEDs/juiced ball/Coors Field effect/whatever*, then don't we also have to look at "a sub 3 ERA" as even better than its "default" (for lack of a better word) value in our mind because of the era in which it was accomplished? This is why, even if you don't want to get into WAR or other advanced stats, it's really helpful to at least look at OPS+ and ERA+, which take easily-understood numbers (OPS and ERA, respectively) and normalize them to league average. It's just a way to measure our intuitive understanding that offensive numbers from 2013 (league average OPS .714) are "better" than identical raw offensive numbers from 1997 (league average OPS .756). It puts the performance in the context of the playing environment.
Applying this to the discussion at hand, this is why when Pedro Martinez has a 2.07 ERA in 1999 (when league average ERA was a whopping 4.71), it resonates more with us than when Bret Saberhagen has a (still excellent) ERA of 2.16 in 1989 (when league average ERA was 3.71). And this is why Pedro's ERA+ in 1999 was 243 and Saberhagen's ERA+ in 1989 was 180 - they were both way, way above league average, but Pedro's was much more so because of the context. And this is also why you can't just look at Pedro's 2.93 career ERA, say "well, Kent Tekulve's career ERA was 2.85 and he fell off the ballot his first year" and call it a day.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling. One more digression...
*Larry Walker was a fantastic hitter for a long time, not just at Coors but also in Montreal at the beginning of his career and in St. Louis into his late 30s, and I was kinda stunned by how little support he got this year. You like average? He won three batting titles. You like on-base? Career .400. You like power? He hit plenty of homers. He's got home/road splits, sure, but like I said he was a great hitter when playing his home games in Montreal and St. Louis too, and no slouch on the road. He stole some bases (33 of them during his MVP year in 1997!) at a decent rate of success. He was a decent enough fielder, if no Mays. And he's Canadian! Played goalie as a kid! And had a fantastic mullet! Ultimately, maybe he's more of a "Hall of Very Good" type, but I think he deserves more love than he's gotten so far.
Hammer
We'll be back.
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
Walker is headed to Veterans Committee.
People seem to gush about guys with 3,000 hits. But not about 3,000 strikeouts. There are fewer pitchers with 3,000 strikeouts than hitters with 3,000 hits (16 vs 28). And if you look on that list, that's some pretty gosh darn good company to be in.
Walker is headed to Veterans Committee.
People seem to gush about guys with 3,000 hits. But not about 3,000 strikeouts. There are fewer pitchers with 3,000 strikeouts than hitters with 3,000 hits (16 vs 28). And if you look on that list, that's some pretty gosh darn good company to be in.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
Larry Walker may get elected from the Veterans Committee, but I just don't see the writers putting him into the hall of fame. While he has decent stats with Montreal and St. Louis, he was "only" a .281 hitter (.357 OBP) with the Expos and a .286 hitter (.387 OBP) with the Cards. Then, you take his years in CO, and he was a .334 hitter with a .426 OBP. Of course, his years in CO also coincided with the prime of his career.
That being said, he did manage to win an MVP, 7 Gold Gloves, and made 5 ASGs, in addition to his Rookie of the Year award. He's definitely borderline.
Given that he's a borderline HOFer, played a large chunk of games in Colorado, and that he played in the "steroid era" for the bulk (no pun intended) of his career, I can understand why he may never get voted in by BBWAA. I'm also sure he was hurt by the 10 vote rule and the logjam that exists right now on the ballot.
Larry Walker may get elected from the Veterans Committee, but I just don't see the writers putting him into the hall of fame. While he has decent stats with Montreal and St. Louis, he was "only" a .281 hitter (.357 OBP) with the Expos and a .286 hitter (.387 OBP) with the Cards. Then, you take his years in CO, and he was a .334 hitter with a .426 OBP. Of course, his years in CO also coincided with the prime of his career.
That being said, he did manage to win an MVP, 7 Gold Gloves, and made 5 ASGs, in addition to his Rookie of the Year award. He's definitely borderline.
Given that he's a borderline HOFer, played a large chunk of games in Colorado, and that he played in the "steroid era" for the bulk (no pun intended) of his career, I can understand why he may never get voted in by BBWAA. I'm also sure he was hurt by the 10 vote rule and the logjam that exists right now on the ballot.
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
tl; dr: They just don't look for 3,000 strikeouts because for the longest time nobody had 3,000 strikeouts for them to look for. Walter Johnson had been retired for over 30 years before the next guy who would eventually get there (Bob Gibson) made his MLB debut.
In any case, I think all the 3,000 K guys will eventually get in if the voters get their heads out of their *** about Clemens.
I wonder whether this is the case maybe because 3,000 strikeouts wasn't "a thing" back in the day when the BBWAA was forming its institutional memory like 3,000 hits was. For the longest time, Walter Johnson was the only guy with 3,000 strikeouts. All the rest are pitchers from recent years (Randy Johnson, Clemens, Maddux, Pedro, Schilling, Smoltz), or were players who had their primes from the late '60s to early '80s after all the Boomers formed their collective impression of what a Hall of Fame pitcher should be (Gibson, Jenkins, Niekro, Perry, Seaver, Ryan, Blyleven). Many of them also had absurdly long careers, for whatever that's worth. On the other hand, Ty Cobb had 4,000 hits before 1930, and there were enough 3,000 hit guys from the early days (Speaker, Anson, Wagner, Collins, Lajoie, Waner), then later Musial bridging the gap to Mays and Aaron and the rest, that "the 3,000 hit club" was a phrase that could be plausibly used and therefore have meaning to voters.
tl; dr: They just don't look for 3,000 strikeouts because for the longest time nobody had 3,000 strikeouts for them to look for. Walter Johnson had been retired for over 30 years before the next guy who would eventually get there (Bob Gibson) made his MLB debut.
In any case, I think all the 3,000 K guys will eventually get in if the voters get their heads out of their *** about Clemens.
Hammer
We'll be back.
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
From 22.9 to 21.6 to 10.2 the last three years, with Johnson-Pedro-Smoltz on next year's ballot (with Biggio a virtual lock as well), he might not be on the ballot after next year. Griffey goes on in two years, and he looks like the only one getting in from that class. If Walker makes it that far, he might pick up steam then, depending on what they do with Piazza.
From 22.9 to 21.6 to 10.2 the last three years, with Johnson-Pedro-Smoltz on next year's ballot (with Biggio a virtual lock as well), he might not be on the ballot after next year. Griffey goes on in two years, and he looks like the only one getting in from that class. If Walker makes it that far, he might pick up steam then, depending on what they do with Piazza.
Hammer
We'll be back.
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
In my mind, 3,000 K's isn't about just hanging around long enough to get to that number. That's the equivalent to 200 K's for 15 years. You've got to be a helluva pitcher to put that number up. Yes, even Phil Niekro. 3,000 K's is even more automatic to me than 3,000 hits, if there is such a thing, the two 3,000 hit guys not being in notwithstanding (and I do not wish to discuss that last part at this time).
In my mind, 3,000 K's isn't about just hanging around long enough to get to that number. That's the equivalent to 200 K's for 15 years. You've got to be a helluva pitcher to put that number up. Yes, even Phil Niekro. 3,000 K's is even more automatic to me than 3,000 hits, if there is such a thing, the two 3,000 hit guys not being in notwithstanding (and I do not wish to discuss that last part at this time).
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
To clarify what I wrote earlier - I'm not really saying I think Larry Walker should be in, and I don't think he'll make it via the VC either (on the other hand I'm sure they're salivating over Jack Morris
), but he strikes me as good enough that he should be able to pull in 40% of the vote or something like that, even on a loaded ballot. On the other hand, I suppose the presence of so many of his contemporaries to whom he doesn't quite measure up is meaningful.
Yep, I agree with you, and I think all the 3,000 K guys should be in, I was just sort of speculating as to why it's not discussed as a standard in the same way as 3,000 hits or 500 HR (which had Jimmie Foxx and Mel Ott in the early days in addition to Babe Ruth, before Williams and Mantle and Eddie Matthews and the rest came along).
To clarify what I wrote earlier - I'm not really saying I think Larry Walker should be in, and I don't think he'll make it via the VC either (on the other hand I'm sure they're salivating over Jack Morris
), but he strikes me as good enough that he should be able to pull in 40% of the vote or something like that, even on a loaded ballot. On the other hand, I suppose the presence of so many of his contemporaries to whom he doesn't quite measure up is meaningful.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
Out of curiousity, being from the PNW (kind of but we're in the Mariners market), what about Edgar Martinez?
Hammer
We'll be back.
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
25.2 in 2014, 35.9 in 2013, 36.5 in 2012. Trending the wrong way as well. Veterans Committee as well, but I don't think he gets in there, either. When your entire body of work is as a hitter (as a DH), his final grand totals probably come up a little short. There's a whole lot of "really good" there, but nothing to really put him over the top.
25.2 in 2014, 35.9 in 2013, 36.5 in 2012. Trending the wrong way as well. Veterans Committee as well, but I don't think he gets in there, either. When your entire body of work is as a hitter (as a DH), his final grand totals probably come up a little short. There's a whole lot of "really good" there, but nothing to really put him over the top.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
the headline yesterday was his group was negotiating the original downward toward a workable number. is this not workable for him?
hockeyplayer1015
Capt
Re: MLB 2013 - This Bud's for you!
Next chapter in his biography should read: "Lawyers, Suits and lawsuits."
That said, don't let the door hit ya on the ***** on your way out, Alexandra.
Next chapter in his biography should read: "Lawyers, Suits and lawsuits."
That said, don't let the door hit ya on the ***** on your way out, Alexandra.
- Status