10.03 postseason ERA. Yeah yeah small sample size I can hear it now.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If we pick out 11.2 inning sample sizes, I can make anyone look like an all-time great or a terrible player.
A reasonable argument against Billy Wagner is that he pitched barely 900 innings. |
The innings pitched is a big factor against modern relievers (and likely will be for starters going forward), but even bigger than that, in my view, is that closers can easily be replaced, and often are. Would anyone argue that a team’s top two or three starters wouldn’t succeed if the only had to pitch one inning and would likely only have to use their two best pitches? So each team has at least two guys that could do the job as good or better. The only reason they aren’t is because they are too good to be a closer, and their skills are needed in a more valuable spot. I don’t know how voters vote modern closers in as best in the game when they are likely not even the best on their own team. Furthermore, in recent years, the Wins star has lost some of its shine, with voters realizing that there is only so much a pitcher can do to get a win, that how a game ends is often outside of the starter’s control. Assigning the W is affected by circumstance and does not always reflect the pitcher’s performance (good or bad). The Save stat is just as circumstantial. Blown Saves makes more sense as a stat that measures performance, but what I am getting at is if you take the S numbers away, no one would give a second look to a pitcher that averaged less than 90 innings per year, no matter how great his other stats were. End rant.
|
Some Billy Wagner Fun Facts (from the George Will Opening Day quiz from 2022):
1) Wagner has the lowest WHIP among pitchers with at least 900 innings in the live-ball era. (0.998 — fewer base runners than innings) 2) Wagner has allowed the fewest hits per nine innings since 1900 among pitchers with at least 900 innings. (5.99) 3) Wagner has the best strikeout rate per nine innings in MLB history among pitchers with 900 or more innings. (11.92) 4) Wagner is the only pitcher of the live-ball era, with a minimum of 750 innings pitched, against whom hitters batted below .200. (.187) |
Quote:
With the exception of very few, I just don't believe "closers" belong in the Hall. Perhaps because I'm getting old, it seems like an artificially created position that could be filled by a number of individuals on a given team, who are capable of pitching one good inning. And to me, the biggest annoyance in baseball is when a starter or middle reliever is still on fire, but the manager mindlessly/mechanically goes to the closer in the 9th inning, only to have him blow the game. |
Quote:
And here's another fact I don't think statisticians and historians properly account for or take into consideration either. Ever notice how teams tend to only bring in their closers if they're leading the game at the end? Starting pitchers don't know if the other team's batters are going to have a good day at the plate or not. They have to face them if they end up being hot or cold that particular day. But if a closer typically only gets brought in when his team is ahead, that tends to indicate that the opposing batters maybe weren't having such a hot day at the plate after all. Think about that, because I don't think modern statisticians ever have, or have effectively figured out how to properly measure and reflect how what looks like to me as an absolutely positive built-in bias just for closers, is accounted for when comparing them to all other pitchers. To maybe put it into and look at it in another way or from another perspective, how do you think a team's starting ace pitcher's stats would look if they were only started against teams with losing records, over the entire season? Food for thought. |
Quote:
I think Wagner is a borderline HOF member. But he is one of the best closers ever. Please keep in mind that Net54 is not your personal blog, and as such, it would be great to keep your posts to maybe 150 words or less. Also, the likelihood that anyone will read one of your "paragraphs" that is more than 5 sentences (let alone a dozen) is low. So if you don't want your "thoroughness" to go to waste, you might want to make a New Years resolution to make your posts much shorter. |
Quote:
Keep doing what you do. I enjoy reading every word in your posts. |
Quote:
You might feel Helton is a nice man but the fact is that he's a convicted criminal who's lucky he never killed anyone. I feel that should have no bearing on his HOF voting, since the HOF is already full of drug smugglers, wife beaters, racists, cheaters, etc. |
Quote:
I wasn't putting you down at all. Wagner does have great stats, but people tend to not realize, or think, about various things when they compare and talk about players and their performances. And thanks for being the forum police. If you don't like my posts, there is a feature called "Ignore" that you can use. I find that most people that don't like what I say is often due to the fact they don't want to like or agree with me, but can't really argue or legitimately put me down because what I'm saying isn't wrong. Limiting posts to quick statements is exactly what all the trolls want, So they don't have to actually answer real questions, and can just keep saying, "I'm right and you're wrong", over and over. And counting contractions as one word, I'm only at 143. Happy now! |
Quote:
A lot of people don't like me because I don't just shoot out fluff posts like many do. No context, no real facts or "meat", if you will. They don't want to take the time to think, or possibly realize there are other ways to look at things. It can bother them that maybe what they thought all along was not necessarily the right or correct thing after all. People often don't like it when you tell them things they don't necessarily want to hear or believe, and blaming the messenger is real easy. And with nothing really being said in short posts, because they are short, the trolls and naysayers love it because it often makes their ability to go after what others said in those short posts so much easier. Only 138 words, happy Charles? |
Quote:
Butch Turner |
Quote:
B.T. |
Quote:
Have a good one. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Thank you for posting those |
Quote:
The actual Internal Revenue Code is quite long and detailed, yet is in many cases almost worthless, unless you also have access to the accompanying Treasury Regulations, which is way bigger than the IRC and explains what the IRC doesn't. My posts about other topics are no different, you get both the IRC and the Regulations type of detail in them, so there is less doubt or question as to what I'm saying. |
Quote:
I will continue to post using full and complete sentences, with proper English and punctuation to the extent possible, and always try to fully explain my points, and then back them up with as much logical, factual, and sensical info as I can. And I'm not apologizing if it makes some of my posts go over 150 words, but if that is viewed as somehow wrong in other's minds, then I'm beginning to wonder who it is that actually has a real problem!!! And this post's exactly 150 words. |
if Rolen gets in with his 2000 hits, it's time to stop paying attention
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
There are not very many 3B in the Hall. I looked at all the HOFers, and cut out those who played less than 50% of their career games at 3B (Molitor/Martinez), and those who played 3B but were elected as managers or Negro League players (McGraw/McKenchie/Wilson/Judy Johnson; their raw totals will skew things heavily because of the low game count. If counted, Rolen would get a lift).
That leaves only 13 on the list. Baker, Boggs, Brett, Collins, Jones, Kell, Lindstorm, Matthews, Robinson, Santo, Schmidt, Traynor, White. Out of these 13, the average number of hits is 2,359. Rolen would rank 9th. The average batting average is .297, partially weighted by the two guys who played when the league hit around .297. Rolen would rank 10th, ahead of Mike Schmidt, Eddie Matthews and Brooks Robinson, clearly poor hall of famers. Rolen is not an exciting hall of fame candidate, his stats are largely buttressed by WAR's love of the modern game and that there are not many very good third basemen in baseballs history as compared to other positions. But even if these chosen stats were a magic barrier, Rolen is hardly a lowering of quality. Shall we kick out Schmidt for falling even below Rolen here? Schmidt is 8th in hits and tied for dead last in average. Hall debates are really fun when the arguments made for and against a candidate are both reasonable arguments. That Rolen is some large lowering of the bar setting the hall into irrelevancy because of his hit count that is better than many HOFers and that Wagner should be kept out over an 11 inning sample size are not reasonable arguments. I would not vote for Wagner. I would probably vote for Rolen, considering him lower tier but deserving. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yeah, he had a bad stretch at the end of August in 2007. That happens. When you cherry pick 3 or 4 games out of 850, you're going to find some bad ones. That's like saying Mariano Rivera sucked in the World Series because he blew Game 7 in 2001. Or trashing Rivera because he was horrible in 1995. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
jingram058, how in the world can you not see Craig Biggio as worthy of the Hall of Fame? If we went by your definition we'd have no one in the Hall of Fame.
|
Quote:
|
781. Fringe Vanilla
The players whose career numbers are somewhat in the neighborhood of Cooperstown-worthy respectability, but don’t enjoy much, if any, serious support from baseball fans for enshrinement. See also: Free-for-Hall - any thread that was ostensibly started to ‘discuss’ the merits of various enshrined Hall of Famers, but devolves into a rancorous, opinionated airing of grievances. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I also don't recall thinking about Biggio as a HOF level player much when he was playing -- Bagwell was the guy on the Astros.... Then I read Bill James's Historical Abstract ... Biggio was still active and James made a typically convincing case that he was a very valuable player -- he had him ranked highly as an all-time 2B. Then Biggio's 3000 hits basically cemented his HOF candidacy. Until the use of PEDs (suspected or proven) 3000 hits punched the ticket to Cooperstown (just like 300 Wins and 500 Home Runs did).
James was impressed by Biggio's ability to get on base -- he took a lot of HBP almost passed Jennings's all-time mark... missed by two. (maybe Anthony Rizzo will pass it if he sticks around) Anyway, looking at Biggio's baseball-reference page what jumps out at me is his Runs scored. Career: 1844. --- Looking at the voting it looks like Rolen and maybe Helton are the only ones who have a chance. The pre-reported numbers are generally better than the ultimate tally so it would not shock me if the writers throw a shutout. |
Quote:
Ugh. |
earlywynnfan, he has 3,000 hits and over 1800 runs scored. If that's not a Hall of Famer I don't know what is.
|
Many people seem to measure the Hall-of-Fame by the inner circle players. Others seem to want to throw the doors open and invite everyone in. Personally, I think there is a place somewhere in the middle. I also think that those who believe Harold Baines is the worst HOF entry have not paid attention to the players.
Dazzy Vance, Eppa Rixey, Max Carey, Tony Perez, Joe Sewell, Joe Tinker, Jimmy Collins, Elmer Flick, Nellie Fox etc are all in the Hall. It's hard to argue any of them were better than Helton, Rolen or Andruw Jones. And I could add 20 other names without much difficulty. It also seems that some people prefer to ignore a player's position when it comes to their stats. 3B and CF are both positions that have had very few huge offensive superstars. Rolen was one of the best with a glove at 3B and a great offensive player. Jones was arguably the best defensive CF, and was a serious power hitter (albeit with a low batting average). When it comes to relievers I understand people who prefer to measure them against pitchers of the past, and no reliever will match up. But we have had relief pitchers for roughly half a century. For me, this is enough to measure relievers against each other. I wasn't a big Wagner fan, but I'm good with him in. Sheffield I don't know enough about the steroid considerations to comment. If I had a vote I would probably vote for: - Todd Helton - Scott Rolen - Andruw Jones - Bobby Abreu Also with Johan Santana was still on the ballot. I want anyone that was the 'best player in baseball' for a 5 year period to be in, almost regardless of what the rest of their career looked like. I'm glad Koufax is in, comfortable with Dizzy Dean being in, and think Santana (and someday DeGrom) should be in. Though I know this is my take on the Hall. I like high peak over extended solid performance as a general rule. |
Quote:
I’d also remove Jimmy Collins from the list. He was widely (almost unanimously) considered the greatest 3B until Pie Traynor, even if his numbers don’t appeal to the modern eye. He was the best of his position for a generation. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
A side note, IMO, the best thing for the HOF would be voiding future participation if voters return a blank ballot. Some voters have done that year after year. Get rid of them. Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk |
Quote:
Rizzuto needs a damnatio memoriae from the hall, agreed |
I've always seen the Baseball Hall of Fame as a tiered structure, with different levels for various levels of accomplishment. If you only put the best of the best in the Hall of Fame there wouldn't be very many players at all.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:52 PM. |