Current HOF election results

[cgjackson222]

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)

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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)

All true, but, Wagner in his career pitched 903 innings over 853 game appearances. In other words, he barely had to pitch more than 1 inning at a time, didn't have to worry about pitch counts, getting tired, or the like. Didn't have to be concerned with batters seeing him a second, or even third time in the same game, and so on. Take any great starting pitcher in the history of baseball, and tell them they only need to pitch one inning at a time, and see how good they would be. Those are great stats, but they are also virtually meaningless in the context of comparing them to how most MLB pitchers were used, especially those back in the earlier days. Can you imagine a Bob Feller or Walter Johnson if they only were asked to face batters for one inning every time they pitched? Relief/closer stats should never be compared and brought up in regard to starting pitchers, They are two entirely different positions and situations. At least they were more so until modern baseball has starting pitchers barely going over 6 innings anymore it seems. Managers today tend to leave starters in just long enough to qualify for the win, and then seem to go to their bullpens as fast as they can in many cases. You want to talk about stats that should have an asterisk next to them, just look at all these stats you listed for Wagner. Now if you were to more accurately state his standing for these stats compared to just closers/relief pitchers, then I think you are being much more fair and accurate. And even someone like Dennis Eckersley, who was both a very successful starter and relief/closing pitcher, his stats should be split, and the starter and closer numbers presented as completely separate records/statistics for him IMO. Just another failure on the part of statisticians and other so-called baseball historians to give proper credit, and accurately account for and reflect the very different contexts that existed throughout the different eras, and over the entire history, of baseball. Instead, they seem to have developed and follow a system and metrics based more on the modern game of baseball, and how it is played, allowing an extreme and unfair bias to exist in the manner and way things are often measured and compared, all seemingly more overall tilted for and towards the modern players.

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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BobC

All true, but, Wagner in his career pitched 903 innings over 853 game appearances. In other words, he barely had to pitch more than 1 inning at a time, didn't have to worry about pitch counts, getting tired, or the like. Didn't have to be concerned with batters seeing him a second, or even third time in the same game, and so on. Take any great starting pitcher in the history of baseball, and tell them they only need to pitch one inning at a time, and see how good they would be. Those are great stats, but they are also virtually meaningless in the context of comparing them to how most MLB pitchers were used, especially those back in the earlier days. Can you imagine a Bob Feller or Walter Johnson if they only were asked to face batters for one inning every time they pitched? Relief/closer stats should never be compared and brought up in regard to starting pitchers, They are two entirely different positions and situations. At least they were more so until modern baseball has starting pitchers barely going over 6 innings anymore it seems. Managers today tend to leave starters in just long enough to qualify for the win, and then seem to go to their bullpens as fast as they can in many cases. You want to talk about stats that should have an asterisk next to them, just look at all these stats you listed for Wagner. Now if you were to more accurately state his standing for these stats compared to just closers/relief pitchers, then I think you are being much more fair and accurate. And even someone like Dennis Eckersley, who was both a very successful starter and relief/closing pitcher, his stats should be split, and the starter and closer numbers presented as completely separate records/statistics for him IMO. Just another failure on the part of statisticians and other so-called baseball historians to give proper credit, and accurately account for and reflect the very different contexts that existed throughout the different eras, and over the entire history, of baseball. Instead, they seem to have developed and follow a system and metrics based more on the modern game of baseball, and how it is played, allowing an extreme and unfair bias to exist in the manner and way things are often measured and compared, all seemingly more overall tilted for and towards the modern players.

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.

Bob,

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.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Bob,

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 too 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.

Bob,

Keep doing what you do. I enjoy reading every word in your posts.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

Bob,

Keep doing what you do. I enjoy reading every word in your posts.

Thanks,

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?

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks,

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?

Keep on, keeping on Bob. Regardless of, ummm, things.

B.T.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks,

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?

I think your posts are great. Except the ones on taxes because like politics and religion you aren't going to change anyones opinions on how they will/should do it no matter what you post.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I think your posts are great. Except the ones on taxes because like politics and religion you aren't going to change anyones opinions on how they will/should do it no matter what you post.

The funny thing though Ben is that those tax posts aren't trying to change anyone's mind about anything. Just pass along facts and what people need to be aware of. If they choose to not listen and think I'm full of $hit, that is alright. I figure there are at least a few people who can appreciate and maybe benefit from what I've been posting. I've had clients for 40-50 years paying me for the kind of information I have been posting on this forum for free. If what I've posted has helped even one person, I'm happy. And I've communicated with and helped various Net54 members privately, so I know for a fact I've already helped more than one. And to again make Charles happy, only 130 words.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Bob,

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.

Charles,

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!

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BobC

Charles,

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!

Bob, I appreciate you humoring me. I think you have a lot of great things to say, I just can't read them most of the time because they are too long. Usually I just skip the real long ones, but when you are quoting me, sometimes I feel the need to respond. Would love to be able to read more of your posts.

Have a good one.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Bob,

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.

Holy crap?? Really? Not you position to limit others peoples comments regardless of length. Dang, don't like it? Too long?, just don't read it and move on with things.

Butch Turner

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Bob,

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.

Also, for the record, I don't blog on Net54, just occasionally post my thinking or views, like everyone else on here, including you. Go look up the actual definition of "blog". Meanwhile, we actually have some threads, and some great one's mind you, started and continued by members on Net54, like GeoPoto on Washington DC baseball, or CarltonHendricks on Carlton World. Those would be much more akin to a type of blog than anything I've ever posted. I'll keep an eye on those other threads now to see your forthcoming posts putting them down for possibly using Net54 as a personal blog also. Or is that blog comment something you came up with just to put me down? Only 126 words this time Charles. Happy?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BobC

Also, for the record, I don't blog on Net54, just occasionally post my thinking or views, like everyone else on here, including you. Go look up the actual definition of "blog". Meanwhile, we actually have some threads, and some great one's mind you, started and continued by members on Net54, like GeoPoto on Washington DC baseball, or CarltonHendricks on Carlton World. Those would be much more akin to a type of blog than anything I've ever posted. I'll keep an eye on those other threads now to see your forthcoming posts putting them down for possibly using Net54 as a personal blog also. Or is that blog comment something you came up with just to put me down? Only 126 words this time Charles. Happy?

Okay, got it.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Bob,

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.

Oh, one last under 150 word post before I go out to shovel the sidewalk so the elementary school kids next door can get home safely. Thank you for recommending your uninvited New Year's Resolution that I should follow, even though it sounds like more of a something that YOU want, not me. So, if you can take the liberty to advise me, I would assume it is only fair that I can do the same for you, right? I would suggest you should make a resolution to discontinue having the attention span of a goldfish. That way, you might actually be able to have a more open mind and learn and experience things you otherwise seem to be voluntarily shutting yourself off from. Just a thought, and only 133 words this time.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BobC

Oh, one last under 150 word post before I go out to shovel the sidewalk so the elementary school kids next door can get home safely. Thank you for recommending your uninvited New Year's Resolution that I should follow, even though it sounds like more of a something that YOU want, not me. So, if you can take the liberty to advise me, I would assume it is only fair that I can do the same for you, right? I would suggest you should make a resolution to discontinue having the attention span of a goldfish. That way, you might actually be able to have a more open mind and learn and experience things you otherwise seem to be voluntarily shutting yourself off from. Just a thought, and only 133 words this time.

Much appreciated Bob. Good luck with the shoveling.