Current HOF election results

[Peter_Spaeth]

10.03 postseason ERA. Yeah yeah small sample size I can hear it now.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

Guess you never watched Wagner in the postseason.

Yep, his 11 whole innings of postseason play were pretty awful. Doesn't change his regular season dominance.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

He is also melted down in big regular season games as well.

Career 1.70 ERA in September & October.

[G1911]

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.

[abothebear]

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.

[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)

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by abothebear

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.

I certainly don't mean to disparage Wagner or upset those who believe he is HOF worthy. But I thought this "rant" was very pertinent and well stated (with regard to closers in general).

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.

[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.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Seems pretty harsh to me.

So you are calling for the removal of Carlton Fisk, Tony LaRussa and other HOFers who have been convicted of DUIs?

Helton was the best fielding first baseman I ever saw. His hitting reflexes were incredible. Also a very nice man, although an introvert.

Edited to add:

Tiger Woods, Mike Tyson and Michael Phelps should all be removed from their respective Hall of Fames under the proposed standard.

He said he has no respect for drunk drivers, no where did he say Helton isn't a HOFer or that others should be removed from the HOF.

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.

[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!

[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 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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

Just an fyi, I have read some of your tax posts and found them very useful. Even when they are over 150 words

Thank you for posting those

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Just an fyi, I have read some of your tax posts and found them very useful. Even when they are over 150 words

Thank you for posting those

See Charles, that is a very funny thing about tax stuff, it is often detailed, yet can be very unspecific, and can cover so many multiple situations and circumstances, that to be helpful and accurate for people, you can't be short and quick, like you may want in your posts that you read. The multitude of exceptions, variables, circumstances and other external factors make it impossible to give real short, simple answers much of the time.

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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Just an fyi, I have read some of your tax posts and found them very useful. Even when they are over 150 words

Thank you for posting those

By the way, I don't need anyone's thanks. And if you don't want to read my posts, and have an open mind and maybe learn something new now and then, or how to possibly look at things in a different way than you may not have considered or thought of before, then just put me and others like me on Ignore.

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.

[lowpopper]

if Rolen gets in with his 2000 hits, it's time to stop paying attention

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

if Rolen gets in with his 2000 hits, it's time to stop paying attention

Don't forget about that stellar .281 batting average.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

if Rolen gets in with his 2000 hits, it's time to stop paying attention

Yeah, can't have him lowering the bar. If he gets in, before long guys with 1588 hits and zero power like Phil Rizzuto will get in. Oh wait...

[tod41]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Yep, his 11 whole innings of postseason play were pretty awful. Doesn't change his regular season dominance.

His innings were so low because he was so awful in just about every playoff series he was in. He was the reason the Mets didn't win the World Series in 2006.

[G1911]

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.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Career 1.70 ERA in September & October.

Check out what he did or didn't do in late August 2007 against the Phillies during the Mets awful collapse in 2007. The guy got the routine saves not the ones when the pressure was on. I remember him blowing a 4-0 lead against the Yankees at Shea.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Well, that's a hard one, because all I know of the fellows you mentioned is what I have read. And depending on what you read, they come off sounding better than their peers. It wasn't me who elected them. I saw Rolen, Wagner, Jones, et al, and to me they aren't HOFers, not even close, and same goes for Biggio, Morris, Baines, etc., already in. Good, but not HOF. To me. If you see things differently that's fine. Obviously, sooner or later someone will be going in. So be it.

This is just freaking stupid.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

Check out what he did or didn't do in late August 2007 against the Phillies during the Mets awful collapse in 2007. The guy got the routine saves not the ones when the pressure was on. I remember him blowing a 4-0 lead against the Yankees at Shea.

So he blew ONE lead against the Yankees in May of 2006 and that means he can't get saves when the pressure is on. Never mind that his ERA against the Yankees was 0.82 outside of that one appearance. Also weird that you don't remember that he got saves in 1-run games against the Yankees the day before and after that blown one.

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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

His innings were so low because he was so awful in just about every playoff series he was in. He was the reason the Mets didn't win the World Series in 2006.

Bold assertion since they didn't play in the Series and the Mets won 2 of the 3 games he pitched in the NLCS. I'm thinking scoring 1 run against the illustrious crew of Jeff Suppan and Randy Flores in game 7 had a little more to do with it. Or Paul La Duca hitting .207 with 1 extra base hit in the series. Or David Wright hitting .160.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

.... Billy Wagner and Andruw Jones not quite...[/url]

I had to go back to the first post to realize that when people were talking about 'Wagner and Jones', they did not mean Billy Wagner and Doug Jones. Jones was the Astros closer a couple of years before Billy Wagner. Jones was really good, and fun to watch. They were both good closers in Astros' history. It never occurred to me that they would make it to the Hall of Fame.

[etsmith]

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.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I had to go back to the first post to realize that when people were talking about 'Wagner and Jones', they did not mean Billy Wagner and Doug Jones. Jones was the Astros closer a couple of years before Billy Wagner. Jones was really good, and fun to watch. They were both good closers in Astros' history. It never occurred to me that they would make it to the Hall of Fame.

I forgot about Doug Jones. Interesting career. His entire career seemed to teeter from abysmal to getting MVP votes for his bullpen work, from one year to the next. Didn't really get a good taste of Major League ball until he was 30 years old...but hung around until his mid-40's, and is listed as 12th All-Time in "Games Finished".

[JollyElm]

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.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by etsmith

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.

I respectfully disagree. I'm not in Houston, but I watched him for his entire career, and not until he approached 3000 hits did I ever think I was looking at a HOFer. Darn excellent player, sure. But not Schmidt or Morgan or FThomas. Sorry.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I forgot about Doug Jones. Interesting career. His entire career seemed to teeter from abysmal to getting MVP votes for his bullpen work, from one year to the next. Didn't really get a good taste of Major League ball until he was 30 years old...but hung around until his mid-40's, and is listed as 12th All-Time in "Games Finished".

All while throwing a fastball as fast as I could!! I hated that the Tribe let him go.

[Misunderestimated]

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.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Tabe

So he blew ONE lead against the Yankees in May of 2006 and that means he can't get saves when the pressure is on. Never mind that his ERA against the Yankees was 0.82 outside of that one appearance. Also weird that you don't remember that he got saves in 1-run games against the Yankees the day before and after that blown one.

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.

Well, IF we are keeping him out because of that one game, then we have to keep Andruw Jones out because of his stint with the Dodgers in 2008, where he taunted us about his abysmal stat line by walking to the plate to the song "Don't Worry, Be Happy".

Ugh.

[etsmith]

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.

[Topnotchsy]

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

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.

I agree with your thesis that people should not be using Mike Schmidt and Frank Thomas as the baseline for a hall of famer, but I have to disagree on CF. CF ranks very high among all positions for number of “huge offensive superstars”. Cobb, Speaker, DiMaggio, Mantle, Mays, Griffey, Trout, etc.

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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am not seeing the case for Andruw Jones at all. Unless you want to admit Delgado, Gallaraga, and god knows who else. Yes, I know he could play center field.

I haven't looked at the fielding data, but I have always been of the opinion that Andruw Jones was one of the greatest defensive players of all time. I value that highly.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

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.

I'm with you on that. I value high peak over longevity as well. I'm more interested in who the best players were rather than who played the longest. Santana was an absolute murderer on the mound for several years.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

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.

Originally Posted by Snowman

I'm with you on that. I value high peak over longevity as well. I'm more interested in who the best players were rather than who played the longest. Santana was an absolute murderer on the mound for several years.

this is my definition as well. Although I haven't personally decided if peak should be 5 yrs or 7 yrs. I've heard arguments for both.

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

[lowpopper]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Yeah, can't have him lowering the bar. If he gets in, before long guys with 1588 hits and zero power like Phil Rizzuto will get in. Oh wait...

Superior players have been denied prior to Rolen.

Rizzuto needs a damnatio memoriae from the hall, agreed

[etsmith]

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.