Mlb hof tracker

[dgo71]

I will never understand why Schilling gets so much HOF talk. In 20 years he had 6 seasons I'd consider spectacular. That's including 3 years in Philly when he had great seasons with a bad team. Outside of those and his 3 20-game win seasons (none of which garnered him a Cy Young Award, he finished 2nd each time) his career was positively average at best. Being dominant in 15% of your career and only good the rest of the time doesn't scream HOFer to me. I guess the argument could be made that less deserving players are already in but I don't believe past mistakes should condone making repeated mistakes.

[Beatles Guy]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I will never understand why Schilling gets so much HOF talk. In 20 years he had 6 seasons I'd consider spectacular. That's including 3 years in Philly when he had great seasons with a bad team. Outside of those and his 3 20-game win seasons (none of which garnered him a Cy Young Award, he finished 2nd each time) his career was positively average at best. Being dominant in 15% of your career and only good the rest of the time doesn't scream HOFer to me. I guess the argument could be made that less deserving players are already in but I don't believe past mistakes should condone making repeated mistakes.

He's borderline at best. Great postseason pitcher though.

[packs]

Schilling was no Roy Halladay and I don't know if Halladay has a certain place in the HOF either. Either way Schilling should not even sniff induction. They still haven't inducted Mussina was better too.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I will never understand why Schilling gets so much HOF talk. In 20 years he had 6 seasons I'd consider spectacular. That's including 3 years in Philly when he had great seasons with a bad team. Outside of those and his 3 20-game win seasons (none of which garnered him a Cy Young Award, he finished 2nd each time) his career was positively average at best. Being dominant in 15% of your career and only good the rest of the time doesn't scream HOFer to me. I guess the argument could be made that less deserving players are already in but I don't believe past mistakes should condone making repeated mistakes.

well, your above statement is incorrect , like by a ton. In his career, Shill had 12 seasons that could be called really really good and 6 that could be called spectacular. When you combine the length of his career, with his production, his K/BB ratio and stuff like WAR, FIP and postseason success you end up with a guy who is right there with Mussina and Smoltz in production.

[packs]

But he is not as good as Mussina and Smoltz. Only Smoltz is in. So why are people talking about Schilling and not Mussina?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by packs

But he is not as good as Mussina and Smoltz. Only Smoltz is in. So why are people talking about Schilling and not Mussina?

Probably because most people think Moose will get in over the next few years. Schilling is punished more for his unfortunate Twitter habits than his play. A cursory look at his metrics shows one of the 25 best starters of all time. The talk is more about the low % of votes he's getting right now more than anything.

If we're going to rely on WAR as a major consideration, then let's talk about Rick Reuschel going into the Hall.
__________________

he has a legit argument 3.22 career FIP 68.2 fWAR (31st all time among pitchers) 9 seasons of 4 or more fWAR not a huge peak, but a long ,solid career.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

he has a legit argument 3.22 career FIP 68.2 fWAR (31st all time among pitchers) 9 seasons of 4 or more fWAR not a huge peak, but a long ,solid career.

[KCRfan1]

Rick Reuschel is not who comes to mind when I think of the Hall. I will agree to disagree, in that he doesn't have much of an argument for HoF induction.

I give Reuschel as an example so not to rely on WAR, or give too much weight to WAR in establishing a player worth and value.

[nat]

If you think that WAR is inaccurate, what you need to do is demonstrate that it's inaccurate. What part of the model is wrong, and why? And then maybe help us fix it.

In a nutshell, it takes discrete events (singles, strikeouts, etc), looks at how each of these events effected a team's run scoring/preventing over some specified stretch of time (whatever stretch of time you're interested in), and then converts a player's discrete events into expected runs. Which are then converted to expected wins (given how many runs you needed to produce/prevent in the period under discussion), and subtracts the number of wins a AAA player would have contributed. What's wrong with that?

Or if there's not a philosophical problem with it, perhaps there's a problem with how it's implemented? We've got some really smart people working on it, but checking their work never hurts. You can look up the equations and go through them yourself.*

*For the record, I think that there is a problem of this sort. I think that WAR systematically over-rates relief pitchers, because it includes "leverage" into its calculation for pitchers. Basically, it says that preventing a run in the ninth inning is more important than preventing one in the first. Maybe there are other such problems, if so, let's find them.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

well, your above statement is incorrect , like by a ton. In his career, Shill had 12 seasons that could be called really really good and 6 that could be called spectacular. When you combine the length of his career, with his production, his K/BB ratio and stuff like WAR, FIP and postseason success you end up with a guy who is right there with Mussina and Smoltz in production.

That's your opinion. Guess that bloody sock game meant more to you than it did for me. Mussina and Smoltz are ahead of Schilling in terms of both stats and hardware. Schilling is Kevin Brown at best.

[nat]

From 1992 through the end of his career, Shilling was below all-star level only in 1994 and 2005. He was roughly average in 1994, and terrible in 2005. He's almost exactly as well-qualified for the hall as Mussina is, unless you want to give him extra credit for post-season performance. Mussina has a 2 WAR lead, which, over the course of a career, is negligible. Brown was an occasionally-great pitcher (he probably should have won the 1996 NL Cy Young award), but he's a step behind the other two.

I'm reasonably confident that Shilling and Mussina will both get elected eventually. The problem that Mussina is going to have is that the voters are not good at adjusting for context. He has a career 3.68 ERA, which doesn't look HOF-worthy, but adjusted for context it is better than Fergie Jenkins, Steve Carlton, and about the same as (actually very slightly better than) Don Drysdale. Adjusted for context, Shilling's ERA is better than all of those guys; he is 46th all-time, tied with, among others, Tom Seaver.

[KCRfan1]

Let's not put too much into the WAR factor. It plays a part in consideration, but a small one.

If we're going to rely on WAR as a major consideration, then let's talk about Rick Reuschel going into the Hall.

[Topps206]

So, I really can't find rhyme to reason as to why Pudge is currently at 78% when he's been suspected while Bagwell is waiting until his 7th year to get elected. If you told me one of them used and the other didn't, my money would be on Pudge based on what Canseco wrote about him and him saying 'Only God knows' in regarda to whether he used or not.

While he wasn't busted ala Clemens, Manny, Sosa, I'm suspicious. Hence why I wouldn't vote for him. Yet there was also suspicion for Piazza and Bagwell. They've waited. While none of the busted users have come close before this year.

This whole fiasco screams cherry picking.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Topps206

So, I really can't find rhyme to reason as to why Pudge is currently at 78% when he's been suspected while Bagwell is waiting until his 7th year to get elected. If you told me one of them used and the other didn't, my money would be on Pudge based on what Canseco wrote about him and him saying 'Only God knows' in regarda to whether he used or not.

While he wasn't busted ala Clemens, Manny, Sosa, I'm suspicious. Hence why I wouldn't vote for him. Yet there was also suspicion for Piazza and Bagwell. They've waited. While none of the busted users have come close before this year.

This whole fiasco screams cherry picking.

I would think it has to do with the fact that Pudge was FAR superior at his position than Bagwell was at his. I think it's easier to stick to your values when excluding a "borderline" HOFer than one of the best of all time, unless those "best" happen to be arrogant, miserable SOB's like Clemens and Bonds.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I would think it has to do with the fact that Pudge was FAR superior at his position than Bagwell was at his. I think it's easier to stick to your values when excluding a "borderline" HOFer than one of the best of all time, unless those "best" happen to be arrogant, miserable SOB's like Clemens and Bonds.

Are you sure about that? Bagwell is easily a Top 10 first baseman if all time. Maybe Top 5. If we're talking modern era he's even further up that.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Topps206

Are you sure about that? Bagwell is easily a Top 10 first baseman if all time. Maybe Top 5. If we're talking modern era he's even further up that.

Top 5:
Gehrig
Foxx
Brouthers
Pujols
Bagwell??

Jeff Bagwell was better than: Greenberg, Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, McCovey, Bill Terry, Johnny Mize, Eddie Murray, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Cap Anson? Or mostly-1B like Killebrew, Banks, Miggy, or Carew? Looks to me like he's barely in the top-5 of his own era, and that's only if you like him over McGwire and don't count Miggy.

Sorry, he's in the marginal-HOF tier, with Perez, Cepeda, Mattingly, and Hodges.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Top 5:
Gehrig
Foxx
Brouthers
Pujols
Bagwell??

Jeff Bagwell was better than: Greenberg, Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, McCovey, Bill Terry, Johnny Mize, Eddie Murray, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Cap Anson? Or mostly-1B like Killebrew, Banks, Miggy, or Carew? Looks to me like he's barely in the top-5 of his own era, and that's only if you like him over McGwire and don't count Miggy.

Sorry, he's in the marginal-HOF tier, with Perez, Cepeda, Mattingly, and Hodges.

All time, I rank Bagwell seventh, behind Gehrig, Foxx, Anson, Pujols, Brouthers and Roger Connor. I'd put him above everyone else.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Topps206

All time, I rank Bagwell seventh, behind Gehrig, Foxx, Anson, Pujols, Brouthers and Roger Connor. I'd put him above everyone else.

What makes him better than Thomas, Murray, Cabrera, Terry, or Banks?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Topps206

All time, I rank Bagwell seventh, behind Gehrig, Foxx, Anson, Pujols, Brouthers and Roger Connor. I'd put him above everyone else.

I would put him below Greenberg and Mize who lost prime years to the war. Also, he is below Cabrera. That puts him 10th. IRod is only behind Bench and Berra, also Josh Gibson if we are including Negros Leaguers which you didn't with Bagwell.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I will never understand why Schilling gets so much HOF talk. In 20 years he had 6 seasons I'd consider spectacular. That's including 3 years in Philly when he had great seasons with a bad team. Outside of those and his 3 20-game win seasons (none of which garnered him a Cy Young Award, he finished 2nd each time) his career was positively average at best. Being dominant in 15% of your career and only good the rest of the time doesn't scream HOFer to me. I guess the argument could be made that less deserving players are already in but I don't believe past mistakes should condone making repeated mistakes.

If you like WAR, he has that.

Only one presumably clean pitcher has 3000 strikeouts, eligible for the Hall and not in, that's Schilling.

Outside of the surprise pennant in 1993, the Phillies didn't do much. He was the 1990s version of Felix Hernandez, if you ask me. The game has evolved considerably from when he pitched in Philly.

Don't forget the 123 ERA+.

Curt Schilling the person belongs in the Hall of Shame. Curt Schilling the pitcher belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[packs]

Schilling was never Felix Hernandez. No one watched Schilling pitch with Baltimore or Philadelphia and called him a king. Felix was seen as the heir apparent the second he stepped on to the mound at 19 years old. Schilling has nothing in common with him.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by packs

Schilling was never Felix Hernandez. No one watched Schilling pitch with Baltimore or Philadelphia and called him a king. Felix was seen as the heir apparent the second he stepped on to the mound at 19 years old. Schilling has nothing in common with him.

Schilling was the dominant ace of a team which usually went nowhere and often in last place. Hence the comparison.

[packs]

I think its pretty generous to use Felix's name in comparison to Schilling. Felix has already won a Cy Young, finished 2nd twice, 4th once, and is a 6 time All Star all before his 31st birthday. At 31 Schilling was a one time All Star who finished 4th in CY once.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by packs

I think its pretty generous to use Felix's name in comparison to Schilling. Felix has already won a Cy Young, finished 2nd twice, 4th once, and is a 6 time All Star all before his 31st birthday. At 31 Schilling was a one time All Star who finished 4th in CY once.

As I said, the game has greatly evolved. Felix won a Cy Young with a 13-12 record, which would never have happened in the '90s. Had Schilling been a Brave or a Yankee in the '90s with the exact same stats, he'd have a much higher profile. If the playoffs count, when the Phillies did go to the World Series, Schilling was NLCS MVP.

Now, he best seasons didn't come until the Diamondbacks and Red Sox, but he hardly became a great starter overnight with those teams. By age 31, Schilling also established himself a multi time strikeout leader, with durability in games started, innings pitched, lowest WHIP, lowest H/9 and also had a very high K/9 rate.

He was no scrub in Philly. His team just didn't go anywhere save for one surprise pennant run.

[bn2cardz]

Tonight we should know the new members of the HOF. As it stands now there are 55.2% of the ballots made known. Right now it looks like Raines (89.2%) and Bagwell (88.3%) are the only ones that I would say are the sure bets.


Pudge is the only other one over the 75% currently sitting at 78.8%, but last year there were 70.7% ballots known and Bagwell went down 6.1% after the results came in. So at this point I would consider Pudge anything but a lock.

Two other players worth watching are Trevor Hoffman and V. Guerrero. Hoffman is sitting at 72.5%, but last year he gained 3.8% after the official results. A 3.8% jump could also help Vlad Guerrero as he is currently sitting at 71.7%.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by packs

Schilling was never Felix Hernandez. No one watched Schilling pitch with Baltimore or Philadelphia and called him a king. Felix was seen as the heir apparent the second he stepped on to the mound at 19 years old. Schilling has nothing in common with him.

so your argument is all about public perception? the public are mostly morons, their opinion means nothing.

King Felix would have to pitch 8 more years at a 4 WAR pace to equal Schilling's production. He may do that as he is a great arm, but history says he won't.

[packs]

Maybe you should read my other replies where I pointed out why Felix at 31 has nothing in common with Schilling at 31.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

so your argument is all about public perception? the public are mostly morons, their opinion means nothing.

King Felix would have to pitch 8 more years at a 4 WAR pace to equal Schilling's production. He may do that as he is a great arm, but history says he won't.

Let's be honest, we have no clue if we're watching a Hall of Famer or not. That's for most players in the game. About four or five players are Hall of Famers if they retired today. The rest have either more to do or a lot more to do.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Topps206

Let's be honest, we have no clue if we're watching a Hall of Famer or not. That's for most players in the game. About four or five players are Hall of Famers if they retired today. The rest have either more to do or a lot more to do.

pretty much, which is why people should not compare active players to retired players, one has a body of work we can compare to other greats, the other is a work in progress

[Topps206]

I just don't know about Pudge being a Hall of Famer. Did he take anything? Was Canseco right? When asked if he took or not, why would he say, "Only God knows"