If Harold Baines is the best player on your team, how good is your team? They're usually a middle-to-last-place team (I would lean toward the latter), almost regardless of which season of his career you take.
How can Baines be in and Dave Parker not? I feel like 10 other guys could get in now... Why not Steve Garvey? Dale Murphy? Dwight Evans? Why not Al Oliver?
Yes, Dwight Evans did not "pave the way" for designated hitters because he was too busy playing an elite right field. I'm sorry but are you kidding me?
If Harold Baines is the best player on your team, how good is your team? They're usually a middle-to-last-place team (I would lean toward the latter), almost regardless of which season of his career you take.
>
The same criteria could/should then be applied to Mike Trout. The one time his team had a chance to do anything, they were throttled by the likes of Jason Vargas, Yordano Ventura, and James Shields and swatted right on out of the playoffs like a pesky fly. Except for that one season, the Mike Trout led Angels have been nothing but also-rans. A second place, 3 third place, and 2 fourth place finishes.
If anything, then, Mike Trout belongs in the Ralph Kiner wing of the Hall of Fame. "We finished in last with you, we can certainly finish in last without you."
@miwlvrn said:
Has anyone heard of this black slash concept sellers have started marketing on the 1981 Topps Baines card? As far as I'm concerned, it is an occasional PD that affects some cards and not others, similar to the "smudge" on the '78 Tramm/Moly card, and will never be a recognized variant. But, I had never heard of it before recently and I think people are hoping it will be a noted variation more similar to the green ball 1961 Topps Ron Fairly or something.
Bump quote for question again. Just curious if anyone feels that this is a thing now that is beyond just a silly marketing ploy?
While I really and truly believe the Hall of Fame has way too many people in it (I always point to the fact that Cy Young was passed over in the first class - and it should be that selective), I just wanted to add a slightly different perspective to this thread.
Longevity is always impressive to me. Anyone who can do the same job for 22 years has my respect. Cop, bartender, lawyer - whatever. To do it really well the whole time is even more impressive.
I still play a few different sports with good regularity and I can say honestly that if I had tried to play a ‘pro’ schedule, I’d make it two weeks. I’m in very good though admittedly not ‘great’ shape. With no cheating, the body breaks down. You have to live very cleanly and have some good luck and even then it’s hard to play a pro sport into your forties. And you really have to love the game when you’ve made enough money by the age of thirty to last 5 lifetimes.
So if a group of guys who all played the sport, lived the sport, grinded out a life in a sport that lasts 9 months active with no real offseason and look at his career and deem him ‘one of us’ and ‘worthy’ I am going to have to take that into consideration, too.
My personal taste when it comes to the Hall of Fame is no one gets in. Raise the percentage of the vote to 90 percent and create a separate wing for anyone under that percentage.
Certainly, some reworking could be done without hurting anyone. Gold, silver and bronze plaques or something along those lines. For me, Harold Baines would be borderline ‘Bronze’ but certainly less offensive to the masses.
And, for the record, it is almost always noted which players were veterans committee selections and that ends up being like an asterisk on their induction anyway.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@miwlvrn said:
Has anyone heard of this black slash concept sellers have started marketing on the 1981 Topps Baines card? As far as I'm concerned, it is an occasional PD that affects some cards and not others, similar to the "smudge" on the '78 Tramm/Moly card, and will never be a recognized variant. But, I had never heard of it before recently and I think people are hoping it will be a noted variation more similar to the green ball 1961 Topps Ron Fairly or something.
Bump quote for question again. Just curious if anyone feels that this is a thing now that is beyond just a silly marketing ploy?
I had to dig through my monster boxes of 81 commons to discover what you were referring to.
The card on the right has a tiny eyelash of a black mark on the bottom right below the Topps baseball logo. The card on the left is slash free. My distribution was roughly 50-50 on the 20 or so that I looked at. If they are not going to recognize the "puddle" between the legs of Robin Yount as a rookie card variation with any premium, I doubt the hobby will suddenly latch onto an eyelash variation on the Baines. But who knows?
Also a slight military issue had Joe D missing 1943 1944 1945 (age 28-30) Nothing to see there
Anyway..maybe your were joking around..sorry if i missed that
So that makes him not have more RBIs than Dimaggio ?
IF you have more Rbis than Larry Wayne Jones, you should be in.....
Not to mention he has more RBIs than Nap Lajoie George Brett Mike Schmidt Andre Dawson
Carlos Beltrán Rogers Hornsby Harmon Killebrew
Al Kaline Willie McCovey Fred McGriff Willie Stargell
Joe DiMaggio Jeff Bagwell Tris Speaker Sam Crawford
Jeff Kent Carlos Delgado Vladimir Guerrero and yes your boy MICKEY MANTLE (gasp)
But of course we cant compare against the greats cause Mantle had a bum knee and would had hit more had he not drink,
More Rbis and 600 more hits than Delgado ? But of course we cant count those because Delgado would have gotten to the major quicker had he not had to beat all the bonus babies that where in front of him since he was from the Dominican,
More Rbis and 400 more hits than Mccovey ? Of course you can count those because Mccovey would have hit more of he had not had to beat racism and gotten a callup sooner.
More Rbis and hits than Vlad, but of course we cant thosee bla bla bla
Many other quality major league players enlisted or were drafted, significantly lowering the quality of play. Average players were now stars, and scrubs who were destined to be career minor leaguers received opportunities to play significant roles on big league clubs.
Almost Everyone had to be in the Military, as it was almost Mandatory. Mays missed baseball seasons also. You dont hear people saying, oh he would have been greater had he not missed those seasons... blah blah...
again, if Baines was a Yankee we would not be having this conversation.
@lawyer05 said:
2866 hits guys.... and more RBis than Dimaggio, Chipper Jones, George Brett, Andre Dawson, to name a few
Rbi are a terrible metric with which to compare players. Accumulated hits are pretty bad as well.
that the object of the game is to bat runs in ... LMAO
Oh my gosh. I didnt think you were serious at first... the funny thing is, you are so so so wrong about using RBI as a metric and you dont even know it. why would you use a team oriented stat to compare individual players? it is silly. In order for a player to "get" an RBI, their teammates need to do their jobs. should we compare players using a stat dependent on how good or bad their teammates are as players? of course not. it would be foolish.
say you have two players with identical slash lines: .300/.400/.500 and identical ops +: 135. and they have the same slash lines with runners on base. then say player A has 125 RBI and player B has 90 RBI. does that mean player A is better? of course not, he just had better table setters hitting before him. this is the folly of the RBI stat.
It is about as useful as pitcher wins for comparing players.
@lawyer05 said:
2866 hits guys.... and more RBis than Dimaggio, Chipper Jones, George Brett, Andre Dawson, to name a few
Rbi are a terrible metric with which to compare players. Accumulated hits are pretty bad as well.
that the object of the game is to bat runs in ... LMAO
Oh my gosh. I didnt think you were serious at first... the funny thing is, you are so so so wrong about using RBI as a metric and you dont even know it. why would you use a team oriented stat to compare individual players? it is silly. In order for a player to "get" an RBI, their teammates need to do their jobs. should we compare players using a stat dependent on how good or bad their teammates are as players? of course not. it would be foolish.
say you have two players with identical slash lines: .300/.400/.500 and identical ops +: 135. and they have the same slash lines with runners on base. then say player A has 125 RBI and player B has 90 RBI. does that mean player A is better? of course not, he just had better table setters hitting before him. this is the folly of the RBI stat.
It is about as useful as pitcher wins for comparing players.
so why do we measure receiving touchdowns when the Qb has to throw you the ball ?
Why do we measure running td when the offensive line has to do their job blocking or else you don't go far..
@lawyer05 said:
2866 hits guys.... and more RBis than Dimaggio, Chipper Jones, George Brett, Andre Dawson, to name a few
Rbi are a terrible metric with which to compare players. Accumulated hits are pretty bad as well.
that the object of the game is to bat runs in ... LMAO
Oh my gosh. I didnt think you were serious at first... the funny thing is, you are so so so wrong about using RBI as a metric and you dont even know it. why would you use a team oriented stat to compare individual players? it is silly. In order for a player to "get" an RBI, their teammates need to do their jobs. should we compare players using a stat dependent on how good or bad their teammates are as players? of course not. it would be foolish.
say you have two players with identical slash lines: .300/.400/.500 and identical ops +: 135. and they have the same slash lines with runners on base. then say player A has 125 RBI and player B has 90 RBI. does that mean player A is better? of course not, he just had better table setters hitting before him. this is the folly of the RBI stat.
It is about as useful as pitcher wins for comparing players.
so why do we measure receiving touchdowns when the Qb has to throw you the ball ?
Why do we measure running td when the offensive line has to do their job blocking or else you don't go far..
cmon.....
why are you deflecting and comparing football to baseball stats? you know you are very very wrong, but dont want to admit it.
alright, I dont even know why I am doing this because RBI are a silly individual stat, but here goes.
Baines had 91 more career RBI than Joe D.
It took him over 1300 PA with men on base to "get" 91 more RBI than Dimag. Give Joe those extra 1300 PA and he would fly past poor old Harold.
All right, I did it. Now I feel so dirty.
maybe now we should decide who was the better pitcher, Dennis Martinez or Pedro Martinez. because, well, you know, Dennis had 245 wins and Pedro only had 219.
again, if Baines was a Yankee we would not be having this conversation"
Actually i dislike the Yankees and mantle/dimaggio/Jeter ect(but of course respect them as players).
My point was I think its ridiculous to say Baines had more RBI than Dimaggio as some kind of selling point for HOF
I guess the 10 year comparison doesnt say anything
Where would you draw the line?
Say player A had 5,000 AB and 1,000 RBI and player B had 10,000 AB and 1,100 RBI (player B had more right?)
Say player A had 5,000 AB and 1,000 RBI and player B had 20,000 AB and 1,200 RBI (player B had more right?)
Is that really meaningful to say player B had more RBI than player A?
And I think we would totally be having this conversation if Baines were a Yankee. I think a very low % of people think Baines is a HOF'er..Be it the White Sox or Yankees
The card on the right has a tiny eyelash of a black mark on the bottom right below the Topps baseball logo. The card on the left is slash free. My distribution was roughly 50-50 on the 20 or so that I looked at. If they are not going to recognize the "puddle" between the legs of Robin Yount as a rookie card variation with any premium, I doubt the hobby will suddenly latch onto an eyelash variation on the Baines. But who knows?
@miwlvrn said:
Has anyone heard of this black slash concept sellers have started marketing on the 1981 Topps Baines card? As far as I'm concerned, it is an occasional PD that affects some cards and not others, similar to the "smudge" on the '78 Tramm/Moly card, and will never be a recognized variant. But, I had never heard of it before recently and I think people are hoping it will be a noted variation more similar to the green ball 1961 Topps Ron Fairly or something.
Bump quote for question again. Just curious if anyone feels that this is a thing now that is beyond just a silly marketing ploy?
I had to dig through my monster boxes of 81 commons to discover what you were referring to.
The card on the right has a tiny eyelash of a black mark on the bottom right below the Topps baseball logo. The card on the left is slash free. My distribution was roughly 50-50 on the 20 or so that I looked at. If they are not going to recognize the "puddle" between the legs of Robin Yount as a rookie card variation with any premium, I doubt the hobby will suddenly latch onto an eyelash variation on the Baines. But who knows?
I agree, not noticeable enough. I had never heard of it before this thread.
again, if Baines was a Yankee we would not be having this conversation"
Actually i dislike the Yankees and mantle/dimaggio/Jeter ect(but of course respect them as players).
My point was I think its ridiculous to say Baines had more RBI than Dimaggio as some kind of selling point for HOF
I guess the 10 year comparison doesnt say anything
Where would you draw the line?
Say player A had 5,000 AB and 1,000 RBI and player B had 10,000 AB and 1,100 RBI (player B had more right?)
Say player A had 5,000 AB and 1,000 RBI and player B had 20,000 AB and 1,200 RBI (player B had more right?)
Is that really meaningful to say player B had more RBI than player A?
And I think we would totally be having this conversation if Baines were a Yankee. I think a very low % of people think Baines is a HOF'er..Be it the White Sox or Yankees
i never said he had more rbi than dimaggio
I said he had more rbis than
Dimaggio AND
Nap Lajoie George Brett Mike Schmidt Andre Dawson
Carlos Beltrán Rogers Hornsby Harmon Killebrew
Al Kaline Willie McCovey Fred McGriff Willie Stargell
Joe DiMaggio Jeff Bagwell Tris Speaker Sam Crawford
Jeff Kent Carlos Delgado Vladimir Guerrero and MICKEY MANTLE
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
While I really and truly believe the Hall of Fame has way too many people in it (I always point to the fact that Cy Young was passed over in the first class - and it should be that selective), I just wanted to add a slightly different perspective to this thread.
Longevity is always impressive to me. Anyone who can do the same job for 22 years has my respect. Cop, bartender, lawyer - whatever. To do it really well the whole time is even more impressive.
I still play a few different sports with good regularity and I can say honestly that if I had tried to play a ‘pro’ schedule, I’d make it two weeks. I’m in very good though admittedly not ‘great’ shape. With no cheating, the body breaks down. You have to live very cleanly and have some good luck and even then it’s hard to play a pro sport into your forties. And you really have to love the game when you’ve made enough money by the age of thirty to last 5 lifetimes.
So if a group of guys who all played the sport, lived the sport, grinded out a life in a sport that lasts 9 months active with no real offseason and look at his career and deem him ‘one of us’ and ‘worthy’ I am going to have to take that into consideration, too.
My personal taste when it comes to the Hall of Fame is no one gets in. Raise the percentage of the vote to 90 percent and create a separate wing for anyone under that percentage.
Certainly, some reworking could be done without hurting anyone. Gold, silver and bronze plaques or something along those lines. For me, Harold Baines would be borderline ‘Bronze’ but certainly less offensive to the masses.
And, for the record, it is almost always noted which players were veterans committee selections and that ends up being like an asterisk on their induction anyway.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
While I really and truly believe the Hall of Fame has way too many people in it (I always point to the fact that Cy Young was passed over in the first class - and it should be that selective), I just wanted to add a slightly different perspective to this thread.
Longevity is always impressive to me. Anyone who can do the same job for 22 years has my respect. Cop, bartender, lawyer - whatever. To do it really well the whole time is even more impressive.
I still play a few different sports with good regularity and I can say honestly that if I had tried to play a ‘pro’ schedule, I’d make it two weeks. I’m in very good though admittedly not ‘great’ shape. With no cheating, the body breaks down. You have to live very cleanly and have some good luck and even then it’s hard to play a pro sport into your forties. And you really have to love the game when you’ve made enough money by the age of thirty to last 5 lifetimes.
So if a group of guys who all played the sport, lived the sport, grinded out a life in a sport that lasts 9 months active with no real offseason and look at his career and deem him ‘one of us’ and ‘worthy’ I am going to have to take that into consideration, too.
My personal taste when it comes to the Hall of Fame is no one gets in. Raise the percentage of the vote to 90 percent and create a separate wing for anyone under that percentage.
Certainly, some reworking could be done without hurting anyone. Gold, silver and bronze plaques or something along those lines. For me, Harold Baines would be borderline ‘Bronze’ but certainly less offensive to the masses.
And, for the record, it is almost always noted which players were veterans committee selections and that ends up being like an asterisk on their induction anyway.
Well Spoken
as of now, the HOF has admitted about 1.5% of all players who played MLB. for the most part it is pretty exclusive. there are some exceptions like Jessie Haines, Perez, Baines, Lee Smith etc. the problem with baines is that he probably hovers around the top 10-15% of all players. far far far below what should be the traditional level of HOF talent.
i never said he had more rbi than dimaggio
I said he had more rbis than
Dimaggio AND
Nap Lajoie George Brett Mike Schmidt Andre Dawson
Carlos Beltrán Rogers Hornsby Harmon Killebrew
Al Kaline Willie McCovey Fred McGriff Willie Stargell
Joe DiMaggio Jeff Bagwell Tris Speaker Sam Crawford
Jeff Kent Carlos Delgado Vladimir Guerrero and MICKEY MANTLE
Yes and most of the players on that list destroy Baines
I'm surprised anybody would think Baines is a HOF'er. I would have thought people would agree he was a really good player, end of story. Nothing great about him.
Ya Canseco was way better than Hornsby. Hmm Mantle or Canseco..Canseco destroys Mantle..right. Thinking it over I think Canseco was as good as Ruth and Foxx. and prob better than T Williams Gehrig and Mays
It’s now the Hall of Above Average not Hall of fame. If we have to debate if someone gets in and they dont pass the binary smell test and consensus they simply don’t belong. End of story. Change the name to hall of above average and I’m good. Otherwise we will be taking about Al Oliver vs Dwight Evans for eternity.
@dan89 said:
It’s now the Hall of Above Average not Hall of fame. If we have to debate if someone gets in and they dont pass the binary smell test and consensus they simply don’t belong. End of story. Change the name to hall of above average and I’m good. Otherwise we will be taking about Al Oliver vs Dwight Evans for eternity.
This presupposes that Smith and/or Baines is the worst player in the Hall and far worse than the next bad. It's almost impossible for the selections to be worse than the Veterans Committee made in the 1970s (Rabbit Maranville, for example). Yes, they were alarmingly poor choices, but to say they mark a sea change is far over the top.
@miwlvrn said:
Has anyone heard of this black slash concept sellers have started marketing on the 1981 Topps Baines card? As far as I'm concerned, it is an occasional PD that affects some cards and not others, similar to the "smudge" on the '78 Tramm/Moly card, and will never be a recognized variant. But, I had never heard of it before recently and I think people are hoping it will be a noted variation more similar to the green ball 1961 Topps Ron Fairly or something.
Bump quote for question again. Just curious if anyone feels that this is a thing now that is beyond just a silly marketing ploy?
I had to dig through my monster boxes of 81 commons to discover what you were referring to.
The card on the right has a tiny eyelash of a black mark on the bottom right below the Topps baseball logo. The card on the left is slash free. My distribution was roughly 50-50 on the 20 or so that I looked at. If they are not going to recognize the "puddle" between the legs of Robin Yount as a rookie card variation with any premium, I doubt the hobby will suddenly latch onto an eyelash variation on the Baines. But who knows?
I agree, not noticeable enough. I had never heard of it before this thread.
Similar to the 85 Ripken. pSA doesn’t distinguish that I’ve seen, but it is a variation, or more a preference if you want one without the blemish or not.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
It’s been the hall of above average since Sutton, Rice, Mazerowski, Blyleven,Trammel ETC all. Baines and Smith are not the genesis of this, however they are more of the recent same.
@dan89 said:
It’s now the Hall of Above Average not Hall of fame. If we have to debate if someone gets in and they dont pass the binary smell test and consensus they simply don’t belong. End of story. Change the name to hall of above average and I’m good. Otherwise we will be taking about Al Oliver vs Dwight Evans for eternity.
This presupposes that Smith and/or Baines is the worst player in the Hall and far worse than the next bad. It's almost impossible for the selections to be worse than the Veterans Committee made in the 1970s (Rabbit Maranville, for example). Yes, they were alarmingly poor choices, but to say they mark a sea change is far over the top.
Blyleven was a mediocre selection who went on a self promoting media tour to politic his way in.
Put it this way .... I grew up in that era - as did many others on the board. When Ryan, Seaver, Carlton pitched, you knew you were seeing hall of famers. You just didnt feel that way with Sutton or Blyleven.
A decade later, no one watched Baines saying "there goes a hall of famer" like they did with Henderson, Ripken or Gwynn. To me, that factor carries a lot of weight.
The fact that we thought we were certainly watching hall of famers with Clemens, Bonds, etc complicates things, but doesnt change the fact a lot of recent inductees seem to gain steam after their careers are over. And there is something more to it than greater appreciation than advanced metrics. In Baines case, its pretty clear he was popular among the veterans committee, or whatever they call it now. Thats nice, but not the right measurement in might opinion.
@GreenSneakers said:
Blyleven was a mediocre selection who went on a self promoting media tour to politic his way in.
Put it this way .... I grew up in that era - as did many others on the board. When Ryan, Seaver, Carlton pitched, you knew you were seeing hall of famers. You just didnt feel that way with Sutton or Blyleven.
A decade later, no one watched Baines saying "there goes a hall of famer" like they did with Henderson, Ripken or Gwynn. To me, that factor carries a lot of weight.
The fact that we thought we were certainly watching hall of famers with Clemens, Bonds, etc complicates things, but doesnt change the fact a lot of recent inductees seem to gain steam after their careers are over. And there is something more to it than greater appreciation than advanced metrics. In Baines case, its pretty clear he was popular among the veterans committee, or whatever they call it now. Thats nice, but not the right measurement in might opinion.
Here's another name that hasn't come up much in all the Baines discussions: by some ridiculous turn of events, Ron Santo was elected in by the Golden Era Committee.
Baines: elected on 75% vote by Today's Game Committee
Santo: elected on 93.75% vote by Golden Era Committee
Baines on the left, Santo on the right:
Batting average .289 vs. .277
Hits 2,866 vs. 2,254
Home runs 384 vs. 342
Runs batted in 1,628 vs. 1,331
I totally get that there are plenty of other stats that are representative of a player's impact on the game beyond these basic hitting results, and I am also in agreement that Baines should not even been considered on the vote, let alone making it in; however, how the heck did Santo get in, especially when Baines is not marginal but even more so, is unworthy, and his numbers here are better than Santo's? Sure, the Cubs may be a little more beloved than the Sox, but come on.
Edit to add, from wikipedia:
When Santo first became eligible for election to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1980, he was named on less than four percent of all ballots cast by the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA), resulting in his removal from the ballot in subsequent years; he was one of several players re-added to the ballot in 1985 following widespread complaints about overlooked candidates, with the remainder of their 15 years of eligibility restored even if this extended beyond the usual limit of 20 years after their last season. After receiving 13 percent of the vote in the 1985 election, his vote totals increased in 10 of the next 13 years until he received 43 percent of the vote in his final year on the 1998 ballot, finishing third in the voting behind electee Don Sutton and 2000 inductee Tony Pérez.
It is silly to compare raw stats from different eras. It's like saying Babe Pinelli was better in 1924 than Carl Yastrzemski was in 1968 because he hit .310 compared to .301. Note that I'm not claiming here that Santo was better than Baines, or vice versa, only that the raw numbers don't show it one way or the other.
@GreenSneakers said:
Blyleven was a mediocre selection who went on a self promoting media tour to politic his way in.
Put it this way .... I grew up in that era - as did many others on the board. When Ryan, Seaver, Carlton pitched, you knew you were seeing hall of famers. You just didnt feel that way with Sutton or Blyleven.
A decade later, no one watched Baines saying "there goes a hall of famer" like they did with Henderson, Ripken or Gwynn. To me, that factor carries a lot of weight.
The fact that we thought we were certainly watching hall of famers with Clemens, Bonds, etc complicates things, but doesnt change the fact a lot of recent inductees seem to gain steam after their careers are over. And there is something more to it than greater appreciation than advanced metrics. In Baines case, its pretty clear he was popular among the veterans committee, or whatever they call it now. Thats nice, but not the right measurement in might opinion.
Other than your "feelings" and "his" win loss record, what would make you think mediocre selection?
I don't always agree with all of craig44's positions but he is schooling everyone in this thread.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
not sure why "feeling" and "his" record are in "quotes" but "ok" I will "tell" you why he was "mediocre"
Blyleven made a grand total of two all star teams (same number as Shea Hillenbrand) in 22 seasons. He never finished higher than third in the Cy Young vote. He never finished higher than 13th in the MVP vote. He had one 20 win season.
He was a journeyman stats accumulator. And he was a journeyman of his own accord. Starting his career with the Twins, he was very open about his dislike of Minnesota, so he was traded to the Rangers. With the Rangers, he gave the finger to the camera during a nationally televised game, so he was traded to the Pirates. They won the world series that year, but Blyleven still demanded a trade out of Pittsburgh and threatened to retire if his demands were not met. So he was traded to the Cleveland and was traded two more times after that in his career (back to Minnesota and then California). Once he showed his attitude, he was constantly run out of town. His "hall of fame" talents never kept him around.
Yeah, so not exactly a Sandy Koufax career. Or Ryan. Or Seaver. Or Bob Gisbon. Or Pedro, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson or anybody else that that comes to mind when you think "Hall of Fame pitcher".
I saw Blyleven pitch live. His curveball had some bite. So did Gregg Olsen's. But you never looked at him and said "Hall of Famer". And nether did anybody watching, commenting or writing about him at the time.
So "thats" why I "feel" Blyleven is "not" a hall of famer.
The reason feeling was in quotes is because much of what you use to describe Blyleven s career is anecdotal. Or, your feelings about how good blyleven was. you "feel" he wasn't as good as ryan, seaver, Johnson etc because when you saw him he didn't seem as good. Long after a player retires and there is no one left who actually watched a player play, what do we have left? Only the statistical record. If we compared only players we watched, how would we ever discuss cy young, Walter Johnson etc.? It really doesn't matter if you looked at blyleven and never "felt" he was a HOFer, nor should it matter what I felt about any player. That stuff is all anecdotal and highly subject to personal bias. Not a good way to win an argument.
The reason "his" was in quotes is because of the ridiculousness of using pitcher win loss record for any sort of player evaluation. Wins/losses are a team stat and are meaningless as an individual stat.
Yeah, so not exactly a Sandy Koufax career. Or Ryan. Or Seaver. Or Bob Gisbon. Or Pedro, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson or anybody else that that comes to mind when you think "Hall of Fame pitcher".
Unfortunately, these guys aren't the comparables for HoF pitchers, except for Ryan. The average HoF pitcher is a Ryan, Glavine, Palmer or Hubbell. Blyleven is better than those guys, and lots better than a Morris or a Hunter. Koufax is an interesting case. Six good years, four of them very good, but almost nothing else. A higher peak than just about anyone, but such a short one.
@Albertdidit said:
Daltex..are you saying if were starting a team and both were 25 years old..you would take blyleven over palmer?
Did you watch the 79 Post-season? Blyleven was the man. Palmer not so much lol. Blyleven was money in the post-season 5-1 record, 247 era and he is top 5 all time in career strikeouts. What more do you want out of a HALL OF FAMER???
As for Baines, what great feat did he accomplish?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Blyleven beats Palmer in a number of fronts: better career FIP, better bb/9, better k/9, better k/bb, all while pitching 1000 more career innings. Palmer does have a better w/l record which blinds some observers, but means nothing when comparing players. Remember, Palmer also had the distinct advantage of pitching in front of a tremendous defense. As a contact pitcher, he was helped considerably by this. Imagine blylevens career had he been able to pitch in front of that defense. He would have been better than Palmer. That is why berts FIP is so much better.
Anybody that chimes in on Blyleven vs Palmer, please state whether you say them pitch while active. TV is fine, in person is better. Also if you were old enough to be actively following sports when they did - reading the Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, etc.
I saw them both. I read contemporary articles on both. I think Palmer was better, without question, and so did every beat writer of their day.
I love advanced metrics. I love that folks go back and make sure no one was unfairly looked over. But when Baines never got double digits in the vote, or Blyleven took 14 years to get elected only after an all out campaign, thats got to tell you something.
And thats my whole point, if there is a lot of doubt if you are a hall of famer, then you aint one. The bar has been lowered such we will argue about every marginal candidate for years. The HoF should be for no doubters, and no doubters only.
@GreenSneakers said:
Anybody that chimes in on Blyleven vs Palmer, please state whether you say them pitch while active. TV is fine, in person is better. Also if you were old enough to be actively following sports when they did - reading the Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, etc.
I saw them both. I read contemporary articles on both. I think Palmer was better, without question, and so did every beat writer of their day.
I love advanced metrics. I love that folks go back and make sure no one was unfairly looked over. But when Baines never got double digits in the vote, or Blyleven took 14 years to get elected only after an all out campaign, thats got to tell you something.
And thats my whole point, if there is a lot of doubt if you are a hall of famer, then you aint one. The bar has been lowered such we will argue about every marginal candidate for years. The HoF should be for no doubters, and no doubters only.
I hope you realize you are employing a debate tactic that you cannot win with. It is the some tactic former pro athletes sometimes use: "you didn't play the game, so your knowledge/opinion is not as valid"
You do not have to have watched the player to have a valid opinion. Did you watch mantle? Greenberg, grove, Ruth, Cobb, galvin, Clarkson? According to your logic, if you didn't see them play, your opinion is not as valid.
Nonsense.
I have already discussed the bbwaa earlier. I will not repost that. But they are not the be all end all of baseball knowledge.
I never said your opinion is invalid. I just dont agree with it. I see you collect Greg Maddux - a clear hall of famer in my view. If you want to put Bert Blyleven and Don Sutton in the same group as Maddux, you are welcome to, but there is a clear distinction in what I saw. Same thing with Frank Thomas and Harold Baines. There is just no question Frank was better.
If you'd prefer a wide cast of players in your hall of fame, I guess you and the veterans committee are on the same page. I'd like to be a bit more discerning and have fewer players in. We can just disagree on that.
The fact that I think Jim Palmer was better than Blyeven and you think the opposite ... well, folks reading this can form their own opinions on which one is correct. I think the answer is obvious. And I do think its relevant that I saw them pitch in forming that opinion.
Comments
I admit I haven't read all the posts.
If Harold Baines is the best player on your team, how good is your team? They're usually a middle-to-last-place team (I would lean toward the latter), almost regardless of which season of his career you take.
How can Baines be in and Dave Parker not? I feel like 10 other guys could get in now... Why not Steve Garvey? Dale Murphy? Dwight Evans? Why not Al Oliver?
Yes, Dwight Evans did not "pave the way" for designated hitters because he was too busy playing an elite right field. I'm sorry but are you kidding me?
>
>
The same criteria could/should then be applied to Mike Trout. The one time his team had a chance to do anything, they were throttled by the likes of Jason Vargas, Yordano Ventura, and James Shields and swatted right on out of the playoffs like a pesky fly. Except for that one season, the Mike Trout led Angels have been nothing but also-rans. A second place, 3 third place, and 2 fourth place finishes.
If anything, then, Mike Trout belongs in the Ralph Kiner wing of the Hall of Fame. "We finished in last with you, we can certainly finish in last without you."
Are you being serious about more RBI than Dimaggio? If you look at their best 10 years here is comparison:
Joe Harold
167/ 113
155/ 105
140/ 103
133/ 99
126/ 95
125/ 94
125/ 93
122/ 90
114/ 88
97/ 81
Also a slight military issue had Joe D missing 1943 1944 1945 (age 28-30) Nothing to see there
Anyway..maybe your were joking around..sorry if i missed that
Bump quote for question again. Just curious if anyone feels that this is a thing now that is beyond just a silly marketing ploy?
While I really and truly believe the Hall of Fame has way too many people in it (I always point to the fact that Cy Young was passed over in the first class - and it should be that selective), I just wanted to add a slightly different perspective to this thread.
Longevity is always impressive to me. Anyone who can do the same job for 22 years has my respect. Cop, bartender, lawyer - whatever. To do it really well the whole time is even more impressive.
I still play a few different sports with good regularity and I can say honestly that if I had tried to play a ‘pro’ schedule, I’d make it two weeks. I’m in very good though admittedly not ‘great’ shape. With no cheating, the body breaks down. You have to live very cleanly and have some good luck and even then it’s hard to play a pro sport into your forties. And you really have to love the game when you’ve made enough money by the age of thirty to last 5 lifetimes.
So if a group of guys who all played the sport, lived the sport, grinded out a life in a sport that lasts 9 months active with no real offseason and look at his career and deem him ‘one of us’ and ‘worthy’ I am going to have to take that into consideration, too.
My personal taste when it comes to the Hall of Fame is no one gets in. Raise the percentage of the vote to 90 percent and create a separate wing for anyone under that percentage.
Certainly, some reworking could be done without hurting anyone. Gold, silver and bronze plaques or something along those lines. For me, Harold Baines would be borderline ‘Bronze’ but certainly less offensive to the masses.
And, for the record, it is almost always noted which players were veterans committee selections and that ends up being like an asterisk on their induction anyway.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I had to dig through my monster boxes of 81 commons to discover what you were referring to.
The card on the right has a tiny eyelash of a black mark on the bottom right below the Topps baseball logo. The card on the left is slash free. My distribution was roughly 50-50 on the 20 or so that I looked at. If they are not going to recognize the "puddle" between the legs of Robin Yount as a rookie card variation with any premium, I doubt the hobby will suddenly latch onto an eyelash variation on the Baines. But who knows?
So that makes him not have more RBIs than Dimaggio ?
IF you have more Rbis than Larry Wayne Jones, you should be in.....
Not to mention he has more RBIs than Nap Lajoie George Brett Mike Schmidt Andre Dawson
Carlos Beltrán Rogers Hornsby Harmon Killebrew
Al Kaline Willie McCovey Fred McGriff Willie Stargell
Joe DiMaggio Jeff Bagwell Tris Speaker Sam Crawford
Jeff Kent Carlos Delgado Vladimir Guerrero and yes your boy MICKEY MANTLE (gasp)
But of course we cant compare against the greats cause Mantle had a bum knee and would had hit more had he not drink,
More Rbis and 600 more hits than Delgado ? But of course we cant count those because Delgado would have gotten to the major quicker had he not had to beat all the bonus babies that where in front of him since he was from the Dominican,
More Rbis and 400 more hits than Mccovey ? Of course you can count those because Mccovey would have hit more of he had not had to beat racism and gotten a callup sooner.
More Rbis and hits than Vlad, but of course we cant thosee bla bla bla
Many other quality major league players enlisted or were drafted, significantly lowering the quality of play. Average players were now stars, and scrubs who were destined to be career minor leaguers received opportunities to play significant roles on big league clubs.
Almost Everyone had to be in the Military, as it was almost Mandatory. Mays missed baseball seasons also. You dont hear people saying, oh he would have been greater had he not missed those seasons... blah blah...
again, if Baines was a Yankee we would not be having this conversation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
that the object of the game is to bat runs in ... LMAO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Oh my gosh. I didnt think you were serious at first... the funny thing is, you are so so so wrong about using RBI as a metric and you dont even know it. why would you use a team oriented stat to compare individual players? it is silly. In order for a player to "get" an RBI, their teammates need to do their jobs. should we compare players using a stat dependent on how good or bad their teammates are as players? of course not. it would be foolish.
say you have two players with identical slash lines: .300/.400/.500 and identical ops +: 135. and they have the same slash lines with runners on base. then say player A has 125 RBI and player B has 90 RBI. does that mean player A is better? of course not, he just had better table setters hitting before him. this is the folly of the RBI stat.
It is about as useful as pitcher wins for comparing players.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
so why do we measure receiving touchdowns when the Qb has to throw you the ball ?
Why do we measure running td when the offensive line has to do their job blocking or else you don't go far..
cmon.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
why are you deflecting and comparing football to baseball stats? you know you are very very wrong, but dont want to admit it.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
alright, I dont even know why I am doing this because RBI are a silly individual stat, but here goes.
Baines had 91 more career RBI than Joe D.
It took him over 1300 PA with men on base to "get" 91 more RBI than Dimag. Give Joe those extra 1300 PA and he would fly past poor old Harold.
All right, I did it. Now I feel so dirty.
maybe now we should decide who was the better pitcher, Dennis Martinez or Pedro Martinez. because, well, you know, Dennis had 245 wins and Pedro only had 219.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
"your boy MICKEY MANTLE (gasp)
again, if Baines was a Yankee we would not be having this conversation"
Actually i dislike the Yankees and mantle/dimaggio/Jeter ect(but of course respect them as players).
My point was I think its ridiculous to say Baines had more RBI than Dimaggio as some kind of selling point for HOF
I guess the 10 year comparison doesnt say anything
Where would you draw the line?
Say player A had 5,000 AB and 1,000 RBI and player B had 10,000 AB and 1,100 RBI (player B had more right?)
Say player A had 5,000 AB and 1,000 RBI and player B had 20,000 AB and 1,200 RBI (player B had more right?)
Is that really meaningful to say player B had more RBI than player A?
And I think we would totally be having this conversation if Baines were a Yankee. I think a very low % of people think Baines is a HOF'er..Be it the White Sox or Yankees
I totally agree with you; thanks for the input.
I agree, not noticeable enough. I had never heard of it before this thread.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
i never said he had more rbi than dimaggio
I said he had more rbis than
Dimaggio AND
Nap Lajoie George Brett Mike Schmidt Andre Dawson
Carlos Beltrán Rogers Hornsby Harmon Killebrew
Al Kaline Willie McCovey Fred McGriff Willie Stargell
Joe DiMaggio Jeff Bagwell Tris Speaker Sam Crawford
Jeff Kent Carlos Delgado Vladimir Guerrero and MICKEY MANTLE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Well Spoken
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
as of now, the HOF has admitted about 1.5% of all players who played MLB. for the most part it is pretty exclusive. there are some exceptions like Jessie Haines, Perez, Baines, Lee Smith etc. the problem with baines is that he probably hovers around the top 10-15% of all players. far far far below what should be the traditional level of HOF talent.
even with all those RBI.....
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Yes and most of the players on that list destroy Baines
I'm surprised anybody would think Baines is a HOF'er. I would have thought people would agree he was a really good player, end of story. Nothing great about him.
and Canseco would destroy all those in that list, whats the point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Ya Canseco was way better than Hornsby. Hmm Mantle or Canseco..Canseco destroys Mantle..right. Thinking it over I think Canseco was as good as Ruth and Foxx. and prob better than T Williams Gehrig and Mays
When Bert Blyleven got in the HOF you must have felt the same way
He did have more wins than Palmer, Feller, Gibson, Marichal, Ford, Pedro, Koufax
So he has more wins right? Gotta put him in if they are. He blows all them away
It’s now the Hall of Above Average not Hall of fame. If we have to debate if someone gets in and they dont pass the binary smell test and consensus they simply don’t belong. End of story. Change the name to hall of above average and I’m good. Otherwise we will be taking about Al Oliver vs Dwight Evans for eternity.
This presupposes that Smith and/or Baines is the worst player in the Hall and far worse than the next bad. It's almost impossible for the selections to be worse than the Veterans Committee made in the 1970s (Rabbit Maranville, for example). Yes, they were alarmingly poor choices, but to say they mark a sea change is far over the top.
Well that's why he got in...he had more wins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Oh my gosh, now you really are talking about pitcher wins. Do we have to go over that like we did RBI?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Similar to the 85 Ripken. pSA doesn’t distinguish that I’ve seen, but it is a variation, or more a preference if you want one without the blemish or not.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
It’s been the hall of above average since Sutton, Rice, Mazerowski, Blyleven,Trammel ETC all. Baines and Smith are not the genesis of this, however they are more of the recent same.
Blyleven was a very good selection and was long overdue. People's perception was based on "his" won loss record
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Blyleven was a mediocre selection who went on a self promoting media tour to politic his way in.
Put it this way .... I grew up in that era - as did many others on the board. When Ryan, Seaver, Carlton pitched, you knew you were seeing hall of famers. You just didnt feel that way with Sutton or Blyleven.
A decade later, no one watched Baines saying "there goes a hall of famer" like they did with Henderson, Ripken or Gwynn. To me, that factor carries a lot of weight.
The fact that we thought we were certainly watching hall of famers with Clemens, Bonds, etc complicates things, but doesnt change the fact a lot of recent inductees seem to gain steam after their careers are over. And there is something more to it than greater appreciation than advanced metrics. In Baines case, its pretty clear he was popular among the veterans committee, or whatever they call it now. Thats nice, but not the right measurement in might opinion.
QFT
Andy
Here's another name that hasn't come up much in all the Baines discussions: by some ridiculous turn of events, Ron Santo was elected in by the Golden Era Committee.
Baines: elected on 75% vote by Today's Game Committee
Santo: elected on 93.75% vote by Golden Era Committee
Baines on the left, Santo on the right:
Batting average .289 vs. .277
Hits 2,866 vs. 2,254
Home runs 384 vs. 342
Runs batted in 1,628 vs. 1,331
I totally get that there are plenty of other stats that are representative of a player's impact on the game beyond these basic hitting results, and I am also in agreement that Baines should not even been considered on the vote, let alone making it in; however, how the heck did Santo get in, especially when Baines is not marginal but even more so, is unworthy, and his numbers here are better than Santo's? Sure, the Cubs may be a little more beloved than the Sox, but come on.
Edit to add, from wikipedia:
When Santo first became eligible for election to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1980, he was named on less than four percent of all ballots cast by the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA), resulting in his removal from the ballot in subsequent years; he was one of several players re-added to the ballot in 1985 following widespread complaints about overlooked candidates, with the remainder of their 15 years of eligibility restored even if this extended beyond the usual limit of 20 years after their last season. After receiving 13 percent of the vote in the 1985 election, his vote totals increased in 10 of the next 13 years until he received 43 percent of the vote in his final year on the 1998 ballot, finishing third in the voting behind electee Don Sutton and 2000 inductee Tony Pérez.
It is silly to compare raw stats from different eras. It's like saying Babe Pinelli was better in 1924 than Carl Yastrzemski was in 1968 because he hit .310 compared to .301. Note that I'm not claiming here that Santo was better than Baines, or vice versa, only that the raw numbers don't show it one way or the other.
Other than your "feelings" and "his" win loss record, what would make you think mediocre selection?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don't always agree with all of craig44's positions but he is schooling everyone in this thread.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
not sure why "feeling" and "his" record are in "quotes" but "ok" I will "tell" you why he was "mediocre"
Blyleven made a grand total of two all star teams (same number as Shea Hillenbrand) in 22 seasons. He never finished higher than third in the Cy Young vote. He never finished higher than 13th in the MVP vote. He had one 20 win season.
He was a journeyman stats accumulator. And he was a journeyman of his own accord. Starting his career with the Twins, he was very open about his dislike of Minnesota, so he was traded to the Rangers. With the Rangers, he gave the finger to the camera during a nationally televised game, so he was traded to the Pirates. They won the world series that year, but Blyleven still demanded a trade out of Pittsburgh and threatened to retire if his demands were not met. So he was traded to the Cleveland and was traded two more times after that in his career (back to Minnesota and then California). Once he showed his attitude, he was constantly run out of town. His "hall of fame" talents never kept him around.
Yeah, so not exactly a Sandy Koufax career. Or Ryan. Or Seaver. Or Bob Gisbon. Or Pedro, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson or anybody else that that comes to mind when you think "Hall of Fame pitcher".
I saw Blyleven pitch live. His curveball had some bite. So did Gregg Olsen's. But you never looked at him and said "Hall of Famer". And nether did anybody watching, commenting or writing about him at the time.
So "thats" why I "feel" Blyleven is "not" a hall of famer.
Hope thats an appropriate use of quotes.
The reason feeling was in quotes is because much of what you use to describe Blyleven s career is anecdotal. Or, your feelings about how good blyleven was. you "feel" he wasn't as good as ryan, seaver, Johnson etc because when you saw him he didn't seem as good. Long after a player retires and there is no one left who actually watched a player play, what do we have left? Only the statistical record. If we compared only players we watched, how would we ever discuss cy young, Walter Johnson etc.? It really doesn't matter if you looked at blyleven and never "felt" he was a HOFer, nor should it matter what I felt about any player. That stuff is all anecdotal and highly subject to personal bias. Not a good way to win an argument.
The reason "his" was in quotes is because of the ridiculousness of using pitcher win loss record for any sort of player evaluation. Wins/losses are a team stat and are meaningless as an individual stat.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Thanks Grote. I may not always be right, but I am persistent
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Unfortunately, these guys aren't the comparables for HoF pitchers, except for Ryan. The average HoF pitcher is a Ryan, Glavine, Palmer or Hubbell. Blyleven is better than those guys, and lots better than a Morris or a Hunter. Koufax is an interesting case. Six good years, four of them very good, but almost nothing else. A higher peak than just about anyone, but such a short one.
Daltex..are you saying if were starting a team and both were 25 years old..you would take blyleven over palmer?
Did you watch the 79 Post-season? Blyleven was the man. Palmer not so much lol. Blyleven was money in the post-season 5-1 record, 247 era and he is top 5 all time in career strikeouts. What more do you want out of a HALL OF FAMER???
As for Baines, what great feat did he accomplish?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Well Palmer was a 1st ballot hof'er with over 92% of the vote. There's a reason for that.
Blyleven got in on his 14th go around
If anyone would take blyleven over Palmer that would just be stunning to me.
The voters got it wrong. Blyleven should've been a 1st ballot HOF.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Blyleven absolutely should have been a first ballot HOFer
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Blyleven beats Palmer in a number of fronts: better career FIP, better bb/9, better k/9, better k/bb, all while pitching 1000 more career innings. Palmer does have a better w/l record which blinds some observers, but means nothing when comparing players. Remember, Palmer also had the distinct advantage of pitching in front of a tremendous defense. As a contact pitcher, he was helped considerably by this. Imagine blylevens career had he been able to pitch in front of that defense. He would have been better than Palmer. That is why berts FIP is so much better.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
As you can see, choosing Bert over Jim is really not all that stunning
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Anybody that chimes in on Blyleven vs Palmer, please state whether you say them pitch while active. TV is fine, in person is better. Also if you were old enough to be actively following sports when they did - reading the Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, etc.
I saw them both. I read contemporary articles on both. I think Palmer was better, without question, and so did every beat writer of their day.
I love advanced metrics. I love that folks go back and make sure no one was unfairly looked over. But when Baines never got double digits in the vote, or Blyleven took 14 years to get elected only after an all out campaign, thats got to tell you something.
And thats my whole point, if there is a lot of doubt if you are a hall of famer, then you aint one. The bar has been lowered such we will argue about every marginal candidate for years. The HoF should be for no doubters, and no doubters only.
I hope you realize you are employing a debate tactic that you cannot win with. It is the some tactic former pro athletes sometimes use: "you didn't play the game, so your knowledge/opinion is not as valid"
You do not have to have watched the player to have a valid opinion. Did you watch mantle? Greenberg, grove, Ruth, Cobb, galvin, Clarkson? According to your logic, if you didn't see them play, your opinion is not as valid.
Nonsense.
I have already discussed the bbwaa earlier. I will not repost that. But they are not the be all end all of baseball knowledge.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I never said your opinion is invalid. I just dont agree with it. I see you collect Greg Maddux - a clear hall of famer in my view. If you want to put Bert Blyleven and Don Sutton in the same group as Maddux, you are welcome to, but there is a clear distinction in what I saw. Same thing with Frank Thomas and Harold Baines. There is just no question Frank was better.
If you'd prefer a wide cast of players in your hall of fame, I guess you and the veterans committee are on the same page. I'd like to be a bit more discerning and have fewer players in. We can just disagree on that.
The fact that I think Jim Palmer was better than Blyeven and you think the opposite ... well, folks reading this can form their own opinions on which one is correct. I think the answer is obvious. And I do think its relevant that I saw them pitch in forming that opinion.
While were at it let me take a wild guess..blyleven was better than seaver also..right?