Ichiro, CC Sabathia, Billy Wagner elected to HOF.
MCMLVTopps
Posts: 4,883 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Ichiro almost maxed the vote, missed by one. He's the first Japanese players inducted.
1
Comments
And well deserving of the honor!
I wonder what uniform CC will choose?? He had more team success with the Yankees because the teams were better but he seems to have had more personal success when he was younger with the Indians. His last 5 years in New York show him as little more than a number five starter in the rotation, struggling to compete with a record of 43-42 which is distorted by a 14 win season. He would have helped himself by retiring earlier.
When CC first came up with Cleveland he was an imposing figure on the mound with a crisp fastball that could be intimidating. Even though Sabathia won the CYA in 2007 he pitched terribly bad against the Red Sox in the ALCS and put an end to his days in Cleveland on a sour note. He was traded to the Brew Crew at the 2008 trade deadline. Ever the classy guy, CC and his family took out a full page ad in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that read:
Thank you for 10 great years ... You've touched our lives with your kindness, love and generosity. We are forever grateful! It's been a privilege and an honor!
He was a much admired man when he was here, I hope he wears an Indians cap!!!
I remember when CC was on the mound and he was such a big dude, I still say I think Randy Johnson was more intimidating but CC was right up there lol
CC has no business in the HOF.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
This is why I love you. Thanks for your carefully articulated opinion. Now back to bed. You have school tomorrow!
I am good with Ichiro. surprised he was almost unanimous though.
I am less enthusiastic about CC. I generally saw him as a good to very good pitcher with a couple of greatish seasons mixed in. The half year with the Brewers was peak CC. I can see him as a HOFer, but a bit surprised about the first ballot, and that he didnt just squeak by.
Wagner, I dont think any player who was strictly a closer should be in the HOF. including Mo. Good grief, Wagner only threw 900 innings in his career. think about that. 900 innings in what, 16 seasons! thats barely 50 a season.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
If not CC who, from his era, gets in?
Closers deserve to get their place just as much as anyone else does. It would be like saying punters and FG kickers cant get into the NFL HOF, you could even expand that to DTs who rotate in and out and play like 45 seconds a game. Wagner was elite for a long time
As far as CC he just has no business in the HOF. His career was basically Jake Peavys and no one is saying he should be in the HOF. 116 vs 110 ERA+, Peavy has a lower ERA and lower Whip.
CC is just another example of it now just being the Hall of good who were nice to the voters during during their career not the Hall of Fame
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I disagree on closers. just not enough career value. I would guess most "save" attempts are actually not that high leverage at all. a guy coming into a fresh inning with no inherited runners, needing just 3 outs and knowing they can completely empty the tank for 15-20 pitches. to me, saves are an empty statistic and 900 innings, most just one inning at a time, over a 16 year career is not enough.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
until the last 5 minutes, most "closers" were just failed starters.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Sabathia has 1,200 more IP than Peavy. That is a little stretch to say they basically had the same career because the ERA+ are similar(with Sabathia still ahead 116 to 110)..
In that same vein, that would mean that Sabathia had 'basically' the same career as Nolan Ryan and Steve Carlton since Sabathia had a higher ERA+ than both of them. Sabathia didn't of course, but what you are saying makes it so.
A more interesting comparison would be Cole Hamels and Sabathia. Hamels had a better ERA+(123) but in 879 less innings than Sabathia.
Jake Peavy...
Sabathia had 251 wins which is above the new mark of fitness.
Sabathia had over 3K Ks.
Cy
WS
2008
Hello?
I used Peavy just because I dont think anyone would really try and argue he should be in the HOF. Had he not suffered the major injuries he may have been able to build a case but he did suffer those injuries
Hamels another good one. If CC is getting in then we need to start letting these guys in as well
CC was a good to very good pitcher with a short span of elite, the HOF should just take more and way to many players that dont deserve it have been getting in
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Whats the alternative then? Teams cant have a bullpen? Football teams cant punt or kick a FG?
I get the whole closers and revilers pitch fewer innings argument. I also agree with it in terms of no pitcher should ever be able to win the MVP, but closers and revilers should be inducted into the HOF for being the best at their position. Entire positions shouldnt be ignored that are critical parts of the game
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Seems so strange the players we thought 30 years ago would all be HOFers,the steroid subjects, are not in. And the crop from the last 10 or 15 years were players that many of us did not give much consideration to way back when. At least for me.
An autographed card I got in 2004 from Wagner when he pitched for the Phillies for 2 seasons.
I still don't get it. Sabathia received decisions in about 75% of his starts and has over 250 wins and a .600+ winning percentage. That's historically elite performance. The only active pitcher with better numbers is this regard is Verlander. Do we just put no one in because, you know.... Warren Spahn was better?
I just seem to agree with Craig44 more often than not.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
good class this year i think each player deserves his place in the hall of fame.
@bgr, some of the members here must be the HOF voters who thought Nolan Ryan didn't deserve to be in the HOF!!
I'd have to think two of the guys who have responded to this thread wanted Mariano Rivera kept out but they were overruled.
Intimidating pitchers?
Sam McDowell
Not a HOF candidate… but intimidating
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Sabathia was a very good pitcher, however, I never thought he was HOF caliber. Ever. Mickey Lolich has very similar numbers: Lolich IP 3638 ERA 3.44 SO 2832 WHIP 1.22 CG 195 SHO 41
Sabathia IP 3577 ERA 3.74 SO 3093 WHIP 1.25 CG 38 SHO 12
Of course Sabathia had 251 wins to Lolich's 217 but as we all know the win statistic is virtually meaningless.
Do I think Lolich is a HOFer? No I do not, and neither is Sabathia. Yes they pitched in different eras but a starting pitcher with an ERA of 3.74 is not hall of fame worthy. Jack Morris is in with a 3.90 ERA which is just crazy. I guess I just expect HOFers to be the best of the best. Is that too much to ask?
What is the basis for the argument you’re making? Sabathia’s winning percentage is .609. It doesn’t mean anything that Lolich had 86% as many wins. Lolich had a .532 winning percentage. That is more interesting than the difference from 217 to 251.
Before you want to compare these numbers across generations you should also consider normalizing your dataset.
Wins and winning percentage are MEANINGLESS.
This statistic is directly tied to team performance, i.e., RUN SUPPORT.
In 1991, Bill Gullickson was 20-9 with a 3.90 ERA for the Tigers. His teammate, Frank Tanana, was 13-12 - with a 3.77 ERA.
In 1987, Nolan Ryan led the AL with an ERA of 2.76. His record was 8-16.
W/L and Win% are AWFUL stats for measuring pitching performance.
On the same team, Jim Deshaies was 11-6 with an ERA of 4.62. Deshaies gave up 20% more runs than Ryan despite pitching 30% fewer innings.
W/L and Win% aren't merely AWFUL stats for measuring pitcher performance, they AREN'T stats for measuring pitcher performance. When teams win or lose that's obviously very important, but by randomly assigning the W or L to the pitcher they created a stat entirely devoid of meaning.
Just to add a few Mussina was 11-10 with a 5.15 era in 2007. Clemens was 13-8 with a 1.87 era in one of the best seasons of all time in 2005, Degrom was 10-9 with a 1.70 in 2018.
Wins dont mean anything for pitchers,
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
You stat freaks who claim to be the end all for HOF inclusion crack me up. You all seem to know what is meaningless, what to your way of thinking determines inclusion into the HOF?? I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for an answer.
yes of course teams can have a bullpen. I never said otherwise. but no, they do not have a big enough body of work to be considered for baseballs highest honor.
dont know why you keep bringing up football. entirely different sports/scenarios.
of course entire positions can be ignored by the hof. should we be inducting the GOAT pinch runner? How about the GOAT pinch hitters? GOAT late innning defensive replacement? GOAT utility infielder?
pitching 1000 innings is what, about the equivalent of a hitter getting 3000 ABś? yes, closer is a position, but no they do not play enough to be considered.
it is like Palmiero winning the GG in 99, when playing, i think, in about 25 games at 1b. everyone laughed at that
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
because pitcher wins are a really bad metric with which to evaluate pitchers.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I tend to agree that Sabathia is a question. First ballot HOFer is a real surprise.
Mark Buehrle threw 3,283 innings with a 117 ERA+
Sabathia threw 3,577 innings with a 116 ERA+
I don't see how 300 innings makes Sabathia a first ballot and Buerhle just another footnote on the ballot getting just 11% of the vote. Buehrle retired with more in the tank too. He easily had another couple hundred innings at above league average efficiency left in the tank had he wanted to continue.
I agree that over the course of a career, 300 innings is negligible. Buehrle and CC are pretty close. CC has more K's.
now think about this: those same 300 innings that most would consider not very meaningful when comparing the two pitchers make up fully 1/3 of Billy Wagners entire body of work. that is how little "closers" actually pitch and part of the reason I dont think any of them belong in the hall.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
They should be considered against their peers though.. A reliever shouldnt be judged against a starting pitcher just like a pitcher shouldnt be judged against a hitter who polays every day and has more games in 2-3 years than a pitcher will in their entire career.
As long as the position exists they should be eligible to make the HOF they just need to be considered for what they were.
GG is mostly a popularity vote. All Star games has become pretty meaningless too with fan voting like when Scott Rolen was voted into the game while injured and only playing 56 games just because the Cardinals have a large and strong fan base
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I asked what the basis for your argument was. I’m not saying wins or winning percentage is the only criteria which matters at all.
But. It’s not as meaningless as you guys are trying to say it is either. The impact of randomness is reduced in the aggregate. One win? Large impact. One season? Can still be influenced heavily. An entire career? Much less likely. I’m aware of some really bad luck pitchers who spent their entire career on bad teams and their career W-L suffered for it. Jim McCormick comes to mind. These outliers are pretty rare. A pitcher has the largest impact of any player on the field in the outcome of the game.
It’s simply not true that wins or losses are a totally meaningless statistic for pitchers. It’s not the only meaningful stat. But to understand that it’s not the only meaningful stat doesn’t mean it’s meaningless. I would appreciate hearing a clinical scientific explanation of this theory. I can’t dispute that there is a rational argument here but where I struggle is. What you’re asking me to accept is that a win or loss is either completely random or not impacted by the quality of a pitchers performance at all. And before anyone walks this back saying. Woah woah. I didn’t mean meaningless - well. Then pick a better word.
My feedback on the second assertion that wins are directly correlated to runs is that it’s likely accurate. The probability that a team wins likely increases, somewhat linearly, with the number of runs they produce. However doesn’t that also mean that a teams probability of winning, also, decreases, also somewhat linearly, when they don’t produce runs?
Which position on the field has the largest influence on how many runs the other team produces?
Again. There are many variables which impact the win/loss result but in the aggregate, probabilities are impacted primarily by performance and randomness has less impact. I’m eager to be proven wrong, but less eager to just be told I’m wrong.
Im not a fan of the whole first ballot thing., To me youre either a HOF or not. These guys arent going anything to improve their resume between their first appearance on the ballot and their 10th. Its one thing if you run out of votes and just think theres more worthy candidates but I think the whole I wont vote for him the first tine but I will the 7th time thing is just stupid.
I honestly think the CC thing is just a popularity vote. Hes a pretty charismatic guy and everyone loved how he would always make fun of Angel Hernadez for being so horrendous at his job. As much as I laughed and enjoyed all that it shouldnt have impacted his HOF voting but I think it did. Theres just simply a ton of guys with careers similar to his that got little to no consideration
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
GG is voted on by sportswriters just as HOF induction is. if you consider GG to be "mostly a popularity vote" then to be intellectually consistent you must consider HOF voting exactly the same.
I would question if there is a seperate "position" when it comes to pitchers. we have given them descriptors, but all are still pitchers, right? some pitchers stay in the game longer than others. some start games, some enter in the middle of games and some at the end. some pitchers pitch a whole lot, others do not. those that pitch a whole lot have more value than those who only pitch a litte. that is why I always put parenthesis around "closer" they are all just pitchers.
do we have a different name for a player who replaces the second baseman late in the game? of course not, they are just second basemen. they are considered 4's in the box score just like every pitcher is considered a 1 regardless of when they enter the game.
I think when pitchers are considered for the HOF they should all be judged as pitchers. those that only pitched just a little (closers) do not have as much value as those who pitch more. that is why I dont think "closers" belong. they didnt play enough. Wagner is a great example. 900 IP in his entire career.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think you need to be more fair.
First. I said this.
This was in response to this.
As you can see, I did not incorporate any Win-Loss or Win-Loss-Percentage into my coarse assessment.
I did mention 251 Wins, because this is significant. Is it absolutely everything? No. Is it absolutely nothing? No?
I also mention 3K Ks, Cy Young, A WS Championship, and the year 2008, where he changed the trajectory of an organization.
I've seen his ERA mentioned multiple times as an absolute value. 3.78. In 2017 he had a 3.65 ERA and a 122 ERA+. I don't mention this because it was a dominant season - it was at the tail-end of his career. I'm just showing that the mean for ERA moves around from season to season because of various factors.
I didn't get 5 limited examples where performance didn't match outcome for the first assessment, but I did for this response. I think I understand how probability works, and I have a fair understanding of randomness. I've read Taleb's quartet.... if you count listening to a couple on audible - The Black Swan is certainly entertaining if not informative.
I stand by this statement. What does this statement actually say?
It was in response to this.
I'm not reducing my argument to a simple Win-Loss count or ratio. I'm not adding any new information. Just "taking the derivative" to get closer to a meaningful value. Note: I'm not actually taking a derivative here - I'm just invoking that as a figure of speech. What I'm doing in this response is merely looking at Wins and Losses as a ratio rather than Wins vs Wins for two players from different eras as an absolute. Neither is the statistic that promotes either inclusion or exclusion in the HOF, but one is less interesting than the other.
Please put the pitchforks away. The Strawmen are scurred.
BGR to be fair I read this as you making the wins stat of high importance as well.
I suppose it is on me that the statement is not clearly articulated. While I do equate a winning with performance, I do understand that there are outliers. Here's what I observe.
So, to your point, and also because I respect your opinion and enjoy your analysis and the time you take to express your thoughts.
I don't just look at Wins, though, if a Pitcher ends their career with 250,300,350, that was most likely a great career. It implies certain things - longevity, consistency, performance above average. This informs us to peek into their career accomplishments more carefully and when we do with CC, I think there are a few things which stand out to me... those badges which other HOF pitchers also seem to have.
But I take that longevity, consistency, etc. a bit further. The percentage of starts where the starting pitcher receives a decision. Win or Lose, this tells me something useful. In the outcome of a particular game, again Win or Lose, I think there are 2 stats of high importance - I don't know what slice of the pie they have, but it's something that can be determined with the available data. I intentionally didn't do this yet because it's more fun to consider it first before testing the hypothesis. The performance of the pitcher and the performance of the offense are the two main factors impacting Wins and Losses and then there's a lot of other variables with lesser impact, again, in the aggregate.
So I think it's hard to say that Wins are important to me, but they're important in context of a career, not in a discrete view, or even a smaller subset of a career, and not for a career without enough samples to achieve statistical significance, and it's hard to say that while it's not a true indicator of quality of performance, it's not-not an indicator of quality of performance. So, I agree that Wins, or Win-Loss Percentage, doesn't tell you everything. But I dispute that Wins and Win-Loss Percentage tell you NOTHING. There is, in fact, a vast spectrum between those polar opposites.
I think Sabathia is worthy the HOF and I am a little surprised that it seems to absolute to some people that he doesn't merit even consideration. I haven't heard any supporting argument here which prompted me to reconsider my perspective. The Jave Peavy and Micky Lolich arguments didn't seem that well thought-out to me. That doesn't mean they're wrong, but I have trouble with them. The Peavy comparison was pretty absurd. The Lolich comparison didn't make a lot of sense, because it only looked at the top-line. I only pointed out that Lolich ended his career where one might expect with regard to W-L-%.
There are likely Thousands of examples of game outcomes which don't match pitching performance.
Probably Hundreds of examples of season outcomes which don't match pitching performance.
Likely Tens of examples of career outcomes which don't match pitching performance.
But have you considered the denominators?
I do in large part consider the current HOF voting to be a popularity vote. Bonds,, Clemens, Palmerio, etc are not in the HOF because they were jerks to the voters, meanwhile Ortiz who actually was suspended for using PEDs got put in right away because he was more likeable. Schilling was left out of the HOF because of his politics.
The younger newer voters are doing a better job when you look at the break downs of who voted for who, but the old guard writers have 0 intellectual consistency with their votes and a lot of them are just voting for people they like and not voting for people they dont which has hurt the legitimacy of the HOF
All star appearances are tainted as well now with the fan voting. Its fine since the game is for the fans but it shouldnt be something that is considered for HOF status
They are and they arent all still pitchers. Its a different role, starters and relievers dont train the same way, they dont warm up the same way, and theres a reason why a lot of the times when a starter is used in a relief role they end up getting lit up.
There wouldnt be any catchers in the HOF if they were held to the same standards a a first baseman, same with 2nd base, most of the 3rd basemen would get kicked out too etc. Every position is judged against their peers and it shouldnt be any different for pitchers being separated as starters and relievers.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Here we go.
Just because you don't see the Bull doesn't mean you don't have to watch your step. So who else has looked at "who voted for who" because the information isn't public. Stop the lies.
that is a lot of words just to say that pitcher is one position.
¨They are and they arent all still pitchers¨ this is patently incorrect. they are ALL pitchers. some of them only pitch just a little bit and mostly when they can come into a clean inning and only need to record 3 outs. they dont have to face lineups multiple times or pace themselves when they pitch. they have great advantages and only have to pitch just a little. that is why i do not consider any of them HOF worthy
a 1 in baseball is still a 1 whether they pitch 8 innings or only 1. they should not be given passes because they were only called on to throw 1 inning. there were reasons they were only called on to throw one inning. namely, they were unable to be good enough to get a lineup out more than one time.
look at a guy like Smoltz. got injured and became an all world ¨closer¨
it is funny that it never seems to go the other way
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Yes Technically they are all pitchers. If how they warm up, train, workout the same no its not and its not even close. Starters take an hour to warm up, revilers and closer never know when theyre going in. Their innings are shorter for sure which also means they dont have any margin for error. One bad inning can ruin their era for the year.
Revilers and closers also get stood up and pitching numerous innings to not be brought into the game.
The reason it rarely goes the other way goes back to traqining, warm ups, stretching out, and so on. Starters arent good closers either, it goes both ways
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
???
I literally quoted you mentioning W/L and %.
You did. I mentioned W/L and %. I did not incorporate Win-Loss or Win-Loss-Percentage into my coarse assessment.
I did reference Win-Loss-Percentage in my response to zendude though. I said W-L-% was much more interesting than comparing W alone. I know.... crazy. I mentioned it again. Weird. I must think that how many Wins a pitcher has is the only thing that is important! Call the police.
i dont know about that. Eck was a pretty good ¨closer¨ so was Smoltz. I remember when they tried to transition papelbon to a starter. didnt work out. he couldnt cut it. Eck only became a ¨closer¨ after he was washed as a starter. Smoltz only did it after an injury meant he couldnt ¨start¨ for a few years. then, after he was physically able, he went back to the more valuable role. he became an all world ¨closer¨ then transitioned back. if ¨closers¨ were so valuable, why didnt the braves keep him in that role? he was dominating.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It defilement dosent work out either way
Closers have no margin of error for their era
Starters cant be closers and closers cant be starters Position players have more games in 3 years than a starting pitcher do , redelivers have a bigger impact on more games in their career than starters do as well
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
.
hardly. you think billy wagner and his 900 career innings had bigger impact on more games than roger clemens and his 4900 innings?
not. even. close.
and john smoltz begs to differ...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Clemens should no question be in the HOF.
I dont believe in comparing starters and relievers, but if we were going to do it Clemens appeared in 709 regular season games, Wagner appeared in 853 reguylar season games. Clemens had more innings no doubt, but in terms of games that they had an impact on Wagner impacted over 100 more regular season games than Clemens did
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007