I'll admit you're a blowhard who can't help posting asinine observations morning, noon and night.
Really, this begging of yours is getting too pathetic. I know you'd like me to continue to play this dopey game with you, but you're too idiotic for words. I know I'm not the first (or the hundreth) person to tell you to F off, but I guess you never learn, clown.
Ok, now post again your dopey response below....3...2...1...
LOL, you're way too predictable, it's not even funny...
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.
I'll admit you're a blowhard who can't help posting asinine observations morning, noon and night. >>
They are so 'asinine', yet you can't let them go without replying...*that's* pathetic!
<< <i>Really, this begging of yours is getting too pathetic. I know you'd like me to continue to play this dopey game with you, but you're too idiotic for words. I know I'm not the first (or the hundreth) person to tell you to F off, but I guess you never learn, clown. >>
hahah then issue your formal apology, and we'll be done. Or do you prefer to continue to have your damn head bashed in with every post of mine?
<< <i>Ok, now post again your dopey response below....3...2...1... >>
Hmm this from a guy who furiously refreshed the forum allllll night long, then posted a response to mine 4 minutes later? ASSCLOWN.
<< <i>LOL, you're way too predictable, it's not even funny... >>
Predictable in posting a reply? Then what does that make you, assbag?
All that typing and highlighting and quotes, wow, that's alot of time you spend on me, huh, sparky. Sorry, I don't have the time for you, though, Mr. Morning Noon & Night Poster.
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.
Why don't you go take your pathetic, miserable self out of this sports forum? I mean hell, 'your' ny mets are done, having choked away the NLCS...so what sense is there for you to stay?
I think both Raines and Edgar Martinez will get high % vote totals in their first year of eligibility. Just as you have writers that don't vote for first year candidates, you have a bunch of writers who will purposely vote for that first year guy.
Edgar will be a HOFer within his first 5 years of eligibility. He has a lot going for him--Team loyalty for one--he played his whole career with the M's which still means something to the writers. He was a seven time all star, 6 times as a DH, and once as a 3rd baseman. Molitor is in in most peoples eyes as a DH, so the standard has been set. And add in the David Ortiz factor--the writers will be looking for a way to pave that path for Big Papi (if Papi can get 6 more years together like the past 4).
I just hope the M's do it right and get a good PR promotion going for Edgar as he gets closer to eligibility. Right now, he is regarded in the same breath as Dawson and Rice, and a little PR would've helped those guys.
Next MONTH? So he's saying that if he wins, the best-case scenario is that he'll be paying for it two weeks after the auction ends?
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
2247 hits & 309 Home Runs isn't not HOF material, especially when you're talking about a guy that played DH in 1412 of the 2055 games he sutied up. He was also one of the slowest guys in baseball.
Now he did have a great 7 year stretch, but when you put those numbers up over 18 years and expect HOF debate --- well, let's just say --- you shouldn't get defensive here.
<< <i> It's an absolute fair analogy. They only play half the game...based on your own flawed premise, pitchers shouldn't be in the hall of fame.
>>
to me, the DH was never meant to be part of the game. Something tells me the Edgar supporters are going to be yelling for years the way Mattingly guys do. Also, if Edgar did every get into the Hall of Fame before Jim Rice it would be a travesty. Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in the AL for nearly a decade with the numbers to back it up. He put up those numbers well before the juiced ball era. Also he played a very good outfield for years and years instead of getting splinters in his a$$ between at bats.
<< <i> to me, the DH was never meant to be part of the game. Something tells me the Edgar supporters are going to be yelling for years the way Mattingly guys do. Also, if Edgar did every get into the Hall of Fame before Jim Rice it would be a travesty. Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in the AL for nearly a decade with the numbers to back it up. He put up those numbers well before the juiced ball era. Also he played a very good outfield for years and years instead of getting splinters in his a$$ between at bats.
>>
Rice will get in in 2008, it's almost guaranteed. The Hall likes having live bodies at their induction ceremonies.
Next MONTH? So he's saying that if he wins, the best-case scenario is that he'll be paying for it two weeks after the auction ends?
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
In a nutshell, what you are saying is that regardless of your position on the field, what truly matters is how much a player contributes to runs/wins...and it makes no difference on the path it took him to create the runs/wins, just as long as he created enough of them to merit consideration. You cite Ozzie Smith, and starting pitchers.
If I can add to your reasoning? If Ozzie Smith was responsible for creating 120 wins above the average player, mostly by virtue of defense, and if Dave Winfield was able to create 120 wins above the average player, mostly by virtue of offense, it doesn't matter how they achieved their results. But what really matters is that their overall level of contributions are on similar HOF par.
Same for SP's. If Tom Seaver, by playing only once every five games created 135 wins above average replacement, and George Brett created the same number of wins over the average replacement...albeit by having to play in 155 games per year, it makes no difference on how they accomplished thier value, but what their value WAS! And that is the key, what is their value!
Did Edgar Martinez create enough TOTAL value, using good measurement techniques, to achieve HOF status....knowing of course that all of his value is going to be coming from hitting only. My thoughts on Edgar specifically....
Edgar has some of the best percentages of his era, BUT his games played are low on a yearly basis, which limits the actual number of runs/wins he is responsible for(as compared to players with similar percentages and more games played). The resulting effect is that he comes up a little short in actualy runs/wins contributions for HOF merit.
It makes no difference if he was a DH accumulating those results. If he had played 155 games a year at those same percentages, then he would most definitely have the same value has your Palmeiro's, Bagwell's, etc....as defense would be included in that mix already.
A DH with 130 wins created, compared to an OF with 130 wins created is the same value, realizing that the outfielders contributions come from both bat and glove, while Edgar's only the bat....but it doesn't matter where they came from, just the total amount!
In a nutshell, what you are saying is that regardless of your position on the field, what truly matters is how much a player contributes to runs/wins...and it makes no difference on the path it took him to create the runs/wins, just as long as he created enough of them to merit consideration. You cite Ozzie Smith, and starting pitchers.
If I can add to your reasoning? If Ozzie Smith was responsible for creating 120 wins above the average player, mostly by virtue of defense, and if Dave Winfield was able to create 120 wins above the average player, mostly by virtue of offense, it doesn't matter how they achieved their results. But what really matters is that their overall level of contributions are on similar HOF par.
Same for SP's. If Tom Seaver, by playing only once every five games created 135 wins above average replacement, and George Brett created the same number of wins over the average replacement...albeit by having to play in 155 games per year, it makes no difference on how they accomplished thier value, but what their value WAS! And that is the key, what is their value!
Did Edgar Martinez create enough TOTAL value, using good measurement techniques, to achieve HOF status....knowing of course that all of his value is going to be coming from hitting only. My thoughts on Edgar specifically....
Edgar has some of the best percentages of his era, BUT his games played are low on a yearly basis, which limits the actual number of runs/wins he is responsible for(as compared to players with similar percentages and more games played). The resulting effect is that he comes up a little short in actualy runs/wins contributions for HOF merit.
It makes no difference if he was a DH accumulating those results. If he had played 155 games a year at those same percentages, then he would most definitely have the same value has your Palmeiro's, Bagwell's, etc....as defense would be included in that mix already.
A DH with 130 wins created, compared to an OF with 130 wins created is the same value, realizing that the outfielders contributions come from both bat and glove, while Edgar's only the bat....but it doesn't matter where they came from, just the total amount!
I think Mattingly is the key comparison to Martinez in this sense, assuming that their numbers are pretty similar (which I don't have in front of me but recall them to be fairly comparable), and Mattingly is NOT in the HOF, despite the fact that he was an excellent defensive first baseman, one of the best of his era, then Martinez will not get in before Mattingly, who it appears will not get in any time soon.
In the United States of America Mcgwire is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and cannot be imprisoned for his actions unless that happens, but the Baseball Writers of America are not, and should not, be held to the standards for something ultimately inconsequential like induction to a Hall of Fame (when compared to imprisonment) as jurys and judges are. If they believe he cheated, and there is overwhelming "evidence" (again, not a court of law) that he did, they can vote as their consciense leads.
The DH is not a position and to compare players who also did not play a position and determine who is the best of them is not the way to go. DH's are eligible for the HOF and will get there based on their hitting. They will not be helped by their DH status as it compares to other DH's in the same way that a second baseman is "helped" by comparing his numbers to another second baseman. The reason DH's are DH's is because of their htting and their perceived lack of ability to play in the field, whether that be because of age, lack of speed or ability, or injury. They cannot be graded on their hitting on a curve, the way shortstops have been, because they do not do anything besides hit. All this is not to say that a DH cannot be a HOFer, it just means they will have to be really really great for a long period of time like anyone else, and can get no benefit from any other contribution. I think if Martinez had played a few more years at the level he did he would be a much stronger candidate, but he started late, and did not extend at the end of his career as some have done, and that probably will hurt his chances.
I am buying and trading for RC's of Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Cousy! Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
How about a comparison to Dale Murphy who is NOT in the HOF?
Martinez has 136 more hits than Murphy. Martinez was about 40 points higer in batting average. Martinez is .072 better OBP. Martinez only scored 19 more runs than Murphy. Martinez led the league in BA twice, OBP three times, runs once, and RBIs once. According to baseball-reference.com, the three most similar hitters were Will Clark, John Olerud, and Bernie Williams.
Murphy has 94 more HRs and only 5 more RBIs. Murphy has 112 more SB's. Murphy led the league in slugging % twice, runs once, HRs twice, and RBIs twice and MVP TWICE back to back years! We have to account Murphys DEFENSIVE accomplishments also...5 time GOLD GLOVE winner. According to baseball-reference.com, the three most similar hitters where Joe Carter, Duke Snider (HOF), and Don Baylor.
I feel if anything, this is a pretty fine example why there is a player more deserving to be in the HOF. I don't know if he does deserve it or not, just MORE deserving especially for the reasons of being named MVP twice and being a multi-year gold glove winner. Reason I am using Murphy as a comparison is that I am only trying to show that I dont think Martinez is in if Murphy isnt. I am not trying to show up Edgar Martinez because he was an incredible hitter and deserves MUCH recognition for it.
<< <i> I also think it'll greatly help Mr. McGwire
McGwire is a cheater and deserves less consideration than Martinez, IMO.
>>
This is the United States of America. Mr. McGwire is presumed innocent until proven guilty. >>
no, this is the baseball HOF voting members we're talking about...plenty will make the assumption of guilt without proof. >>
Maybe so, but that doesn't make it right. I mean, how would you feel if you were arrested for something and all your friends just assumed you were guilty just because you were arrested for it?
As for the "evidence" against Mr. McGwire, all I've seen so far is him using a legal (at that time) supplement and essentially pleading the Fifth Amendment at the Congressional hearings. Is there any hard evidence that Mr. McGwire used any illegal substance (banned by MLB at the time of its use). And NO, do not use that stupid Canseco book. Until and unless that happens, I stand by my vote for McGwire in '07 (and Ripken, Gwynn, Blyleven, Rice, Dawson, Gossage, Murphy...)
<< <i>How about a comparison to Dale Murphy who is NOT in the HOF?
Martinez has 136 more hits than Murphy. Martinez was about 40 points higer in batting average. Martinez is .072 better OBP. Martinez only scored 19 more runs than Murphy. Martinez led the league in BA twice, OBP three times, runs once, and RBIs once. According to baseball-reference.com, the three most similar hitters were Will Clark, John Olerud, and Bernie Williams. >>
Can you please knock it off with the comparisons to people who played different positions? Compare him to DH's only, and you'll see he dominated his position.
<< <i>Murphy has 94 more HRs and only 5 more RBIs. Murphy has 112 more SB's. Murphy led the league in slugging % twice, runs once, HRs twice, and RBIs twice and MVP TWICE back to back years! We have to account Murphys DEFENSIVE accomplishments also...5 time GOLD GLOVE winner. According to baseball-reference.com, the three most similar hitters where Joe Carter, Duke Snider (HOF), and Don Baylor. >>
Again, you are making invalid comparisons. That's like comparing a second baseman to an outfielder - it's an invalid comparison.
<< <i>I feel if anything, this is a pretty fine example why there is a player more deserving to be in the HOF. I don't know if he does deserve it or not, just MORE deserving especially for the reasons of being named MVP twice and being a multi-year gold glove winner. Reason I am using Murphy as a comparison is that I am only trying to show that I dont think Martinez is in if Murphy isnt. I am not trying to show up Edgar Martinez because he was an incredible hitter and deserves MUCH recognition for it. >>
Comparing Murphy to other outfielders, and you'll see why he's not in the hall. Compare Edgar to other DH's, and you'll see why he does.
I am buying and trading for RC's of Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Cousy! Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
With all due respect to everyone who argues against his induction, if you can't see from looking at the record that Bert Blyleven had a HOF career then you're missing a great game. He is not "close" to HOF level, he is not a "borderline" HOFer, he does not even belong in the bottom half of the HOF. He was better than MOST of the pitchers in the HOF. And a LOT better than the Eppa Rixeys, Vic Willis's and Catfish Hunters that stain the floor of the Hall.
Edgar Martinez was one hell of a hitter, but as skinpinch pointed out he is way below even most borderline HOFers in the time he spent at that level. Had he gotten to the majors before he was 24, established himself as an everyday player before he was 27, and not sat out most of what probably would have been two of his best seasons at 30 and 31 then he'd probably be a shoo-in. But he didn't, he didn't and he did, respectively, and so he doesn't deserve to get in. Even so, he has a much better claim than Jim Rice.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I used to enjoy Blyleven pitch and believes he deserves the HOF. I think his relationship with the media and the HOF committee is what has held him back. He is very vocal about his non-induction, almost if not definately coming off as pompous. But there are more pompus in the Hall...vote him in, he deserves it.
You know, I was looking at the Wikipedia article regarding the upcoming 2007 election, and realized that Harold Baines will be eligible for the first time. He does have over 1,600 RBIs and over 2,800 hits and probably holds the record for most times his number was retired, then "unretired" when he came back as a player or coach three times. Anyway, do you think he belongs in the HOF? He may not have 3,000 hits, but I'd say he's close enough. I vote yes.
Harold Baines is to hitting what some want to believe Bert Blyleven was to pitching - just above average for a long time. Baines made the top 5 in hitting "skill" categories (leaving out games played, GIDP, etc.) a grand total of 5 times, and led the league in a skill category only once (slugging in 1984). Blyleven's figures, for comparison, are 83 top 5's and 10 #1's, and that's not counting innings pitched as a skill category or he'd be at 89 and 12. And Baines and Blyleven both played their best years in hitters parks, so Baines' numbers are really less impressive than they look (if that's possible) while Blyleven's are even more impressive than they look.
You will not find a HOFer who isn't in for his fielding with numbers anywhere near as anemic as Baines', and you will not find a pitcher not already in the HOF with numbers that are not dwarfed by Blyleven's.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Bert should get into the Hall, Edgar should also, as well as Jack Morris, Jim Rice, and Dale Murphy. Will it happen? I think it will be up to the Veterans' committee, because those who vote now are a bunch of hapless dolts.
Just pointing out how much of a hypocrit you are axtey.
dallas with all due respect Catfish Hunter? I suggest you go back and look at his stats. to say he stains the floor of the hall is just not accurate. IMO.
as for blyleven I believe that overall he has the stats, but if you look deep you will see too many 500 seasons. 17 and 16 and so on.
I think he, John and Kaat all got clumped in together and missed the cut cuz all the other guys from their era won 300. The Niekros, Suttons and so on.
Excellent and thought provoking posts by dallasactuary. Great points. Well done! (Also, I agree with them, which helps...)
I am buying and trading for RC's of Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Cousy! Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
And by saying that DH is not a position, I am not denting its existence in MLB, or making a value judgment on it one way or another, I am simply stating that it is not a position in the sense that a DH does not take the field defensively, i.e. does not play a "defensive position." They cannot be judged by anything other than their hitting, which should be exceptional to merit HOF consideration, the way a 1B or outfielder is judged. It is not fair to compare them against others who did not play defensively and say "They are better than the other DH's." They have to be as good as other "non-defensive" position playing HOFers, as it relates to their hitting stats to be considered. Does that make sense?
I am buying and trading for RC's of Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Cousy! Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>dallas with all due respect Catfish Hunter? I suggest you go back and look at his stats. to say he stains the floor of the hall is just not accurate. IMO.
as for blyleven I believe that overall he has the stats, but if you look deep you will see too many 500 seasons. 17 and 16 and so on. >>
Catfish Hunter?
For his career, had an ERA 4% better than an average pitcher. Gave up 50 fewer runs over his career than an average pitcher would have.
Top-5 in skill categories: 30, led league: 7
3449 innings pitched for his career.
Mike Cuellar?
For his career, had an ERA 9% better than an average pitcher. Gave up 90 fewer runs over his career than an average pitcher would have.
Top-5 in skill categories: 28, led league: 2
2808 innings pitched for his career.
Dennis Martinez?
For his career, had an ERA 6% better than an average pitcher. Gave up 100 fewer runs over his career than an average pitcher would have.
Top-5 in skill categories: 27, led league: 5
4000 innings pitched for his career.
Don Sutton?
For his career, had an ERA 8% better than an average pitcher. Gave up 150 fewer runs over his career than an average pitcher would have.
Top-5 in skill categories: 61, led league: 10
5282 innings pitched for his career.
To me, Don Sutton should be the worst pitcher in the HOF. He had a very long career and performed at an above average level nearly every year and had just enough great years to separate him from merely ordinary pitchers. And he was so much better than Hunter that it almost seems like an insult to Sutton to compare the two. I honestly do not see that there is a rational basis for comparing the two and determining that Hunter was even close to as good. On the other hand, Hunter compares nicely to Mike Cuellar and Dennis Martinez; I'll give him the nod by a whisker over Cuellar and give Martinez the nod - again by a whisker - over Hunter. I don't think either Cuellar or Martinez belong in the HOF; in fact, I don't think either one of them is even close. Likewise, Hunter wasn't even close to good enough to belong in the HOF. Does he "stain" the HOF by his presence? I think he does, but he's hardly the only one.
As for Blyleven, I agree that "looking deep" has everything to do with seeing how great he was. But I consider looking at won/lost records to be the opposite of looking deep. Consider 1973: Blyleven was the best pitcher in the AL that year, his seventh place finish in the Cy Young voting notwithstanding. He pitched most of his games in hitter's parks for a team that couldn't hit (except for Carew), couldn't field, and had a weak bullpen. Yes, he was 20-17 that year, and if you don't look deep you might say that that's only 3 games over .500 and not very good. Catfish Hunter, pitching in the number 1 pitcher's park in the league on the best team in the league went 21-5, and he wasn't nearly as good as Blyleven that year. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that had Blyleven been allowed to pitch for the teams that Hunter got to pitch for he would have won well over 300 games in his career, he would have gone in to the HOF on the first ballot and nobody would ever have thought twice about it. Nor is there any doubt in my mind that had Hunter pitched for Blyleven's teams he would not have won 200 games, he would not have gotten a single vote for the HOF and nobody would have thought twice about it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
That is alot of 'ifs' dallas. if the babe was never born he would not have had 714 homers either.
I think you miss some very important facts regarding Hunter. You and some others feel that won-lost does not carry weight when in fact it does. To say that if a guy played for a losing team he would not have the wins is ridicoulous. Could it be that he made the team better? The guy did pitch a perfect game. People can twist and turn stats all different ways. The people that count chose Hunter that is all that matters.
And if I had to pick a pitcher for a big game I'd choose Sutton over many in the hall. he was a pitcher.
Stats tell half the story, it seems the other half is made up by those that try to interpret them.
Steve
edited to add: even Bill james (who you suscribe to) claims that Hunter is a vitual lock for the HOF.
Under his same asessment he claims martinez falls way short.
W-L record is a very poor way of measuring how good a pitcher is/was. Oddly though, career W-L records tend to correlate fairly accurately with the much better evaluation methods...FOR MOST! Why? Becuase run support, defense behind, or bullpen tend to even out between two pitchers over the course of their career. The more games played, the more things even out. But, it doesn't do it for all pitchers, and Blyleven and Hunter happen to be a couple of them.
Your assertion that stats tell half the story and how you interepret them really isn't accurate. The nature of baseball allows a very strong portrayal of the value of a player based on his results....only when the variables are seprated and it is the results that the player was responsible for, and not the external results that are being used. A Won Loss record is based VERY HEAVILY on external forces out of an individuals control.
Your assertion of interpretation really should be applied to "WHo Belongs in the Hall of Fame." This is where interpretation really comes into play. Hall of Fame criteria is vague, and Hall of Fame results are ambiguous at best. It isn't ambiguous at all as to how many runs Hunter was responsible for saving. But it is very ambiguous if he truly does belong in the Hall.
You once made some good points on Hunter's merit for inclusion. His peak factor was VERY nice...based on excellent pitching and over many innings. That indeed made him a force. You also noted that his career ERA suffered as the result of being promoted to the major leagues at a very young age. It was also noted by you that his injury also made the last part of his career a real drag on his career ERA as well. All valid points.
When looking at Hunter's peak performance he has nice merit...thanks mainly in part to pitching A LOT of effective innings(which helped his win total). When looking at his career performance, well his value isn't as high as others.
So, the interpretation shouldn't be directed at his run value, but rather at "of what merits Hall induction." Using past Hall examples only makes it more ambiguous, thus the reason for an almost never ending argument on these guys.
Question for you stat guys. Where do you go to get the stats about total number of top fives, and comparisons with other players? I have a few guys I would love to see compared!
I am buying and trading for RC's of Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Cousy! Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>Question for you stat guys. Where do you go to get the stats about total number of top fives, and comparisons with other players? I have a few guys I would love to see compared! >>
Here is where all the stats are; you do have to add up top fives and calculate "runs allowed less than average" for yourself, though.
<< <i>edited to add: even Bill james (who you suscribe to) claims that Hunter is a vitual lock for the HOF.
Under his same asessment he claims martinez falls way short.
Hunter 130 points
Martinez 67 points
100 is the HOF'r. >>
Steve -
While Bill James doesn't rate Hunter as low as I would (James grew up in KC and Hunter was his favorite player, and it shows in his evaluation of him I think), he does rate him 25 spots below Blyleven (HOF Monitor score 120) and 18 spots below Don Newcombe (HOF Monitor score 78).
Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of this is Jim Rice's HOF score of 146.5 and Roy White's score of 19. Bill James goes to great length to explain why Roy White was better than Jim Rice (and he's right about that, too).
Which is to say, James does not believe that the HOF Monitor is a good way to rate pitchers, but rather a good way to predict how HOF voters will rate pitchers. Suffice it to say that James holds HOF voters in very low regard.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Blyleven certainly belongs in the HOF if I get a vote. He came up young with the Twins and was good if not great from day one.
He came up at the end of the Twins run of good offensive players except for Carew. He must have lost more games 2-1 and 3-2 than anyone.
He had an excellent fastball and one of the best curveballs ever. When he retired he was third all-time in strikeouts.....that's dominating.
His hits and walks per inning pitched were for the most part just above 1.1....also dominating.
I have the feeling that he was a jerk to the writers, and I think he flipped off the fans once when he was booed. He was definitely not an a$$ kisser.
I read a book written by Ron Luciano (ex major league umpire) he said Hunter was one of the best ever, but didn't seem to care about statistics much, he would often admire long homeruns hit off of him.
Some ballplayers don't care about statistics, they go out and have fun.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Good ideas...let's keep watering down the Hall of Fame some more. I propose that one player from each team be elected to the Hall of Fame each year. We can make this two players or perhaps even five players from each team being elected to the Hall of Fame each year. Still not good enough? Okay. Then each year twenty-five players from each team to be elected to the Hall of Fame.
<< <i>Good ideas...let's keep watering down the Hall of Fame some more. I propose that one player from each team be elected to the Hall of Fame each year. We can make this two players or perhaps even five players from each team being elected to the Hall of Fame each year. Still not good enough? Okay. Then each year twenty-five players from each team to be elected to the Hall of Fame. >>
I couldn't agree more.
Basing your argument on who is already in the hall of fame shows just how far from the hall these guys are.
The hall should be the best of the best. Yes, mistakes have been made in the past. Let's not argue for more of these mistakes to be admitted into the hall.
<< <i>Good ideas...let's keep watering down the Hall of Fame some more. I propose that one player from each team be elected to the Hall of Fame each year. We can make this two players or perhaps even five players from each team being elected to the Hall of Fame each year. Still not good enough? Okay. Then each year twenty-five players from each team to be elected to the Hall of Fame. >>
I couldn't agree more.
Basing your argument on who is already in the hall of fame shows just how far from the hall these guys are.
The hall should be the best of the best. Yes, mistakes have been made in the past. Let's not argue for more of these mistakes to be admitted into the hall. >>
Totally right! For example letting a guy like Mazeroski in made me sick...and I liked Mazeroski as a player. But a Hall of Famer?...come on now! And a lot of good, honest ballplayers from that era also spokeup and were angry about Mazeroski getting in.
Mazeroski can't be voted out of course, but your point is perfect about not making "more of these mistakes."
<< <i>Good ideas...let's keep watering down the Hall of Fame some more. I propose that one player from each team be elected to the Hall of Fame each year. We can make this two players or perhaps even five players from each team being elected to the Hall of Fame each year. Still not good enough? Okay. Then each year twenty-five players from each team to be elected to the Hall of Fame. >>
I couldn't agree more, either. At this point, with Sutter and Hunter in the HOF, that standard would in fact lead to several hundred more players getting in. But just to be clear, Bert Blyleven belongs in on ANY standard. For some reason, Axtell has her panties in a bunch because I've pointed out several HOF pitchers who were not as good as Blyleven. If that information is not important to you, then feel free to ignore it.
But it boggles my mind that we are even having this discussion about a pitcher who is 10th all-time in games started, 13th all-time in innings, 5th all-time in strikeouts, 9th all-time in shutouts, was the best or second best pitcher in his league 4 times, was a phenomenal postseason pitcher and made the top-5 in important skill categories 83 times. Statistically and "dominance"ly, he is an absolute no-brainer so I am at a complete loss to explain why support for Blyleven being in the HOF is not as uncontroversial as it is for Drysdale, Early Wynn, Don Sutton or Bob Lemon (and several more) none of whom were as good as Blyleven.
Inducting Bert Blyleven does not water down the HOF; it actually raises it up, since he is better than more than half of the pitchers already there. Unless the argument is that more than half of the HOF are "mistakes", the "mistakes were made" argument is completely irrelevant here.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i> I couldn't agree more, either. At this point, with Sutter and Hunter in the HOF, that standard would in fact lead to several hundred more players getting in. But just to be clear, Bert Blyleven belongs in on ANY standard. For some reason, Axtell has her panties in a bunch because I've pointed out several HOF pitchers who were not as good as Blyleven. If that information is not important to you, then feel free to ignore it. >>
And feel free to ignore my posts about not letting in MORE mistakes like blyleven. Look, he had a very good career, but hardly hall worthy. The funny thing? The people who actually matter on this, the VOTERS, agree with me.
<< <i>But it boggles my mind that we are even having this discussion about a pitcher who is 10th all-time in games started, 13th all-time in innings, 5th all-time in strikeouts, 9th all-time in shutouts, was the best or second best pitcher in his league 4 times, >>
10th all time in games started - HELLO! He played 22 years. That hardly speaks to his dominance. 13th all time in innings - see above. 5th all time in strikeouts - he led the league ONCE in K's, this is yet just another byproduct of playing nearly a quarter century. 9th all time in shutouts - see above.
Best or second best four times? Where do you get this stuff? You're killing me here. His best finish in Cy Young voting (you know, the award that is for the BEST pitcher) was THIRD...he was never the 'best' or 'second best' - EVER. So where do you come up with four times?
<< <i> was a phenomenal postseason pitcher and made the top-5 in important skill categories 83 times. >>
Wow, you're reaching now.
<< <i> Statistically and "dominance"ly, he is an absolute no-brainer so I am at a complete loss to explain why support for Blyleven being in the HOF is not as uncontroversial as it is for Drysdale, Early Wynn, Don Sutton or Bob Lemon (and several more) none of whom were as good as Blyleven. >>
Again, when you base your comparison against others in the hall, you really know you have no basis for argument.
<< <i>Inducting Bert Blyleven does not water down the HOF; it actually raises it up, since he is better than more than half of the pitchers already there. Unless the argument is that more than half of the HOF are "mistakes", the "mistakes were made" argument is completely irrelevant here. >>
So you're proposing to make 'just one more' mistake?
Look, it's quite easy to sum up why blyleven doesn't belong in the hall:
NO Cy Young awards (at best, a third place finish, and that happened only twice) NO ERA titles (top three just THREE times in 22 years!) ONE strikeout title (again, in 22 years) TWO all star appearances (in 22 years!)
He wasn't the best of the best among his time (as the lack of all star appearances clearly show), so what in god's name makes you think he deserves to be among the best of the best to ever play? I have to think you must be sitting on a lot of blyleven rookie cards or something.
What next, you'll be arguing for Jim Kaat's induction! He's got nearly the same ERA (3.45 vs. 3.31), more all star appearances (three vs. two), so he should be in the hall too, right?
Not nearly as much of a joke as allowing Catfish Hunter in whose only main crediential is five 20 win seasons; did he even do anything else that could possibly bloster his HOF case?
Axty the majority of guys in the hall have 18-20 years of service or MORE and I did not say 'play 22 years and you are a hall of famer. Knowing that you have trouble comprehending what people say I'll help you along. What i said was that playing 22 years is what CAN HELP a player become a hall of famer. NOT ALL players that play 22 years. Big difference that you seem to have a problem with. what part of that do you find as a joke? or do you think that 20 year service time is new? go and look up some players and educate yourself before you open your yap into which you have no idea of what you spout. Cobb, Ruth etc all played for 20 years!
estil besides 5 straight 20 win seasons like you say, he also has 5 WS rings. he was the first free agent, pitched a perfect game, for those 5 years he was one of the dominate pitchers of his era. do you need to know any more?
ignorance regarding hunter seems to abound around here.
<< <i>Axty the majority of guys in the hall have 18-20 years of service or MORE and I did not say 'play 22 years and you are a hall of famer. >>
When did I ever dispute that? I was simply laughing at your assertion that Kaat should be in the hall for playing 22 years.
<< <i>or do you think that 20 year service time is new? go and look up some players and educate yourself before you open your yap into which you have no idea of what you spout. >>
I think YOU are the one with reading comprehension issues!!!
<< <i>estil besides 5 straight 20 win seasons like you say, he also has 5 WS rings. he was the first free agent, pitched a perfect game, for those 5 years he was one of the dominate pitchers of his era. do you need to know any more? >>
20 wins is HARDLY a way to demonstrate a pitcher's dominance - it simply tells you how good his teams were.
No dopey it is you that has the comprehension probs I never said Kaat played 22 seasons. I was reffering to Blyleven. kaat played more then 22. Like I said go and educate yourself then come back here and talk to me.
And yes you have said in the past that 20 year guys do not make a hall of famer. I dispute that by saying (clearly) that 20 years of service CAN help a guy get in.
Comments
So you won't admit to being wrong in calling me a racist to save the forum all your petty squabbling?
At least admit that, chithead.
I'll admit you're a blowhard who can't help posting asinine observations morning, noon and night.
Really, this begging of yours is getting too pathetic. I know you'd like me to continue to play this dopey game with you, but you're too idiotic for words. I know I'm not the first (or the hundreth) person to tell you to F off, but I guess you never learn, clown.
Ok, now post again your dopey response below....3...2...1...
LOL, you're way too predictable, it's not even funny...
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.
<< <i>At least admit that, chithead.
I'll admit you're a blowhard who can't help posting asinine observations morning, noon and night. >>
They are so 'asinine', yet you can't let them go without replying...*that's* pathetic!
<< <i>Really, this begging of yours is getting too pathetic. I know you'd like me to continue to play this dopey game with you, but you're too idiotic for words. I know I'm not the first (or the hundreth) person to tell you to F off, but I guess you never learn, clown. >>
hahah then issue your formal apology, and we'll be done. Or do you prefer to continue to have your damn head bashed in with every post of mine?
<< <i>Ok, now post again your dopey response below....3...2...1... >>
Hmm this from a guy who furiously refreshed the forum allllll night long, then posted a response to mine 4 minutes later? ASSCLOWN.
<< <i>LOL, you're way too predictable, it's not even funny... >>
Predictable in posting a reply? Then what does that make you, assbag?
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.
Get lost, dipchit.
Edgar will be a HOFer within his first 5 years of eligibility. He has a lot going for him--Team loyalty for one--he played his whole career with the M's which still means something to the writers. He was a seven time all star, 6 times as a DH, and once as a 3rd baseman. Molitor is in in most peoples eyes as a DH, so the standard has been set. And add in the David Ortiz factor--the writers will be looking for a way to pave that path for Big Papi (if Papi can get 6 more years together like the past 4).
I just hope the M's do it right and get a good PR promotion going for Edgar as he gets closer to eligibility. Right now, he is regarded in the same breath as Dawson and Rice, and a little PR would've helped those guys.
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
Now he did have a great 7 year stretch, but when you put those numbers up over 18 years and expect HOF debate --- well, let's just say --- you shouldn't get defensive here.
Erik
<< <i>
It's an absolute fair analogy. They only play half the game...based on your own flawed premise, pitchers shouldn't be in the hall of fame.
>>
to me, the DH was never meant to be part of the game. Something tells me the Edgar supporters are going to be yelling for years the way Mattingly guys do. Also, if Edgar did every get into the Hall of Fame before Jim Rice it would be a travesty. Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in the AL for nearly a decade with the numbers to back it up. He put up those numbers well before the juiced ball era. Also he played a very good outfield for years and years instead of getting splinters in his a$$ between at bats.
Its not happening.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
to me, the DH was never meant to be part of the game. Something tells me the Edgar supporters are going to be yelling for years the way Mattingly guys do. Also, if Edgar did every get into the Hall of Fame before Jim Rice it would be a travesty. Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in the AL for nearly a decade with the numbers to back it up. He put up those numbers well before the juiced ball era. Also he played a very good outfield for years and years instead of getting splinters in his a$$ between at bats.
>>
Rice will get in in 2008, it's almost guaranteed. The Hall likes having live bodies at their induction ceremonies.
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
In a nutshell, what you are saying is that regardless of your position on the field, what truly matters is how much a player contributes to runs/wins...and it makes no difference on the path it took him to create the runs/wins, just as long as he created enough of them to merit consideration. You cite Ozzie Smith, and starting pitchers.
If I can add to your reasoning? If Ozzie Smith was responsible for creating 120 wins above the average player, mostly by virtue of defense, and if Dave Winfield was able to create 120 wins above the average player, mostly by virtue of offense, it doesn't matter how they achieved their results. But what really matters is that their overall level of contributions are on similar HOF par.
Same for SP's. If Tom Seaver, by playing only once every five games created 135 wins above average replacement, and George Brett created the same number of wins over the average replacement...albeit by having to play in 155 games per year, it makes no difference on how they accomplished thier value, but what their value WAS! And that is the key, what is their value!
Did Edgar Martinez create enough TOTAL value, using good measurement techniques, to achieve HOF status....knowing of course that all of his value is going to be coming from hitting only. My thoughts on Edgar specifically....
Edgar has some of the best percentages of his era, BUT his games played are low on a yearly basis, which limits the actual number of runs/wins he is responsible for(as compared to players with similar percentages and more games played). The resulting effect is that he comes up a little short in actualy runs/wins contributions for HOF merit.
It makes no difference if he was a DH accumulating those results. If he had played 155 games a year at those same percentages, then he would most definitely have the same value has your Palmeiro's, Bagwell's, etc....as defense would be included in that mix already.
A DH with 130 wins created, compared to an OF with 130 wins created is the same value, realizing that the outfielders contributions come from both bat and glove, while Edgar's only the bat....but it doesn't matter where they came from, just the total amount!
Make sense?
In a nutshell, what you are saying is that regardless of your position on the field, what truly matters is how much a player contributes to runs/wins...and it makes no difference on the path it took him to create the runs/wins, just as long as he created enough of them to merit consideration. You cite Ozzie Smith, and starting pitchers.
If I can add to your reasoning? If Ozzie Smith was responsible for creating 120 wins above the average player, mostly by virtue of defense, and if Dave Winfield was able to create 120 wins above the average player, mostly by virtue of offense, it doesn't matter how they achieved their results. But what really matters is that their overall level of contributions are on similar HOF par.
Same for SP's. If Tom Seaver, by playing only once every five games created 135 wins above average replacement, and George Brett created the same number of wins over the average replacement...albeit by having to play in 155 games per year, it makes no difference on how they accomplished thier value, but what their value WAS! And that is the key, what is their value!
Did Edgar Martinez create enough TOTAL value, using good measurement techniques, to achieve HOF status....knowing of course that all of his value is going to be coming from hitting only. My thoughts on Edgar specifically....
Edgar has some of the best percentages of his era, BUT his games played are low on a yearly basis, which limits the actual number of runs/wins he is responsible for(as compared to players with similar percentages and more games played). The resulting effect is that he comes up a little short in actualy runs/wins contributions for HOF merit.
It makes no difference if he was a DH accumulating those results. If he had played 155 games a year at those same percentages, then he would most definitely have the same value has your Palmeiro's, Bagwell's, etc....as defense would be included in that mix already.
A DH with 130 wins created, compared to an OF with 130 wins created is the same value, realizing that the outfielders contributions come from both bat and glove, while Edgar's only the bat....but it doesn't matter where they came from, just the total amount!
Make sense?
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
<< <i> I also think it'll greatly help Mr. McGwire
McGwire is a cheater and deserves less consideration than Martinez, IMO.
>>
This is the United States of America. Mr. McGwire is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
In the United States of America Mcgwire is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and cannot be imprisoned for his actions unless that happens, but the Baseball Writers of America are not, and should not, be held to the standards for something ultimately inconsequential like induction to a Hall of Fame (when compared to imprisonment) as jurys and judges are. If they believe he cheated, and there is overwhelming "evidence" (again, not a court of law) that he did, they can vote as their consciense leads.
The DH is not a position and to compare players who also did not play a position and determine who is the best of them is not the way to go. DH's are eligible for the HOF and will get there based on their hitting. They will not be helped by their DH status as it compares to other DH's in the same way that a second baseman is "helped" by comparing his numbers to another second baseman. The reason DH's are DH's is because of their htting and their perceived lack of ability to play in the field, whether that be because of age, lack of speed or ability, or injury. They cannot be graded on their hitting on a curve, the way shortstops have been, because they do not do anything besides hit.
All this is not to say that a DH cannot be a HOFer, it just means they will have to be really really great for a long period of time like anyone else, and can get no benefit from any other contribution. I think if Martinez had played a few more years at the level he did he would be a much stronger candidate, but he started late, and did not extend at the end of his career as some have done, and that probably will hurt his chances.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
Martinez has 136 more hits than Murphy. Martinez was about 40 points higer in batting average. Martinez is .072 better OBP. Martinez only scored 19 more runs than Murphy. Martinez led the league in BA twice, OBP three times, runs once, and RBIs once.
According to baseball-reference.com, the three most similar hitters were Will Clark, John Olerud, and Bernie Williams.
Murphy has 94 more HRs and only 5 more RBIs. Murphy has 112 more SB's. Murphy led the league in slugging % twice, runs once, HRs twice, and RBIs twice and MVP TWICE back to back years! We have to account Murphys DEFENSIVE accomplishments also...5 time GOLD GLOVE winner.
According to baseball-reference.com, the three most similar hitters where Joe Carter, Duke Snider (HOF), and Don Baylor.
I feel if anything, this is a pretty fine example why there is a player more deserving to be in the HOF. I don't know if he does deserve it or not, just MORE deserving especially for the reasons of being named MVP twice and being a multi-year gold glove winner. Reason I am using Murphy as a comparison is that I am only trying to show that I dont think Martinez is in if Murphy isnt. I am not trying to show up Edgar Martinez because he was an incredible hitter and deserves MUCH recognition for it.
<< <i>
<< <i> I also think it'll greatly help Mr. McGwire
McGwire is a cheater and deserves less consideration than Martinez, IMO.
>>
This is the United States of America. Mr. McGwire is presumed innocent until proven guilty. >>
no, this is the baseball HOF voting members we're talking about...plenty will make the assumption of guilt without proof.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> I also think it'll greatly help Mr. McGwire
McGwire is a cheater and deserves less consideration than Martinez, IMO.
>>
This is the United States of America. Mr. McGwire is presumed innocent until proven guilty. >>
no, this is the baseball HOF voting members we're talking about...plenty will make the assumption of guilt without proof. >>
Maybe so, but that doesn't make it right.
As for the "evidence" against Mr. McGwire, all I've seen so far is him using a legal (at that time) supplement and essentially pleading the Fifth Amendment at the Congressional hearings. Is there any hard evidence that Mr. McGwire used any illegal substance (banned by MLB at the time of its use). And NO, do not use that stupid Canseco book.
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
<< <i>How about a comparison to Dale Murphy who is NOT in the HOF?
Martinez has 136 more hits than Murphy. Martinez was about 40 points higer in batting average. Martinez is .072 better OBP. Martinez only scored 19 more runs than Murphy. Martinez led the league in BA twice, OBP three times, runs once, and RBIs once.
According to baseball-reference.com, the three most similar hitters were Will Clark, John Olerud, and Bernie Williams.
>>
Can you please knock it off with the comparisons to people who played different positions? Compare him to DH's only, and you'll see he dominated his position.
<< <i>Murphy has 94 more HRs and only 5 more RBIs. Murphy has 112 more SB's. Murphy led the league in slugging % twice, runs once, HRs twice, and RBIs twice and MVP TWICE back to back years! We have to account Murphys DEFENSIVE accomplishments also...5 time GOLD GLOVE winner.
According to baseball-reference.com, the three most similar hitters where Joe Carter, Duke Snider (HOF), and Don Baylor.
>>
Again, you are making invalid comparisons. That's like comparing a second baseman to an outfielder - it's an invalid comparison.
<< <i>I feel if anything, this is a pretty fine example why there is a player more deserving to be in the HOF. I don't know if he does deserve it or not, just MORE deserving especially for the reasons of being named MVP twice and being a multi-year gold glove winner. Reason I am using Murphy as a comparison is that I am only trying to show that I dont think Martinez is in if Murphy isnt. I am not trying to show up Edgar Martinez because he was an incredible hitter and deserves MUCH recognition for it. >>
Comparing Murphy to other outfielders, and you'll see why he's not in the hall. Compare Edgar to other DH's, and you'll see why he does.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
Now I have heard it all! This coming from a guy that can't ever admit that he is wrong. That has gone so far to say that he is always right!
What a fool.
Axtell do the forum a favor and do what Grote said and get bent.
sheesh.
Steve
Edgar Martinez was one hell of a hitter, but as skinpinch pointed out he is way below even most borderline HOFers in the time he spent at that level. Had he gotten to the majors before he was 24, established himself as an everyday player before he was 27, and not sat out most of what probably would have been two of his best seasons at 30 and 31 then he'd probably be a shoo-in. But he didn't, he didn't and he did, respectively, and so he doesn't deserve to get in. Even so, he has a much better claim than Jim Rice.
<< <i>DH - not a position. >>
Ahh, but it is a position, as designated by the powers that be - namely, MLB.
WP-
thanks for contributing nothing (as usual) to the conversation.
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
You will not find a HOFer who isn't in for his fielding with numbers anywhere near as anemic as Baines', and you will not find a pitcher not already in the HOF with numbers that are not dwarfed by Blyleven's.
dallas with all due respect Catfish Hunter? I suggest you go back and look at his stats. to say he stains the floor of the hall is just not accurate. IMO.
as for blyleven I believe that overall he has the stats, but if you look deep you will see too many 500 seasons. 17 and 16 and so on.
I think he, John and Kaat all got clumped in together and missed the cut cuz all the other guys from their era won 300. The Niekros, Suttons and so on.
IMO though I feel that their is room for him too.
Steve
(Also, I agree with them, which helps...)
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>dallas with all due respect Catfish Hunter? I suggest you go back and look at his stats. to say he stains the floor of the hall is just not accurate. IMO.
as for blyleven I believe that overall he has the stats, but if you look deep you will see too many 500 seasons. 17 and 16 and so on.
>>
Catfish Hunter?
For his career, had an ERA 4% better than an average pitcher. Gave up 50 fewer runs over his career than an average pitcher would have.
Top-5 in skill categories: 30, led league: 7
3449 innings pitched for his career.
Mike Cuellar?
For his career, had an ERA 9% better than an average pitcher. Gave up 90 fewer runs over his career than an average pitcher would have.
Top-5 in skill categories: 28, led league: 2
2808 innings pitched for his career.
Dennis Martinez?
For his career, had an ERA 6% better than an average pitcher. Gave up 100 fewer runs over his career than an average pitcher would have.
Top-5 in skill categories: 27, led league: 5
4000 innings pitched for his career.
Don Sutton?
For his career, had an ERA 8% better than an average pitcher. Gave up 150 fewer runs over his career than an average pitcher would have.
Top-5 in skill categories: 61, led league: 10
5282 innings pitched for his career.
To me, Don Sutton should be the worst pitcher in the HOF. He had a very long career and performed at an above average level nearly every year and had just enough great years to separate him from merely ordinary pitchers. And he was so much better than Hunter that it almost seems like an insult to Sutton to compare the two. I honestly do not see that there is a rational basis for comparing the two and determining that Hunter was even close to as good. On the other hand, Hunter compares nicely to Mike Cuellar and Dennis Martinez; I'll give him the nod by a whisker over Cuellar and give Martinez the nod - again by a whisker - over Hunter. I don't think either Cuellar or Martinez belong in the HOF; in fact, I don't think either one of them is even close. Likewise, Hunter wasn't even close to good enough to belong in the HOF. Does he "stain" the HOF by his presence? I think he does, but he's hardly the only one.
As for Blyleven, I agree that "looking deep" has everything to do with seeing how great he was. But I consider looking at won/lost records to be the opposite of looking deep. Consider 1973: Blyleven was the best pitcher in the AL that year, his seventh place finish in the Cy Young voting notwithstanding. He pitched most of his games in hitter's parks for a team that couldn't hit (except for Carew), couldn't field, and had a weak bullpen. Yes, he was 20-17 that year, and if you don't look deep you might say that that's only 3 games over .500 and not very good. Catfish Hunter, pitching in the number 1 pitcher's park in the league on the best team in the league went 21-5, and he wasn't nearly as good as Blyleven that year. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that had Blyleven been allowed to pitch for the teams that Hunter got to pitch for he would have won well over 300 games in his career, he would have gone in to the HOF on the first ballot and nobody would ever have thought twice about it. Nor is there any doubt in my mind that had Hunter pitched for Blyleven's teams he would not have won 200 games, he would not have gotten a single vote for the HOF and nobody would have thought twice about it.
I think you miss some very important facts regarding Hunter. You and some others feel that won-lost does not carry weight when in fact it does. To say that if a guy played for a losing team he would not have the wins is ridicoulous. Could it be that he made the team better? The guy did pitch a perfect game. People can twist and turn stats all different ways. The people that count chose Hunter that is all that matters.
And if I had to pick a pitcher for a big game I'd choose Sutton over many in the hall. he was a pitcher.
Stats tell half the story, it seems the other half is made up by those that try to interpret them.
Steve
edited to add: even Bill james (who you suscribe to) claims that Hunter is a vitual lock for the HOF.
Under his same asessment he claims martinez falls way short.
Hunter 130 points
Martinez 67 points
100 is the HOF'r.
W-L record is a very poor way of measuring how good a pitcher is/was. Oddly though, career W-L records tend to correlate fairly accurately with the much better evaluation methods...FOR MOST! Why? Becuase run support, defense behind, or bullpen tend to even out between two pitchers over the course of their career. The more games played, the more things even out. But, it doesn't do it for all pitchers, and Blyleven and Hunter happen to be a couple of them.
Your assertion that stats tell half the story and how you interepret them really isn't accurate. The nature of baseball allows a very strong portrayal of the value of a player based on his results....only when the variables are seprated and it is the results that the player was responsible for, and not the external results that are being used. A Won Loss record is based VERY HEAVILY on external forces out of an individuals control.
Your assertion of interpretation really should be applied to "WHo Belongs in the Hall of Fame." This is where interpretation really comes into play. Hall of Fame criteria is vague, and Hall of Fame results are ambiguous at best. It isn't ambiguous at all as to how many runs Hunter was responsible for saving. But it is very ambiguous if he truly does belong in the Hall.
You once made some good points on Hunter's merit for inclusion. His peak factor was VERY nice...based on excellent pitching and over many innings. That indeed made him a force. You also noted that his career ERA suffered as the result of being promoted to the major leagues at a very young age. It was also noted by you that his injury also made the last part of his career a real drag on his career ERA as well. All valid points.
When looking at Hunter's peak performance he has nice merit...thanks mainly in part to pitching A LOT of effective innings(which helped his win total). When looking at his career performance, well his value isn't as high as others.
So, the interpretation shouldn't be directed at his run value, but rather at "of what merits Hall induction." Using past Hall examples only makes it more ambiguous, thus the reason for an almost never ending argument on these guys.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>Question for you stat guys. Where do you go to get the stats about total number of top fives, and comparisons with other players? I have a few guys I would love to see compared! >>
Here is where all the stats are; you do have to add up top fives and calculate "runs allowed less than average" for yourself, though.
<< <i>edited to add: even Bill james (who you suscribe to) claims that Hunter is a vitual lock for the HOF.
Under his same asessment he claims martinez falls way short.
Hunter 130 points
Martinez 67 points
100 is the HOF'r.
>>
Steve -
While Bill James doesn't rate Hunter as low as I would (James grew up in KC and Hunter was his favorite player, and it shows in his evaluation of him I think), he does rate him 25 spots below Blyleven (HOF Monitor score 120) and 18 spots below Don Newcombe (HOF Monitor score 78).
Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of this is Jim Rice's HOF score of 146.5 and Roy White's score of 19. Bill James goes to great length to explain why Roy White was better than Jim Rice (and he's right about that, too).
Which is to say, James does not believe that the HOF Monitor is a good way to rate pitchers, but rather a good way to predict how HOF voters will rate pitchers. Suffice it to say that James holds HOF voters in very low regard.
He came up at the end of the Twins run of good offensive players except for Carew. He must have lost more games 2-1 and 3-2 than anyone.
He had an excellent fastball and one of the best curveballs ever. When he retired he was third all-time in strikeouts.....that's dominating.
His hits and walks per inning pitched were for the most part just above 1.1....also dominating.
I have the feeling that he was a jerk to the writers, and I think he flipped off the fans once when he was booed. He was definitely not an a$$ kisser.
I read a book written by Ron Luciano (ex major league umpire) he said Hunter was one of the best ever, but didn't seem to care about statistics much, he would often admire long homeruns hit off of him.
Some ballplayers don't care about statistics, they go out and have fun.
<< <i>Good ideas...let's keep watering down the Hall of Fame some more. I propose that one player from each team be elected to the Hall of Fame each year. We can make this two players or perhaps even five players from each team being elected to the Hall of Fame each year. Still not good enough? Okay. Then each year twenty-five players from each team to be elected to the Hall of Fame. >>
I couldn't agree more.
Basing your argument on who is already in the hall of fame shows just how far from the hall these guys are.
The hall should be the best of the best. Yes, mistakes have been made in the past. Let's not argue for more of these mistakes to be admitted into the hall.
<< <i>
<< <i>Good ideas...let's keep watering down the Hall of Fame some more. I propose that one player from each team be elected to the Hall of Fame each year. We can make this two players or perhaps even five players from each team being elected to the Hall of Fame each year. Still not good enough? Okay. Then each year twenty-five players from each team to be elected to the Hall of Fame. >>
I couldn't agree more.
Basing your argument on who is already in the hall of fame shows just how far from the hall these guys are.
The hall should be the best of the best. Yes, mistakes have been made in the past. Let's not argue for more of these mistakes to be admitted into the hall. >>
Totally right! For example letting a guy like Mazeroski in made me sick...and I liked Mazeroski as a player. But a Hall of Famer?...come on now! And a lot of good, honest ballplayers from that era also spokeup and were angry about Mazeroski getting in.
Mazeroski can't be voted out of course, but your point is perfect about not making "more of these mistakes."
<< <i>Good ideas...let's keep watering down the Hall of Fame some more. I propose that one player from each team be elected to the Hall of Fame each year. We can make this two players or perhaps even five players from each team being elected to the Hall of Fame each year. Still not good enough? Okay. Then each year twenty-five players from each team to be elected to the Hall of Fame. >>
I couldn't agree more, either. At this point, with Sutter and Hunter in the HOF, that standard would in fact lead to several hundred more players getting in. But just to be clear, Bert Blyleven belongs in on ANY standard. For some reason, Axtell has her panties in a bunch because I've pointed out several HOF pitchers who were not as good as Blyleven. If that information is not important to you, then feel free to ignore it.
But it boggles my mind that we are even having this discussion about a pitcher who is 10th all-time in games started, 13th all-time in innings, 5th all-time in strikeouts, 9th all-time in shutouts, was the best or second best pitcher in his league 4 times, was a phenomenal postseason pitcher and made the top-5 in important skill categories 83 times. Statistically and "dominance"ly, he is an absolute no-brainer so I am at a complete loss to explain why support for Blyleven being in the HOF is not as uncontroversial as it is for Drysdale, Early Wynn, Don Sutton or Bob Lemon (and several more) none of whom were as good as Blyleven.
Inducting Bert Blyleven does not water down the HOF; it actually raises it up, since he is better than more than half of the pitchers already there. Unless the argument is that more than half of the HOF are "mistakes", the "mistakes were made" argument is completely irrelevant here.
<< <i>
I couldn't agree more, either. At this point, with Sutter and Hunter in the HOF, that standard would in fact lead to several hundred more players getting in. But just to be clear, Bert Blyleven belongs in on ANY standard. For some reason, Axtell has her panties in a bunch because I've pointed out several HOF pitchers who were not as good as Blyleven. If that information is not important to you, then feel free to ignore it. >>
And feel free to ignore my posts about not letting in MORE mistakes like blyleven. Look, he had a very good career, but hardly hall worthy. The funny thing? The people who actually matter on this, the VOTERS, agree with me.
<< <i>But it boggles my mind that we are even having this discussion about a pitcher who is 10th all-time in games started, 13th all-time in innings, 5th all-time in strikeouts, 9th all-time in shutouts, was the best or second best pitcher in his league 4 times, >>
10th all time in games started - HELLO! He played 22 years. That hardly speaks to his dominance.
13th all time in innings - see above.
5th all time in strikeouts - he led the league ONCE in K's, this is yet just another byproduct of playing nearly a quarter century.
9th all time in shutouts - see above.
Best or second best four times? Where do you get this stuff? You're killing me here. His best finish in Cy Young voting (you know, the award that is for the BEST pitcher) was THIRD...he was never the 'best' or 'second best' - EVER. So where do you come up with four times?
<< <i> was a phenomenal postseason pitcher and made the top-5 in important skill categories 83 times. >>
Wow, you're reaching now.
<< <i> Statistically and "dominance"ly, he is an absolute no-brainer so I am at a complete loss to explain why support for Blyleven being in the HOF is not as uncontroversial as it is for Drysdale, Early Wynn, Don Sutton or Bob Lemon (and several more) none of whom were as good as Blyleven. >>
Again, when you base your comparison against others in the hall, you really know you have no basis for argument.
<< <i>Inducting Bert Blyleven does not water down the HOF; it actually raises it up, since he is better than more than half of the pitchers already there. Unless the argument is that more than half of the HOF are "mistakes", the "mistakes were made" argument is completely irrelevant here. >>
So you're proposing to make 'just one more' mistake?
Look, it's quite easy to sum up why blyleven doesn't belong in the hall:
NO Cy Young awards (at best, a third place finish, and that happened only twice)
NO ERA titles (top three just THREE times in 22 years!)
ONE strikeout title (again, in 22 years)
TWO all star appearances (in 22 years!)
He wasn't the best of the best among his time (as the lack of all star appearances clearly show), so what in god's name makes you think he deserves to be among the best of the best to ever play? I have to think you must be sitting on a lot of blyleven rookie cards or something.
What next, you'll be arguing for Jim Kaat's induction! He's got nearly the same ERA (3.45 vs. 3.31), more all star appearances (three vs. two), so he should be in the hall too, right?
playing 22 years is what can make a guy a hall of famer. LONGEVITY........................
One guy that 'stains' the hall in my opinion is enos slaughter.
Steve
<< <i>Yes, those that know anything about baseball will say that kaat should be in the hall.
playing 22 years is what can make a guy a hall of famer. LONGEVITY........................
>>
hahahahahahahahahahaha
Play 22 years and you get in? What a friggin' joke!
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
and I did not say 'play 22 years and you are a hall of famer. Knowing that you have trouble comprehending what people say I'll help you along. What i said was that playing 22 years is what CAN HELP a player become a hall of famer. NOT ALL players that play 22 years. Big difference that you seem to have a problem with.
what part of that do you find as a joke?
or do you think that 20 year service time is new? go and look up some players and educate yourself before you open your yap into which you have no idea of what you spout.
Cobb, Ruth etc all played for 20 years!
estil besides 5 straight 20 win seasons like you say, he also has 5 WS rings. he was the first free agent, pitched a perfect game, for those 5 years he was one of the dominate pitchers of his era. do you need to know any more?
ignorance regarding hunter seems to abound around here.
Steve
<< <i>Axty the majority of guys in the hall have 18-20 years of service or MORE
and I did not say 'play 22 years and you are a hall of famer. >>
When did I ever dispute that? I was simply laughing at your assertion that Kaat should be in the hall for playing 22 years.
<< <i>or do you think that 20 year service time is new? go and look up some players and educate yourself before you open your yap into which you have no idea of what you spout. >>
I think YOU are the one with reading comprehension issues!!!
<< <i>estil besides 5 straight 20 win seasons like you say, he also has 5 WS rings. he was the first free agent, pitched a perfect game, for those 5 years he was one of the dominate pitchers of his era. do you need to know any more? >>
20 wins is HARDLY a way to demonstrate a pitcher's dominance - it simply tells you how good his teams were.
And yes you have said in the past that 20 year guys do not make a hall of famer. I dispute that by saying (clearly) that 20 years of service CAN help a guy get in.
Dope
Steve