HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 01:19 AM
I get being lukewarm about Raines. I don't get thinking he lacks a reasonable case. He's towards the bottom of my top 10.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 01:24 AM
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 07:45 AM
He has a reasonable case. I put him at the bottom of my top ten earlier in the day. But he was what, third or fourth in the voting and fell short? Third or fourth is too high and only that high because he's been on the ballot forever. After 9 years, people should know if you are a HOFer or not. To me he is not. That's all.
Well he's higher than some guys because of the PED issue.
And yes, people should know after 9 years, but it's not the best voting body, especially before this year.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 07:49 AM
My ballot wouldn't have 10 guys on it.
Bonds Clemens Griffey Piazza Bagwell.
Though I see the cases for Mussina and Schilling, they are closer to Andy Pettitte (not a HOFer IMO) than Pedro Martinez (above and beyond among his peers). But for argument sake, I'd make them #6 and #7 on my list and submit those 7 names only.
Pedro Martinez was one of the very most dominant pitchers ever. A guy doesn't need to be close to Pedro or Maddux to be a Hall of Famer. Both Moose and Schilling were rather easily better than Pettitte and WAR wise, actually much closer to Pedro than to Pettite. If you take a third of Pettitte's career WAR and add that to his total, then you get to Mussina and Schilling.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 08:19 AM
Mike it's fine if you want to raise the bar for Hall of Famers, but if you do that to the point where you think guys as good as Raines, Sheffield, Mussina, and Schilling aren't Hall of Famers, then you're gonna have to kick out like 25% of the guys who've been voted in and just about everyone ever enshrined by the veteran's committee.
I agree that Hall of Famers are a level above their peers. Mussina and Schilling were a level above their peers, several in fact. Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, Johnson, Smoltz, and maybe Glavine were better than them throughout roughly the same generation, but that's about it. That's about 15 years of baseball. If you were one of the 8-10 best starters in the game over a 10-15 year period throughout your career, I think that makes you a Hall of Famer. Do you know how many guys start games over a 15 year period? Being one of the 10 best puts you in the very highest of tiers above your peers.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 08:53 AM
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 08:59 AM
You don't have to kick anyone out. The bar was lowered at some point, And since the writers didn't vote in guys like Raines, Schilling, Mussina, the bar is maybe now set at a point I agree with.
If Raines was a HOFer he would have gotten in in 2013 when no one got in. If you can't get in when no one is voting for steroid guys, and no one else is worthy of getting enough votes, maybe you aren't a HOFer.
The bar wasn't really lowered, it's been well established for a long time.
I don't see how it makes sense to have a HOF where guys from the more recent generations have to be substantially better than the line already established.
And your logic is giving way too much credit to the voters.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 09:01 AM
You don't have to kick anyone out. The bar was lowered at some point, And since the writers didn't vote in guys like Raines, Schilling, Mussina, the bar is maybe now set at a point I agree with.
If Raines was a HOFer he would have gotten in in 2013 when no one got in. If you can't get in when no one is voting for steroid guys, and no one else is worthy of getting enough votes, maybe you aren't a HOFer.
The body of voters are wrong on Raines, IMO. That's my explanation for why he isn't in, not that he isn't a HOF level player.
They've voted in several players who clearly aren't what I think defines Hall of Fame caliber, so it's not surprising that they also get things wrong in the other direction.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 09:01 AM
Mike it's fine if you want to raise the bar for Hall of Famers, but if you do that to the point where you think guys as good as Raines, Sheffield, Mussina, and Schilling aren't Hall of Famers, then you're gonna have to kick out like 25% of the guys who've been voted in and just about everyone ever enshrined by the veteran's committee.
I agree that Hall of Famers are a level above their peers. Mussina and Schilling were a level above their peers, several in fact. Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, Johnson, Smoltz, and maybe Glavine were better than them throughout roughly the same generation, but that's about it. That's about 15 years of baseball. If you were one of the 8-10 best starters in the game over a 10-15 year period throughout your career, I think that makes you a Hall of Famer. Do you know how many guys start games over a 15 year period? Being one of the 10 best puts you in the very highest of tiers above your peers.
Great post. However, I wouldn't say Smoltz or Glavine were better than Mussina and Schilling; I'd actually say the opposite.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 09:03 AM
The body of voters are wrong on Raines, IMO. That's my explanation for why he isn't in, not that he isn't a HOF level player.
They've voted in several players who clearly aren't what I think defines Hall of Fame caliber, so it's not surprising that they also get things wrong in the other direction.
Yep. So in some ways the standards haven't really been raised, the voters have just picked the wrong guys. Brock, Sutter, Rice, and Dawson to name a few aren't raising the standard. It doesn't make sense for those guys to be elected when clearly better players have been lingering off the ballot or even fallen off it.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 09:20 AM
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 09:28 AM
How do you vote for Eckstein and not have your vote taken away?
http://mlb.nbcsports...llot-silliness/
Like the 3 ballots without Griffey, the 3 votes for Mike Sweeney, 1 of the 2 votes for Eckstein, and the 2 votes for Jason Kendall remain anonymous.
The one public vote from Eckstein was by Chaz Scoggins of the Lowell Sun. Reportedly Earl Bloom of the OC Register is the guy who voted for Garrett Anderson.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 10:40 AM
Yep. So in some ways the standards haven't really been raised, the voters have just picked the wrong guys. Brock, Sutter, Rice, and Dawson to name a few aren't raising the standard. It doesn't make sense for those guys to be elected when clearly better players have been lingering off the ballot or even fallen off it.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 11:06 AM
Dawson is deserving, IMO. Brock...eh. Rice I think is bordeline, he had a relatively short career but high peak. Kind of like Mattingly but with a 15-20% longer career which maybe pushes him in. Agree Sutter shouldn't be anywhere near. Tough judging guys only on stats, though, and I didn't get to really see any of these guys.
I don't see how you argue for Dawson though and against Sheffield. They are within 200 PA, so careers were almost identical in length. Sheffield had a 140 OPS+ to Dawson's 119. Sheffield was a bad defender, don't know a ton about Dawson's defense but it isn't statistically rated as anything other than average at a quick glance, that defensive advantage likely wouldn't make up for the OPS+ difference (which is rated against league average so era isn't a factor there). You mentioned Dawson's steals, he had 314 in 423 attempts (74%). Sheffield had 253 in 357 attempts (71%), so a slight advantage for Dawson there but nothing major. Sheffield had 70 more HR and 80 more RBI.
Sheffield was certainly better offensively, and by a pretty wide margin. I would agree that Dawson was superior defensively and on the bases. How much is debatable, but however much it is, I think it's unreasonable to say so much so as to go as far as making him a worthy candidate and Sheffield a pretender. Beyond numbers, I didn't get a chance to see Dawson play until the end of his career and I was young and didn't really know what I was seeing when I did. But Gary Sheffield was fucking terrifying. If seeing him at the plate didn't scream "Hall of Famer" then I don't know what does. Bonds and Belle are the only guys I remember watching and thinking they were more intimidating when they were standing in the box.
If you think Andre Dawson is a Hall of Famer (and we both do), then so is Gary Sheffield.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 11:17 AM
Sutter and Rice I don't get. I'll give you that.
Brock has more steals than Raines, though got caught more too. 3,000+ hits in an extreme pitchers era. Incredible defense which Raines doesn't have. Dawson was an all around talent, including defense which you have to account for. Still stole over 300 bases for a power hitter. Played in the same era as Raines "when runs were hard to come by as you say. Played on the same and hit over 400 homers, 500 doubles, nearly 100 triples.
Brock and Dawson should be in and they are.
I mean if you want to just put the top 10 guys in WAR not yet enshrined, in the hall each year, just say so. Kenny Lofton will get in soon. If he even is still eligible. He was pretty good. It'll be the Hall of pretty good.
What are you basing Brock's great defense off of?
Career OPS+:
Raines: 123
Dawson: 119
Brock: 109
When factoring in steals, Raines was easily the best offensive player.
Lofton was better than Brock btw as he was a much better defender.
You are saying it will be the Hall of pretty good but that's just not supported by anything. Letting Raines, Mussina, and Schilling in does nothing to make the Hall less prestigious. They are all better than lots of players in the Hall, and again, that's far from limited to clear mistakes.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 11:17 AM
You don't have to kick anyone out. The bar was lowered at some point, And since the writers didn't vote in guys like Raines, Schilling, Mussina, the bar is maybe now set at a point I agree with.
If Raines was a HOFer he would have gotten in in 2013 when no one got in. If you can't get in when no one is voting for steroid guys, and no one else is worthy of getting enough votes, maybe you aren't a HOFer.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 11:20 AM
Schilling and Moose are clear, no doubt about it HOFers.
Mussina is probably one of the top 40ish pitchers ever.
He and Schilling are more like top 30 pitchers IMO.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 11:49 AM
He and Schilling are more like top 30 pitchers IMO.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 12:00 PM
What are you basing Brock's great defense off of?
Career OPS+:
Raines: 123
Dawson: 119
Brock: 109
When factoring in steals, Raines was easily the best offensive player.
Lofton was better than Brock btw as he was a much better defender.
You are saying it will be the Hall of pretty good but that's just not supported by anything. Letting Raines, Mussina, and Schilling in does nothing to make the Hall less prestigious. They are all better than lots of players in the Hall, and again, that's far from limited to clear mistakes.
HOF
Posted 07 January 2016 - 12:07 PM
Not sure what you are looking at in terms of Brock's defense. His defensive numbers do jump off the BB-ref page, but they jump off in the negative direction. dWAR of -17. Total Zone runs against average, which you mention, of -51. Had a positive number in that category from 63-68, but negative the other 13 of his 19 years.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
