Photo

2014 HOF Voting


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
111 replies to this topic

#41 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,347 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 12 December 2013 - 12:10 PM

Good article from Reilly today...

 

Cooperstown's gates are closed to PED-connected players. But the managers who rode their stats to glory are prepping for induction day. 



#42 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 155,720 posts

Posted 18 December 2013 - 10:07 PM

Grantland: Hall Pass
http://www.grantland...all-fame-ballot



#43 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 19 December 2013 - 03:00 PM

Excellent article from Jaffe on Moose and his HOF candidacy.

 

I agree with him that its going to take a long time for him to get in.

 

http://mlb.si.com/20...t-mike-mussina/



#44 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 21 December 2013 - 07:50 AM

Watching clubhouse confidential right now and they were talking about the HOF.

They were discussing Mussina and they said the OPS of the lineups he faced averaged about a 760 in his career. The average in that time frame was 696. In comparison to Maddux and Glavine, the lineups Moose faced averaged an OPS of 30 points higher than those 2.

Crazy to think there is a chance Mussina could be left off the ballot with so many candidates but he should be comfortably in.

The 10 player limit is crazy. The bottom line is there are easily more than 10 players this year that are HOFers.

Also, one guy who does some HOF predictions, thinks only Maddux gets in this year...that's a big problem when you consider next year, you add guys like Randy Johnson and Pedro to the ballot.

Btw, if guys like Moose are left off the ballot because voters are putting a guy like Morris on it, that's a huge problem.

#45 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 21 December 2013 - 07:54 AM

Brian Kenny thinks McGriff is a HOFer.

#46 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 21 December 2013 - 07:57 AM

I actually think I may leave a guy like Maddux off my ballot this year.

Not that he isn't a HOFer but he is going to easily get in and with so many deserving guys and the list being limited to 10, I may keep him off for that reason.

That way, other deserving guys, like say Mussina, don't get screwed and get less than the 5% required to stay on the ballot.

#47 Mike in STL

Mike in STL

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,346 posts

Posted 21 December 2013 - 08:31 AM

I don't think Moose is an HOFer. I wouldn't vote for him. Has nothing to do with leaving Baltimore for NYY. But he's just good, not great. When you say name the best pitchers in his era, its Clemens, Pedro, Big Unit, the Braves big 3, I'm probably missing a couple. But the list proably ends with Schilling whoe is boarderline IMO but gets in because of a very stellar K/BB ratio. Not sure off the top of my head but I think its top 5 all time. Mussina has really nothing that stands out. Its not the hall of really good. I don't penalize or reward players for things out of thier control, like the ballpark they play in or the guys they had to face. The fact that Mussina pitched to guys with higher OPSs is irrelevant because all the players in the debate pitched in the same era.
@BSLMikeRandall

#48 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,347 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 21 December 2013 - 10:27 AM

I don't think Moose is an HOFer. I wouldn't vote for him. Has nothing to do with leaving Baltimore for NYY. But he's just good, not great. When you say name the best pitchers in his era, its Clemens, Pedro, Big Unit, the Braves big 3, I'm probably missing a couple. But the list proably ends with Schilling whoe is boarderline IMO but gets in because of a very stellar K/BB ratio. Not sure off the top of my head but I think its top 5 all time. Mussina has really nothing that stands out. Its not the hall of really good. I don't penalize or reward players for things out of thier control, like the ballpark they play in or the guys they had to face. The fact that Mussina pitched to guys with higher OPSs is irrelevant because all the players in the debate pitched in the same era.

 

Here is a handy chart right off baseballreference.com...

 

6CQpMPZ.png

 

So he had higher WAR than Glavine, a better ERA+ (in a much better league). Close to Maddux, too, in both. I think he's deserving.



#49 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 21 December 2013 - 10:49 AM

I don't think Moose is an HOFer. I wouldn't vote for him. Has nothing to do with leaving Baltimore for NYY. But he's just good, not great. When you say name the best pitchers in his era, its Clemens, Pedro, Big Unit, the Braves big 3, I'm probably missing a couple. But the list proably ends with Schilling whoe is boarderline IMO but gets in because of a very stellar K/BB ratio. Not sure off the top of my head but I think its top 5 all time. Mussina has really nothing that stands out. Its not the hall of really good. I don't penalize or reward players for things out of thier control, like the ballpark they play in or the guys they had to face. The fact that Mussina pitched to guys with higher OPSs is irrelevant because all the players in the debate pitched in the same era.

Schilling also has the rings arguments especially his postseason play and that matters even if it shouldn't.


@levineps

#50 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 21 December 2013 - 11:17 AM

I don't think Moose is an HOFer. I wouldn't vote for him. Has nothing to do with leaving Baltimore for NYY. But he's just good, not great. When you say name the best pitchers in his era, its Clemens, Pedro, Big Unit, the Braves big 3, I'm probably missing a couple. But the list proably ends with Schilling whoe is boarderline IMO but gets in because of a very stellar K/BB ratio. Not sure off the top of my head but I think its top 5 all time. Mussina has really nothing that stands out. Its not the hall of really good. I don't penalize or reward players for things out of thier control, like the ballpark they play in or the guys they had to face. The fact that Mussina pitched to guys with higher OPSs is irrelevant because all the players in the debate pitched in the same era.

Moose was every bit as good, and likely better, than Glavine.

 

You can't ignore the competition difference.  Its just a flat out fact that Mussina faced better offense and he still performed close to the levels of a guy like Glavine.



#51 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,295 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 21 December 2013 - 12:00 PM

Mussina and Schilling were as good or better than Glavine and Smoltz. Yes, all of those guys were a couple or more notches below Clemens, Maddux, Pedro, and Johnson, but those are all top 10 or so pitchers ever IMO. Being a top 40 pitcher should comfortably get one in the HOF and Moose and Curt are easily that, probably top 30.

 

And way to finally watch Clubhouse Confidential Rob!



#52 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,295 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 21 December 2013 - 12:02 PM

Schilling also has the rings arguments especially his postseason play and that matters even if it shouldn't.

 

His great postseason track record absolutely should matter. Same with Smoltz. 

 

Mussina was good in the postseason as well, but not overwhelmingly so that it's really much of a deciding factor.



#53 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,295 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 21 December 2013 - 12:07 PM

I actually think I may leave a guy like Maddux off my ballot this year.

Not that he isn't a HOFer but he is going to easily get in and with so many deserving guys and the list being limited to 10, I may keep him off for that reason.

That way, other deserving guys, like say Mussina, don't get screwed and get less than the 5% required to stay on the ballot.

 

Yeah, this is what I was saying on the show. The SABR president mentioned that he was doing something like this too on Clubhouse Confidential. He voted for Moose, Martinez, Trammel, and someone else as protection votes to keep them on. He believes they are HOF'ers, but won't make it this year anyway.

 

The guy they referenced who predicts voting percentages had Mussina at 7% and only had Maddux getting in this year. The latter would really exacerbate the problem of too many qualified players being on the ballot with too few votes per voter and too few good voters.



#54 Mike in STL

Mike in STL

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,346 posts

Posted 21 December 2013 - 01:00 PM

After hearing the arguments, I'm more inclined to say Mussina could be a HOFer. Not first ballot, but in a down year where the ballot is weak, he could get in. While many list Glavine and Mussina as equals, Glavine has something Moose doesn't have. TWO Cy Young Awards. Sure, postseason performance matters, but it's not Moose's fault the O's didn't go to many October games. Cy Young is an individual accomplishment. Plus 10-time All-Star vs Moose's five. Another individual accomplishment that isn't a popularity contest because the managers hand pick the AS pitchers. 

 

Also, does John Smoltz take a hit because he turned closer for part of his career? I don't think it should. To be a dominant starter, turn closer and dominate there, and turn back to starter again, that should give him more points. Had he not been a reliever, and injured for a whole season, he could have won 300 games. 213 wins with five seasons that he didn't even start a game. I know wins don't matter as much (Funny, Moose had a 4.81 ERA in 96' and won 19 games) But average pitchers don't win 200+ games or sniff the hallowed 300.

 

I'm ignorant when it comes to some SABR stuff like ERA+, and am still boggled by WAR. How subjective is WAR? It doesn't show up in the box score in the paper the next day that Player X earned 0.4 WAR and Player Y lost -0.2 WAR. I mean, I get it's a cumulative stat, but are there bench marks that earn you points or deduct them? What are they? Or is a it someone who says "that was a good play, +0.3 on that one."  If it's subjective, it's hard to point to it as a valid argument. Not anyone here because you guys are intelligent, but people seem so quick to point to WAR as the end all be all. Like it tells the whole story, and no single stat tells the whole story. 


@BSLMikeRandall

#55 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 21 December 2013 - 01:12 PM

After hearing the arguments, I'm more inclined to say Mussina could be a HOFer. Not first ballot, but in a down year where the ballot is weak, he could get in. While many list Glavine and Mussina as equals, Glavine has something Moose doesn't have. TWO Cy Young Awards. Sure, postseason performance matters, but it's not Moose's fault the O's didn't go to many October games. Cy Young is an individual accomplishment. Plus 10-time All-Star vs Moose's five. Another individual accomplishment that isn't a popularity contest because the managers hand pick the AS pitchers. 

 

Also, does John Smoltz take a hit because he turned closer for part of his career? I don't think it should. To be a dominant starter, turn closer and dominate there, and turn back to starter again, that should give him more points. Had he not been a reliever, and injured for a whole season, he could have won 300 games. 213 wins with five seasons that he didn't even start a game. I know wins don't matter as much (Funny, Moose had a 4.81 ERA in 96' and won 19 games) But average pitchers don't win 200+ games or sniff the hallowed 300.

 

I'm ignorant when it comes to some SABR stuff like ERA+, and am still boggled by WAR. How subjective is WAR? It doesn't show up in the box score in the paper the next day that Player X earned 0.4 WAR and Player Y lost -0.2 WAR. I mean, I get it's a cumulative stat, but are there bench marks that earn you points or deduct them? What are they? Or is a it someone who says "that was a good play, +0.3 on that one."  If it's subjective, it's hard to point to it as a valid argument. Not anyone here because you guys are intelligent, but people seem so quick to point to WAR as the end all be all. Like it tells the whole story, and no single stat tells the whole story. 

He went to the postseason 9 times by my count, that's a lot -- although no titles (yes I know there's 24 other players to blame for that).


@levineps

#56 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,295 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 21 December 2013 - 01:14 PM

Mussina probably should have won the Cy Young in 2001: http://www.baseball-...ng_voting::none

 

And his '92 season was certainly CY worthy, it just happened that it wasn't the best pitching season that year. I don't care to penalize a guy because someone else had an amazing season in a year he was just slightly less amazing. Or even more importantly in the example of 2001 or the last two MVP's, when the voters get it wrong. So voters getting it wrong once leads to voters using that poor vote against a guy later.

 

Speaking of poor votes, Glavine should have finished 3rd or so in 1998 when he won his second CY: http://www.baseball-...ng_voting::none



#57 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 21 December 2013 - 01:18 PM

Mussina probably should have won the Cy Young in 2001: http://www.baseball-...ng_voting::none

 

And his '92 season was certainly CY worthy, it just happened that it wasn't the best pitching season that year. I don't care to penalize a guy because someone else had an amazing season in a year he was just slightly less amazing. Or even more importantly in the example of 2001 or the last two MVP's, when the voters get it wrong. So voters getting it wrong once leads to voters using that poor vote against a guy later.

 

Speaking of poor votes, Glavine should have finished 3rd or so in 1998 when he won his second CY: http://www.baseball-...ng_voting::none

LOL...Look at that 2001 season...best ERA+, best WAR, most K's, least amount of walks, etc...But, he went 17-11, so he can't win over someone who had 20 wins!!  What a joke.

 

Only Garcia had a better ERA and that wasn't by much.

 

MOYER finished higher!!!  LOL

 

God, the BBWAA is awful.


  • mweb08 likes this

#58 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,295 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 21 December 2013 - 01:21 PM

After hearing the arguments, I'm more inclined to say Mussina could be a HOFer. Not first ballot, but in a down year where the ballot is weak, he could get in. While many list Glavine and Mussina as equals, Glavine has something Moose doesn't have. TWO Cy Young Awards. Sure, postseason performance matters, but it's not Moose's fault the O's didn't go to many October games. Cy Young is an individual accomplishment. Plus 10-time All-Star vs Moose's five. Another individual accomplishment that isn't a popularity contest because the managers hand pick the AS pitchers. 

 

Also, does John Smoltz take a hit because he turned closer for part of his career? I don't think it should. To be a dominant starter, turn closer and dominate there, and turn back to starter again, that should give him more points. Had he not been a reliever, and injured for a whole season, he could have won 300 games. 213 wins with five seasons that he didn't even start a game. I know wins don't matter as much (Funny, Moose had a 4.81 ERA in 96' and won 19 games) But average pitchers don't win 200+ games or sniff the hallowed 300.

 

I'm ignorant when it comes to some SABR stuff like ERA+, and am still boggled by WAR. How subjective is WAR? It doesn't show up in the box score in the paper the next day that Player X earned 0.4 WAR and Player Y lost -0.2 WAR. I mean, I get it's a cumulative stat, but are there bench marks that earn you points or deduct them? What are they? Or is a it someone who says "that was a good play, +0.3 on that one."  If it's subjective, it's hard to point to it as a valid argument. Not anyone here because you guys are intelligent, but people seem so quick to point to WAR as the end all be all. Like it tells the whole story, and no single stat tells the whole story. 

 

ERA+ is simply showing how much better or worse a pitcher is percentage wise in ERA compared to his peers and adjusted to park/league factors. 100 is the baseline and over that is above average. It's a great stat to compare pitchers from different run environments. 

 

Pitching rWAR is just based off innings pitched and runs allowed once they set the baseline for what a replacement level player would produce in the same run environment.


  • Mike in STL likes this

#59 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,347 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 21 December 2013 - 01:22 PM

I'm ignorant when it comes to some SABR stuff like ERA+, and am still boggled by WAR. How subjective is WAR? It doesn't show up in the box score in the paper the next day that Player X earned 0.4 WAR and Player Y lost -0.2 WAR. I mean, I get it's a cumulative stat, but are there bench marks that earn you points or deduct them? What are they? Or is a it someone who says "that was a good play, +0.3 on that one."  If it's subjective, it's hard to point to it as a valid argument. Not anyone here because you guys are intelligent, but people seem so quick to point to WAR as the end all be all. Like it tells the whole story, and no single stat tells the whole story. 

 

If you want to learn more about WAR, the information is out there... a ton of information. I think the whole point of it is to eliminate subjectivity. There is plenty more subjectivity around having a 50 home run season... vs. having a 20 home run season, while stealing 60 bases and batting .340. WAR is an attempt to blend all of that together by weighting out what each stat actually contributes to a win. Here is a good article (WAR in Plain English) - http://www.beyondthe...-to-explain-war

 

Believe me, I'm no SABR expert, nor do I bow to it in every way - but I've enjoyed getting to know a little bit about the various measures because it does really help quite a bit in evaluating things like this.


  • Mike in STL likes this

#60 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 21 December 2013 - 01:26 PM

BTW, that CY voting, done by many of the same people who will vote on the HOF this year, could easily end up being a reason he doesn't get into the HOF.

 

If he had a CY award, the writers could get all warm and fuzzy about that.

 

Just goes to show awful the entire system is.

 

When you hear many of these guys interviewed, you hear why most of them shouldn't be given votes to determine important things like this.

 

They may be able to write but the knowledge is awful and they aren't deserving of being included in the process.


  • Mike in STL likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=