210 replies to this topic

[mweb08]

Serious question: how much do you have to watch someone play to use the eye test as a huge factor?

Enough to know that Fred Mcgriff isnt a HOFer. Seriously, were we watching McGriff every night. Of course not. We saw him enough to know he isnt a HOFer. 

Based on what? How much did most of us watch him in his prime? I'm not a McGriff supporter, but it's not based on what I remember of the very small percentage of his career that I watched.

[bnickle]

Yeah, no '88 wasn't pre steroid era. I mean it obviously wasnt considering some were using in the '70s, but it wasnt even pre "steroid era".

[DJ MC]

Yeah, no '88 wasn't pre steroid era. I mean it obviously wasnt considering some were using in the '70s, but it wasnt even pre "steroid era".

 

There's a reason I used quotes, and it's because I agree with you

[DJ MC]

Right... he had an excellent career that was not HOF worthy.

 

http://www.si.com/ml...t-fred-mcgriff#

 

And I think it was

[bnickle]

Based on what? How much did most of us watch him in his prime? I'm not a McGriff supporter, but it's not based on what I remember of the very small percentage of his career that I watched.

Did you watch Griffey enough to know he was a HOFer.

 

 

 

And McGriff is a guy we saw more than most other random teams anyway considering he was on TBS  in the '90s. We all saw him enough. Unless you never watched those '90s Braves teams and Im guessing everyone here did. 

[mweb08]

Ideally, you could go talk to fans of teams who watched borderline  players play every night year in and year out. The problem is that most of those fans and even media members are going to have a bias. 
 
 
We have an example with Mussina. Now, I watched him pitch a lot. He was an elite pitcher in his era. Im also consider myself fairly unbiased. I think Cal Ripken is generally overrated and very overrated by Os fans. Still a HOFer, but overrated. 

What does watching Mussina a lot really do for us in judging his career in relation to the HOF compared to judging Smoltz' career for example?

[bnickle]

What does watching Mussina a lot really do for us in judging his career in relation to the HOF compared to judging Smoltz' career for example?

Im not comparing him to Smoltz or anyone else.  He was an elite pitcher and I know that for sure because I  watched him every night for 6-7 years straight. I wish I had watched Smoltz pitch more often. From what I saw and remembered Smoltz was a HOFer but Id feel more strongly about that had I watched him pitch every night. 

 

 

 

Ideally, you have 10 completely unbiased guys watch a player play every night for their career and they get to vote on them when their career is over. 7 out of 10 need to vote him in. Obviously, that cant happen but if you watch and follow baseball closely enough I would say you know 90% of the guys that are elite, HOF worthy players. It's the 10%, truly borderline guys where you need more help.    Again, the problem is when you start grading on a curve and letting other players who got in before affect how you would vote now.   

[mweb08]

Based on what? How much did most of us watch him in his prime? I'm not a McGriff supporter, but it's not based on what I remember of the very small percentage of his career that I watched.

Did you watch Griffey enough to know he was a HOFer. And McGriff is a guy we saw more than most other random teams anyway considering he was on TBS  in the '90s. We all saw him enough. Unless you never watched those '90s Braves teams and Im guessing everyone here did. 

We didn't need to watch Griffey play to tell he's a HOF'er. Why compare a no brainer to a borderline guy? And no, most of us didn't watch McGriff enough, nor were we old enough for much of his prime for that to outweigh the numbers. This isn't football or basketball so I'm really not sure why watching a borderline player is a huge factor unless defense and baserunning are key aspects of the debate, which isn't the case here. What is watching him for like 5% of his career going to tell us about his hitting that the numbers don't?

[mweb08]

What does watching Mussina a lot really do for us in judging his career in relation to the HOF compared to judging Smoltz' career for example?

Im not comparing him to Smoltz or anyone else. He was an elite pitcher and i know that for sure because I watched him every night for 6-7 years straight. I wish I had watched Smoltz pitch more often. From what i saw and remembered Smoltz was a HOFer but Id feel more strongly about that had I watched him pitch every night.

But you have to be able to compare players to tell if they're elite and HOF worthy. But like I just asked regarding the Crime Dog, what did watching him so much tell you about Mussina's HOF case that his numbers didn't? I would be a supporter either way. I loved him as a pitcher, but even if I barely watched him, the numbers are clearly HOF worthy IMO.

[bnickle]

I dont know because I agree that Mussina shouldn't be borderline but that's the perception out there. 

 

 

I dont agree with comparing players if you're comparing guys to others that don't deserve to be in the HOF. Nobody should be putting SS's up to Rizzuto or 2b up to Mazerowski and saying well his numbers are as good or better. This is elite players. I kind of take the Bill Simmons line. If you dont know in your heart, if you have to question or try to talk yourself into a guy than they almost surely  aren't elite enough.  

[DJ MC]

I dont know because I agree that Mussina shouldn't be borderline but that's the perception out there. 

 

 

I dont agree with comparing players if you're comparing guys to others that don't deserve to be in the HOF. Nobody should be putting SS's up to Rizzuto or 2b up to Mazerowski and saying well his numbers are as good or better. This is elite players. I kind of take the Bill Simmons line. If you dont know in your heart, if you have to question or try to talk yourself into a guy than they almost surely  aren't elite enough.  

 

Simmons is also the guy who likes to push the HOF Pyramid, which I think is one of the dumber ideas he's come up with.

[mweb08]

I dont know because I agree that Mussina shouldn't be borderline but that's the perception out there.


I dont agree with comparing players if you're comparing guys to others that don't deserve to be in the HOF. Nobody should be putting SS's up to Rizzuto or 2b up to Mazerowski and saying well his numbers are as good or better. This is elite players. I kind of take the Bill Simmons line. If you dont know in your heart, if you have to question or try to talk yourself into a guy than they almost surely aren't elite enough.

I just don't see how the eye test really works in baseball for the HOF. As for comparing guys, you have to compare players to see where they rank, and then see if that's HOF worthy, and no I don't think comparing favorably to the worst players in the hall should get one in. The problem with the know in your heart approach is that there are going to be borderline guys, there have to be with something like this, and if you say none of the borderline guys deserve it, then there will still be borderline guys, they'll just be a notch or two higher. With borderline players, you have to do real analysis IMO, not just base it off your heart or the eye test.

[mweb08]

I dont know because I agree that Mussina shouldn't be borderline but that's the perception out there.


I dont agree with comparing players if you're comparing guys to others that don't deserve to be in the HOF. Nobody should be putting SS's up to Rizzuto or 2b up to Mazerowski and saying well his numbers are as good or better. This is elite players. I kind of take the Bill Simmons line. If you dont know in your heart, if you have to question or try to talk yourself into a guy than they almost surely aren't elite enough.

Simmons is also the guy who likes to push the HOF Pyramid, which I think is one of the dumber ideas he's come up with.

He didn't come up with it, but I love that idea.

[mweb08]

Going back to the Crime Dog, if he had hit 550 homers, would he be worthy of the HOF?

[Pedro Cerrano]

He didn't come up with it, but I love that idea.

 

Of course you do.  More opportunities to argue!

[mweb08]

He didn't come up with it, but I love that idea.

 
Of course you do.  More opportunities to argue!

Exactly!

[DJ MC]

He didn't come up with it, but I love that idea.

 

It doesn't make any sense. Either you're good enough to be in the Hall of Fame or you aren't. They're already at the top of the "pyramid" by being the best of all time.

[mweb08]

He didn't come up with it, but I love that idea.

 
It doesn't make any sense. Either you're good enough to be in the Hall of Fame or you aren't. They're already at the top of the "pyramid" by being the best of all time.

It makes perfect sense. Clearly not all HOF'ers are equal and they can easily be split up into further categories.

[DJ MC]

It makes perfect sense. Clearly not all HOF'ers are equal and they can easily be split up into further categories.

 

If you don't want everyone to be in one level, don't support "lesser" people for the Hall

 

That's the whole point in being a "big Hall" or "small Hall" guy. You have one level that's the Hall of Fame, and everyone else stays in the museum.

[DJ MC]

http://espn.go.com/b...e-voting-system

 

David Schoenfeld with a great write up of the problems with the process as a whole, with quotes from James, Olney, Verducci, and others.