|
Post by grover on Jan 9, 2007 14:11:34 GMT -5
Yeah, you telling me he should be rewarded for staying longer and putting up mediocre stats to fluff his overall?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 9, 2007 14:12:34 GMT -5
Couple of interesting points, as made by MLB.COM.
There is good news and bad news for Rich "Goose" Gossage, the reliever who is creeping ever so close to his day in the Cooperstown sun. The bad news is that this time Gossage came up 21 votes shy of the 75 percent needed to ascend to the Hall. The good news is that with a much thinner ballot next year, Gossage seems to be on the cusp.
On the ballot for the eighth year, the Goose came in at 71.2 percent, an increase from his 64.6 percent a year ago. In the history of the BBWAA Hall of Fame voting, no candidate has ever received at least 70 percent in an election without eventually gaining a place in Cooperstown. Most recently, Don Sutton (73.2 percent in 1997) and Gaylord Perry (72.1 percent) gained election the very next year.
Also, enough about McGwire. Even if there was no steroid hoopla, a lot of people would choose to not vote for him. Talk about one-dimensional! His batting average numbers were absolutely pathetic. Mix it all together and you get ONE QUARTER OF THE VOTE. Ouch.
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Jan 9, 2007 14:16:13 GMT -5
"People are tired of hearing Gossage whine, there's no doubt of that. But it has not hurt his chances, as his votes have creeped up year to year. Most reporters just laugh it off and vote how they were going to vote regardless."
Wrong, I know of several people who continue to leave Gossage off just for the simple pleasure of seeing him not get in due to his lobbying for himself in the media.
That said, Congrats to Ripken and Gwynn. Jw
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 9, 2007 14:17:16 GMT -5
This shit CRACKS ME UP! I mean, I'm literally laughing outloud. WHAT IS THAT? What pitcher ends up leaning back after their wind-up and follow through??? That's some funny lookin' stuff right there!!!!! HAAAA!!! Another view:
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 9, 2007 14:17:23 GMT -5
Tommy John was NEVER average in his career. 288 wins.
Yeah, 288 wins....in TWENTY-SIX YEARS!!
Break it down, and he averaged a 13-10 mark in your average 162 game season. Commendable, but not Hall of Fame worthy, when you mix it in with his pedestrian strikeout totals and number of hits allowed (more than 1 per inning for his career!)
Sorry, he's as average as they come. Its only that he was average LONGER, which you seem to have a fetish for.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2007 14:18:34 GMT -5
There are certain HOF level numbers that stat padding can make possible.
McGwire is actually someone who hit one of the automatics--500 HRs.
One question I have is has anyone with 500 or more HRs ever received such a small percentage of the vote.
What would sicken me is if next year, he gets in and this was a one time protest.
You're right about McGwire--his average numbers were pathetic. The guy hit .252 or lower 5 times (not including that rookie season). In 4 of those seasons, he hit .235 or lower.
In 1991, the guy hit .201!
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 9, 2007 14:19:37 GMT -5
Wrong, I know of several people who continue to leave Gossage off just for the simple pleasure of seeing him not get in due to his lobbying for himself in the media.
Note I said "MOST" dont work that way in my post. I understand that is out there. Guys like Eddie Murray and Jim Rice are noted for getting shunned yearly cause of their attitude. But, with Gossage's totals going up year to year, he will probably get in, and whoever chooses to take joy in the fact they are sticking it to him will have it stuck to them instead.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2007 14:22:19 GMT -5
As for Tommy John, that point means absolutely nothing. The guy lasted 26 years because he was good enough to last 26 years. During those 26 years, he played on a lot of shitty teams, which in case you didn't know, affects wins. The man also had 3 20 win seasons.
And 13-10 is a .565 winning PCT. That's better than 14-12 (.538) which is what your boy Blyleven averaged.
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Jan 9, 2007 14:23:38 GMT -5
"One question I have is has anyone with 500 or more HRs ever received such a small percentage of the vote."
No player with 500 HR's has ever been left out, so it's safe to assume no one got such a small vote.
Another thing to look at is that McGwire with that average also got the lowest number of hits with 500 or more HR's. So even if there was no controversey with steroids he was probably not gonna get 75%. Jw
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 9, 2007 14:24:33 GMT -5
Blyleven was a lot more dominating.
You said yourself "wins dont mean anything."
I am just illustrating how average John was. Take a minute to check his other numbers and you will see how average he was.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2007 14:28:26 GMT -5
How was he more dominating though? Yes, he struck out a LOT more batters. But a ground out is just as effective as a K. John's career ERA was 3.34. His winning PCT was .555.
Blyleven's career ERA was 3.31 and his winning PCT was .534.
Neither were more dominating than the other. Blyleven LOST 250 games. John lost 231. But John, as you pointed out, lasted 26 years compared to Blyleven's wimpy 22 years.
I won't go as far as to say that John was necessarily better. But I would say that the two can't be differentiated. BOTH belong in the HOF.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2007 14:29:19 GMT -5
Has anyone else in the 500 HR club ever NOT been a first ballot HOFer?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 9, 2007 14:35:43 GMT -5
How was he more dominating though?
Well, for starters John gave up more hits than innings pitched for his career, while Blyleven gave up 300 LESS hits than innings pitched.
JOHN - 4710 IP, 4783 H, 1259 BB, 2245 K
BLYLEVEN - 4970 IP, 4632 H, 1322 BB, 3701 K
And, sorry, but strikeouts is a tangible number when grading pitchers throughout history. Just as home runs is a benchmark for players who would possibly not make it in the HOF any other way, strikeouts would boost the candidacy of a pitcher. Just look at the leaderboards for John and Blyleven on baseball-reference.com and get back to me if you still need to be schooled on how Blyleven was more "dominating" than John.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2007 14:41:28 GMT -5
The numbers you showed simply don't make one pitcher more dominating than the other.
Dominating means effective. With nearly identical ERAs, they were equally effective. This includes the last 3 season when John was still effective, but someone with an ERA over 4.00.
There was simply nothing that separates these two. For the HOF, the magic number is 300 wins, but no one so close to 300 has ever been excluded--except these 2 guys. They both earned it.
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Jan 9, 2007 14:41:47 GMT -5
Tommy John: 4 time all-star Top 10 in ERA 6 times Top 10 in wins 6 times Top 10 in shutouts 7 times
Bert: 2 time All-star Top Ten ERA 10 times Top Ten wins 6 times Top ten shutouts 10 times
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Jan 9, 2007 14:42:32 GMT -5
Also, I don't believe either should be voted in, and the results show that will continue to be the case. Circle that Bert, you dick!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 9, 2007 14:45:15 GMT -5
So Ripken gets a higher percentage of votes than Gwynn. Call me crazy, but I don't think that's right.
Ripken had a lot of mediocre years. Gwynn was consistently outstanding.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2007 14:46:14 GMT -5
I would think that if the writers pass on these guys, they should have a shot with the Veteran's Committee.
Blyleven was also top ten in the Cy Young balloting 4 times. His highest rank was 3 in both 1984 and 1985. John also was a Cy Young top ten candidate 4 times, with his highest rank being #2, in 1977 and 1979.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 9, 2007 14:46:47 GMT -5
Cho, you're just showing your anti-rest of the American League East bias.
Ripken was a better overall player than Gwynn. Come on, man.
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Jan 9, 2007 14:49:50 GMT -5
Yeah, seriously, you're gonna bitch about Cal getting five more votes?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2007 14:59:13 GMT -5
I still don't get how anyone can choose NOT to vote for either of them.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 9, 2007 15:06:49 GMT -5
Not sure, but I once read of a pundit who said the only person he feels ever should have been considered a unanimous lock for the Hall was Babe Ruth. And if you are not Babe Ruth, as long as he had a vote you will not be getting in unanimously. It sounds stupid and spiteful and against the spirit of the thing, but in this case it was some reporters silly nod to Babe Ruth as the greatest ever to play the game. I also alluded to the thought of "no one is perfect" and certain writers probably taking it upon themselves to make sure no baseball player goes in there with a perfect mark. But, all things considered....WHO CARES? ? You guys spend way too much time worrying about semantics. Just revel in the glory that is Ripken and Gwynn. They both deserve this day.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2007 15:08:29 GMT -5
But if someone abuses their right to vote like that, it should be taken away. A vote is a privilege. It doesn't matter in the long run, since these guys are in. But a no brainer is a no brainer for a reason.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 9, 2007 15:10:22 GMT -5
Sorry, but I dont think its "abusing their right." You want to go after all the people who dont want to vote in Jim Rice or Rich Gossage just cause they are pricks to the media?
Get over it.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2007 15:11:37 GMT -5
Actually, yes. They don't deserve votes either.
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Jan 9, 2007 15:15:13 GMT -5
It's not really a "privledge" at all, just a perk one gets for being a member of a writer's organization for 10 years, even if you don't actually write anything each and every year. Jw
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2007 15:29:09 GMT -5
Not sure you quoted the word privilege, which was not spelled incorrectly, but anyway, if that's the low standard for getting a HOF vote, it's a flaw in the system.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 9, 2007 15:33:36 GMT -5
No, its not.
System works fine, and wont be changing regardless.
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Jan 9, 2007 15:37:20 GMT -5
Thank you, Sheriff Tom.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2007 15:46:14 GMT -5
Just because the system won't be changing, doesn't mean it's right. And clearly it doesn't work right because several people who belong are not in, and several people who do not belong are.
|
|