Congrats To The HOFers

[cwk1963]

Didn't know where to stick this - can we get a general non-fantasy baseball forum?

Ricky in on the first ballot but 28 writers didn't see fit to vote for him. I wonder if they would know a HOFer if he hit them over the head with their bat. I normally don't watch the induction ceremony but this year I will. It promises to be very entertaining with Ricky giving a speech. The over/under for how many times he refers to himself in the 3rd person should be 75.

It's also about time the BBWAA got it right with Jim Rice. He was the most feared hitter of his time. As a die hard Yankee fan I'm sure I cursed him out as many times as the Boston faithful cheered him. Kudos to Jim.

[swarmstrong]

I think it is criminal that Blyleven and Dawson are not in the hall.

[da_big_kid_94]

First, let me also add my congratulations to Rickey and Jim Rice. Well done. gents.

But SWArmstrong has touched upon the tip of an iceberg here. It may not be next year, or 2011 ... but within the next 6 years, the BBWAA will come to realize they have painted themselves in a corner. 5 years from now, Maddux will be eligible. 6 - I will assume Smoltz and Glavine and the Unit. And herein lies the tale; outside of the Rocket, what active pitchers will have records that even come CLOSE to Blyleven or Tommy John or Jack Morris? I realize that the voting is purely subjective, but they aren't going to be able to come up with enough subjective criteria to admit some of the current pitchers, and not these gentlemen.

[Guest]

The beauty of the HOF is its subjectivity. Even though I disagree with the fact it's become the hall of very good.

To me, I don't understand how Curt Schilling won't be an HOF. To me theres nothing wrong with the big game pitcher standard.

16 Playoff Starts, 11-2, 2.23 ERA and 3 rings.

Tommy John: 6-3, 2.65 in 14 starts

Blyleven: 5-1, 2.47 in 6 starts

A guy like Tony Perez without significant counting stats has an OPS of .669 in 172 postseason AB (for reference, ARod the supposed choker is .844 in 147 postseason AB)

To me, you either put up significant counting stats amongst your peer group, have oustanding postseason performance over a decent amount of time, or were a superior defensive player over a longstanding amount of time.

Im a diehard Sox fan and Rice doesn't meet the criteria. Doesn't mean the Hall is worse for having him in it, I suppose.

But I'd have McGwire in on the first ballot. How Gaylord Perry is celebrated and McGwire not just confuses me....

[ShawnC]

5 years from now, Maddux will be eligible. 6 - I will assume Smoltz and Glavine and the Unit. And herein lies the tale; outside of the Rocket, what active pitchers will have records that even come CLOSE to Blyleven or Tommy John or Jack Morris? I realize that the voting is purely subjective, but they aren't going to be able to come up with enough subjective criteria to admit some of the current pitchers, and not these gentlemen.

There has definitely been a shift taking place among voters who "get it" when it comes to more advanced stats. Among that number are those who actually understand them at a fairly high level and how to look at them in context. The death of 300 game winners is no mystery to most voters - they understand why it is what it is and have started looking at other criteria. The big thing is what will be "correct" things to look at and more importantly, looking at how past HOF'ers performed in those areas for sake of making cases for (or against) guys like Mussina, Santana, Halladay, etc. It's going to be interesting and odds are it won't be pretty until most of the dinosaurs are weeded out, but I think in the long run, the HOF process is going to be making a turn for the better. It will be interesting to see what the baselines the voters establish for getting in end up being 7-10 years from now.

[cwk1963]

It absolutely is very subjective which means it doesn't make much sense sometimes. I agree that Blyleven and Dawson (among others) should be in. I disagree that McGwire should be in - and not just because of the steroid issue. He played 16 years and, granted, was an AS 12 of them (although he only played in 9). He has 1 WS win out of 3 to his credit which I, personally, would not take into consideration because many a HOF player didn't make it. He never won a MVP, with 5 years being in the top 10 and only has 1 GG. Here's a guy who was a HR or nothing. Consider in 16 years he has barely over 1600 hits of which 583 of them were HR. So, in his career, he only had 1,043 hits that weren't a HR and he struck out almost 300 times more than he walked. With all his power, his career OPS is still less than 1.000. He arguably was a 1 dimensional player - that being the long ball - and in my mind those types don't belong in the HOF.

On the other hand, what about Don Mattingly? Now, looking at him by himself, I don't think he belongs. But how does he not and Kirby Puckett does?

[Guest]

Mattingly had 6 years where he was an above avg offensive player and done as an elite offensive player at 29.

Puckett had 10.

I don't care about McGwire's WS efforts, but 583 HR, somewhat speaks for itself IMO.

Now, cwk I will grant you that Thome isnt far behind and he's not HOF in my mind, so maybe Im full of it.

This is why I love the subjectivity.

Another conversation - Raines vs Dawson vs Rice

Raines stacks up very well.

[SteveB]

I always considered Rice to be the AL version of Dale Murphy. Not looking at stats at all here just kind of how i saw them . I didnt think either would make it to be honest. It just seemed like they peaked and only dominated for 4-5 years and then were just above average. When i have time i will look at his stats but is he really better than say Dave Parker, Dale Murphy, or Juan Gonzales types? In fact another Red Sox Dwight Evans is very comparable as well. All VERY good players in my eyes but just a bit shy of HOF.

See the one dimensional aspect of McGwire is why i dont think he belongs either. I know everyone else over 500 Hrs is in that is eligible but lets be honest 500 isnt what it used to be. I always saw him as a glorified Dave Kingman. Not sure how close to 500 Kingman is but would you even consider him? What about Delgado, Thome, Giambi will hit 400 this year and probably has a few more years in him. I just dont think that 500 will be the golden ticket to the HOF that it used to be.

[ShawnC]

The thing about McGuire is the juice. 583 may be the most hollow number in all of sports history.

Raines is more deserving than Rice/Dawson/Evans/Mattingly IMO. I think Dawson will get in within 2 years, Raines within 3-4.

[drapes]

The fact is that the Hall of Fame is not the Mt. Olympus that many believe it should be, and the steroid era is sure to make things interesting to say the least. In my mind it is what it is and we can't expect it to change... very good (as opposed to outstanding) players are still going to be inducted, and we aren't going to see drastic changes to the standards as they currently stand due to precedent. They aren't going to suddenly reform the induction process, because very good players already in the Hall aren't going to have their plaques revoked. In my mind there is one clear solution, and that is to institute some form of a "Mt. Olympus" wing, or designation for the truly epoch changing players in the history of the game: Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Walter Johnson, Matthewson, et al. That is the only way to truly and effectively separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of legitimate greatness.

I was listening to our local sports guy (Lansing) interview John Smoltz this morning, and after the interview the question of his worthiness of induction came up.

Career Numbers to date:
20 years, 210 wins, 154 saves, 3011 Ks, 3.26 ERA. - Fringe.

162 Game Avg:
196 IP, 12-8, 8 saves, 174Ks, 3.26 ERA. - roughly equivalent to:

John Danks 2008: 195 IP, 12-9, 159 Ks, 3.32 ERA

2008 Leaders in Pitching Runs Created:
Lincecum Tim SF 142
Halladay Roy TOR AL 139
Lee Cliff CLE AL 139
Santana Johan NYN NL 134
Lester Jon BOS AL 114
Hamels Cole PHI NL 113
Santana Ervin LAA AL 113
Dempster Ryan CHN NL 112
Haren Dan ARI NL 111
Webb Brandon ARI NL 107
Danks John CHA AL 106

So over 20 years Smoltz's average numbers would have been good enough to make him the 11th best pitcher in 2008. But from 1992-1998 Smoltz was one of the leagues best, winning the Cy Young in '96. However, over that 7 year period he was an All-Star only 3 times. He was a dominant closer from 2002-2004, but 3 years does not make him Dennis Eckersly.

Now what Smoltz's Hall candidacy ultimately rests on are his post-season numbers.

24 Post-season series, 207 IP, 15-4, 4 saves, 194Ks, 2.65 ERA, 1 WS Ring.

Smoltz was an ACE in the post-season, however, despite his outstanding all-around career numbers, he has to hope that the legacy of Greg Maddux doesn't overshadow his tremendous career in the eyes of the voters.

I'd vote him in on the strength of his longevity, consistency, and his dominance in the post-season. He doesn't belong on Mt. Olympus, but does he belong in the Hall as it is currently constructed? I would argue yes.

What say you?

[ShawnC]

I think Smoltz is likely to get in on his first try.

[rotohuff]

How can Blyleven not be in yet?

293 career wins
Career ERA of 3.31
Career Whip of 1.19
3701 career K's

[SteveB]

The fact is that the Hall of Fame is not the Mt. Olympus that many believe it should be, and the steroid era is sure to make things interesting to say the least. In my mind it is what it is and we can't expect it to change... very good (as opposed to outstanding) players are still going to be inducted

You make a good point but still there will be a line drawn somewhere. Then you will be having the same argument with the "new" fringe players.

So looking at my first post in this thread , do you think Rice should be in? What about Dave Parker, Dwight Evans, Dale Murphy, and Juan Gonzales. See these were all "very good" players that i dont see as a whole lot different than Rice. When you take players that are below the line then you lower the line and as such arguments can be made for all those guys.

I would like the Hall to shoot for the Mt.Olympus , keep standards to "outstanding" with an occasional mistake, than to have the whole standards pushed southward.

[da_big_kid_94]

I was listening to our local sports guy (Lansing) interview John Smoltz this morning, and after the interview the question of his worthiness of induction came up.

Career Numbers to date:
20 years, 210 wins, 154 saves, 3011 Ks, 3.26 ERA. - Fringe.

What say you?

I would say he's nowhere near fringe ... I see him as lock. Look at it in this way ..... on a team that averages 90 wins per season, John Smoltz was a direct participant in every one of those wins for 4 straight seasons. The only guy you can compare Smoltz to is obviously Eck. His career is unique, he switched roles to accommodate his team on several occasions and he excelled at multiple facets of pitching.

[eudubbz]

Another "fringe" player may be Ichiro. Does he make the HOF? The Mariners are terrible and he should decline sook, skewing his ratios and make his numbers look worse as he has a smaller MLB sample size to build from. Also, does any accomplishment in Japan count?

[drapes]

I was listening to our local sports guy (Lansing) interview John Smoltz this morning, and after the interview the question of his worthiness of induction came up.

Career Numbers to date:
20 years, 210 wins, 154 saves, 3011 Ks, 3.26 ERA. - Fringe.

What say you?

I would say he's nowhere near fringe ... I see him as lock. Look at it in this way ..... on a team that averages 90 wins per season, John Smoltz was a direct participant in every one of those wins for 4 straight seasons. The only guy you can compare Smoltz to is obviously Eck. His career is unique, he switched roles to accommodate his team on several occasions and he excelled at multiple facets of pitching.

Kid - I wasn't suggesting that he was fringe myself. If you look at the rest of the post I suggest that he's more than worthy, but I'm not voting, the fickle BWAA are the ones voting and I was merely trying to walk through their process of evaluation. At first glance at those career numbers, if you take away the name Smoltz, I think it's fair to suggest that there are plenty of morons who will keep him off the ballot using the "fringe" argument.

He has to rise above the long shadows of Maddux and Glavine, but I think at a bare minimum his post-season record justifies him as a lock on the first ballot.

[da_big_kid_94]

I was listening to our local sports guy (Lansing) interview John Smoltz this morning, and after the interview the question of his worthiness of induction came up.

Career Numbers to date:
20 years, 210 wins, 154 saves, 3011 Ks, 3.26 ERA. - Fringe.

What say you?

I would say he's nowhere near fringe ... I see him as lock. Look at it in this way ..... on a team that averages 90 wins per season, John Smoltz was a direct participant in every one of those wins for 4 straight seasons. The only guy you can compare Smoltz to is obviously Eck. His career is unique, he switched roles to accommodate his team on several occasions and he excelled at multiple facets of pitching.

Kid - I wasn't suggesting that he was fringe myself. If you look at the rest of the post I suggest that he's more than worthy, but I'm not voting, the fickle BWAA are the ones voting and I was merely trying to walk through their process of evaluation. At first glance at those career numbers, if you take away the name Smoltz, I think it's fair to suggest that there are plenty of morons who will keep him off the ballot using the "fringe" argument.

He has to rise above the long shadows of Maddux and Glavine, but I think at a bare minimum his post-season record justifies him as a lock on the first ballot.

I understand, Drapes ... I just don't see it that way. I think Glavine is the one that has to rise up above the shadows of Maddux and Smoltz. I know there's a lot of sentiment for Glavine to go in as one of the Three Amigos of Atlanta - but I'd put John or Blyleven in before I'd put Glavine in.

[drapes]

I'm with ya Kid. I'd take Smoltz over Glavine myself.

[cwk1963]

Mattingly had 6 years where he was an above avg offensive player and done as an elite offensive player at 29.

Puckett had 10.

I don't care about McGwire's WS efforts, but 583 HR, somewhat speaks for itself IMO.

Now, cwk I will grant you that Thome isnt far behind and he's not HOF in my mind, so maybe Im full of it.

This is why I love the subjectivity.

Another conversation - Raines vs Dawson vs Rice

Raines stacks up very well.

Wouldn't that seem to say that, since they both wound up with nearly identical lifetime stats, that Puckett's years were more pedestrian than Donnie's? Puckett had 4 more years to accumulate the same type of stats.