Friday, May 24, 2013
MLB: Don Sutton never shy about voicing his opinion
(mlb.mlb.com)
Sutton: Because that’s where the defaced money is.
Read More...The outspoken Sutton—who came up with the Dodgers in 1966 and pitched with them for 16 of his 23 seasons—has his own opinion about everything.
He said in an interview last week that he hates pitch counts.
“I say it with a laugh in my voice when I broadcast: ‘That’s 100 pitches. On the next one, he’s going to turn into a troll.’ At 101, you just disappear. Poof, you’re gone,” Sutton said.
...MLB.com: Did you cheat?
Sutton: No, I never got ...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Voros McCracken of Pinkus posted on December 08, 2012 at 12:55 PM # hit 0 | hit 0The character portion is a bar you have to pass over. You don't get extra credit for passing over it by more than other people do.
Honestly, from the headline I expected this to come from some orphan whose diapers had been changed by the selfless late-night family-shelter-volunteering Dale Murphy. But it's just his kid. Diapers come with the territory.
Jeff Newman never even played for the Rangers. What standing have you to make his HOF case?
C'mon dude, she's like 652nd in pancake flops
Huh. Another similarity to Romney's kids.
Plainly and simply: Any piece that argues in favor of Murphy has to deal with the problems people have with his case:
1. He has a HOF peak/prime, but not much value outside of that.
2. It's hard to make a strong case for him because he doesn't measure up to the HOF's middle tier.
3. It is hard to distinguish him over other HOVG players not in, such as Evans.
You don't have to use statgeeky stats to argue the point, but you do need to make a coherent argument.
sounds kinky...
Now that sounds kinky! (Or kinda messy.)
Doing the statnerds thing doesn't help Murpy's case, you idiot.
or like a recent Furman Bisher column (published posthumously)
That is what I was hoping for, was a nice plead by the child of one of the great players of the 80's, and with it being Murphy, I figured that there would be some argument for the character clause. I did not expect an attack on stat nerds to come out of no where. To vote for Murphy you have to argue that he is borderline by the numbers, and gets a bump due to character, not base the whole case on character.
If you want to argue for Murphy you have to bring in similar arguments that are used with Jack Morris(or even Dave Concepcion) as one of the best during an era that is under represented in the current hall makeup. You can also use the "better than argument..." against about half a dozen players in the hof.
Not sure that attacking the nerds is the best course of action. Dale isn't going to make it this year, and if he ever makes it in on a veteran's selection, there is going to be a tremendous amount of nerd noise supporting or denigrating his position. It's best to have them on your side I would imagine. (although it doesn't seem to have hurt Jim Rice or Jack Morris)
And a lot of baseball fans loved and admired Dale Murphy as a baseball player. That doesn't change just because they don't think he qualifies for the Hall of Fame.
Split PA AB H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+vs RHP as RHB 505 430 138 16 4 31 100 22 4 70 74 .321 .416 .593 1.009 .326 116 193
vs LHP as RHB 182 159 40 8 0 5 21 8 0 20 36 .252 .330 .396 .726 .289 57 98
A Mormon is calling someone else a nerd?
Not smart, Mr. Murphy.
I wonder if he goes out of his way to antagonize researchers who use quantitative methods in his field. Stand down, regression nerds.
Murphy does have two consecutive MVP awards. He's got 31 points of black ink. Both are above the curve for an average HOFer, not just the crappy HOFers.
I think the best case for Murphy is that he was arguably the best at his position for four consecutive years. I don't think that is enough to get him into the HOF, but it might be enough to get him into the discussion, especially if you think there's an issue with era-adjustment for the 80s.
And I actually don't think it's _so_ easily to dispense with Murphy. He was as good as some lower tier players such as Rice, and the' peak/prime is one that does need to be dealt with; it was certainly of HOF quality, and wasn't _short_, but wasn't surrounded by much.
Nah, this is far, far worse. Why would we expect someone pressing a case to stoop to insult a significant portion of his audience?
I knew a woman who got a doctorate in Fashion Technology. This sounds like that.
Yeah, that's a hell of a risk there, irritating the 83.5% of the writers who left Murphy off of last year's notably uncompetitive ballot, along with the advanced stat fans who would never support Murphy if they had a vote, which they don't. Talk about burning the 15th bridge after the first 14 collapsed.
But what the hell, if you can't pitch a hissy fit for your pop, who can you do it for? Of course, the snag with Chad's viewpoint is that integrity, character and sportsmanship have literally never been the margin of induction, not once, not for any candidate. Go ask Chad Hodges, Chad O'Neil, Chad Abbott, Chad Baines or Chad Hershiser about the size of the integrity bump.
As for the converse recently becoming true-- the writers suddenly remembering they care so, so much about the disqualifying power of those three dust-encrusted adjectives that nothing else matters-- hey, cherished tradition's gotta start somewhere.
:)
I'll keep it in mind.
Yes, if you use very small words.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.