Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Dan Shaughnessy Ballot

Wow. That’s all that can be said. Wow.

I am voting for Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine, and Greg Maddux.

Like Thomas, guys such as Piazza and Bagwell have Hall of Fame numbers and never tested positive for PEDs. But they look dirty. Something doesn’t make sense. Thomas makes sense.

This is where it gets unfair and subjective. I don’t vote for the PED guys, so it’s easy to say no to Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGwire, and Palmeiro. They have positive tests and/or admissions and/or multiple appearances in the Mitchell Report. Piazza and Bagwell have none of that. They just don’t look right.

The rest of the list of players I reject are good old-fashioned baseball arguments. Biggio got 68.2 percent of the vote last year, but I don’t think of him as Hall-worthy (only one 200-hit season). Same for Mussina and his 270 wins (he always pitched for good teams) and Smith and his 478 saves (saves are overrated and often artificial). Not voting for Raines and Martinez also feels totally unfair. I just never thought of them as Hall of Famers. They fail the “I know it when I see it” test.

I’m not sure if this guy would know common sense when he sees it.

brutus Posted: December 29, 2013 at 03:23 AM | 275 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame

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.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. I Am Not a Number Posted: December 29, 2013 at 09:15 AM (#4625514)
They just don’t look right.

Does Shaughnessy not own a mirror?
   2. villageidiom Posted: December 29, 2013 at 09:29 AM (#4625519)
The rest of the list of players I reject are good old-fashioned baseball arguments.
Well, they certainly are old-fashioned baseball arguments.
   3. TRBMB Posted: December 29, 2013 at 09:53 AM (#4625522)
Further proof that the BBWAA's time as the electorate is up. Unfortunately the Clark Foundation is totally clueless and nothing will change.
   4. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: December 29, 2013 at 10:03 AM (#4625525)
Like Thomas, guys such as Piazza and Bagwell have Hall of Fame numbers and never tested positive for PEDs. But they look dirty. Something doesn’t make sense. Thomas makes sense.

Racist.
   5. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM (#4625526)
Pathetic.
   6. Publius Publicola Posted: December 29, 2013 at 10:09 AM (#4625527)
Biggio got 68.2 percent of the vote last year, but I don’t think of him as Hall-worthy (only one 200-hit season).


Jeepus. Is that the best you can do? Only one 200 hit season? Ted Williams didn't have any. What about the defensive numbers? What about the post-season numbers? If you're going to make a case why, then make one, you lazy bastard.
   7. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 29, 2013 at 10:36 AM (#4625537)
Same for Mussina and his 270 wins (he always pitched for good teams)

He should've won 16 less games.
   8. DA Baracus is a "bloodthirsty fan of Atlanta." Posted: December 29, 2013 at 10:39 AM (#4625538)
Trolls gonna troll.
   9. bobm Posted: December 29, 2013 at 11:06 AM (#4625549)
Tango score: 30/100
   10. ??'s Biggest Fan! Posted: December 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4625554)
Christ. Why don't we simply put in 30 new players every year into the Hall? That way every one of the 30 teams in the MLB will have a representative player and all the fanboys can just snap up merchandise for their newly elected HOF-er every single damn year. I hate Morris' nomination. I prefer an almost unreasonably small HOF. Only players who re-defined their positions or players who crazily out-performed their peers should be inducted, and only be eligible the first year of eligibility. I'm not sure why if Player X wasn't good enough his first year, how 2-3 years later, his value to the sport will be any different. These may be unreasonable standards, but it would definitely include Bonds, Maddux and Thomas for this year.
   11. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 29, 2013 at 11:16 AM (#4625555)
Same for Mussina and his 270 wins (he always pitched for good teams)

He should've won 16 less games.


Or 30 more...

What kills me about votes like this is for every one ballot like this, you need three "better" ones to get a candidate back on pace for election. For Piazza and Biggio, it could easily come down to a handful of votes to determine if they are in or out. If neither get in this year, both will likely get, what, 70% or more of the vote? Think of the number of slots that will require being used again next year - 70% of 600 ballots is 420, times two slots each, is 840 "slots" being used for Biggio and Piazza that would otherwise largely be used for other candidates.

That's really what this election is about...and Shaughnessy fails.
   12. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: December 29, 2013 at 11:22 AM (#4625559)
Also, I can't believe Tom Glavine is going to get, like, 93% or 95% of the vote or something. 20 players in history received 93% or higher, and they obviously read as a "who's who" list of the greatest players ever. If Glavine - who I love, and is clearly a HOF'er - breaks 93%, is her the weakest player on that list? Is it Tony Gwynn?

Whatever. Tom Glavine is going owe Greg Maddux a round of drinks after the press conference in a few weeks!
   13. TJ Posted: December 29, 2013 at 11:33 AM (#4625564)
FTFA...

"I’ve been voting since 1986 and I truly miss the good old days when we argued about home runs, batting averages, ERAs, World Series performances, All-Star Games, and a player’s dominance at his position in his era. Things were so much simpler then."

One could still argue about these things regarding Tim Raines Alan Trammell, etc, or one can just argue "I know it when I see it"...

Now there is so much to consider, it makes one’s head explode.

We can only hope...
   14. BDC Posted: December 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4625566)
Tom Glavine is going to get, like, 93%

It's an interesting feature of this "logjam" ballot. Aside from a few people like CHB here who submit ballots as if they were writing provocative columns, HOF voters don't want to leave ballot spaces blank or next summer's podium empty. And if they're in a twist because they can't condone a vote for Bonds or Clemens et al., they look at the cleaner neighborhoods of the ballot, see 300 wins, and there's one vote taken care of – a vote, as you mention, that hardly anybody can possibly disagree with, as opposed to Raines vs. Morris or other controversial calls.
   15. akrasian Posted: December 29, 2013 at 11:59 AM (#4625578)
Like Thomas, guys such as Piazza and Bagwell have Hall of Fame numbers and never tested positive for PEDs. But they look dirty. Something doesn’t make sense. Thomas makes sense.

Wait. What?

I doubt Thomas used - but he was a hulking former football player with a massive chiseled frame whose baseball strength was hitting the ball a country mile, and who had major foot problems as if he were carrying too much weight on his upper body. Yes, he spoke against steroids, as did Palmeiro. If your criteria include "they look dirty" how does Thomas pass that test if anybody else fails?
   16. HGM Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4625582)
Wait. What?

I doubt Thomas used - but he was a hulking former football player with a massive chiseled frame whose baseball strength was hitting the ball a country mile, and who had major foot problems as if he were carrying too much weight on his upper body. Yes, he spoke against steroids, as did Palmeiro. If your criteria include "they look dirty" how does Thomas pass that test if anybody else fails?

There is absolutely no logic to the mindset of these lunatics.
   17. Davo Dozier (Mastroianni) Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM (#4625585)
#15--you've already put more thought into understanding that paragraph than did the guy who wrote it.
   18. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4625596)
If your criteria include "they look dirty" how does Thomas pass that test if anybody else fails?


1. No bacne.

2. Was not best friends with Ken Caminiti.
   19. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:21 PM (#4625599)
The antipathy for Tom Glavine around this site is...odd. I guess it goes back to the well established Braves-hatred? But seriously, how on earth is Tom Glavine not a HOFer?
   20. Yastrzemski in left. Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM (#4625603)
Wow. Agreed. What a truly horrendous ballot and logic.

I bet if he had to pick a starter for a game 7 out of the 4 pitchers he is voting for he'd go with Morris. Who, in my opinion is not a HOF caliber pitcher.

He'd have a good "feeling" about starting him.

I also agree that someone ought to open a new HOF. A direct competitor, and somewhere in a warm climate would be nice. One of the bigger Spring Training towns or even Tejas somewhere.
   21. cardsfanboy Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:33 PM (#4625611)
The antipathy for Tom Glavine around this site is...odd. I guess it goes back to the well established Braves-hatred? But seriously, how on earth is Tom Glavine not a HOFer?


I have yet to see one single person on this site say that Glavine isn't a hofer. The argument they are making is that he is getting votes as if he is an inner circle hofer, and yet there is really nothing that separates him from the likes of Mussina or Schilling (Note: That isn't my position. I have Glavine as slightly ahead of both...and of course all three are hof worthy)

I have to say, this ballot is pretty close to about the worst you can imagine. There is no way for him to logically argue for Morris and not Mussina, and I just do not get the mind set that says "Biggio isn't a hofer" a nice peak, long career, one team player, a guy who did the small things and the big things well... etc...
   22. Rough Carrigan Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:34 PM (#4625612)
At this point, Shaughnessy practically flaunts that he's stupid and refuses to think.
"What're ya gonna do about it, pal? You gonna make me think? You gonna make me take this responsibility seriously? Ha! Go ahead and try!"

Really, he's like a guy who once thought he was the smartest guy in the room and then he found out that other guys (like Bill James) had thought of things he never considered and couldn't think up himself and Shaughnessy's response wasn't one of intellectual curiosity (like his colleague Bob Ryan) but insecurity and lashing out at the people who implicitly showed him that he's not the smartest guy in the room.
   23. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:38 PM (#4625616)
I doubt Thomas used - but he was a hulking former football player with a massive chiseled frame whose baseball strength was hitting the ball a country mile, and who had major foot problems as if he were carrying too much weight on his upper body. Yes, he spoke against steroids, as did Palmeiro. If your criteria include "they look dirty" how does Thomas pass that test if anybody else fails?


Because he said he didn't use and was aggressive in opposition to steroids. Nobody who reacts that way could be using.

Anyway, Rafael Palmeiro shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.
   24. BDC Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:38 PM (#4625617)
how on earth is Tom Glavine not a HOFer?

Nobody's saying he's not, far from it. It just seems a little odd that he might get 95% of the vote from a group that gave Biggio and Piazza 68 and 58 on their first ballots. Relative to their positions, the latter two are slightly more elite players, I'd reckon.

EDIT: After reading #21, I'll also add that I have Glavine on my "mock" ballot over at the HOF-election thread, and Mussina off. (I did vote for Schilling, favoring peak as usual over career. I'd easily vote for Mussina if I had 15 or 20 slots.)
   25. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:43 PM (#4625621)
The antipathy for Tom Glavine around this site is...odd. I guess it goes back to the well established Braves-hatred? But seriously, how on earth is Tom Glavine not a HOFer?


It's not antipathy. Your sense of that is your paranoia. (So is your assumption of generalized Braves hatred. People don't hate the Braves in general -- they're not relevant enough for that. They just hate the specific, worthless jagoffs who were on the Braves in 2013.) It's mostly confusion over the unanimous nature of a relatively "run-of-the-mill" Hall of Famer's acclaim, while equal or better candidates receive (or have received) more scattershot support on their way to Cooperstown. If you weren't diagnosably, deviantly paranoid, you would have noticed that everybody in this thread has expressed their personal support for his candidacy -- it's just curious that his acclaim is so universal.
   26. salajander Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:43 PM (#4625622)
At this point, Shaughnessy practically flaunts that he's stupid and refuses to think.
"What're ya gonna do about it, pal? You gonna make me think? You gonna make me take this responsibility seriously? Ha! Go ahead and try!"

Really, he's like a guy who once thought he was the smartest guy in the room and then he found out that other guys (like Bill James) had thought of things he never considered and couldn't think up himself and Shaughnessy's response wasn't one of intellectual curiosity (like his colleague Bob Ryan) but insecurity and lashing out at the people who implicitly showed him that he's not the smartest guy in the room.

Perfect description. Nailed it.
   27. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM (#4625623)
The antipathy for Tom Glavine around this site is...odd. I guess it goes back to the well established Braves-hatred? But seriously, how on earth is Tom Glavine not a HOFer?

I'm fourth or fifth in line for this, but this is pretty weak.
   28. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4625629)
Yeah, I hate Glavine, mostly for one game he pitched in '07, but of course he's a HOFer.
   29. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:52 PM (#4625630)
Nobody's saying he's not, far from it. It just seems a little odd that he might get 95% of the vote from a group that gave Biggio and Piazza 68 and 58 on their first ballots. Relative to their positions, the latter two are slightly more elite players, I'd reckon.


This is some massive willful ignorance then. Pitchers not named Roger Clemens get bonus points for dominating the "steroid era" while otherwise qualified sluggers get demerits for being tangentially connected to "big muscles" and the power boom from that same "era." I'm well established on record stating the complete and utter stupidity of the Bonds-bashing brigades masquerading as PED morality scolds, but that doesn't mean the mechanism by which Glavine gets near universal support while the sluggers who were his contemporaries don't is not hard to suss out.

Tom Glavine is clearly and obviously a HOF caliber player. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone - PED scolds or otherwise rational voters - to leave him off of the ballot. Thus he is getting near universal support. It's really quite simple.
   30. JJ1986 Posted: December 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4625635)
Pitchers not named Roger Clemens


or Mike Mussina.
   31. Davo Dozier (Mastroianni) Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:04 PM (#4625637)
I think Glavine is clearly a Hall of Famer, but when I was making out a mock ballot, his was the very last name I put down--there was very little difference between him and the guys who just missed making the ballot (Larry Walker, Sammy Sosa, etc).

So it's a little odd to see him listed on everyone's ballot. With ~20 or so reasonable candidates on this ballot, his profile does not scream "slam dunk" to me.
   32. BDC Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4625639)
Yes, Sam, I've heard of steroids :-D And it's true that Biggio and Piazza have been involved in marginal rumors – among the more marginal, I'd say, bacne aside, but perhaps enough to scare off a quarter or a third of the electorate.

There still remains the historical fact that Balboni's Trainer points out. The BBWAA elected Bob Gibson with 84%, Joe Morgan with 82%, Don Sutton with 82% on the fifth ballot … basically they're a conservative bunch, or have been. Either they're getting less so, or the weird ballot circs are producing both crazy low and crazy high percentages. (In that sense, you and I are pointing out the same thing.)

Of course, maybe the final tallies will have Glavine more in the 85% range one might historically expect. As I said, I'd vote for him without a doubt on this ballot, this year, and I'm no PED scold.
   33. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:16 PM (#4625646)
I think this may be worse than the Chass ballot. We knew Chass was going to be a twit, and he pleasantly surprised us by having more than one name on the ballot. We knew Shaughnessy was going to be a ####, but it was more of an open question as to exactly how he was going to be a twit and he might still have submitted a not horrible ballot even if the reasoning around it was face-punchingly stupid. Instead we got this.

On the plus side, even he voted for 5 people, and given that he's probably the worst sportswriter in America (or among them) we're going to see something like 8.5 names per ballot overall, which should mean we get at least 3 inductees.
   34. tshipman Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:21 PM (#4625650)
I think that the difference between this site and the MSM's impression of Tom Glavine basically comes down to wins vs. WAR. Most of the BBWAA still looks at wins first, especially career wins. And to be honest, career wins is not a terrible metric.

Glavine is above 300, so most voters don't really have to consider his case much further. Most of the posters here look at WAR first. Glavine is obviously well above the induction line there as well, but other players like Schilling and Mussina are higher there.

For all the crap that this site has given the MSM for looking at Wins, a good chunk of posters here do the same thing, except with WAR. Personally, I think that Glavine is a notch above Mussina or Schilling. Glavine had the best single season of any of them, and was much more reliable--he went 13 years pitching more than 200 innings (prorating the strike years).
   35. cardsfanboy Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4625652)
So it's a little odd to see him listed on everyone's ballot. With ~20 or so reasonable candidates on this ballot, his profile does not scream "slam dunk" to me.


Really? Two Cy Young awards, 300 career wins, 9th all time in Cy Young shares. From 1991-2002 put up 134 era+ over 2690ip... That is basically Roy Halladay's career... If Glavine doesn't scream Hofer to you, then you aren't looking at him properly.

I understand thinking he's not top ten among the candidates, but there isn't any way someone could say he doesn't "feel" like a hofer and be informed on the subject. I think people are taking career war way more seriously in this discussion than they should.
   36. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4625655)
or Mike Mussina.


WAR totals notwithstanding, Mike Mussina is not remembered as the same sort of pitcher as is Tom Glavine. He didn't have as long of a career, he wasn't as dominant in terms of success, and he isn't remembered as a pivotal player in the last National League dynasty (to date at least.) Moose was a good to great pitcher. He wasn't as good a Glavine, he doesn't have Glavine's ink, he didn't win 300 games, and he wasn't in the playoffs every year for 14 seasons running. A HOF with Moose wouldn't be a travesty. He's better than Jack Morris, certainly. But he's not better than Tom Glavine. Count all the WAR you like. Hack at the shins with K percentage as you will. You'll still be wrong on the merits.

So it's a little odd to see him listed on everyone's ballot. With ~20 or so reasonable candidates on this ballot, his profile does not scream "slam dunk" to me.


Voters seem to disagree with you.
   37. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4625656)
This is the wrong thread for persecution complexes.
   38. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:25 PM (#4625657)
Tango score: 30/100


I am stunned that it is this good. Five blank spots...Morris, this is horrific.

Honestly I think the end result of this election is going to be pretty good. Maddux, Thomas and Glavine look good to get in and just the fact that he was so close last year I think Biggio has a really good chance. Morris will get in also which is ridiculous but it's going to be a crowded podium. I was one of those who thought the backlog would create a situation where even guys like Glavine and Thomas wouldn't get in but there have been enough ten person ballots that I think the end result is a bunch of deserving guys getting in.
   39. cardsfanboy Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:26 PM (#4625658)
Glavine is above 300, so most voters don't really have to consider his case much further. Most of the posters here look at WAR first. Glavine is obviously well above the induction line there as well, but other players like Schilling and Mussina are higher there.


But 300 has never been an automatic induction, half of the 300 game winners had to wait multiple elections to get in. Wins are important, but it's not that important to those who say "not on first ballot."

I understand that argument, Glavine doesn't feel like a first ballot guy, and is getting the love (so far) for a first ballot guy.

For all the crap that this site has given the MSM for looking at Wins, a good chunk of posters here do the same thing, except with WAR. Personally, I think that Glavine is a notch above Mussina or Schilling. Glavine had the best single season of any of them, and was much more reliable--he went 13 years pitching more than 200 innings (prorating the strike years).


Agree...the love affair people seem to have on this site in regards to career WAR is utterly ridiculous. It's a good stat, but it's not perfect...I still prefer the old standbys, era+(or era- if it was as sortable as era+) innings pitched, recognition of unearned runs, individual seasonal performances over career (and stressing how important innings pitched in those seasons) etc.
   40. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4625667)
Same for Mussina and his 270 wins (he always pitched for good teams)

And yet he votes for Morris's 254 wins (always pitching for good teams). I think MY head is the one exploding.
   41. BDC Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:42 PM (#4625671)
WAR first. Glavine is obviously well above the induction line there as well, but other players like Schilling and Mussina are higher

The three of them are within 3 WAR of one another, over careers of 18-22 seasons: too close to make any absolute judgments. (Glavine is behind Mussina but ahead of Schilling overall, thanks to his bat.)

As I said in some other thread, Mussina and Glavine are very, very close in peak and in general ability (if not in style or components of their record). Glavine's ahead on career results, largely because he was drafted out of high school and kept on till the bitter end. Send Glavine to Stanford, convince him to retire after 15-7 with the '06 Mets – while plucking Mussina from high school and enticing him back for 2009 – and the parameters shift. Still, I quite agree with Sam that what happened happened, and have marked my ballot accordingly. I just don't think, looking at their records objectively, that Glavine was way better than Mussina. A little better at the peak, perhaps.

Schilling, by contrast, has a far more erratic career, and I think reached heights neither of the others did – and then you've got the postseason, where Mussina and Glavine were good but human, and Schilling was not human. A very different route to ~80 career WAR.

Glavine's 1991 may be the best WAR season of the trio, but that's counting batting, and I'm unsure about how much hitting .230 with 6 RBI that year should convince me that Glavine was far superior. Even if it does, a run being a run, it isn't that much better a year than Mussina in '92 or Schilling in '01-'02, no matter what stats you want to use. They're all great years.
   42. cardsfanboy Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4625679)
And yet he votes for Morris's 254 wins (always pitching for good teams). I think MY head is the one exploding.


Agreed. I do not see how you can justify voting for Morris, have a non-full ballot, and not vote for Mussina. They are the same profile player, only exception is that Morris played in a decade where the second best pitcher won 140 games.

If you take 1992-20001(Mussina didn't become a full time starter until 1992) you have four pitchers averaging 16 wins a season (Maddux, Glavine, Randy and Mussina) all with better than 3.60 era.

   43. Davo Dozier (Mastroianni) Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4625682)
If the BBWAA had been doing their job over the past ~4 years or so, then yeah, I'm totally on board with Glavine being a slam-dunk first-ballot Hall of Famer.

But since they haven't....have you LOOKED at this ballot? 5 guys hit 500 homers! 2 are in the 3,000 hit club! 3 300-game winners! ...and that list still doesn't include any of: Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Alan Trammell, Tim Raines, or Edgar Martinez.

The only candidate from this batch I expected to be a slam-dunk Hall of Famer was Greg Maddux. With everyone else, I figured there would be writers leaving them off their ballots just because there are so many damn good players to choose from.
   44. Jim Wisinski Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:59 PM (#4625689)
I consider it a good sign that even the stupidest ballots we've seen, both coming from guys who we expect to have stupid ballots (Chass and Shaugnessy), both have Maddux and Glavine on them and may both end up with Thomas as well (Chass was undecided in his blog post about whether or not he would vote for him). If even these lazy illogical nitwits can manage to vote for two and possibly three obvious candidates then that bodes very well for this year.
   45. birdlives is one crazy ninja Posted: December 29, 2013 at 02:23 PM (#4625712)
His children should be taken away from him.
   46. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 02:40 PM (#4625727)
But since they haven't....have you LOOKED at this ballot? 5 guys hit 500 homers! 2 are in the 3,000 hit club! 3 300-game winners! ...and that list still doesn't include any of: Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Alan Trammell, Tim Raines, or Edgar Martinez.


Bagwell - undercut by PED scolds
Piazza - undercut by PED scolds
Schilling - not as good as Tom Glavine
Mussina - not as good as Tom Glavine
Walker - criminally underrated, undercut by Colorado stats, undercut by PED scolds
Trammell - long time ballot option that has never gotten much support
Raines - long time ballot option that has never gotten much support
Edgar - undercut by being a DH, undercut by PED scolds

The only guys on that list who are notably more qualified for the Hall than Glavine are Bagwell and Piazza.
   47. Shock Posted: December 29, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4625728)
saves are overrated and often artificial


At least I can agree with this.
   48. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: December 29, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4625731)
Edgar - undercut by being a DH, undercut by PED scolds

Does that mean CHB won't vote for Big Papi?
   49. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 02:51 PM (#4625733)
Does that mean CHB won't vote for Big Papi?


I'm not CHB, but David Ortiz has a significantly better post-season hero narrative bolstering his case than does Edgar. Edgar's the better player, IMHO, and I'd vote for him for the Hall. But his case is being undercut by his lack of defensive value I'm sure.
   50. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4625740)
Somebody better warn Tim Cowlishaw he's got a neck-stabbin' coming his way.
   51. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: December 29, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4625741)
An expected bad ballot. The only redeeming factor are the new big 3.
My main issue is this. He's anti PED, ok. He's a tiny hall guy, ok. Then don't include Morris. You can make your stands, but don't be totally hypocritical about it. If you're a Morris guy, then you've got to have all 10 spots full because the reality is that in fact guys like Raines and Biggio do pass the 'I know it when I see it test'. They were considered at times during their careers as future HOFers.
   52. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 03:15 PM (#4625756)
Somebody better warn Tim Cowlishaw he's got a neck-stabbin' coming his way.


I have no problem whatsoever with Cowlinshaw's ballot. Next.
   53. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 29, 2013 at 03:19 PM (#4625759)
better candidates receive (or have received) more scattershot support on their way to Cooperstown. If you weren't diagnosably, deviantly paranoid, you would have noticed that everybody in this thread has expressed their personal support for his candidacy -- it's just curious that his acclaim is so universal.



In a nutshell. It's not that he isn't seen as a HOFer, it's the overwhelming support he's getting compared to similar (better) clean pitchers who are on the same ballot.
Not to blow my horn, but I've been saying that other then Maddux, Glavine was the only guy who I was sure was getting in this year. I was 80/20 on Thomas.
The difference between Glavine and Moose/Schilling is they weren't teammates of Greg Maddux.



edit: ...and Shaughnessy is an asshat.
   54. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 03:24 PM (#4625763)
In a nutshell. It's not that he isn't seen as a HOFer, it's the overwhelming support he's getting compared to similar (better) clean pitchers who are on the same ballot.


Aside from Maddux and Clemens, there are no better pitchers on the ballot than Tom Glavine.
   55. Srul Itza At Home Posted: December 29, 2013 at 03:45 PM (#4625777)
I think we are seeing something of a reaction to last year's shut out. So the voters, the vast majority of whom do not consult "WAR", are looking for guys to vote for. Glavine is a very, very easy call for that vast majority, since, except for 3,000 Ks (which is not as big as the other milestones) he rings ALL the bells for starting pitchers:

300 wins? Check
20 win seasons? Check 5 times
Cy Young recognition/peak? Check - 2 Awards, 4 other top 3 finishes
Renowned while pitching? Check - part of Braves Dynasty, 10 All Star Berths
Durability? Check, huge number of innings and starts
Post Season success? Check, WS MVP (but see 14-16 record)

The ONLY people who would place 10 others ahead of him, and in particular Mussina and Schilling, are hard core SDCNs, and even some of them have him in their top 10.

This makes him an absolute no-brainer for this year. If it was 3 years ago or 3 years from now, he still gets in, but probably with a lower percentage. Having Maddux on the ballot and Bobby Cox on the podium probably didn't hurt, either.

Now, the people who thought he might have trouble getting in this time around -- those are the ones who I cannot understand.
   56. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 29, 2013 at 03:49 PM (#4625780)
Now, the people who thought he might have trouble getting in this time around -- those are the ones who I cannot understand.

::raises hand::

I guess I overreacted to last year's craziness.
   57. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 03:53 PM (#4625782)
I guess I overreacted to last year's craziness.


Last year's craziness was *all about Barry Bonds* and, tangentially, Roger Clemens as the "Bonds of pitching." There was no way it was going to carry over to the "good guys" from the Braves pitching staff of the 1990s.
   58. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 29, 2013 at 03:59 PM (#4625788)

Aside from Maddux and Clemens, there are no better pitchers on the ballot than Tom Glavine.


WAR, WAA, FIP, and OPS+ be damned. I'll overlook OPS+ due to the IP difference, but still.
   59. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2013 at 04:02 PM (#4625790)
I have no problem whatsoever with Cowlinshaw's ballot. Next.

If you have no problem with Glavine being left off Cowlishaw's ballot, why is your underwear in such a knot over people finding Glavine at 100% confusing?
   60. Rough Carrigan Posted: December 29, 2013 at 04:10 PM (#4625796)
I'd still vote for Glavine for the Hall of Fame.
But I hated the stupid 24 inch wide strike zone that was so commonly called in the mid to late 90's and from which he benefited as much as anybody. He deserves credit for seeing what was there and taking advantage of it but it really sucked. That's why a lot of people got such a laugh out of the famous Eric Gregg umpired Braves vs. Marlins playoff game in '97(I know, Maddux opposed Livan, not Glavine) where the Braves hitters were rightly complaining that pitches called strikes had never come near the strike zone.
   61. bobm Posted: December 29, 2013 at 04:10 PM (#4625797)
But 300 has never been an automatic induction, half of the 300 game winners had to wait multiple elections to get in. Wins are important, but it's not that important to those who say "not on first ballot."

 I understand that argument, Glavine doesn't feel like a first ballot guy, and is getting the love (so far) for a first ballot guy.


Glavine will be in substantially faster, with more votes, than Niekro or Perry, for example.
   62. gehrig97 Posted: December 29, 2013 at 04:13 PM (#4625798)
This is probably the worst ballot--and most exasperating explanation/defense of said ballot--I've seen published this year.
   63. KingKaufman Posted: December 29, 2013 at 04:19 PM (#4625801)
Biggio got 68.2 percent of the vote last year, but I don’t think of him as Hall-worthy (only one 200-hit season).


Willie Mays 200-hit seasons: 1. Just doesn't feel like a Hall of Famer to me.

Joe Morgan 200-hit seasons: 0. What a bum.

I left Glavine off my IBWAA ballot. I think he's a Hall of Famer, but he wasn't in my top 10. He was in my last few out, any of whom were interchangeable with my last few in. I ended up voting only for Schilling among the trio of pitchers being discussed, surprising myself. I decided to give real weight to the postseason. Part of my thinking is that Glavine is probably the most obvious of the three to get a lot of support for the Hall, so I figured he'd be all right without my vote, either getting in or having plenty of future chances.

Edit: Glavine's benefitting from the custom strike zone always bugged me too, so I may have been punishing him a bit for that.
   64. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 04:26 PM (#4625804)
If you have no problem with Glavine being left off Cowlishaw's ballot, why is your underwear in such a knot over people finding Glavine at 100% confusing?


There are 12-15 valid HOF candidates on this ballot. If a voter chooses 10 valid candidates (not Lee Smith, not Don Mattingly, preferably not Jack Morris) but one of the 2-5 qualified but bunched out due to the ballot limitation names is, for them, Tom Glavine, I'm okay with that (as long as they vote for Bonds and Clemens.)

What I have taken issue with in the ballot/vote discussions re: Glavine is two-fold. First, the idea that it's surprising that Glavine is getting near-universal love from the voters. I think that should have been an obvious thing to expect given the nature of the voters and the ballot. Secondly, the idea that Glavine is riding Maddux coattails to undeserved glory, while his "equals" (Schilling, Mussina) didn't have the "help." Tom Glavine was a better pitcher than Curt Schilling or Mike Mussina.

But hey, maybe next year Schilling can jump on Randy Johnson's coattails again and get a little boost of his own. It will be just like 2001.
   65. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: December 29, 2013 at 04:27 PM (#4625807)
47. Shock Posted: December 29, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4625728)

saves are overrated and often artificial



At least I can agree with this.


There's this, too.

We are a group incapable of unanimous agreement on the Hall of Fame candidacy of a player such as Willie Mays. We give Jim Rice 29.8 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot, then ultimately elect him with more than 75 percent of the vote. We cannot get all members to agree that today is Sunday. This promotes the image of The Lodge. Now we have Deadspin standing up for Everyfan, purchasing a ballot from a thus far anonymous (big surprise there) BBWAA member.

Even the ballot itself is hideously old-timey. No online voting for the BBWAA. Our Hall ballot looks like something that was used at the Groton Town Hall when voters had to choose between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams in 1828.


FWIW, Nick Cafardo picked 10 guys on his ballot.
   66. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: December 29, 2013 at 04:59 PM (#4625825)
This is where it gets unfair and subjective.

At least Dan can realize this where many others cannot.
   67. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: December 29, 2013 at 05:10 PM (#4625831)
But hey, maybe next year Schilling can jump on Randy Johnson's coattails again and get a little boost of his own. It will be just like 2001.

You can do better than that.
   68. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 29, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4625838)
FWIW, Nick Cafardo picked 10 guys on his ballot.

Urgh. Even as a Red Sox beat writer, he votes for Morris and leaves Schilling off.
   69. tfbg9 Posted: December 29, 2013 at 05:46 PM (#4625847)
Tom Glavine was a better pitcher than Curt Schilling


ERA? Schilling.
RA per 9? Schilling, 3.64 to 3.87(and by a larger margin if you adjust for defense: bbref has Schilling at 0.00 help from his fielders, Glavine .12,
which would bring it close to a third of a run better per 9, before run environment adjustments)
QS%? Schilling by a bit.
ERA+? Schilling, handily.
Pitching bWAR? Schilling
K/9? Schiling in a blowout.
K's? Schilling. Blowout.
K/BB Schilling, by a lot. Schilling is the best at this stat in post 1900 history.
Winning %? Glavine, by 3% (but if you neutralize their teams, Schilling is far better)
Wins? Glavine, in a blowout.
IP? Glavine, again a blowout.


8 of 11 for Schilling (8.5 really).

And Schilling was better in the PS, albeit in a smaller sample.

Glavine better than Schilling? Not seeing it.

   70. tfbg9 Posted: December 29, 2013 at 05:50 PM (#4625850)
If you use the rate stat "RA+", if memory serves, Schilling is on par with Maddux. Schilling is one of the best 20 pitchers ever.
   71. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 05:58 PM (#4625855)
Glavine better than Schilling? Not seeing it.


SDCN's won't see the forest for the trees. Baseball fans will. K/9! K/BB! As if aesthetics trump results. Curt Schilling has Randy Johnson and a bloody sock. That's his case for the Hall over Glavine. Luckily most voters aren't gullible enough to fall for such silliness.
   72. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4625856)
Schilling is one of the best 20 pitchers ever.


It's this sort of oversell that makes it hard to take stat nerds seriously, even when they have a semblance of a point. Curt Schilling is not one of the best 20 pitchers ever.
   73. tfbg9 Posted: December 29, 2013 at 06:12 PM (#4625871)
As if aesthetics trump results.


Schilling was better at preventing the other team from scoring runs than Glavine. Its not all that close. And when its for all the marbles, give me the swing and miss guy over the finesse guy every time.


It's this sort of oversell that makes it hard to take stat nerds seriously


If you eliminate 19th century fellows who tossed the ball underhand, and I tend to, Schilling is right there, at the top 20 all time WAR, like 21st or 22nd IIRC. At his peak, a pretty long peak, he was one of the handful of best swing and miss guys ever. And he was at his absolute best in the PS, which I value highly.
   74. cardsfanboy Posted: December 29, 2013 at 06:14 PM (#4625873)
Glavine from 1992-2005 basically matches Schillings career. Add in another 1000 ip at league average and it's hard for me to see Schilling as ahead.

Glavine beats Schilling on one year, two year peaks, ties on three year peak loses from 4-6 then track pretty much equally after that until Schilling's career ends. Then Glavine continues to gain ground afterwards. I think it's fairly easy to see why Glavine is better than Schilling.

I understand blind obedience to War, but I prefer to dig a little deeper. Schilling is a great pitcher, and top 30 of all time. Glavine is a great pitcher, top 30 of all time. Glavine is one or two spots ahead of Schilling and I just don't see how anyone who looks at the numbers can say differently. Yes blind worship of the win stat....oops, I mean the saber equivalent which has turned bright people into drooling bbwaa like morons, WAR, shows Schilling as better. I just don't see it.

I mean here is their best years by era+

Glavine puts up 229 ip, at 168 era+, with 4 unearned runs vs Schilling's best year which was 168 ip, at 159 era+ with 3 unearned runs....No matter how you look at it, Glavine had a noticeably much better season....yet Glavine gets 6.1 War while Schilling's season is worth 6.0 War... Yep War is the right tool here to evaluate these two seasons. SMH.
   75. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 29, 2013 at 06:55 PM (#4625908)
Glavine puts up 229 ip, at 168 era+, with 4 unearned runs vs Schilling's best year which was 168 ip, at 159 era+ with 3 unearned runs....No matter how you look at it, Glavine had a noticeably much better season....yet Glavine gets 6.1 War while Schilling's season is worth 6.0 War... Yep War is the right tool here to evaluate these two seasons. SMH.

Schilling was pitching in front of a below-average defense; Glavine was pitching in front of an utterly fantastic defense (according to WAR, at least). This was not an uncommon condition over the course of their respective careers, and it could reasonably be expected to have an effect on the number of runs they allowed. Between that and the parks they pitched in, Glavine's pitching conditions in 1998 are estimated to have been more than a full run per game easier than Schilling's in 2003 (the years in question). WAR thinks that balances the innings difference. You can disagree, but it'd be worth at least acknowledging why WAR says what it does.
   76. silhouetted by the sea Posted: December 29, 2013 at 07:05 PM (#4625910)
Agree with salajander in post #26, Rough Carrigan nailed it in #22.
And everyone should go back to their posts and add what Mickey Henry Mays did in #53
"edit: ...and Shaughnessy is an asshat."
   77. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 07:12 PM (#4625915)
Schilling was pitching in front of a below-average defense; Glavine was pitching in front of an utterly fantastic defense (according to WAR, at least).


Those Braves defenses were utterly fantastic because they were fielding behind Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. The Braves have a run of obscene WAR-ranked 2B from Lemke to Keith Lockhart, not because those guys were Andrelton Simmons at second, but because they were fielding slow rollers to the 2B hole half the time, because that's what Glavine and Maddux induced.

It requires a deep loss of the larger picture to push Schilling above Glavine.

edit: ...and Shaughnessy is an asshat.
   78. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 07:14 PM (#4625916)
Schilling was better at preventing the other team from scoring runs than Glavine.


Yet Tom Glavine had a better career than Curt Schilling. Weird that, huh?

And when its for all the marbles, give me the swing and miss guy over the finesse guy every time.


Like I said. Aesthetics over results. Tom Glavine was a better pitcher than Curt Schilling.
   79. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 29, 2013 at 07:17 PM (#4625917)
But hey, maybe next year Schilling can jump on Randy Johnson's coattails again and get a little boost of his own. It will be just like 2001.


This is just getting silly now.
   80. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 29, 2013 at 07:26 PM (#4625920)
Schilling was pitching in front of a below-average defense; Glavine was pitching in front of an utterly fantastic defense (according to WAR, at least). This was not an uncommon condition over the course of their respective careers, and it could reasonably be expected to have an effect on the number of runs they allowed. Between that and the parks they pitched in, Glavine's pitching conditions in 1998 are estimated to have been more than a full run per game easier than Schilling's in 2003 (the years in question). WAR thinks that balances the innings difference. You can disagree, but it'd be worth at least acknowledging why WAR says what it does.

Maybe, but as long as we're fanatically insisting on isolating things under a pitcher's "control," rather than focusing on the real results of real games, there's nothing in WAR suggesting it as the (or even a) logical endpoint in the effort. The only thing a pitcher can really control is the quality of his pitches, i.e., things like the velocity, bite, movement, and how accurately he hits his target. (*) Why blame him for "lucky" hits on otherwise good pitches? Or conversely, why give him credit for a "lucky" out on a bad or mediocre pitch? He doesn't "control" any of those things.

Thus, to really understand the sport we need a College of Cardinals-type body populated with people who really know baseball inside and out; people who feel the sport in their bones -- naturals, like Keith Law and Tango -- to rate pitches. And there's no reason they couldn't go back in time and watch tape and grade pitches and pitchers, or even do a swell, superduper model. Then and only then will we have the Hall of Fame we deserve.

(*) And, one can imagine, the intelligence of his target -- although that is sometimes in the manager's control.
   81. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 29, 2013 at 07:41 PM (#4625927)
Those Braves defenses were utterly fantastic because they were fielding behind Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. The Braves have a run of obscene WAR-ranked 2B from Lemke to Keith Lockhart, not because those guys were Andrelton Simmons at second, but because they were fielding slow rollers to the 2B hole half the time, because that's what Glavine and Maddux induced.

Taking a quick look at BABIPs allowed by Maddux and Glavine as teammates (from 93-02) as compared to the rest of the Braves staff in those years, there may be something to this - Maddux's average BABIP allowed was .280, Glavine's was .286, and the overall Brave average (including both of them) was .288, so the average of the other pitchers would be solidly higher, .290-something. I'm not sure what the effect of 5-10 points of BABIP would be on the defense adjustment WAR makes to Glavine, but it would be more than nothing, at least.

On the other hand, it wasn't ALL Maddux and Glavine; they did have Andruw in center.
   82. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 07:49 PM (#4625933)
On the other hand, it wasn't ALL Maddux and Glavine; they did have Andruw in center.


That is true. Andruw was Andrelton Simmons in CF. He was unworldly out there. His presence let the Braves entire rotation pitch to contact, a tactic Tom Glavine excelled at. Great, dynastic teams have great players at multiple positions. The Braves had the rotation of three future HOF'ers, Andruw in CF, and Chipper in the heart of the order.
   83. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 29, 2013 at 07:55 PM (#4625936)
Great, dynastic teams have great players at multiple positions. The Braves had the rotation of three future HOF'ers, Andruw in CF, and Chipper in the heart of the order.

Yeah, but why should Glavine get credit for that? And heaven forbid, why should we celebrate that? Shouldn't we be celebrating the guys making great pitches in obscurity, only to be let down by whim and bad teammates? They're the real heroes.

   84. tfbg9 Posted: December 29, 2013 at 07:57 PM (#4625937)
Schilling was better at preventing the other team from scoring runs than Glavine. Its not all that close.

I'll say it again.

I think it's fairly easy to see why Glavine is better than Schilling.


It is if you look only at W's and IP, which should be looked at. But other stats/ways of judging a pitcher that ought to be looked at as well. ERA says one guy is better, and so does ERA+. As does WHIP. As does RA. As does RA+. So does K/BB. As does WAR. As does QS%. As does their PS records. They say Schilling was better than Glavine. Just about every single rate stat likes Schilling better. Glavine is ahead in wins, and IP, and that's it. Glavine was better at sticking around longer. Schilling won another ring, and retired.


Glavine had a considerably larger body of work, but he was a bit of an "accumulator". However, if you look at "per 162", they are both 15-10, with about 220 IP. If I had to win that game or face the firing squad, I'd take Schilling over Glavine. Glavine was the epitome of the crafty lefty. Schilling was a dominant ace.
   85. McCoy Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:01 PM (#4625939)
Both Schilling and Glavine weren't very good their first 4 seasons but fortunately for Schilling he racked up less than 200 innings over those 4 seasons while Glavine pitched almost 650 innings.
   86. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:03 PM (#4625941)
Yeah, but why should Glavine get credit for that?


I think this was sarcasm, but I'll answer anyway.

"Because he did that." He actually did pitch to contact successfully. All of the SDCN arguments about K/9 or K/BB ignore completely the fact that Tom Glavine never gave a flying ####### if he struck you out or if he walked you. He was going to pitch low and away all game long, regardless. He was going to hit that same damned spot on the outside corner(*) until it got called his way or you swung at it and rolled out to second base. He was never, ever going to give in and change his approach just because you were waiting for him to come inside with his pedestrian fastball.

And he did it that so well, that he won 300 games because of it. K/9! Seriously. Get your head out of a spreadsheet and watch a baseball game, kids.

(*) some have argued that it may have been a bit off the outside corner on occasion, but that's the brilliance of Tom Glavine. He would hit that same spot endlessly, without fail, from start to finish. In the first, he'd walk a ton and give up runs by the bucket load. And by the third, the umpire was lulled to sleep like a cobra in a basket and just got bored of calling balls on the same pitch, over and over again. At that point, hitters either K'd looking or rolled out weakly to 2B. And that was all because Tom Glavine was so good he could hit that spot every last time, and so mentally stronger than the batter that he would do it regardless, until the batter blinked. And the batter blinked more often than not.
   87. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:06 PM (#4625942)
Glavine was the epitome of the crafty lefty. Schilling was a dominant ace.


Yet Schilling required Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez to compete in the post-season.
   88. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:08 PM (#4625943)
"Because he did that."

Correct. At this point in his journey, that's literally all that's relevant about Tom Glavine -- what he did. Why he did it and the "opportunities" he had -- be they postseasons, teammates, whatever -- are of precisely zero moment.(*)

K/9! Seriously. Get your head out of a spreadsheet and watch a baseball game, kids.

You know you've reached the decadent phase of the "revolution" when the fanatics are citing peripherals as relevant in themselves to a Hall of Fame case, teethgrittingly unaware that things like K/9 and HR/9 are means to an end, not ends in themselves.

(*) They may have been of some interest in, say, the winter of 1998-99 -- but intelligent people know the difference between then and now.
   89. Mickey Henry Mays Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:09 PM (#4625946)
And that was all because Tom Glavine was so good he could hit that spot every last time,


I could too if that spot was where ever I threw it.
   90. tfbg9 Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:16 PM (#4625948)
K's per nine matter. Off the top of my head, power pitchers do better in the playoffs. Power pitchers make defense less important, that makes building a team a bit easier. Its easier to win with pure sluggers like Manny and Sheffield if your staff K's a lot of guys. This goes for K/BB ratio as well. Hell, if Bob Stanley had a strikeout pitch, the Sox would've won the Series in '86.

But again, what matters most is preventing runs. And Schilling was better at that than Glavine. Both kinds of runs too, ER's and UER's.
   91. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:21 PM (#4625952)
K's per nine matter. Off the top of my head, power pitchers do better in the playoffs.

They might matter, looking forward. But they don't matter now, since both Glavine and Schilling have pitched all the playoff games they're ever going to pitch and we can see how they did. By definition, there's no reason to model or speculate about their playoff performance and how their peripherals might impact it.

This is such an obvious point that it pains me to have to write it.
   92. McCoy Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:25 PM (#4625955)
From age 25 to age 40 Glavine had a 127 ERA+ in over 3500 IP. Schilling had a 130 ERA+ in over 3100 IP.
   93. Traderdave Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:25 PM (#4625956)
Can someone gently explain why Schillings RA+ is so important? More important that ERA+? Other than his own fielding, how does a pitcher prevent unearned runs by himself?
   94. DL from MN Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4625959)
Doesn't matter in the "best pitcher" argument but Glavine was clearly the best hitter and both guys were playing in the NL.
   95. tfbg9 Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4625960)
93-because unearned runs count on the scoreboard, and preventing them is a skill. And Schilling was the best in history at the skill of preventing UER's, even though his defenses were average. Schilling was an big time fly ball pitcher, and he walked very few batters, while K'ing a ton of them. This all had real, measurable benefits to his teams.

edited for clarity
   96. DL from MN Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4625961)
Other than his own fielding, how does a pitcher prevent unearned runs by himself?


By ending the inning despite giving up a baserunner on an error.
   97. Traderdave Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:29 PM (#4625962)
Other than by his own fielding, how does that happen?

   98. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:30 PM (#4625964)
Other than his own fielding, how does a pitcher prevent unearned runs by himself?

By ending the inning despite giving up a baserunner on an error.


Schilling was also a strikeout/flyball pitcher, and a higher proportion of errors occur on grounders.
   99. tfbg9 Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:31 PM (#4625965)
But they don't matter now, since both Glavine and Schilling have pitched all the playoff games they're ever going to pitch and we can see how they did.


They do if we use PS record in judging a pitcher, as I do. Glavine was pretty good. Schilling was legendary.
   100. Traderdave Posted: December 29, 2013 at 08:32 PM (#4625966)
Stikeouts are of course the picther's accomplishment, but flyballs have to be caught by someone other than the P.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Ghost fouled out, but stays in the game
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for April 20, 2014
(79 - 10:23pm, Apr 20)
Last: BourbonSamurai Is a Lazy Nogoodnik

NewsblogVIDEO: Brewers, Pirates brawl after Carlos Gomez triple
(68 - 10:18pm, Apr 20)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogBryce Harper benched for 'lack of hustle' despite quad injury
(100 - 9:56pm, Apr 20)
Last: Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(370 - 9:55pm, Apr 20)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(130 - 9:34pm, Apr 20)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(951 - 9:23pm, Apr 20)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

NewsblogPirates Acquire Ike Davis From Mets
(54 - 9:15pm, Apr 20)
Last: Canker Soriano

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(404 - 9:12pm, Apr 20)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(95 - 9:05pm, Apr 20)
Last: BDC

NewsblogChase Utley is the hottest hitter in baseball and has a shot at .400
(70 - 8:49pm, Apr 20)
Last: Booey

NewsblogJohn Torres: Baseball must bag sickening farewell tours
(50 - 8:43pm, Apr 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogZander Hollander, Sports Trivia Shepherd, Dies at 91
(10 - 8:25pm, Apr 20)
Last: Jose Canusee

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(160 - 8:21pm, Apr 20)
Last: SteveF

NewsblogChris Resop - The Most Interesting Reliever in the World
(22 - 8:13pm, Apr 20)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogMitchell: Now Playing First Base for the Yankees
(58 - 7:55pm, Apr 20)
Last: Ray (RDP)

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.8636 seconds
53 querie(s) executed