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

Monday, November 26, 2018

Thibs’ Hall of Fame Tracker

Primate Thibs’ indispensable Hall of Fame tool is back for another year.

SoSH U at work Posted: November 26, 2018 at 03:02 PM | 1365 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, son of gizmo

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 12 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 > 
   1101. Booey Posted: January 16, 2019 at 04:12 PM (#5806118)
flip
   1102. Booey Posted: January 16, 2019 at 04:29 PM (#5806124)
I think at worst he'll be this generations Andre Dawson


Fitting, since their similarity scores are 928, top on each other's list


Wow, I knew they were similar, but I never noticed just how close the final numbers ended up being:

CB: .279/.350/.486 (119 OPS+), 2725 H, 435 HR, 1587 RBI, 1583 R, 312 SB, 9 time AS, ROY, 69.8 WAR
AD: .279/.323/.482 (119 OPS+), 2774 H, 438 HR, 1591 RBI, 1373 R, 314 SB, 8 time AS, ROY, 64.8 WAR

Identical batting average and OPS+, almost identical HR, RBI, SLG, and SB, less than 50 hits apart. Beltran walked more, so he has the higher OBP and more runs scored. Dawson won more gold gloves (8-3) and an (undeserved) MVP. WAR and WAA show Beltran to be a hair better, but you're not going to find a lot of star players more similar to each other than that.
   1103. alilisd Posted: January 16, 2019 at 05:10 PM (#5806143)
I actually think the writers will elect Beltran eventually. His career numbers/counting stats just look more HOFey than those other guys. Plus he'll be debuting on much less crowded ballots.


I think you're probably right, although I think it may have more to do with the ballots he'll appear on than the numbers. Still, there are definitely voters who love to see big career numbers rather than big peak numbers.

He's got the counting stats the traditional voters like, plus the WAR/WAA that the SABR voters like. Lofton/Edmonds/Jones each have SOME similar stuff on their resume's, but none of them have all of that.


Yes, this may be his saving grace, along with the luck not to appear with so many well qualified HOF guys on the ballot, he can appeal to both sets of voters. I am totally fine with looking at Jim Edmonds and saying his peak/prime compares quite favorably with Duke Snider, and I don't care that he didn't quite make 8,000 PA's. I'm also fine with saying Andruw Jones may not have been as good a hitter as 434 HR might lead you to believe, but he was also a stellar CF, and I don't care if he fell off a cliff in his 30's, he was an above average player at 20. But I think there's still a block of voters who want to see the sort of counting stats that only accrue with 9,000 or more PA's.

Lofton is ridiculously well qualified. From 35-40 he was still able to average 123 games and 504 PA's in CF while being a league average hitter (OPS+ 103), and stealing 24 bags at an 80% success rate. Rfield still sees him as about an average defender at that advanced age as well, averaging -2 runs per season. Hell, prime Lofton is a lesser, but still very good, hitter than prime Raines, with similar base running/stealing, but he was playing a stellar CF instead of a solid LF!!

Here's a list of guys who played at least 500 games in CF from age 35 on since 1960, and were at least average by WAA:

Mays
Lofton
Brett Butler
Bill Bruton
Finely

That's in order, and Lofton has over twice as much WAA as Butler (but only about 1/4 of Mays!!! Jesus he was amazing!). Also, there is only one other guy who played that much CF from 35, period. Otis Nixon -5 WAA.
   1104. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 17, 2019 at 10:16 AM (#5806274)
Jayson Stark: Bonds, Clemens, Halladay, Helton, Martinez, McGriff, Mussina, Rivera, Schilling, Walker. Add for McGriff.
   1105. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 17, 2019 at 10:41 AM (#5806281)
I'm following five people who do HOF projections on Twitter. Here are their updated guesses on Mussina:

76, 75.9, 74.5, 73.5, 73.

For Mussina, it's largely irrelevant if he gets in this year or next. But it could be a big deal to Larry Walker, who, per the tracker, has been left off 5 ballots due to space already. It's a weak ballot next year, but every open spot matters. Could also matter for a guy like Abreu, who could get 5
   1106. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 17, 2019 at 10:44 AM (#5806283)
It's just so absurd people think Rivera is more Hall worthy than Mussina or Rolen.
   1107. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 17, 2019 at 11:13 AM (#5806288)


Wow, I knew they were similar, but I never noticed just how close the final numbers ended up being:

CB: .279/.350/.486 (119 OPS+), 2725 H, 435 HR, 1587 RBI, 1583 R, 312 SB, 9 time AS, ROY, 69.8 WAR
AD: .279/.323/.482 (119 OPS+), 2774 H, 438 HR, 1591 RBI, 1373 R, 314 SB, 8 time AS, ROY, 64.8 WAR


Yeah, I'm surprised by how close it was, especially since I'm too young to really remember Dawson's years with the Expos. To me the main differences are that Beltran

(1) walked nearly twice as much,
(2) had a bit less power relative to his era
(3) was a much better baserunner (about the same number of SB with fewer than half the CS--one of the best percentage base stealers of all time, I believe), and
(4) was able to stay in CF longer (~50% more games in CF, although their overall defensive contributions were apparently about equal when considering fielding quality and positional adjustment together).
   1108. The Duke Posted: January 17, 2019 at 12:01 PM (#5806306)
And Beltran was otherworldy in the playoffs
   1109. DanG Posted: January 17, 2019 at 12:10 PM (#5806307)
(3) was a much better baserunner (about the same number of SB with fewer than half the CS--one of the best percentage base stealers of all time, I believe)
Highest SB%, minimum 200 attempts

Player              SB%  SB  CS Rbaser    PA From   To
Carlos Beltran  86.427
312  49   54.3 11031 1998 2017
Mike Trout      84.753
189  34   31.2  4673 2011 2018
Tim Raines      84.696
808 146  114.8 10359 1979 2002
Jarrod Dyson    84.615
220  40   32.9  2166 2010 2018
Eric Davis      84.096
349  66   48.6  6147 1984 2001
Shane Victorino 83.394
231  46   37.9  5164 2003 2015
Willie Wilson   83.292
668 134  121.0  8317 1976 1994
Barry Larkin    83.114
379  77   80.2  9057 1986 2004
Tony Womack     83.066
363  74   51.8  5389 1993 2006
Davey Lopes     83.010
557 114   83.0  7340 1972 1987
Jacoby Ellsbury 82.850
343  71   36.1  5375 2007 2017 
   1110. craigamazing Posted: January 17, 2019 at 01:22 PM (#5806330)
Checking in here for the first time in months and incredibly encouraged at the vote percentages.

If Bonds and Clemens can get into the low to mid 60s this year, they have a real shot.
   1111. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 17, 2019 at 01:32 PM (#5806336)
I'm following five people who do HOF projections on Twitter. Here are their updated guesses on Mussina: 76, 75.9, 74.5, 73.5, 73.

Last year Mussina got 70% of the 243 pre-announcement public ballots, 65.7% of the 70 post-announcement public ballots, and 46.7% of the 109 private ballots. There's some turnover in those groups, as well as first time voters, but Mussina needs a ~10% boost across the board, and near unanimity among 1st time voters, to make it. He's on track with the public pre-announcement voters (+12.1%), but I don't think we can be confident that the less-public groups will closely follow that result, even if they move in the same direction. If this year is similar to last, about 75% of the pre-announcement public votes are in, with a net gain of 16 votes, plus all 7 1st-time voters. Good, but probably no room for much slippage the rest of the way.
   1112. reech Posted: January 17, 2019 at 01:43 PM (#5806343)
And Beltran was otherworldy in the playoffs

unless you're a Mets fan
   1113. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 17, 2019 at 01:56 PM (#5806348)
Beltran had an OPS over 1.000 in that series against St. Louis. It’s true that his strike out ended the series, but that didn’t mean he had a bad series. And he wasn’t great in the NLDS that year, but not terrible either. The problem with his Mets’ playoff career is that he only made the playoffs once with them.
   1114. Ziggy's screen name Posted: January 17, 2019 at 02:26 PM (#5806354)
He's got time for that SB% to drop of course, but every time I see new info (to me) about Mike Trout, I'm just blown away all over again. He's basically the perfect baseball player.

(FWIW, Mantle was at 80% with 191 attempts.)
   1115. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 17, 2019 at 05:21 PM (#5806402)
If Halladay, Rivera, Edgar, and Mussina get in, I'm guessing that's quite a crowd for Induction Weekend.

I've been to several Induction Weekends, including three with several big names:

- The Yaz, Bench, Schoendienst, Harry Caray one in 1989 was great because it represented four big baseball cities.

- The Brett, Ryan, Yount, Cepeda was great because it was the first homegrown, lifetime HOFer for Milwaukee and Kansas City, Cardinals fans were great for Cepeda, and Nolan Ryan is the ultimate unicorn.

- The Pedro, Big Unit, Biggio, Smoltz was great because Astros fans were nuts, and the Pedro elements was unlike anything I'd every seen in Cooperstown. Expos fans came down; Red Sox fans were like a friggin' army; and the incredible joy and pride from America's Dominican community was dynamic. It was a giant party for the Dominican Republic, a lot of respect for Juan Marichal shown at the same time, hugging, singing, smiling, flag-waving...it was just joy.

I presume that Mariano will be the star of the show in 2019, with a huge Yankee showing, and massive respect for him across the fan base in attendance.
   1116. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: January 17, 2019 at 06:26 PM (#5806419)
If Halladay, Rivera, Edgar, and Mussina get in, I'm guessing that's quite a crowd for Induction Weekend.

Agree. Just Rivera and Mussina alone would get a huge crowd. Plenty of New Yorkers and probably the last chance for Orioles fans to see one of their own inducted in quite a while. Plus, Mussina is somewhat local (near Williamsport, PA).

I've been twice. The first was for Larkin/Santo and the second for Griffey/Piazza. Both were great times, but the second was unquestionably more crowded.
   1117. bachslunch Posted: January 18, 2019 at 07:42 AM (#5806486)
Haven't seen anything from The Evil One yet. Wonder if he's lost his ballot eligibility or something. There is an anonymous ballot up with just Halladay, Mo, and Schilling on it. Might be Chass's, but who can say?

Speaking of voting, haven't seen much in the way of major ballot dump articles from various outlets yet, just from MLB.com.

Is it just me, or does it seem like fewer ballots are up compared to the past few years at this time? Maybe I'm just imagining things.
   1118. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 18, 2019 at 09:13 AM (#5806501)
Speaking of voting, haven't seen much in the way of major ballot dump articles from various outlets yet, just from MLB.com.


The Athletic also did a dump.

   1119. Rennie's Tenet Posted: January 18, 2019 at 10:33 AM (#5806530)
Is it just me, or does it seem like fewer ballots are up compared to the past few years at this time? Maybe I'm just imagining things.


Last year's tracker held 191 ballots on January 15, 199 on January 21. It's currently at 185. The announcement was on January 24 in 2018, and will be on January 22 this year. As mentioned above, the Tracker is projecting there will be about ten fewer total ballots this year than last.

I might as well toss this in. There is where the tracker was last year at 243 ballots, 4 hours from the announcement:

C. Jones 98.4%
Guerrero 94.7
Thome 93.4
Hoffman 79.0
Martinez 77.4
Mussina 70.4
Bonds 64.2
Clemens 64.2
Schilling 60.1
Walker 38.3
Vizquel 33.3
Ramirez 22.2
McGriff 19.3
Kent 13.2
Rolen 12.3
Wagner 10.7
Sosa 10.7
Sheffield 10.7
A. Jones 5.8
Damon 1.2
Santana 1.2
   1120. McCoy Posted: January 18, 2019 at 10:57 AM (#5806537)
It seems like Roger and Barry might eventually get in on their 9th or 10th year on the ballot. I think they might very well crack 70% next year.
   1121. alilisd Posted: January 18, 2019 at 11:41 AM (#5806557)
Haven't seen anything from The Evil One yet. Wonder if he's lost his ballot eligibility or something. There is an anonymous ballot up with just Halladay, Mo, and Schilling on it. Might be Chass's, but who can say?


Somehow I don't see Murray sending his ballot privately to Thibs, but who can say?
   1122. SoSH U at work Posted: January 18, 2019 at 11:53 AM (#5806562)
Haven't seen anything from The Evil One yet. Wonder if he's lost his ballot eligibility or something. There is an anonymous ballot up with just Halladay, Mo, and Schilling on it. Might be Chass's, but who can say?


He's never been shy about sharing his vote on the site. He was in the tracker last year.

He's got to be close to losing his voting privilege.
   1123. John M. Perkins Posted: January 18, 2019 at 03:07 PM (#5806656)
FiveThirtyEight: Nathaniel Rakich, We Built A Polling Model … For The Baseball Hall Of Fame

Thibodaux is the exit pollster of the baseball world: He and his team of “interns” scour the internet for voters who have made their Hall of Fame ballots public before the full results are announced. Thibodaux tallies them all up on his online Baseball Hall of Fame Vote Tracker — like the first few precincts to report on election night — to give us partial election results weeks in advance.
   1124. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 18, 2019 at 06:55 PM (#5806702)
And that 538 model predicts Mo will get 100%.
   1125. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 18, 2019 at 07:48 PM (#5806705)
And that 538 model predicts Mo will get 100%.

While also saying "this model is not useful for Rivera's exact percentage," but sure.
   1126. gabrielthursday Posted: January 18, 2019 at 08:05 PM (#5806708)
The 538 model is actually pretty pedestrian, with a very simple adjustment. Glad they're covering it, but I don't love the model they've used.
   1127. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 18, 2019 at 08:09 PM (#5806710)
Yeah, the 538 model doesn’t even account for us knowing which specific voters have so far made their vote public, instead comparing the set of all public votes to all public votes.
   1128. BrianBrianson Posted: January 18, 2019 at 09:14 PM (#5806720)
At some point, overfitting your limited data is not the sign of a good data scientist.
   1129. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 18, 2019 at 09:14 PM (#5806721)
The 538 model has Mussina ending up at 73%, making him the returning candidate with the most votes on next year's ballot, and probably guaranteeing that he gets more than 85% next year. Might still make it this year with ~ 76%.
   1130. bachslunch Posted: January 19, 2019 at 03:47 PM (#5806823)
A small-hall type ballot from Paul Sullivan just put up, which simultaneously does a good and bad thing: Halladay, Edgar, Moose, Mo, Vizquel.

Both Edgar (good) and Vizquel (bad) are new adds to his ballot. It’s of course far too restrictive, but that’s another story.
   1131. Jack Sommers Posted: January 19, 2019 at 04:10 PM (#5806827)
Batters post season WPA

Win Probability Added (WPA) (Career)
Rank. Player
1. David Ortiz-- 3.2 369 PA
2. Albert Pujols 2.9 334 PA
3. Lance Berkman 2.7 224 PA
4. Pete Rose---- 2.6 301 PA
5. Justin Turner 2.6 212 PA
6. Lou Gehrig--- 2.3 150 PA
7. Carlos Beltra 2.3 256 PA
8. Eric Hosmer-- 2.2 138 PA
9. David Freese- 2.2 222 PA
10.MiguelCabrera 1.9 235 PA


EDIT: Raise your hand if you had Berkman #3 on this list


   1132. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 19, 2019 at 04:50 PM (#5806830)
It's just so absurd people think Rivera is more Hall worthy than Mussina or Rolen.


Only if you don't consider reliever a position. If you do, Rivera was the best in history at his position, neither Mussina nor Rolen were.
   1133. The Duke Posted: January 19, 2019 at 05:15 PM (#5806835)
There’s no way Rivera gets 100% nor does he get biggest % ever. Plenty of people who don’t think anyone should have 100% and don’t have much time for past-time ball players. I bet he loses somewhere in the range of 10-20 votes.

I could actually see Jeter getting 100% given the mythical narrative around him.
   1134. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 19, 2019 at 06:08 PM (#5806841)
EDIT: Raise your hand if you had Berkman #3 on this list

(Raises hand)

But only because I've done WPA-based postseason work before. Berkman was GREAT in the playoffs (especially in '05 and '11), and nobody noticed.
   1135. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: January 20, 2019 at 02:35 AM (#5806875)
Only if you don't consider reliever a position.


Well it's role that is constantly evolving and I for one don't think any pure reliever brings enough value to be elected. I'd rather see Mark(I held the running game like no pitcher ever and that's my unique skill) Buehrle be elected to the HOF. Dude has a no-no and a perfecto to go along with nearly 60WAR.
There is tremendous value in going through an order the 2nd and 3rd time. As pointed out many times, you can pick 1100 innings of Pedro, Maddux or Johnson's finest work and it beats Rivera. Then add in a thousands of more valuable innings and you've got yourself a HOFer.
So no, Rivera should be nowhere near unanimous. We joke, but yes, someone like Jeter should be. He is a clear HOFer no matter how bad you rate the fielding. Just as guys like Griffey, Chipper, Brett, Williams, Mays, etc and all the other no-brainers should've been unanimous.
   1136. QLE Posted: January 20, 2019 at 04:37 AM (#5806880)
For anyone who is curious, total gains by the backlog, with 188 votes reported:

Walker: 38
McGriff: 35
Martinez: 18
Vizquel: 17
Mussina: 16
Rolen: 15
Schilling: 14
Wagner: 9
Kent: 7
Sheffield: 5
Bonds: 3
Clemens: 3
Jones: 2
Sosa: 1
Ramirez: 0
   1137. bachslunch Posted: January 20, 2019 at 10:50 AM (#5806901)
Lousy ballot from Ron Kroichick: Kent, Moose, Mo, Vizquel.

Not the best from Ann Killion, either: Halladay, Edgar, McGriff, Mo, Vizquel. McGriff is a new add-on.

Weird one from Teddy Greenstein: Halladay, Edgar, Mo, Vizquel, Wagner, Walker. Too small, has some good and bad choices.

Fine ballot from Henry Schulman: Bonds, Clemens, Halladay, Edgar, McGriff, Moose, Mo, Schilling, Sheffield, Walker. McGriff, Sheffield, and Walker are new adds and, better yet, he also dropped Vizquel.

And despite his being virulently anti-sabermetric, Bruce Jenkins’s ballot isn’t a total train wreck: Bonds, Clemens, Halladay, Edgar, Moose, Manny, Mo, Sosa, Vizquel. Helped by Moose being a new add-on.
   1138. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 20, 2019 at 02:30 PM (#5806950)
BBTF fave Dan Shaughnessy casts this year's ultimate "look at me" ballot (so far), voting for Mariano Rivera, and no one else.
   1139. bachslunch Posted: January 20, 2019 at 05:36 PM (#5806975)
In fact, the Boston Globe voters mostly did not cover themselves in glory, with Stupid Shaugnessy only the worst example:

Dan Shaughnessy: Mo
Bob Hohler: Edgar, Moose, Mo, Schilling
Nick Cafardo: Bonds, Clemens, Kent, Edgar, Moose, Pettitte, Mo, Schilling, Sheffield, Vizquel
Peter Abraham: Bonds, Clemens, Halladay, Edgar, Moose, Mo, Rolen, Schilling, Walker
Bob Ryan: Halladay, Helton, Edgar, Moose, Mo, Schilling, Vizquel, Walker

Abraham’s ballot is arguably the best, rhe only gripe being that he voted for nine. He also is the only one to vote for Rolen and only one of two who voted for Walker.

Cafardo voted for ten, though he somehow found room for Vizquel while avoiding Halladay, Rolen, and Walker.

Ryan did well including Walker, but only voted for eight and also included Vizquel.

Hohler indefensibly only voted for four, though at least they’re pretty reasonable choices, Edgar among them.

If we don’t have The Evil One to kick around anymore, I guess there’s always Stupid Shaughnessy. His ballot is every bit as bad. Definitely deserves the hate he gets around here.
   1140. The Duke Posted: January 21, 2019 at 07:33 AM (#5807232)
If you don’t vote for PED players, don’t like schillings call to hang writers, and don’t like DH types and believe in a small hall, I can see where you just get to Mo. and he probably doesn’t vote for first-timers unless they are truly inner-circle like Mo

The ballot is full of people with bright careers that burnt too short like Oswalt, Berkman, Jones, rolen, Edgar, and walker and compilers like vizquel and McGriff, even Mussina so I can see some keeping a small ballot.
   1141. bachslunch Posted: January 21, 2019 at 11:05 AM (#5807286)
Rob Rains has a really unusual ballot: Halladay, Edgar, McGriff, Moose, Mo, Rolen, Walker. What makes it really unusual is that Edgar, McGriff, Moose, Rolen, and Walker are all new adds. Darned good ballot if you’re only going for seven guys and are strictly anti-PED.
   1142. taxandbeerguy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 11:10 AM (#5807291)
bachslunch beat me to the punch (worthy of a coke), but that Rob Rains ballot at least deserves nomination for most improved ballot from last year. 5 adds, 4 lauded very highly here and another add for McGriff, who is doing much better than I thought he would be.
   1143. SoSH U at work Posted: January 21, 2019 at 11:12 AM (#5807293)

Rob Rains has a really unusual ballot: Halladay, Edgar, McGriff, Moose, Mo, Rolen, Walker. What makes it really unusual is that Edgar, McGriff, Moose, Rolen, and Walker are all new adds. Darned good ballot if you’re only going for seven guys and are strictly anti-PED.


That would seem to be a really pro-Canadian ballot, it if weren't for Mussina's inclusion.
   1144. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM (#5807304)
That would seem to be a really pro-Canadian ballot, it if weren't for Mussina's inclusion.
The moose is native to Canada.
   1145. kwarren Posted: January 21, 2019 at 11:46 AM (#5807306)
It's just so absurd people think Rivera is more Hall worthy than Mussina or Rolen.
Absolutely true, but since saves became a thing, back-up pitchers got their own position, and of course had to be "fairly" represented in the Hall. And now we are in the awful position of having Suter, Fingers, Smith, & Hoffman in the Hall.....and naturally enough Rivera looks like he's now a unanimous selection. In terms of JAWS (with leverage factored in) Rivera is equal to David Wells and they are tied for 124th place among pitchers. This recent infatuation with relievers and saves is a huge black mark on the relevance of the Hall of Fame and the voters methodology in determining value or skill.

   1146. kwarren Posted: January 21, 2019 at 12:09 PM (#5807322)
I for one don't think any pure reliever brings enough value to be elected. I'd rather see Mark(I held the running game like no pitcher ever and that's my unique skill) Buehrle be elected to the HOF. Dude has a no-no and a perfecto to go along with nearly 60WAR.
There is tremendous value in going through an order the 2nd and 3rd time. As pointed out many times, you can pick 1100 innings of Pedro, Maddux or Johnson's finest work and it beats Rivera. Then add in a thousands of more valuable innings and you've got yourself a HOFer.]


People who see Rivera as a no-brainer need to give this some serious thought. Rivera is a long way behind Ruehrle in terms of his value to his team. Why do people not see this ? It's the saves man, it's the saves. It's also worth noting that the 1100 IP of Pedro, Maddux, & Johnson that beats Rivera is done in a starting role, not to mention the thousands of additional high level innings that these pitchers contributed.

It appears now that when evaluating back-up pitchers, saves & a distorted ERA+ has become more important than WAR, JAWS, or workload. And it's just to compare them to each other...because no other position racks up saves like relievers do, the electorate deliberately avoids comparing relievers to starters or players at other positions.

I can't follow the logic in this, and have never seen it outlined in any logical manner. It really is amazingly bizarre, but has a huge following. There is a feeling among many experts that there is something mythical about closing and finishing games that your team has already won. So mythical that it overrides every normal evaluation tool that we would otherwise use, so that we can only compare them to each other.

It seems to be a given for most, that back-up pitchers should be represented in the Hall of Fame (because of saves, obviously) and most people never give this notion a 2nd thought. Amazing.
   1147. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 21, 2019 at 01:15 PM (#5807341)
and another add for McGriff, who is doing much better than I thought he would be.

Players in their last year generally get a large bump. Looking at the years for which the Tracker specifies year-on-ballot, Trammell went +39 among reporting voters in his last year, Raines +37 (with a higher baseline percentage). McGwire and Smith are the only other final-year candidates in the last three ballots; neither saw a significant increase, but they're both arguably different cases.

McGriff will still be nowhere close on this ballot, but he's got a good chance at a VC induction.
   1148. bachslunch Posted: January 21, 2019 at 01:34 PM (#5807350)
Another excellent ballot just listed, this from Mark Topkin: Bonds, Clemens, Halladay, Edgar, McGriff, Moose, Mo, Sheffield, Wagner, Walker. Both Edgar and Walker are new additions. Wish they were all this good.
   1149. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2019 at 02:06 PM (#5807368)
Tim Kurkjian votes for Bonds, Clemens, Halladay, Edgar, McGriff, Mussina, Rivera, Schilling, Sheffield & Walker. McGriff & Walker are adds this year,

With 50.2% of the projected vote now accounted for, it still looks like Mussina will be very close. He was 49 votes short last year, and has now netted 18 new votes from returning voters, plus all 7 votes cast by 1st-time voters so far. For the optimists, there are more pick-up opportunities with the voters who release their ballot after the announcement, or not at all, although the pessimists will note that those votes are more difficult to obtain. The outcome might depend on how accurate Tibbs projection is on the size of the electorate. That's close.
   1150. homerwannabee Posted: January 21, 2019 at 03:54 PM (#5807413)
I think people are getting caught up in the what's so great about a reliever mind set. Mo is the greatest non starting pitcher to ever play the game. So the question becomes, should only starting pitchers be worthy of the Hall of Fame?
There is no hitter equivalent though. Because if a part time player hit like Babe Ruth he'd be playing full time.
If Mo was a hitter we'd be talking about a guy who hit like Babe Ruth with 200 plate appearances per year for 15 years straight.
And yeah, the hitter only has a 57 WAR, but if you had a hypothetical hitter hitting like Babe Ruth 200 plate appearances per year that batter would deserve the Hall of Fame.
   1151. BrianBrianson Posted: January 21, 2019 at 04:14 PM (#5807417)
On the one hand, yes, 200 PA/year Babe Ruth gets elected to the Hall of Fame.

On the other hand, 200 PA/year Babe Ruth is far from the greatest player to get elected to the Hall of Fame. For instance, 500 PA/year Babe Ruth is in the Hall of Fame. That Babe Ruth also pitched almost as many innings as Mariano Rivera (albeit, only with an ERA+ of 122). And yet, Rivera's being treated by the writers like he's the greatest player ever, rather than a player with some strengths and weakness.

Indeed, as much as people say "reliever is a position", the Hall of Fame vote has basically not taken that attitude towards other positions when it comes to voting. They're all held to pretty much the same standard in terms of value (even though it probably should be lower for catchers, as the evidence suggests catching actually is harder).
   1152. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2019 at 04:19 PM (#5807419)
A flurry of ballots from the NY Post & USA Today brings the total to 217 on The Tracker, with Rivera still unanimous. Last year had 243 ballots made public before the announcement, so there should be more to come. IIRC, some voters release their votes very close to the announcement (6:00 PM tomorrow).
   1153. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2019 at 04:25 PM (#5807420)
And yet, Rivera's being treated by the writers like he's the greatest player ever, rather than a player with some strengths and weakness.

That's only true if you insist that the percentage of the HoF vote equates to a precise ranking of greatness. That hasn't been the case in the past, and is not the case now. If someone ever gets 100%, it just means that the small number of contrarian voters who prevented unanimity in the past didn't show up for that election.
   1154. Howie Menckel Posted: January 21, 2019 at 04:52 PM (#5807422)
"There is no hitter equivalent though. Because if a part time player hit like Babe Ruth he'd be playing full time."

I have zero issue with Rivera being in the HOF or HOM (he just got elected to the second one already).

but if Babe Ruth had an amazingly unique swing that would mystify pitchers in 1 AB, but they would be able to get used to it over the course of a game and thereby his effectiveness would significantly diminish - well, guess what, now we have an equivalent.

I would be less bullish on that hypothesis if Rivera was just as great a closer, but with a set of pitches.
   1155. BrianBrianson Posted: January 21, 2019 at 04:54 PM (#5807424)
Hall of Fame vote percentage hasn't exactly been treated as a ranking of greatness, but historically the 100% mark has been explicitly marked as different, with voters explicitly not voting for someone the first time around because they believe it would mark that person as greater than (Ruth, Mays, Williams, whoever). That crowd may be small (though it's ambiguous how widespread the opinion is), but the narrative certainly exists, and we can't just pretend it doesn't. Even though 77% and 82% are not treated as rankings. It might be logically inconsistent (or not, I don't care), but it's certainly true.
   1156. Howie Menckel Posted: January 21, 2019 at 05:14 PM (#5807429)
Joel Sherman of NY Post just tweeted his ballot:

Bonds Clemens Halladay Edgar CrimeDog Mussina Mariano Schilling
   1157. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 21, 2019 at 06:28 PM (#5807449)
ESPN ballot dump (out of 9 writers, some of whom were posted separately and already counted):

Halladay, Edgar, Mo 9
Bonds, Clemens, Mussina 7
Walker 6
Schilling, Sosa 4
McGriff, Sheffield, Vizquel 3
Jones, Kent, Rolen, Wagner 2
Manny 1

80 total votes (8.89 per ballot)
   1158. alilisd Posted: January 21, 2019 at 07:07 PM (#5807463)
There is no hitter equivalent though. Because if a part time player hit like Babe Ruth he'd be playing full time.


Right, just like a part time pitcher, if he could pitch like Clemens, would be a starter, not a reliever.
   1159. alilisd Posted: January 21, 2019 at 07:21 PM (#5807470)
Wow, Shaunessey is even more of a douche than I realized. First he votes only Rivera on his ballot, but then he "justifies" it by saying it's because the Today's Game committee voted in Baines, and spends most of his verbiage on talking about how Baines isn't qualified so he has to vote for only the best ever at his position. Imagine that! An ostensible sportswriter who doesn't realize that relief pitcher isn't a position, pitcher is!
   1160. homerwannabee Posted: January 21, 2019 at 07:54 PM (#5807479)
That's the thing though. Rivera pitched better than Clemens during that one or two innings. Also, one thing I'd really like to see someone break down is this. What are starters like Clemens ERA+ for the first inning?
If the great pitchers truly could be relievers it follows that they must have great first inning ERA+ because the batters are facing them for the first time.
If not, then this whole batters do much better after one time around is a bunch of hogwash.
   1161. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 07:55 PM (#5807480)
The thing is, that there are no pinch hitters getting all star appearances, the powers that be have recognized that it's a different thing than a starting player... Rivera has 13 all star appearances, the powers that be, do put a significant amount of value for a relief pitcher in todays era...

Players with more all star selections than Rivera's 13 and not in the hof...

Rose, Bonds, Jeter, Arod.... then you get to McGwire, Manny at 12, Cabrera, Clemens, Freehan at 11... I get that it's a popularity contest and all of that, but pretty much everyone with more than 10 all star selections is or should be in the hof. You get Garvey at 10 that pretty much stops that line. (and even there, there are 19 players with 10 appearances, and all but Garvey are in the hof or will be---Ichiro, Ortiz, Pujols)
   1162. The Duke Posted: January 21, 2019 at 07:57 PM (#5807482)
Trump goes all-in for schilling. At least he waited until after dec 31.
   1163. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 08:01 PM (#5807484)
That's the thing though. Rivera pitched better than Clemens during that one or two innings. Also, one thing I'd really like to see someone break down is this. What are starters like Clemens ERA+ for the first inning?


Not that hard to find out, but it's a chicken egg type of thing, the first inning always features the best batters on the team, and has always been the highest scoring inning in baseball. So Clemens is getting a first time through the lineup boost, but at the same time he's facing a higher quality level of hitters.

Scoring in baseball goes, most runs scored per inning is the first, fewest is the second, and most of the rest of the time it's pretty neutral----with the exception that the 9th is always the lowest scoring inning by it's very nature, if the home team takes the lead the game ends starting in the early 70's the eighth inning started scoring fewer runs than the second, and by the late 90's the same can be said about the 7th inning....I'm going from memory here, I have a spreadsheet with this data somewhere on this computer.
   1164. Man o' Schwar Posted: January 21, 2019 at 08:03 PM (#5807485)
If the great pitchers truly could be relievers it follows that they must have great first inning ERA+ because the batters are facing them for the first time.
If not, then this whole batters do much better after one time around is a bunch of hogwash.


I don't think that's necessarily true. A pitcher who expects to go 6-8 innings can't go all out in the first inning because he'll likely find himself spent for the game by the time the 5th inning rolls around. Whereas a guy who knows he's going only one inning can go max effort on every pitch if he wants.

It's a big part of the explanation why we're seeing such crazy strikeout rates for relievers these days, and also why once they've thrown one inning like that they're unlikely to be asked to come out and throw another one. Think of it this way - the best sprinter in the world may be fastest over 110 m, way faster than the best miler. But if he tried to run at that pace for the full mile, he'd be sucking wind halfway through.

   1165. homerwannabee Posted: January 21, 2019 at 08:08 PM (#5807488)
But likewise the best miler won't be able to compete usually with the best 110 meter sprinter.
Perhaps the max effort of a starter isn't as great as the max effort of a reliever?
   1166. homerwannabee Posted: January 21, 2019 at 08:11 PM (#5807489)
Also since the 2nd inning is the lowest scoring inning then I would like to know Clemens ERA plus in the second inning. If it still is nowhere near Mo, than I believe this starter supremacy is overblown.
   1167. PreservedFish Posted: January 21, 2019 at 08:11 PM (#5807490)
That's the thing though. Rivera pitched better than Clemens during that one or two innings. Also, one thing I'd really like to see someone break down is this. What are starters like Clemens ERA+ for the first inning?
If the great pitchers truly could be relievers it follows that they must have great first inning ERA+ because the batters are facing them for the first time.
If not, then this whole batters do much better after one time around is a bunch of hogwash.


This is one of the most thoroughly incorrect things I've seen here in a while.
   1168. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 08:16 PM (#5807491)
Perhaps the max effort of a starter isn't as great as the max effort of a reliever?


Maybe, but it doesn't seem likely. With a miler vs a sprinter you have more involved than just the physics of running, you have lung capacity, quick twitch muscles, etc... throwing a baseball really doesn't change between a starter and a reliever, it's the decision on how to throw for the best benefit that matters. Carlos Martinez has brought fastballs up to 100+ mph, but since he has to go 6 innings or more, they've convinced him to ramp it down... Jordan Hicks didn't throw 105 in the minors when he was a starter, for the same reason.
   1169. homerwannabee Posted: January 21, 2019 at 08:18 PM (#5807492)
Like I said, correction, what's the second inning ERA plus? The lowest run inning of the 9. Let's see if ANY starting pitcher has an ERA plus as high as Mo in the second inning.
   1170. Howie Menckel Posted: January 21, 2019 at 08:25 PM (#5807494)
This is one of the most thoroughly incorrect things I've seen here in a while.

the longer this goes, the more bizarre the rationalizations to try to put Rivera not only in the same sentence as a Clemens - which is astonishing - but right up there with his astoundngly superior career.

if this isn't trolling, then maybe they don't teach Logic 101 or really any sort of critical thinking anymore.
   1171. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 08:28 PM (#5807496)
Also since the 2nd inning is the lowest scoring inning then I would like to know Clemens ERA plus in the second inning. If it still is nowhere near Mo, than I believe this starter supremacy is overblown.



Actually it's a factual thing, the fact that the best pitchers of all time don't have that large of a split between their first and third time through, is kinda what separates them from the lesser pitchers. (and you can't use era+, because of course sometimes the second inning results in guys batting a second time through, and of course, again, the ninth inning has an inherent bias in favor of lower runs scored because of being the home team)


First time through the lineup from 1980-2010 just for a large sample size... ..257/.323/.396/.719 (this is for starting pitchers, for relievers it's .255/.332/.390/.723)
Second time through the lineup from 1980-2010 .267/.329/.418/.747
Third time through the lineup from 1980-2010 .276/.338/.436/.774
   1172. homerwannabee Posted: January 21, 2019 at 08:29 PM (#5807498)
No, I'm saying I don't think Clemens could do Mo's job as effectively, and I don't think Mo could do Clemens job effectively. And comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.
   1173. homerwannabee Posted: January 21, 2019 at 08:34 PM (#5807499)
If starting pitchers were really that much better even in single inning roles a manager would try to convert more over the hill starting pitchers to reliever roll. Because it follows that a starting pitcher struggling to be a starter is still better than the reliever because the reliever can't even get to the level of struggling to be a starter.
   1174. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 08:44 PM (#5807504)
Like I said, correction, what's the second inning ERA plus? The lowest run inning of the 9. Let's see if ANY starting pitcher has an ERA plus as high as Mo in the second inning.


It's still not going to be an accurate comparison... Mo knows he doesn't have to face a batter a second time, so he can go full out. That is kinda the entire point of this discussion. And again, he's pitching the ninth inning, when he blows a save, he doesn't have inherited runners on base that can still continue to pile up the era against him....

To give you an idea of the difference in runs league wide by inning, using the same large size I did before, the first inning from 1980-2010 has an era of 4.72.... the second inning has an era of 3.75 (the ninth, which again, I've pointed out, is by it's very nature going to be the lowest scoring inning, has a 3.63---season totals would be 4.20)

Just using 2018 you get 4.58 era in the first vs 3.71 in the 8th, and 3.79 in the ninth(we had some crappy closers last year apparently)
   1175. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 08:50 PM (#5807506)
No, I'm saying I don't think Clemens could do Mo's job as effectively, and I don't think Mo could do Clemens job effectively. And comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.


Maybe, maybe not... but he was light years more valuable than Mo. Considering the fact that Mo had the easier job, just record three outs while your team has the lead... that is much easier than starting a game, expecting to go 27 outs and trying to ensure that the other team doesn't score more than your team.

Closing has a clutch reputation, but it's easy, you can pick who you want to face, pitch around those you don't, with the full knowledge that any decision you make is more than likely going to end the game this inning... pitching around a big bat in the second inning, could potentially set him up for a more important opportunity in the 4th. The strategy of a closer is easy, it's like going for a field goal when you are on the ten yard line, in a tie game with 30 seconds on the clock. Rivera had the easier job, closers have the easier job, but they are treated as if they have the tougher job, because everyone remembers the guy who missed the field goal from 10 yards away in the closing moments of the game.


   1176. homerwannabee Posted: January 21, 2019 at 09:08 PM (#5807514)
Again, Mo is the greatest non starting pitcher in the history of the game, and it's not even close.
So the question becomes. Should ONLY starting pitchers be in the Hall of Fame?
   1177. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 09:18 PM (#5807521)
Again, Mo is the greatest non starting pitcher in the history of the game, and it's not even close.


He's at worst tied as the greatest reliever in the history of the game, Hoyt Wilhelm at least enters the conversation. I don't think many around here deny that, they are more or less arguing that, that isn't enough for the hof, the relative value on a seasonal basis to a team or a career basis, just doesn't outweigh what other pitchers did who don't sniff the hof.

I would put him in, simply because that door has been open already, if I was building a hof from scratch, I doubt Rivera would be one of the first 200 people I would put in. At the same time I get the argument. Here is a guy who has 13 all star appearances, had 16 seasons of 1 waa or 15 of 2+ war, was pretty much a guarantee for the role he was assigned, you couldn't ask him to do anything more than he did, it's just a matter of whether or not they should have asked him to do more.
   1178. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 09:25 PM (#5807525)
Should ONLY starting pitchers be in the Hall of Fame?


That is a leading question. The question is what amount of career, peak value should the hof standards be? Is it so high that no reliever should make the cut? Is a pitcher like mo with 32 waa and only 56 war worth it or not? Making it about reliever vs starter separates one position into two positions, and then works from a different level of requirement. A pitchers job is the same regardless of whether he is starting or relieving, the difference is of course how aggressive he can pitch in those different situations, and whether the numbers for those roles accurately reflect the players performance relative to average... Heck there is an argument to be made that you can't even look at era+ for closers, but instead era compared to other closers(not even relievers, but closers)

This is a debate that has been going on for quite some time, nobody has won it yet, but there are a lot of good arguments for a lot of different sides.
   1179. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 21, 2019 at 09:29 PM (#5807528)

No, I'm saying I don't think Clemens could do Mo's job as effectively, and I don't think Mo could do Clemens job effectively.

This statement is probably true because I'm not sure it's possible to have done Mo's job more effectively than he did. But unless it was an error, the statement itself speaks volumes -- Clemens couldn't do Mo's job *as effectively*, but Mo couldn't do Clemens' job *effectively*. That may be selling Mo a bit short -- he might have been a decent starter if he could handle the workload. But I am confident that Clemens could have done Mo's job better than Mo could have done Clemens'.
   1180. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 21, 2019 at 09:33 PM (#5807530)
No, I'm saying I don't think Clemens could do Mo's job as effectively, and I don't think Mo could do Clemens job effectively.

I mean... Frank Thomas couldn't do Terrance Gore's job effectively, and Terrance Gore couldn't do Frank Thomas's job effectively. That doesn't mean we can't compare their relative values.

(Before anyone says it, I AM NOT SAYING THAT MARIANO RIVERA IS THE SAME AS TERRANCE GORE. I would vote for Rivera for the Hall of Fame.)
   1181. Howie Menckel Posted: January 21, 2019 at 09:42 PM (#5807532)
Again, Mo is the greatest non starting pitcher in the history of the game, and it's not even close.
So the question becomes. Should ONLY starting pitchers be in the Hall of Fame?

this HAS to be trolling - nobody is this stupid.
   1182. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2019 at 09:57 PM (#5807535)
Some people seem to be having difficulty fully appreciating Rivera's greatness, perhaps because it's not fully captured by WAR. Just think of all the bats he broke - there has to be some carryover for not only getting the batter out but also breaking his beloved gamer.
   1183. homerwannabee Posted: January 21, 2019 at 10:12 PM (#5807537)
How is this trolling? My point is valid. If Mariano Rivera doesn't deserve the Hall of Fame, then you might as well say that only starting pitchers should be in the HoF.
   1184. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: January 21, 2019 at 10:17 PM (#5807539)
No, I'm saying I don't think Clemens could do Mo's job as effectively, and I don't think Mo could do Clemens job effectively. And comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.


To check this statement, I randomly looked at the 2018 NL league leaders in saves and era. None of the era leaders started as relief pitchers and converted to starters (a couple were relievers in their rookie year, but starters after). 5 of the 10 save leaders were converted starters.
   1185. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: January 21, 2019 at 10:25 PM (#5807541)
Another way to look at closers vs starters. Make a list of the following:

Good/great starter becomes good/great closer (e.g. Smoltz. Eckersley, Righetti)
Bad starter becomes good/great closer (2018 NL save leaders include bad starters Wade Davis, Bud Norris, and Brad Hand)
Good/great starter becomes bad closer
Good/great closer becomes good/great starter
Bad closer becomes good/great starter
   1186. Howie Menckel Posted: January 21, 2019 at 10:27 PM (#5807542)
How is this trolling? My point is valid. If Mariano Rivera doesn't deserve the Hall of Fame, then you might as well say that only starting pitchers should be in the HoF.

fair enough, so I will retract that part of my criticism. the rest of it stands.
   1187. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 10:28 PM (#5807543)
How is this trolling? My point is valid. If Mariano Rivera doesn't deserve the Hall of Fame, then you might as well say that only starting pitchers should be in the HoF.


Because it's a leading question with the result you know you want to get.

You make an assumption that might be in dispute(Rivera is the greatest non-starting pitcher of all time) and then put out a question that is intentionally aggressive in demanding an answer "Should ONLY starting pitchers be in the Hall of Fame?".... the point of the question is to lock the answerer into a corner forcing him to agree with you or take an untenable position "no relievers should be in the hof."

Of course neither of these are true to many. To some it's "no current level of reliever performance has proven to be hof worthy." is a legit answer, but you aren't allowing that as an option because you have locked the conversation into your pet theory that Rivera was clearly the best reliever of all time, and will continue to be that going forward for several number of years.


If we somehow return to a model like the 70's where the save stat isn't important, where a guy like Mike Marshall is getting 100ip a season as a reliever, and he's able to do it for 20 years at a pretty high level, then some around here might support him more than Rivera.

(and again, based upon the current standards that the hof has established, Rivera would get my vote, but there are others that don't care about the established standards and have their own phof, and he doesn't cross that line... and then there are others who just wouldn't vote for him on the first ballot for a variety of reasons, most importantly being that there are 10 better names on the ballot in their opinion)
   1188. homerwannabee Posted: January 21, 2019 at 10:32 PM (#5807544)
John Smoltz is the ultimate comparison because he went from starter to reliever to starter again. Of course people will point to his monster 380 ERA plus year. Something Mo never was able to do. However people gloss over the fact that the very next year he had a 156 ERA plus. Mo only had one year with an ERA as low as that. So maybe the hitters were figuring him out as a reliever?
Still, fact remains that he was a highly effective starter after being a reliever even though he started to slip as a reliever.
   1189. Adam Starblind Posted: January 21, 2019 at 10:33 PM (#5807545)
It's hard for many BBTF posters to get their minds around, but some people don't look at the question of HOF-worthiness the same way they do. The astonishing thing is this discussion happens again and again.
   1190. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 10:33 PM (#5807546)
The astonishing thing is this discussion happens again and again.


That is because this discussion is actually fun.
   1191. Adam Starblind Posted: January 21, 2019 at 10:34 PM (#5807547)
Of course neither of these are true to many. To some it's "no current level of reliever performance has proven to be hof worthy." is a legit answer, but you aren't allowing that as an option because you have locked the conversation into your pet theory that Rivera was clearly the best reliever of all time, and will continue to be that going forward for several number of years.


This is also trolling.
   1192. baxter Posted: January 21, 2019 at 11:08 PM (#5807551)
Re 1185:
Wilbur Wood = good/great closer who became good/great starter
   1193. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 11:26 PM (#5807554)
This is also trolling.


Yes, post 1191 was.
   1194. Srul Itza At Home Posted: January 21, 2019 at 11:31 PM (#5807558)
some people don't look at the question of HOF-worthiness the same way they do


Change that to "most people", and I think you have an accurate statement.

That is why Mo is going to sail into the Hall.

It was not just the regular season greatness, it is also the incredible post season record; being part of a Yankee dynasty that won 5 WS (and that does matter to real baseball fans); doing it year after year, far longer than any reliever except the knuckler guys -- at age 43, he still put up a 190 ERA+, -- and the way he did it with that incredible cutter. Everyone knew it was coming, pitch and pitch -- and still they broke their bats.

Greatness is more than SDCN metrics.
   1195. SoSH U at work Posted: January 21, 2019 at 11:33 PM (#5807559)
but you aren't allowing that as an option because you have locked the conversation into your pet theory that Rivera was clearly the best reliever of all time, and will continue to be that going forward for several number of years.


First of all, where did he say that he will continue to be that going forward for several number of seasons?

And the idea that there has been a better reliever than Rivera until this point in time is simple nonsense. I can't believe people even suggest it, other than as a way to express "my reliever hating is bigger than yours" kind of silliness.
   1196. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 11:35 PM (#5807560)
First of all, where did he say that he will continue to be that going forward for several number of seasons?


The question itself says that....
If Mariano Rivera doesn't deserve the Hall of Fame, then you might as well say that only starting pitchers should be in the HoF.


He's locking the question into an answer he already provided... Mariano Rivera is the greatest reliever of all time, if you say he doesn't belong in the hof, then you are saying no reliever belongs in the hof.... It's pretty straight forward by the way he worded it.

Nobody is saying a reliever isn't hof worthy, there are some saying that currently none of the relievers have met their level of hof worthiness... There is a difference.
   1197. cardsfanboy Posted: January 21, 2019 at 11:40 PM (#5807563)
And the idea that there has been a better reliever than Rivera until this point in time is simple nonsense.


And I think there is a good argument for Hoyt Wilhelm, and heck not even a crappy argument for Gossage(although it's not one I would make) the 1000 more innings pitched by Wilhelm is a pretty big difference, and in an era where he was one of the few 'ace' relievers... the difference between Rivera and the second best of his era is not remotely on the same level as Wilhelm and his era.... Wagner isn't really that far behind, especially when you back away from era+ and look at era- that doesn't distort the difference as much.

Again I would probably put Rivera first, but I can see arguments for Wilhelm and it wouldn't surprise me if better data comes out that puts him ahead in the end.... still if you are going to have 6 relievers in the hof or even 2, then Rivera is clearly in.
   1198. Howie Menckel Posted: January 21, 2019 at 11:57 PM (#5807568)
John Smoltz is the ultimate comparison because he went from starter to reliever to starter again. Of course people will point to his monster 380 ERA plus year. Something Mo never was able to do. However people gloss over the fact that the very next year he had a 156 ERA plus. Mo only had one year with an ERA as low as that. So maybe the hitters were figuring him out as a reliever?

sigh

seems weird that the hitters were "figuring him out" for 12 ER in 3 G that season, but only 13 total ER in his other 70 G - at age 37. (Smoltz at age 38 posted a 139 ERA+ in 230 IP, which you seem at least dimly aware might have been a challenge for Mariano to match at any age). Smoltz also pitched 82 IP that age 37 year - more than every year of Mariano's entire career except 1996 at age 26. huh.

also, for class credit, explain what difference in a team's W total results from a closer's 156 ERA+ vs something higher. for extra credit, further differentiate the result if only 3 G result in half the ER.

AND Smoltz's 385 ERA+ in 2003 is a bit misleading. his ERA skyrocketed from 0.85 to 1.12 in his final garbage-time appearance, after the Braves already had won the division title and Smoltz got in some batting practice tossing.

I'm guessing you weren't alive during some of these events.
   1199. SoSH U at work Posted: January 22, 2019 at 12:07 AM (#5807570)
And I think there is a good argument for Hoyt Wilhelm, and heck not even a crappy argument for Gossage


Not as relievers there aren't.

Wilhelm's best season, by far, was when he was primarily a starting pitcher. There's a very non-crappy argument he would have been much more valuable had he just been deposited in a rotation, but not one that he was a more effective reliever. And further study into his career is revealing the opposite of what you suggest - his stock is falling.

And Gossage's argument isn't even that strong. He's got 1,550 relief innings of about 135 ERA+. By WAR, the gap between the two as relievers is larger than the one between Jim Rice and Jim Edmonds. There's no sane comparison there.

   1200. kwarren Posted: January 22, 2019 at 12:20 AM (#5807571)
if you had a hypothetical hitter hitting like Babe Ruth 200 plate appearances per year that batter would deserve the Hall of Fame.
We've actually had players like this. Great against LHP (1.050 OPS) and horrible against RHP (.450). This is the hitting version of Mariano, and these guys don't get HOF consideration. It's the idea that saves are meaningful and fantastic that leads to back-up pitchers being glorified.

t if Babe Ruth had an amazingly unique swing that would mystify pitchers in 1 AB, but they would be able to get used to it over the course of a game and thereby his effectiveness would significantly diminish - well, guess what, now we have an equivalent.
If this batter could only come up once per game due to the inordinate exertion of more than one AB, then we would have even a better equivalent...This guy would have no Hall of Fame consideration, unless of course we decided to make pinch hitter a position, and invent a new statistic to glorify his one amazing plate appearance per game.

Rivera has 13 all star appearances, the powers that be, do put a significant amount of value for a relief pitcher in todays era...
This all-star argument seems quite silly. It's major premise is that "back-up pitcher" is a unique position. The powers that be actually haven't a clue. Aren't they the ones that say every team has to have an all-star every season. Back-up pitchers have to be represented. Mariano is a great back-up pitcher. We get it already. Therefore he is a frequent all-star. I'd still rather have Johan Santana's career for my team than Mariano's any day.

I believe this starter supremacy is overblown.
WAR, JAWS, Win Shares would say, not so much.

Again, Mo is the greatest non starting pitcher in the history of the game, and it's not even close.
So the question becomes. Should ONLY starting pitchers be in the Hall of Fame?
Rivera & David Wells have equivalent JAWS value (tied for 124th among pitchers). The answer to whether back-up pitchers should be in the Hall of Fame is rather self evident. But the save thing has changed the perspective and the narrative, for the worse.

But I am confident that Clemens could have done Mo's job better than Mo could have done Clemens'.
1180. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 21, 2019 at 09:33 PM (#5807530)
You think.

Rivera's greatness, perhaps because it's not fully captured by WAR. Just think of all the bats he broke
Who knew ? Thanks for this. Really hope that this was humour, but the way we worship closers now, probably not.

Page 12 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER! is in the endgame now, for April 25, 2019
(99 - 11:32pm, Apr 25)
Last: salvomania

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April 2019)
(483 - 11:28pm, Apr 25)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOT - NBA thread (Playoffs through off-season)
(378 - 11:27pm, Apr 25)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

Sox TherapyA Weekend of Necessity
(30 - 11:15pm, Apr 25)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Kahuna

NewsblogYou Are Cordially Invited to SOFTBALL IN THE CITY
(19 - 11:06pm, Apr 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-25-2019
(36 - 10:21pm, Apr 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogToronto Blue Jays' Vladimir Guerrero Jr. to make MLB debut Friday
(25 - 9:54pm, Apr 25)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogWhy Pete Alonso is literally baseball's next big thing
(14 - 8:53pm, Apr 25)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogYankees' bad luck continues as new injury delays Giancarlo Stanton's return
(12 - 8:15pm, Apr 25)
Last: TVerik. Old Java Rodney.

NewsblogThe Athletic: How baseball's unwritten rules helped awaken a Mets-Phillies rivalry
(5 - 7:22pm, Apr 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread, v.2019
(1333 - 6:35pm, Apr 25)
Last: A sad, lost penguin wandering the tundra, dreaming

NewsblogThe most-anticipated debuts in MLB history
(29 - 6:23pm, Apr 25)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogFélix Hernández passes Don Drysdale on all-time strikeouts leaderboard
(26 - 6:11pm, Apr 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

Gonfalon Cubs2019 Season Predictions
(136 - 4:49pm, Apr 25)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogJustin Verlander wants to be the Tom Brady of baseball
(117 - 3:47pm, Apr 25)
Last: aberg

Page rendered in 0.7143 seconds
48 querie(s) executed