The 1940s called, they want their argument backQuote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Printable View
The 1940s called, they want their argument backQuote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Those are the benchmarks that get you in, no questions asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
A guy with 12 Gold Gloves, Cy Young Awards, etc is the guy who gets in.
If Dave Kingman wasn't pushed out of baseball by collusion, and he reached 500 home runs, do you:Quote:
Originally Posted by JeepGuy63
a) think he would have gotten in
b) think he should have gotten in
?
There will some day be a player with 500 HR or 3,000 hits that isn't deserving of the Hall of Fame. Edgar Renteria and Johnny Damon come to mind as guys with legitimate chances at 3,000 hits that I wouldn't vote in the Hall (barring an unforeseen breakout from either).
Kingman didn't reach the benchmark - he didn't get in and more than likely won't be let in sometime in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Get back to me on Renteria and Damon when/if they hit the benchmark and retire so I can look at the entirety of their work.
It was a hypothetical.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeepGuy63
Hypothetical or not, you threw him out there to make a point, just as I am about to do with Blyleven ... if he won 300 games, would he be in the Hall of Fame?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yes, he would. All you're proving is that the voters have generally relied on statistical benchmarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeepGuy63
I haven't proven anything as far as what is being looked at by the voters because I couldn't tell you what they are looking at, save the few I have heard arguing against him - they all said he was a talented pitcher just not HOF caliber. For proof, you'd have to go to the individual voters. For all I know, they propositioned him in the bathroom and he turned them down and was no-voted for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
If only he followed Joe Morgan's advice 13 extra times and his team scored more runs than the other team.
It's pretty much accepted fact that the majority of HOF voters don't look very deep into the candidates. They go off their own gut instinct, and like round number benchmarks in easily recognizable stats and awards.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeepGuy63
And that's the exact reason why using Wins to measure a pitcher's performance is pretty silly. He has no control (or a very, very, very tiny amount if he's in the NL) over the runs his team scores.Quote:
If only he followed Joe Morgan's advice 13 extra times and his team scored more runs than the other team.
Had Blyleven reached 300 wins, he'd be in the Hall of Fame. That statement shows the inadequacies of the voting populace. It does not show that the Hall of Fame should be based on arbitrarily set statistical benchmarks.
300 wins would have gotten him in but he didn't get there even with 22 years of play. A few Cy Young wins - even one would have been nice, more than 1 20-win season, averaging more than 13 wins a season all would have helped.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Bert Blyleven was a decent pitcher, in fact a very good pitcher but not voted into the Hall of Fame and isn't likely to be voted in with either regular voting or the veteran committee when eligible for that.
Dude basically this is what you just said:Quote:
Originally Posted by JeepGuy63
300 wins would have gotten him in but he didn't get there even with 22 years of play. A few Nobel Prizes - even one would have been nice, Solving Cancer, eliminating world hunger all would have helped.
Because that's about as much effect as he can have on wins and Cy Young awards.
Here's a line for you:
24GS, 202 innings, ERA+ of 130, 2.76 ERA, WHIP 1.12, 144 SO's, 46BB's
Now just guess what his final record was.
LOL, yep. I don't know the answer, but I'd bet if it was one of the years with Texas or Cleveland it was probably no better than .500.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Anyone who's stuck on the 300 win thing, please explain all the HOF pitchers there now with less than 300. And please explain to me how the guy who struck more batters than anyone in history except for four others doesn't belong. 5th all time in HISTORY. The guy was a great pitcher who played on mediocre to lousy teams.
Yes, of course it would've helped, but seriously evaluating a pitcher based on wins is silly. And using Cy Youngs just compiles the problem, since the Cy Young is often based purely on wins. I don't know what you're trying to get at here.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeepGuy63
I don't know where you're getting this from. He's actually very likely to be voted in by the writers within the next couple of years, and if not, he's basically a lock for the VC.Quote:
Bert Blyleven was a decent pitcher, in fact a very good pitcher but not voted into the Hall of Fame and isn't likely to be voted in with either regular voting or the veteran committee when eligible for that.
You are comparing apples and oranges. The guy solving cancer isn't up for the baseball Hall of Fame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
All I can say is to grow up and become one of the HOF voters in order to vote Bert in because for whatever reason, someone, somewhere doesn't think Bert is HOF caliber because he still isn't in and is likely not going to get in with the veteran committee.
I actually think with this year's ballot, and Rickey Henderson being the only "lock"; I think he just might make it this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeepGuy63
*crosses fingers*