Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justanewguy
But it remains the same that a pitcher back then had a much larger part of his team's success or failure than a pitcher does today. And for whatever reason, pitchers in the 70s (even the ones that threw hard) were far more durable.
This is a separate issues, but a couple things on that. I don't think the 1970's pitchers were actually more durable overall. The 1960s/1970s were a period of much lower offense as compared to today, so it was easier to get through the lineup multiple times. Furthermore, there's a ton of cases of pitchers in the 1970s having a couple big 300 inning seasons and then falling off the map. Now, yes, there's pitchers like that now, but people (not saying you. just in general) tend to laud the 1970's guys for being freaks capable of huge workloads, but they overlook how a lot of the 1970's guys fell apart quickly.
Quote:
I do favor a smaller HOF, and again, that's the key thing to this disagreement. I could probably go through the entire HOF and want to make a case for at least 1/3 of the players being taken out. I think the HOF should be saved for players who hold the distinction of legendary superlatives. Like Babe Ruth, the greatest player ever. Lou Gehrig, the greatest ever hitter not named Babe Ruth. Sandy Koufax, the most dominant pitcher baseball had ever seen over a short stretch of seasons in its entire history. Jackie Robinson, the first black player and possibly the most exciting player MLB had ever seen at the time. Hank Aaron, the most consistent and durable player ever. Roger Clemens, possibly the greatest pitcher of all time. Cy Young, the pitcher with the most wins, losses and decisions ever. And so on. Of course there is room for players who lack superlatives but had remarkable careers. But what could be said for Mike Mussina? "He was never the best pitcher, and only came close a couple of times, but he was really good for a long time."
So it seems like you think that the HOF should be reserved for only the "inner circle" types. I disagree, obviously, and I'm also unsure how we could go about changing that if I was to agree. I don't think it's right to change the standards now. *shrug*
Quote:
If all the players that we're discussing make it to the Hall, I'd be willing to bet that in 50 years, the average fan will know all about Clemens and Maddux and Pedro, but won't have much of a clue about Mussina. The big 4 pitchers of the 90s OWNED the 90s so thoroughly, in an age where pitching tended towards less starts and less innings per start.
I think this is the case for all the past eras. Who does the average fan know from the 1960s/1970s era? Tom Seaver, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson....I'd bet a lot of them have only heard of guys like Don Sutton, Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, etc. in passing (unless of course they were alive and following baseball at that time).
Quote:
Mussina looks good here. I wonder why Pedro is so low.
Because it's career WARP. Outside of Pedro's peak seasons, he doesn't have that much.
Mussina has 11 seasons with 200+ innings and another 6 with 150-199. Pedro has 7 200 inning seasons, and only another 3 over 150. Mussina's thrown nearly 1,000 more innings than Pedro.
Quote:
Brown and Mussina look very solid, but only 6 years in the top 10? That doesn't make me think HOFer.
Maybe not, but when you compare it to the players already in the Hall, it does place them squarely in the middle.
Quote:
By this, don't you think Dale Murphy should be in the HOF? He was the best player in all of baseball for 2 straight seasons, and a top 10 guy for at least 5 or 6 seasons.
Murphy has little value outside of his 5 or 6 best seasons (and unlike a Pedro or Koufax case, his 5 or 6 best seasons weren't historically amazing).
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
This is a separate issues, but a couple things on that. I don't think the 1970's pitchers were actually more durable overall. The 1960s/1970s were a period of much lower offense as compared to today, so it was easier to get through the lineup multiple times. Furthermore, there's a ton of cases of pitchers in the 1970s having a couple big 300 inning seasons and then falling off the map. Now, yes, there's pitchers like that now, but people (not saying you. just in general) tend to laud the 1970's guys for being freaks capable of huge workloads, but they overlook how a lot of the 1970's guys fell apart quickly.
Yeah, guys in the 70s did fall apart, but so did guys in the 90s. The ones between both decades who didn't fall apart had far bigger workloads in the 70s. I do personally laud the 70s guys for the workloads, but I don't overlook the failures of the 70s. I think it makes the Don Suttons and Phil Niekros even more incredible.
Quote:
So it seems like you think that the HOF should be reserved for only the "inner circle" types. I disagree, obviously, and I'm also unsure how we could go about changing that if I was to agree. I don't think it's right to change the standards now. *shrug*
Well, yeah, but we have no effect on the Hall either way, so it's the same as arguing who should/shouldn't be in anyway. And I don't want to stick to inner circle types, really. I'm just not sold on certain "very very good" players because I don't know if they're historically notable in terms of a Hall of Fame.
Actually, I'm a bit looser with my standards for position players, because there are far more of those, and you can make arguments position-by-position. It's also similar to the "pitchers shouldn't be MVPs unless..." argument. More position players should be in the HOF. I'm not as strict about them.
Quote:
I think this is the case for all the past eras. Who does the average fan know from the 1960s/1970s era? Tom Seaver, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson....I'd bet a lot of them have only heard of guys like Don Sutton, Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, etc. in passing (unless of course they were alive and following baseball at that time).
Good point.
Quote:
Murphy has little value outside of his 5 or 6 best seasons (and unlike a Pedro or Koufax case, his 5 or 6 best seasons weren't historically amazing).
So my two all time favorite players, Dale Murphy and Orel Hershiser, have no place in the Hall. :(
I agree anyway, though I'd vote either in on homerism alone.
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
I think Jim Rice has been overlooked, he was perhaps the most feared hitter in the AL and compiled great numbers in just 15 seasons when offense really wasnt great during his time.
.298 Career BA, 2452 HITS, 382 HR, 1451 RBI, .502 SLG, .352 OBA
Best Season 1978: 46 HR, 25 2B, 15 3B, 139 RBI, .315 BA, .600 SLG
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justanewguy
Yeah, guys in the 70s did fall apart, but so did guys in the 90s. The ones between both decades who didn't fall apart had far bigger workloads in the 70s. I do personally laud the 70s guys for the workloads, but I don't overlook the failures of the 70s. I think it makes the Don Suttons and Phil Niekros even more incredible.
But, are the higher workloads a product of being "more durable", or simply a product of how they were managed? I lean towards it being the latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ragecage
I think Jim Rice has been overlooked, he was perhaps the most feared hitter in the AL and compiled great numbers in just 15 seasons when offense really wasnt great during his time.
.298 Career BA, 2452 HITS, 382 HR, 1451 RBI, .502 SLG, .352 OBA
Best Season 1978: 46 HR, 25 2B, 15 3B, 139 RBI, .315 BA, .600 SLG
He hasn't been overlooked. He'll be inducted this year, which is going to be a huge mistake in my opinion. Rice had a great 3 year peak - 1977-1979 - but wasn't anything special outside of that. There are a bunch of players just like him that won't sniff the Hall.
Let's do the same thing I did with the pitchers for Rice - years in which he was a top 10 offensive player in the majors. Now, remember, this doesn't take into account that Rice wasn't a particularly good defender, and didn't have much baserunning value (nor does it take into account his massive double play numbers).
Jim Rice:
Top 5: 1978, 1979
Top 10: 1977, 1983, 1986
And outside of those seasons, he wasn't special at all. Add in defense and baserunning, and he likely drops out of the top 10 in a couple of those seasons.
The aforementioned Dale Murphy has a better case than Rice, and Murphy won't be inducted. There's very little difference between Rice and Juan Gonzalez, and Gonzalez wouldn't sniff the Hall even without the steroid rumors. Rice's own teammates Dwight Evans and Fred Lynn have better cases. George Foster, Dave Parker...Ken Singleton, Jack Clark...etc.
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
If thats so, then how come all the so called "experts" are saying he should have been in the hall already but because he wasnt media friendly is the reason he has been kept out so long?
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ragecage
If thats so, then how come all the so called "experts" are saying he should have been in the hall already but because he wasnt media friendly is the reason he has been kept out so long?
Because they're "so-called experts", not actually experts.
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Jim Rice
Black Ink: Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 176 (57) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 43.0 (114) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 144.5 (89) (Likely HOFer > 100)
So... if he is inducted, I don't think that it'll be any "huge mistake". He's not a slam dunk, but he's not an Edd Roush either.
Anyway, let's not forget that the pitching mound was higher in the early 70's as well.
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Jim Rice doesn't belong, and it's different than the argument against Mike Mussina. Although I think there are comparisons that can be drawn between both in terms of whether or not they should be in, Jim Rice's career totals look really bland and unimpressive for HOF totals. And as HGM pointed out, his time at the top wasn't very extensive.
Although with position players, it would be more of a case of the time at the top of their position, and the time in a more broad top group (maybe top 15 instead of top 10) of all position players.
I don't think any player should sit around on the eligible list for so many years. If it takes a player that much time to garner consensus that he should be a Hall of Famer, is he REALLY a Hall of Famer? I mentioned this earlier... I like my Hall of Famers to be clear cut. Anyone who needs to be argued for makes me almost certainly want to say no.
And while I understand that the Hall is already full of players who can compare to Player X or Player Z (if X and Z need arguments), that's something I'm personally opposed to anyway... much of the Hall is not spectacular as it is, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with players that fit in with the players at the bottom of the Hall being in the Hall as well.
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Hall of Fame left fielders + Jim Rice, sorted by Career WARP3:
Code:
Player WARP3
Stan Musial 191.5
Ted Williams 156.8
Jim O'Rourke 132.9
Yastrzemski 131.7
Billy Williams 113.1
Fred Clarke 111.6
Ed Delahanty 108.0
Willie Stargell 105.6
Jesse Burkett 101.8
Al Simmons 99.8
Joe Medwick 95.4
Zack Wheat 94.7
Goose Goslin 93.2
Lou Brock 89.9
Joe Kelley 83.3
Jim Rice 80.2
Ralph Kiner 71.3
Heinie Manush 57.3
Chick Hafey 48.3
So he's above a guy with a short career but a phenomenal peak (Kiner), a guy similar to him in terms of overall production but who is overrated because of batting average (Manush), and a guy who got in during the Frankie Frisch era Veteran's Committee which elected many of Frisch's teammates and friends that had no business being the HOF (Hafey).
Rice, when elected, is easily one of the worst left fielders in the Hall of Fame.
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justanewguy
And while I understand that the Hall is already full of players who can compare to Player X or Player Z (if X and Z need arguments), that's something I'm personally opposed to anyway... much of the Hall is not spectacular as it is, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with players that fit in with the players at the bottom of the Hall being in the Hall as well.
Yeah, I basically agree with this. I (obviously) do compare players to the prior inducted members. However, I only use it as part of my argument if the player compares well with the middle-ground or above. If he fits in with a bunch of the worst guys in the Hall, that's no argument. I think it's only worth mentioning if the player would fit in with or best the average Hall of Famer at his position, not the bottom rack.
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
By the way, commenting on the pitcher WARP3 chart, Bert Blyleven comes in just slightly ahead of Tom Seaver with 147.7....
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Hall of Fame left fielders + Jim Rice, sorted by Career WARP3:
I mentioned something this before, and you just inadvertently highlighted the problem. WARP ignores differences in playing eras. It's an excellent tool for evaluating the performances within a season, but it fails when comparing multiple season performances. Especially when those seasons do not overlap.
OPS+ is a much better metric to use for this sort of evaluation.
Their apparently trying to get there with WARP3 according to the description of WARP2, but it seems to be just too simplistic an approach. It's hard to really evaluate though without the actual formula(s). In terms of WARP-3 though, we know from their description that all that their doing is adjusting games to 162, with is certainly not a complete playing era adjustment.
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
I mentioned something this before, and you just inadvertently highlighted the problem. WARP ignores differences in playing eras. It's an excellent tool for evaluating the performances within a season, but it fails when comparing multiple season performances. Especially when those seasons do not overlap.
OPS+ is a much better metric to use for this sort of evaluation.
Their apparently trying to get there with WARP3 according to the description of WARP2, but it seems to be just too simplistic an approach. It's hard to really evaluate though without the actual formula(s). In terms of WARP-3 though, we know from their description that all that their doing is adjusting games to 162, with is certainly not a complete playing era adjustment.
How does WARP ignore playing era differences? It compares players to their contemporaries and park-adjusts, which is all OPS+ does...except that WARP also includes fielding and stolen bases and the like. I understand the criticisms of WARP, but I certainly don't understand how a metric like OPS+ is better. OPS+ compares players to the park-adjusted league average. WARP compares players to the league replacement level, which adjusts for position (which OPS+ doesn't do), park, etc. WARP is also superior because it accounts for playing time, which OPS+ does not do. The WARP3 adjustment is just an adjustment to even out differences in playing time due purely to schedule length, which puts players on an even playing field as compared to WARP2.
At any rate, for the hell of it, the left fielders listed above sorted by OPS+:
Code:
Player OPS+
Ted Williams 191
Stan Musial 159
Ed Delahanty 152
Ralph Kiner 149
Willie Stargell 147
Jesse Burkett 140
Joe Medwick 134
Jim O'Rourke 133
Billy Williams 133
Joe Kelley 133
Chick Hafey 133
Fred Clarke 132
Al Simmons 132
Yastrzemski 129
Zack Wheat 129
Goose Goslin 128
Jim Rice 128
Heinie Manush 121
Lou Brock 109
Still, Rice comes in at the bottom of the pack. He's ahead of Manush again, and also Brock, but Brock is an entirely different case, as he got in on the strength of 3,000 hits, the stolen base records, and playoff performance. This does put Rice closer to the pack, with a bunch of players being within 5-6 OPS+ points, but that's because OPS+ fails to adjust for the things that really hurt Rice, such as his lack of career value (which is most of it) and his defense.
You can do this sort of thing with the metric of your choice, and Rice is still going to come in at the bottom of the HOF left fielders.
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
I'm not disputing that, I'm simply pointing out that WARP does nothing to adjust for playing era. OPS+ doesn't either, but it tries to do less overall as well, which means that the differences in playing era are not magnified.
Offense in general was much lower in the time period that Rice played in, therefore making his accomplishments comparatively more valuable.
Anyway, like I said above, Rice is certainly not a slam dunk HOF'er. He certainly is a valid candidate, though. I have a hard time discounting his accomplishments just because the 90's was offense rich.
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
I'm not disputing that, I'm simply pointing out that WARP does nothing to adjust for playing era. OPS+ doesn't either, but it tries to do less overall as well, which means that the differences in playing era are not magnified.
Offense in general was much lower in the time period that Rice played in, therefore making his accomplishments comparatively more valuable.
Anyway, like I said above, Rice is certainly not a slam dunk HOF'er. He certainly is a valid candidate, though. I have a hard time discounting his accomplishments just because the 90's was offense rich.
I'm still not following. How is comparing a player to his league not adjusting for era? Jim Rice isn't being compared to the 1990's guys when using WARP (or OPS+). He's being compared to his league.
