Printable View
And could writers pick a worse target as their "Didn't scare anyone-lowers the standards of the hall"?? As someone else said-FIFTH in Strikeouts???Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
And here's an idea of how screwed up Cy Young voting is:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/aw...73.shtml#ALcya
Wibur Wood got more votes???
He will definately be a Philly. 8 1/2 years there, 3 1/2 in Arizona, and 4 in Boston excluding '08
That doesn't mean anything for what WILL happen. Reggie Jackson is in as a Yankee, despite playing 5 years there to 9 in Oakland.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
When you think of Schilling, you REALLY think of him as a Phillie??? Please.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
He ended "the Curse." Bloody sock. Two rings for such a cursed franchise. There is no chance, NO CHANCE, they are going to have all that take a back seat to his time with the Phillies where he didn't win squat. I mean, seriously, it's about the stories and what he is known for in his career.
It's "he ended the most famous dry spell in the history of sports" vs. "he pitched pretty well for one of the 30 teams in the league for 8 years".
It's not close.
He did more then "Pretty Well" in Philly. And yes, I obviously would love if he retired as a Red Sox. And he might want to as well. But because of the stupid rules he may not have a choice at all...Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
Well, remember, we're talking about from the HOF's perspective, not form what you or I think "should" happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
He was a great pitcher for the Phillies, but what is his legacy there? What did he win?? What is the story there?? There is none.
With the BoSox, he is a legend forever. He's the guy who came and ended "the curse." That's all you have to say, every casual fan of baseball knows what that's about.. The legend is huge and will grow and grow as time goes by. That is what the HOF wants.
I think he'll go in as a Red Sox, with a chance as a Diamondback (where the best of his postseason work came, contrary to popular belief)....I personally would put him in with a Phillies cap, but that's because I'd make my choices based on what team he provided the most value to.
The stupid rules are there to prevent greedy players from taking compensation from stupid teams in return for said stupid team's logo being immortalized for all time. That situation is even stupider than having people other than the player decide what logo should go on the player's cap - kind of the lesser of two evils. It's a sad statement that it has to be there, but there it is.
I'd put him in as a Diamondback if it was up to me, but I think it's most likely he'll go in as a Red Sox. I'm not as sure as other people here that he's a lock, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I would rather see him go in as a Diamondback, but I can see why he would go in as a Phillie or Red Sock.
He spent a long time with Philadelphia, but he wasn't GREAT. He won 2 World Series with Boston, but he was really good in his Arizona years, even though he didn't have a lot of them.
Yami, I want more of your opinionQuote:
Originally Posted by yamiviet
As do I.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
This is basically how I see things.
Accolades were not even around for Pud galvin, so you can't rate him by that. And They are stupid to use in rating a player anyways................:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe12Pack
Note that I also said "YBY performance." Check out Pud's YBY... not overly impressive. He just was around for a long time, and racked up numbers in an era where pitchers could easily rack up all the numbers they wanted if they stayed healthy and at least average in terms of effectiveness.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
And accolades are NOT a stupid measurement. I consider Cy Young and MVP voting placement to be nearly as valuable as winning a Cy Young or MVP. All Star selections, Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers... also valuable ways for assessing players quickly in comparison to their peers, especially in ages that we know little about (example: seriously, how well do you or I really know the 70s?).
The point of accolades is that a player was the premier guy doing what he does at a given time. That's worth a LOT. It's what makes Babe Ruth so special... he was the premier player of his time. Most of the time, the Cy Young and MVP winner is accurate, and most of the time, the voting placement includes all the players who were top tier in a given season.
Well, considering how stupid writers are, how much statistical analysis has changed, and the fact that players sometimes played in leagues full of other greats, yes they are stupid. and the Gold Glove is a joke, Look at Rafeal Palmeiro, David Wright, and more...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe12Pack
First of all, writers can only be "stupid" to an extent, and the cream always rises to the very top, whether or not the general consensus observing and commenting is the SABR types or the Joe Blow with his beer and his brat. Ask either of those guys who the best player in baseball is, and you'll probably hear an acceptable answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
Second, the backlash on "stupid writers" is overblown. Sure, plenty of writers didn't vote for Pujols for the 2008 NL MVP. But the "stupid writers" somehow got it right, didn't they?
"Stupid writers" might be more old school than we BM types would like, but there's a reason they have those jobs and you and I don't.
Gold Gloves may have been a poor example by itself, but try building a case against MVP/CY Young selection for the past 10 years, and I bet you won't find many cases (if any) where you can argue beyond all shadows of doubt against who the winner was.
Bartolo Colon. Case settled by just that one player. And also, they have the jobs they have because people like to hear their nonsense. They don't want to hear about numbers. But numbers are what makes the game...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe12Pack
Let's see...2005 AL and NL Cy Young, 2002 AL MVP, 2001 AL MVP, 2001 AL Cy Young, 1998 AL and NL MVP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe12Pack
2007 NL MVP, you forgot that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I disagree with that one, but I don't think it's "arguable beyond all shadows of doubt."Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
Case not "settled" by just that one player. Give me a clearcut favorite in the AL that season. Yes, my pick is also Santana, but it's not like they gave it to some schlub instead. Besides, did Santana not finish high? And did I not already say that I place practically the same value on places that I place on the actual award?Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
You can rag on the writers all you want, but they know the game better than we do, whether or not they know it "correctly" according to us. This is a discussion for a totally different time and place, but if people like to hear their nonsense, doesn't that make them the consensus voices of the sport, by popularity and economics?
I "dislike" most writers as much as the next guy, but a) I generally choose to ignore them, and b) I understand that their selections for awards and that the final rankings for players for those awards are going to be fair 90% of the time. Just like Lincecum and Pujols beat out Sabathia and Ramirez for NL awards last season, I trust that the voting works, to some degree, in most seasons, with at least giving players placement.
Besides, this has gotten off topic. The main point is, you're acting as if the awards are almost always so far off that the "true winners" are snubbed even in voting placement, and that it's always some POS that takes the award home, and that it's always some joke of a player who only wins because he's popular and/or plays for the winning team. Reality has it, that's rarely the case.
Read the post Houston made, he named even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe12Pack
I actually think that they get the winners more accurately than they get the overall placement...which I think is a complete mess, usually. I think nothing illustrates it better than Cal Ripken 1983-1984. He posted a basically identical season, yet won the award in 1983 (correctly) and then got a lone 10th place vote in 1984, placing 27th. The only difference was the performance of his teammates.
K-Rod this year stands out as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The interesting thing about HGM's picks is that they mostly seem to deal with huge amounts of wins/team success with great/crucial-to-team performance vs. guys who were more deserving when stats are broken down (the way Joe Schmo and the writers never break them down), but are "overlooked." And although I side with the "These picks are incorrect" school, I see that the correct players did place, and placed high. I also have a tendency to consider MVP/Cy Young to be at least 10-ish% being a crucial part of a winning team.
Two things I'll return to here:
1) The war against sportswriters is overblown, and frankly is kind of annoying. Sometimes you have to humble yourself a little, even when you're poking around at stats and hating on writers. You may know things they don't, but it doesn't make them "stupid." You don't need to take up the sword and shout a battle cry anytime someone mentions awards.
2) I already stated that I take placing in voting into account nearly as much as I do awards (for players that I have no clue about compared to their peers since I did not exist then... as in, pre 1980s players), and that I ALSO LOOK AT THE YBY STATS. If i'm glancing quickly at (example) 1970s players when they're not fresh in my mind, I'll look at their YBY stats, their time leading the league in certain stats, and their placements in voting. This tells me a) how they did YBY, and b) how they stacked up to their peers.
By the way, I don't see nearly as much to take issue with what you've said as RSR seems to. "My" Hall is just bigger than yours.
Right, I'm mostly addressing him, and this got really far off topic, especially since my little chart said "MY HOF."Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
And I know "your" Hall is bigger than "mine," since we've been here quite a few times. :)
Really, I was just attempting to show with a dorky little graph, how I view the HOF, and why I don't consider Schilling to be in it. I actually thought it would get more opposition for the sake of it's not really drawn that well to scale. Actually, Mussina/Schilling/Saberhagen should be closer to the bubble than I showed them.
Also, my chart just goes to show that Walter Johnson was a total beast of a pitcher.
Pretty much my POV, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I happened to be re-reading Bill James' book on the Hall, and there's a quote that ties directly into this argument:
"I advocate that we pay close attention, in evaluationg Hall of Fame candidates, the the player's performance in award voting while active--MVP voting, Gold Glove voting, in-season and post-season All-Star teams. If a player hits .267 with 63 RBI, but wins the MVP award, what does that mean? It means that there was a widespread perception at the time that the player's collateral skills (defense, baserunning, and leadership) were of exceptional value. Similarly, if a player drives in 162 runs and is hardly mentioned in the MVP voting, what does that mean? It means that there is a widespread perception, at the time that the player's collateral skills were not good."
Saberhagen is not in my HOF either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe12Pack