This year's Hall of Fame ballot

[metsguy234]

ERA+ adjusts for context. It does matter directly. A 3.00 ERA in 1968 is very different from a 3.00 ERA in 1998.

But you'll never hear on a sportscast:

"And Bob Smith has 3 ERA+'s today"


IMO the only stats that matter directly:
-W
-L
-S
-BS
-BB (Pitching and hitting)
-K (Pitching and hitting)
-H
-AVG
-ERA
-HR
-3B
-2B
-1B
-E
-IBB/WP
-PB
-SB
-CS
-OBP
-All those weird fielding stats (like putouts)
-Fielding Pct.
-Winning Pct.
-HBP
-IP
-WHIP

That's all I can think of for now

[HoustonGM]

But you'll never hear on a sportscast:

"And Bob Smith has 3 ERA+'s today"

Doesn't mean that it doesn't matter.

[metsguy234]

Doesn't mean that it doesn't matter.

I made a list of all the stats that I personally consider important.

[HoustonGM]

I made a list of all the stats that I personally consider important.

And most of the stats that you say aren't important just take those stats that you do consider important, and combine them together, adjust for context, etc.

[JeepGuy63]

He deserved anywhere from 1-3 Cy Young awards, but was victimized by playing on poor teams and thus having poor won-loss records. He's also sort of the Mike Mussina of his generation - near the top of the league for a very long team but rarely ever AT the top. And I think Mussina deserves to be in the HOF.

Here we go again.

He deserved or he got 1-3 Cy Young Awards?

Henderson and McGwire get the nods.

[HoustonGM]

Here we go again.

He deserved or he got 1-3 Cy Young Awards?

He deserved.

Basing Hall of Fame decisions on the opinions of the same people voting for the Hall of Fame is pretty silly in my opinion, especially considering those people place far too much weight on relatively meaningless statistics like wins. The Hall of Fame should be decided on performance record.

[metsguy234]

He deserved.

Basing Hall of Fame decisions on the opinions of the same people voting for the Hall of Fame is pretty silly in my opinion, especially considering those people place far too much weight on relatively meaningless statistics like wins. The Hall of Fame should be decided on performance record.

Wins matter.

Wins are the most meaningful stat there is.

The objective of any game is to WIN.

If you WIN, you did good.

If you got the LOSS, you did bad.

[HoustonGM]

If you WIN, you did good.

If you got the LOSS, you did bad.

Pitcher A throws a complete game, allows 1 run. His team scores 0. He gets a loss.

Pitcher B goes 5 innings, allows 10 runs, his team scores 14. He gets a win.

You're telling me Pitcher B did good and Pitcher A did bad?


Wins on a team level matter. "Wins" the pitching stat, don't.

[flapper]

I always thought most current HoF voters only had a limited knowledge of the game. Pretty much knowlege of their team, and possibly their division is all they may really know. If that is true, then we have an issue here. If pitcher A has 275 wins, 2800k, winning percent of .520, then most people probably will not vote him in. They are the ones looking for the special stat that stands out. That could be 25-30% of the vote which hurts the guys like Mussina, Blyleven.

Personally, if Blyleven was on good teams his whole career, he would not be in this discussion. He probably would have 50-75 more wins. probably 200-300 more strikeouts, and probably career Win percent of .570. He would also be in the Hall no questions asked.

That's only speculation on my part but who knows.

[metsguy234]

I really hope the writers vote in Orosco. He was an amazing prolific pitcher and he deserves enshrinement in the Hall.

[HoustonGM]

If we're going to induct LOOGYs, we might as well just burn the place down.

[flapper]

I was looking at the poll for this year's candidates and here is who I would vote for:
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Rickey Henderson
Tommy John
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Tim Raines
Jim Rice
Lee Smith


I would vote for Blyleven, John, and Morris on the basis they all had similiar stats. Dale Murphy had 14 solid years and he was the rock of the Braves. Rickey is the best of the bunch overall.

McGwire was my 11th choice. I took him off but I believe he should be in the Hall. When is it believed he started taking the suppliments? I didn't know if it was before he started getting hurt or after.

[JeepGuy63]

He deserved.

Basing Hall of Fame decisions on the opinions of the same people voting for the Hall of Fame is pretty silly in my opinion, especially considering those people place far too much weight on relatively meaningless statistics like wins. The Hall of Fame should be decided on performance record.

What?

So, we should base his performance on your decisions and what you think is the difference between a very good pitcher and a Hall of Fame pitcher?

Why use statistics at all then? I am sure that whatever statistics you want to use, someone else will say those are pretty useless to use and vice versa. At some point, there has to be some numbers that say "Yes, you are a HOFer". Fortuneately or unfortuneately, 300 wins, 500 homers and 3,000 hits appear to be the magic numbers.

[HoustonGM]

So, we should base his performance on your decisions and what you think is the difference between a very good pitcher and a Hall of Fame pitcher?

No, we should base our evaluations of players on the way they performed.

Why use statistics at all then? I am sure that whatever statistics you want to use, someone else will say those are pretty useless to use and vice versa. At some point, there has to be some numbers that say "Yes, you are a HOFer". Fortuneately or unfortuneately, 300 wins, 500 homers and 3,000 hits appear to be the magic numbers.

If you use those arbitrarily set benchmarks, there's a lot of very deserving players that don't get in. Instead of using arbitrarily set benchmarks, evaluate the performance as a whole.

[etothep]

Fortuneately or unfortuneately, 300 wins, 500 homers and 3,000 hits appear to be the magic numbers.

Looks like the number of pitchers getting in is about to take a serious blow then