Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count

[ohms_law]

It's not HOW players have been judged.

It comes as close as possible to expressing numerically how players have been judged. Obviously it's not exact, but it works out close enough to be as accurate as possible.

It's impossible to change the evaluation. The writers vote, they control the evaluation. The only way it'll change is through time, naturally.

Which is basically my point. People have their opinions. To some, RBI is still important. You or I may not agree, but that's their opinion. I don't think that ignoring others opinions is a good way to convince people to change their minds on things.

You really don't see how it can be unfair to change the measuring stick against which players are measured, though?

[HoustonGM]

You really don't see how it can be unfair to change the measuring stick against which players are measured, though?

No. It's not unfair. It has happened, and will happen. Thought processes change over time. We find out new things. We learn more.

Take Larry Walker. 57.9 HOF Standards, 147 HOF Monitor. He's got a chance to make the Hall sure, but I think hes' going to fall short. Why? Because people are more aware of park and era factors now, even if they don't really know it. It's just sort of intuitive...he played in Coors, oh, his numbers are inflated.

But, at any rate, I don't believe I've advocated just up and changing the HOF evaluation. I don't even know how I would advocate that, considering it's next to impossible because the only way for it to change is naturally, through time. I have my own opinions of what makes a player a Hall of Famer, just like everybody else. I've given the explanations behind my opinions, but that's not advocating "changing the measuring stick". That'll happen whether I, you, or anybody wants it to or not.

[justanewguy]

I just did a search. The name "Nolan Ryan" has not come up in this thread. Not once. He spans both eras...

[ohms_law]

Thought processes change over time.

Usually not in any guided fashion, though. Trying to force a change can cause a sudden change, which is unfair no matter how you justify it.

the only way for it to change is naturally, through time.

That's not what's occurring, though. There's undoubtedly a decentralized campaign to change the minds of people in general, which many threads here play right into. I happen to agree with the goal so I'm not really against that, but I still feel that it's at least somewhat unfair.
And you're incorrect about feeling that your opinion doesn't make any difference. This site alone touches many people, and expressing our views here gives us all a voice on an international stage. Sure, we don't vote, but we can affect the opinions of those who are participants of this forum. To think that the affect it only limited to this forum is a very narrow view (The opposite is also true, of course).

[HoustonGM]

Usually not in any guided fashion, though. Trying to force a change can cause a sudden change, which is unfair no matter how you justify it.

I don't know whose mentioned "forcing" anything.

And you're incorrect about feeling that your opinion doesn't make any difference.

I said that?

[ohms_law]

Basically, right here:

That'll happen whether I, you, or anybody wants it to or not.

[HoustonGM]

Basically, right here:

That's just saying that thought processes will change over time no matter what. People's opinions matter in HOW they'll change.

[Swampdog]

Well, HGM, a couple of thoughts on your post #27 in this thread.

1) Your WARP3 stats further illustrate that, not only was Clemens a greater pitcher than Maddux, but, as I previously noted, it really isnt that close, and..

2) Did you really refer to Tom Seaver as a non-elite pitcher?

[bucher34]

Well, HGM, a couple of thoughts on your post #27 in this thread.

1) Your WARP3 stats further illustrate that, not only was Clemens a greater pitcher than Maddux, but, as I previously noted, it really isnt that close, and..

2) Did you really refer to Tom Seaver as a non-elite pitcher?

Clemens is a cheat.

[Swampdog]

If you say so...

[HoustonGM]

2) Did you really refer to Tom Seaver as a non-elite pitcher?

No, although rereading the post, I can see how it comes off that way.

The 90s guys fit perfectly in with the non-elite (Gibson, Palmer, Seaver) 70s guys both in terms of times in the top 5 and in times in the top 10.

Meaning the non-Gibson/Palmer/Seaver guys. I see where the confusion is though, heh.

[HoustonGM]

Article by Dan Rosenheck in NY Times, arguing for Mussina's induction.

I'm also doing another chart (mostly because I'm bored), that has the amount of times the players finished in the top 5 and top 10 of their league (ie. not the whole major leagues) in ERA+.

[HoustonGM]

Okay, I've included the pitchers I've been using the whole time, plus a couple others (Jack Morris, Bert Blyleven, Nolan Ryan):

First, sorted by the number of times they led their league in ERA+:

This just shows the sheer dominance of Clemens, Johnson, and Pedro. Most pitchers had one or no first place finishes. Mussina, Smoltz, and Schilling, three of the guys talked about most in this thread, never led their league in ERA+.

Second, sorted by the number of times they finished in the top 5 of their league IN ERA+;

Still shows the dominance of Clemens, Pedro, and Johnson, but more guys show up with a bunch of years now. Mussina and Blyleven are tied with Martinez and Gibson, but that obviously doesn't show that Martinez's top 5 finishes included 5 first place finishes, and that the approximate level of the top 5 finishes of Martinez and Gibson were much higher than those of Mussina's and Blyleven's. Even so, it does show that Mussina and Blyleven spent a good chunk of time near the top of their league.

Lastly, sorted by the number of times in the top 10 of their league in ERA+:

Interesting that Blyleven and Mussina were only bested by Seaver and Clemens. Again, this doesn't illustrate that Mussina and Blyleven never had huge gigantic peaks like a number of the other pitchers. It does illustrate, though, that these guys managed to stay close to the top of their league much longer than most other pitchers do. Hunter and Morris are clearly the "odd men out", and they also happen to be the only two pitchers on this list that I don't think belong in the Hall at all.

[Santiago66]

so for the most part mussina and blyleven were consistently good, as in the top 10, maybe the top 5, but they were never the best.

[Wassit3]

Okay, I've included the pitchers I've been using the whole time, plus a couple others (Jack Morris, Bert Blyleven, Nolan Ryan):

First, sorted by the number of times they led their league in ERA+:

This just shows the sheer dominance of Clemens, Johnson, and Pedro. Most pitchers had one or no first place finishes. Mussina, Smoltz, and Schilling, three of the guys talked about most in this thread, never led their league in ERA+.

Second, sorted by the number of times they finished in the top 5 of their league IN ERA+;

Still shows the dominance of Clemens, Pedro, and Johnson, but more guys show up with a bunch of years now. Mussina and Blyleven are tied with Martinez and Gibson, but that obviously doesn't show that Martinez's top 5 finishes included 5 first place finishes, and that the approximate level of the top 5 finishes of Martinez and Gibson were much higher than those of Mussina's and Blyleven's. Even so, it does show that Mussina and Blyleven spent a good chunk of time near the top of their league.

Lastly, sorted by the number of times in the top 10 of their league in ERA+:

Interesting that Blyleven and Mussina were only bested by Seaver and Clemens. Again, this doesn't illustrate that Mussina and Blyleven never had huge gigantic peaks like a number of the other pitchers. It does illustrate, though, that these guys managed to stay close to the top of their league much longer than most other pitchers do. Hunter and Morris are clearly the "odd men out", and they also happen to be the only two pitchers on this list that I don't think belong in the Hall at all.

you left off maddux, how dare you!