o
You should really check out all the work that the HoM voters have put into it. They put more work into evaluating one player than you've put into evaluating every player you've ever looked at.
Once again, stop with your childish ignorant crap, and if you really disagree, answer the question I've posed. Which first basemen were better than Clark (besides the ones I listed above him)?
And, again, if you're going to laugh at the HoM for their weakest players, why do you respect the HoF?
Song of Solomon 5:4
And that's how they voted for baseball legends Ken Boyer, Will Clark, Willie Randolph, Lou Whitaker, Graig Nettles, and Bret Saberhagen...Originally Posted by HoustonGM
]
o
Once again, stop with your childish ignorant crap. You haven't even looked past their inductees. Your remarks are completely off-base.
╝+┼╣,►ΘΩδ
And they all were deserving of it.....
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.72
(Thanks to BINGLE for my banner!)
Matt Wieters says:"My morning routine goes: wake up, bang 10 hot women, eat Lucky Charms, destroy a few countries, and then read YeahThisIsMyBlog.blogspot.com."
Mogul No No's and Perfect Games:
2008 Royals-Gil Meche No hitter in 10 innings 1-0 final score
2038 Padres-Matthew Graham Perfect Game 1-0 victory!
Song of Solomon 5:4
That's not true
]
Registered User
And you're an idiot with minimal understanding of the game.....
and that is true.
Song of Solomon 5:4
Bret Saberhagen SUCKED. He does NOT, repeat DOES NOT deserve a Hall of Fame induction.
]
Registered User
Please explain to me how he sucked, was it his career ERA+ of 126? Or was it his WHIP and SO to Walk ratio?
And please explain how that has anything to do with you having minimal knowledge of the game.
╝+┼╣,►ΘΩδ
He did not suck. he was not the best pitcher ever, but he did not suck.... He was far from sucking
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.72
Matt Wieters says:"My morning routine goes: wake up, bang 10 hot women, eat Lucky Charms, destroy a few countries, and then read YeahThisIsMyBlog.blogspot.com."
Mogul No No's and Perfect Games:
2008 Royals-Gil Meche No hitter in 10 innings 1-0 final score
2038 Padres-Matthew Graham Perfect Game 1-0 victory!
Unregistered User
This type of "discussion" is pointless. On both sides. People have opinions, and from whatever they derive those opinions is their thing.
o
Well, it's not an opinion that Bret Saberhagen didn't suck.
Whether or not he belongs in a "Hall", yes, that's an opinion, of course.
One important thing to remember with the HoM is the voting structure. Each year (currently), there are 3 inductees. The 3 players that receive the most points get inducted. So, if there's a weak crop of incoming candidates, as there was both this and last year, a "backlog" candidate or two is going to get elected, often times without majority support. Saberhagen was placed on 24 of the 50 voters' ballots when he was elected, meaning 26 voters didn't have him in their top 15, so it's not as if the HoM is saying that he's a slam-dunk-no-doubt-about-it candidate.
Unregistered User
It's all about context. In terms of a HoF or HoM or whatever, Saberhagen does kinda suck. He had some really great seasons, won a couple of Cy Youngs, but he spent over half of his career being injured, bad, or both. Based on career totals and ability, Mo Vaughn is equally Hall-of-Anything-worthy. I kinda doubt metsguy truly believes that Saberhagen is a garbage pitcher, period.Well, it's not an opinion that Bret Saberhagen didn't suck.
Whether or not he belongs in a "Hall", yes, that's an opinion, of course.
Perhaps there's something to what metsguy is saying, if you look past the brusque delivery. Maybe the Hall of Merit isn't so meritorious if they decide to adhere to a rule which automatically puts in three inductees in spite of quality.
I don't completely agree with him, and I don't think Saberhagen flat out sucked, without it being qualified by something like "Among HOFers, Saberhagen sucks." It's nice that there's a respectable venue for the placement and discussion about an alternate Hall of Fame that's geared to be based less on BS and more on strict analysis, but I'm not sure I really put a great deal of stock in it, and I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way. If a player who had severe trouble staying healthy and consistent is there, it does raise a bit of a red flag.
This is just my opinion... and on the other hand, I'm not sure I see anything constructive in coming into this thread of yours to disrupt it, if that was his intent.
And this isn't totally aimed at you, because it was basically said (not by you) that he knows nothing about baseball, which is kinda rude and uncalled for. And the idea of the Hall of Merit was possibly, in a classless way, ridiculed by our friend metsguy. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong, it's all opinion. But there's better ways to deliver ideas.
I just think it's better to make an argument as best you can and leave it at that, and not resort to ridicule. This isn't directed at any one forum member or even any one thread, including this one. I just thought I'd pipe in with this. In large part, I'm echoing this:
http://www.sportsmogul.com/vbulletin...54#post1237154
That said, please do continue. I'm interested in your rankings of these players, and I'd hate to see an interesting thread get thrown off by a squabble over who thinks which player should or shouldn't be on which list and why or why not.
Song of Solomon 5:4
By suck, I mean like, a "Bob Welch" type of sucking, he had a pretty good career, some great seasons, but I'm doubting that Saberhagen was truly one of the top 3 candidates on that ballot (Out of curiosity, HGM, who were the 15 people eligible that year?)
]
o
Sandy Koufax got in both Hall's on the basis of a dominant 4 year stretch. Outside of that, Koufax had little.
These are those four years, innings and ERA+:
311, 159
223, 187
335, 170
323, 190
Saberhagen IS sort of a Koufax-lite, but with the misfortune of his best years coming in an odd every-other-year fashion instead of consecutively. Saberhagen's best years:
235, 145
257, 136
262, 180
177, 152 (strike year)
On overall career value, they're basically identical, with Koufax throwing 2,324 innings with a 131 ERA+ and Saberhagen 2,562 innings with a 126 ERA+.
Now, like I said, LITE, very lite, but he's the same type of candidate - great peak, little career. And, again, Saberhagen is likely one of, if not THE worst pitchers in the HoM. I haven't ranked pitchers yet, and neither has the HoM, but I don't see how he wouldn't be at or near the bottom. And personally, I'd take Saberhagen as my "floor" for a 237 player sized Hall over Rube Marquard and Jesse Haines. HoM discussion on Saberhagen.
Agreed, and this is one reason that I honestly really enjoy discussions with you. We don't always agree and in fact may disagree more often than we agree, but you always put a lot of detail and thoughts into your arguments (and I like to think I do mine as well), which makes for an interesting back-and-forth, regardless of agreements or disagreements.I just think it's better to make an argument as best you can and leave it at that, and not resort to ridicule. This isn't directed at any one forum member or even any one thread, including this one. I just thought I'd pipe in with this.
The HoM doesn't work like that. Every year, every player not already inducted is eligible.
Here are the 2008 election results. Tim Raines was overwhelmingly first, with 46 of the 50 voters placing him first on their ballot (Gavvy Cravath, Kirby Puckett, Dick Redding [Negro Leaguer], and Addie Joss got the other first place votes). Dick Lundy, a Negro Leaguer, placed 2nd with Saberhagen 3rd, named on 25 and 24 ballots respectively. Outside of Raines, Lundy was the only player to be ranked in the top 15 of candidates by 50% of the voters. Reggie Smith (who was inducted the following year, this year), Bucky Walters, Tommy Leach, John McGraw (also inducted this year), Dick Redding, Kirby Puckett, and Bob Johnson rounded out the top 10 in points.
o
Might be a little lay off. In order to further improve my rankings, I'm trying to go year-by-year and figure out the best player at each position in each league, so I can get a sense of how "dominating" a player was. If I have a player ranked lower than another and I see that he was actually the best player in his league at his position 8 times and the latter only 3 times, that'd give me incentive to change my rankings. I'm not being very in-depth with the best-at-position-in-league for each year ratings, and it's going relatively quick, but just a heads up.
Reply With Quote
