Curt Schilling announces retirement

[HoustonGM]

2007 NL MVP, you forgot that.

I disagree with that one, but I don't think it's "arguable beyond all shadows of doubt."

[Joe12Pack]

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...

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?

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.

[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?

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

[RedsoxRockies]

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...

[Joe12Pack]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

[Joe12Pack]

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."

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.

[Joe12Pack]

Also, my chart just goes to show that Walter Johnson was a total beast of a pitcher.

[dps]

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.

Pretty much my POV, as well.

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."

[RedsoxRockies]

Right, I'm mostly addressing him, and this got really far off topic, especially since my little chart said "MY HOF."

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.

Saberhagen is not in my HOF either.