rickyISking

October's Over: The 2014-15 MLB off-season thread.

Recommended Posts

Well, there's certainly a glaring hypocrisy when it comes to the steroids era. A Rod is definitely a dick, but he's a dick who's numbers really are Hall of Fame worthy. That's my biggest issue with this whole steroids issue. You'll see guys like A Rod and Barry Bonds who probably won't ever get into the Hall of Fame, but admitted steroids users like David Ortiz will probably be first ballot guys. It really causes the HoF to lose quite a bit of credibility IMO when they're keeping guys like Pete Rose, Barry Bonds, and Rodger Clemens (who were the best of their particular eras despite their issues) out completely while allowing others with questionable histories to waltz right in.

I wouldn't even mind if they put these guys in with the caveat that they broke the rules. But to keep these guys out of the hall completely, which is really nothing more than a museum, is a total affront to history if you ask me. You can't just ignore your past just because you don't like it.

I'm interested to see if he can come back to form after a full year off, and just what the heck the Yankees are gonna do if he starts mashing again right after they (stupidly) extended Chase Headley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there's certainly a glaring hypocrisy when it comes to the steroids era. A Rod is definitely a dick, but he's a dick who's numbers really are Hall of Fame worthy. That's my biggest issue with this whole steroids issue. You'll see guys like A Rod and Barry Bonds who probably won't ever get into the Hall of Fame, but admitted steroids users like David Ortiz will probably be first ballot guys. It really causes the HoF to lose quite a bit of credibility IMO when they're keeping guys like Pete Rose, Barry Bonds, and Rodger Clemens (who were the best of their particular eras despite their issues) out completely while allowing others with questionable histories to waltz right in.

I wouldn't even mind if they put these guys in with the caveat that they broke the rules. But to keep these guys out of the hall completely, which is really nothing more than a museum, is a total affront to history if you ask me. You can't just ignore your past just because you don't like it.

I'm interested to see if he can come back to form after a full year off, and just what the heck the Yankees are gonna do if he starts mashing again right after they (stupidly) extended Chase Headley.

You can't really make that statement until it actually happens, right? I mean there are "good guys" (like Craig Biggio) that are being kept out despite having HOF numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A-Rod is different from Bonds, Clemens, et al. He was caught after MLB started to test and penalize players who used PEDs. You can make the case that Bonds and Clemens should be in the Hall of Fame since steroid use was widespread and since the owners, commish, media, managers, coaches, and fans were turning a blind eye to PED users back then. Ortiz flunked what was supposed to be an anonymous survey test that was without penalty. He hasn't flunked a test or been caught in any scandal since (of course this doesn't mean he isn't using, but there's no evidence that he continued once MLB adopted its current PED stance). A-Rod continued to use after everyone knew baseball was cracking down on steroids and HGH. So I have no problem keeping guys like him out of the Hall of Fame.

As for Pete Rose, the no gambling on baseball rule is posted in every Major League clubhouse. The sport almost died because of game-fixing. So, yeah, keep him out too. Or at least wait until after he's dead to put him in the Hall of Fame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am i the only one that is looking forward to seeing A-Rod again next season ? I don´t understand all the hate, don´t see how he is any worse then Nelson Cruz, Ortiz and the rest of the guys. A-rod have allways looked to be in top shape and unlike others he has never gotten fat and lazy after getting that big contract. Hope he returns in the same shape and style as always.

the Difference is that A-Rod fought his punishement and wouldnt go away, as compared to the other players who took their suspensions, served them, and moved on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about as pro letting the steroid era guys in as you can get. But even with me, I have to pause on what to with Arod.

I made a very lengthy post about a month ago about how I feel about the Hall, but long story short I don't want to make getting caught the reason for people not getting in.

With Arod it goes a bit beyond that. To listen to people like Anthony Bosch talk about him, he comes off as a psychopath. If Bosch isn't enough for you to believe that, there's plenty of others out there with similar Arod stories.

In that regard I think you can draw a line seperating him from the Bonds' and McGwire's of the world. That being said, I don't have a strong opinion if that's enough to keep him out or let him in.

I do know that like Pete Rose, regardless of what the HOF does it won't change my opinion of him and most likely not the HOF as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 83 HOF ballots made public so far, Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson are leading the way at 98.8%, John Smoltz is at 88%, Craig Biggio is at 81.9%, and Mike Piazza is at 79.5%. Jeff Bagwell needs to make up some ground at 72.3%.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2015_hof_ballot_collecting_gizmo

Johnson and Martinez aren't all that surprising.

One is the greatest left handed pitcher the game has seen since Lefty Grove. The other was quite possibly the most dominant pitcher in Major League history at his peak.

Schilling's vote total I don't get, especially looking at Smoltz's vote total. I looked at Schilling as the far better pitcher. Eleven times the guy finished top ten in WAR for pitchers, including three 2nd place finishes and eight top ten five places. If not into sabermetrics, nine times top ten in ERA, eight times top ten in strikeouts, and seven times top ten in innings pitched. If your into valuing postseason play, he's also arguably the greatest postseason pitcher in baseball history. An 11-2 record with an ERA of 2.23 over 133.1 innings to go with three World Series rings.

I have no idea where people could be finding fault in his career in thinking its anything less then a slam dunk first ballot case and this is his third go around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 83 HOF ballots made public so far, Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson are leading the way at 98.8%, John Smoltz is at 88%, Craig Biggio is at 81.9%, and Mike Piazza is at 79.5%. Jeff Bagwell needs to make up some ground at 72.3%.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2015_hof_ballot_collecting_gizmo

Johnson and Martinez aren't all that surprising.

One is the greatest left handed pitcher the game has seen since Lefty Grove. The other was quite possibly the most dominant pitcher in Major League history at his peak.

Schilling's vote total I don't get, especially looking at Smoltz's vote total. I looked at Schilling as the far better pitcher. Eleven times the guy finished top ten in WAR for pitchers, including three 2nd place finishes and eight top ten five places. If not into sabermetrics, nine times top ten in ERA, eight times top ten in strikeouts, and seven times top ten in innings pitched. If your into valuing postseason play, he's also arguably the greatest postseason pitcher in baseball history. An 11-2 record with an ERA of 2.23 over 133.1 innings to go with three World Series rings.

I have no idea where people could be finding fault in his career in thinking its anything less then a slam dunk first ballot case and this is his third go around.

Without looking at his stats, was Schilling really a dominant regular season pitcher? He was amazing in the postseason and I know that's very important, but the regular season has to count for something.

Edit: I looked at his stats and still feel like something is missing. He had over 200 wins but I guess it's the 3.45 ERA that's influencing my stance. He is a hall of fame but I don't think he should be a slam dunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 83 HOF ballots made public so far, Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson are leading the way at 98.8%, John Smoltz is at 88%, Craig Biggio is at 81.9%, and Mike Piazza is at 79.5%. Jeff Bagwell needs to make up some ground at 72.3%.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2015_hof_ballot_collecting_gizmo

Johnson and Martinez aren't all that surprising.

One is the greatest left handed pitcher the game has seen since Lefty Grove. The other was quite possibly the most dominant pitcher in Major League history at his peak.

Schilling's vote total I don't get, especially looking at Smoltz's vote total. I looked at Schilling as the far better pitcher. Eleven times the guy finished top ten in WAR for pitchers, including three 2nd place finishes and eight top ten five places. If not into sabermetrics, nine times top ten in ERA, eight times top ten in strikeouts, and seven times top ten in innings pitched. If your into valuing postseason play, he's also arguably the greatest postseason pitcher in baseball history. An 11-2 record with an ERA of 2.23 over 133.1 innings to go with three World Series rings.

I have no idea where people could be finding fault in his career in thinking its anything less then a slam dunk first ballot case and this is his third go around.

Without looking at his stats, was Schilling really a dominant regular season pitcher? He was amazing in the postseason and I know that's very important, but the regular season has to count for something.

Edit: I looked at his stats and still feel like something is missing. He had over 200 wins but I guess it's the 3.45 ERA that's influencing my stance. He is a hall of fame but I don't think he should be a slam dunk.

His ERA is a bit high, but his career ERA+ is 45th all-time. His 3.26 ERA in '04 was good enough for second in the AL.

What might be missing may be caused by the two guys leading the balloting. Unlike Johnson and Pedro at no point could you argue Schilling as the best pitcher in baseball and in a number of years not even the best on his own team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 83 HOF ballots made public so far, Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson are leading the way at 98.8%, John Smoltz is at 88%, Craig Biggio is at 81.9%, and Mike Piazza is at 79.5%. Jeff Bagwell needs to make up some ground at 72.3%.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2015_hof_ballot_collecting_gizmo

Johnson and Martinez aren't all that surprising.

One is the greatest left handed pitcher the game has seen since Lefty Grove. The other was quite possibly the most dominant pitcher in Major League history at his peak.

Schilling's vote total I don't get, especially looking at Smoltz's vote total. I looked at Schilling as the far better pitcher. Eleven times the guy finished top ten in WAR for pitchers, including three 2nd place finishes and eight top ten five places. If not into sabermetrics, nine times top ten in ERA, eight times top ten in strikeouts, and seven times top ten in innings pitched. If your into valuing postseason play, he's also arguably the greatest postseason pitcher in baseball history. An 11-2 record with an ERA of 2.23 over 133.1 innings to go with three World Series rings.

I have no idea where people could be finding fault in his career in thinking its anything less then a slam dunk first ballot case and this is his third go around.

Without looking at his stats, was Schilling really a dominant regular season pitcher? He was amazing in the postseason and I know that's very important, but the regular season has to count for something.

Edit: I looked at his stats and still feel like something is missing. He had over 200 wins but I guess it's the 3.45 ERA that's influencing my stance. He is a hall of fame but I don't think he should be a slam dunk.

His ERA is a bit high, but his career ERA+ is 45th all-time. His 3.26 ERA in '04 was good enough for second in the AL.

What might be missing may be caused by the two guys leading the balloting. Unlike Johnson and Pedri at no point could you argue Schilling as the best pitcher in baseball and in a number of years not even the best on own team.

He was the ace of the Philies for a while, for whatever that means, and he did throw a shutout in game 5 of the '93 WS.

Schilling is a HOFer. He went to Boston, played well, helped them break the curse in one of the most celebrated post season runs in memory. He had the bloody sock, which say what you will, is now a part of lore.

It's the hall of fame, not hall of statistics. He was a big enough personality, was involved in several significant historical moments, won titles with two teams (and if not for Mitch Williams may very well have had a third), and came alive when the pressure was on in Philadelphia and Boston - two of the hardest places to perform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Mussina is also a slam-dunk hall of famer and it's amazing to me that he receives 60% fewer votes than an Tom Glavine, someone who was, at best, a comparable to Mike Mussina, and his inferior at worst.

I've also argued the pro-Schilling HoF discussion before as well, FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schilling and Mussina may just be victims to stout pitching in their classes. They weren't going to beat Glavine or Maddux last year, and they shouldn't beat Pedro or Randy. I'd pick Schilling over Smoltz (if I had to choose one or the other), and Mussina probably after Smoltz.

I may not be asked to serve as a voter for a Hall of Fame because I tend to just go down the list (and typically, they're in alphabetical order) and just go straight through until I get to 10 (or the end of the list). I don't compare them to others...I just go "Yes" or "No", with hesitation leaning towards "No". It may suck if your name is Williams or Smith or Robinson, but if I get to 10 before I reach the end of the list, I'm not slighting them...I just can't give everyone a "Yes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 83 HOF ballots made public so far, Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson are leading the way at 98.8%, John Smoltz is at 88%, Craig Biggio is at 81.9%, and Mike Piazza is at 79.5%. Jeff Bagwell needs to make up some ground at 72.3%.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2015_hof_ballot_collecting_gizmo

Johnson and Martinez aren't all that surprising.

One is the greatest left handed pitcher the game has seen since Lefty Grove. The other was quite possibly the most dominant pitcher in Major League history at his peak.

Schilling's vote total I don't get, especially looking at Smoltz's vote total. I looked at Schilling as the far better pitcher. Eleven times the guy finished top ten in WAR for pitchers, including three 2nd place finishes and eight top ten five places. If not into sabermetrics, nine times top ten in ERA, eight times top ten in strikeouts, and seven times top ten in innings pitched. If your into valuing postseason play, he's also arguably the greatest postseason pitcher in baseball history. An 11-2 record with an ERA of 2.23 over 133.1 innings to go with three World Series rings.

I have no idea where people could be finding fault in his career in thinking its anything less then a slam dunk first ballot case and this is his third go around.

Without looking at his stats, was Schilling really a dominant regular season pitcher? He was amazing in the postseason and I know that's very important, but the regular season has to count for something.

Edit: I looked at his stats and still feel like something is missing. He had over 200 wins but I guess it's the 3.45 ERA that's influencing my stance. He is a hall of fame but I don't think he should be a slam dunk.

His ERA is a bit high, but his career ERA+ is 45th all-time. His 3.26 ERA in '04 was good enough for second in the AL.

What might be missing may be caused by the two guys leading the balloting. Unlike Johnson and Pedri at no point could you argue Schilling as the best pitcher in baseball and in a number of years not even the best on own team.

He was the ace of the Philies for a while, for whatever that means, and he did throw a shutout in game 5 of the '93 WS.

Schilling is a HOFer. He went to Boston, played well, helped them break the curse in one of the most celebrated post season runs in memory. He had the bloody sock, which say what you will, is now a part of lore.

It's the hall of fame, not hall of statistics. He was a big enough personality, was involved in several significant historical moments, won titles with two teams (and if not for Mitch Williams may very well have had a third), and came alive when the pressure was on in Philadelphia and Boston - two of the hardest places to perform.

His Philly stats may be hurting him as well, becuase he did bounce around a bit which tends to hurt guys. And in most of his years with the Phillies they weren't that good.

Even stranger he will probably be the only HOFer from that '93 team and probably the only guy from that team who you can say had a far better season in '92 as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know his numbers, but I don't think of Mussina being a Hall of Famer. His name certainly doesn't jump out the way Maddux or Pedro do. He never seemed to be the ace of the Yankees staff, and I don't think he did enough with the Orioles for long enough. I still think of Mussina having a couple good years with the Orioles to propel the Yankees to trade for him.

When I think of Mussina, the first thing that comes to mind was the odd way he readied himself in the stretch pitching position. Not his actual pitching.

And to me, that's the biggest difference between who makes the Hall and who doesn't...just being able to say a guy's name. I've long thought that if you have to debate a player's worthiness, that he shouldn't make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Mussina is also a slam-dunk hall of famer and it's amazing to me that he receives 60% fewer votes than an Tom Glavine, someone who was, at best, a comparable to Mike Mussina, and his inferior at worst.

I've also argued the pro-Schilling HoF discussion before as well, FWIW.

I just don't see it this way at all. There's no way that Tom Glavine is inferior to Mussina, an no way that he's even comparable. The only negative at all aboutTom Glavine was that he was never truly a #1 pitcher, and rarely had to get wins against other teams' aces. But can't that still be said for Mussina? Wasn't he always a #2 or #3 pitcher? And he "only" got 270 wins. Maybe he had some iconic moment that I just don't recall, but I'm just not seeing him as a HOFer, and certainly not in the same discussion as a Tom Glavine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Glavine the ace before Maddux's arrival and then with the Mets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Glavine the ace before Maddux's arrival and then with the Mets?

After looking it up, yeah he had great seasons in '91 and '92, and the first of those is when the Braves went from worst to first, so yeah that certainly does mean a lot, however I think the bulk of his (*sigh*) "body of work" was behind Maddux. I don't think he was anything special with the Mets and that era shouldn't count for much other than him accumulating the remaining wins needed to hit 300. Still though, if asked "is Tom Glavine a HOFer?" I instantly think "yes", which is really the only evaluation process I have. When I think Mike Mussina, I have to think for a while, which even before looking at stats, means "no" to me.

I haven't been a fanatical baseball fan since the early 2000s (other than the local team) so neither know nor care about all of the stats or other things. If someone is really a HOFer, then I feel like I should know all about him without being a a fantasy player or being a hardcore follower of the game. That certainly leaves room for bias since certain players get covered more and become stars based on where they play, but that's the breaks.

EDIT

There's also the argument that certain "cheerleaders" of mediocre players always seem to make "well so-and-so, what's his face, and the ugly guy" are in the HOF and have comparable stats to this guy, but I don't think that the inclusion of undeserving players means anything when evaluating current or future nominees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also get your number retired for being a good guy if you're Harold Baines. The White Sox didn't even wait for him to retire!

Baines is a borderline Hall-of-Famer, although he'll never get in largely due to not playing for top teams and being a DH for most of his career. He may have deserved his number be retired, especially after 14 years and three stints with the team, but yes, retiring his number mid-career was silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No argument on retired number worthiness for Baines, but doing so after trading him to Baltimore with like another ten years left in his career sounds strange. Sometimes Jerry just latches on to a black guy and really gets into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.