Red Mosquito

cutuphalfdead wrote:So there are 16 baseball writers out there who didn't think Greg? Maddux deserved a vote.

So much this.

What I might be looking forward to the most is - assuming Edgar and the PED guys don't get in - how the writers justify the inevitable induction of David Ortiz when he's eligible.

MattA75 wrote:

numbers wrote:Feel bad for Biggio. He'll most likely get in eventually, but he was a great fucking ballplayer, he should have been in before Frank Thomas.

I said it last year, I'll say it again this year...Craig Biggio is not a hall of fame player

Given he played 2B for most of his career, but also played C and CF, I think he easily clears the standard. His rate stats take a hit because he was abysmal for the last 2 years of his career just so he could get to 3,000 hits (his last year, in particular, is AWFUL) but his overall numbers are really impressive. 3,060 hits, 668 2Bs, 1844 Rs, 414 SBs - and this playing in one of the worst ballparks for offense in recent history. He racked up almost 75 oWAR in his career, and his overall WAR is much lower because his defense was so awful the last 3-4 years of his career while he lurched along trying to get to 3,000 hits.

There's also the eye test - being a Cardinals fan, I watched Biggio a ton as he burned us over and over again in his prime. Dude's a Hall of Famer, and it isn't even that close.

The eye test is for people that disregard data.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Mussina absolutely belongs in. He's closer to Tom Glavine than people think.

I initially dismissed Mussina until I took a closer look at his numbers. Given how I loathe the American League, I guess I didn't pay close enough attention to him during his prime. He's pretty close to Glavine (though I think Glavine was better), and clearly above a whole bunch of pitchers who are already in the HOF, such as Whitey Ford, Catfish Hunter, Red Ruffing and Lefty Gomez (quick trivia: what does Mussina have in common with those 4?).

Glavine was incredible. The numbers don't reveal a lot about how good that was during his prime. I've never seen anybody better fit the definition of "Crafty Lefty". He OWNED the Cardinals. I have PTSD just thinking about.

cutuphalfdead wrote:The eye test is for people that disregard data.

I agree completely - I'm a pretty big advanced stats guy - but my point is that Biggio was clearly a Hall of Famer to anybody who saw him from 1990 - 2000 or so, even without the stats. He was that good and it's obvious to anyone who saw him play regularly even without the stats.

cutuphalfdead wrote:The eye test is for people that disregard data.

Also known as "most of the Hall of Fame voters".

A lot of people think they can see things that aren't backed up by looking at data. That's just completely wrong. You may remember things a certain way, but that doesn't make it right.

Player A hits .280.
Player B hits .300.

All other things being equal, Player B is clearly the better player. The difference? Two hits a month. Anyone who thinks he can see the difference by watching games and not looking at stats is fooling himself.

cutuphalfdead wrote:The eye test is for people that disregard data.

The eye test is as important as the data when it comes to guys on the fence. I dont disregard data, but theres plenty of cases where borderline guys dont pass the eye test.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

numbers wrote:It should be hall of famers voting on it not writers.

Absurd. Then it becomes friends voting in friends.

The process is flawed, and more people should be allowed to vote (Vin Scully? Jon Miller?) but letting these guys do it makes more sense than any other group. The players are too involved to be objective, and the fans are idiots as we see from All Star balloting.

All in all, the HoF is done pretty well for Baseball. Except for maybe Pete Rose, they pretty much get it right.

The baseball hall of fame is the only one that means anything because they dont just let anyone who was ever good for a couple of years in. The writers have just turned this into a mockery though, and I dont see how it could be any worse with the players doing the voting. Id rather have Hall of Fame players getting it wrong than writers that dont even cover baseball getting it wrong.

The whole no one should be unanimously elected thing might be the most retarded thing they do. They're telling me Babe Ruth and Bob Gibson shouldnt have been unanimously elected?

Also, how do the writers justify black balling Clemens but letting Gaylord Perry in?

Coach wrote:As a kid, I was much more into the Hall of Fame, but now at this point, I don't even care enough about it to really offer a comment, other than "congrats" to those who got in.

I've been like this for about 15 years now..it's easier

numbers wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:The eye test is for people that disregard data.

The eye test is as important as the data when it comes to guys on the fence. I dont disregard data, but theres plenty of cases where borderline guys dont pass the eye test.

But it's not always used for guys on the fence. It's often used for guys like Jack Morris, who really shouldn't even have been close to the fence if it wasn't for the "You had to see him to understand" voters. Jack Morris's ERA- is 95, which means he was 5% better than the average pitcher at preventing runs. That's not "borderline Hall of Famer". That's "tied with Denny Neagle and Ted Lilly and Gustavo Chacin." The fact that he got a shitload of wins by never being durable doesn't change that.

If the numbers leave you wondering whether someone is a Hall of Famer, then by all means, use the eye test to help make a decision. If the numbers provide a perfectly clear answer, don't use the eye test to justify going against that answer.

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:The eye test is for people that disregard data.

The eye test is as important as the data when it comes to guys on the fence. I dont disregard data, but theres plenty of cases where borderline guys dont pass the eye test.

But it's not always used for guys on the fence. It's often used for guys like Jack Morris, who really shouldn't even have been close to the fence if it wasn't for the "You had to see him to understand" voters. Jack Morris's ERA- is 95, which means he was 5% better than the average pitcher at preventing runs. That's not "borderline Hall of Famer". That's "tied with Denny Neagle and Ted Lilly and Gustavo Chacin." The fact that he got a shitload of wins by never being durable doesn't change that.

If the numbers leave you wondering whether someone is a Hall of Famer, then by all means, use the eye test to help make a decision. If the numbers provide a perfectly clear answer, don't use the eye test to justify going against that answer.

I used to be pro-Morris but I waned in the last year. His numbers are so pedestrian compared to other starters in the hall. If you're going to get in based on your postseason exploits your numbers need to be borderline, his really arent.

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:The eye test is for people that disregard data.

The eye test is as important as the data when it comes to guys on the fence. I dont disregard data, but theres plenty of cases where borderline guys dont pass the eye test.

But it's not always used for guys on the fence. It's often used for guys like Jack Morris, who really shouldn't even have been close to the fence if it wasn't for the "You had to see him to understand" voters. Jack Morris's ERA- is 95, which means he was 5% better than the average pitcher at preventing runs. That's not "borderline Hall of Famer". That's "tied with Denny Neagle and Ted Lilly and Gustavo Chacin." The fact that he got a shitload of wins by never being durable doesn't change that.

If the numbers leave you wondering whether someone is a Hall of Famer, then by all means, use the eye test to help make a decision. If the numbers provide a perfectly clear answer, don't use the eye test to justify going against that answer.

I used to be pro-Morris but I waned in the last year. His numbers are so pedestrian compared to other starters in the hall.

Do we know who voted for Jacque Jones? If Biggio isnt on that guys ballot my head will explode.

Looks like they revoked the HOF voting privileges for Lebatard, who gave them to Deadspin.

Hasn't it been common for years for writers to give votes to guys who they know have no shot of getting in, especially if they had a good relationship with the player?

I've never considered Morris a Hall of Famer but the more I've looked into him and talked about this today the less I see him as even borderline.

I'm almost coming around on Biggio...I had thought Yount's power numbers were much higher than they are (as in 100-125 more HRs), and for some reason, I remain convinced the Brewers won in 82, even though they lost in 7 (apparently my Cardinals hate goes back to being only 2 years old). And seeing Yount as a kid a ton since he was in the Red Sox division at the time certainly helps my perception of him (whereas I certainly did not see a ton of Biggio)

That being said, Biggio's best offensive years coincided with the Astrodome becoming a much more hitter friendly park in the few years before it closed. I'll also add in that I don't think he was ever in the argument for being the "best player in baseball" (when Griffey and Bonds were in their primes? spare me). As for the intangible arguments I mentioned that Phil had all sorts of fun with, I was talking about things like "would I ever stop what I was doing because Craig Biggio was up or coming up?" "Did I ever think 'crap, they better get this guy to end it because Biggio's up next?'" (somewhat unfair since I'm in Boston), "would I buy a ticket just to see him play in person?"

You can argue those are goofy arguments, but to me, most hall of famers meet some if not all of those criteria. And the ones that don't are the players who have helped make it the "hall of very good" IMO.

But at least I can understand the arguments for Biggio, even if I disagree with the majority of them. I'm just glad Jack Morris struck out.