Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:20 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Kingston wrote:
Took Gossage 9 years, didnt it?

Smith will get his turn.



Maybe and maybe not. I think he should be there now.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
310 saves with a 3.01 ERA and a 1.232 WHIP versus 478 saves with a 3.03 1.256 WHIP

9 All Star games versus 7 All Star games

1 Rolaids Relief Award versus 3 Rolaids Relief Awards

Outside of the fact that he's white and he pitched for Pittsburgh, PLEASE show me how Rick Gossage had a better career than Lee Smith did.

First of all, saves don't mean sh**. They are entirely circumstantial and do not speak to the ability or prowess of the reliever. Citing them is misleading, as the reason Smith has so many is because he pitched only 1 inning at a time and usually with a comfortable lead. Gossage often pitched 2 or more innings per outing, and he did not always do so with a save as a consideration.

Secondly, the biggest difference of value between the two pitchers is innings pitched. Gossage pitched over 500 more innings in his career than Smith did, and those innings carry a lot of value when they are at a career ERA of 3.01.

Thirdly, there's the difference between their postseason performances. In 31 postseason innings pitched, Gossage had 29 strikeouts, only 7 walks, and an ERA of 2.87. Smith, on the other hand, had only 5.33 postseason innings pitched, and while he had sparkling peripherals (7 Ks and only 1 BB), he allowed 5 runs in those innings, resulting in a postseason ERA of 8.44. While a pitcher's opportunity to pitch postseason innings is left to the quality of his team, what a pitcher does in those innings should be significant.

Jeremy wrote:
But let me go ahead and save you some time. Lee Smith had a BETTER career than Gossage. If Gossage is in the HOF, than Lee Smith should be too. The simple fact is that if Smith was white, he'd be in the HOF right now.

But that's just my two cents.

Your two cents are not worth the webspace on which they are printed. Playing the race card in this instance when there are clear substantive differences between the two pitchers smacks of a conspiracy theorist who's ignoring the facts.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:39 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6156
IMHO, Jim Rice not being in the Hall is amazing.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:54 pm
Posts: 941
Az Bucco fan wrote:
IMHO, Jim Rice not being in the Hall is amazing.

Really, AZ? Check his home/away splits for a good argument against him.

At Fenway, he hit like Frank Robinson. Away from Fenway, he hit like George Hendrick. I'm not sure the Jekyll and Hyde aspect of his career averages out to a Hall of Famer.

I suspect the BBWAA votes him in this year anyway, though.

_________________
I woke up with a clown's hand in my pants. That's what I did today.

Small ball is the hobgoblin of small minds.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7187
omgardd wrote:
Willton wrote:
omgardd wrote:
If McGwire gets elected to the Hall of Fame then so should Jose Canseco. They're one and the same, and by saying that, by no means am I saying either one should be in.

Nonsense -- Canseco was not even close to the player that McGwire was. McGwire played for longer, hit for more power, and was more disciplined than Canseco. Canseco and McGwire only shared circumstances; they were otherwise quite different.



I said that meaning that McGwire was on as much juice as Canseco. Remember they both came into the league with the A's in or around 1986 and both were freakishly large with crazy power from the get go. Coincidence? I credit McGwire's entire career to performance enhancing drugs.


And during their careers never did anything that was against the rules of Major League Baseball...I have no problem putting someone who was on "The Juice" if their numbers merit...

_________________
I say keep the $50 and ban him anyway...

For those jumping ship, we'll keep the bandwagon warm for you...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Willton wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
310 saves with a 3.01 ERA and a 1.232 WHIP versus 478 saves with a 3.03 1.256 WHIP

9 All Star games versus 7 All Star games

1 Rolaids Relief Award versus 3 Rolaids Relief Awards

Outside of the fact that he's white and he pitched for Pittsburgh, PLEASE show me how Rick Gossage had a better career than Lee Smith did.

First of all, saves don't mean sh**. They are entirely circumstantial and do not speak to the ability or prowess of the reliever. Citing them is misleading, as the reason Smith has so many is because he pitched only 1 inning at a time and usually with a comfortable lead. Gossage often pitched 2 or more innings per outing, and he did not always do so with a save as a consideration.

Secondly, the biggest difference of value between the two pitchers is innings pitched. Gossage pitched over 500 more innings in his career than Smith did, and those innings carry a lot of value when they are at a career ERA of 3.01.

Thirdly, there's the difference between their postseason performances. In 31 postseason innings pitched, Gossage had 29 strikeouts, only 7 walks, and an ERA of 2.87. Smith, on the other hand, had only 5.33 postseason innings pitched, and while he had sparkling peripherals (7 Ks and only 1 BB), he allowed 5 runs in those innings, resulting in a postseason ERA of 8.44. While a pitcher's opportunity to pitch postseason innings is left to the quality of his team, what a pitcher does in those innings should be significant.

Jeremy wrote:
But let me go ahead and save you some time. Lee Smith had a BETTER career than Gossage. If Gossage is in the HOF, than Lee Smith should be too. The simple fact is that if Smith was white, he'd be in the HOF right now.

But that's just my two cents.

Your two cents are not worth the webspace on which they are printed. Playing the race card in this instance when there are clear substantive differences between the two pitchers smacks of a conspiracy theorist who's ignoring the facts.



All this from a guy who thinks McGwire was clearly better than Canseco.

'Nuff said.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:47 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6156
Did not know that Kojak. Good point.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
All this from a guy who thinks McGwire was clearly better than Canseco.

'Nuff said.

What part of 583 homeruns compared to 462 homeruns don't you understand?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Willton wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
All this from a guy who thinks McGwire was clearly better than Canseco.

'Nuff said.

What part of 583 homeruns compared to 462 homeruns don't you understand?


Homeruns don't mean shit.

Canseco was a far better all around baseball player than McGwire was in his wettest dreams. Canseco was the original 5 tool star. Dude had it all when he was in his prime. Remember that Jose was the charter member of the 40/40 club in 1988. McGwire has 12 stolen bases in his WHOLE CAREER.

Should I dare mention that Jose actually had a higher BA for his career (.266 to .263), more triples (14 to 6), and more doubles (340 to 252).

I think it's funny that you sit there and tell me saves don't mean shit, and then turn around and throw the most meaningless stat in baseball (the home run) in my face when it means getting McGwire in the Hall.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
Willton wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
All this from a guy who thinks McGwire was clearly better than Canseco.

'Nuff said.

What part of 583 homeruns compared to 462 homeruns don't you understand?


Homeruns don't mean shit.

Canseco was a far better all around baseball player than McGwire was in his wettest dreams. Canseco was the original 5 tool star. Dude had it all when he was in his prime. Remember that Jose was the charter member of the 40/40 club in 1988. McGwire has 12 stolen bases in his WHOLE CAREER.

Should I dare mention that Jose actually had a higher BA for his career (.266 to .263), more triples (14 to 6), and more doubles (340 to 252).

I think it's funny that you sit there and tell me saves don't mean shit, and then turn around and throw the most meaningless stat in baseball (the home run) in my face when it means getting McGwire in the Hall.

Homeruns are meaningless? Wow, you're going to have a hard time garnering support for that position. It's not often we find someone calling the most productive thing a player can do with the bat "meaningless."

If you want to see another way McGwire was superior to Canseco, check out their career rate stats: AVG/OBP/SLG.

McGwire: .263/.394/.588
Canseco: .266/.353/.515

This shows that McGwire was far better than Canseco at getting on base and hitting for power. So tell me: how is "the original 5 tool star" better than McGwire when he does not hit as well as McGwire?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Because hitting is only one part of the game.


Of course I don't expect the guy who thinks the Pirates should trade Neil Walker to understand that.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7187
Jeremy wrote:
Because hitting is only one part of the game.


Of course I don't expect the guy who thinks the Pirates should trade Neil Walker to understand that.


Because we all know Canseco's glove puts him ahead of everyone else


Attachments:
head_home_run.jpg
head_home_run.jpg [ 60.15 KiB | Viewed 262 times ]

_________________
I say keep the $50 and ban him anyway...

For those jumping ship, we'll keep the bandwagon warm for you...
Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:41 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:16 pm
Posts: 637
Since when was Canseco anything to write home about in the field? Early in his career he had a strong arm, I grant you, but that seemed to disappear fairly quickly. Also, he never really approached the 40 steals season ever again, maybe 2 or 3 seasons of 20 or better over the remainder of his career, but thats it. Never really hit for average. Ill give him power, arm, and even speed for the 40/40 thing. But thats just 3 tools, not 5.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
Because hitting is only one part of the game.

As far as hitters are concerned, it's the most important part of their game, and McGwire wins that contest by a large margin.

And, as Kingston and Dan have pointed out, Canseco was not really known for his defensive prowess. But I'm sure you'll point out the great other aspects of Canseco's game that makes him that much better than McGwire. :roll:

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:54 pm
Posts: 941
Willton wrote:
But I'm sure [Jeremy will] point out the great other aspects of Canseco's game that makes him that much better than McGwire. :roll:

Canseco's career line as a reliever:
Code:
 Year Ag Tm  Lg  W   L   G   GS  CG SHO  GF SV   IP     H    R   ER   HR  BB   SO  HBP  WP  BFP  IBB  BK  ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+-----+---+---+-----+-----+----+-----+
 1993 28 TEX AL   0   0   1   0   0   0   1  0    1.0    2    3    3   0    3    0   0   0     8   0   0 27.00  4.16   15 5.000


Juicing allegations aside, I think it's fairly manifest that McGwire did a hell of a lot more in about 500 fewer career plate appearances than Canseco. Frankly, I'm not sure why this argument is even taking place.

_________________
I woke up with a clown's hand in my pants. That's what I did today.

Small ball is the hobgoblin of small minds.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Willton wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
Because hitting is only one part of the game.

As far as hitters are concerned, it's the most important part of their game, and McGwire wins that contest by a large margin.

And, as Kingston and Dan have pointed out, Canseco was not really known for his defensive prowess. But I'm sure you'll point out the great other aspects of Canseco's game that makes him that much better than McGwire. :roll:



I already did, but my arguments are lost on you because of your basic dislike for me.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
Willton wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
Because hitting is only one part of the game.

As far as hitters are concerned, it's the most important part of their game, and McGwire wins that contest by a large margin.

And, as Kingston and Dan have pointed out, Canseco was not really known for his defensive prowess. But I'm sure you'll point out the great other aspects of Canseco's game that makes him that much better than McGwire. :roll:



I already did, but my arguments are lost on you because of your basic dislike for me.

No, your arguments are lost on me because of my basic dislike for arguments that lack reason or support.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:39 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
A nice article on Smith from the BHF website for anyone interested:

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081215&content_id=10556&vkey=hof_news


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:08 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
Willton wrote:
First of all, saves don't mean sh**.


While I certainly agree that saves are vastly overrated, precedent was set with the induction of Rollie Fingers. To quote his bio on the HoF website:

Quote:
Rollie Fingers' 17-year career epitomized the emergence of the modern-day relief ace. After watching him post inconsistent results as a starter, the A's moved Fingers to the bullpen. He excelled quickly and frequently in his new role. Relying on a sharp slider, Fingers went on to notch 341 career saves. Known for his handlebar mustache, Fingers became a familiar site during the post-season, appearing in 16 World Series games. He won both the American League MVP and Cy Young Award with the Brewers in 1981.


In my opinion, you can't flippantly dismiss the stat if it's being used to ascertain worthiness to induction.

Another reason why I hate the Hall's voting process.........


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Hall of Fame
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Argentum wrote:
Willton wrote:
First of all, saves don't mean sh**.


While I certainly agree that saves are vastly overrated, precedent was set with the induction of Rollie Fingers. To quote his bio on the HoF website:

Quote:
Rollie Fingers' 17-year career epitomized the emergence of the modern-day relief ace. After watching him post inconsistent results as a starter, the A's moved Fingers to the bullpen. He excelled quickly and frequently in his new role. Relying on a sharp slider, Fingers went on to notch 341 career saves. Known for his handlebar mustache, Fingers became a familiar site during the post-season, appearing in 16 World Series games. He won both the American League MVP and Cy Young Award with the Brewers in 1981.


In my opinion, you can't flippantly dismiss the stat if it's being used to ascertain worthiness to induction.

Another reason why I hate the Hall's voting process.........

I was not dismissing the fact that saves are used to ascertain worthiness of induction to the HOF; they indeed are, as wrongheaded as that may be. I was dismissing saves as a measurement of value for determining which relievers are better than others. Jeremy touted Lee Smith as the best reliever of all time, and he pointed to Smith's saves as supporting that. In disagreeing, I pointed out that saves have no relevance to that specific discussion. What value saves have to HOF nominees is a different discussion.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits