Crime Dog to the Hall!

thewupk said:
1) Look at Don Mattingly. 40.7 fWAR and 42.4 bWAR while playing his entire career for the Yankees. Like Murphy he failed with the writers and just failed in the veterans committee. Both were great in their 20's but were mediocre at best after turning 30. Lots of players are like that. Literally the only thing separating Murphy from a lot of other cases is the 2nd MVP. But to me that doesn't mean much. Lots of players have had multiple MVP caliber seasons but an entire career that just isn't up to par.

2) It's not perfect and Baines is likely the worst player in the HOF. He got in via a stacked veterans committee in his favor. Just because some undeserving players get it doesn't mean more should. I'm a big hall guy but there has to be a line somewhere.

3) There is no precedent for it though. To me it would just be a numbers game and I'd allow those players in the HOF. The voters feel differently. Just like they felt differently about Murphy.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with there being a line. I just wish it was a straight one between two points rather than something drawn on a two year old's Etch-a-Sketch.

If there are going to be exceptions, I want my guy to be one of them. As a fan I'm under no obligation to be objective. I wish the voters didn't feel the same way.
 
Last edited:
DirkPiggler said:
I'm fine with there being a line. I just wish it was a straight one between two points rather than something drawn on a two year old's Etch-a-Sketch.

If there are going to be exceptions, I want my guy to be one of them. As a fan I'm under no obligation to be objective. I wish the voters didn't feel the same way.
Click to expand...

I think the Writers have a pretty good measure on who to vote for. All the guys you mentioned are veterans committee votes and those are iffy at best.
 
Well, Murph will have a shot again in three years and I think given all the talk Murph and Mattingly will get their moments. The baseball media has really been beating a positive drum for those two specifically so in three years we may see a different outcome. Personally, I don't hold the Halls of any sports as high as some. They are just museums for a recreation nothing more. Some are too lax some are too strict but in the end, it doesn't really change the impact a person had on their sport whether they make it or not.
 
Carp said:
It's a stat that can't accurately account historical value though. Being a 2 time MVP also holds a lot of weight. And there are other players who flamed out early and are still made the HOF.
Click to expand...

it's bonkers that roger maris ins't in the hall. i don't give a **** what his career war is. the guy was a back to back mvp and held the record that they're still going crazy over today. the hall generally just being a longevity award now isn't great. if reaching 61, a record still being talked about all these years later isn't as worthy as craig biggio playing 35 years and hitting 3000 singles, then i dunno.
 
thewupk said:
Doesn't mean they should have been. Vet Committee votes can have extreme bias. Being great for 5-6 years and mediocre for the rest of your career shouldn't be good enough.
Click to expand...

The vet committee is just friends voting in friends.

While I think the bias is there, I think the players can also decide who they felt were stars and tough to play against, so that should have some merit.

If they happened to vote Murph in one day, it may be charity, or it may be they acknowledge he was one of the "famous" names of the game during his era, which after all it still is the Hall of Fame, not just Hall of Accomplishments.
 
thewupk said:
I think the Writers have a pretty good measure on who to vote for. All the guys you mentioned are veterans committee votes and those are iffy at best.
Click to expand...

Writers have been known to make boners too.

Lou Brock was a first ballot hall of famer is a famous one. Bruce Sutter, Jim RIce, could go on but you know what I'm talking about. You're knowledgeable about the sport.
 
The one that always got me was Kirby Puckett. He only played 12 seasons and with that small amount of playing time, you have to be elite, and he was not. He got in because he was liked by everyone and had to leave the sport before his time.

It also helped that he didn't have a decline phase of his career pulling his numbers down.
 
Nerfherders said:
The one that always got me was Kirby Puckett. He only played 12 seasons and with that small amount of playing time, you have to be elite, and he was not. He got in because he was liked by everyone and had to leave the sport before his time.

It also helped that he didn't have a decline phase of his career pulling his numbers down.
Click to expand...

Puckett deserved to get in. But I think it's hypocritical to have Puckett in but not Andruw.
 
zitothebrave said:
Writers have been known to make boners too.

Lou Brock was a first ballot hall of famer is a famous one. Bruce Sutter, Jim RIce, could go on but you know what I'm talking about. You're knowledgeable about the sport.
Click to expand...

Sure. The writers have made some mistakes. But it seems a lot more happen in the Vet committee.
 
zitothebrave said:
Puckett deserved to get in. But I think it's hypocritical to have Puckett in but not Andruw.
Click to expand...

It's like not giving an error by not assuming the double play. There is a precedent set that if you just have to retire immediately while still playing well that you will get credit so to speak for the years you missed. Had Andruw up and retired at age 30 due to injury he would be in the HOF by now.

That said, Andruw has made huge strides the last couple of years and I'd honestly be shocked if he doesn't get voted in eventually by the writers.
 
Holy ****. And I had respect for Stark before this. These are the people we have voting on the Hall, folks.

[tw]1616454165886304258[/tw]
 
thewupk said:
Sure. The writers have made some mistakes. But it seems a lot more happen in the Vet committee.
Click to expand...

Well they're picking through the scrap heap. THe obvious locks are gone so you're looking for diamonds in the rough and usually you don't find them.
 
CyYoung31 said:
Holy ****. And I had respect for Stark before this. These are the people we have voting on the Hall, folks.

[tw]1616454165886304258[/tw]
Click to expand...

what a bizarre way to go against Andruw.

he is punished for playing a shallow CF and got to balls and saved runs that would have gotten past infielders. And he still could go get to balls to the track despite playing CF.

he could read balls off the bat and get better jumps than any other CF. And he’s punished because he gained weight!? What type of ****ing argument is that.

stark is a Phillies homer so makes sense he’s slob all over Rolen but not Andruw.
 
The Chosen One said:
what a bizarre way to go against Andruw.

he is punished for playing a shallow CF and got to balls and saved runs that would have gotten past infielders. And he still could go get to balls to the track despite playing CF.

he could read balls off the bat and get better jumps than any other CF. And he’s punished because he gained weight!? What type of ****ing argument is that.

stark is a Phillies homer so makes sense he’s slob all over Rolen but not Andruw.
Click to expand...

Rolen is a no doubter hall of famer, only 10 position players since 1990 have a higher fWAR, all are in the hall or would be if not for cheating, or will be when eligible. (Bonds, A-Rod, Pujols, Chipper, Beltre, Trout, Bagwell, Griffey, Jeter, Thomas) and all but

The real stinker is that he put Jimmy Rollins, who in the same criteria is 57th, Barely ahead of Matt Holliday.
 
zitothebrave said:
Rolen is a no doubter hall of famer, only 10 position players since 1990 have a higher fWAR, all are in the hall or would be if not for cheating, or will be when eligible. (Bonds, A-Rod, Pujols, Chipper, Beltre, Trout, Bagwell, Griffey, Jeter, Thomas) and all but

The real stinker is that he put Jimmy Rollins, who in the same criteria is 57th, Barely ahead of Matt Holliday.
Click to expand...

The fWAR stuff is interesting. Here's how the guys Stark mentioned break down in career fWAR:

Rolen- 69.9
Beltran- 67.8
Andruw- 67.0
Sheffield- 62.1
Kent- 56.0
Helton- 54.9
Rollins- 49.6
Wagner- 24.0

This just shows how much of an idiot Stark is. He called Beltran the hardest decision of all when he was better than most of the players on Stark's ballot. Andruw's career fWAR was almost identical. Rolen, Andruw, and Beltran should have been no brainers. I'd even be fine with him including Sheffield. Kent, Helton, and Rollins should have never been considered over guys like Andruw or Beltran.

The only exception I might make on that list is Wagner. He was one of the best closers ever, it's just that fWAR doesn't really value closers.
 
Wagner you can make an argument for, except for the fact that he misses a lot of criteria.

First Wagner was **** in the post season, career 10.03 ERA in 14 appearances, and only 3 saves. As the "3rd best" of his era I don't think he is a lock. And if you're comparing to modern closers, guys like Kimbrel, Chapman and Jansen are going to lap Wagner in WAR shorly.
 
zitothebrave said:
Wagner you can make an argument for, except for the fact that he misses a lot of criteria.

First Wagner was **** in the post season, career 10.03 ERA in 14 appearances, and only 3 saves. As the "3rd best" of his era I don't think he is a lock. And if you're comparing to modern closers, guys like Kimbrel, Chapman and Jansen are going to lap Wagner in WAR shorly.
Click to expand...

I'd be fine if Wagner got in or if he was left out. I just don't hold closers to the same fWAR standard as other players in terms of getting into the hall. If you did you'd never get a closer in the hall. Mariano Rivera couldn't even crack 40 fWAR. I just wouldn't be upset either way with Wagner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top