Hall Of Fame

[Tactical Bear 3]

Hey guys...checking in only to certainly pop out again. My thoughts:Blyleven: AbsolutelyAlomar: CertainlyRice: NoTommy John: Not quiteWills: No wayBonds: YesMcGwire: ProbablyPalmeiro: Probably not

I agree except for McGwire. He's a yes. And I'm probably a little more bullish on Palmiero, too, but I'm willing to listen to good arguments either way. The idea that Maury Wills is a potential Hall of Famer is laughable. He's terrible. If Omar Vizquel makes the Hall of Fame I'll stab everyone not named Alan Trammell.Wang

[PMJackson21 0]

I agree except for McGwire. He's a yes. And I'm probably a little more bullish on Palmiero, too, but I'm willing to listen to good arguments either way. The idea that Maury Wills is a potential Hall of Famer is laughable. He's terrible. If Omar Vizquel makes the Hall of Fame I'll stab everyone not named Alan Trammell.Wang

Well, I guess hanging out with Alan Trammell will be safe in a few years, because I'd say there is a 98% chance Omar gets in. If I knew I could collect whenver it happens, I'd be more then happy to give you decent odds.As much as you'd like to present Maury Wills being 'terrible' as indisputable fact, I would like to hear your reasoning. Unless you meant now (you used is, not was), which I would agree with; I doubt he would be much use to any MLB team these days. However, his value during his era is pretty easily determined. His numbers compare favorably to other HOF ss from/around his era, and that is how he should be judged in this case. I don't think anyone would argue that the HOF is all it should be (besides the HOF itself), but to borrow from hundreds of uncreative athletes, 'it is what it is'. When judging whether a player is HOF worthy, one should use the system in place and look at things how the actual voters do, not how they wish things were.That being said, I wish the HOF was 100x more exclusive then it currently is.

[7s7c 0]

If Omar Vizquel makes the Hall of Fame I'll stab everyone not named Alan Trammell.Wang

Get out your stabbing shoes....and everytime they show how "HOF worthy" he is on baseball tonight leading up to his induction by showing a barehanded catch and throw, take a drink.

[Tactical Bear 3]

Well, I guess hanging out with Alan Trammell will be safe in a few years, because I'd say there is a 98% chance Omar gets in. If I knew I could collect whenver it happens, I'd be more then happy to give you decent odds.As much as you'd like to present Maury Wills being 'terrible' as indisputable fact, I would like to hear your reasoning. Unless you meant now (you used is, not was), which I would agree with; I doubt he would be much use to any MLB team these days. However, his value during his era is pretty easily determined. His numbers compare favorably to other HOF ss from/around his era, and that is how he should be judged in this case. I don't think anyone would argue that the HOF is all it should be (besides the HOF itself), but to borrow from hundreds of uncreative athletes, 'it is what it is'. When judging whether a player is HOF worthy, one should use the system in place and look at things how the actual voters do, not how they wish things were.That being said, I wish the HOF was 100x more exclusive then it currently is.

Well, his career OPS+ was 88. The year he won the MVP, '62, he was a league-average hitter. This is a laudable accomplishment for a shortstop, but according to Baseball Prospectus, Wills was a slightly below-average defensive shortstop this year (though I'm not sure I trust FRAA that much). He stole some bases, but he got caught alot too. He started his career very late, and only 4 times in his career was Wills league-average-or-better at the plate. His career offensive numbers are nearly identical to Ozzie Smith's, but Wills was no Ozzie in the field. I don't have to look at whether or not I think Bill Plaschke is going to write a bad, weepy article about Maury Wills that advances his Hall of Fame case. In fact, I WILL NOT do that. He doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. Give me a player you think he deserves to be in over (either currently in, or currently up for debate, preferably not one of those ridiculous border-line players that's in the Hall that EVERYBODY is better than), and we'll compare.Wills was a fine player, but he was nothing all that special. No way I'm letting a guy with a career OPS+ of 88 into my hall if he's not bringing something else very, very significant to the table

[PMJackson21 0]

Well, his career OPS+ was 88. The year he won the MVP, '62, he was a league-average hitter. This is a laudable accomplishment for a shortstop, but according to Baseball Prospectus, Wills was a slightly below-average defensive shortstop this year (though I'm not sure I trust FRAA that much). He stole some bases, but he got caught alot too. He started his career very late, and only 4 times in his career was Wills league-average-or-better at the plate. His career offensive numbers are nearly identical to Ozzie Smith's, but Wills was no Ozzie in the field. I don't have to look at whether or not I think Bill Plaschke is going to write a bad, weepy article about Maury Wills that advances his Hall of Fame case. In fact, I WILL NOT do that. He doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. Give me a player you think he deserves to be in over (either currently in, or currently up for debate, preferably not one of those ridiculous border-line players that's in the Hall that EVERYBODY is better than), and we'll compare.Wills was a fine player, but he was nothing all that special. No way I'm letting a guy with a career OPS+ of 88 into my hall if he's not bringing something else very, very significant to the table

Ok, reasonable argument. Since you invoked Plaschke, you win. Anyone he deserves to be in over, I would probably consider a marginal at best candidate (Pee Wee Reese, Rizzuto, etc).

[slink 1]

Mike Mussina hall worthy?

[timwakefield 68]

Mike Mussina hall worthy?

If he manages a couple more seasons like last season he might get in (especially if he gets to 300 wins). His 3.68 lifetime ERA is not good enough though at this point. If he retires with 300+ wins though, that becomes less noticeable.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Mike Mussina hall worthy?

No

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Mike Mussina hall worthy?

Not until Pete Rose gets in

[MDXS 0]

Mike Mussina strikes me as completely borderline. I have him a notch below Schilling and consider Schilling just barely on the happy side of the dividing line.I think I'd give it to him since he's retiring with something left in the tank and not dragging out the inevitable to pad his stats to reach an arbitrary milestone.

[timwakefield 68]

Oh he retired? No chance then imo. 270 wins and a 3.68 ERA, unimpressive K and BB numbers, I don't see how he gets in.

I think I'd give it to him since he's retiring with something left in the tank and not dragging out the inevitable to pad his stats to reach an arbitrary milestone.

Unfortunately for him the hall is all about arbitrary milestones.

[MDXS 0]

Oh he retired? No chance then imo. 270 wins and a 3.68 ERA, unimpressive K and BB numbers, I don't see how he gets in.

3.68 ERA vs. a league average of 4.51. 18 years and 3500 innings of a 123 ERA+ is nothing to shake a stick at. In fact, that's precisely Juan Marichal...only Mussina has 23 more wins. Granted, the shape of the career is different, Marichal's a peak guy whereas Mussina's been quite good for a long time, but in terms of total value, they're close. I don't buy the wins thing. 270 wins is more than:Jim PalmerBob FellerCarl HubbellMordecai BrownWhitey Ford...and a bunch of other Hall of Famers. Because I was curious, I looked up Hall of Fame pitchers. There are 62 by my count. 37 of them had less than 270 wins and Grimes also had 270. So, if we're judging Mussina on wins, he's in the upper half of the Hall of Fame. By ERA+, he's got 34 below him and 1 tie. Innings: 26 have less innings. Looks to me like he's an average Hall of Famer. He will look worse in comparison when Clemens*, Maddux, Martinez, Glavine, Smoltz, Johnson, etc, etc...come up for election and make it in before him, but he's still a solid choice.

[timwakefield 68]

Hmm fair enough, I guess you're right that he's just on the cusp. Retiring after one of his best seasons should help. But he's had FIVE seasons of 4.40+ era, and has had just one sub-3.00, or one and a half I suppose. Zero Cy Youngs could be the kicker imo.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Hmm fair enough, I guess you're right that he's just on the cusp. Retiring after one of his best seasons should help. But he's had FIVE seasons of 4.40+ era, and has had just one sub-3.00, or one and a half I suppose. Zero Cy Youngs could be the kicker imo.

I think the 300 win thing is going to become less and less important in the era of 5 man rotations and what not. Pedro, for example, is going to fall far short of 300 wins, and he's like a top 5 HoF pitcher.

[timwakefield 68]

I think the 300 win thing is going to become less and less important in the era of 5 man rotations and what not. Pedro, for example, is going to fall far short of 300 wins, and he's like a top 5 HoF pitcher.

Yeah, but Pedro's other stats are so incredibly good that it's unimportant. I mean, compare Mussina's one-and-a-half sub-3.00 ERA seasons in his career to Pedro's NINE (including a ridiculous streak of seven straight, which Greg Maddux incidentally equaled), and also including two sub-2.00 seasons (also equaled by Maddux ). I mean obviously I know you're not saying they are comparable pitchers, I'm just generally pointing out that Mussina doesn't have any outstanding statistics.

[MDXS 0]

Hmm fair enough, I guess you're right that he's just on the cusp. Retiring after one of his best seasons should help. But he's had FIVE seasons of 4.40+ era, and has had just one sub-3.00, or one and a half I suppose. Zero Cy Youngs could be the kicker imo.

He has had 5 seasons of 4.40+ ERA, but in 2 of those seasons he managed to still have an ERA better than league average. For those two seasons, he was an All-Star in one and finished 5th in the Cy Young in the other. The other three aren't horrible seasons and they've come at the end of his career in his decline phase. You can find many Hall of Famers with similar results. I'll cherry-pick a fewCatfish Hunter - 7 of 15 seasons with a below league average ERA (note: being better than Catfish is not a good argument for inclusion in the Hall)Don Sutton - 8.5 seasons with a sub-100 ERA+, Cy Young votes 5 times - 3 fifths, a fourth, and a third. 4 AS games in 23 seasons.Jim Bunning - useless his last four yearsDon Drysdale - 121 career ERA+, cooked at 32.Early Wynn - 8 sub-100 ERA+ seasonsNolan Ryan - 6 sub-100 ERA+ seasonsetc...not my best crafted argument, but I played a rebuy tonight and it scrambled my brain...making me erratic.A better point, I think, is that I'm not going to hold not having a Cy Young against him. He went through his prime in the same league as Pedro Martinez and Roger Clemens, who won like 15 in a row. Lots of great, deserving pitchers haven't gotten one.Anyway, I understand your ultimate point about Mussina: he never was spectacular; never was dominant. If you're voting on peak, then yeah, Mussina falls short and it's a totally defensible perspective. I think I'm a career voter at heart, so this doesn't bother me as much. I don't think it'll be a crime if he doesn't get in. If he does get in, he'll be better than a good number of pitchers already enshrined. So yeah, either way.And while we're talking Hall of Fame. Any guesses on how many jackasses leave Rickey off their ballot this year? Who's going to take it upon themselves to perpetuate the "nobody should be unanimous" nonsense? It will happen. 23 people left Willie Mays off. Same with Stan Musial. DiMaggio got 88.84% of the vote. Mantle 88.22. Jesus...Joe Morgan only got 363 of 444. Ed Mathews did even worse...he squeaked in after a number of tries and he was the greatest third baseman to date.Ugh. Well, it'll happen to Rickey and after that, we'll get to watch it happen to Maddux too.

[timwakefield 68]

He has had 5 seasons of 4.40+ ERA, but in 2 of those seasons he managed to still have an ERA better than league average. For those two seasons, he was an All-Star in one and finished 5th in the Cy Young in the other. The other three aren't horrible seasons and they've come at the end of his career in his decline phase. You can find many Hall of Famers with similar results. I'll cherry-pick a fewCatfish Hunter - 7 of 15 seasons with a below league average ERA (note: being better than Catfish is not a good argument for inclusion in the Hall)Don Sutton - 8.5 seasons with a sub-100 ERA+, Cy Young votes 5 times - 3 fifths, a fourth, and a third. 4 AS games in 23 seasons.Jim Bunning - useless his last four yearsDon Drysdale - 121 career ERA+, cooked at 32.Early Wynn - 8 sub-100 ERA+ seasonsNolan Ryan - 6 sub-100 ERA+ seasonsetc...not my best crafted argument, but I played a rebuy tonight and it scrambled my brain...making me erratic.A better point, I think, is that I'm not going to hold not having a Cy Young against him. He went through his prime in the same league as Pedro Martinez and Roger Clemens, who won like 15 in a row. Lots of great, deserving pitchers haven't gotten one.Anyway, I understand your ultimate point about Mussina: he never was spectacular; never was dominant. If you're voting on peak, then yeah, Mussina falls short and it's a totally defensible perspective. I think I'm a career voter at heart, so this doesn't bother me as much. I don't think it'll be a crime if he doesn't get in. If he does get in, he'll be better than a good number of pitchers already enshrined. So yeah, either way.And while we're talking Hall of Fame. Any guesses on how many jackasses leave Rickey off their ballot this year? Who's going to take it upon themselves to perpetuate the "nobody should be unanimous" nonsense? It will happen. 23 people left Willie Mays off. Same with Stan Musial. DiMaggio got 88.84% of the vote. Mantle 88.22. Jesus...Joe Morgan only got 363 of 444. Ed Mathews did even worse...he squeaked in after a number of tries and he was the greatest third baseman to date.Ugh. Well, it'll happen to Rickey and after that, we'll get to watch it happen to Maddux too.

You make a solid argument, I just don't particularly like Mussina, and like you said he was never really dominant.And yeah, when Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn don't get in unanimously, there's no way Ricky will. Why the voters think that makes sense I'll never really understand.Here's hoping Jim Rice manages to get in this year, as it's his last year of eligibility. He just missed last year.

[byaaatch 0]

You make a solid argument, I just don't particularly like Mussina, and like you said he was never really dominant.And yeah, when Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn don't get in unanimously, there's no way Ricky will. Why the voters think that makes sense I'll never really understand.Here's hoping Jim Rice manages to get in this year, as it's his last year of eligibility. He just missed last year.

To me Mussina like a lot of others have said he was good, maybe very good, but not great. Of course though I think a lot of what the hall of fame has become is pretty much a joke. REason being is there really is no true formula of how to get in. I think maybe 10-15 years ago there was a bit of a formula or numbers that needed to be reached. Now I think with the inflated numbers those figures have changed. I know you guys also mentioned Bonds, Mac and Palmero. Bonds is of course a given unless however they bring up the whole steroids thing. I think that could come back against him. THough he had a great career even before that. Mac I think will never get in. He is deserving and was very feared hitter however the whole steroids thing plays too big of a role. And with palmero no chance. The guys I wonder about will be Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine. How far apart would they get in. Hell do you guys think they do get in? For me I think Maddux is a lock. Glavine with the 300 wins should be. Smoltz could go either way. I mean his win total isn't spectacular however put in his saves and I think you have a bit of a question.

[timwakefield 68]

The guys I wonder about will be Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine. How far apart would they get in. Hell do you guys think they do get in? For me I think Maddux is a lock. Glavine with the 300 wins should be. Smoltz could go either way. I mean his win total isn't spectacular however put in his saves and I think you have a bit of a question.

I think you need to go look up Maddux's stats if you have any doubt about him - he's one of the top 5 pitchers in the last 50 years, almost unquestionably. The man has 355 wins and a 3.16 ERA. 355 wins is 8th all time (and that includes 19th century), behind the likes of Cy Young, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, etc, and done in the era of 5-man-rotations and steroids. More wins than Clemens, Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Randy Johnson, etc, etc. The only pitcher in the last 20 years as good as him is Pedro, in my opinion.Smoltz is also a lock I think, especially since he's been so versatile as both a dominant starter and closer. And I think Glavine will get in first ballot as well.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I think smoltz is more hall worthy than glavine.. more dominant at his peak, one of the most clutch big game pitchers of my life time.

[byaaatch 0]

I think you need to go look up Maddux's stats if you have any doubt about him - he's one of the top 5 pitchers in the last 50 years, almost unquestionably. The man has 355 wins and a 3.16 ERA. 355 wins is 8th all time (and that includes 19th century), behind the likes of Cy Young, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, etc, and done in the era of 5-man-rotations and steroids. More wins than Clemens, Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Randy Johnson, etc, etc. The only pitcher in the last 20 years as good as him is Pedro, in my opinion.Smoltz is also a lock I think, especially since he's been so versatile as both a dominant starter and closer. And I think Glavine will get in first ballot as well.

my bad after reading your reply I realized I worded my statement wrong about those pitchers. What I meant to say is that Maddux would clearly be what the benchmark of a great pitcher would be. However I wonder with the hall of fame voters would he receive all votes or would they be idiots and not all of them vote for him on his first ballot like the way cal ripken or tony gwynn didn't receive all the votes.

[byaaatch 0]

I think smoltz is more hall worthy than glavine.. more dominant at his peak, one of the most clutch big game pitchers of my life time.

I do agree that Smoltz seemed more dominant. First off gotta say I am a huge braves fan from the Dale Murphy days. I mean Dale Murphy to this day is still one of my favorite players. The one thing about Glavine that always struck me as odd was how he struggled terribly in the first inning.

[slink 1]

Jim Kaat for hall of fame?280+ wins16 gold glovesYes

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]

bonds? yes or no?

[slink 1]

bonds yesPalmiero yessosa yesmcgwire yesthe needle... yes