Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera
Well I thought the debate was "is he deserving?" rather than "will the idiots put him in?"
|
This is going to sound fantastically un-Slicklike and ria-esque even but I'm not sure that it's constructive to just call the sportswriters "idiots" because their job is to cover a different aspect of the game than you do. We're all really big into economic models of sports. That's fine. Many people are into the heart and soul and emotion and the rah-rah of it. To say that those people should be silenced because they don't subscribe to your worldview is rather pigheaded, if you ask me. Rather like... well, rather like the way that they flat-out refused to listen to statheads for so many years.
Quote:
|
Moose pitched a similar amount of games as Ford... this is true. However, if you really put the numbers into context he had a better career. Soon after Ford started declining, we moved into the great pitchers' era of 62-68, creating the illusion that he was dominant all the way through age 38 if you just look at the raw numbers. His career NRA and DERA are both higher than Moose's.
|
You're looking at rate stats, but rate stats have nothing to do with why he's in the Hall. He's in the Hall because he won a lot of pennants for the Yankees in the 50s and early 60s. It's the rah-rah side of things. If your case for Moose in the Hall is that he's statistically better than Ford, you have a weak case. You may as well argue that Ron Santo is deserving because he hit more homeruns than Jackie Robinson, or Jim Kaat should go in because he had more Runs Prevented than Addie Joss.