[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Now, you do make a good point that I did selectively pick out the worst of the worst. I did do that to make a point, because well.. it'd require a bunch of studying by me on awards and how bad/good they have been over the past 70 years or so. This is on my list of things to do eventually, but for now, the emphasis that they put on counting stats, w-l record, hits, and the blatant New York bias (although that probably has a lot more to do with the VC than the writers) in the HoF has made me lose a ****load of respect for them.

Eh, the New York bias is a little overblown. It's certainly not working in Mussina's favor right now. I think Ford's popularity had more to do with the pennants themselves than the team he played on (although it's really, really hard to separate the 1950s and 60s Yankees from their title run).

The more I learn about baseball, the more I realize I don't know which is why I love it so much... Even moreso, the more I learn about baseball, the more I realize that most of the guys I'm bashing know even less... but it's assumed by the general public they do because they're in charge of it.

Or more to the point, they know more about stuff that you don't find important (or me either... frankly I don't care what Raul Ibanez calls Joel Piniero in the locker room).

Ok, well I compared him to Whitey because his name was brought up by you as a guy who had a similar career and got in based on his "dominance over a relatively short career."

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well enough. IMO, people get into the Hall for a few reasons:

a. Being one of the best players of their generation (Mays, Ruth, Bonds, Clemens)
b. Being the player that the average fan associates with a position for an extended period of time (think Cal Ripken at short in the 80s, A-Rod, Jeter, and Nomar of this generation, although A-Rod has a great chance of getting in just for reason a)
c. Accomplishing some big-time feat (Roger Maris, Hack Wilson, Don Drysdale, Joe DiMaggio)
d. Service to the game beyond the bounds of statistical analysis (Jackie Robinson, every Negro Leaguer)
e. Being a well-known, famous player for an extended period of time; being the kind of person a generation of fans associates hometown baseball with (Nolan Ryan)
f. Reaching a significant milestone, although this doesn't seem to be as much of an automatic opened door as it used to be (witness Jose Canseco)
g. Having a friend on the Veterans' Committee (the entire 1925 Giants roster)

You'll note that "having stats similar to or better than the guys who made it in for reasons b, c, d, e, and f" are not on my list. As I've maintained earlier, I find it disingenuous to make a case for a player by comparing his raw numbers to the guys from that group. Again, it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Statistically Great.

My contention is that Mussina is playing in a different era where he pitched a similar amount of games and about 300 less IP. I'm not sure if his career is relatively short to this era, but if it is, it couldn't be relatively shorter than Whitey's. In the time Moose has played, he was more dominant than Ford was in the time he played. So, shouldn't Moose be in based on "dominance over a relatively short career" as well? This is assuming your definition of dominance is also statistical. I can't see how you could label a pitcher as more dominant if the only thing on his side is playing on a more successful team.

That's fine, and if the question was "is Mike Mussina a better pitcher than Whitey Ford was", then I agree that it's more or less a wash. However, Ford was the stopper for that incredible Yankees/Casey Stengel dynasty; in fact, he was practically the only pitcher whom Yanks fans could count on from year to year during that time.

This brings me to my second point. You say you're not faulting Moose for not playing on a great team (in retrospect "faulting" was probably the wrong word... I'm sure you get what I'm saying though). However, everything is relative. If you give Whitey some sort of assumed benefit for playing on those pennant-winning teams, you're essentially hurting everyone who hasn't had a chance to play on those great kinds of teams. Everything is relative. (I couldn't find a way to articulate that point as well as I would have liked, do you see what I'm saying?)

I'm not "hurtiing" anyone, I'm sayng that the only way to be guaranteed admission to the Hall is to make it for reason A or maybe reason B. Everything else, we look at your record and historical impact. And sad to say, for all of his gaudy stats I simply do not see a great impact on the game WRT Moose. Frankly, I think Dwight Gooden has a better case for the Hall (all those rookie records, the great run with the 1980s Mets, that incredible '86 season).

Personally, I think Tinker, Evers and Chance get a little too much credit for the success of those great Cubs teams (ironically, related to this discussion probably because of the romantacising by the writers and the fact that they probably were stellar defensively - idk... I haven't exactly looked too deep into the numbers for those teams), but I guess that's just an illustration of the differences in our philosophies.

I think Tinker to Evers to Chance gets no credit whatsoever from the stathead crowd, and while I understand why (their stats weren't all that great), they're in there because:

a. The Cubs of that period were really, really good.
b. Even today, when you think of "dead ball era keystone combination" you think of Tinker and Evers. And then Chance naturally comes along after that.
c. That famous poem.

I know, I know; in terms of raw stats neither player should be in the Hall. But that's not why they're there.

Well Robinson is in primarily for fame based reasons only because his "fame based reason" is of such a great magnitude that it overshadows even his stellar numbers. Had he not gotten his start in the majors at age 28, he would have been a HoFer regardless.

Right, but he didn't. In terms of his raw numbers, he is of course not even close to making it in for reason A. Maybe he'd get in for B if the Dodgers had given him a position and had him stick with it instead of moving him around every year.

I don't think you're giving Ford quite enough credit statistically, though. While he's not a top-echelon HoFer, a good comparable is Juan Marichal IMO. This is looking at career value, of course. Marichal had a higher peak, so he's probably percieved to be better by most.

I'm giving him plenty of credit; it's just that for me when you make an argument based on a player's statline alone, it's got to be a REALLY good statline.