HOF: Mike Mussina?

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Well, thanks... by disproving one point, you actually made the other one for me.Dimaggio isn't in that upper pantheon!

If you believe that then you are utterly hopeless.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

I'll repeat a statement I began to make with another player you mentioned: if the best you can come up with are two examples of deserving players who got in their 3rd year instead of their first, then you really are showing that the exceptions prove the rule.

I'll repeat an earlier point. If fame is the key to election then DiMaggio, who was far more famous than any of the people who finished ahead of him in previous ballots, would have been a landslide first year selection. Only time and boredom would prevent further examples.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

What you and Luis are trying to do, in essence, is create a Hall of Fame that never actually existed in the first place.

More nonsense. Stating a case for Mike Mussina's induction has nothing at all to do with remaking the HOF. The HOF voters both on both the BBWAA side and the Vets committee don't have a grasp of context. Without which those statistics and memories are insufficient to the task at hand.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Harry Heilmann 1914-32
Paul Waner 1926-45
Rabbit Maranville 1912-35
Bill Dickey 1928-46
Bill Terry 1923-36
Al Simmons 1924-44
Joe DiMaggio 1936-51

Interesting that only two of these players spent any portion of their career during the dead ball era.

Okay, my bad. I should have said "the previous generation." The only one in that group who can clearly be called anything close to DiMaggio's generation is Bucketfoot Al, who was in his mid-30s when Joe broke on the scene. I don't classify Barry Bonds as being in the same generation as Dave Winfield; neither do I put Simmons and DiMaggio together like that.

Also, consider that the writers added not a single player from 1940 to 1946, and overall only 12 from 1938 to 1950. War years or no, there was a bit of backlog of good players at the time.

It seems even more clear that thou art grasping at straw.

I'll repeat this for a third time: if the best you can come up with are two guys who took 3 years to get in instead of 1, that is truly the exception proving the rule.

On a larger issue, what is it with some statheads? Yes, I absolutely agree that on a performance-analysis basis, most managers, sportswriters, general managers, scouts, and owners know a lot less than guys like Derek Zumsteg and Voros McCracken about what produces winning baseball teams. But to dismiss the way people get into an institution called the Hall of Fame because it doesn't adhere to your strictly defined criteria of what makes a good player is just plain silly. Folks, it's not there so that people can gawk at numbers. It's there so that people can remember famous players. To a degree, that famousness can itself be measured by the same performance analysis tools. But only to a degree.

[Skipaway]

Maybe the MLB Hall of Fame should change its name to Hall of Greats. Out of all Hall of Fames, this one got less to do with fame than others.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

I'll repeat this for a third time: if the best you can come up with are two guys who took 3 years to get in instead of 1, that is truly the exception proving the rule.

Actually, we've already been over Dawson and Murphy. Pay attention.

That list could be easily added to. Trammell and Whitaker. Jack Morris.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Maybe the MLB Hall of Fame should change its name to Hall of Greats. Out of all Hall of Fames, this one got less to do with fame than others.

Dayam!

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

But to dismiss the way people get into an institution called the Hall of Fame because it doesn't adhere to your strictly defined criteria of what makes a good player is just plain silly. Folks, it's not there so that people can gawk at numbers. It's there so that people can remember famous players.

To a degree, that famousness can itself be measured by the same performance analysis tools. But only to a degree.

You mean silly stuff like winning games? It's there to honor the best players to play the game and important contributors.

Performance analysis of fame? Oh, dear lord.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Actually, we've already been over Dawson and Murphy. Pay attention.

And I'm done. Please feel free to continue to build up your straw men without my interference, at least this time around.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

You mean silly stuff like winning games? It's there to honor the best players to play the game and important contributors.

And the most famous. Which is probably part of the reason why they came up with the name. But again... I promised to bow out so that you could continue to tackle the ghost of Joe Morgan or something. Please let me know when you want to debate against someone again.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

And I'm done. Please feel free to continue to build up your straw men without my interference, at least this time around.

Nah, I've never advocated Darryl Strawberry's induction.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Please let me know when you want to debate against someone again.

I'm still waiting for the debate.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

I'm still waiting for the debate.

Alas, there was one brewing before you came in....

Luis: that was fun. Thanks for giving me the breathing room to flesh out an argument that I'd never really cogently put together until now. Please do not take my bowing out as a sign that I'm hacked at you or anything.

[darkcloud4579]

Seems to me that if Moose gets in, lots of other pitchers that I don't personally consider Hall of Famers would get in, too.

And I don't see it. But if he gets to 250 wins, then I'd reconsider.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Alas, there was one brewing before you came in....

So, up until that point, things had been getting along famously?

[Big Train]

Since he's never really dominated the league or been the best pitcher in the league I think he will need more wins to get in than someone like Schilling who has better "peak" years and spent quite a few years with bad teams. If Mussina can win 250 though it will be hard to justify keeping him out.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Big Train

Since he's never really dominated the league or been the best pitcher in the league

1992 he was statistically the best pitcher in the AL.

If Mussina can win 250 though it will be hard to justify keeping him out.

I still don't get peoples' hard-on for W-L record when it is so obviously affected by so many things.

[TotalEnd98]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

I still don't get peoples' hard-on for W-L record when it is so obviously affected by so many things.

Easy. It means they don't have to think.

[randomlefty10]

Maybe because most pitchers have the goal of winning the game, not keeping their ratio low or striking out a lot of hitters. Not that I think W-L is the end-all of tradition, but the sabermetrics seeming venimous view of W-L is just as dumb IMO.

[TotalEnd98]

Originally Posted by randomlefty10

the sabermetrics seeming venimous view of W-L is just as dumb IMO.

It's not really venomous. It's an understanding that W-L is a largely team-dependant statistic and has very little predictive value and low correlation to talent. Sure, we know that a pitcher who won 350 games was probably brilliant, and one who won 35 was likely not. You can use W-L for that just fine. But if you're trying to tell the talent difference between two pitchers, one who's won 250 and one who's won 225, you better be looking at something other than those wins.