forsberg_us wrote:

I don't really have an issue with any of them

Rivera was a lock. It's kind of disappointing a closer is the first player to be elected unanimously - I think Jeter will probably be the next - but there's no way anyone with a ballot can justify not voting for him.
Halladay doesn't have the longevity or the career numbers to warrant induction. Tim Hudson won more games, and I don't think there's anyone out there who thinks Tim Hudson belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Edgar Martinez's numbers are roughly equivalent to Moises Alou's, and Alou actually had to bring a glove to the ballpark. This ends an argument for inducting a DH that will probably be moot once Ortiz gets in.
After Rivera, you can make the best argument for Mussina among this class. Two hundred and seventy wins is a lot in the era of a 5-man rotation. I don't think you're ever going to see a 300-win pitcher again, especially with the sport trending to more reliance on bullpens. 
 

Last edited by artie_fufkin (1/23/2019 8:54 am)

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

I don't really have an issue with any of them

Rivera was a lock. It's kind of disappointing a closer is the first player to be elected unanimously - I think Jeter will probably be the next - but there's no way anyone with a ballot can justify not voting for him.
Halladay doesn't have the longevity or the career numbers to warrant induction. Tim Hudson won more games, and I don't think there's anyone out there who thinks Tim Hudson belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Edgar Martinez's numbers are roughly equivalent to Moises Alou's, and Alou actually had to bring a glove to the ballpark. This ends an argument for inducting a DH that will probably be moot once Ortiz gets in.
After Rivera, you can make the best argument for Mussina among this class. Two hundred and seventy wins is a lot in the era of a 5-man rotation. I don't think you're ever going to see a 300-win pitcher again, especially with the sport trending to more reliance on bullpens. 
 

Halladay had a 10 year run of dominance during which he was one of the top 2-3 pitchers in baseball.  From 2002-11, Halladay was 170-75 with an ERA of 2.97, and in 8 of those seasons he called the SkyDome (or whatever Toronto was calling its home park at the time) home.  He also had 63 complete games during those years, in an era when complete games were being phased out.  Halladay has more wins than Sandy Koufax and a longer run of dominant pitching than Koufax had.  During that 10 year run, Halladay won the Cy Young twice, finished 2nd two other times, 3rd once and 5th twice.  That's almost double the top 5 finishes by Koufax.  If you're a dominant player for a decade, you deserve induction.  Halladay was a dominant starter for a decade.

Tim Hudson won 17 games in his career 3 times.  Halladay averaged 17 wins for 10 seasons.  Hudson never won a Cy Young, finished 2nd once and had 3 top 5's.  That's a bad comparison

The argument against inducting someone because they were a DH is silly.  It's a position recognized by the league.  It's like arguing kickers and punters shouldn't be included in the NFL Hall of Fame.  

Martinez, like Halladay was dominant at his position for more than a decade.  From 1990 to 2001, he hit .321, his OBP was .429 and his OPS was .966.  He also won 2 batting titles and an RBI title during that run.  By my count, his career batting average is 11th among players who started their career after 1950, his OBP is 4th and his OPS is tied for 12th.  That's dominant, and that belongs in the Hall of Fame.

I laughed at Rivera becoming the first unanimous guy because there were plenty of players before him who should have been that guy and weren't because of the sanctimony of some sportswriter.  Now that it's been done, there will be many others to follow.

Agree with what you said about Mussina.  He was like a modern version of Don Sutton.  He accumulated a lot of stats through longevity and he benefited by playing on a high profile team.  But the overall body of work is HoF worthy.

Milt Pappas- 0 top 5 finishes in the Cy Young voting 209-164   .560
Vida Blue- won a Cy Young and finished 3rd once.  209-161  .565
Rick Reuschel- finished 3rd twice.  214-191   .528
Charlie Hough- 0 top 5 finishes 216-216- .500
Kenny Rogers- finished 5th once.  219-156  .584
Frank Tanana- finished 3rd once and 4th once.  240-236   .504
Jamie Moyer- finished 4th once and 5th once.  269-209    .563
Mark Buehrle- finished 5th once.  214-160    .572
Jerry Koosman- finished 2nd once   222-209    .515
Joe Niekro- finished 2nd once and 4th once   221-204   .520
Jerry Ruess- finished 2nd once     220-191   .535
Kevin Brown- finished 2nd once and 3rd once     211-144    .594
Bob Welch- won a CYA    211-146    .591
Bartolo Colon- won a CYA and finished 4th once   247-188   .568
Mickey Lolich- finished 2nd once and 3rd once   217-191   .532
Orel Hershiser- Won a CYA, finished 3rd once and 4th twice    204-150    .576


Roy Halladay- 2 CYA, 2 2nd, 1 3rd, 2 5th    203-105    .659
Sandy Koufax- 3 CYA, 1 3rd                    165-87      .655

Of all the people you listed, not one has a resume that even compares to Halladay's  Not even close.  Herschiser had a very good run, but nowhere near a decade.  Same with Kevin Brown.  The others, with the possible exception of Blue were mediocre pitchers

If you're going to go simply by win totals, then Koufax needs to go as well.  For that matter, better kick out DiMaggio because there are plenty of players who surpass his 2200 hits and 360 HRs.

Give me a list of pitchers during the 2002-11 time frame who were consistently better than Halladay.
 

Do you think Rivera got elected unanimously because he is probably  the best closer in history?  There is always a debate when you say "the best" but he may generate the least debate.

APIAD wrote:

Do you think Rivera got elected unanimously because he is probably the best closer in history? There is always a debate when you say "the best" but he may generate the least debate.

I don't think there's any debate at all. Even Trevor Hoffman himself would probably concede Rivera is the best ever.

"Pujols was a Hall of Famer for 11 years.  He's been mediocre or worse since then.  But Pujols is a sure fire 1st ballot Hall of Famer."

For shits and giggles, I compared Pujols' stats from 2012 onward for HR & RBI to the Cardinals' leader that year. Here's where Pujols would have ranked with the Cardinals if he had put up the same numbers as he did with the Angels:

2012 - 30 (2nd); 105 (1st)
2014 - 28 (1st); 105 (1st)
2015 - 40 (1st); 95 (1st)
2016 - 31 (1st); 119 (1st)
2017 - 23 (2nd); 101 (1st)
Additionally, since 2012, only three St. Louis players have hit more than 30 homers in a season - Carpenter in 2018, Gyorko in 2016 and Beltran in 2012. Only Matt Holliday (2012) has driven in more than 100 runs for the Cardinals since Pujols left.
I certainly don't disagree Pujols' skills have declined since he left St. Louis, and letting him walk was the financially prudent thing to do, especially since the Angels still owe him $87 million for what will almost certainly be three injury-plagued seasons during which his production will continue to decline. And it helps his RBI numbers that he has Mike Trout on base in front of him.
And I will always contend Pujols will miss St. Louis more than St. Louis misses Pujols, but statistically letting him go may not be the no-brainer we tend to think it is.
 

Last edited by artie_fufkin (1/24/2019 2:04 pm)

Now I'm really confused.  I have no idea what I think merits a HOF selection.  I think I have been focusing for the past several years on what I don't like.  One example that is the increasing emphasis on naked stats, which largely tend to favor offensive players. In the abstract,  It can also be misleading because of the way the game keeps changing.

I've favored players who were on winning teams for most of their career.  But I'm certainly not consistent in that thinking.  If I were, I'd probably have to favor Phil Garner over Ralph Kiner.

I'm getting more confused the more I think about it.


 

Mags wrote:

Now I'm really confused.  I have no idea what I think merits a HOF selection.  I think I have been focusing for the past several years on what I don't like.  One example that is the increasing emphasis on naked stats, which largely tend to favor offensive players. In the abstract,  It can also be misleading because of the way the game keeps changing.

I've favored players who were on winning teams for most of their career.  But I'm certainly not consistent in that thinking.  If I were, I'd probably have to favor Phil Garner over Ralph Kiner.

I'm getting more confused the more I think about it.


 

In 1949, Kiner led the league in home runs, RBI, walks, slugging and OPS ... and finished fourth in the MVP voting behind Jackie Robinson, Stan and Slaughter. 

I throw a lot of weigh to players who are decent for a long time.

Mags wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Mags wrote:

Now I'm really confused.  I have no idea what I think merits a HOF selection.  I think I have been focusing for the past several years on what I don't like.  One example that is the increasing emphasis on naked stats, which largely tend to favor offensive players. In the abstract,  It can also be misleading because of the way the game keeps changing.

I've favored players who were on winning teams for most of their career.  But I'm certainly not consistent in that thinking.  If I were, I'd probably have to favor Phil Garner over Ralph Kiner.

I'm getting more confused the more I think about it.


 

In 1949, Kiner led the league in home runs, RBI, walks, slugging and OPS ... and finished fourth in the MVP voting behind Jackie Robinson, Stan and Slaughter. 

How did the Pirates do that year?  I can't remember.
 

71-83 in sixth place, 26 games behind Brooklyn, which finished one game ahead of the Cardinals, who were up by 1.5 games going into the last week of the season and lost four of their last five to Pittsburgh and last place Chicago. Brooklyn went 20-7 in August. 
My recollection of Kiner was as a broadcaster when he and McCarver covered the Mets for WPIX. At least once an inning, he'd say something that made absolutely no sense.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (1/25/2019 9:12 am)