Vida Blue: Why not in HOF if Drysdale is?
Mike
VIDA BLUE- lifetime record of 209-161, 2175 Ks, a Cy Young award, an
MVP award, three 20 win seasons (24-8,22-11, and 20-9), a 300
strikeout season. Blue's 1971 season was one of the greatest pitching
years of the 60s and 70s. In 71, Blue went 24-8, pitched 8 shutouts,
had 1.82 era, and threw for 301 strikeouts.
DON DRYSDALE- lifetime record of 209-166, 2486 Ks, a Cy Young award,
two 20 win seasons (25-9,23-12). Pitched record of 58 and 1/2
scoreless innings in 1968.
My question is, if Drysdale is in, why not Vida Blue?
I'm not saying either of them should be in. I have very high standards
for the hall. So if it were up to me, neither would be in.
But if Don Drysdale IS in the hall of fame, then shouldn't Vida Blue
be in as well?
Here are the links to their stats.
Vida Blue
http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bluevi01.shtml
Don Drysdale
Kokopeli
"Mike" <MrStr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7cfd37d2.04081...@posting.google.com...
> Look at this lifetime stats comparison.
>
> VIDA BLUE- lifetime record of 209-161, 2175 Ks, a Cy Young award, an
> MVP award, three 20 win seasons (24-8,22-11, and 20-9), a 300
> strikeout season. Blue's 1971 season was one of the greatest pitching
> years of the 60s and 70s. In 71, Blue went 24-8, pitched 8 shutouts,
> had 1.82 era, and threw for 301 strikeouts.
>
> DON DRYSDALE- lifetime record of 209-166, 2486 Ks, a Cy Young award,
> two 20 win seasons (25-9,23-12). Pitched record of 58 and 1/2
> scoreless innings in 1968.
>
> My question is, if Drysdale is in, why not Vida Blue?
*SNORT*
dw
Dale J. Stephenson
[...]
> My question is, if Drysdale is in, why not Vida Blue?
>
> I'm not saying either of them should be in. I have very high standards
> for the hall. So if it were up to me, neither would be in.
>
> But if Don Drysdale IS in the hall of fame, then shouldn't Vida Blue
> be in as well?
>
why do you want them to make more?
Key to stats:
Peak -- total pitching wins (PW) for the best five years of the player
Years are not necessarily consecutive.
Outside -- total pitching wins outside the best five years
Decade -- decade in which most of the player's peak falls.
GS -- Games Started
PB -- Career pitcher batting runs, as estimated by Total Baseball VII.
PW -- Pitching Wins, PR/A divided by R/W
PR/A -- park adjusted linear weight pitching runs, calculated by TBVII.
R/W -- Runs per Win, calculated by (4 * League Runs) / (League Games * 1.83)
Hall -- Hall of Fame status. * indicates HOFer, with VC or OT for committee
Active players listed as Actv
Currently BBWAA eligible listed with highest vote %.
Players not yet eligible listed with year of eligibility.
Players recently retired are listed with year to appear on ballot.
Players on ineligible list are listed as -IE-
Peaks for prominent pitchers
Name Peak Decade Outside GS PB Hall
Sandy Koufax 24.9 60s 2.1 314 -25 *
Bob Gibson 24.8 60s 13.3 482 65 *
Hal Newhouser 24.8 40s 7.4 374 12 * VC
Tom Seaver 24.5 70s 22.0 647 28 *
Steve Carlton 23.8 70s 7.8 709 49 *
Juan Marichal 23.2 60s 5.4 457 10 *
Jim Palmer 22.3 70s 13.9 521 7 *
Bob Feller 21.9 40s 8.0 484 -7 *
Gaylord Perry 20.8 60s 15.0 690 -16 *
Robin Roberts 20.6 50s 4.0 609 34 *
Phil Niekro 19.7 70s 13.3 716 -6 *
Bert Blyleven 19.6 70s 14.0 685 -13 35%
Jim Bunning 19.3 60s 1.2 519 -1 * VC
Warren Spahn 19.0 50s 16.9 665 88 *
Whitey Ford 18.7 50s 16.1 438 27 *
Sam McDowell 17.6 60s -5.1 346 -8
Bob Lemon 17.2 50s 3.3 350 90 *
Don Drysdale 17.0 60s 9.2 465 59 *
Wilbur Wood 16.9 70s -2.1 297 -14
Luis Tiant 16.8 70s 3.5 484 5
Fergie Jenkins 16.6 70s 10.1 594 13 *
Vida Blue 16.6 70s -4.6 473 -2
Ron Guidry 16.4 70s 1.8 323 0
Don Sutton 16.1 70s 1.8 756 -7 *
Early Wynn 15.8 50s -3.9 612 72 *
Nolan Ryan 15.7 70s 9.0 773 -17 *
Steve Rogers 15.5 70s 1.6 393 -8
Jerry Koosman 15.2 70s 1.0 527 -22
Andy Messersmith 15.1 70s 2.2 295 20
Jon Matlack 14.7 70s -1.3 318 2
Catfish Hunter 14.7 70s -7.5 476 33 *
Dean Chance 14.6 60s 1.3 294 -37
Frank Tanana 14.4 70s -4.0 616 0
Rick Reuschel 14.0 70s 5.1 529 8
Jim Kaat 13.7 60s -0.4 625 41
Joe Horlen 13.6 60s -4.4 290 -12
Gary Peters 13.4 60s -7.4 286 57
Jim Maloney 12.9 60s -2.6 262 26
Camilo Pascual 12.8 60s -8.9 404 29
Tommy John 12.7 70s 8.2 700 1 22%
Bob Friend 12.6 60s -1.4 497 -36
Mike Cuellar 12.5 70s -1.5 379 -13
Bill Hands 12.5 60s -2.0 260 -20
Bob Veale 11.9 60s -2.0 255 -17
Larry Jackson 11.3 60s 5.0 429 -5
Mel Stottlemyre 11.3 60s -0.8 356 21
Milt Pappas 10.5 60s 2.1 465 -14
Sonny Siebert 10.4 60s -2.1 307 18
Mickey Lolich 10.3 70s -1.9 496 -4 16%
Dave McNally 10.3 70s -3.4 396 10
Chris Short 10.2 60s -6.0 308 -17
Ken Holtzman 9.9 70s -4.2 410 -1
J.R. Richard 9.9 70s -4.5 221 12
Larry Gura 9.8 70s -4.4 261 -2
Claude Osteen 9.7 60s -3.6 488 38
Denny McLain 8.1 60s -7.3 264 -9
Johnny Podres 7.6 60s -4.0 340 12
Rick Wise 6.6 70s -6.5 455 34
Bob Forsch 5.5 70s -9.7 422 48
Drysdale was a significantly better pitcher than Blue in roughly
the same number of starts, and tacks on about six more wins from the
difference between their bats. If you want to support Blue, compare
him to his teammate Catfish Hunter. I think Blue would be a hard
sell when Blyleven is still on the outside looking in.
--
Dale J. Stephenson
daleste...@mac.com
Ron Johnson
Mike <MrStr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Look at this lifetime stats comparison.
>
>VIDA BLUE- lifetime record of 209-161, 2175 Ks, a Cy Young award, an
>MVP award, three 20 win seasons (24-8,22-11, and 20-9), a 300
>strikeout season. Blue's 1971 season was one of the greatest pitching
>years of the 60s and 70s. In 71, Blue went 24-8, pitched 8 shutouts,
>had 1.82 era, and threw for 301 strikeouts.
>
>DON DRYSDALE- lifetime record of 209-166, 2486 Ks, a Cy Young award,
>two 20 win seasons (25-9,23-12). Pitched record of 58 and 1/2
>scoreless innings in 1968.
>
>My question is, if Drysdale is in, why not Vida Blue?
Dale's addressed this. And brought forth the major counter-argument,
that while he may be qualified by comparing him to the weakest
players in the hall, he's *not* the most qualified player at his
position (or overall)
There's a secondary issue that's going to derail him. Marginal
players with major character issues simply will not make it.
Blue didn't miss the 1984 season due to injury. He was in jail
at the start of the season and suspended for the rest of it.
And he didn't retire. He failed a court ordered drug test and
was arrested for parole violations (though I don't think he
ended up doing time for this, but nobody wanted to touch him)
It doesn't disqualify him, but a significant number of voters
will hold this against him. And I think it's perfectly reasonable
to do so. (And perfectly reasonable to vote in favor of a
more qualified player with other character issues)
--
RNJ
SavoyBG
>We shit directly in your mouth.
Who's we?
Are you referring to you and your current fare?
cordially, even to the Alex Reigers of the world,
Grossman
MY LISTS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg/myhomepage/index.html
SURVEYS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg1/myhomepage/index.html
Ima Pseudonym
>Look at this lifetime stats comparison.
>
>VIDA BLUE- lifetime record of 209-161, 2175 Ks, a Cy Young award, an
>MVP award, three 20 win seasons (24-8,22-11, and 20-9), a 300
>strikeout season. Blue's 1971 season was one of the greatest pitching
>years of the 60s and 70s. In 71, Blue went 24-8, pitched 8 shutouts,
>had 1.82 era, and threw for 301 strikeouts.
>
>DON DRYSDALE- lifetime record of 209-166, 2486 Ks, a Cy Young award,
>two 20 win seasons (25-9,23-12). Pitched record of 58 and 1/2
>scoreless innings in 1968.
>
>My question is, if Drysdale is in, why not Vida Blue?
>
>I'm not saying either of them should be in. I have very high standards
>for the hall. So if it were up to me, neither would be in.
>
>But if Don Drysdale IS in the hall of fame, then shouldn't Vida Blue
>be in as well?
No. Drysdale is marginal, but Vida Blue is much more so. Drysdale
pitched 3432 innings with an ERA+ of 121, Blue pitched 3343.3 innings
with an ERA+ of 108. There's a huge difference between an ERA+ of 121
and one of 108.
Drysdale was a good pitcher, not really an incredibly long career, not
great really, but good enough with enough other stuff to have the
voters eventually elect him. Blue was a significantly worse pitcher.
Plus, as others have pointed out, he had sufficiently publicized
character issues that basically destroyed whatever small chance he
had.
Craig Richardson
>My question is, if Drysdale is in, why not Vida Blue?
You want my real first thought?
You're a graying sportswriter born in the 30s. Drysdale can be
perceived as a handsome, charming white guy - a California dude who
was the real public face, and the "heart and soul" of the beloved
Dodgers in their new, and successful, LA incarnation. While Blue can
be perceived as an angry, shiftless black guy who had worlds of talent
and hit the league like a lightning bolt, but never fulfilled his
potential due to poor work ethic and drugs - and whose postseason
success was with the hated Finley A's.
Note: neither of these impressions is true, and even if they are,
they aren't relevant to HOF qualifications.
>I'm not saying either of them should be in. I have very high standards
>for the hall. So if it were up to me, neither would be in.
>
>But if Don Drysdale IS in the hall of fame, then shouldn't Vida Blue
>be in as well?
A fair question. Probably, but even then he's not first in line, and
letting in everybody in that group dilutes the Hall /way/ too much.
There are a lot of guys in the Hall who probably shouldn't be, and
many who should be whose chance is gone. But even the wise can't see
all ends.
--Craig
--
Craig Richardson (crichard-tacoma at worldnet.att.net)
"Men notice women’s breasts enthusiastically and gratefully but mostly
they notice them involuntarily. Attention is drawn."
Grant McCracken on "This Blog Sits At The...", 2004/08/06
Tom MacIntyre
>>From: Realto Margarino
>
>>We shit directly in your mouth.
>
>Who's we?
>
>Are you referring to you and your current fare?
>
>cordially, even to the Alex Reigers of the world,
It's important to remember that Alex Rieger was a wise man, despite
being a cabbie. :-)
Tom
Tom MacIntyre
Stephenson) wrote:
Just asking...is a statistic that has Nolan Ryan as being barely
better than Steve Rogers (peak) necessarily the one to cite in HOF
discussions? Also...
I think I understand the logic behind showing him as a 70's pitcher,
but he pitched better/more effectively, arguably, in the 80's and
early 90's than he did in the 70's.
I know...anomalies happen, but the HOF pitchers seem to dwindle badly
just above Ryan, one of the strongest choices ever. Also...there have
to be more than the number of pitchers I see at the top of this list
in the HOF, aren't there? If so...where do they fall on the list?
Tom
Tom MacIntyre
>MrStr...@hotmail.com (Mike) wrote in message news:<7cfd37d2.04081...@posting.google.com>...
>> Look at this lifetime stats comparison.
>>
>> VIDA BLUE- lifetime record of 209-161, 2175 Ks, a Cy Young award, an
>> MVP award, three 20 win seasons (24-8,22-11, and 20-9), a 300
>> strikeout season. Blue's 1971 season was one of the greatest pitching
>> years of the 60s and 70s. In 71, Blue went 24-8, pitched 8 shutouts,
>> had 1.82 era, and threw for 301 strikeouts.
>>
>> DON DRYSDALE- lifetime record of 209-166, 2486 Ks, a Cy Young award,
>> two 20 win seasons (25-9,23-12). Pitched record of 58 and 1/2
>> scoreless innings in 1968.
>>
>> My question is, if Drysdale is in, why not Vida Blue?
>>
>> I'm not saying either of them should be in. I have very high standards
>> for the hall. So if it were up to me, neither would be in.
>>
>> But if Don Drysdale IS in the hall of fame, then shouldn't Vida Blue
>> be in as well?
>>
>
>If Drysdale, Catfish Hunter, and Jim Bunning are in, why in the wide
>world of sports isn't Luis Tiant in?????
>
>Luis Tiant, folks!!!!
According to that list, Nolan Ryan's Peak+Outside is better than
Tiant's, although his peak isn't as good.
Tom
Paul G. Wenthold
> Just asking...is a statistic that has Nolan Ryan as being barely
> better than Steve Rogers (peak) necessarily the one to cite in HOF
> discussions? Also...
>
Having Nolan Ryan next to Steve Rogers on this list is interesting. You
basically end up with one of the most overrated pitchers right next to
one of the most underrated.
paul
Tom MacIntyre
There are other vast differences also...an overrated pitcher seen as
being close to an underrated one on one particular list may be far
superior in many other ways.
All factors considered, baseball as a business, etc., who gets the
nod?
Tom
Paul G. Wenthold
Yeah, silly Dale making a HOF case on the basis of how much a player
contributed to winning baseball games as opposed to who had the cooler
jersey or whatever.
paul
Bob-Nob
> Look at this lifetime stats comparison.
<snip>
> I'm not saying either of them should be in. I have very high standards
> for the hall. So if it were up to me, neither would be in.
Isn't this like the fourth or fifth one of these you've done?
Rocky Colavito was one. And I definitely remember others. And each
time it's the same question: if X is in, why isn't Y?
Catch you later.
--Robert Machemer
--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer | "For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Math & Classics | rise again, and woe to the wicked!"
IF1, IF3, IF9: best films, cast | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
(What are YOU doing this weekend? See IF12 on May 23rd, 2004)
Dale J. Stephenson
> On 09 Aug 2004 19:06:56 -0400, st...@localhost.localdomain (Dale J.
> Stephenson) wrote:
[...]
> >Peaks for prominent pitchers
> >
> >Name Peak Decade Outside GS PB Hall
> >Don Drysdale 17.0 60s 9.2 465 59 *
> >Vida Blue 16.6 70s -4.6 473 -2
[...]
> >Nolan Ryan 15.7 70s 9.0 773 -17 *
> >Steve Rogers 15.5 70s 1.6 393 -8
>
> Just asking...is a statistic that has Nolan Ryan as being barely
> better than Steve Rogers (peak) necessarily the one to cite in HOF
> discussions? Also...
>
No, which is why I didn't cite it. I referred to Drysdale as a
"significantly better" pitcher than Blue, even though on peak alone
he's hardly better. But *outside* his peak, Drysdale was a better
performer.
Similarly, Ryan is significantly better outside his peak than Rogers,
*and* has nearly an extra 400 games started as well. That's HUGE.
If I were only interested in comparing peak (where Ryan doesn't do
especially well) I'd leave the other columns out.
> I think I understand the logic behind showing him as a 70's pitcher,
> but he pitched better/more effectively, arguably, in the 80's and
> early 90's than he did in the 70's.
>
"Decade" is very deterministic in my list. It's the decade that has
the most "peak" years in them, where peak is the best five seasons in
PW. If there's a tie (can happen if the years are in three different
decades) it's broken by the most valuable years. Judge for yourself
where you would put Ryan: here's his best years IMO:
'72 284.0 IP 128 ERA+
'73 326.0 IP 124 ERA+
'74 332.7 IP 119 ERA+
'77 299.0 IP 141 ERA+
'81 149.0 IP 194 ERA+
'87 211.7 IP 142 ERA+
'89 239.3 IP 124 ERA+
'91 173.0 IP 138 ERA+
He had some of his best years by rate late, but I don't think they can
hold up to some of his '70s years by value.
> I know...anomalies happen, but the HOF pitchers seem to dwindle badly
> just above Ryan, one of the strongest choices ever. Also...there have
> to be more than the number of pitchers I see at the top of this list
> in the HOF, aren't there? If so...where do they fall on the list?
>
I trimmed the list to 40s and laters, plus the non-HOFers from 60s
(Drysdale's decade) and 70s (Blue's decade). Here's Ryan with the
other Hall of Famers:
Peaks for prominent pitchers
Name Peak Decade Outside GS PB Hall
Walter Johnson 35.2 10s 39.6 666 99 *
Grover Alexander 29.7 10s 27.8 600 24 *
Cy Young 29.1 1900s 42.5 815 -22 *
John Clarkson 28.5 1880s 8.2 518 9 * VC
Lefty Grove 27.9 30s 27.9 457 -37 *
Chrsty Mathewson 27.7 1900s 17.1 552 59 *
Kid Nichols 27.3 1890s 22.4 562 -0 * OT
Ed Walsh 26.6 10s 7.1 315 15 * OT
Amos Rusie 25.6 1890s 2.8 427 13 * VC
Sandy Koufax 24.9 60s 2.1 314 -25 *
Bob Gibson 24.8 60s 13.3 482 65 *
Hal Newhouser 24.8 40s 7.4 374 12 * VC
Tom Seaver 24.5 70s 22.0 647 28 *
Carl Hubbell 24.3 30s 11.5 433 -5 *
Mordecai Brown 24.3 1900s 8.6 332 15 * OT
Steve Carlton 23.8 70s 7.8 709 49 *
Charles Radbourn 23.7 1880s -0.6 502 39 * OT
Juan Marichal 23.2 60s 5.4 457 10 *
Tim Keefe 22.5 1880s 10.3 594 11 * VC
Dazzy Vance 22.4 20s 2.4 349 -18 *
Jim Palmer 22.3 70s 13.9 521 7 *
Bob Feller 21.9 40s 8.0 484 -7 *
Gaylord Perry 20.8 60s 15.0 690 -16 *
Robin Roberts 20.6 50s 4.0 609 34 *
Rube Waddell 20.5 1900s 6.8 340 -17 * OT
Lefty Gomez 19.9 30s 1.7 320 -30 * VC
Phil Niekro 19.7 70s 13.3 716 -6 *
Joe McGinnity 19.6 1900s 0.4 381 -14 * OT
Stan Covelski 19.4 20s 7.7 385 -34 * VC
Jim Bunning 19.3 60s 1.2 519 -1 * VC
Vic Willis 19.1 1900s 1.9 471 -33 * VC
Warren Spahn 19.0 50s 16.9 665 88 *
Whitey Ford 18.7 50s 16.1 438 27 *
Addie Joss 18.4 1900s 7.4 260 -14 * VC
Red Faber 17.9 20s 9.2 483 -31 * VC
Bob Lemon 17.2 50s 3.3 350 90 *
Don Drysdale 17.0 60s 9.2 465 59 *
Burleigh Grimes 17.0 20s -5.7 497 52 * VC
Fergie Jenkins 16.6 70s 10.1 594 13 *
Mickey Welch 16.3 1880s 0.8 549 21 * VC
Dizzy Dean 16.2 30s 3.4 230 15 *
Eppa Rixey 16.1 20s 8.3 554 -15 * VC
Don Sutton 16.1 70s 1.8 756 -7 *
Pud Galvin 16.1 1880s -3.7 681 -48 * VC
Early Wynn 15.8 50s -3.9 612 72 *
Ted Lyons 15.7 30s 12.4 484 32 *
Nolan Ryan 15.7 70s 9.0 773 -17 *
Red Ruffing 15.1 30s -0.5 538 143 *
Jack Chesbro 14.7 1900s -4.7 332 -2 * OT
Catfish Hunter 14.7 70s -7.5 476 33 *
Herb Pennock 14.5 20s -8.2 419 3 *
Eddie Plank 14.0 10s 15.5 529 17 * OT
Waite Hoyt 13.1 20s 3.3 425 -17 * VC
Chief Bender 11.7 10s -0.1 334 33 * VC
Rube Marquard 11.7 10s -8.4 407 -17 * VC
Jesse Haines 11.2 20s -0.8 386 -22 * VC
Babe Ruth 9.5 10s -0.8 148 78 *
Of the five guys with more than 700 GS, I think Ryan was about the
fourth best.
Dale J. Stephenson
[...]
> According to that list, Nolan Ryan's Peak+Outside is better than
> Tiant's, although his peak isn't as good.
>
> Tom
Ryan does have an extra ~300 GS, of course. But I do prefer Luis Tiant
to Vida Blue.
Tom MacIntyre
<pgwNO...@purdue.NOTTHIS.edu> wrote:
Not what I am referring to at all, Paul. Even if it was the Hall of
ERA+, Rogers isn't in, he's just ahead of Ryan, who also of course
isn't in. He isn't a candidate for a Hall of anything that I can see,
other than a nice guy who had his biggest opportunity to shine ripped
away from him (the closest I ever came to crying about a baseball
game, and I was in my 20's. I prefer to not think of him as having
blown it, it just wasn't meant to be.). Blue Monday...sigh.
I liked Rogers as a pitcher, as an Expo, as a man. That isn't the
point, either. Ryan did some spectacular and extraordinary things that
Rogers never did, which made him famous as a baseball player. There
are other statistical/analytical measures that indicate Ryan as a sure
HOFer, but not as high as he finished, vote-wise. In those he is 8th,
10th, 16th, and 26th, all-time.
Bottom line...Ryan is in, by the most votes ever and the
second-highest percentage ever (unless I missed something, which I
sometimes do). Rogers is out. The stat correlates well at the high end
with HOF pitchers, and Ryan is and was an anomaly.
Not including batting, this stat appears to show Catfish Hunter as
being significantly more overrated than Ryan.
Tom
Tom MacIntyre
Stephenson) wrote:
Top post appropriate here, and I'll snip...
thanks for the explanation. I was off on some of my interpretation,
and it makes more sense to me now...after duking it out with Paul for
a few rounds... :-)
Tom
Alan S. Wales
>>MrStr...@hotmail.com said:
>> Look at this lifetime stats comparison.
>No, let's not look at these lifetime stats.
Let's look at championships. They both have 3 WS rings. Tough choice, huh?
Better go back to the stats thing for the tiebreaker.
--
"When you argue with a fool be sure he is not similarly occupied."
See how the pros get their power!
http://www.powrwrap.com/press.htm
Bob Roman
> Look at this lifetime stats comparison.
>
> http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bluevi01.shtml
>
> Don Drysdale
> http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/drysddo01.shtml
Drysdale is stronger on the leader-boards.
Drysdale was much less of a detriment at the plate.
Bob Roman
fan
"Realto Margarino" <boo...@eewwww.org> wrote in message
news:uC5Sc.11537$a65.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Dale J. Stephenson <st...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> [stats deleted]
>
> > Drysdale was a significantly better pitcher than Blue in roughly
> > the same number of starts, and tacks on about six more wins from the
> > difference between their bats.
>
> argument is that your stats show that he was. But the thinking fan
> knows that there is more to being a ballplayer than your selection
> of statistics.
>
> We shit directly in your mouth. You are asked to show a bit of
> respect for baseball by not posting to this group anymore.
>
> cordially, even to trash,
>
> rm
Wow, incredible post, and I couldn't agree more with you Realto. Thank you.
Signed,
someone who loves the game
Kenny
> Ron Johnson <joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
>
> a stat fan troll, trolled,
>
> Hi! My name is Ron Johnson. All I care about is stats. Want to
> know if a player is any good? Look at his stats. We don't argue
> about which players are the best. We argue about which stats are
> the best.
Jeez, you didn't even READ his post did you? Has this newsgroup become so
boring for you that you don't even bother to read the posts you're flaming
anymore?
Kenny
Gerry Myerson
Ima Pseudonym <akra...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 Aug 2004 07:45:22 -0700, MrStr...@hotmail.com (Mike) wrote:
>
> >But if Don Drysdale IS in the hall of fame, then shouldn't Vida Blue
> >be in as well?
>
> No. Drysdale is marginal, but Vida Blue is much more so.
Wait a minute - does that mean that Drysdale is only marginally
marginal? I'm not convinced that marginal takes the comparative.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Mpoconnor7
The problem with this argument is that if you take the worst player ever chosen
by the HOF and use that as a criteria for evaluating future players (If Jesse
Haines is in...), you would easily have about a thousand players in the HOF by
comparing player X to the least common denominator.
I think one reason Blue is not in is that his career is viewed by many as
something of a disappointment, as he was such a dominating pitcher in 1971 and
never again lived up to the potential. Dwight Gooden is similar in that regard
in that he never lived up to his potential either.
Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man
"The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct
proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong"
James Mason from the movie "Heaven Can Wait".
F R
further linked because of the dual hold out they staged in spring
training. no doubt they were animpressive 1-2 punch if vida was sandy's
teammate instead of don, then vida would be in imo.
Mischa Gelman
Bob-Nob wrote:
> Isn't this like the fourth or fifth one of these you've done?
> Rocky Colavito was one. And I definitely remember others. And each
> time it's the same question: if X is in, why isn't Y?
And people have explained why this is a poor line of reasoning before. He
keeps asking the same question (basically) and gets basically the same
answers.
Mike's threads have included:
Why isn't Vida Blue in the HOF?
Why is Tony Lazzeri in the HOF?
Why isn't Rocky Colavito in the HOF?
Why isn't Frank Howard in the HOF?
Why isn't Ken Boyer in the HOF?
Why isn't Vada Pinson in the HOF?
Why isn't Ron Guidry in the HOF?
I may be missing a couple. He has raised some interesting debate and I'm a
large-Hall proponent (I have no problems with Boyer's inclusion) but the
threads do seem to repeat a lot of the same points.
--
Our big corporate owners, infected with the greed that marks the end of the
20th Century, stretch constantly for ever increasing profit, condemning
quality to the hindmost...compromising journalistic integrity in the mad
scramble for ratings and circulation. - Walter Cronkite
Mischa Gelman
Mpoconnor7 wrote:
> The problem with this argument is that if you take the worst player ever chosen
> by the HOF and use that as a criteria for evaluating future players (If Jesse
> Haines is in...), you would easily have about a thousand players in the HOF by
> comparing player X to the least common denominator.
Since Mike keeps using this type of comparison, I'll post Bill James' fine analysis
of why this argument is one that creates more problems than it solves, though
others here have summarized it well. James simply tackles it in a bit more depth.
From "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?", on argument #7: the least common
denominator -
These other [bad arguments] are just nuisances. The real problems with the Hall of
Fame argument are caused by the Lowest Common Denominator argument and its
derivative approach, the If-One-Then argument.
Robert Eckel, writing in The Sporting News in 1986, suggested that "If George
Kelly was good enough, why not Charlie Grimm or Joe Judge? If Fred Lindstrom, why
not Stan Hack? If Dave Bancroft and Travis Jackson, why not Dick Bartell and Cecil
Travis? If Chick Hafey, why not Babe Herman? If Ralph Kiner, why not Tony Oliva?
That's the point: There is no end to it.The circle of players who could be honored
by this logic would expand ceaselessly: it would never reach its boundary. If
Charlie Grimm, why not Lu Blue and Jack Fournier? If Lu Blue, why not Phil
Cavaretta and Dolph Camilli? Why not Rudy York and Vic Wertz.
And when you reach that point, you realize that the failure to select Norm Cash is
by now a gross oversight. If Norm Cash, why not Lee May? If Lee May, why not Willie
Horton?
The Lowest Common Denominator argument assumes that everyonewho is as good as the
worst player now in the Hall of Same should be honored.
If the Hall of Fame selectors had never made a mistake, this might work. Well, to
be honest, it still wouldn't work, but it wouldn't screw up the discussion so
quickly. The reality is that:
a. at least 40 players have been selected to the Hall of Fame who can't reasonbly
be described as "great" players
b. if everyone were to be selected who was as good as the baseline established by
those players, the Hall of Fame would have at least 900 players, and would hav to
add about ten per year to keep the quality level the same
Note what I haven't said. I haven't said that anybody wasn't a "good" player.
George Kelly was a good first baseman. He wasn't one of the fifty best first
basemen in baseball history, but he was good. Ross Youngs wasn't one of the 200
best outfielders in baseball history, but he was a good player.
Suppose that we selected overnight those 700 other players who would bring the
Hall of Fame down to the level of everybody as good as George Kelly. Would that end
the process?
Of course ir would not - because in doing that, more mistakes would be made. Using
the logic of the lowest common denominator, yesterday's mistakes become a curse
from which the Hall of Fame can never escape.
Gary Rosen
"SavoyBG" <sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040810140411...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> >From: Realto Margarino
>
> >We shit directly in your mouth.
>
> Who's we?
RLM and the guy who shits in *his* mouth.
- Gary Rosen
Gary Rosen
"Kenny" <kenp...@DELETEMEcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:2nt2nrF...@uni-berlin.de...
You realize that Rectal Molester is a criminal degenerate, don't you? No
reason to expect anything but more degeneracy from him.
- Gary Rosen
Craig Richardson
<tom__ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 09 Aug 2004 19:06:56 -0400, st...@localhost.localdomain (Dale J.
>Stephenson) wrote:
>>Nolan Ryan 15.7 70s 9.0 773 -17 *
>>Steve Rogers 15.5 70s 1.6 393 -8
>
>Just asking...is a statistic that has Nolan Ryan as being barely
>better than Steve Rogers (peak) necessarily the one to cite in HOF
>discussions?
Most certainly. Steve Rogers' best five years were extremely
comparable to Ryan's. Ryan just had them spread out, and had a bunch
more other years after Rogers was retired. The thing is, if you
drafted one of these guys, then had him for arbitration, then bought
out his first free agency before letting him go - you couldn't pick
from between them. That's what "peak" is all about. Not to mention
that Ryan's the poster boy for out-of-peak value...
>I know...anomalies happen, but the HOF pitchers seem to dwindle badly
>just above Ryan, one of the strongest choices ever.
This sentence is missing not just an "and", but an object.
Dale J. Stephenson
> "Realto Margarino" <boo...@eewwww.org> wrote in message
> news:uC5Sc.11537$a65.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
[...]
> > We shit directly in your mouth. You are asked to show a bit of
> > respect for baseball by not posting to this group anymore.
> >
> > cordially, even to trash,
> >
> > rm
>
> Wow, incredible post, and I couldn't agree more with you Realto. Thank you.
>
You admire vulgarity and completely associate yourself with it? Your
mother must be so proud.
> Signed,
>
> someone who loves the game
>
An anonymous "fan" who finds a soulmate in the resident troll. If you
prefer your baseball discussions to be content free, I recommend talk
radio.
Bob Roman
> Peaks for prominent pitchers
>
> Name Peak Decade Outside GS PB Hall
FWIW, Feller arguably spent his peak in the Pacific Ocean.
Bob Roman
Bob Roman
> Mike's threads have included:
> Why isn't Vida Blue in the HOF?
> Why is Tony Lazzeri in the HOF?
> Why isn't Rocky Colavito in the HOF?
> Why isn't Frank Howard in the HOF?
> Why isn't Ken Boyer in the HOF?
> Why isn't Vada Pinson in the HOF?
> Why isn't Ron Guidry in the HOF?
>
> I may be missing a couple.
Bob Roman
Tom MacIntyre
<crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:06:54 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
><tom__ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 09 Aug 2004 19:06:56 -0400, st...@localhost.localdomain (Dale J.
>>Stephenson) wrote:
>
>>>Nolan Ryan 15.7 70s 9.0 773 -17 *
>>>Steve Rogers 15.5 70s 1.6 393 -8
>>
>>Just asking...is a statistic that has Nolan Ryan as being barely
>>better than Steve Rogers (peak) necessarily the one to cite in HOF
>>discussions?
>
>Most certainly. Steve Rogers' best five years were extremely
>comparable to Ryan's. Ryan just had them spread out, and had a bunch
>more other years after Rogers was retired. The thing is, if you
>drafted one of these guys, then had him for arbitration, then bought
>out his first free agency before letting him go - you couldn't pick
>from between them. That's what "peak" is all about. Not to mention
>that Ryan's the poster boy for out-of-peak value...
>
>>I know...anomalies happen, but the HOF pitchers seem to dwindle badly
>>just above Ryan, one of the strongest choices ever.
>
>This sentence is missing not just an "and", but an object.
...as in "and below Ryan as well."?
Tom
>
>--Craig
Tom MacIntyre
<mge...@city-net.com> wrote:
>
>
>Bob-Nob wrote:
>
>> Isn't this like the fourth or fifth one of these you've done?
>> Rocky Colavito was one. And I definitely remember others. And each
>> time it's the same question: if X is in, why isn't Y?
>
>And people have explained why this is a poor line of reasoning before. He
>keeps asking the same question (basically) and gets basically the same
>answers.
>
>Mike's threads have included:
>Why isn't Vida Blue in the HOF?
>Why is Tony Lazzeri in the HOF?
>Why isn't Rocky Colavito in the HOF?
>Why isn't Frank Howard in the HOF?
>Why isn't Ken Boyer in the HOF?
>Why isn't Vada Pinson in the HOF?
>Why isn't Ron Guidry in the HOF?
>
>I may be missing a couple. He has raised some interesting debate and I'm a
>large-Hall proponent (I have no problems with Boyer's inclusion) but the
>threads do seem to repeat a lot of the same points.
Would a "Why isn't Rusty Staub, etc." thread do the same?
Tom
Craig Richardson
<tom__ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 03:48:54 -0700, Craig Richardson
><crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:06:54 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
>><tom__ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 09 Aug 2004 19:06:56 -0400, st...@localhost.localdomain (Dale J.
>>>Stephenson) wrote:
>>>I know...anomalies happen, but the HOF pitchers seem to dwindle badly
>>>just above Ryan, one of the strongest choices ever.
>>
>>This sentence is missing not just an "and", but an object.
>
>...as in "and below Ryan as well."?
Mmm. A roundabout way of saying that while I think Ryan is qualified,
I certainly don't agree that he's one of the strongest choices ever.
Maybe that's a different argument - it's certainly one that's been
done to death, with basically no one being convinced to change their
original opinion...
fan
Mark Reichert
> Drysdale was a good pitcher, not really an incredibly long career, not
> great really, but good enough with enough other stuff to have the
> voters eventually elect him.
I think pitching for pennant and world championship teams in a media capital helped.
Ima Pseudonym
Reichert) wrote:
Undoubtedly. But he still was a significantly better pitcher than
Vida Blue.
Drysdale was the sort of player who sometimes gets in - not great, but
very good, and with enough great moments that he manages to squeek in,
if he has good press.
Doug Massey
> MrStr...@hotmail.com (Mike) writes:
> [...]
> > My question is, if Drysdale is in, why not Vida Blue?
> >
> > for the hall. So if it were up to me, neither would be in.
> >
> > But if Don Drysdale IS in the hall of fame, then shouldn't Vida Blue
> > be in as well?
>
> the same number of starts, and tacks on about six more wins from the
> him to his teammate Catfish Hunter. I think Blue would be a hard
> sell when Blyleven is still on the outside looking in.
As far as I can tell, no single stat is more important for HOF
induction than career wins. Actually, "wins + net wins" seem to
be even more important (not that the voters actually calculate the
number, but it seems to be what they're looking for). The magic
number is 350 -- all 24 guys above this point are in. Between
about 290 and 350, it's dicey for the 19th century guys (Gus Weyhing,
Tommy Bond, Jim McCormick, Bob Caruthers, Bobby Mathews, Tony Mullane
and Charlie Buffinton all fall into this category but didn't make
the Hall). The only modern players to get to 290 and not make the
Hall are a familiar three that get grouped together here a lot:
Tommy John (345), Jim Kaat (329), and Blyleven (324).
Below 290, it's hit and miss and a lot of the guys that make it into
the HOF are either commonly viewed as bad choices (Rube Marquard,
Jim Bunning, Hal Newhouser, Catfish Hunter) or have some other
extenuating circumstance in their favor (Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale).
No 19th century guys get in from this group.
Vida Blue? 257. Drysdale is only 252, but he's a weak choice for
the Hall. There are far more comparable guys to Vida Blue who *aren't*
in: Billy Pierce, Milt Pappas, Jim Perry, Orel Hershiser, Mel Harder,
Lew Burdette . . .
So Blue has a point if he says that he should have been in the Hall
rather than Drysdale, but he has to stand in line behind a lot of
other guys.
The Hall of Fame Monitor figures in all sorts of things like single
season totals for W, K, ERA, and saves, gives credit for gold gloves
and other awards, in addition to lots of career numbers and post-
season accomplishments, but I suspect a nearly-as-accurate predictor
could be based on just W and L. To wit, here is the list of players
that were mistakes by either the Monitor or by the "2W-L >= 290" formula,
but were correctly predicted by the other. "-" is a miss, "+" is
a hit, so "2W-L >= 290" seems to make a few major mistakes (Koufax the
most obvious), but still wins 17 or these 25 close calls -- making it
a better predictor, I think (for starting pitchers, that is).
Player Hall? Monitor 2W - L
============ ====== ======= ======
Blue 114 - 257 +
Chesbro yes 100 + 264 -
Corcoran 122 - 265 +
Coveleski yes 109 + 288 -
Dean yes 111 + 217 -
Drysdale yes 131 + 252 -
Foutz 104 - 228 +
Guidry 106 - 249 +
Hecker 100 - 200 +
Hoyt yes 93 - 292 +
Hunter yes 131 + 282 -
King 120 - 252 +
Koufax yes 224 + 243 -
Lemon yes 117 + 287 -
Lyons yes 65 - 290 +
Mays 114 - 289 +
MorrisE 121 - 220 +
MorrisJ 122 - 232 +
Mullin 104 - 260 +
Newhouser yes 140 + 264 -
Pennock yes 92 - 328 +
Reynolds 110 - 257 +
Walters 104 - 236 +
WhiteW 141 - 282 +
Whitney 110 - 178 +
How do active or recently retired players measure up to the "2W-L"
standard? Prior to 2004 (remember that Monitor>100 or 2W-L>290 predict
induction):
Player Hall? Monitor 2W - L
============ ====== ======= ======
Clemens yes 293 480 (Warren Spahn = 481)
Maddux yes 227 430 (Tom Seaver = 417)
JohnsonR yes 284 358 (Nolan Ryan = 356)
Glavine yes 151 351 (Carl Hubbell = 343)
Mussina almost 97 300 (Chief Bender = 297)
MartinezP almost 168 285 (Catfish Hunter = 282)
BrownK almost 92 279 (Eppa Rixey = 281)
Wells no 80 277
Gooden no 88 276
Cone maybe 103 262
Hershiser no 90 258
Schilling maybe 127 229 (Rube Marquard = 225)
Pettitte prob not 84 228
Smoltz maybe 120 206
I suspect Smoltz gets in based on his starter + reliever status. 2W-L
breaks down when a pitcher spent a large portion of his career as a
reliever.
Doug
Dvd Avins
news:fd395df9.04081...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> The Hall of Fame Monitor figures in all sorts of things like single
> season totals for W, K, ERA, and saves, gives credit for gold gloves
> and other awards, in addition to lots of career numbers and post-
> season accomplishments, but I suspect a nearly-as-accurate predictor
> could be based on just W and L. To wit, here is the list of players
> that were mistakes by either the Monitor or by the "2W-L >= 290" formula,
> but were correctly predicted by the other. "-" is a miss, "+" is
> a hit, so "2W-L >= 290" seems to make a few major mistakes (Koufax the
> most obvious), but still wins 17 or these 25 close calls -- making it
> a better predictor, I think (for starting pitchers, that is).
<snip>
> How do active or recently retired players measure up to the "2W-L"
> standard? Prior to 2004 (remember that Monitor>100 or 2W-L>290 predict
> induction):
>
> Player Hall? Monitor 2W - L
> ============ ====== ======= ======
<snip>
> MartinezP almost 168 285 (Catfish Hunter = 282)
<snip>
> Cone maybe 103 262
Pedro is certain to get in, so long as there's no overwhelming scandal. Cone
has virtually no chance, IMO.
--
Rather than working hard to create a Constitution for Iraq, why don't we
just give them ours? We're not using it.
Doug Massey
I agree about Pedro. The 2W-L formula primarily rewards good
performance over long careers -- most of its misses in predicting
HoFers are tremendous guys with short careers like Koufax. If
Martinez were to quit now, he'd look a lot like Sandy (well, his stats
would -- I can't imagine Koufax with Pedro's hairdo).
Pedro (through 2003): 166-67, 2.58 ERA, 3 Cys, 2 20-W seasons, led
league in ERA 5 times and Ks 3 times.
Sandy (through 1966): 165-87, 2.76 ERA, 3 Cys + MVP, 3 20-win
seasons, led league in ERA 5 times and K's 4 times.
Sandy is Pedro's #1 comp, Pedro is Sandy's #2 comp. If Martinez had
20 more losses, they'd be *really* similar. :-)
I put "almost" next to Pedro's name because he's "almost" reached the
magic number for both predictors (he's far past the Monitor and almost
at 290 on 2W-L).
As for Coney: he finished shy of 200 wins and 3000 IP. Otherwise,
he's a easy HoFer: 2 20-win seasons, a Cy, a 120 ERA+, and five WS
rings. But wins are *really* important to HoF voters. Monitor says
he'll barely make it, 2W-L says he barely won't. We'll see in four or
five years how the voters like him.
Doug