OT: Philadelphia Phillies (MLB): Wheels and Sarge out.

[Hiesenberg]

In the same token, how is it a knock for a guy to remain a starter at the highest level of the sport for that long?

There are some circumstances obviously, most guys that play 20 years were probably really really good players.

Jamie Moyer is a great example, he's not HOF worthy in my book, he finished with about 260 wins but pitched for 25 years.

 

[Protest]

In the same token, how is it a knock for a guy to remain a starter at the highest level of the sport for that long?

It's not a knock on them, but you can't just look at totals because you wind up with guys who were only good for a long time, and never great.

 

[JDinkalage Morgoone]

There are some circumstances obviously, most guys that play 20 years were probably really really good players.

Jamie Moyer is a great example, he's not HOF worthy in my book, he finished with about 260 wins but pitched for 25 years.

It's not a knock on them, but you can't just look at totals because you wind up with guys who were only good for a long time, and never great.

Absolutely agree with both of you, however there are people trying to discredit Craig Biggio because he played a long time. Those are people I disagree with.

 

[Hiesenberg]

Absolutely agree with both of you, however there are people trying to discredit Craig Biggio because he played a long time. Those are people I disagree with.

No doubt Biggio should be in the HOF

 

[Protest]

I don't think Biggio is a slam dunk, and I think the main reason he's in the discussion is because of how long he played. He did have several really good years though, and if he made it I wouldn't complain.

EDIT: Just to clarify I do think Biggio checks a lot of the marks for the typical HOF voters.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I don't think Biggio is a slam dunk, and I think the main reason he's in the discussion is because of how long he played. He did have several really good years though, and if he made it I wouldn't complain.

So let me ask you this then, because we haven't really touched on it at this point, what would you look for if you had a vote for HOF? What are your criteria?

 

[Protest]

So let me ask you this then, because we haven't really touched on it at this point, what would you look for if you had a vote for HOF? What are your criteria?

Peak first and foremost. If you were never considered great, or one of the best players in the league, or best at you're position than I think its a no go right from the start.

Like Hiesenberg said before, the only guys like that that are going to be in the discussion are players that played for a really long time, and have nice totals simply because they played a lot of games.

So first I'd put the numbers that they put up in their best 5-7 years.

Next I'd say career rate statistics because again they eliminate the problem with totals being skewed by games played.

After that I'd go to career totals because you still have to have done it for some length of time.

At the bottom would be any type of awards or feats or records. All of that stuff is derivative of the numbers, and in some cases decided by voting, so it's secondary to the statistics.

 

[zarley zelepukin]

Peak first and foremost. If you were never considered great, or one of the best players in the league, or best at you're position than I think its a no go right from the start.

Like Hiesenberg said before, the only guys like that that are going to be in the discussion are players that played for a really long time, and have nice totals simply because they played a lot of games.

So first I'd put the numbers that they put up in their best 5-7 years.

Next I'd say career rate statistics because again they eliminate the problem with totals being skewed by games played.

After that I'd go to career totals because you still have to have done it for some length of time.

At the bottom would be any type of awards or feats or records. All of that stuff is derivative of the numbers, and in some cases decided by voting, so it's secondary to the statistics.

I pretty much agree with this, but I would put career rate stats first, with heavy consideration to peak also. Kind of a 1 and 1a in consideration.

 

[JDinkalage Morgoone]

Numbers don't take into account eras, I think. This era is pretty much a pitcher's era, what with all the no hitters and perfect games.

 

[zarley zelepukin]

Numbers don't take into account eras, I think. This era is pretty much a pitcher's era, what with all the no hitters and perfect games.

There are stats like ERA+ that adjust to league performance and ballpark, which makes it much easier to compare players from different eras.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Peak first and foremost. If you were never considered great, or one of the best players in the league, or best at you're position than I think its a no go right from the start.

Like Hiesenberg said before, the only guys like that that are going to be in the discussion are players that played for a really long time, and have nice totals simply because they played a lot of games.

So first I'd put the numbers that they put up in their best 5-7 years.

Next I'd say career rate statistics because again they eliminate the problem with totals being skewed by games played.

After that I'd go to career totals because you still have to have done it for some length of time.

At the bottom would be any type of awards or feats or records. All of that stuff is derivative of the numbers, and in some cases decided by voting, so it's secondary to the statistics.

The peak years thing being the top doesn't jive with me. I understand the reason that some people vote that way, but I'm a bottom line guy. A guy who hits 3,000 hits over 20 years is more deserving of the hall than a guy tho hits 2,000 hits in 10 years.

I'm really of the opinion that if there is a debate about whether a player is in the hall or not, he probably shouldn't be in the hall. I'd rather block entry for a handful of players that really should in there than let in one who shouldn't. Like I've said in the past, there are guys in the HOF that I would not have voted for, and there is no right or wrong way to vote, but IMO, the Hall is for the best of the best of all time. Nothing less.

 

[Protest]

The peak years thing being the top doesn't jive with me. I understand the reason that some people vote that way, but I'm a bottom line guy. A guy who hits 3,000 hits over 20 years is more deserving of the hall than a guy tho hits 2,000 hits in 10 years.

I'm really of the opinion that if there is a debate about whether a player is in the hall or not, he probably shouldn't be in the hall. I'd rather block entry for a handful of players that really should in there than let in one who shouldn't. Like I've said in the past, there are guys in the HOF that I would not have voted for, and there is no right or wrong way to vote, but IMO, the Hall is for the best of the best of all time. Nothing less.

The guy that hits 2000 in 10 averages 50 more hits a season. 10 years is nothing to scoff at. The average MLB career is like 6 seasons I think. To me that makes no sense. The only thing the guy that plays longer has is that he played longer and had more opportunity to amass numbers. That's the inherit problem with counting statistics.

EDIT: You said

No. Absolutely not. In my opinion, the HOF is for the best players of all time. Not the best players of the generation. Not the best players at a position during a decade. The best players of all time.

So you'd vote for a guy who was never considered the best at his position, never the best of his generation, or decade, but that played for 20ish seasons and has high totals and claim they're one of the best of all time.

How can you be one of the best of all time without an era of dominance?

 

[JDinkalage Morgoone]

There are stats like ERA+ that adjust to league performance and ballpark, which makes it much easier to compare players from different eras.

Oh I know this and I hope writers look at it, but my fear is that they only look at archaic statistical milestones.

 

[zarley zelepukin]

Oh I know this and I hope writers look at it, but my fear is that they only look at archaic statistical milestones.

Gotcha. I think there are a lot of writers that do cling to old school stats like wins and BA, but that's changing slowly as more young writers come around. It will probably take awhile before that's reflected in HOF voting though.

 

[Protest]

I think things are starting to change with the guys from Fangraphs now starting to get votes, and with really a lot of guys from in their 40's on down being a big proponent of advanced stats. The problem is the dinosaurs in baseball, but hopefully they'll retire or something lol.

As an aside, Chase Utley is 4th all time in OPS for second basemen, and 8th all time in OPS+ among players with 1000+ games played. For reference (for DFF) Ian Kinsler is 32nd.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

The guy that hits 2000 in 10 averages 50 more hits a season. 10 years is nothing to scoff at. The average MLB career is like 6 seasons I think. To me that makes no sense. The only thing the guy that plays longer has is that he played longer and had more opportunity to amass numbers. That's the inherit problem with counting statistics.

But playing longer in and of itself is not something to overlook. If you play for ten years and put up numbers that would have gotten you into the HOF had you played longer, it doesn't get you into the HOF. Whatever the reason is for your not playing, the fact is you weren't around long enough. When a guy plays as a starter for 20 years, chances are he is one of the best of all time. You don't just do that by accident. So yes, they have a longer time to amass these stats, but you have to be good enough to have chance to amass these stats. And simply playing longer doesn't get you my vote. There are plenty of players who play 15-20 years and don't make the HOF. It is just PART of the reason you vote for someone.

EDIT: You said



So you'd vote for a guy who was never considered the best at his position, never the best of his generation, or decade, but that played for 20ish seasons and has high totals and claim they're one of the best of all time.

How can you be one of the best of all time without an era of dominance?

In certain situations, yes. For instance, Craig Biggio. If you play for 20 years and are putting up numbers like guys like Biggio did, even though he never was dominant, yes I'd vote for him. But the thing is, these players that play for 20 years and put up numbers worthy of getting my vote, typically would be at or near the top during their time period. Biggio averaged 174 hits per year over a 20 year career. That's not an incredibly impressive average...until you see that he did it for 20 years. That is one more than Chase Utley has averaged...but Biggio did it for double the length of time.

This is the small hall argument I've been making. If you start letting in guys who had great peak years, but the rest of their careers aren't as good (injuries, age, whatever the reason), you are going to have more guys every year getting into the HOF. There are plenty of players who have had some very impressive runs, but not the longevity.

 

[Hiesenberg]

This is still going on?

 

[Protest]

This is still going on?

It could probably go on forever.

 

[JDinkalage Morgoone]

I don't want to reopen it if it already happened, where did you all stand on Halladay potentially getting a HOF bid?

 

[Hiesenberg]

I don't want to reopen it if it already happened, where did you all stand on Halladay potentially getting a HOF bid?

I'd put him in because besides win the guy dominated for over a decade, won 2 Cy Youngs in each league and will go down as one of the hardest pitchers ever to have been faced as admitted by his peers

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

It could probably go on forever.

It's a good debate. I understand and can see the merit in pretty much how everyone votes. I get the guys who don't vote for anyone in the steroids era. I get the guys that don't vote for suspicion. I get the guys that vote for just numbers. I get the guys that vote for peak years. I get the guys that vote regardless of steroids. It is a fun topic to discuss.

I don't want to reopen it if it already happened, where did you all stand on Halladay potentially getting a HOF bid?

He's a tough one. With all the CGs and such a low BB/9, the winning percentage, etc. I think he gets in. Not a first ballot guy but I think he'll be in there eventually. Not sure how I would vote on him TBH though. Also the no-hitter/perfect game.

 

[FLYguy3911]

This is still going on?

Everyday I go in this thread waiting to see some news or current discussion and just see blocks of words and crawl back to my hole.

Anyway for those that follow prospects, Adam Morgan and Shane Watson had/will have shoulder surgery. Sounds like Watson is having a "minor" cleanup and will be able to get some innings in the second half of the season. The outlook didn't seem as bright for Adam Morgan, but they said he could return by August. Not good news considering his standing as a prospect just a year ago.

 

[Hiesenberg]

That's bad for a team that needs young arms.

They invited their flame thrower to ST this year. He was in the AFL and basically chucking 99-101, his control is less than to be desired, so don't count him in.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

That's bad for a team that needs young arms.

They invited their flame thrower to ST this year. He was in the AFL and basically chucking 99-101, his control is less than to be desired, so don't count him in.

All too familiar.

 

[FLYguy3911]

That's bad for a team that needs young arms.

They invited their flame thrower to ST this year. He was in the AFL and basically chucking 99-101, his control is less than to be desired, so don't count him in.

Giles?

I believe he would be in the bigs or knocking on the door if he didn't get hurt last year.