Jump to content

Mussina does not make my HOF ballot


wildcard

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 430
  • Created
  • Last Reply
You wouldn't vote for Pedro?

I would like you to defend that position.

With the ballot going from 10 to 12 names Mussina would make my cut.

Pedro's 219 wins in not a first ballot choice for me.

Biggio's 3060 hits would be ahead on Pedro for me. But Randy is in a class by himself. I'd be happy if he was the only player voted in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pedro's 219 wins in not a first ballot choice for me.

Biggio's 3060 hit would be ahead on Pedro for me. But Randy is in a class by himself. I'd be happy if he was the only player voted in.

Pitching wins is the reason?

Wow.

So you wouldn't have put Drysdale in?

Oh wait...you said first ballot choice.

So you are one of those folks that put extra importance in if a guy makes it on the first ballot or not?

That makes less sense to me then the pitching wins portion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mussina deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He won't get there this year. Whether he gets enough votes this year to stay on the ballot in future years, or ever gets in, remains to be seen.

I'm not too worried a out the 5% stuff. The HOF process is broken enough that some kind of reform seems inevitable. There are so many overqualified candidates that even a hidebound organization like that will have to make a major overhaul.

The idea that Randy Johnson is the only qualified candidate this year is absolutely ludicrous. It's objectively indefensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not too worried a out the 5% stuff. The HOF process is broken enough that some kind of reform seems inevitable. There are so many overqualified candidates that even a hidebound organization like that will have to make a major overhaul.

The idea that Randy Johnson is the only qualified candidate this year is absolutely ludicrous. It's objectively indefensible.

They did reform it. They expanded the ballot from 10 to 12 names.

That will fix things.

Folks just need to accept the fact that PED users are already in the hall and vote in the steroid era guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pedro's 219 wins in not a first ballot choice for me.

Biggio's 3060 hits would be ahead on Pedro for me. But Randy is in a class by himself. I'd be happy if he was the only player voted in.

Pedro has a strong case for having the highest peak of any pitcher who ever lived. He has a better resume than probably 90% of current Hall of Famers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pitching wins is the reason?

Wow.

So you wouldn't have put Drysdale in?

Oh wait...you said first ballot choice.

So you are one of those folks that put extra importance in if a guy makes it on the first ballot or not?

That makes less sense to me then the pitching wins portion.

The HOF is all about prestige. Getting in on the first ballot is added prestige. Unanimous vote is the ultimate prestige.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not too worried a out the 5% stuff. The HOF process is broken enough that some kind of reform seems inevitable. There are so many overqualified candidates that even a hidebound organization like that will have to make a major overhaul.

The idea that Randy Johnson is the only qualified candidate this year is absolutely ludicrous. It's objectively indefensible.

I'm on the opposite end of things; I think there's 20 guys on the ballot that deserve to be in. Baseball is such a hard sport to figure out when it comes to the Hall of Fame. I'm convinced that certain guys are drunk or under the influence of something when they fill their ballots out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pedro has a strong case for having the highest peak of any pitcher who ever lived. He has a better resume than probably 90% of current Hall of Famers.

So vote for him. He doesn't make my ballot became to me the Hall is about being good for a long time to be a first rounders. Getting in after the first round is for those that are deserving but don't make that first cut. I have high standards because I think that is what the Hall should be. The best of the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • If you're projecting a future lineup without Mullins in 2026, then EBJ is a reasonable placeholder name to put in there. I would assume most people understand that it's not a sure thing to work out that way. 
    • Every year players are injured sliding head first into bags or even worse home plate. Just noticed that EBJ has a head injury from sliding head first into home (really dangerous and stupid) I'll say it again, what analytics driven organization will be the first to ban head first slides for all of their players I remember when David Sequi was a decent player and ended his career with a serious hand injury sliding head/hand first into home. Cal never slid head first, and wouldn't have been the iron man if he did.
    • Oh, I don't know. I thought when accusing someone of wild malpractice over possibly, maybe, slightly speeding up highlights that kind of opened the door to a little goofy exaggeration.
    • I was going to post something about this after reading about that on MLBTR this morning. That gives me a lot of hope for Bradish if this kid can come back from a UCL sprain and throw 103. Obviously, reliever vs. starter so who knows. But uplifting to read nonetheless. 
    • Hollocher hit almost exclusively 2nd in the order. The Cubs' 3rd hitters (and it was the Cubs, not the Indians as I previously stated) were mostly Marty Krug, Zeb Terry, and John Kelleher. Krug was awful for a 1922 3rd-place hitter, with an 83 OPS+ in his only season as a MLB regular, but he only struck out 43 times in 524 PAs. Terry was worse, OPS+ing 74, but with just 16 Ks in 571 PAs. And Kelleher was the worst of the bunch, OPS+ing 60, while striking out 14 times in 222 PAs. Cubs manager Reindeer Bill Killefer stuck hard and fast to the old rule of thumb that the catcher should bat 8th, even if it's Bob O'Farrell and he hit .324 with an .880 OPS. Ray Grimes had a 1.014 OPS and batted cleanup. But Hack Miller and his .899 OPS batted mostly 6th. Statz wasn't a terrible leadoff hitter, was one of only a couple players who had a SB% higher than 50%, but was 6th among their regulars in OBP. That's as bad a bunch of #3 hitters as I've seen in a while, yet the Cubs finished 80-74-2. Just goes to show you batting order doesn't really matter. Anyway, back to the main point... yes, I'm sure some of Hollocher's CS were busted hit-and-runs. But nobody that regularly batted behind him struck out in even 7% of PAs so they shoulda been putting the ball in play the vast majority of the time.    
    • Bobby needs to git gud. 
    • How many people actually said they were one of the greatest teams ever?   They did hit the snot out of the ball the first 9 games of the year, mostly in a 6 game series in a very hitter-friendly ball park against a bad pitching staff.  That said, they’re still second in the league in runs per game.  Their pitching has been problematic, yielding 6.50 runs per game.  
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...