Harold Baines.....Lee Smith in Hall of Fame

[Frobby]

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

These were reporters for goodness sake.  It was their job to look for things like that.  They were in the locker room.  No way all of them were ignorant of what was going on (except Boswell).

They chose not to report on it.  Just like Gammons never named the player he heard going on a racist tirade.

I don’t know what the reporters saw.   But I think you are misunderstanding my point a bit.  I’m talking about how the writers think about this stuff when they vote.    And I think they think:  “I saw Willie Mays drink from the spiked coffee pot and take pills from the jar, but all the players were doing it so he didn’t have an advantage over the others.     I never saw any player take steroids, but some are strongly suspected or proven to have done so and they  gained an advantage over the others.   So, I won’t vote for them.”

It’s not a perfect rationale, but you can see why writers think that way.   

As to what the writers’ job was, in most cases their job is to write about that day’s game and get a couple of quotes about it.    It’s not really the same job as covering the White House.   Anyway, read the Grantland piece, it’s a good synopsis of how media coverage of the steroid issue evolved.   

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Yes.  I'm basically annoyed because it's a Yankee and a closer.  Closers have value, I believe, especially if they're durable.  I just don't want Rivera to be the first to get 100%.   I never said I was rational about this.

I don't think Rivera would have been a success as a starting pitcher.

I think most successful starting pitchers could be an excellent closer for as long as they stayed healthy.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think Rivera would have been a success as a starting pitcher.

I think most successful starting pitchers could be an excellent closer for as long as they stayed healthy.

I don’t think many would have been as successful as Rivera.   Obviously we’ve seen guys like Eckersly and Smoltz dominate as closers for several years.    

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Frobby said:

I don’t think many would have been as successful as Rivera.   Obviously we’ve seen guys like Eckersly and Smoltz dominate as closers for several years.    

I didn't say otherwise.

He was remarkable healthy and maintained his stuff.

[Moose Milligan]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don’t think many would have been as successful as Rivera.   Obviously we’ve seen guys like Eckersly and Smoltz dominate as closers for several years.    

IIRC, Rivera's save percentage wasn't head and shoulders above the rest.  

He was also great in the postseason, minus a few really awesome hiccups.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

IIRC, Rivera's save percentage wasn't head and shoulders above the rest.  

He was also great in the postseason, minus a few really awesome hiccups.

He's a case of sustained excellence.

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

He's a case of sustained excellence.

So was Trevor Hoffman.  So was Lee Smith.

Were any of them Yankees?  Nope.  

[Es4M11]

11 hours ago, Frobby said:

Jones and Baines were very close in plate appearances through age 32, but Jones walked 250 fewer times so that’s 250 extra at bats in which to get his 4 extra hits.   Baines had a 121 OPS+ through age 32, Jones 108.    So, there’s really no doubt Baines was the better hitter through age 32 despite Jones’ slight advantage in hits.    And very few hitters age as gracefully as Baines did.    One of the sweetest, most effortless swings I ever saw.

I only watched him in his later years, but I was always impressed with how Baines could cover the outside part of the plate considering where he set up in the batters box.

[Frobby]

34 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

So was Trevor Hoffman.  So was Lee Smith.

Were any of them Yankees?  Nope.  

Rivera is the best of the group based on regular season stats.   And while he was in a unique position to be in the postseason every year, what he did on that stage is pretty incredible.    

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

Rivera is the best of the group based on regular season stats.   And while he was in a unique position to be in the postseason every year, what he did on that stage is pretty incredible.    

You're right.  And those points go hand in hand.   He was in a unique position to be in the postseason every year because he was a part of great regular season teams.

My point is that Rivera, while remarkably durable and truly great at what he did wasn't that much better than Hoffman when it comes to the percentage of saves made in save opportunities:  http://dorianocarta.com/save-percentage/  Hence, my comment about no one caring about Rivera had he pitched for the Padres.

 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

You're right.  And those points go hand in hand.   He was in a unique position to be in the postseason every year because he was a part of great regular season teams.

My point is that Rivera, while remarkably durable and truly great at what he did wasn't that much better than Hoffman when it comes to the percentage of saves made in save opportunities:  http://dorianocarta.com/save-percentage/  Hence, my comment about no one caring about Rivera had he pitched for the Padres.

 

Which afforded him more save opportunities.

[Moose Milligan]

13 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Which afforded him more save opportunities.

It's like we're sharing a brain.

[Frobby]

21 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

You're right.  And those points go hand in hand.   He was in a unique position to be in the postseason every year because he was a part of great regular season teams.

My point is that Rivera, while remarkably durable and truly great at what he did wasn't that much better than Hoffman when it comes to the percentage of saves made in save opportunities:  http://dorianocarta.com/save-percentage/  Hence, my comment about no one caring about Rivera had he pitched for the Padres.

 

Well, I hesitate to make a WAR-based argument after yesterday’s discussion, but:

Rivera 56.2 rWAR

Smith 29.0

Hoffman 28.0

By ERA, Rivera was more than .6 runs/9 better than Hoffman, and .9 better than Smith.    

When evaluating on save %, remember that at 90% you’re an all star, at 83% you’re out of a job nowadays).    So every percentage point has a lot of significance.   

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, Frobby said:

Well, I hesitate to make a WAR-based argument after yesterday’s discussion, but:

Rivera 56.2 rWAR

Smith 29.0

Hoffman 28.0

By ERA, Rivera was more than .6 runs/9 better than Hoffman, and .9 better than Smith.    

When evaluating on save %, remember that at 90% you’re an all star, at 83% you’re out of a job.    So every percentage point has a lot of significance.   

Ahhhhh, you did it.  You went there.  Made a WAR argument for CLOSERS, FROBBY.  May you get a lump of coal in your stocking tomorrow.  

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

Ahhhhh, you did it.  You went there.  Made a WAR argument for CLOSERS, FROBBY.  May you get a lump of coal in your stocking tomorrow.  

Why wouldn’t I make a WAR argument for a closer?    And I’m used to getting lumps of coal in my stocking.    Mom always did like my brother best.