Congratulations, Moose!

[Babypowder]

17 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

Quantity never equals quality and regardless of numbers I don't think Petitte passes the eye test. He's not a HOFer. 

I said I didn't believe Pettite was Hall worthy.

[foxfield]

2 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

I could care less about the fake hype regarding unanimous or not. It's all B.S. noise IMO. That aside, I don't think Jeter will be a unanimous HOF'er. There are some baseball writer types that ragged Jeter's defense pretty hard during his career and that thought his persona was fake. He will get some "no" votes.  Meaningless no votes, but some.  

Well, I don't disagree with you necessarily, but you are giving a reason to not vote him in.  I am ok with that opinion and others may well share it, who have an actual vote.  But holding back a vote...BECAUSE Cal, or Seaver or Griffey or Babe didn't get a unanimous vote is not really defensible.  That of course is my opinion and of course anyone who thinks they should not vote for a Jeter in the future, should have to give a reason why.  Which you did.

 

But it is not FAKE hype.  The hype has been real.  What has been fake is the reason behind it.  It has simply been because...

 

[Babypowder]

23 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I agree that relievers in general are overrated and the aren't hugely valuable because they only pitch 60-80 innings a year. But when you totally lap the field in your niche maybe that deserves some respect.  Since 1980 the leaders in relief rWAR are Rivera at 57, then Lee Smith at 29.  While maybe not as impactful, that's kind of like the all time HR leaders list when Ruth retired.

Pitchers Rivera out-rWAR's include: Whitey Ford, Sandy Koufax, Hoyt Wilhelm, Burleigh Grimes, Jack Morris, Dizzy Dean, Addie Joss, Jack Chesbro, Catfish, and at least a half-dozen more HOF starters.

No disrespect intended. The guy is easily the best reliever of my lifetime. I just don't the think the greatest baseball players ever are relievers. He became a reliever by not being good enough to start. I think WAR adequately assesses value and penalizes relievers fairly for the limited value their position provides. The same way it adjusts for every other position. 

[JR Oriole]

Rivera was better at his job than any other baseball player I have seen at their job.  He changed the game because you had to have a lead against or be tied with the Yankees after 8 or it was basically over.  That is some kind of pressure to put on an offense to make sure you are in that position.  Blown saves and losses in the 9th inning are extremely demoralizing, and he sure did a great job limiting those instances. 

Not only was he a ridiculously great regular season pitcher, but he absolutely excelled when it mattered the most....in October and for an organization and fanbase that is extremely unforgiving of regular season and postseason failures.  The fact that he has more World Series rings than blown saves in the playoffs, given the amount of times he was put in that position, makes what he accomplished truly remarkable.  Never showing up his opponents made him even easier to like and respect. 

There is definitely a place for advanced metrics, and we have seen it benefit other guys like Mussina.  But I don't need any advanced metrics whatsoever to tell me how valuable that dude was and that I was watching a first ballot HOFer every time I saw him pitch. 

[Ohfan67]

6 minutes ago, foxfield said:

Well, I don't disagree with you necessarily, but you are giving a reason to not vote him in.  I am ok with that opinion and others may well share it, who have an actual vote.  But holding back a vote...BECAUSE Cal, or Seaver or Griffey or Babe didn't get a unanimous vote is not really defensible.  That of course is my opinion and of course anyone who thinks they should not vote for a Jeter in the future, should have to give a reason why.  Which you did.

 

But it is not FAKE hype.  The hype has been real.  What has been fake is the reason behind it.  It has simply been because...

 

I think Jeter deserves to be in the HOF, no doubt about it. I was not advocating against his induction. But I don't think every sports journalist that gets to vote will vote "yes" on Jeter because a few will think he doesn't "deserve" to be a unanimous HOF'er. And yeah, that's dumb. He deserves to be in or not; the unanimous vote controversy is silly. Yes, I should not have used "fake" since the hype is "real"...real b.s. that is completely meaningless and easy to ignore. I should have said that instead of "fake". 

[Bradysburns]

I loved Moose when he was here, of course. And the Orioles mishandled the negotiations, probably because that was the height of Peter's ego days. 

But once he donned the Yankee uniform, as proudly and long as he did, he's dead to me. 

It makes no rational sense. I understand this is foolish, stupid and non-sensical. And yet... I don't care whether he goes in as a Martian. He's dead to me as a baseball player. 

[atomic]

37 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think everyone who is well above the average HOFer is deserving of a unanimous vote.  Excepeting cases where there are more than 10 above-average HOFers on the ballot at once.  Jeter is clearly above the average HOFer.  As much as I can't stand him, his career was about equal to double Harold Baines'.

I think Bonds and Clemens should be unanimous and they can't even get voted in. I think if you don't vote for Bond's and Clemens you don't get to vote next year. 

Jeter was a pretty poor fielding Shortstop. I don't see the need for him to be 100 percent.  

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Number5 said:

Actually, quantity has proven to be a very important consideration in HOF voting.  A guy like Dale Murphy definitely had some high-quality seasons, but didn't put up the quantity needed to be HOF-worthy.

For the Hall career length is very important.  Unless you're somebody like Hack Wilson or Sandy Koufax or Addie Joss.  Then it's all about peak.  Unless you're Harold Baines.  

Basically it's a collective eyeballing of whether the guy feels like a Hall of Famer at that moment.  Or another moment in 17 years when your buds get together and form a committee to elect guys who got 4% from the writers.
 

1 hour ago, Ohfan67 said:

I could care less about the fake hype regarding unanimous or not. It's all B.S. noise IMO. That aside, I don't think Jeter will be a unanimous HOF'er. There are some baseball writer types that ragged Jeter's defense pretty hard during his career and that thought his persona was fake. He will get some "no" votes.  Meaningless no votes, but some.  

I think Jeter will be close to 100% because the metrics guys who kill Jeter on defense also know it's not a big deal because he had a 70-win career.  To vote against him you have to set aside both the objective metrics and the subjective glorification, and just fall back on the idea that he's a Yankee pretty boy we don't like.  
 

1 hour ago, Babypowder said:

No disrespect intended. The guy is easily the best reliever of my lifetime. I just don't the think the greatest baseball players ever are relievers. He became a reliever by not being good enough to start. I think WAR adequately assesses value and penalizes relievers fairly for the limited value their position provides. The same way it adjusts for every other position. 

John Smoltz was probably one of the top 10 starters in baseball from '88-99.  He got hurt, and came back as a reliever from age 34-37 and was about as good as Rivera in his prime, then went back to being a very good starter in his late 30s.  That's one data point to suggest that Rivera-level production is about what you can expect out of a very good starter.

Dave Righetti was a pretty good starter in '82-83, with 3-win seasons by rWAR.  Transitioned to closer where kept being a 3-win pitcher for the next four years.

Of course Eck was an average starter (97 ERA+) from '83-86, then went to the pen and was about as good as Rivera for six years.  That suggests a decent starter can transition to being a HOF reliever.

In the end I think there are different types of pitcher who end up being excellent relievers.  Not everyone can be ready to go almost every day and have a 2.00 ERA consistently for years.  I think that it's an oversimplification to say that the best players don't become relievers.  Some pitchers are unhittable in short stints but just not that good in 6-8 inning chunks.

Another thing to consider is that there are roughly 50 Hall of Famers with lower rWAR totals than Rivera.  You could say that many Hall of Famers aren't necessarily the greatest baseball players ever, or at least defining "greatest ever" by using the Hall leads to a lot of inconsistent results.  By any reasonable meaure Rivera isn't even close to the worst Hall of Famer.

[Babypowder]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

For the Hall career length is very important.  Unless you're somebody like Hack Wilson or Sandy Koufax or Addie Joss.  Then it's all about peak.  Unless you're Harold Baines.  

Basically it's a collective eyeballing of whether the guy feels like a Hall of Famer at that moment.  Or another moment in 17 years when your buds get together and form a committee to elect guys who got 4% from the writers.
 

I think Jeter will be close to 100% because the metrics guys who kill Jeter on defense also know it's not a big deal because he had a 70-win career.  To vote against him you have to set aside both the objective metrics and the subjective glorification, and just fall back on the idea that he's a Yankee pretty boy we don't like.  
 

John Smoltz was probably one of the top 10 starters in baseball from '88-99.  He got hurt, and came back as a reliever from age 34-37 and was about as good as Rivera in his prime, then went back to being a very good starter in his late 30s.  That's one data point to suggest that Rivera-level production is about what you can expect out of a very good starter.

Dave Righetti was a pretty good starter in '82-83, with 3-win seasons by rWAR.  Transitioned to closer where kept being a 3-win pitcher for the next four years.

Of course Eck was an average starter (97 ERA+) from '83-86, then went to the pen and was about as good as Rivera for six years.  That suggests a decent starter can transition to being a HOF reliever.

In the end I think there are different types of pitcher who end up being excellent relievers.  Not everyone can be ready to go almost every day and have a 2.00 ERA consistently for years.  I think that it's an oversimplification to say that the best players don't become relievers.  Some pitchers are unhittable in short stints but just not that good in 6-8 inning chunks.

Another thing to consider is that there are roughly 50 Hall of Famers with lower rWAR totals than Rivera.  You could say that many Hall of Famers aren't necessarily the greatest baseball players ever, or at least defining "greatest ever" by using the Hall leads to a lot of inconsistent results.  By any reasonable meaure Rivera isn't even close to the worst Hall of Famer.

No argument there.

[DrungoHazewood]

Interesting bit of trivia... Mariano Rivera has an almost identical ERA, career innings pitched total, hits allowed, and batters faced as Babe Ruth.

Of course Ruth was a starter in an era where he could complete 107 of his 147 starts, and the league ERA during his time as a pitcher ranged from 2.66 to 3.22.  There were only two seasons at the tail end of Rivera's career where the AL ERA dipped slightly below 4.00.  So Rivera's ERA+ was 205, Ruth's was 122.

[El Gordo]

Always admired Moose. So few truly intelligent ball players.

[NCRaven]

Smartest guy in the locker room.  Just ask him.

[foxfield]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

For the Hall career length is very important.  Unless you're somebody like Hack Wilson or Sandy Koufax or Addie Joss.  Then it's all about peak.  Unless you're Harold Baines.  

Basically it's a collective eyeballing of whether the guy feels like a Hall of Famer at that moment.  Or another moment in 17 years when your buds get together and form a committee to elect guys who got 4% from the writers.
 

Yes and let's be honest, it's about the long ball, unless your somebody like Barry Bonds or Mark McGuire, then it's about the cream or the clear, I can't remember.  Or it's about 4000+ hits, unless your Pete Rose, then it's 5/2 against and I just can't bet on those odds.  Or maybe it's about winning the most Cy Young's, unless of course you are Roger Clemens, then it's about....well, I'll tell you what it's not about, it's not about the best players ever.

Unless you accept that in a sport where we not only debate the merits players from different era's against each other but we continue to develop new analytical measures to do so, that imperfect humans will continue to find ways to screw up the process and make a near mockery of the sport.

But enjoy it while it lasts.  We are a generation and a half away from just cloning players and then everyone will have Brooks Robinson at third base.  Well the Orioles may not, as Chris Davis's retirement negotiation package may not be paid off and the Orioles may be a little slow getting into the cloning market.  The upside is, in a generation and a half we will own the international market.

[tntoriole]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Interesting bit of trivia... Mariano Rivera has an almost identical ERA, career innings pitched total, hits allowed, and batters faced as Babe Ruth.

Of course Ruth was a starter in an era where he could complete 107 of his 147 starts, and the league ERA during his time as a pitcher ranged from 2.66 to 3.22.  There were only two seasons at the tail end of Rivera's career where the AL ERA dipped slightly below 4.00.  So Rivera's ERA+ was 205, Ruth's was 122.

Yes but Babe also hit 714 more HRs than Mariano did.   

[MurphDogg]