Jump to content

2 great Posnanski articles RE: HoF, sabermetrics, Blyleven and Raines


Moose Milligan

Recommended Posts

When I was a teenager living in Kansas City in the 1990's I used to read Posnanski all the time. He's always been a tremendous talent, and in that SABR article his arguments are great. I'm not big into the stats beyond, say, OBP, but when I read Posnanski's article, I get why they are good indicators.

We have a lot of people here who are proponents of this alphabet soup of stats but they hardly ever show why these stats work, they just tell, and for a lot of people, that doesn't work. This works--I'd be much more open to learning this stuff now.

Also, yes, Blyleven should be in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bert Blyleven has more shutouts than:

• Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez. Combined.

• Roger Clemens and Chris Carpenter. Combined.

• Greg Maddux, John Smoltz and Mark Buehrle. Combined.

• Tom Glavine, Mike Mussina and Brandon Webb. Combined.

• Orel Hershiser, Curt Schilling, Johan Santana and Bartolo Colon. Combined.

• Dave Stieb and Jack Morris. Combined.

• New York Yankees pitchers have had since 1988. Combined.

• The entire American League in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and... every year going back to 1992.

He also has more shutouts than every single pitcher of his era except Tom Seaver and Nolan Ryan, Hall of Famers who each have exactly ONE more shutout than Bert Blyleven.

[stuff deleted]

There have been only 27 pitchers in baseball history sturdy enough to throw 4,000 innings in the big leagues. Only eight of them are not in the Hall of Fame, and four of those -- Johnson, Clemens, Maddux and Glavine -- will be soon*. So these are some of the best ever. And when you compare Bert Blyleven to every pitcher in baseball history who threw 4,000 innings, his 118 ERA+ ties him for 10th overall. Every other pitcher who threw 4,000 innings with an ERA+ of better than 110 is in or going to the Hall of Fame.

This whole thing is *so* ridiculous.

Why the morons who vote don't put him in is completely beyond me.

Given who he played for, it doesn't surprise me that much that they missed him at first. But by now, this is insane...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thing is *so* ridiculous.

Why the morons who vote don't put him in is completely beyond me.

Given who he played for, it doesn't surprise me that much that they missed him at first. But by now, this is insane...

I think Blyleven gets in eventually. I don't think Raines gets in at all.

The funny thing about Blyleven is that his supporters point to his lack of playing for good teams....however, he did win two rings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Blyleven gets in eventually. I don't think Raines gets in at all.

The funny thing about Blyleven is that his supporters point to his lack of playing for good teams....however, he did win two rings.

IMO, this is sad. Raines was one of the best lead-off hitters to ever play the game. His career had both longevity and a peak that placed him as one of the most dominant & impactful talents of his era. It's mind-boggling to me that Lou Brock can get in on his first ballot and Raines struggles to get 25% of the vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Blyleven gets in eventually. I don't think Raines gets in at all.

The funny thing about Blyleven is that his supporters point to his lack of playing for good teams....however, he did win two rings.

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/12/28/daily-blyleven-12-28/

One of a thousand times Posnanski alone has pointed out:

Blyleven’s teams without him had a .496 winning percentage

I also saw an analysis done that suggested that if you switched Blyleven and Jim Palmer, so that each pitched for all the same teams as the other over the years, Blyleven likely would have ended up with well over 300 wins while Palmer drops down towards 240 or even fewer. Wish I could remember where it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, Raines stats are a no-brainer to get in - especially with that OBP over his career - phenomenal.

I've seen positive and negative articles on Blyleven, but the statistics make for a very strong case for him as well.

These guys seem to all short because of ridiculous intangibles like lack of WS rings and not being from NY, Boston or another city with better publicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raines was dominant for many years. He was the NL's Rickey Henderson. He could beat you in so many ways, just an amazingly fun player. He went to rehab for a cocaine problem, but it was not a long term issue. I am guessing that is effecting his vote totals because if you base your vote on numbers, performance, or comparing him to his peers or the era, he should be a shoo-in. After his time in rehab, under the tutelage of Andre Dawson he was thought of as a model citizen, example to younger players, and late in his career, coach on the field. I cannot figure how he is not a hall of famer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raines was dominant for many years. He was the NL's Rickey Henderson. He could beat you in so many ways, just an amazingly fun player. He went to rehab for a cocaine problem, but it was not a long term issue. I am guessing that is effecting his vote totals because if you base your vote on numbers, performance, or comparing him to his peers or the era, he should be a shoo-in. After his time in rehab, under the tutelage of Andre Dawson he was thought of as a model citizen, example to younger players, and late in his career, coach on the field. I cannot figure how he is not a hall of famer.

Yeah, I think Raines' main problems are the cocaine incident you mentioned, his lack of 3,000 hits, and most voters' refusal to admit the importance/impact of OBP and SB success rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't hurt Paul Moliter, and I wonder how many of the people who would penalize Raines for it voted for Moliter and downplayed the same thing.

Molitor's problem didn't last that long. Raines was the one who was diving headfirst into bases caue he was carrying vials of it in his back pocket.

That said, it didn't derail his career like Strawberry. It shouldn't be an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't hurt Paul Moliter, and I wonder how many of the people who would penalize Raines for it voted for Moliter and downplayed the same thing.

This point is well-made by Posnanski, and certainly well taken ... but then again I question how many people actually remember that Molitor was implicated in the cocaine trials, as opposed to Raines, who will forever be remembered as The Guy Who Always Slid In Headfirst So As Not Break The Vial Of Blow In His Back Pocket.

Not saying it's right; just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thing is *so* ridiculous.

Why the morons who vote don't put him in is completely beyond me.

Given who he played for, it doesn't surprise me that much that they missed him at first. But by now, this is insane...

I'm a huge supporter of Blyleven's HOF case, but the shutouts thing is a pretty poor way of showing how great he was. Except for that throwaway sentence about Ryan and Seaver all the comps are of Blyleven to guys who pitched in a different era where complete games were rare. Of course he's going to have more shutouts.

I mean, Milt Pappas has more shutouts than Mike Mussina and Kevin Brown, combined.

Tommy John has as many shutouts as Bret Saberhagen, John Smoltz, and Roy Halladay, combined.

Vida Blue has more shutouts than Chris Carpenter, Tim Hudson, and CC Sabathia, combined.

Not too many people have established HOF rooting committees for Blue, John, or Pappas. Blyleven is one of the top 30 or 40 pitchers, ever, but there are better ways to show it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molitor's problem didn't last that long. Raines was the one who was diving headfirst into bases caue he was carrying vials of it in his back pocket.

That said, it didn't derail his career like Strawberry. It shouldn't be an issue.

Didn't last that long? How would you know? Were you Molitor's dealer or something? Seems strange that someone would vote for one guy over another (with similar careers, similar types of players, similar values - slight edge to Raines) based on a coke habit that lasted 18 months instead of three years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Posts

    • 1:2 is good.  Elite is a player like Arraez who is 1+:1.  
    • https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/40027950/ravens-pick-nate-wiggins-nfl-draft-dabo-swinney-text  
    • Was reading Wiggins write up on ESPN. He appears to be more of a home run threat than Koolaid. He had a pick 6 each of the last 2 years.  
    • Starting point has changed.  Given the fact he has approx 1/7th of his season in the books at 1.139, to OPS just .780 for the season, he'd have to drop off to under .730 the rest of the way.  That sort of drop off wouldn't be acceptable to me. I'd like him to OPS .800 the rest of the way for roughly .850 for the season.  The more they use him in a platoon role, the better I think that number might be.
    • Can I ask how you timed it vs the DVR?  Did you use a stopwatch or count click with pause/FF, or something else?
    • I can’t fathom why anyone would want a Tanner Scott return. In 10 innings, he is 0-4 with a 1.78 whip. He was maddening before, and now he’s older. But I wonder if the Red Sox would part with Justin Slaten? He’s been pretty outstanding. Yeah, only 8 innings, but we hired Yohan Ramirez, and he’s been a catastrophe in 10. Yes, I know he’s a rule 5, and the Bosox are in the East. And their pitching is pretty thin, too. But they know they aren’t going anywhere in this division, and they might think getting a good return for a Free Rule 5 guy might be worthwhile.
    • This draft unfolded weirdly.  First with the *nix guys getting taken early and then how no defensive players got taken all draft, and then a bunch of teams reaching for OTs.  I'm pretty happy with how the draft unfolded because I think we got a player that I expected to be gone by the teens or early 20s.  I don't know what we're doing with our OL but hopefully we can maybe trade up from 62 to pick someone up.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...