Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, merlin401 said:

 

I think that is crazy!! A 300 game winner who was a six time top 3 in Cy young voting and a world champion?  How is that not a total obvious case? (And I hate the Braves)

He was getting CY votes for 20 win seasons. Again, on great Braves teams. 

Career 3.52 ERA in the NL. 5.32 K/9 

He was good. Nothing screams "greatness" except Wins. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

22 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

He was getting CY votes for 20 win seasons. Again, on great Braves teams. 

Career 3.52 ERA in the NL. 5.32 K/9 

He was good. Nothing screams "greatness" except Wins. 

 

Something to be said for longevity and durability.  Guy pitched 4400 innings.

 

Only pitched fewer than 180 in one season (save for his first and last season).

 

That's almost unheard of now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Backdoor Slider said:

He was getting CY votes for 20 win seasons. Again, on great Braves teams. 

Career 3.52 ERA in the NL. 5.32 K/9 

He was good. Nothing screams "greatness" except Wins. 

 

Maybe you are judging him by this eras standards?  In a 16 year stretch is ERA+ was above average in all but one season (his age 37 season), and it was well above average in 13 of 16 years.  Consistently very very good for an abnormally long time = greatness.  It's a different type of greatness than inner circle guys or those with dominant peaks like Koufax, but it's hall of fame worthy greatness all the same 

Edited by merlin401
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, Backdoor Slider said:

He was getting CY votes for 20 win seasons. Again, on great Braves teams. 

Career 3.52 ERA in the NL. 5.32 K/9 

He was good. Nothing screams "greatness" except Wins. 

 

I'm glad someone sees it the same way I do.

 

I'd go a step further and say Glavine was getting Cy votes and ASG nods in a period where people literally only looked at two stats: W-L record and ERA.

 

I will say I bring it up not to impugn Glavine but to provide a counter to the argument that guys like Johan Santana "were not good enough long enough". Well, you have guys like Glavine who were the opposite: good but not great for looong time periods.

 

And fwiw Glavine was not great in the postseason either.

 

Hey, since Glavine's in can we put Mike Mussina in?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, merlin401 said:

 

Maybe you are judging him by this eras standards?  In a 16 year stretch is ERA+ was above average in all but one season (his age 37 season), and it was well above average in 13 of 16 years.  Consistently very very good for an abnormally long time = greatness.  It's a different type of greatness than inner circle guys or those with dominant peaks like Koufax, but it's hall of fame worthy greatness all the same 

I didn't even think Glavine was really debatable.  He was really, really good for a very long time.  Like it or not, 300 wins IS a magic number too.  

 

He started and ended awful, but he was one of the best pitchers in the NL on one of the great staffs in baseball history.  

 

Tom Glavine is very deserving.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, My Dinner With Andre said:

 

 

I'm glad someone sees it the same way I do.

 

I'd go a step further and say Glavine was getting Cy votes and ASG nods in a period where people literally only looked at two stats: W-L record and ERA.

 

I will say I bring it up not to impugn Glavine but to provide a counter to the argument that guys like Johan Santana "were not good enough long enough". Well, you have guys like Glavine who were the opposite: good but not great for looong time periods.

 

And fwiw Glavine was not great in the postseason either.

 

Hey, since Glavine's in can we put Mike Mussina in?

"were not good enough long enough" is a perfect logical reason for someone not getting into the Hall IMO.  

Just as, being really good for an extended period of time is a logical reason for someone getting in.

 

I DO agree that Mussina belongs in.  So does Schilling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, merlin401 said:

 

Maybe you are judging him by this eras standards?  In a 16 year stretch is ERA+ was above average in all but one season (his age 37 season), and it was well above average in 13 of 16 years.  Consistently very very good for an abnormally long time = greatness.  It's a different type of greatness than inner circle guys or those with dominant peaks like Koufax, but it's hall of fame worthy greatness all the same 

He also pitched in the steroid era which makes his numbers that much better

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glavine is going to the HOF. 2 Cy Youngs, perennial all star. Personally I don't even think that one is borderline. I also think being very good (but not necessarily great) for a very very long time means even more for a pitcher than a hitter, considering how nowadays every other guy gets TJS. Sabermatricians may tend to discount his 300 wins. But wins are a stat that will always matter a lot to every one else because of the moneyline.

Also, I suppose it doesn't bode well for your chances when people don't even know how to spell your name. But personally I think Torii (not Torri) Hunter will make it in.

Edited by Fiveohnine
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, azeri98 said:

He also pitched in the steroid era which makes his numbers that much better

@merlin401 & @Nails101010

 

Trust me I get that. I'm well aware. Here's my issue with longevity. Tom Glavine wasn't elite. He was often the 3rd best SP on his own team.

Here are 2 comps from the 90s-

 

David Cone- 3.46 ERA, 8.28 K/9, 1.26 WHIP 

Jimmy Key- 3.51 ERA, 5.34 K/9, 1.23 WHIP

Tom Glavine- 3.54 ERA, 5.32 K/9, 1.31 WHIP

 

Tom Glavine was basically an equal or slightly worse version of David Cone and Jimmy Key. He just happened to be on an elite team. And he did it for a few more years to get to 300. 

Some of this ultimately comes down to "Small Hall" debate, but I have a hard time reconciling the fact that when I watched these guys, Glavine wasn't that elite until he racked up wins. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

@merlin401 & @Nails101010

 

Trust me I get that. I'm well aware. Here's my issue with longevity. Tom Glavine wasn't elite. He was often the 3rd best SP on his own team.

Here are 2 comps from the 90s-

 

David Cone- 3.46 ERA, 8.28 K/9, 1.26 WHIP 

Jimmy Key- 3.51 ERA, 5.34 K/9, 1.23 WHIP

Tom Glavine- 3.54 ERA, 5.32 K/9, 1.31 WHIP

 

Tom Glavine was basically an equal or slightly worse version of David Cone and Jimmy Key. He just happened to be on an elite team. And he did it for a few more years to get to 300. 

Some of this ultimately comes down to "Small Hall" debate, but I have a hard time reconciling the fact that when I watched these guys, Glavine wasn't that elite until he racked up wins. 

You can't forget Tom Glavine won 300 games. Wasn't he first ballot?

 

 

Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, merlin401 said:

I may be missing someone but here is my list of current players

 

lock right now:

pujols

miggy

ichiro

Beltre (moved to lock with 3000 hits)

 

likely in right now:

beltran

 

lock assuming nothing catastrophic occurs:

trout

kershaw

 

trajectory means they will be in assuming normal aging curve:

cano

votto

Posey 

bumgarner 

scherzer

altuve (long way to go obviously, along with the rest here)

goldy

stanton

harper

machado 

 

a case can be made but not sure

utley 

mauer 

Mccutchen (pending rest of career)

yadier 

Greinke 

king Felix 

 

special cases, steroids cloud: 

Ortiz (in, people love him anyway)

braun (out)

 

 

Killing time in a waiting room, thought I would make a list, but apparently you read my mind and beat me to it.

 

only thing i would change is that utley  is a sure fire hall of famer in the same class as Adrian belter (longevity).

 

ichiro is probably the greatest player ever (not a fan boy).

 

king Felix is probably a lock.

 

scherzer reminds me too much of curt schilling (late bloomer who didn't have a long enough track record), with that said though, schilling is still going strong.

 

 

cano is already a hall of famer in my books.

 

posey is very close too.

 

cheers, great list.

 

Edited by agk47
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

You can't forget Tom Glavine won 300 games. Wasn't he first ballot?

 

 

Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Yes. I did not forget that Glavine was on a great team and his team won a lot more games, racking up his win total. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, agk47 said:

 

 

Killing time in a waiting room, thought I would make a list, but apparently you read my mind and beat me to it.

 

only thing i would change is that utley  is a sure fire hall of famer in the same class as Adrian belter (longevity).

 

ichiro is probably the greatest player ever (not a fan boy).

 

king Felix is probably a lock.

 

scherzer reminds me too much of curt schilling (late bloomer who didn't have a long enough track record), with that said though, schilling is still going strong.

 

 

cano is already a hall of famer in my books.

 

posey is very close too.

 

cheers, great list.

 

Utley will not see the Hall... didn't even reach 2,000 hits

 

Felix won't make the Hall

 

Cano is on his way ... and I have to believe he will be inducted

 

Ichiro for sure

 

Max & Buster have more work to do

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

Yes. I did not forget that Glavine was on a great team and his team won a lot more games, racking up his win total. 

was it first ballot?

 

Hey you think he shouldn't be in the Hall. That is your opinion ... glad you don't have a ballot

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

was it first ballot?

 

Hey you think he shouldn't be in the Hall. That is your opinion ... glad you don't have a ballot

Not sure why you're getting so defensive. Relax, adults are having a conversation. Feel free to discuss the stats I gave in a mature matter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Backdoor Slider said:

Yes. I did not forget that Glavine was on a great team and his team won a lot more games, racking up his win total. 

So all he did was win real baseball games on real winning baseball teams.

But for the HOF, what really matters is how many -fantasy- championships he won us?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Backdoor Slider said:

@ComericanPie

 

We agree on a few things. Jeter was great, but also overrated as a defensive player and because he's "The Captain" on the Yankees. 

I think we also agree that Johnny Damon was very good, and probably underrated. 

My only point was that the entire article never even mentioned their positions, WHICH IS A HUGE FACTOR.

WAR takes that into account, and Damon finished his career at 44.5 fWAR, while Jeter finished at 71.8 fWAR. Basically, those numbers are easier to replace in the OF than they are at SS. That's important. 

Side note: Beltre is not considered "fringe Hall" by anyone with any type of knowledge of the game. He is already the 3rd or 4th greatest 3B EVER. I would bet large amounts of money that he will be a 1st ballot HOF. He's currently one of 5 players at any position ever to have 3,000 hits, 400 HR, 600 doubles. Oh, and he's also an elite defender with 5 (deserved) gold gloves. It is very like that he'll reach 500 HR, and at that point will be the only player EVER to have those distinctions. 

I kind of agree on Jeter, I always said if he played in Milwaukee, he is Paul Molitor.  Their career numbers are very similar, and Molitor was 1st ballot HOF.  

Molitor 3319 H   Jeter 3465

HR  Molitory 234 Jeter 260

RBI Molitor 1307 Jeter 1311

SB Molitor 504 Jeter 358

R Molitory 1782 Jeter 1923  

 

Jeter .310 career avg Molitor .306

 

But from a hype standpoint the fact he captained and played entire career with Yankees, the sports iconic franchise, during one of their most successful eras, obviously led to his popularity.  But no doubt whether a little overhyped or not, he is still a FBHOF

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fiveohnine said:

So all he did was win real baseball games on real winning baseball teams.

But for the HOF, what really matters is how many -fantasy- championships he won us?

Stop. That's not what I said. I never mentioned fantasy baseball. Don't start with the strawman crap please.

His TEAM won games. Often when he pitched. Because he was really good, and so was the team. My point, which was very clear, is that he wasn't a better PITCHER than Cone or Key. 

Obviously I think it's silly that team wins are assigned to one person. You don't. That's fine. But I think almost everyone agrees a pitcher's "win" isn't indicative of how he pitched. There's way too many variables. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Utley should be interesting. He had a short peak. He was a force for 5-6 years and pretty ordinary for the remainder of his 15 year career. So for 2/3 of his career he was kind of meh. And before some Utley fan boy starts in on me by meh in those years, I mean decent, not great, certainly not HOF type numbers.

Edited by fletch44
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Backdoor Slider said:

...Obviously I think it's silly that team wins are assigned to one person. You don't. That's fine. But I think almost everyone agrees a pitcher's "win" isn't indicative of how he pitched. There's way too many variables...

Baseball is a team sport. If the team doesn't win, then the stats are only going to mean so much. That's just the way it is in sports. Not just baseball. Guys like Jordan, Brady, Russell, Magic, etc. are judged as great in large part because of team wins. That's just the nature of team sports.

But even just as a statistic, pitcher wins are very useful for the moneyline, like I said earlier. Just not fantasy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...