Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Recommended Posts

The two magic numbers for pitchers seem to be 300 wins and/or 3000K and there a lot of pitchers who simply did that through longevity, that probably several pitchers of their generation, who were better, never did.  Its never an exact science, especially for those who dont quite get to some of those benchmarks.  To me its somewhat generational, where were you when we compare peers, there is sort of a minimum amount of time you needed to do it at a high level, but if you were REALLY GREAT sometimes that can shrink, and same with hanging on and accumulating stats if you were REALLY GREAT.  

 

Glavine has a benchmark, he also was a 10-time all star, which is more than Cone and Key combined. 

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

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, parrothead said:

The two magic numbers for pitchers seem to be 300 wins and/or 3000K and there a lot of pitchers who simply did that through longevity, that probably several pitchers of their generation, who were better, never did.  Its never an exact science, especially for those who dont quite get to some of those benchmarks.  To me its somewhat generational, where were you when we compare peers, there is sort of a minimum amount of time you needed to do it at a high level, but if you were REALLY GREAT sometimes that can shrink, and same with hanging on and accumulating stats if you were REALLY GREAT.  

 

Glavine has a benchmark, he also was a 10-time all star, which is more than Cone and Key combined. 

I tend to appreciate peak greatness over longer "good-ness." It's just a personal preference. All of these opinions deserve merit and discussion. That said, please don't mention all-star appearances lol. 

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

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.

Team success is, I agree. That goes back to the Jeter discussion. And will with Papi. But that's a different discussion than assigning each victory to a pitcher. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

 

40 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. 

 

I think writing off Glavine's career 305 wins as just being on a good team is a little short-sighted.  For starters, Glavine's career W-L% was .600, Key's was .614, and Cone's was .606.  The fact that Glavine has more wins comes from his longevity, which is something else I think you might be minimizing.  Glavine was a full-time MLB starter by age 22, two years earlier than both Key and Cone, and he had a 200 IP season at age 41, whereas Cone and Key had their last 200 IP seasons at 35 and 36.  He was an effective SP for essentially an extra 7 seasons more than either Key or Cone, which is very significant.

 

Also the assumption that the Braves won a lot of games therefore they gave Glavine superior run support isn't necessarily correct - maybe the Braves won more games because they had an ace pitching staff of Glavine, Maddux, Smoltz, etc.  If we look at Glavine's first Cy Young season in 1991, he won 20 games, and the Braves won 94 games and scored 749 runs.  Jimmy Key never won a Cy Young (another reason Glavine is where he is), but twice finished 2nd in AL CY voting.  In 1987 he had 17 wins with the Blue Jays, who won 100 games and scored 845 runs.  David Cone won the 1994 CY with 16 wins playing for the 61-win Royals, who only scored 574 runs, which was a great feat, but he also had some stat-padding years in NY, such as his 20-win 1998 season with a 108-win NYY team that scored 965 runs.

 

I haven't gone as deep as to find each player's career team win-loss records or their career run support, but I think this illustrates the point that you can't just say those Atlanta teams were great and helped Glavine win all those games.  Those early-90's Braves teams that were such powerhouses won most of their games because of elite pitching, not elite hitting that helped Glavine and Maddux rack up wins.  And those late-80's/early-90's Jays teams that Key played on, and the late-90's NYY teams of Cone were much bigger offensive forces.

 

I can see what you're saying about career ERA and WHIP, but I just don't think we can minimize a guy doing that for 22 years versus 15.  And not just 22 years in the majors, that's 19 years of at least 180 IP, which suggests a great amount of durability, compared to a guy like Cone who "played" for 17 years but only threw 180+ innings in 11 of those years.  It's really comparing two decades of greatness to a few bursts of greatness (although TBH I wouldn't be angry to see either Cone or Key in the Hall).

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

I tend to appreciate peak greatness over longer "good-ness." It's just a personal preference. All of these opinions deserve merit and discussion. That said, please don't mention all-star appearances lol. 

I do too, but its one of those deals where if were looking at saw a graph, kind of like looking at the stock market highs and lows, and we did that over the course of the history of the game there are guys whose "blips on the screen" would be higher than some in the HOF, because some of those guys just didnt do it long enough.  

 

And FWIW I kind of agree on the all star thing, but for pitchers, certainly in a generation back where there were less guys it can tell a story.  Look at guys like Bert Blyleven or Phil Neikro, two classic stat accumulators to get some of those magic numbers.  Between them they pitched like 45 seasons and totaled 6 or 7 all star games.  That just kind of shows me that for their generation, they were not among the GREATS, they were good to pretty good for a very long time and got to those magic benchmarks. 

 

I look at guys like Ron Guidry, Bret Saberhagen, Vida Blue - and their peak and greatness was higher than many who are in the Hall, they just never did it quite long enough or OFF THE CHARTS GREAT like Koufax
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, parrothead said:

The two magic numbers for pitchers seem to be 300 wins and/or 3000K and there a lot of pitchers who simply did that through longevity, that probably several pitchers of their generation, who were better, never did.  Its never an exact science, especially for those who dont quite get to some of those benchmarks.  To me its somewhat generational, where were you when we compare peers, there is sort of a minimum amount of time you needed to do it at a high level, but if you were REALLY GREAT sometimes that can shrink, and same with hanging on and accumulating stats if you were REALLY GREAT.  

 

Glavine has a benchmark, he also was a 10-time all star, which is more than Cone and Key combined. 

 

I agree with your generational aspect.  Just as positional players from the 1910's and 1920's have offensive numbers that can't compare to modern day hitters, I think the idea of having "benchmark" numbers for pitchers to get into the Hall is going to have to change as the game changes.  Overall I think you have to look at a player and say "was he a dominant player in his generation?" to determine how deserving he is.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@handyandy86

I get what you're saying. But the point is that Glavine pitched how he did, outside of the number of wins. For example, if Key or Cone end up on the Braves, it is likely that they rack up that number of wins. That's why you look at the more meaningful stats. So in essence, you're awarding one guy for the team he was on, & punishing guys for being on bad teams. This is essentially what happened to Tim Raines for years, before a few guys started really promoting his numbers in articles and on twitter. 

As far as longevity is concerned, "crafty lefties" always stay around longer than hard throwing RHP. See: Jamie Moyer. He's actually another great example of the longevity who ALMOST got to 300 wins. 

If you had to nominate one SP into the HOF of these 2, which would it be?

Jamie Moyer- 269 Wins, Two 20 win seasons, 4.25 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 48.2 fWAR

Kevin Brown- 211 Wins (Had a 1.89 ERA in 233 IP one season and only ended with 17 wins!?) 3.28 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 76.5 fWAR

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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-

 

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 are falling victim to your own argument, trying to discredit his wins because of his team.  But saying he was the 3rd best SP on his own team is a (more severe) judgement based on teammates.  Being the 3rd best SP on the team due to your team having 2 inner circle hall of fame pitchers is not a valid argument against someone.. 

 

And while we are at it, why were the Braves so elite?  I would argue it was precisely BECAUSE they had 3 hall of fame pitchers.  The fact that Maddux and Smoltz were amassing wins like crazy has no effect on Glavine's wins or losses.  In fact I just looked it up, and the years that the Braves and Glavine were great were approximately 1991 to 2002.  In those 12 years, the Braves were a slightly WORSE than average offense if you compare R/game to league average.  So discrediting Glavine's 300 wins because of his great team is not even accurate:  they were great because of their pitching, including Tom Glavine. 

 

(Just to provide stats:  Braves in those 12 years averaged 4.719 R/g; league average was 4.751)

 

 

Edited by merlin401
Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you had to nominate one SP into the HOF of these 2, which would it be?

Jamie Moyer- 269 Wins, Two 20 win seasons, 4.25 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 48.2 fWAR

Kevin Brown- 211 Wins (Had a 1.89 ERA in 233 IP one season and only ended with 17 wins!?) 3.28 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 76.5 fWAR"

 

 

Well, I'd nominate Kevin Brown in part because of those numbers. But even more because he was one of the best pitchers during the time he played (as was Tom Glavine), won a WS, was an all star most years, etc.

I'm not sure how any of that relates to Tom Glavine though. But ok.

Edited by Fiveohnine
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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. 

Glavine had 12 seasons with a WAR over 3, 6 top 3 CY finishes and was in 10 all-star games.

Cone had 10 seasons with a WAR over 3, 1 top 3 CY finishes and was in 6 all-star games.

Key had 8 seasons with a WAR over 3, 2 top 3 CY finishes and was in 4 all-star games.

 

David Cone and Jimmy Key were fine pitchers.  I do not think either belongs in the Hall of Fame though.  

 

Glavine was better and better for more seasons.  (he also had 2-3 very bad seasons at the beginning and at the end not unlike a lot of studs I suppose)

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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. 

But did the team win more games through his pitching (along with the other two) or did they win games despite him? Hard to penalize a player for being on a team that won a lot of games when he contributed to that team winning the games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Glavine had somehow vultured a bunch of his wins I could see how someone would hold that against him. But obviously the pitcher is the most important guy on the field. So to me, pitcher wins as a stat make perfect sense. Even Vegas will give back your action if the starting pitcher is scratched.

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

"If you had to nominate one SP into the HOF of these 2, which would it be?

Jamie Moyer- 269 Wins, Two 20 win seasons, 4.25 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 48.2 fWAR

Kevin Brown- 211 Wins (Had a 1.89 ERA in 233 IP one season and only ended with 17 wins!?) 3.28 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 76.5 fWAR"

 

 

Well, I'd nominate Kevin Brown in part because of those numbers. But even more because he was one of the best pitchers during the time he played (as was Tom Glavine), won a WS, was an all star most years, etc.

I'm not sure how any of that relates to Tom Glavine though. But ok.

It relates because no one is saying "But maybe Moyer had more wins because he made team better! Ever think of that?" Because there's a lot that tells us how good a pitcher is. Wins & longevity don't. This shows that. 

 

6 minutes ago, Nails101010 said:

Glavine had 12 seasons with a WAR over 3, 6 top 3 CY finishes and was in 10 all-star games.

Cone had 10 seasons with a WAR over 3, 1 top 3 CY finishes and was in 6 all-star games.

Key had 8 seasons with a WAR over 3, 2 top 3 CY finishes and was in 4 all-star games.

 

David Cone and Jimmy Key were fine pitchers.  I do not think either belongs in the Hall of Fame though.  

 

Glavine was better and better for more seasons.  (he also had 2-3 very bad seasons at the beginning and at the end not unlike a lot of studs I suppose)

 

 

 

 

 

-The CY Young Award, as recently as a couple years ago, was still weighted heavily on Wins. Kevin Brown in 1996 went 17-11 with a 1.89 ERA (lead league) and 0.944 WHIP (lead league, amongst starters) in 233 IP. He came in 2nd in CY voting to Smoltz, who was 24-8 with a 2.94 ERA. 

 

Speaking of, Kevin Brown had 12 seasons of 3+ WAR. Same as Glavine. Was statistically a better pitcher in EVERY WAY, except wins. Brown got 12 of a possible 581 votes and fell off on the first ballot. 

 

I'm not trying to bash Glavine. He was a top 10 pitcher in the 90s. He was definitely close. I just think he's been extremely overrated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

feels like I woke up one day and Beltre had gone from Pedro Feliz imitator in Seattle to HOF lock. what happened?

it's the defense right? I don't recall Beltre ever being an undisputed top-10 offensive force. offensively he peaked late. Four total seasons with an OPS above .900, three of which happened past the age of 31. He's got that magic hits number (3000) but needs 46 more homers for 500. I'm sure he has accumulated buttloads of WAR. I just never thought of him as a can't-miss-HOF level player. I prefer Chase Utley's peak to Beltre's, but I suppose Beltre has a big edge in longevity. Was Beltre really that much better than Scott Rolen? Very good but not dominant offensive player with superb defense at the hot corner? Rolen's offensive stats are more potent, but Beltre has played 20 seasons to Rolen's 17. Look I love Beltre, he's great for the game and amazing at third. I just see him getting grouped in with the 'locks', and I can't figure out what makes him so far superior to, say, Carlos Beltran.

 

Locks if careers ended today:

Miggy/Pujols- two of the four best natural right-handed hitters I've ever seen (A-Rod, Manny)

Kershaw -too good, for too long. best pitcher since.... Pedro?

Ichiro -already feels like an icon, a legend. one of the most unique and well-rounded players ever. showed how dynamic a player can be without being a burly slugger.

Votto- straight up, one of the best hitters of all-time. .964 career OPS over 11 seasons! Best Reds player since Barry Larkin. Like most true geniuses, he will only be properly revered with time, after his peak. 

 

guys who have 'the look':

by 'look' I mean they are young enough, and play at a high enough level, that if they sustain it over another 7-10 years they can be HOFers:

Mike Trout.  obviously.

Bryce Harper.  is he the 'Bonds' to Trout's 'Griffey'?

Jose Altuve-  remarkable player. He'll be two MVP awards deep before we finally rate him properly

Nolan Arenado- jaw-dropping defense and elite power production. the Mike Schmidt comps are not blasphemous. 

Paul Goldschmidt- got into the big game a little late, but so did Beltre-- and Goldy's at another level 

Carlos Correa- the most talented shortstop amongst a crew of talented shortstops. Him and Seager appear to be the most prolific offensive shortstops in some time.

Madison Bumgarner- Elite regular season stats. Arguably the best individual postseason run ever. For HOF, he needs longevity, and to avoid a Lincecum-like erosion of skills. 

Kenley Jansen- Apologies to Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel, but this is the guy. 

Trea Turner- the most dynamic, electric player I've seen since Ichiro. A potential .300-20homer-100steal player for the next half decade plus. 

Ronald Acuna- cccmmooonn booooooysss!!!!!  (no pressure)

 

 

 

Edited by ChicksDigTheOPS
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, handyandy86 said:

 

I agree with your generational aspect.  Just as positional players from the 1910's and 1920's have offensive numbers that can't compare to modern day hitters, I think the idea of having "benchmark" numbers for pitchers to get into the Hall is going to have to change as the game changes.  Overall I think you have to look at a player and say "was he a dominant player in his generation?" to determine how deserving he is.  

 

Agreed, the issue is "how long" do you have to be dominant, like does Tim Lincecum get in?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Low and Away said:

But did the team win more games through his pitching (along with the other two) or did they win games despite him? Hard to penalize a player for being on a team that won a lot of games when he contributed to that team winning the games.

Jimmy Key was on some really good teams too, so its not like he played for the Padres...

 

Baseball is such a fun sport to debate, I grew up most of my years in Northern California and one of the great debates my parents and friends would say is if Willie Mays played in Atlanta and Aaron in SF, it would of been Mays with all time HR record.  The point is there are so many "factors" that can impact numbers in the game 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, handyandy86 said:

 

 

I think writing off Glavine's career 305 wins as just being on a good team is a little short-sighted.  For starters, Glavine's career W-L% was .600, Key's was .614, and Cone's was .606.  The fact that Glavine has more wins comes from his longevity, which is something else I think you might be minimizing.  Glavine was a full-time MLB starter by age 22, two years earlier than both Key and Cone, and he had a 200 IP season at age 41, whereas Cone and Key had their last 200 IP seasons at 35 and 36.  He was an effective SP for essentially an extra 7 seasons more than either Key or Cone, which is very significant.

 

Also the assumption that the Braves won a lot of games therefore they gave Glavine superior run support isn't necessarily correct - maybe the Braves won more games because they had an ace pitching staff of Glavine, Maddux, Smoltz, etc.  If we look at Glavine's first Cy Young season in 1991, he won 20 games, and the Braves won 94 games and scored 749 runs.  Jimmy Key never won a Cy Young (another reason Glavine is where he is), but twice finished 2nd in AL CY voting.  In 1987 he had 17 wins with the Blue Jays, who won 100 games and scored 845 runs.  David Cone won the 1994 CY with 16 wins playing for the 61-win Royals, who only scored 574 runs, which was a great feat, but he also had some stat-padding years in NY, such as his 20-win 1998 season with a 108-win NYY team that scored 965 runs.

 

I haven't gone as deep as to find each player's career team win-loss records or their career run support, but I think this illustrates the point that you can't just say those Atlanta teams were great and helped Glavine win all those games.  Those early-90's Braves teams that were such powerhouses won most of their games because of elite pitching, not elite hitting that helped Glavine and Maddux rack up wins.  And those late-80's/early-90's Jays teams that Key played on, and the late-90's NYY teams of Cone were much bigger offensive forces.

 

I can see what you're saying about career ERA and WHIP, but I just don't think we can minimize a guy doing that for 22 years versus 15.  And not just 22 years in the majors, that's 19 years of at least 180 IP, which suggests a great amount of durability, compared to a guy like Cone who "played" for 17 years but only threw 180+ innings in 11 of those years.  It's really comparing two decades of greatness to a few bursts of greatness (although TBH I wouldn't be angry to see either Cone or Key in the Hall).

 

I guess you made this post while I was looking up the date for mine (slightly below yours). 

 

In the years 1991-2002 when Glavine and the Braves were at their peak, the Braves average runs/game was slightly below league average for that 12 year stretch.  So, indeed, the dominance of those teams was coming from the pitchers and those 300 wins are pretty legit (and not because he was pitching on some amazing offense or anything)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the lists. Many of the "locks" who we think will be in won't. The most recent example (though I'm sure there are a ton) is Andruw Jones. He came up early, had a ridiculous 9 year run (all 4.9 WAR or higher, 6 of them 6 WAR or higher) and then he completely flamed out. 

Mattingly another who had early success and probably looked like a lock at one point in his late 20s. 

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

@handyandy86

I get what you're saying. But the point is that Glavine pitched how he did, outside of the number of wins. For example, if Key or Cone end up on the Braves, it is likely that they rack up that number of wins. That's why you look at the more meaningful stats. So in essence, you're awarding one guy for the team he was on, & punishing guys for being on bad teams. This is essentially what happened to Tim Raines for years, before a few guys started really promoting his numbers in articles and on twitter. 

As far as longevity is concerned, "crafty lefties" always stay around longer than hard throwing RHP. See: Jamie Moyer. He's actually another great example of the longevity who ALMOST got to 300 wins. 

If you had to nominate one SP into the HOF of these 2, which would it be?

Jamie Moyer- 269 Wins, Two 20 win seasons, 4.25 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 48.2 fWAR

Kevin Brown- 211 Wins (Had a 1.89 ERA in 233 IP one season and only ended with 17 wins!?) 3.28 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 76.5 fWAR

 

Moyer pitched until he was 60 or it seemed that way, Cone and Key also played for some pretty good teams, i think Glavine's numbers in the steroid era are more than enough to get him in the hall of fame

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, parrothead said:

The two magic numbers for pitchers seem to be 300 wins and/or 3000K and there a lot of pitchers who simply did that through longevity, that probably several pitchers of their generation, who were better, never did.  Its never an exact science, especially for those who dont quite get to some of those benchmarks.  To me its somewhat generational, where were you when we compare peers, there is sort of a minimum amount of time you needed to do it at a high level, but if you were REALLY GREAT sometimes that can shrink, and same with hanging on and accumulating stats if you were REALLY GREAT.  

 

Glavine has a benchmark, he also was a 10-time all star, which is more than Cone and Key combined. 

 

Yeah 300 wins is going to become more and more rare.  With 5 man rotations being a staple on every team for decades now and some using 6 man rotations for parts of the season.  Couple that with bullpen usage / effectiveness.

 

Take Clayton Kersahw for example after 10 seasons of big league play he'll be shy of 150... He'd have to get 150+ wins in another 10 seasons which would put him at 39.  So it's possible but I wouldn't say probable and that's for one of the (if not the) greatest pitchers of all time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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. 

 

"Did it for a few more years" is an interesting way to put it.

 

Glavine pitched over 4400 innings to Cones almost 2900 & Keys almost 2600.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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.

 

 

"Ichiro is probably the greatest player ever" has to be one of the most negligent overstatements in this boards history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

 

"Ichiro is probably the greatest player ever" has to be one of the most negligent overstatements in this boards history.

probably right but his numbers are ridiculous 

 

add in 5 more years of 220 hits and 5 gold gloves (15 total) and he might be in the conversation (but will never know what he could of done age 22-27)

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...