Andy Petitte Hall Of Famer?

[LorenzoDeMedici]

Originally Posted by LISteve

It's one thing to not talk to the sportswriters and it is another thing to be outride rude or a dick to them. Let's face it .. some of these superstars are huge pieces of shit that take every opportunity to be rude. I bet you would be shocked at some of the things some of these guys have done. I would love to hear some stories. If we heard the truth maybe we wouldn't blame the voters. HOWEVER ... if a sportswriter didn't vote for Scooter because he wouldn't buy him a drink ... that guy should have had his voting priviledges yanked.

...I would not be shocked by anything. I am quite sure(have heard and seen) what dicks they can be(to the sportswriters). And I honestly don't care...when it comes to them being considered for the HOF. In EVERY walk of life/business organization/group of people you are going to have some assholes(we have some here and I'm sure some sportswriters too). bUt when it comes to simply deciding whether or not someone deserves a "Prolific" honor or award. Then that is not part of the criteria. Especially when there is no way to be just about it. The HOF is full of shitty human beings(but PROLIFIC Athletes!) What basis is there for denying a more recent Shitty one....NONE.
Hell in my personal business I just gave a guy who I had a falling out with and I generally think is a shitty person, a HUGE year end bonus...why? ...simple...He earned it!

[LorenzoDeMedici]

Originally Posted by LorenzoDeMedici

..I REALLY wanna hear from the 2 people who voted
"Yes No Brainer First Ballot" Please state your case whoever you are?

Seriously? What exactly would you base this decision on?

[LorenzoDeMedici]

JIM RICE
I watched him play a ton of times. As a Reds fan I could not watch my team so I watched almost every Yankee game I could in the 70's.
For Years(before the prolific internet age) all I heard or read was that Jim Rice was not being voted in because he was "surly" and generally "un-cooperative" with the media. Not that it was the Only reason but that it was a large part of it. WTF!! I always felt he was a clear HOFer. Certainly not first ballot but should have made it sometime between years 2 and 7 of eligibility. The fact that a guy like Ron Santo was ahead of him most of those years is a F%^ing joke. But because of his supposed reputation he was always being held back. And yet ...Now for giggles and shits I decide to google his name I find things like this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof09/...reg&id=4353486

and this:

http://jimmyfund.com/ImgGallery.asp?...index=8&page=1

and more. So I say F%$%^ the sportswriters.......Seriously!!...RON SANTO??

[LorenzoDeMedici]

<<< not sure what exactly you were referencing with Cal Ripken but check this out and just look at the myriad of names who actually got HOF votes year by year. Downright amazing!

http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/...year?year=2007

[LorenzoDeMedici]

..Speaking of Rice. And then Dave Winfield gets voted in, in only his second year. Ahead of Rice.

And Andre Dawson gets voted in, his 9th year of eligibilty and doesnt even belong.

[Heartbreaker]

One of the biggest problems I see is that some sportswriter will not vote for Player A because he believes Player B is more deserving. So, until Player B gets in, said sportswriter continuously does not vote for Player A. Player A is usually someone who said sportswriter covered, so they are not truly objective.

Then you have the whole unanamious voting bullshit where they believe no player should receive 100% of the vote. If I am mistaken, didn't Tom Seaver have the highest % with like 95%? So, I guess there was some asshole who didn't think Tom Seaver was a HOF?

What a crock of shit.

A player is either a HOF or they aren't. I would also like to see the voting results made public and then defend their stance.

I always see these type of articles written by guys who vote, especially the NFL.

[Ozzy]

Originally Posted by LorenzoDeMedici

<<< not sure what exactly you were referencing with Cal Ripken but check this out and just look at the myriad of names who actually got HOF votes year by year. Downright amazing!

http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/...year?year=2007

No particular reason. I was trying to reference a recent "first ballot" type who didn't get a unanimous vote and just drew a blank on anyone not tainted by steroids or something else. Could have used Tom Seaver or Willie Mays (I think Seaver was tops when it came to the highest % of votes). But look at Mays in 1979 as a perfect example... he only got 94% of the vote. 407 out of a possible 432... that means of the 432 writers that year of which I think each get 5 or 6 votes to cast.... 23 dopes actually thought there were 5 or 6 more deserving that year than Mr. Say Hey. It's either a case of closet racism or plain fucking stupidity. Either way the 23 should have been publicly exposed and had their voting rights rescinded for life.

[Ozzy]

Originally Posted by Heartbreaker

One of the biggest problems I see is that some sportswriter will not vote for Player A because he believes Player B is more deserving. So, until Player B gets in, said sportswriter continuously does not vote for Player A. Player A is usually someone who said sportswriter covered, so they are not truly objective.

But here's the really absurd thing... Each writer gets mulitple votes. They did this in part so you can still vote for your player B and still have another few votes to use for the sure thing and the more deserving players (Mays, Seaver etc...). The fact a writer chooses to vote for his player (player B) with one vote and still not find a way to vote for the sure thing or more deserving is nothing but a sign of disrespect for the hall of fame itself.

[Heartbreaker]

Originally Posted by Ozzy

But look at Mays in 1979 as a perfect example... he only got 94% of the vote. 407 out of a possible 432... that means of the 432 writers that year of which I think each get 5 or 6 votes to cast.... 23 dopes actually thought there were 5 or 6 more deserving that year than Mr. Say Hey. It's either a case of closet racism or plain fucking stupidity. Either way the 23 should have been publicly exposed and had their voting rights rescinded for life.

Thanks for posting these specifics. And I didn't realize the racism aspect.

[pudgy.in.the.middle]

Originally Posted by Ozzy

No particular reason. I was trying to reference a recent "first ballot" type who didn't get a unanimous vote and just drew a blank on anyone not tainted by steroids or something else. Could have used Tom Seaver or Willie Mays (I think Seaver was tops when it came to the highest % of votes). But look at Mays in 1979 as a perfect example... he only got 94% of the vote. 407 out of a possible 432... that means of the 432 writers that year of which I think each get 5 or 6 votes to cast.... 23 dopes actually thought there were 5 or 6 more deserving that year than Mr. Say Hey. It's either a case of closet racism or plain fucking stupidity. Either way the 23 should have been publicly exposed and had their voting rights rescinded for life.

I forgot about Mays, that was a travesty.

[Ozzy]

Originally Posted by Heartbreaker

Thanks for posting these specifics. And I didn't realize the racism aspect.

Has to be something especially in Mays case becase 94% is petty low for someone of his stature. I gotta look and see What Mantle got. But in 1979 there were still a lot of those old southern beat writers around who got a vote.

[LorenzoDeMedici]

Originally Posted by Ozzy

Has to be something especially in Mays case becase 94% is petty low for someone of his stature. I gotta look and see What Mantle got. But in 1979 there were still a lot of those old southern beat writers around who got a vote.

...Mantle only got 88%
My point is aside from percentages. WhyTheF%$ are some of these names even on the list getting votes at all.??

[pudgy.in.the.middle]

The HoF voters are like umps, they usually make the right call but they make some doosies that everyone questions their judgement...I guess it is consistent with baseball.

[LorenzoDeMedici]

AT this stage(1990) Only 3 of these guys should have gotten any votes At All.
All anywhere from good to very good only 3 of em Great! but not quite HOF material...Clearly. As an average fan during that generation it would have been Easy for even Me to tell ya that. But collectively they got over 530 votes? Which meant...

Boyer, Ken 78 17.6%
*Allen, Dick 58 13.1%
Torre, Joe 55 12.4%
Minoso, Minnie 51 11.5%
Face, Roy 50 11.3%
Tiant, Luis 42 9.5%
Pinson, Vada 36 8.1%
*Flood, Curt 35 7.9%
Munson, Thurman 33 7.4%
*Bonds, Bobby 30 6.8%
Lolich, Mickey 27 6.1%
Lyle, Sparky 25 5.6%
McGraw, Tug 6 1.4%
Dent, Bucky 3 0.7%
Watson, Bob 3 0.7%
Monday, Rick 2 0.5%
Piniella, Lou 2 0.5%
Rivers, Mickey 2 0.5%
Luzinski, Greg 1 0.2%
Remy, Jerry 1 0.2%
Torrez, Mike 1 0.2%
Bibby, Jim 1 0.2%

[LorenzoDeMedici]

...meant that the years they got in other guys had to wait and so on

Perry, Gaylord 320 72.1%
Jenkins, Fergie 296 66.7%
Bunning, Jim 257 57.9%
Cepeda, Orlando 211 47.5%
Mazeroski, Bill 131 29.5%

and this guy never did.(maybe rightfully so)

Oliva, Tony 142 32%

[LorenzoDeMedici]

Originally Posted by pudgy.in.the.middle

The HoF voters are like umps, they usually make the right call but they make some doosies that everyone questions their judgement...I guess it is consistent with baseball.

..They are not making a split second decision. They have a careers worth of time to make their judgement.

[LorenzoDeMedici]

....Really wish chels was chiming in here.

[LISteve]

One thing not mentioned here is a popular belief among the voters that practically NOBODY should get in on the first vote. That is why you don't see no brainers getting 100%. I think it's stupid but that's the explanation they give ... they just don't believe in voting for anyone in their first year of eligibility.

[morgan2]

only because the HOF is too watered down now. sutton and blyleven, good pitchers, but never the best or near the best for any particular year. pettite has it over both of them.

[nychelsea]

With all respect to OZ, I think Andy P's post season record is something special. I would vote for him if he was the only one on the ballot. But let's see who his competition is. Another issue is redefining standards for 5 man rotation modern pitchers. If 300 wins is the HOF standard, there won't be many starting pitchers getting as the years go on.

All this said, I understand why many folks do not agree with me about Andy P. It is a tough call based on the numbers.

My 2 cents.

Chels

[nychelsea]

Originally Posted by pudgy.in.the.middle

I forgot about Mays, that was a travesty.

You are so right pudgy. That Mays was not unanimous is a blight on the voters who didn't vote for him. I think Mays and Mantle were two of the most special players in the game. I saw both of them play many times, and could never distuinguish (or care about who was better). They were legit 5 toolers and how many others can you name!

Chels,

Baseball fan

[nychelsea]

Originally Posted by LorenzoDeMedici

....Really wish chels was chiming in here.

Thanks Lorenzo. I just haven't been on the site for a few days.

Chels

[LorenzoDeMedici]

Originally Posted by morgan2

only because the HOF is too watered down now. sutton and blyleven, good pitchers, but never the best or near the best for any particular year. pettite has it over both of them.

...mostly about Sutton.
but Blyleven gets a bad rap for "Just" being a compiler. The guy had a sub 3.0 era, a 1.17 WHIP, almost 3 to1 K to BB ratio and over 200Ks per year average for an entire decade in the 70's in the American League. OBTW when on the off chance(because he played on such shitty teams) he did get to the post season all he did was go 5-1 with a 2.47era 1.07 WHIP and 4.5 K ot BB ratio! That's pretty freakin dominant in my eyes. And the truth is while not what you would call a "dominating statistic" the fact that these guys just literally devoured innings for such a long time, even more so than most of their peers is rather remarkable. Lastly in Blylevens case the fact that he had such an impressive era and also so many innings means he had to go deep in games and still get outs to achieve that. That's rather impressive! a 3.0 era averaging 250innings per year to me is in some ways "more dominant" than a 2.8 averaging 180 innnings per year. Think about it this way. Your in the dugout as a hitter in the 7,8,9th innings and you see him go to the mound AGAIN! In your mind it's like holy shit what do we gotta do to knock this guy out. Trust me that happens.

[LorenzoDeMedici]

...since I'm enjoying this so much. I look up Blyleven. And I know this is going off topic but..the first thing that pops out at me on this line is...
1 SP Bert Blyleven 22 20 -17 2.52era 325.0IP

...Notice the # to the right of his name that's his age 22! and the Innings Pitched 325!! OMG your gonna ruin the kid's arm it's gonna fall off. Nope he goes on to pitch 20 more Freakin years and avg over 250IP per.

[pudgy.in.the.middle]

Originally Posted by nychelsea

YI think Mays and Mantle were two of the most special players in the game. I saw both of them play many times, and could never distuinguish (or care about who was better). They were legit 5 toolers and how many others can you name!

Chels,

Baseball fan

The closest one in this era would be Griffey Jr.

[billyS]

Originally Posted by LorenzoDeMedici

.
...Notice the # to the right of his name that's his age 22! and the Innings Pitched 325!! OMG your gonna ruin the kid's arm it's gonna fall off. Nope he goes on to pitch 20 more Freakin years and avg over 250IP per.

Interesting. The big thing now, and SI writer Tom Verducci takes credit for it, calls it the Year After Effect "....
I developed a rule of thumb that pitchers 25 and younger should not increase their workload by more than 30 innings. It's the same theory as training for a marathon: you risk injury by jumping from a 10K to the marathon instead of incremental increases. I called it the Year After Effect because the wear and tear often was followed by regression or injury the next year. " *

So looking at Blyleven he should have taken a big hit in 1972 at age 21. Because at 19 he threw 164 inninngs as a rookie. Then at 20 he jumped to 278 a jump of 114, about 4X the Verducci limit.
So the next year he should have regressed.

Well lets see; he went 17-17 but his era dropped a notch to 2.73 form 2.81, everything else stayed the same. http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...lylebe01.shtml


*http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz1DlMcare0

[nychelsea]

Originally Posted by pudgy.in.the.middle

The closest one in this era would be Griffey Jr.

Good point Pudgy.

Baseball's back (well, almost),

Chels

[nychelsea]

Originally Posted by LorenzoDeMedici

...since I'm enjoying this so much. I look up Blyleven. And I know this is going off topic but..the first thing that pops out at me on this line is...
1 SP Bert Blyleven 22 20 -17 2.52era 325.0IP

...Notice the # to the right of his name that's his age 22! and the Innings Pitched 325!! OMG your gonna ruin the kid's arm it's gonna fall off. Nope he goes on to pitch 20 more Freakin years and avg over 250IP per.

Very fair points about behomebyleven (Chris Berman's best IMHO). Thought he deserved to be in the HOF much sooner. He was (is) a bit of an edgy guy so maybe that turned off some of the jerkweed writers (voters). I heard an interview with him the day after the announcement, and he sounded grateful and truly happy.

While the game has changed in the era of the big money and I can understand the pitch counts and limits, I still don't like it any more than you or many fans. More than anything else, a pitcher's delivery can determine whether or not they will have early arm trouble. When you look at Mo Rivera, you can see why he has been generally injury free - he has a smooth delivery for sure. Now, of course, he is a relief pitcher and is not pitching 200-300 innings but those high numbers of appearances matter too.

Glad to be talking about baseball,

Chels

[pudgy.in.the.middle]

Originally Posted by nychelsea

Very fair points about behomebyleven (Chris Berman's best IMHO). Thought he deserved to be in the HOF much sooner. He was (is) a bit of an edgy guy so maybe that turned off some of the jerkweed writers (voters). I heard an interview with him the day after the announcement, and he sounded grateful and truly happy.

While the game has changed in the era of the big money and I can understand the pitch counts and limits, I still don't like it any more than you or many fans. More than anything else, a pitcher's delivery can determine whether or not they will have early arm trouble. When you look at Mo Rivera, you can see why he has been generally injury free - he has a smooth delivery for sure. Now, of course, he is a relief pitcher and is not pitching 200-300 innings but those high numbers of appearances matter too.

Glad to be talking about baseball,

Chels

Berman's name blending schtik was funny at first but it got tired real quick especially as his exposure in ESPN quadrupled. I am glad the flying Dutchman Blyleven made it to the HoF. He was fortunate to only missed that much time with his pitching mechanics. I am surprised with all those innings pitched early in his career he lasted that long, especially in the AL. Perhaps Sabathia will be the modern day starting pitcher to go 20 years, I'm sure Strasburg won't be.

[lightweight]

Originally Posted by pudgy.in.the.middle

Berman's name blending schtik was funny at first but it got tired real quick especially as his exposure in ESPN quadrupled. I am glad the flying Dutchman Blyleven made it to the HoF. He was fortunate to only missed that much time with his pitching mechanics. I am surprised with all those innings pitched early in his career he lasted that long, especially in the AL. Perhaps Sabathia will be the modern day starting pitcher to go 20 years, I'm sure Strasburg won't be.

Sabathia will not just because of his conditioning..