Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mfahie on 1/14/2014 12:34:00 PM (view original):
I honestly believe that many of them are not. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, or listen to debate on the matter, but that's my feeling.
What are they wrong about? The picked Glavine over Mussina. Is that an obvious bad decision?
I'm not as extreme in some positions as bad_luck, or others here.
I also don't think that Glavine over Mussina is necessarily a straight-up bad decision if it were simply one against the other, but 90% to 20% is not representative of how good they were. And I honestly believe that Glavine got the pass because of the 300 without a whole lot of deeper looking, and Mussina got overlooked, especially with respect to Glavine, because of 300 wins.
I also think that they use raw stats much more often than normalized stats, so most of them would tell you that Glavine was more effective than Mussina because his ERA was lower, but Mussina's ERA+ is significantly better from pitching in the AL his whole career.
So I stand by my point of claiming that the HOF voters aren't looking as closely at players as I would want them to.