Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 2:49:00 PM (view original):
I thought we were discussing why Glavine was elected and why Mussina was not.

As to whether I think the voters got it right . . . I was on record last week before results were announced as saying that I thought Glavine should go in and that Mussina should not.

So from my point of view . . . yes, they got it right.

OK, so back to my question - is CY voting the reason why?  Are there other reasons?

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 2:49:00 PM (view original):
I thought we were discussing why Glavine was elected and why Mussina was not.

As to whether I think the voters got it right . . . I was on record last week before results were announced as saying that I thought Glavine should go in and that Mussina should not.

So from my point of view . . . yes, they got it right.

I must have missed this, would you mind rehashing briefly for me exactly why Glavine should have gone in and Mussina should not?  That's exactly what I've been asking for - a real reason why you think Glavine was a better pitcher.  Aside from "other people said so."  So far that's all I've heard you say.

I honestly haven't been following this nonsense but didn't tec say something about 20 wins, 300 wins and CY voting?

Mussina deserves to make it in the next few years.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2014 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 2:49:00 PM (view original):
I thought we were discussing why Glavine was elected and why Mussina was not.

As to whether I think the voters got it right . . . I was on record last week before results were announced as saying that I thought Glavine should go in and that Mussina should not.

So from my point of view . . . yes, they got it right.

I thought we were discussing why Glavine was elected and why Mussina was not.

Tec's answer to that question:

"Because Glavine was and Mussina wasn't."

No analysis needed. The voters know all. Completely ignoring the fact that Mussina was probably slightly better than Glavine.

"probably slightly"?

Whoa!!!!  That's a ringing endorsement. 

I've said all along that I thought they were very close.

FWIW, my list of steroid era guys in the order I'd put them in the Hall, is:

1. Roger Clemens
2. Greg Maddux
3. Randy Johnson
4. Mariano Rivera
5. Pedro Martinez
6. Trevor Hoffman
7. Billy Wagner *********
8. Tom Glavine
9. Mike Mussina
10. Curt Schilling

He doesn't appear to be on track to end his career on a high note, but Johan Santana has the potential to bypass everybody below Pedro.  Through his age 33 season he's thrown 2000 innings with a 136 ERA+; by contrast, at that age Maddux was 3000,144, but Glavine was only 2650, 120, and Moose was 2450, 129.  So at least in terms of quality Johan trumps Glavine or Mussina at his age, and he's not so far behind in terms of quantity that he can't bridge the gap.

The cutoff is somewhere right in the middle of Billy Wagner.  I'm right on the fence for him.  BBR's requirement to qualify for career ERA+ is 1000 innings; Wagner is barely over 900 career IP.  But if he did qualify, he'd beat out everybody but Mo.  And he did save 400+ games.  Granted, many saves don't mean a whole lot more than wins do.  But counting stats can matter; see below.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/13/2014 4:43:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, my list of steroid era guys in the order I'd put them in the Hall, is:

1. Roger Clemens
2. Greg Maddux
3. Randy Johnson
4. Mariano Rivera
5. Pedro Martinez
6. Trevor Hoffman
7. Billy Wagner *********
8. Tom Glavine
9. Mike Mussina
10. Curt Schilling

He doesn't appear to be on track to end his career on a high note, but Johan Santana has the potential to bypass everybody below Pedro.  Through his age 33 season he's thrown 2000 innings with a 136 ERA+; by contrast, at that age Maddux was 3000,144, but Glavine was only 2650, 120, and Moose was 2450, 129.  So at least in terms of quality Johan trumps Glavine or Mussina at his age, and he's not so far behind in terms of quantity that he can't bridge the gap.

The cutoff is somewhere right in the middle of Billy Wagner.  I'm right on the fence for him.  BBR's requirement to qualify for career ERA+ is 1000 innings; Wagner is barely over 900 career IP.  But if he did qualify, he'd beat out everybody but Mo.  And he did save 400+ games.  Granted, many saves don't mean a whole lot more than wins do.  But counting stats can matter; see below.

I'd go:

Clemens
Maddux
Johnson
Martinez
Mussina
Schilling
Glavine
Rivera

I'm really not a fan of putting relief pitchers in.

The reason I'd put Glavine in over Moose in spite of the fact that Moose and Schilling were both clearly better pitchers is for precisely the same reason some statheads want to keep him out, at least in terms of rhetoric.  It's called the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Very Good.  What the people who can't quit reciting that line ad nauseum are missing, however, is that it also isn't the Hall of Great.  It isn't necessarily a shrine to the best players in baseball history; it's a shrine to the most significant or historically important/interesting.  Baseball historians decided decades ago that milestone numbers like 300 wins were important, and they've become something that great players strive for.  I'd put Glavine in over Moose for his historical significance, but fully recognizing that Mussina was the better pitcher.  But I'd rather not see either go in.  I think it's a mistake to use the historical standard of Hall members for induction - it just makes for too big of a Hall another 100 or 200 years down the road.  As time goes by we're going to have to shrink the number of guys we induct or the whole thing gets too big to be interesting to all but the most dedicated of fans, rendering it irrelevant and obsolete.  Even if we can say a guy "raises the standards" of the HOF, I need a more significant argument to induct him.  He needs to have been truly great/dominant.  I don't think I'd call Glavine or Mussina truly great.

I'd go:

Clemens
Maddux
Johnson
Martinez
Mussina
Schilling
Glavine
Rivera

I'm really not a fan of putting relief pitchers in.

FanGraphs calculates WPA for all seasons since 1974.  Rivera exceeds everybody but Clemens, and blows away most of the guys ahead of him on your list.  Just FYI.

Yet you're fine with putting in a DH.   Go figure that one. 

Rivera shortened the game.   Not for 1-3 seasons but for a 16-17 year period.  

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/13/2014 5:00:00 PM (view original):

I'd go:

Clemens
Maddux
Johnson
Martinez
Mussina
Schilling
Glavine
Rivera

I'm really not a fan of putting relief pitchers in.

FanGraphs calculates WPA for all seasons since 1974.  Rivera exceeds everybody but Clemens, and blows away most of the guys ahead of him on your list.  Just FYI.

I'm not a huge fan of WPA. In my mind, the outs in the 1st are just as important as the outs in the 9th. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2014 5:07:00 PM (view original):
Yet you're fine with putting in a DH.   Go figure that one. 

Rivera shortened the game.   Not for 1-3 seasons but for a 16-17 year period.  

Why don't you double check and see if I included Rivera on my list.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2014 3:47:00 PM (view original):
I honestly haven't been following this nonsense but didn't tec say something about 20 wins, 300 wins and CY voting?

Why yes, I did!  All the things that HOF voters seem to take into account!

If you really can't get past talking about what HOF voters take into account and actually try to consider what YOU think might be a reasonable way to look at it, there's really no point in having a discussion.  I thought you were better than that; obviously I was wrong.