ESPN HOF ballot revealed. Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
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?
1/14/2014 12:36 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 12:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mfahie on 1/14/2014 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Obvious troll is obvious.


The more I look at Glavine and Mussina the more they look alike. Mussina's quality was slightly better, Glavine's longevity was slightly better. Glavine had a tiny bit higher peak but Mussina had more excellent seasons. They really are neck and neck.

Don't you think the voters should be looking this closely at players? But screw that, 300 wins, look no further, and 270 wins, not in my HOF!

Do you think they're not?
It's pretty obvious that Glavine and Mussina are very close in overall value. Glavine got into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot with 92% of the vote. Mussina got 20% of the vote. So no, I don't think they are.
1/14/2014 12:36 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Well, i guess that settles it.  BL says they're not taking their votes seriously enough.     BLOW THAT ************ UP!!!!!
1/14/2014 12:38 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Here's the bottom line.    It's not about what statnerds recognize, it's what the general public recognizes.    They recognize awards and milestones.   No one cares about ERA+ or WHIP or FIPx.   Glavine has a handful of 20 win seasons, a couple of CY award and 300 wins.  Mussina has none of them.  60 years from now the Statnerd Veterans Committee will induct Mussina. 

 

1/14/2014 12:45 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Here's the bottom line.    It's not about what statnerds recognize, it's what the general public recognizes.    They recognize awards and milestones.   No one cares about ERA+ or WHIP or FIPx.   Glavine has a handful of 20 win seasons, a couple of CY award and 300 wins.  Mussina has none of them.  60 years from now the Statnerd Veterans Committee will induct Mussina. 

 

Read that out loud. Then think to yourself, "what would my hall of fame be about?"

Would it recognize the basic baseball understanding of the masses? Or would it be about enshrining the absolute greatest players of all time?

Because, right now, those two aren't the same.
1/14/2014 12:49 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 4875 (0)
Hall of Famer
478 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
The Hall of Fame is only relevant for discussion purposes now.  It's so watered down with long-term good players that the only time people even care about it, it's because of the balloting.  It's become the Golden Globes of baseball, voted on by drunk idiots who just want to be on camera.  They pick the media favorites because they didn't see all the candidates (seriously, most of our generation know Glavine because of TBS's incessant Braves homerism).

Do the Golden Globes ever pick the BEST movie, or the BEST shows, or do they pick their favorites?  Sportswriters are the same.
1/14/2014 12:55 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
My baseball HOF would look a lot different than the current one or the one you'd have. 

Either way, I don't think the HOF was created for a small segment of society.   It was for the masses.     For example;

Three decades later, Stephen C. Clark – seeking a way to celebrate and protect the National Pastime as well as create an economic engine for his hometown – asked National League president Ford. C. Frick if he would support the establishment of a Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. The idea was welcomed, and in 1936 the inaugural Hall of Fame class of Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner was elected.


Whether that is right or wrong can be debated.   But the time will not come, at least in our lifetime, when players are elected on ADJ OPS+, FIPx, WAR or any other "advanced metric" you like. 

1/14/2014 12:57 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 12:57:00 PM (view original):
My baseball HOF would look a lot different than the current one or the one you'd have. 

Either way, I don't think the HOF was created for a small segment of society.   It was for the masses.     For example;

Three decades later, Stephen C. Clark – seeking a way to celebrate and protect the National Pastime as well as create an economic engine for his hometown – asked National League president Ford. C. Frick if he would support the establishment of a Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. The idea was welcomed, and in 1936 the inaugural Hall of Fame class of Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner was elected.


Whether that is right or wrong can be debated.   But the time will not come, at least in our lifetime, when players are elected on ADJ OPS+, FIPx, WAR or any other "advanced metric" you like. 

Eh, I don't know. Our remaining lifetimes (at least mine) is a fairly long time. At least another 40ish years. Think of all the progress we've made in just last 10 or so years.

I do know that in my ideal hall of fame, the absolute greatest players are elected. Election wouldn't be based on the limited understanding of what the general public finds shiny and entertaining.

I have a feeling yours is the same, even if the number of absolute greatest players in each of our halls is different.
1/14/2014 1:03 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
FWIW, I also understand, for the reason I bolded, why the HOF is more inclusive than I'd like it to be.  The place would dry up if there were no ceremonies.  People want to see monuments to their favorite players.    Personally, if the PED era is excluded, I think the HOF is going to have some problems.   There will be no one to celebrate from a 15 year span.   And a lot of those guys will be someone's favorite player.
1/14/2014 1:04 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Yeah, I'm not very impressed by what the GP finds to be HOF-worthy.   But you gotta sell tickets to something.

1/14/2014 1:09 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Yeah, I'm not very impressed by what the GP finds to be HOF-worthy.   But you gotta sell tickets to something.

That's two different arguments.

I'm not concerned with Cooperstown's tourism revenue. I don't really care too much if a physical Hall of Fame even exists.

I'm only concerned with which players we honor as the best of all time.
1/14/2014 1:11 PM
mfahie
Posts: 683 (0)
Hall of Famer
145 51
Rookie
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.

1/14/2014 1:16 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Would you have felt better if Glavine got 76% and Mussina got 55%?

1/14/2014 1:18 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (1)
Hall of Famer
4 1 153 32 129
Prospect
"I'm not concerned with Cooperstown's tourism revenue. I don't really care too much if a physical Hall of Fame even exists.

I'm only concerned with which players we honor as the best of all time."

Without a "brick and mortar" physical museum, if the HOF only exists as a concept, then feel free to create your own website or whatever for your own Hall of Fame.  You can "elect" anybody you want.

But it seems that you want a place that the whole baseball world recognizes as "THE legitimate" Hall of Fame that is filled only with the players YOU deem worthy.
1/14/2014 1:20 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 1/14/2014 1:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/14/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Yeah, I'm not very impressed by what the GP finds to be HOF-worthy.   But you gotta sell tickets to something.

That's two different arguments.

I'm not concerned with Cooperstown's tourism revenue. I don't really care too much if a physical Hall of Fame even exists.

I'm only concerned with which players we honor as the best of all time.
I'll refer to my post about why the HOF was created.    A HOF with no visitors does not create revenue. 

That said, I think there's a better way to fill it.   The fact that Lebatard even had a vote to **** around with indicates that the voters aren't exactly the best of the best.  But they're given the authority to vote on the best of the best.    
1/14/2014 1:21 PM
◂ Prev 1...30|31|32|33|34 Next ▸
ESPN HOF ballot revealed. Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.