By John Scanlan
The Baseball Hall of Fame officially means nothing. Well, it’s as official as my mere utterance can be...
Henderson was elected to the Hall of Fame on Monday, but the vote wasn’t unanimous.
Who didn’t vote for Henderson? 70 year-old Corky Simpson of the Green Valley News and Sun in Arizona. First of all, if a writer for the Green Valley News and Sun gets a vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame, why doesn’t John Scanlan of the Mid-Valley News? Do we need to change our name to the Mid-Valley News and Sun? Get on it Torosian!...
Who didn’t vote for Henderson? 70 year-old Corky Simpson of the Green Valley News and Sun in Arizona. First of all, if a writer for the Green Valley News and Sun gets a vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame, why doesn’t John Scanlan of the Mid-Valley News? Do we need to change our name to the Mid-Valley News and Sun? Get on it Torosian!...
For John Scanlan's complete column go to http://www.midvalleynewsonline.com/ and go to "Scanning"
This guy knows his baseball. What an astute, thoughtful and intelligent writer.
ReplyDeleteSohn Jcanlan
I'll be sure to pass that complement on to him...tell me if Bert Be Home By Eleven had switched places in his career with Don Sutton wouldn't he be the three hundred game winner and Sutton be lost in the group including Jim Kaat and Tommy John?
ReplyDeleteJoe T13
Tommy John, Jim Kaat and Bert Blyleven's numbers are a product of pitching for a million years.
ReplyDeleteWHIP (walks+hits/IP)
Sutton: 1.14
Blyleven: 1.20
Kaat: 1.26
John: 1.28
Blyleven, Kaat and John were good pitchers who pitched a long time. Don Sutton was an elite pitcher for a long time.
Sohn Jcanlan
My best recollection tells me he only won 20 games once? Wasn't he helped by the fact he wore Dodger blue for so long?
ReplyDeleteI liked Sutton, but I can't help but think Blyleven would have had better numbers as a Dodger
JoeT13
Wins Torosian? Wins? Really? Haven't I, I mean, hasn't Scanlan lectured you 7000 times why wins are a worthless stat?
ReplyDeleteI forgot to sign the post
ReplyDeleteSohn Jcanlan
Then if wins don't matter..put Fernando in the Hall...he was the dominate lefthander of his era...Cy Young winner, World Series title...
ReplyDeleteAwards? World Series titles? Huh?
ReplyDeleteFernando had a good 4-5 year run. Need more than that for the HOF Anonymous.
Sohn Jcanlan
(Note: When the A's or one of your "Moneyball Teams" wins a World Series I will gladly sink into the argument grave with Puff the Dragon. Until then...)
ReplyDeleteThink again Longshanks...
Fernando was dominate between 1981-87...that's seven years.
So if its not about wins or years...is it about being the best?
And shouldn't wins be viewed differently from say 1980 on. Prior to a pitcher was expected to go nine...if he went nine...that win is worth something...than those of the quality start era
Do you make an argument for Garvey in the Hall?
Do you make an argument for Dawson in the Hall?
How about an argument against Jim Rice: DH, Fenway Park, and he wasn't very dominate the last five or six years of his career. Yet he gets in...AFTER FILING FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
(Note: My anger is with you in regards to lack of Fernando love...not with Rice...it just comes out that way)
JOeT13.
Trying to include his 1987 is a stretch at best (1.5 WHIP, 3.98 ERA). Fernando didn't have a good season after the age of 25 and had a WHIP under 1.2 for only 4 seasons. That's a good run, but not DOMINANT and certainly not Hall of Fame worthy.
ReplyDeleteWins are worthless regardless of era. If you give up 1 run and your offense scores none, you lose. Does that mean you're not a good pitcher? If you give up 6 runs in 5 innings and your team scores 8, you get the win. Does that make you a good pitcher?
And a "Moneyball" team has won the World Series twice: The Boston Red Sox.
I don't think Garvey, Dawson and Rice belong in the HOF...unless you want it to be the Hall of the Pretty Good. Ask Andy about our back and forth argument regarding Andre Dawson. It will make for compelling radio in case we ever have a radio show again.
Sohn Jcanlan
Take your W.H.I.P. to a Hollywood funhouse...convulated thinking like that is what gives us things like the quality start...
ReplyDeleteand the GWRBI
That is henhouse...Boston is not a money ball franchise...they spend way too much money...
who was the best first baseman of Garvey's era?
I don't think Dawson or Rice belong either...
Wins obviously are not the final criteria but they are very important...otherwise why did Jesse Jefferson bounce around so much...
You don't understand the relevance of the stat so you choose to mock it? Bah.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't think Boston was a "Moneyball" franchise, then you don't understand what Moneyball is.
Better 1B than Garvey include Willie Stargell, Pete Rose, Tony Perez, Rod Carew, Eddie Murray...need I go on. Garvey's numbers were .294/.329/.446/.775. A HOF 1B with an OPS of .775 is unforgivable. Take off the homer blinders and admit Garvey (the father of our country, or at least half of it) was an average 1B.
Wins are not important. They are a random stat like saves that are contingent on many things out of the pitcher's control...his own offense, his own defense, the opposing pitcher, his own bullpen, etc.
This is fun. We should do a radio show or something...
Sohn Jcanlan
The definition of money ball changes more often than the main purpose of a government stimulus package...
ReplyDeleteCarew, Rose, and even Stargell were not pure first baseman. Rose didn't move to first until he went to Philly. Carew besides dinking singles and not driving in runs initially made a name for himself as a second baseman who used to steal home.
Don't even get me started on Pops Stargell because now you are going into the things money ball is not supposed to measure chemistry/team and all the such.
Murray's a good argument...but Garvey spent eight years playing in the 70's Murray four...Garvey had a better glove.
True he "he needed a blanking oar to hit the blanking ball and he would have made a heck of a blankign cricket player"