***Official 2012-13 MLB HOTSTOVE OFF-SEASON THREAD***

Thomas was a 1B for the majority of his career, he was better than McGriff. There were other 1B when McGriff played who were better than he was. Again McGriff's numbers aren't good enough.

Not that pitcher wins are even important but Morris has 254 wins while Byleven has 287. Not sure where the 300 wins for Morris thing came from.

Your case for both McGriff and Morris aren't very compelling or convincing so far. Keep going....

 

Well besides from all the legal issuing of releasing that list what about the players that weren't on that list that still took PEDs? Do you really think the only players that took PEDs were the ones on that list?

 

My mistake, I'd thought Morris did hit 300 wins.

And Thomas did wind up playing a lot of DH and he was not as consistent as McGriff, he had a great run early in his career then fell off.

 

Thing with Clemons, he stood up for himself and was acquitted, imo that means he should be looked upon as if he never used them.

That aside, there is also the issue that HGH was not always banned in MLB.

 

Again I asked for reasons why McGriff and Morris are HOfers so far you provided me with zero evidence.

And are you trying to say Fred McGriff was better than Frank Thomas?

 

Im all for PED users to be out of the HOF but youre going to need a hell of a lot more then suspicion of PED use for Mike Piazza to NOT be in the HOF. This is utterly ridiculous. Either they did it or they didnt. BBWAA strikes again with stupidity and double standards.

 

Still think its funny you want to punish players for failing a drug test when at that time the said drugs the test was testing wasn't illegal in baseball. That's like punishing people who drank alcohol before the prohibition.

 

IMO Rock needed about 3-4 more years on that rock (coke) to keep his HOF pace. McGriff will probably be one of those guys that gets in on a slow year in year 10 or 12 on the ballot when people realize hes a good candidate and probably clean.

 

Are you saying Frank isn't a HOF ray?

 

Its a witch hunt plain and simple. The voters don't have any evidence that would convict them in a court of law. They are punishing guys simply based on rumors or in same cases like Bagwell just for the hell of it.

 

Thomas is absolutely a HOFer. McGriff isn't.

 

Ok gotcha. Yes I agree with the big Hurt. I'm on the fence with McGriff. I would never say he was a great player. But being really good for that long has to count for something. I normally say no to Fred. But I really like him as a player and person so I wish he would get in. But I think he's going to be just on the outside looking in.

 

Yup it's ridiculous.

 

Exactly. Bagwell has as much suspicion as Piazza. Until there is actual proof...whatever. These writers act like if one or two slip through the cracks then theyd be the only players in the HOF who ever did something wrong.

 

Oh he was a very good player and had a very good career but his overall numbers especially for a 1B just fall a little short. He was just never that superstar player. Again there's nothing wrong with him as a player he's just not good enough to be in the HOF. It's not a knock on him but it's not like just anyone can or should get in.

 

Piazza didn't get voted in because he apparently had zits on his back and Bagwell didn't get voted in because he didn't hit enough HRs in the minor leagues. That's the "evidence". Just a joke. And its sad too as the HOF is a museum of baseball history.

 

Out of curiosity:

-why would I have to justify anything..to you?

Seriously, are you the MLB "pope" and they are being put up for sainthood?

No thanks

McGriff was a HoF player

 

Oh Thomas is a HoF player, even with the time at DH, 521 Hr's is no small feat at all.

He was a very dangerous hitter on some really poor ChiSox teams.

 

Nope but I do like that nickname. Generally speaking though, especially on message boards, when people make a statement they usually back it up with facts. The only fact you brought up was a false one. I was really trying to understand your thought process behind your reasoning that's all. Just trying to have a simple discussion. I guess you just don't have solid arguments then.

MLB Pope out...

 

Nope, you know all to well, I don't play the stat monkey game.

I watched them all McGwire, Rafe, Bagwell, McGriff, and Thomas

Rafe..never impressed me
McGwire struck out to much
Bagwell was good, even great, just did not go for him, seemed like the bigger the stage the smaller he got
Thomas was physically just impressive, good eye, great power etc
McGriff was smooth and consistent, he could hit any pitcher.

Eh, one of MLB's many problems.

 

Oh come on you don't play the stat game? So how do you know if Babe Ruth or Walter Johnson were any good?

I'm sorry but your logic/reasoning has more holes than swiss cheese. Yeah McGriff could hit any pitcher what does that even mean? He was a career .280 hitter so he wasn't always hitting. So Bagwell isn't a HOFer because he had a bad post season career? McGwire struck out too much? So what he was a power hitting hitting 40 HRs a year. Really? Sorry I just don't get it.

 

Are you saying the Crime Dog is better then all those guys?

 

I think the most compelling case for McGriff is in his raw numbers not his advanced numbers. His longevity may get him in on a slow year as he did wallop 493 homers. I like that his post season numbers are slightly better and his triple slash with obp/slg/ops grew by about 30 points. I like that the 8/10 players hes most compared to on Baseball reference are all HOF or close to it. His WAR will fall short of HOF caliber but hes right on the fence for me...I still think he gets in on a slow year, veterans committee or maybe even posthumously.

 

What I am saying is "if" HGH disqualifies players, then McGriff jumps over guys who used them.

 

Well, imo if Dale Murphy can make it in, so should he.

 

Murphy fell miserably short. He wont even be on the ballot soon. McGriff has a much better case then Murphy as well.

 

It does not matter if I think Walter Johnson or Ruth were good, they are already in.

Anyway, who am I to argue with the "pope"?

 

Wow, I'd thought I'd heard he made it in?

Ah well.

 

Nah not close. Also a good rule of thumb is that if they dont have 60 war, 500 homers, or 3000 hits its probably not a 1st ballot option or a good bet to get in on their first 5 ballots. Murphy has about 6 less WAR then McGriff 100 less homers, 20 points lower on BA, lower OPS and the teams he was on were simply not very good.

 

Eh, more or less a good run for a couple of years then he fell off the cliff.

I thought Joe Carter is another massively underrated player from that era, looked at his numbers and they are not what I'd hoped they'd be.

One of the problems, imo, with MLB is instead of going with what people actually see out on the field, stats are a sort of crutch.

It removes athleticism and a nose for making things happen off of the table..who watches accountants crunch numbers?

Yet, this is a sort of replacement for other sport's fans ability to point to physical prowess, MLB fans "us" point to numbers.

 

Ha.

 

Completely missing the point but then again that's typical.

 

You know you have a great point, the MLB and really all sports should just throw out the numbers and stats and not even keep score. Let the players just play the game the right way. There will be no winners, no losers, no hard feelings and at the end of the season every player will get a participation trophy and a pat on the back.

While we're at it, every player who's ever played the game will get into the HOF, they all deserve it. Perhaps this will be the start to world peace....

It is ironic though, because you have no problem talking about Anthony Rizzo's 2012 August stats or how Casey Kelly's minor league numbers don't meet your approval or Heath Bell's decreasing FB velocity/decreasing stats to try and prove a point yet when you can't make a solid point/counterargument in a debate you close it off by saying you don't look at stats and then mock people who do. Which is insane in its own right because everyone who has ever watched sports in the past, present and future have, do and will it's just part of being a sports fan. I just find that a bit interesting.

But I get it math is scary (yet are facts) and you should be a MLB scout. However you pretty much discredited what you were trying to prove in your above post by talking about how you thought Joe Carter was better but when you looked at his stats (omg I hope your eyes didn't burn off from looking at them) you realize he wasn't the player you thought he was. And the statement that you equal people looking at baseball stats people watching accountants is beyond silly, I bet I watch just as much baseball as you do (perhaps more) I watch the game yet use stats to make points and compare players because how else could you possibly do it? Or how can you see if a certain player is having a good or bad season if you don't watch a lot of that team or player?

Then again what again what do I know? Oh right I'm the MLB Pope, I know things.

 

I was bored this morning waiting for my accountant to stop by so I could watch him play with his calculator and decided to take a look at a few player's stats (and just like the Myians the world didn't end go figure) and came up with a few interesting tidbits.

Tim Raines reached base 3977 times in his career while Tony Gwynn reached base 3955 times. Raines played in 62 more games and had 127 more plate appearances but Raines walked 540 more times than Gwynn. Gwynn was the better player no doubt but definitely interesting and I'm not trying to compare the two again just looking at numbers.

Now I will compare Jack Morris to Curt Schilling. I don't think Morris is a HOFer, I do think Schilling is a boarder line HOFer and will probably get in eventually. Morris pitched 563 more innings than Schilling but has 638 less Ks, 679 more walks, gave up 569 more hits, 42 more HRs and has 404 more earned runs. Morris also has 8 more shut outs and 92 more complete games, Schilling has 22 saves to Morris' 0. Morris also has 38 more wins and 40 more losses. Schillings career ERA was 3.46 compared to 3.90 for Morris and Schilling's WHIP was 1.137 compared to Morris' 1.296. And remember Schilling pitched his career in the PED Era, Morris did not. Going further both guys were considered very good to great post season pitchers, Morris' perspection is more about 1 game than his whole post season career though. Schilling played in 6 more games, had 41 more innings yet had 1 more shut out and 1 less complete game, 7 less walks, 56 more Ks, and had 6 less earned runs. His ERA was 2.23 compared to 3.80 for Morris and Schillings WHIP was .968 compared to 1.245.

And finally the old Player A vs. Player B vs. Player C vs. Player D:

Player A:
19 years in the MLB
Games - 2460
Plate Appearances - 10174
Runs - 1349
Hits - 2490
HRs - 493
RBI - 1550
SB - 72
BB - 1305
K - 1882
BA/OBP/SLG/OPS - .284/.377/.509/.886
OPS + 134
5 All Star games
6 top 10 MVP votes


Player B:
17 years in the MLB
Games - 2035
Plate Appearances - 8657
Runs - 1241
Hits - 2038
HRs - 473
RBI - 1512
SB - 14
BB - 1109
K - 1745
BA/OBP/SLG/OPS - .280/.383/.546/.929
OPS + 138
2 All Star games
4 top 10 MVP votes

Player C:
18 years in the MLB
Games - 2163
Plate Appearances - 8622
Runs - 1203
Hits - 1968
HRs - 429
RBI - 1405
SB - 20
BB - 1334
K - 1504
BA/OBP/SLG/OPS - .280/.403/.522/.926
OPS + 141
5 All Star games
4 top 10 MVP votes (finished 2nd 1 time)
1 MVP Award
2 silver slugger awards

Player D:
16 years in the MLB
Games - 1874
Plate Appearances - 7660
Runs - 1167
Hits - 1626
HRs - 583
RBI - 1414
SB - 12
BB - 1317
K - 1596
BA/OBP/SLG/OPS - .263/.394/.588/.982
OPS + 163
12 All Star games
5 top 10 MVP votes (finished 2nd 1 time)
1 ROY Award
3 silver slugger awards

Player A is Fred McGriff, Player B is Carlos Delgado, Player C is Jason Giambi and Player D is Mark McGwire

Again just having fun with math.

EDIT: Here are three more players:

Player E:
15 years in the MLB
Games - 2150
Plate Appearances - 9431
Runs - 1517
Hits - 2314
HRs - 449
RBI - 1529
SB - 202
BB - 1401
K - 1558
BA/OBP/SLG/OPS - .297/.408/.540/.948
OPS + 149
4 All Star games
6 top 10 MVP votes (finished 2nd 1 time)
1 MVP Award
3 silver slugger awards
1 ROY Award
1 GG

Player G:
19 years in the MLB
Games - 2322
Plate Appearances - 10075
Runs - 1494
Hits - 2468
HRs - 521
RBI - 1704
SB - 32
BB - 1667
K - 1397
BA/OBP/SLG/OPS - .301/.419/.555/.974
OPS + 156
5 All Star games
9 top 10 MVP votes
2 MVPs
4 silver slugger awards

Player G:
16 years in the MLB
Games - 1874
Plate Appearances - 7660
Runs - 1167
Hits - 1626
HRs - 583
RBI - 1414
SB - 12
BB - 1317
K - 1596
BA/OBP/SLG/OPS - .263/.394/.588/.982
OPS + 163
12 All Star games
5 top 10 MVP votes (finished 2nd 1 time)
1 ROY Award
3 silver slugger awards

Player H:
16 years in the MLB
Games - 2123
Plate Appearances - 9011
Runs - 1360
Hits - 2420
HRs - 354
RBI - 1345
SB - 37
BB - 1295
K - 1088
BA/OBP/SLG/OPS - .320/.419/.545/.964
OPS + 135
5 All Star games
3 top 10 MVP votes (finished 2nd 1 time)
3 GG
4 silver slugger awards

They are Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas and Todd Helton. Man Thomas is underrated, he was complete beast.

 

I'm more upset about Aaron Sele getting a single HOF vote than no one getting in. I get the writers want to take a stand against PEDs even if I just don't agree with it. But let's not abuse voting rights here.

I do agree they need to look at who's voting, once you get the voting rights you never lose them. There are guys voting who haven't covered teams or the sport in decades. I also think the ballots from all the writers should be released to the public.

I also don't think there should be a voting limit of 10 players on any given ballet either.

As far as getting 100% of the vote, I don't really care about it. I know some people get worked up over it but if the guy gets in who cares if its 100% or 76%.

 

Well I think there were guys worthy of getting in that don't have that doubt over them. Biggio and Raines for sure. Possibly Schilling and Edgar Martinez, Alan Trammel for example.