You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?22...Hall-Yes-Again
Printable View
You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?22...Hall-Yes-Again
So really your bone to pick is only the timing of the election? Now remind me does that put them in a different wing or get them a nicer plaque or get noted anywhere on the plaque?
Also you seem to imply that Morris should be in the hall of fame. I think he has a pretty weak case.
W L W-L% ERA IP BB SO ERA+ WHIP H/9 BB/9 SO/9 SO/BB Player A 254 186 0.577 3.90 3824 1390 2478 105 1.296 8.4 3.3 5.8 1.78 Player B 267 204 0.567 4.24 4020.1 1137 2405 104 1.317 9.3 2.5 5.4 2.12
Can you tell me which player belongs in the HoF and which is Jamie Moyer?
While technically true, I would say that their actual on-field accomplishments do make one more deserving than the other.Quote:
That Bert Blyleven got elected by the BBWAA and Morris might not doesn't mean that they weren't both outstanding pitchers, and doesn't make one more deserving than the other
Nope. In fact, I'd be willing to put money down that the vast majority of Twins fans will never actually see Puckett's plaque in person.Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityBaseTwinsFan
Finding out about Puckett from other fans, if you didn't know much about him, is far more common. And insofar as those fans don't really make a distinction between 'first ballot' Hall of Famer, other-ballot Hall of Famer, or Veterans Committee inductee, it's not an issue there, either. It's only really an issue if you do make distinctions, and those distinctions say less about Puckett than about the BBWAA.
I wouldn't have a problem with Morris not getting into the Hall -- it'd be OK with me if the defining characteristic for Hall of Fame starting pitchers was "you've got to be better than Jack Morris".Quote:
Also you seem to imply that Morris should be in the hall of fame. I think he has a pretty weak case.
W L W-L% ERA IP BB SO ERA+ WHIP H/9 BB/9 SO/9 SO/BB Player A 254 186 0.577 3.90 3824 1390 2478 105 1.296 8.4 3.3 5.8 1.78 Player B 267 204 0.567 4.24 4020.1 1137 2405 104 1.317 9.3 2.5 5.4 2.12
Can you tell me which player belongs in the HoF and which is Jamie Moyer?
Point is, though, that Morris not getting elected by the BBWAA isn't synonymous with Morris not getting into the Hall -- which is pretty much the flip side of the point about Puckett. Morris is going into the Hall, no question -- as noted in the original essay, if he doesn't get elected by the BBWAA, he's exactly the kind of player the various Veterans Committees love to induct.
But as long as we're playing the Player A/B game...
W L W-L% ERA IP BB SO ERA+ WHIP H/9 BB/9 K/9 K/BB Player C 216 146 .597 3.46 3261.0 711 3116 128 1.137 8.3 2.0 8.6 4.38
Can you tell me which upcoming Hall of Fame ballot member this is, and why he should get in before either of the first two?
One of the problems using WAR is it's a compiling stat, so comparing Kirby to Duke Snider (12 seasons vs. 18 seasons) is hard. (Or do you really think Kirby was going to be a negative WAR player if he'd played another 3-5 years? even with bRef hating on Kirby's defense, he was still projectable as a 2-4 WAR guy for at least a few more seasons) But at the end of the day, it makes little difference to me if a guy's in on the first ballot or the 11th. I'm just not someone who adds a little extra shine to the halo for being a "first-ballot Hall of Famer", but YMMV.
Kirby got a little extra love for a career cut tragically short via a beaning, being an ebullient personality and positive ambassador of baseball, being the best player on 2 World Series winners, and (probably) getting significantly more credit for his defense that bRef's dWAR gives him. (career -1.8?) BBWAA saw him as being one of the better defensive OFs during his era; dWAR says it added nothing to his career value. Add 3-5 years to his career and make him a plus dWAR guy every year and suddenly he looks a lot like Duke Snider in terms of overall value. Hmmm...
I think that Pitcher C is the best pitcher of the three, and yes, would be in the Hall of Fame (in my mind) well before Morris.
Curt Schilling. I don't think he should get in, but if he doesn't then Smoltz may not get in either, despite the 154 saves.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwintheiser
The problem with using WAR for Puckett is is for fielding before advanced stats were on the scene. Do we really think Kirby was a negative WAR outfielder? Check out his career and how his fielding WAR varies. Isn't fielding supposed to be the most consistent aspect of a player? I'm just not ready to invest too heavily in historical metrics for fielding before Pitch f/x came along .. and that's where Kirby's WAR is hurt compared to modern players.
Well, he's superior to both those guys in every single stat except wins and innings pitched, putting up a better WHIP and ERA in a better hitters' era while striking out far more and walking fewer. You have to give a ton of credit to longevity to put Moyer and Morris on Schilling's level.Quote:
Can you tell me which upcoming Hall of Fame ballot member this is, and why he should get in before either of the first two?
I'd say it's defensible -- you might not remember it, but Puckett was playing games in right as early as 1991, and by 1994 had become strictly a rightfielder, yet he continued to win Gold Gloves through 1993. It would be far from the first time or the last that a player won Gold Gloves more on his rep than on his performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmlease1
Both Puckett and the Twins were consistent in saying that the beaning had nothing to do with the glaucoma that ended his career. Whether you believe that or not is your own deal, but the official story is that they're unrelated. Everything else you mention, though, is spot-on.Quote:
Kirby got a little extra love for a career cut tragically short via a beaning,
Actually, the Gold Glove is voted on by managers and coaches, not the BBWAA, but that doesn't necessarily improve things, as managers might only see a given player a handful of times in a season and are prohibited from voting for their own players.Quote:
BBWAA saw him as being one of the better defensive OFs during his era;
So you're saying if Puckett was a better player (played longer, played better defense), then he might not actually be the worst centerfielder elected by the BBWAA? Okay, I'll buy that. But if you're going to add 3-5 years to Puckett's career, why not also add 3-4 years to Larry Doby's career lost to the color line, or 3 years to Joe DiMaggio's career (the closest first-ballot centerfielder to Puckett) lost to World War 2? Even if you decide to play that game, you still see Puckett stuck far below the other first-ballot centerfielders, even if he looks a lot better when compared to Duke Snider. That I'm not buying.Quote:
dWAR says it added nothing to his career value. Add 3-5 years to his career and make him a plus dWAR guy every year and suddenly he looks a lot like Duke Snider in terms of overall value. Hmmm...
I pretty much second what was said by others, significantly better ERA vs peers, almost .2 lower WHIP, higher K rate and a much better K/BB rate. There is also a wide difference in WAR.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwintheiser
Career bWAR and (Rank)
Schilling 69.7 (28th)
Moyer 47.3 (86th)
Morris 39.3 (141st)
Career fWAR
Schilling 86.1
Moyer 56.9
Morris 49.0
Also while "the game" is often cited as a big reason for Morris, his career post season performance is anything but clutch and is pretty much inline with his career stats. Moyer also has no better performance in the playoffs. Schilling on the other hand has an ERA 1.2 Better, a WHIP almost .2 lower and a higher BB/K.
1. According to bRef, Puckett played in RF in '90 & '91 with CF as his primary position, didn't play there at all in '92, played there with CF as his primary position again in '93, and didn't become a full-time RF until '94. Even if you give him the last 2 GG as "reputation" GGs, he still won 4 straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwintheiser
2. yes, that was the party line for years. Later, Puckett admitted that it was a factor and they stuck to the line so Martinez wouldn't think he'd ended the guys career with an errant pitch. But that's not really the point; there was widely held sentiment that the beaning effectively ending Puckett's career by a lot of writers and that sentiment probably helped him soem in the voting.
3. doesn't matter who actually voted on the GGs; BBWAA membership is going to take that seriously as an indicator of what kind of defensive player Puckett was. So i think my point holds.
4. I actually wasn't saying anything about "if Puckett was a better player" at all. I'm suggesting that bRef's assessment of Puckett's abilities as a defensive player might not be very accurate; they list him as a negative dWAR player 7 out of his 12 seasons in the majors and only a 1+ dWAR player ONCE in his whole career. I'm not saying IF Puckett was a better player, I'm saying he WAS a better defensive player than dWAR gives him credit for. Regarding career longevity: look, the first couple of years and last couple of years in a player's career shouldn't really change the way we think about them as a player. But because WAR is a accumulation stat, those extra years matter if you use WAR as the measuring stick. When evaluating greatness for the HoF we take into account thinks like shortened careers, the color line, wars, etc. And that came into play with Puckett, and reasonably so. He was still a fine player in his mid-30's.
Duke Snider had the longer career and the higher peak (although Puckett was easily the better player in their 30's). he's almost certainly the better player overall, but he's also an easy HoF choice and the only reason he took so long to get in was he was being compared to the likes of Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, and Willie Mays his entire career. That's neither Puckett or Snider's fault: the Duke played in a wonderful era for CFs. But if you think Puckett was actually a a plus defensive player through most of his career as I do, they become much more comparable players. Puckett's an easy HoF choice for me too; WAR only makes him look a little questionable as a) a first-ballot choice, whice is easily explained through the intangibles, and b) through its assessment of his defensive skills.