Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
flavum

2020 Hall of Fame Voting

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, flavum said:

Definitely think Buehrle has a better case than Paulie. If the Hall is about the era you played in, then you’ll see pitching isn’t represented that much for guys that made their debut right around the height of the steroid era (98-03). By the time Sabathia gets on the ballot, I think he’ll be considered a no-brainer to vote for. I also would want to look at Tim Hudson more closely, and re-evaluate Roy Oswalt, Johan Santana, and maybe Cliff Lee.

Cliff Lee is off the ballot already I believe. Lee's problem is he didn't really get started until he was 30 years old.

I think Buehrle checks a lot of boxes in the modern era; leading a decade in innings and wins would almost guarantee you a trip in past era's. I would need to do the research, but I don't think anyone who has done that has been left off.

Here's a list of players who have led their decades in wins and finished top 3 in IP:

1900's - Christy Mathewson 
1910's - Walter Johnson
1920's - Burleigh Grimes
1930's - Lefty Grove
1940's - Hal Newhouser
1950's - Warren Spahn
1960's - Juan Marichal
1970's - Jim Palmer
1980's - Jack Morris
1990's - Greg Maddux

Every single player on that list is a HOF'er. Mark Buehrle would be the first one left out, and it would be a joke.

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Cliff Lee is off the ballot already I believe. Lee's problem is he didn't really get started until he was 30 years old.

I think Buehrle checks a lot of boxes in the modern era; leading a decade in innings and wins would almost guarantee you a trip in past era's. I would need to do the research, but I don't think anyone who has done that has been left off.

Here's a list of players who have led their decades in wins and finished top 3 in IP:

1900's - Christy Mathewson 
1910's - Walter Johnson
1920's - Burleigh Grimes
1930's - Lefty Grove
1940's - Hal Newhouser
1950's - Warren Spahn
1960's - Juan Marichal
1970's - Jim Palmer
1980's - Jack Morris
1990's - Greg Maddux

Every single player on that list is a HOF'er. Mark Buehrle would be the first one left out, and it would be a joke.

Did Mark Buehrle really lead the decade in wins and innings pitched? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, soxfan3530 said:

Did Mark Buehrle really lead the decade in wins and innings pitched? 

If you end the decade in 2010, he's 11th in wins and 3rd in IP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, soxfan3530 said:

Did Mark Buehrle really lead the decade in wins and innings pitched? 

Yeah, I'm wrong on this; I had thought I read this but it's not accurate. He was 3rd in IP and 8th in wins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

You guys joking? Konerko wouldn't be a HOF'er if he was a Yankee; that's nuts.

If you guys want to go to bat for someone who is ABSOLUTELY deserving, who will likely be overlooked, it's Buehrle. I've been pretty vocal that for a career, I use bWAR over fWAR for pitchers - for season to season, and projections I'd use fWAR. Buehrle falls right around 60-65th all-time, which is borderline and plenty haven't gotten in from that tier BUT, accomplishments really do matter. Buehrle was the best fielding pitcher of his generation, he threw a nono and a perfect game, had a dominant post-season run, and was the most durable pitcher in the modern era. He lead the league in wins and IP for a decade.

Buehrle is a unique case, but imo he's a HOF'er based on all the intangibles and achievements. 

This is absurd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems relevant to point out Paul Konerko and Jose Abreu are essentially the same player. 

Buerhle will absolutely 100% get more votes than Paulie. 

Edited by mqr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mqr said:

Seems relevant to point out Paul Konerko and Jose Abreu are essentially the same player. 

Buerhle will absolutely 100% get more votes than Paulie. 

Although Paulie never had a 4 or 5 fWAR season; Abreu has a 5.3 and a 4.4 fWAR season already. They are similar though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, mqr said:

Seems relevant to point out Paul Konerko and Jose Abreu are essentially the same player. 

Buerhle will absolutely 100% get more votes than Paulie. 

Am I crazy for thinking that if Sammy Sosa doesn't draw a walk, Mark Buehrle gets somewhere around 60% of the vote?

Note: Not saying that's right or just, just baseball writers are dumb.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeter to me, without doing a ton of stat research, is the equivalent of Sandberg...... shitty defensive range while being a very good hitter.......but the hype boosted their images immeasurably....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

While I agree with you on principle, as long as Cap Anson and Ty Cobb, and Ken Landis(IIRC)  remain enshrined, that kind of goes out the window. 

While we’re at it, let’s not convict any murderers because some people have gotten away with killing before.  This isn’t directed at you, but I will never understand people arguing for known cheaters & scumbags getting into the Hall of Fame just because unconfirmed cheaters and scumbags from previous eras were voted in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

While we’re at it, let’s not convict any murderers because some people have gotten away with killing before.  This isn’t directed at you, but I will never understand people arguing for known cheaters & scumbags getting into the Hall of Fame just because unconfirmed cheaters and scumbags from previous eras were voted in.

I'm for cheaters and scumbags staying out, but it's incredibly hypocritical when Anson, Cobb and Landis are still in there. 

 

My opinion: have a separate wing for the asshats of the game who were still great on the field, but did something to disgrace themselves. IMO the HOF is a museum of baseball history, and that history can't be told without the scumbags. People that go there are the roiders, overt racists and gamblers. Bud Selig belongs there too, for allowing the roiders to get away with it for so long. 

Edited by Jack Parkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I'm for cheaters and scumbags staying out, but it's incredibly hypocritical when Anson, Cobb and Landis are still in there. 

 

My opinion: have a separate wing for the asshats of the game who were still great on the field, but did something to disgrace themselves. IMO the HOF is a museum of baseball history, and that history can't be told without the scumbags. People that go there are the roiders, overt racists and gamblers. Bud Selig belongs there too, for allowing the roiders to get away with it for so long. 

Fully disagree on the second paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Fully disagree on the second paragraph.

Does it matter to you if they're all enshrined posthumously and nobody gets to give a speech on their behalf? Would that change your mind? 

If they're not allowed any of the privileges of being a HOFer, does that do anything for you? 

I personally believe in the lifetime ban as opposed to being permanently ineligible.

When the disgraced have passed on, they have paid their debt to baseball for their sins, and can go to the hall of disgraced greats. 

That's just how I'd run things. It wouldn't even be part of the regular museum, just a separate building on the campus that people can choose to visit or not. 

Edited by Jack Parkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

While we’re at it, let’s not convict any murderers because some people have gotten away with killing before.  This isn’t directed at you, but I will never understand people arguing for known cheaters & scumbags getting into the Hall of Fame just because unconfirmed cheaters and scumbags from previous eras were voted in.

Cheating is objective, not subjective.  
 

Being a scumbag is 100% a subjective opinion.  Someone might think schillings a scumbag.  I consider anyone that thinks that to be an absolute moron.  

  • Haha 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ChiSox1917 said:

Cheating is objective, not subjective.  
 

Being a scumbag is 100% a subjective opinion.  Someone might think schillings a scumbag.  I consider anyone that thinks that to be an absolute moron.  

Racists are scumbags. Schilling has said a lot of racist shit. Racism isn't fucking subjective. 

I'm not going to get into this with you, because I already know your stance on the subject. I'm disappointed that in America in 2020, we still have to litigate whether or not racism is bad. 

Edited by Jack Parkman
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ChiSox1917 said:

Being a scumbag is 100% a subjective opinion.  Someone might think schillings a scumbag.  I consider anyone that thinks that to be an absolute moron.  

Not always.  Being a rapist or a wife beater is not subjective.  Being an outright racist is not subjective.  I personally think Schilling is a scumbag, but not sure what he’s done is bad enough to be banned from the Hall.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on Jeter...

I've learned the past couple days that people really, really hate learning he was actually a terrible shortstop defensively. It's not even all Yankee fans that are defending his legacy (live in NY).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ChiSox1917 said:

Cheating is objective, not subjective.  
 

Being a scumbag is 100% a subjective opinion.  Someone might think schillings a scumbag.  I consider anyone that thinks that to be an absolute moron.  

Based on Schillings' past racist remarks, he is without a doubt, 100% a scumbag. The irony is, thinking otherwise makes one the moron (or bigot if you prefer). 

  • Like 3
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chisoxmb35 said:

Based on Schillings' past racist remarks, he is without a doubt, 100% a scumbag. The irony is, thinking otherwise makes one the moron (or bigot if you prefer). 

ding ding ding we have a winner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

Racists are scumbags. Schilling has said a lot of racist shit. Racism isn't fucking subjective. 

I'm not going to get into this with you, because I already know your stance on the subject. I'm disappointed that in America in 2020, we still have to litigate whether or not racism is bad. 

Do you think that I think racism is good?  

You won't get into this with me, because you will not be able to find a single public statement from schilling that disparages another race or promotes the superiority of one race over another.  

4 hours ago, Chisoxmb35 said:

Based on Schillings' past racist remarks, he is without a doubt, 100% a scumbag. The irony is, thinking otherwise makes one the moron (or bigot if you prefer). 

Which racist remarks are those?  If you say something this stupid (and it is a stupid claim), back it up.  

Edited by ChiSox1917
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ChiSox1917 said:

Do you think that I think racism is good?  

You won't get into this with me, because you will not be able to find a single public statement from schilling that disparages another race or promotes the superiority of one race over another.  

Which racist remarks are those?  If you say something this stupid (and it is a stupid claim), back it up.  

Is it ok for Schilling to claim a black man is lying over the racist taunts he received when playing at Fenway even though he wasn’t there?  Is it ok for Schilling to use random / unvented (and ultimately incorrect) data on the internet to draw parallels between Muslims & Nazi’s?  I don’t know if he’s actually a racist, but he’s most definitely ignorant & arrogant and that’s a scumbag combo for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Is it ok for Schilling to claim a black man is lying over the racist taunts he received when playing at Fenway even though he wasn’t there?  Is it ok for Schilling to use random / unvented (and ultimately incorrect) data on the internet to draw parallels between Muslims & Nazi’s?  I don’t know if he’s actually a racist, but he’s most definitely ignorant & arrogant and that’s a scumbag combo for me. 

A lot of people have issues with those still advocating for the Rebel flag as well, I sincerely doubt he’s a Civil War buff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Is it ok for Schilling to claim a black man is lying over the racist taunts he received when playing at Fenway even though he wasn’t there?  Is it ok for Schilling to use random / unvented (and ultimately incorrect) data on the internet to draw parallels between Muslims & Nazi’s?  I don’t know if he’s actually a racist, but he’s most definitely ignorant & arrogant and that’s a scumbag combo for me. 

1) why is it not ok to cast doubt on unsubstantiated claims?  We’re now required to believe every claim of racism at face value?  Schilling has a very good point that if something like that happened in Fenway, in the liberal cesspool of Boston, that there would be at least some corroborating witnesses to the claim.  
 

2) I agree that ultimately schillings math probably isn’t accurate (but it isn’t wildly off either), but the actual comparison between the two groups is not off.  
 

if ignorant people are scumbags in your mind, then that constitutes almost the entirety of the country.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, stop discussing Schilling now. Some of you are beginning to drag politics into it. We don't have the Buster for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×