lasttriptotulsa

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 11:08 AM) His career ERA is 3.81 though. Even if you use that standard instead of his FIP it doesn't really move the needle much. Like I said, he needed a couple more 2005-like seasons. EDIT: You do make a good point about how valuing pitching shouldn't be entirely fielding-independent if the pitcher himself is adding the value through his fielding. Kinda the same line of thinking as to why it's really dumb that a run is still unearned even if it's the pitcher's own dumbass error that allowed the run to score. It's as if the guy throwing the pitches and the guy fielding the position are treated as two separate guys. His 3.81 ERA is high for the Hall when looking at it without context. The average HOFer has an ERA of 2.98 and the highest is Red Ruffing at 3.80. The average ERA+ of starters in the HOF is 123, Buehrle sits at 117. Some others around that number include Warren Spahn (119), Bert Blyleven (118), Steve Carlton (115), Gaylord Perry (117), Fergie Jenkins (115) and Nolan Ryan (112) The average HOFer also has 253 Ws, 3801 IPs, 2153 Ks, and 70 bWAR. Those are all numbers that Buehrle can reach should he choose to. I used bWAR here because with the talk about FIP and its inaccuracies with pitchers like Buehrle I felt it appropriate even though it is generally less accurate. If you look strictly at bWAR, Buehrle would currently be ranked 47th amongst HOFers with a chance to move to the top 25-30 if he keeps pitching. Buehrle certainly has some detractions that will probably keep him out. He never really came close to winning a Cy Young, he was never viewed as being that dominate and he didn't really have a pitch that was memorable. I.E. Ryan's fastball, Big Unit's slider or Blyleven's curveball. Again, I don't think he gets in, but it would certainly not be a joke if he did. He has already had a better career than some inducted and would move to the middle of the pack if he pitches another 5 years. Overall he was not one of the best pitchers to ever play the game, but he was above average and at time significantly above average. Combine that with his consistency and durability and he really has been one of the most valuable pitchers that we've seen.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 09:58 AM) Mark needed at least 2 more years like 2005 in order to get into the HOF discussion. Yes, five more years at his current production compiles him some very nice career totals. But a FIP over 4 does not scream HOF at me, regardless for how long you do it. The problem with FIP, when it comes to a pitcher like Buehrle, is that is does not in any way take into account his defense or his ability to completely eliminate the running game. His ERA has consistently been significantly better than his FIP and the difference between the two correlates pretty well with his defensive runs saved. This is a great Grantland article from last year that talks about this very point. http://grantland.com/features/mark-buehrle...rising-success/ A pitchers defensive ability is seldom even mentioned when talking about the HOF, but really there is no reason that it shouldn't be. A DRS is a DRS whether you were a pitcher or a shortstop.

QUOTE (Armchair Hahn @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 09:54 AM) For discussions sake, if he had 5 more years, we'll see the ERA rise, not fall....the WHIP likely rise, not fall. At this stage, with his stuff, i would not be surprised to see him put up more >4.00-4.50 ERA years, especially in the AL east. I don't see a 'level performance' possible, as his fastball averages 83 mph these days (and change up is 78mph) I'm more willing to bet that extending his career will be more detrimental to his overall numbers, than helpful. He's pitched over 3000 innings in the Majors to this point. After 3000 innings it is incredibly difficult to move rate stats much in either direction. If he pitches 1000 more innings at a 4.25 ERA, his career ERA will only rise from 3.81 to 3.92 and if he pitches 1000 more innings of a 1.400 WHIP, his career WHIP will only rise from 1.283 to 1.312. Those are not significant differences that would hurt his Hall chances. There is also no reason to believe his numbers will decline that rapidly, that quickly as he has been remarkably consistent and has the pitching acumen to adapt as his stuff diminishes. His rate stats are not HOF worthy as it is. The only way he gets in is to acquire the counting stats. He cannot acquire the counting stats if he does not pitch.

QUOTE (Armchair Hahn @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 08:56 AM) Is Tim Hudson a HOFer? He's the closest comp in the current total IP Buerhle: 3084.2 IP, 199-152, 3.81 ERA, 1.28WHIP, 1779K Hudson: 3003 IP, 214-124, 3.45 ERA, 1.23WHIP, 2016K Very similar across the board, with Hudson bettering Buehrle in K's. No. Of course he's not. Did you read my post? The entire thing was about Buehrle entering the HOF discussion if he can perform at his current level for 5 more years. Tim Hudson is not the best comparison because he is nearly 40 (4 years older than Buehrle) and is entering his final year. If Buehrle continues (as I said in my post) to play for 5 or so more years, he will beat Hudson's career totals by around 20% so he's not really a good comparison to the potential scenario I laid out.

I'd say Dunn is done with professional baseball. Between his camp and other business ventures, I don't think he would have an interest or the time to have a job in MLB.

At this point, Buehrle is no way a HOFer. But remember, he is only 35. He has always talked about retiring early, but I think if he were really going to he would have done it after 2011. Until he does retire, let's assume that he plays until he nobody wants him anymore like most players do. Given his pitching style and near flawless delivery, I think he has a minimum of 5 years left should he choose to play them. Let's just assume he can stay right around his career averages for those five years. And let's face it, he hasn't diminished all that much in 14 seasons and last year was his best in 5 years. If we assume he pitches 5 more years and performs near his 5 year averages, his all time ranks become fairly impressive. Wins - 263 - 41st IP - 4108 - 38th Ks - 2370 - 43rd fWAR - 67 - 35th It has the look of a classic compiler, but let's face it, there are plenty of compilers in the HOF. When you add those numbers to the 4+ Gold Gloves, 5+ All-Stars, World Series ring, a perfect game, another no hitter, the consecutive batters retired record (since broken), the durability factor of never missing a start and numerous other things, he would have a legitimate case. I really think the best comparable would be Don Sutton. Let's look at the numbers side by side assuming Buehrle keeps pitching. Don Sutton - 324-256, 3.26 ERA, 108 ERA+, 5282.1 IP, 1.142 WHIP, 2.66 K/BB, 85.8 fWAR Mark Buehrle - 263-207, 3.81 ERA, 117 ERA+, 4108 IP, 1.283 WHIP, 2.54 K/BB, 67 fWAR Both classic compilers, and when you consider that Buehrle pitched through a good portion of the steroid era, the numbers are pretty close. The biggest difference is that Sutton pitched during a time when starters pitched between 35-40 starts a year and Buehrle pitched during a time when they pitched 30-35 so he was able to accrue quite a few more wins. Buehrle has actually won a near identical percentage of his starts as Sutton, 42.2% to 42.4%. Now my gut feeling is that Buehrle will not be a Hall of Famer, but he definitely has more of a potential than people are giving him credit for. Another fun fact is that Buehrle is the ONLY pitcher (modern era) to ever face the minimum 27 batters in a game 3 times and one of 2 pitchers to throw 2, 27 batter no hitters (other is Koufax).

QUOTE (Douglas Rome @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 05:49 AM) you guys are way too kind, he stole my money and for that there is no forgiveness. His body language and the s*** eating grin on his face every time he drew a walk was one reason I could not stand to see him in the batter's box. Draw a walk, I'm not paying him to draw walks, I could bring back Smokey Burgess to do that. Why they let him sit out the last week so he wouldn't break the all-time strikeout record i'll never know? Would have served him right. thanks, douglas The two main reasons the Sox signed him were to hit homeruns and get on base. How does a guy who hits for a low average get on base? Oh yea, by walking. When the bases are empty a walk is every bit as good as a single. But I'm guessing by your previous postings that you would much rather prefer a slap singles hitter who hit .300 but had a .650 OPS as opposed to a .220 hitter with a .800 OPS. Thanks, lasttriptotulsa. QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 07:15 AM) considering he didn't draw that many walks, i imagine you didn't see him smile at you while he's stealing your money that much. Striking out all the god dammed time and only hitting 11 home runs in his first year with the sox is stealing my money. Adam Dunn didn't walk much? Sorry, you lose a lot of credibility with that statement. The two things he did best were walk and hit homeruns, both of which he did in spades with the Sox the last three years. From 2011-2014 his BB% was the 6th best in all of baseball and his total number of BBs was 4th best. Hell, even during 2011 which was one of the worst seasons in MLB history, his BB% was 8th best in all of baseball. He also hit the 5th most homeruns in all of baseball from 2012 to 2014. Not saying that his time in Chicago was any great success, but the last three years he was nowhere near being the White Sox' biggest problem.

Better career FIP-, WHIP and K/BB than Tom Glavine. Just sayin'.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 13, 2015 -> 11:18 AM) Under zero scenario is Dunn a HOF'er. Not in my eyes. He ended any HOF chance he had by retiring at 34. He's still capable of putting up a 110-120 wRC+ and still can homeruns at as high of a rate as anybody and he really could have had a job as long as he stayed at that level. Had he played and kept that level for another 4-5 years, he would be flirting with 550-600 HRs, 1500 RBIs, and 1700 BBs. As a guy with zero PED allegations, I think they would have a hard time keeping him out with that many homers regardless of what his batting average was.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 12, 2015 -> 02:56 PM) It's not a perfect stat, but when you have an improved offense, those quality starts add up to team wins. I'll take the 20 quality starts from Danks if he makes his 32 and goes 200 innings. The team will probably go 18-14 at a minimum from the 4th or 5th starter. Sign me up. But the arbitrary numbers set by the quality start definition mean very little and say very little about how a guy pitched. Would you rather have your starter go 5.2 and give up no runs or go 6 and give up 3? One is a quality start, the other is not.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 12, 2015 -> 01:52 PM) Danks had 20 quality starts and will be healthier, and Noesi is going to be better than he was. Best rotation in baseball and the Sox will win 97 games. I can't wait for the day when we can quit citing the ridiculous "quality start" stat. It is really meaningless. June 24th, 1997 - Randy Johnson - 9 IP, 11 Hits, 4 ER, 0 BB, 19 Ks - Not a Quality Start July 5th, 2000 - Mark Mulder - 6.2 IP, 15 Hits, 9 R (2 ER), 3 BB, 7 Ks - Quality Start

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 12, 2015 -> 09:44 AM) I heard on the radio today that Marrone still gets paid by the Bills even though he opted out. This can't be true can it? Yep it is. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12104824...t-buffalo-bills Mentions it in this article. Even after he finds a new job, he stills gets his $4 million base salary from the Bills in 2015. He must have a hell of an agent to pull off that deal.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Jan 12, 2015 -> 01:23 AM) You just contradicted yourself. By "Stretching for the TD" he is making a football move. At that point, it's ruled a catch. According to the reversal, he never showed he had possession, he never stretched or reached for the endzone. And that's horses***. I've seen the replay 100 times now. He is absolutely turning his arm up towards the goalline. If he was just trying to catch the ball, he would have tucked it, not extended outward. Horrible call to end a great game. The NFL is a f***ing joke with some of these calls and rules. For all the Lions fans who said that the horrible call last week ended their season, they've got nothing on this call, as the Cowboys never possessed the ball again, and were losing. Lions were winning and had 2 more possessions. While both were bad calls, one team had good chance to make the call irrelevant. The other team is the Cowboys. And the Cowboys had a damn good chance to win the Superbowl as well. They have beaten 2 of the 3 opponents possibly advancing already this season. The official's ruling was 100% correct whether you agree with it or not. Like most people, I do not like the rule but it is the rule. It doesn't matter how many times he taps his feet or how many times he extends his arm, if he is going to the ground he needs to maintain possession the entire time. The NFL has been very clear about that in recent years. The ball clearly hit the ground and popped out of his arm. At that point it is incomplete like it or not.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 12:15 PM) Can someone explain to me what's with all the Cubs hype recently? Does adding Lester, Montero and bringing back Hammel, while getting Maddon to coach their team make them THAT much better? They have too many unproven talents for anyone to start hopping on their bandwagon. The Cubs could be really good, but they would need all of their young players to pan out immediately and that is very unlikely. I would say they are still 2 or 3 years away from really being contenders.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 10:40 PM) I realize the part about the retirement. However, he also could have had the surgery earlier and then returned to baseball. He chose just to ride it out. You don't really see him limping or using a cane now. The surgery cleaned everything out. It is never going to be perfect but it would have extended his career but he would have had to miss a significant part of a season to do it. Maybe it was because of him playing with Frank Thomas but I just didn't see him as one of the best hitters in baseball. A very good hitter but not one of the best. Maybe the abundance of PED performances jaded it as well. You mentioned that only 21 players had a 5.3 fWAR season last year that would have made him a top 21 hitter, I don't consider a top 21 hitter in a given year a HOF caliber player. HOF should be in the top 10 at least over a long period of time. How many of the players in his era had that type of fWAR? I'm sure it is more than now. That would put him in the top 30 range. I just don't see that as one of the best players of all time and HOF worthy. Just my opinion but I don't see it. You state that you don't see a top 21 hitter as being HOF caliber but I disagree. Just for fun I looked at an average fWAR season (1995) for Ventura just to see how many future HOFers were active during that year. I am only counting either players already elected or players guaranteed to be elected at some point. I am not counting PED users (Clemens, Bonds, etc.) or borderline candidates that may get in at some point (Edgar Martinez, Larry Walker, etc.). The number of guaranteed future HOFers in 1995 was 30. If you count the PED users and borderline guys you can add about a dozen more to that number. So there were roughly 40-45 active HOF caliber players playing in 1995 which is a year that Ventura finished 25th amongst all players (pitchers included) in fWAR. And that was really just an average year for him. I really don't think you are appreciating how good a fWAR season is or how hard they are to achieve. To try and show you I will compare Robin Ventura to 10 players who have either been recently inducted or will be inducted soon into the HOF. I will also compare him to 3 HOF third basemen who I think he compares favorably to at least during his peak. These players will be Craig Biggio, Frank Thomas, Ron Santo, Barry Larkin, Roberto Alomar, Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Rickey Henderson, Cal Ripken Jr, Tony Gwynn, Derek Jeter, Ken Griffey Jr, Jim Thome, Brooks Robinson and Paul Molitor To start off with, I will look at the number of 5.0 or better fWAR seasons each player had. 1. Ken Griffey Jr - 9 2. Frank Thomas - 8 2. Ron Santo - 8 2. Barry Larkin - 8 2. Cal Ripken Jr - 8 6. Brooks Robinson - 7 7. Robin Ventura - 6 7. Roberto Alomar - 6 7. Paul Molitor - 6 10. Jim Rice - 5 10. Derek Jeter - 5 10. Jim Thome - 5 13. Andre Dawson - 4 13. Tony Gwynn - 4 13. Craig Biggio - 3 As you can see, Robin Ventura ranks right in the middle of the pack with a pretty good group of recent HOFers and HOF third baseman. Next lets compare each players fWAR per 162 for the duration of their career. 1. Frank Thomas - 5.1 1. Ron Santo - 5.1 3. Barry Larkin - 5.0 3. Cal Ripken Jr - 5.0 5. Ken Griffey Jr - 4.7 6. Brooks Robinson - 4.5 7. Robin Ventura - 4.4 7. Roberto Alomar - 4.4 9. Derek Jeter - 4.3 9. Tony Gwynn - 4.3 9. Jim Thome - 4.3 12. Paul Molitor - 4.1 13. Jim Rice - 3.9 14. Craig Biggio - 3.7 15. Andre Dawson - 3.7 Once again, Robin Ventura is right in the middle of the pack and right on par or better than some sure fire HOF players. For a final comparison, I will look at each players fWAR per 162 games during what I will consider each players' 10 year peak. 1. Ken Griffey Jr - 7.7 2. Ron Santo - 6.8 3. Cal Ripken Jr - 6.7 4. Barry Larkin - 6.4 5. Frank Thomas - 6.3 6. Brooks Robinson - 5.6 6. Jim Thome - 5.6 8. Craig Biggio - 5.5 9. Robin Ventura - 5.4 9. Derek Jeter - 5.4 9. Roberto Alomar - 5.4 12. Paul Molitor - 5.1 12. Andre Dawson - 5.1 12. Tony Gwynn - 5.1 15. Jim Rice - 5.0 Once again, Robin Ventura is right in the middle of the pack and is tied with two guys who are considered to be amongst the best to ever play their positions in Jeter and Alomar. Through all of this it really shows that at his best Robin Ventura was as good as many recent HOFers and was actually better than a good number of them. The biggest difference between Robin Ventura and the rest of these guys is the lengths of their careers. Those other players averaged 2547 games played during their careers. Robin Ventura played just 2079 games. Much of which was due to his injury. Those extra 468 games allowed some of these players to achieve some of the counting milestones that voters look for. If we gave Robin Ventura those extra 468 games, and we assume he played at his career averages during that time, his stats we look as follows. 2309 H, 414 2B, 360 HRs, 1448 RBIs, 1316 BBs and a .267/.362/.444/.806 slash line to go along with 69.5 fWAR. That is a borderline HOF career when you add in the multiple Gold Gloves. I'm not saying that Robin Ventura should be in the HOF or that he would be if he wasn't injured, I'm just saying he is a lot closer than you are giving him credit for. At his peak he was better than Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Paul Molitor and Tony Gwynn and was tied with Derek Jeter and Roberto Alomar. Yet those guys all have, or will have, plaques in Cooperstown while Robin Ventura fell off the ballot on the first try and is not remembered by most for just how great of a player he was. Not that it matters to his MLB career, but many consider him to be one of the best, if not the best, college players of all time also.

QUOTE (The Baconator @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 06:07 PM) Raines also benefits from the fact that there aren't many big names coming up next year which will help clear up some of the glut. Griffey is a sure thing, probably Edmonds, and then they drop off. Hopefully this allows more voters to use their expanded votes to vote in the deserving guys that have been passed over in recent years. As great as Edmonds was, I doubt he makes the hall.

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 04:13 PM) Not sure if Raines' off the field issues during his prime and then slight dropoff in performance also didn't create an imperfect storm for him. I would just about bet that there is a certain percentage of voters that won't vote for him because of the whole cocaine thing. Whether that's a significant percentage or not is anybody's guess.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 01:53 PM) Yes. Mattingly, Trammell, and Lee Smith got grandfathered for 15. Everyone else has 10 years. This makes no sense to me why they chose to do it this way. If they were going to grandfather anybody in, it should have been everybody that was already on the ballot. Otherwise they could have essentially given a guy who's been on the ballot 9 years just one more, while a guy who has already been on 11 years gets 4 more. How much sense does that make?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 09:27 AM) I think Wagner deserves to be a HOFer more than Hoffman does. I agree. Wagner was a better pitcher than Hoffman. The biggest problem is there are still a lot of old timers in the BBWAA that like nice round figures like 600 saves and s*** like that. Or they'll look at the fact that for about five years he was the all time saves leader. When all is said and done I think Hoffman will be in but Wagner won't and I don't really like that.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 07:32 AM) Hoffman should eventually get in, but no to Wagner and Edmonds. Then in 2 years Pudge has a PED cloud similar to Piazza, Manny has his own issues and Posada is not close to being a HoFer. Vladdy should be the only 1st timer that year. I think Billy Wagner is really underappreciated for how good he was. I don't think he will get in, and probably shouldn't, but he's closer than many think. His numbers stacked up to Mariano Rivera are strikingly similar. Mariano Rivera - 2.21 ERA, 2.76 FIP, 1.000 WHIP, 7.0 H/9, 0.5 HR/9, 2.0 BB/9, 8.2 K/9, 4.1 K/BB, 652 Saves Billy Wagner - 2.31 ERA, 2.73 FIP, 0.998 WHIP, 6.0 H/9, 0.8 HR/9, 3.0 BB/9, 11.9 K/9, 3.99 K/BB, 422 Saves Their numbers are nearly identical with the only difference being Rivera played much longer and played for the Yankees which accounts for the extra 230 saves. Wagner played basically 14 seasons and was still really good when he retired while Rivera played 18 seasons. On a per season basis, Wagner had about 30 saves to Rivera's 36. Pretty close with the difference being that Rivera played for the Yankees and therefore had many more opportunities. I'm certainly not saying Wagner had the career that Rivera did, but really when they were both at the top of their game they were about equal. That being said I don't think it's right for one to be considered the greatest reliever of all time and the other to just have become an after thought.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 6, 2015 -> 02:19 PM) Pretty sure he was in one of the steroid reports. He wasn't named in the Mitchell Report but Canseco stated that he personally injected Pudge in his book.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 6, 2015 -> 02:06 PM) With out looking at his numbers was Jim Edmonds really that good? Always seemed like a good not great player to me but like I said, I haven't looked at any of his stats. Edmonds was better than a lot of people give him credit for. He had an 11 year peak in which he averaged 32 HRs, 95 RBIs a slash of .293/.388/.554 and an average fWAR of nearly 6. Add 8 Gold Gloves to the mix and he absolutely deserves to be in the HOF discussion. I don't think he will make it as he didn't achieve really any of the "counting" numbers that voters look for and only finished in the top 10 of MVP voting twice. He only averaged around 125 games played per season which cost him a couple seasons worth of games. Had he stayed healthier he probably would have made it.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 6, 2015 -> 01:50 PM) With it being McGwire's last year next year, hopefully more will look at him as a wasted vote and Raines will get some more traction over the next two years. Griffey is the only lock next year, with Jim Edmonds, Billy Wagner, and Trevor Hoffman there too. 2 years from now-- Ivan Rodriguez, Manny, Vlad, and Posada are the notables. Ivan Rodriguez will be an interesting case. The guy was as obvious of a PED user as there ever was but it seems like everybody just forgets about it the same way they do with Ortiz.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 02:14 PM) Possible, but he had very productive years after the injury so I don't think it effected his play at the time. He had surgery to clean up the ankle once he decided to retire. He could have done this earlier and returned to baseball but I think he knew it was coming to an end and waited. There is no way to know for sure but I don't think his numbers would have continued to increase and while he was very good there was only one year that he would have been considered one of the best and it was post injury. From my experience with this type of injury, I just don't think it really effected his play much, other than maybe shortening the career. Ventura stated when he retired it was because of the pain in his ankle and the weakness of that leg. It got to the point, as we have stated, that he had to walk with a cane until his additional surgery in 2005. He put up some decent power numbers later in his career but that was about it. He didn't hit higher than .250 after age 31. During his prime he was absolutely one of the best in the game and that's not really debatable. For his entire career he averaged 4.5 fWAR per season and before 2000 he averaged 5.3 fWAR. Do you know how many position players had a 5.3 fWAR season last year, just 21. If you are a top 20 player in baseball for a single year you are one hell of a player. If you are a top 20 player in baseball for a decade you deserve to be in the HOF discussion.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 01:12 PM) By curb stomping yo must mean the game would be over well before the 4th quarter I assume? I think the Cowboys will be in the game well into the 4th quarter. IMO, the Pack's D is a bit overrated while the Cowboys D isn't as bad as most think. The Cowboys are 8-0 as a road team while the Pack haven't been a lock at Lambeau (recent playoffs) as they once were, Rodgers is easily better than Romo but it's not like he's a scrub either and DBryant, DMurray is better than GB's top WR and RB combo. The 'Boys have a legit shot. Who cares what the Packers did in previous playoffs at home. It has no baring on this game. The 2014 Packers were one of the most dominate teams at home in NFL history. Sure the Cowboys were 8-0 on the road but they played a cream puff schedule with just one game against a playoff team and the teams overall averaged just 6 wins. The Packers at home beat 3 playoff teams and the teams overall averaged better than 8 wins. Even with the much tougher schedule the Packers beat their opponents by better than 19 points per game while the Cowboys beat their opponents by just under 12 points per game. As a Packer fan I think this will be a good game but I'm not really worried about the Packers' ability to pull it out. I think Dallas is a bit overrated. They played just 3 games total against this years playoff teams.