fmartija

I am continually amazed, how Cub fans can be so attached to such an irrelevant number as attendance. Do I care that the sox might draw 15k to any given game? No...in fact, i love it because i can get awesome pricing for any seat in the house. But someone tell me, from a fan perspective why this is any more important than the product on the field?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 16, 2015 -> 11:45 AM) Then by your justification, Buehrle should have won 20 games and a Cy Young with the 2005 White Sox, who were the best team in the league and eventual World Champions. That didn't happen. Really, 2005 is the only year you can say Buehrle was one of the absolute best starters in the league. He should have garnered more Cy Young votes than he did, as he was the 2nd best starter in the AL that year. Also, Glavine won the Cy Young awards because he was a phenomenal pitcher whom the writers felt was the best pitcher in his league in those seasons. There was some circumstance that aided it, but "pitching for the Braves against no roided up DH" is not why he won. Johan Santana was in his prime during all of Buehrle's prime years....had a far better peak, but fell off faster...any opinions on if he's a HOFer?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 16, 2015 -> 10:23 AM) Yep, exactly. I rant for wOBA against OPS about every three months, but even if you want to use OPS, you should go for OPS+ if you're comparing guys across eras, simply because it adjusts for offensive environment, and therefore adds context. Both OPS+ and wRC+ are indexes, which means they compare differences to average. 100 is league average every year, adjusted to the environment, and each point in either direction represents 1% above or below average. Raw stats from the steroid era don't compare to raw stats today, but an index takes care of this for us. Great example: Craig Biggio (OPS: .796 | OPS+: 112) vs. Lou Whitaker (OPS: .789 | OPS+: 117). Biggio had the better raw numbers, but they were less valuable than Lou's because Lou was doing what he did in an era where offense was down. Lou was a better hitter compared to his contemporaries than Biggio was compared to HIS contemporaries. Lou was 17% above average (in terms of OPS) for his career, Biggio was 12% above average. like i said, however, OPS is a very simple concept for the layman to understand. OPS+, wRC+.....great for us geeky statheads, but meaningless to the average joe (and HOF voter)

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 16, 2015 -> 08:56 AM) No, but I can think of lots of solid second basemen that played for at least 3-4 season that definitely aren't hall of famers, and it turns out a lot of them were better hitters than Craig Biggio over the course of their careers. Some examples: George Grantham, Danny Murphy, Jim Delahanty, Ben Zobrist, Don Buford, Fred Dunlap. Also, tied for Biggio in career wRC+ is Neil Walker. I'm not saying Biggio isn't a hall of famer, I'm just saying it wasn't due the the brute force of his bat. Pointing out that using a particularly inflated offensive statistic puts him in the middle-of-the-pack among guys who managed to play a long time isn't a good argument for him. I mean, how many guys ABOVE him on your list aren't even in? Off the top of my head I can think of three likely: Jeff Kent? Bobby Grich? Lou Whitaker? EDIT: Just checked. No Lou Whitaker (though Lou has a higher wRC+), but there is Alfonso Soriano! not saying that his bat is "The" reason why he's in...as everyone has said previously...a choice of who goes in is ultimately a composite decision...mostly of where you stand versus your peers/generation (offensively, defensively, pitching, etc) , longevity, your accomplishments (whether awards, championships, etc), where you stand in history (most incomparable due to changes in game over time). When i cite his OPS, its not me saying "see! this is why he should be in!", but rather a simple complement to him for being on that list. I personally like OPS as a singular general overview of offensive prowess, but am aware that there may be other statistics that might be more relevant, but aren't as simple for the layman to understand.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 16, 2015 -> 08:15 AM) No idea why you'd set the PA bar that high, unless you were specifically trying to give him credit for being a "compiler," which is the biggest criticism against him. Also, it makes no sense to use OPS when comparing player across different time periods, especially when you're talking about someone whose career spanned the entirety of one of the most extreme periods of offense in history. If you set it to minimum 2000 PA, and use wRC+ (which is an index adjusted to the offensive environment of the era), he's #31. #32 is Bobby Doerr. Because the hall of fame is also all about performing at a high level for a long time. 2000 PA is only 3-4 seasons. I can't think of any hall of famer that only played for 3-4 seasons, can you? 8000 PA can range between 10-13 seasons.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jan 15, 2015 -> 05:07 PM) he's minor league filler. He never was very good - just better than anything else we had for a few years, although the manager wouldn't see it. They Sox simply aren't getting full value out of their roster if they keep these all field no-hit types purely for defensive replacement. Because of that, Adam Dunn, e.g., always had to hit against lefties. Need a better rounded bench this year. i.e. no L Garcia. (and we kept him for Semien last year; a lot of teams wouldn't have done that). Agreed. I mean with all their offseason moves, the A's can field a lineup comprised of mostly lefty hitters or righty hitters. Ultimate flexibility.

With a minimum of 8000 plate appearances, Biggio ranks 12th out of 28 in OPS. #13 is Ryne Sandberg.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jan 15, 2015 -> 03:05 PM) Compared to Jeter Jeter lead MLB in runs once and hits twice and has 400 more total hits Biggio lead in runs twice, doubles and SB once, has 31 more HR, 83 less K's and 78 more walks filtering out shortstops with 10000 plate appearances since 1900, there were 11 shortstops that returned on the query. Derek Jeter's OPS ranked 4th in that group. expand it to 8000 plate appearances, it returned 39 shortstops and he was 5th in that group in OPS.... impressive.

he & Brian Anderson can get together, have a beer, and reminisce about what its like to be a light hitting defensive replacement.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 15, 2015 -> 12:45 PM) Worth pointing out that Buehrle would've won a Cy Young or two pitching for the Braves in the 90s too... Context matters. but he didn't.... the Babe would have hit 100 hrs in 2000....

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 15, 2015 -> 11:50 AM) Tom Glavine 1991-1997, 30 fWAR, 4.28 fWAR per season Mark Buehrle 2002-2008, 28.8 fWAR, 4.11 fWAR per season ok...what i will give you is that their primes were VERY CLOSE Tom Glavine 1990-1998 Mark Buehrle 2001-2009 i don't know if fWAR is a metric that HOF voters use (for better or worse) when making their votes, so it may be irrelevent in this discussion But, the other peripheral stuff IE awards: Glavine won 2 Cy Youngs, 2 Silver Sluggers, 9 all star bids Buehrle won 5 all star bids, 4 gold gloves We can argue the merit of the votes of these awards in another debate, but they are what they are.... TWICE, Glavine was recognized as the best of his peers thru the Cy Youngs. Again, the HOF is an honor of being the best of your generation. All i'm saying is that my opinion is that Buehrle is not among the best of his generation, whereas Glavine was. In addition, Glavine won some very relevant awards, and met some of the key statistics that are currently part of the Hall of Fame decision-making. Perhaps the benchmarks might change in the future to accommodate the current era. But based on all this criteria, i still don't believe him to be a HOFer. Now, if tarp sliding was a consideration, then no doubt about it, that puts him over the top.

He could be the next coming of Rick Ankiel...not holding my breath though...didn't realize that he's 33, but scary to see his hitting now, way past his 'prime'.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 15, 2015 -> 09:16 AM) Not yet, but if the scenario that I laid out earlier plays out I really need you to explain to me why two of these guys are first ballot Hall of Famers and why one of them is not even close. Player A - 305-203, 3.54 ERA, 118 ERA+, 4413.1 IP, 2607 K, 1.314 WHIP, 3.1 BB/9, 5.3 K/9, 1.74 K/BB, 64.3 fWAR Player B - 213-155, 3.33 ERA, 125 ERA+, 3473 IP, 3084 K, 1.176 WHIP, 2.6 BB/9, 8.0 K/9, 3.05 K/BB, 78.7 fWAR Player C - 263-207, 3.81 ERA, 117 ERA+, 4108 IP, 2323 K, 1.283 WHIP, 2.0 BB/9, 5.2 K/9, 2.54 K/BB, 67.0 fWAR There are certain magic numbers that A & B hit that are HOF benchmarks, but you have to look at their individual seasons to really get how good they were. Player A (Tom Glavine) - 300 wins.....thats huge in the HOF eyes. but also, his career from 1991-1997 were pretty darn good...he just happened to stick around long enough in the aging curve to really suppress his WHIP #s. But I like to think of Frank Thomas...really damned good/elite in the 90s, but 2001-2007 was good, but not elite. He got in because of those 90s numbers. Comparatively Buehrle throughout his career has been consistently good, but only one season (2005) where he might have been considered near the top of MLB. Player (B) Smoltz - 3000 strikeouts...again his numbers as a starter in the 90s were really really good/elite. Then as a closer he also was really good. So ultimately, Glavine & Smoltz had very good peaks, and then tapered off, where Buerhle was 'good'...not elite, but good.

with a giveaway Paulie statue!

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 07:17 PM) Would the hall be better as a Hall of Stats or a Hall of Fame? Serious question? Why does it exist? As a celebration of baseball, guys like Mark with sliding on the tarp during rain delays and pitching no hitters, winning a lot of games, over a long time, seems better than a statue of a guy who cheated, lied, etc with better stats. It seems to me there should be room for guys that made baseball a better sport by having played the game. You know the FAMEous. Oh no doubt....Buehrle's tarp sliding stats far exceed anyone else. Strikeouts? No...but tarp sliding? yes

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 15, 2015 -> 08:19 AM) I'm surprised that no one has stated the obvious. This allows him to easily take a position on the Sox coaching staff as roving minor league batting instructor until there is room on Robin's staff. Not only filling two roster positions as a OF/P but coaching as well. The future of baseball. Player(OF,P)/Coach/Director of Groupie Parties...i love it

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 04:41 PM) This. Buehrle's career is hilarious. I wouldn't be surprised if he retired next year, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he had two more stints on the Sox. I think HOF is a stretch, but I look forward to attending his statue ceremony one day at the Cell. Thomas and Buehrle are 1 and 1a to me when it comes to favorite Sox. agreed. I should disclose that Buehrle is one of my favorite Sox ever....so i'm merely trying to be unbiased when arguing against his case for the Hall.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 03:39 PM) Amen! Of course he'll deserve the Hall but he won't get in. The Hall of Fame will be ignoring starting pitchers in the future. Not enough wins over a long enough period of time because of injuries and starters getting pulled early too. Mark Buehrle won't have to feel badly for not getting the honor he deserves. Cause no starters will be getting in the Hall. Their numbers just won't compare to the golden oldie guys who defined the high high standard of hall of Fame pitcher. But is Mark a Hall of Famer? Of course. I believe you to be incorrect on both fronts....we're in a golden age of pitching right now...Clayton Kershaw, King Felix, Chris Sale....all these guys have the ability to put up HOF numbers, and get in. As said previously, they won't be completely compared to prior HOF inductees....different eras, different game. But because of the shift towards pitching recently, their ratio numbers are going to be fantastic compared to some other HOF inductees. Maybe they won't get counting stats, but their numbers will be impressive. ...and Buehrle still isn't a HOF, IMO.

he comes back as a new breed of RP/OF...the White Sox are innovative, breaking barriers in creating hybrid relief pitchers/positional players.... 2 positions, 1 roster spot...BRILLIANT!!

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 12:36 PM) It's a combination of both relative to your generation and where you stand all time. At their best Tim Lincecum and Barry Zito were better than Mark Buehrle. Let's see who ends up with more HOF votes when all is said and done. I would say that Buehrle was absolutely one of the best of his generation all things considered. During the 2000s, Buehrle was 8th in fWAR and 4th in wins in all of baseball. so lets say i give you that 5 year 'extension' as you discussed. i think Buehrle comps similarly to Andy Pettitte in terms of overall numbers. What do you feel about Pettitte for HOF worthiness? Just doing a search of most IP between 1996-2014, i came up with Roy Halladay, CC Sabathia, Mike Mussina, Curt Shilling, Clemens (yeah i know...roids) as guys who can make their HOF argument before Buehrle... I see Buerhle more of a 'very good' on the same level as Tim Hudson, Jaime Moyer, Bartolo Colon, Pettitte This doesn't even really account the younger generation who overlaps with the latter half of Buerhle's career that could block him out...Verlander, King Felix...etc. There are just too many people i would take over him

when it comes to HOF discussions, its usually about how a player is relative to his generation. Thats what it comes down to....do you think Mark Buerhle was one of the best pitchers of his generation? I resoundingly say "no"!

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 09:46 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 14, 2015 -> 08:43 AM) 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). 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.

I love everything Buehrle did for the Sox, but he is not even close to one of the best pitchers of his generation. His durability is to be admired, but the body of work is merely 'ok'

I didn't know there was such thing as an "optimistic" Sox fan.