Mike Mussina, 270 game winner, 6 time top 5 CY voting, 9 time top 6 CY voting, 5 time All-Star, 6 time gold glove winner and 3 time MVP vote recipient received only 25% of the vote in his second year on the ballot. This does not bode well for Mark Buehrle.

I would hope people are smart enough to know games won are completely meaningless, especially in this day and age.

Mike Mussina, 270 game winner, 6 time top 5 CY voting, 9 time top 6 CY voting, 5 time All-Star, 6 time gold glove winner and 3 time MVP vote recipient received only 25% of the vote in his second year on the ballot. This does not bode well for Mark Buehrle.

 

Another good comp, assuming Mark pitches long enough to get into that win range.

I would hope people are smart enough to know games won are completely meaningless, especially in this day and age.

 

When it comes to Hall of Fame voting? Absolutely not.

I would hope people are smart enough to know games won are completely meaningless, especially in this day and age.

 

Yes and no. On a season by season basis are they worthless? Yes. Over a 15-20 year career do they mean something? Absolutely.

Mike Mussina, 270 game winner, 6 time top 5 CY voting, 9 time top 6 CY voting, 5 time All-Star, 6 time gold glove winner and 3 time MVP vote recipient received only 25% of the vote in his second year on the ballot. This does not bode well for Mark Buehrle.

 

I just can't for the life of me figure out how the Hall of Fame voters can look at Smoltz and say he's a first ballot guy and then look at Mussina and only have 25% vote for him. It makes no sense. To me, Mussina should be in before Smoltz.

Sale is the best peak I have ever seen with the White Sox. Before I would call him best ever for the franchise, I want to see him hold that peak for a number of years. Guys like Ted Lyons and Ed Walsh dominated their eras. Walsh actually still holds an all-time lead on Sale in ERA+ at 146 to 142. Walsh also leads in FIP, which Sale doesn't even break the top 10 on. Ed Walsh is also a Hall of Famer.

 

Sale can get there, and is well on his way, but for my two cents, best ever consideration takes a larger body of work.

 

 

Gary Peters and Joel Horlen were pretty darn good in the era of poor offensive Sox teams. Early Wynn was good as well as Wilbur Wood. Sale is right up there with them at this point in his career

Seaver remember folks won 15 games each year with the Sox with a very good ERA in 1984 and 1985. He was older byt the guy could still pitch.

 

Mark

 

Too bad we can't get NL pitchers of that caliber anymore.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2550988...-des-art-bot-18

 

 

Good article on how Sale went from an over the top delivery to his current 3/4 arm slot.

I just can't for the life of me figure out how the Hall of Fame voters can look at Smoltz and say he's a first ballot guy and then look at Mussina and only have 25% vote for him. It makes no sense. To me, Mussina should be in before Smoltz.

 

1) the "did it as a starter and a reliever" thing

 

2) the Maddux coattails...which Glavine also benefited from. (NOT saying that Glavine was undeserving), and the dominance of the NL East that went along with it.

Not picking on you, just adding some food for thought, but when it's worded that way, I think Tom Seaver gets the nod.

 

If we are playing that game, the White Sox have had 4 of the best ten hitters of the last 20 years.

If we are playing that game, the White Sox have had 4 of the best ten hitters of the last 20 years.

Manroid, Thomas, Griffey, and who am I missing?

If we are playing that game, the White Sox have had 4 of the best ten hitters of the last 20 years.

 

White Sox all 90s/00s lineup, featuring Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Ken Griffey Jr., and Manny Ramirez. Albert Belle and Jose Canseco available off the bench.

 

EDIT: oops! Forgot Sosa. It would be fun to see where the Sox would rank in all-time teams if the only requirement was one pitch thrown/one plate appearance for the team.

Edited August 28, 201510 yr by 3GamesToLove

Manroid, Thomas, Griffey, and who am I missing?

 

James Howard Thome

James Howard Thome

Ah yes. Gracias.

I have no idea how you compare across eras. In 1908, Walsh went 40-15 with a 1.42 ERA over 464 innings.

I have no idea how you compare across eras. In 1908, Walsh went 40-15 with a 1.42 ERA over 464 innings.

 

 

I really agree with your statement. How do we really come up with a valid comparison? In the era of the dead ball and just after the turn of the century when there are few, if any, films to watch, people to talk to that actually saw the players, probably now where the stats we have now, etc, how do we see how those players compare against guys today. For many of us Our greatest players of all time knowledge starts with the Big Hurt. I bet there are many posters on this site that have never seen players like Carl Yaz, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and other real fine players actually play. Even I have never seen the Babe play LOL

I really agree with your statement. How do we really come up with a valid comparison? In the era of the dead ball and just after the turn of the century when there are few, if any, films to watch, people to talk to that actually saw the players, probably now where the stats we have now, etc, how do we see how those players compare against guys today. For many of us Our greatest players of all time knowledge starts with the Big Hurt. I bet there are many posters on this site that have never seen players like Carl Yaz, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and other real fine players actually play. Even I have never seen the Babe play LOL

The Babe also never had to face Satchel Paige.

Yes

I really agree with your statement. How do we really come up with a valid comparison? In the era of the dead ball and just after the turn of the century when there are few, if any, films to watch, people to talk to that actually saw the players, probably now where the stats we have now, etc, how do we see how those players compare against guys today. For many of us Our greatest players of all time knowledge starts with the Big Hurt. I bet there are many posters on this site that have never seen players like Carl Yaz, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and other real fine players actually play. Even I have never seen the Babe play LOL

 

You can't, especially with stats. I always like to judge based on how a player dominated his era, and compare that to how a different player dominated his. One thing you can't argue with for Walsh is that the guy is in the Hall of Fame.

This is sort of off-topic, but do you guys think that Danks will get into the HOF when he retires?

 

My friend said that he has a shot. I was laughing hysterically, but I was wondering if anyone thought the same.

This is sort of off-topic, but do you guys think that Danks will get into the HOF when he retires?

 

My friend said that he has a shot. I was laughing hysterically, but I was wondering if anyone thought the same.

lmao

This is sort of off-topic, but do you guys think that Danks will get into the HOF when he retires?

 

My friend said that he has a shot. I was laughing hysterically, but I was wondering if anyone thought the same.

May God have mercy on your soul

This is sort of off-topic, but do you guys think that Jordan Danks will get into the AAA Charlotte HOF when he retires?

 

My friend said that he has a shot. I was laughing hysterically, but I was wondering if anyone thought the same.

 

 

This is sort of off-topic, but do you guys think that Danks will get into the HOF when he retires?

 

My friend said that he has a shot. I was laughing hysterically, but I was wondering if anyone thought the same.

If you want to give him a non-laughter-filled answer, here's a simple one. Hall of famers typically start getting into the conversation when they're in the range of 50-60 fWAR. John Danks is at 17.

 

If they don't know fWAR, the worst ERA I could find listed in the HOF is 3.80 for Red Ruffing. John Danks is at 4.34 career and going up.