Mariano

[oldjudge]

I'm a Yankee fan, and while Jeter was a extremely good hitting shortstop (and an adequate fielder) he was not even the best shortstop of his era. He should not be a unanimous selection, although he will be in the upper nineties percentage wise. Plus, I know one sportscaster who has reservations about Jeter's late career comeback.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I'm a Yankee fan, and while Jeter was a extremely good hitting shortstop (and an adequate fielder) he was not even the best shortstop of his era. He should not be a unanimous selection, although he will be in the upper nineties percentage wise. Plus, I know one sportscaster who has reservations about Jeter's late career comeback.

What principled basis is there not to vote for Jeter? Nobody on this earth could make out a case why he shouldn't be in the HOF. It's all just a stupid tradition this not voting for a guy the first time so he isn't unanimous, if a guy is an obvious HOF choice then everyone should vote for him.

[CMIZ5290]

I'm still blown away by the stupid writers giving a relief pitcher 100% of the vote....What a crock of shit.....How in the Hell did Griffey Jr. not get 100%????? How is it that the first 100% vote getter is a relief pitcher? Please, waiting for answers....The Yankees have always been the best team money can buy, period....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I'm still blown away by the stupid writers giving a relief pitcher 100% of the vote....What a crock of shit.....How in the Hell did Griffey Jr. not get 100%????? How is it that the first 100% vote getter is a relief pitcher? Please, waiting for answers....

It was a stupid tradition not to make anyone unanimous. Who the hell didn't vote for Mays? Aaron? Mantle? Ted? Ripken? Maddux? etc. etc.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It was a stupid tradition not to make anyone unanimous. Who the hell didn't vote for Mays? Aaron? Mantle? Ted? Ripken? Maddux? etc. etc.

+1....Well said Pete

[Throttlesteer]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

+1....Well said Pete

Tony Gwynn???

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I'm still blown away by the stupid writers giving a relief pitcher 100% of the vote....What a crock of shit.....How in the Hell did Griffey Jr. not get 100%????? How is it that the first 100% vote getter is a relief pitcher? Please, waiting for answers....The Yankees have always been the best team money can buy, period....

If you choose to look at it this way then you are going to have to ask more than 400 people why they were "stupid." The answer would be at a high level someone either gets into the HOF or doesn't and that is the yardstick, not ballots or votes. But instead we are human and have to take it degrees further than that. Player X is better than player Y because they were first ballot and not second, or received 95.3 percent of the vote instead of 89.2. Speaking of stupid...where do we draw the line? To insist that a player's vote demographics always precisely reflects how "great" they were or were not on the field is a bit of an unreasonable ask. What goes into the vote often has nothing to do with that, and this has been true virtually since time immemorial. I'm over it.

[pitchernut]

Just a weird observation but what with the special election vote 2 to 3 months after the tragic death of Mr Clemente and now the unanimous vote for Mr Rivera, perhaps HOF/MLB is sending out a message that priority will be given to community service over stats/status?
By the way congratulations to Mr Rivera.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

If you choose to look at it this way then you are going to have to ask more than 400 people why they were "stupid." The answer would be at a high level someone either gets into the HOF or doesn't and that is the yardstick, not ballots or votes. But instead we are human and have to take it degrees further than that. Player X is better than player Y because they were first ballot and not second, or received 95.3 percent of the vote instead of 89.2. Speaking of stupid...where do we draw the line? To insist that a player's vote demographics always precisely reflects how "great" they were or were not on the field is a bit of an unreasonable ask. What goes into the vote often has nothing to do with that, and this has been true virtually since time immemorial. I'm over it.

To paraphrase P. T. Barnum, finding 400 stupid people isn't all that difficult.

[tothrk]

Rivera was asked to pitch one inning once every two or three days in a game his team was already winning. I can’t even imagine what the career numbers for the all time great starters would look like if you spotted them a lead every time they pitched.

[bbcard1]

of course, I'm fine with Rivera for the HOF. A poster in a group I am in on Facebook made the point that he was probably the first unanimous only because the ballots are no longer anonymous, meaning no one had to cop to not voting for Williams or Mays but would now be held accountable. You'll see lots more in the near future.

[packs]

Originally Posted by tothrk

Rivera was asked to pitch one inning once every two or three days in a game his team was already winning. I can’t even imagine what the career numbers for the all time great starters would look like if you spotted them a lead every time they pitched.

I guess you don't care about winning either since you value winning so little. Let me ask you something, if its so easy to do what Rivera did, why is no one able to touch what he did on the field? Rivera's career WAR is almost 10 points higher than Hoyt Wilhem's, and still only 6 points lower than Eckersley, who was a starter for the first 12 years of his career.

Please explain how such a disparity can exist between one man and everyone else throughout history and why that distance means so little to you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tothrk

Rivera was asked to pitch one inning once every two or three days in a game his team was already winning. I can’t even imagine what the career numbers for the all time great starters would look like if you spotted them a lead every time they pitched.

Eck may be a good indication -- from solid starter to one of the top few relievers of all time. One suspects elite starters would have been even better than Eck and Rivera, but it's all of course just debate and speculation.

My take is still that a guy throwing 200 innings is more important than a guy throwing 60, so you're going to want the better pitcher for the 200.

The drama in a lot of ninth innings does put the spotlight on relievers more than the guy who pitched the third and fourth. But a run scored then means just as much to the outcome.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

To paraphrase P. T. Barnum, finding 400 stupid people isn't all that difficult.

As long as I am in attendance there would only have to be 399 more people.

Brian (stupid is as stupid does, and calling me stupid is an insult to stupid people, and they are not easily insulted).

"Best Pitcher of All-Time" does not correspond to relievers. Rivera can easily make a bid for "Best Reliever of All-Time" but to compare against starters is not serious conversation.

If anyone needs clarification, they may conduct a salary comparison between relievers and starters.

In 2019 relief pitching is still a "fall back" for pitchers who cannot sustain the rigors of being a starter (including Rivera). This does not mean that they do not undergo quicker specialization but they would all be starters if they could.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

If you choose to look at it this way then you are going to have to ask more than 400 people why they were "stupid." The answer would be at a high level someone either gets into the HOF or doesn't and that is the yardstick, not ballots or votes. But instead we are human and have to take it degrees further than that. Player X is better than player Y because they were first ballot and not second, or received 95.3 percent of the vote instead of 89.2. Speaking of stupid...where do we draw the line? To insist that a player's vote demographics always precisely reflects how "great" they were or were not on the field is a bit of an unreasonable ask. What goes into the vote often has nothing to do with that, and this has been true virtually since time immemorial. I'm over it.

So please explain how a relief pitcher with a career record of 82-60 gets 100% of the vote, but guys like Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, T. Williams, Joe D., Mantle, Mathewson, Johnson, Hornsby dont....Doesn't even make sense......Let me go one step further....What about Nolan Ryan? He played on shitty teams most of his career....Mariano was on the best teams money can buy....Guys this discussion is a joke....

[sycks22]

Greatest closer of all time. Not a top 10 pitcher of all time.

[RCMcKenzie]

From my experience, if you go to the non-sport board and start a poll "Who is Mariano Rivera?" They don't know. They've never heard of 'im. He's a local celeb like Joe Mauer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Relief pitcher ERA stats are always going to be misleading, because they don't get charged when runners they inherit score.