Here's who's on the ballot for this year
Garret Anderson
Brad Ausmus
Jeff Bagwell
Barry Bonds
Luis Castillo
Roger Clemens
David Eckstein
Jim Edmonds
Nomar Garciaparra
Troy Glaus
Ken Griffey Jr.
Mark Grudzielanek
Mike Hampton
Trevor Hoffman
Jason Kendall
Jeff Kent
Mike Lowell
Edgar Martinez
Fred McGriff
Mark McGwire
Mike Mussina
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
Gary Sheffield
Lee Smith
Sammy Sosa
Mike Sweeney
Alan Trammell
Billy Wagner
Larry Walker
Randy Winn
My picks (remember, you're capped at 10)
Jeff Bagwell
Ken Griffey Jr.
Trevor Hoffman
Edgar Martinez
Mike Mussina
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
Lee Smith
Larry Walker
How Raines, Walker, Bagwell, and Piazza aren't in is just mystifying. It's Hoffman & Jr's first year, so they'll go in quick.
guys I'd vote on next year's ballot after some of these get in
Nomar Garciaparra
Fred McGriff
Gary Sheffield
I don't think McGriff and Sheff get the credit they deserve for being truly fearsome mashers in an era when the hitting stats are all inflated by the steroidians. Nomar goes in after Edgar gets in. I'd be fine with either Moose or Schilling getting in this year, and another next year.
with an extra set-aside for the steroid guys...
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Mark McGwire
Sammy Sosa
Jeff Bagwell
Ken Griffey Jr.
Trevor Hoffman
Edgar Martinez
Mike Mussina
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Gary Sheffield
Lee Smith
Larry Walker
These guys would be on my ballot. Although, I seem to remember Shef was a steroid guy. If that's the case......Jeff Kent? Those three Angels, Anderson, Edmonds, and Glaus all cancel each other. Schilling was a really good pitcher who shone on the brightest stage. Twice. I just wouldn't vote for him. Could be my bloody sock bias O:-)
Tim Raines
Jeff Bagwell
Mike Piazza
Ken Griffey Jr.
Trevor Hoffman
Edgar Martinez
Gary Sheffield
Mike Mussina
Fred McGriff
Jeff Kent
Of the known roid crew, I'd toss my vote at Bonds. That guy was a beast BEFORE the doping when he was still a skinny little twig. Same goes for Clemens.
Garret Anderson
Brad Ausmus
Jeff Bagwell
Barry Bonds
Luis Castillo
Roger Clemens
David Eckstein
Jim Edmonds
Nomar Garciaparra
Troy Glaus
Ken Griffey Jr.
Mark Grudzielanek
Mike Hampton
Trevor Hoffman
Jason Kendall
Jeff Kent
Mike Lowell
Edgar Martinez
Fred McGriff
Mark McGwire
Mike Mussina
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
Gary Sheffield
Lee Smith
Sammy Sosa
Mike Sweeney
Alan Trammell
Billy Wagner
Larry Walker
Randy Winn
I really have no problem with any one on your list except Trammell. He was a good hit, fast, on base guy. But HoF? I wouldn't vote for him.
Quote from: MetalDog on November 11, 2015, 09:49:25 PM
I really have no problem with any one on your list except Trammell. He was a good hit, fast, on base guy. But HoF? I wouldn't vote for him.
He is one of the best defensive SS of all time and he put up very good numbers for SS of his era from the plate. It's like you aren't a real American or something. :'(
Oh stop. Not liking Trammell has nothing to do with not being American :P He won 4 Gold Gloves in an almost 20 year career. That's not elite defensive production. He scored over a hundred runs three times and eighty three or four more. Then it's a bunch of 40's, 50's, and 60's. He could smack a double and had a year or two for homers, but, not Hall worthy, I don't think. Look for yourself.
http://m.mlb.com/player/123437/alan-trammell
Pfft...
Player X Career BA .262, HR 69 RBI 793 .978 fielding percentage (HOF Player guess who?)
Trammel Career BA .285, HR 185, RBI 1003, .977 field percentage
What I'd really like to see is a position comparison by era. I think that's where the HoF debate breaks down. Strictly by numbers, Trammell doesn't have it, but, who else in his era was comparable? Ripken was his contemporary. Ozzie Smith was, too. Both were better than him and Oz played the same type of game. Good hit, fast, but, his 13 consecutive Gold Gloves puts him way above Trammell.
Ozzy Smith is the stat line is Player X. Ripken didn't play SS his entire career. He shifted to 3erd Base and SS is arguably a harder position to play a consistently high level for 20 years.
Jeter stat line - BA .305, HR 260, RBI 1311 Field% 976
Trammel is much closer to Jeter in just numbers. Jeter only won 5 Gold Gloves. And considering the era differences. I think Trammel stacks up pretty danged good.
Ripken BA .276, HR 431, RBI 1695 Field% .977. Ripken is one of the all time greats and he only won 2 gold gloves.
Jeets has more stolen bases, double the homers and was a clutch performer and vital cog in multiple World Series runs. Trammell can't match that. Best thing I can say is join the BBWA and get a vote. Then you can throw your vote away on whoever you want ;)
260 isn't double of 185 that'd be 370. Elephant math. Trammel was the MVP of the Tigers 1984 World Series.
Sorry. I read 185 as 135. You're not seriously going to try and compare Jeter to Trammell are you? The Captain was an All Star AND World Series MVP to go along with a five time World Champion and A.L. Rookie of the year. And, something Trammell will never be able to say, a first ballot Hall of Famer :P He may even be the first unanimous selection!
Quote from: MetalDog on November 12, 2015, 12:36:31 AM
Sorry. I read 185 as 135. You're not seriously going to try and compare Jeter to Trammell are you? The Captain was an All Star AND World Series MVP to go along with a five time World Champion and A.L. Rookie of the year. And, something Trammell will never be able to say, a first ballot Hall of Famer :P
Trammel was the rookie of the year. 6 time all star. 4 time gold glove winner (He competed against Yount, Ripken, Fernandez). MVP of the World Series and put up better or as good of numbers as Ozzy Smith other than SB. Trammel is consistently ranked in the top 15 or higher of all shortstops to ever play the game. Horrible oversight by a bunch of pencil pushers.
You better alert MLB.com to their mistake then. I don't see Trammell's RotY Award up there. Yount didn't play his entire career at SS. So if that disqualifies Ripken, it gets Yount, too. Strictly by the numbers, I would certainly equate Trammell to Fernandez. He's not a Hall of Famer either.
Sorry it was Lou Whitaker who won the RoY. Another freaking oversight for the Hall. Fernadez batting numbers are very similar to Ozzie Smith, who did not have the same type of numbers as Trammel. I'm starting to believe you didn't follow any baseball in the 80s outside of the AL East.
I rest my case with this fine stat fact.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_SS.shtml
Oh and Edgar Martinez doesn't make the cut. :)
There's two guys who are Trammell's direct contemporaries on that list, Yount, who was disqualified because he didn't play his whole career at short and Ozzie Smith, who is higher on the list than Trammell. There are two guys in front of Trammell that are not in the Hall, Alex Rodriguez, who is still playing and won't make it due to steroids, and Bill Dahlen, who played from 1891 to 1911. A direct comparison of the stats shows Dahlen had more games (by 800+), more Runs (by 350+), more hits, triples and RBI and 300+ more Stolen Bases, almost every counting stat imaginable. And he's still not in the Hall.
Tony Fernandez is the top Alan Trammell is the bottom.
17 Yrs Games 2158 Plate Appearances 8793 At Bats 7911 Runs 1057 Hits 2276 Doubles 414 Triples 92 Home Runs 94 RBI 844 Stolen Bases 246 Caught Stealing 138 Walks 690 Strikeouts 784 Batting Average .288 On Base % .347 Slugging % .399 OPS .746 OPS+ 101 Total Bases 3156 GIDP 161 HBP 64 Sacrifice Hits 67 Sac Fly 61 Intentional Walks 48
20 Yrs 2293 9376 8288 1231 2365 412 55 185 1003 236 109 850 874 .285 .352 .415 .767 110 3442 156 37 124 76 48
Those are almost identical stats in so many places. And yet, Fernandez is 25 spots down that WAR list you used as proof. Your case is resting on shaky ground. And one more thing, the Tigers were in the AL East the whole time I was watching Trammell ;)
Despite your terrible taste in shortstops, you are my friend. And I will vote for Trammell if you'd like and tell you that your argument swayed me.
Ironically the JAWS is the baseline that your general argument for induction is based on, which trammel actually scores higher than Jeter on. :P. I forgive your typical Yankee fan ignorance of great players who play west of the Hudson River. 😀
I didn't introduce the metric, you did. So I based my argument on the stats YOU provided. And I saw Jeter one spot lower than Trammell. Looks like someone has a bias. And it ain't me ;)
My opinion is hitting is hitting so the position they play is irrelevant for those stats. A 3B doesn't hit better or worse than an OF simply due to the position.
Defense is a lot harder to judge. It depends on the era (there are far more measurements these days than in the past), the 'brand' of ball the team played (some were of the old school pitching and defense wins pennants while others are of the 3 run HR school), who else played the position during their time (for Gold Gloves) and who else played in any position during their time (for MVP).
I think Trammel was a good player. He should at least be considered for the HOF. I don't think there is any comparison between him and Jeter though, Jeter was one of the best PLAYERS of all time, not just SS.
Quote from: Marty Ward on November 12, 2015, 11:02:48 AM
My opinion is hitting is hitting so the position they play is irrelevant for those stats. A 3B doesn't hit better or worse than an OF simply due to the position.
I don't think that's true. The type of guy that plays the position certainly has to do with how he hits. Ozzie Smith and Jim Rice weren't the same body type. And Oz was a good glove/average hitter while Rice was a masher who didn't embarrass himself in the outfield. It's only with the advent of guys like A-Rod and Ripken that we accept shortstops as being anything more than a little guy with a glove that hits around the Mendoza Line.
Quote from: Bison on November 12, 2015, 08:19:26 AM
I rest my case with this fine stat fact.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_SS.shtml
Oh and Edgar Martinez doesn't make the cut. :)
you know Edgar is in the 3B category, not SS, right?
Quote from: MetalDog on November 12, 2015, 11:06:24 AM
I don't think that's true. The type of guy that plays the position certainly has to do with how he hits. Ozzie Smith and Jim Rice weren't the same body type. And Oz was a good glove/average hitter while Rice was a masher who didn't embarrass himself in the outfield. It's only with the advent of guys like A-Rod and Ripken that we accept shortstops as being anything more than a little guy with a glove that hits around the Mendoza Line.
The type of hitter that is 'typical' is thought to be different between positions. Corner position are 'supposed' to be the power hitters while the middle infielders and the center fielder are fast and light hitting and good defense but these are not anything more than stereotypes. There are hundreds of examples of good hitters not fitting the mold. So if you can hit, it doesn't matter if you played 1 position all of your career or 3 or 4 positions. You can just compare the stats. If you were a light hitting SS in the 60's then you better bring that defense or speed to the table if you want to get into the Hall. That is all I'm saying.
I'm pretty sure that you aren't tracking on what jaws measures md. I'm not arguing trammel vs Jeter. I'm arguing trammel vs all other hof ss. The jaws is an offensive statistic. It in short ranks trammel higher than than all but 10 ss based on best 7 war score yeas vs the same stat areas from all baseball eras. It's broken don by position so even players like Ripken who played 12 years ss and 8 years 3r base are accounted for in the metric. Just using offensive and fielding% stats he is right there with Ozzie smith who is in the hof and the other 20 ss in the hof.
Jeter gets the benefit of playing a. For the Yankees and b. On some very good teams. The World Series is a team achievement not an individual stat.
I get what JAWS is for. The WAR metric he uses is to show how much better the player is than the average at that position. The table you presented uses the best 7 year period of a players career. The player in front of Trammell is not in the Hall of Fame and has comparable career stats as well as 7 year snapshot, hence, his place on the list. I am using that to base my denial of Trammell's inclusion into the Hall. That there are similar hitters, Ozzie Smith for instance, that are in the Hall, makes your argument. If we both had votes, and you voted for Trammell and I didn't, I would chide you for your ignoring Bill Dahlen and you, in return, would present me Ozzie. And then give me shit for being a Yankee fan. ;)
And they don't elect players into the Hall based on 7 year snapshots of their careers :P
Quote from: MetalDog on November 12, 2015, 12:25:41 PM
And they don't elect players into the Hall based on 7 year snapshots of their careers :P
They don't elect them based on the position they played either. They elect them on whether they were a GOAT.
I'm not sure what the hell criteria they use to elect players any longer. Most of the criteria is apparently emotionally based. The point of the JAWS is to compare players by position on offensive stats. Yes it uses a 7 year best WAR averaged against their career WAR, so it isn't merely a 7 year stat that is a misinterpretation. It also uses several dozen other stats in is construction. Offensively, by career numbers and JAWS, and defensively which there is also a WAR score for Trammel is 34th of ALL players regardless of position. Smith is #1 and Ripken is #2. So coupled with is offensive JAWS and the defensive WAR, Trammel is clearly one of the best ever base purely on statistics. Jeter FYI isn't in the top 50 defensively, hell I gave up looking after #100. :) Trammel suffered some injuries at the end of his career, like all of them do. Trammel was an effective SS position player both offensively and defensively. His stats regardless of which metric you use that are based on sabermetrics, which most of those writers rely on for stat analysis, are impressive for his position and era. He does compare very favorably with his era and without question was one of the top SS. I'd only consider Ripken and Smith better.
It's cool your a Yankees fan. They are like the Borg of baseball, however.
What the hell is GOAT Marty?
Quote from: Bison on November 12, 2015, 01:09:37 PM
What the hell is GOAT Marty?
Greatest of all time.
That is who belongs in the Hall regardless of position played, JAWS, WAR, OPS or WTF. :)
Ah...that's what I was thinking, but acronyms throw me off sometimes. I'm thinking the WTF stat is what drives most of the "experts" voting.
This is a very good breakdown of each player and I'm pretty sure this is what is sent to the voters.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2016.shtml
I think this will be a small HoF class this year Griffey Jr. and either Piazza or Bagwell. It's a shame because Shilling and Lee should be in there too.
Quote from: Bison on November 12, 2015, 01:26:41 PM
Ah...that's what I was thinking, but acronyms throw me off sometimes. I'm thinking the WTF stat is what drives most of the "experts" voting.
There was a time when the BBWAA writers covered baseball almost exclusively and mostly year round. They traveled with the teams, they knew the players and knew baseball. They probably were the most qualified to vote for the HOF.
It's different now, there are very few dedicated baseball writers, and the few that are left don't all even follow baseball much, and there are so many more measurements that can be used to determine who gets in. Since there are so few writers who really know baseball I do agree that others should be allowed to vote. I'm not sure if there should be a cut and dried formula to follow for election though.
Quote from: Bison on November 12, 2015, 01:40:22 PM
This is a very good breakdown of each player and I'm pretty sure this is what is sent to the voters.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2016.shtml
I think this will be a small HoF class this year Griffey Jr. and either Piazza or Bagwell. It's a shame because Shilling and Lee should be in there too.
I don't know about Schilling. The others should at least be put to a vote.
No Schilling? OMG! I'm alone on my island of baseball greatness!
I agree about the sports writers. Baseball is unfortunately, like most sports, relegated to off-season football filler.
Go Marty!! NO SCHILLING! NO SCHILLING! NO SCHILLING!
What's the name of the last great Yankees starting pitcher? I know, I know, but for some reason I just cannot recall the name....hmmm...
I'm just not sure Schilling is among the greats. He certainly had some 3-4 years out of the 20 he played and was really good in the post season but he is very similar to a lot of other guys who aren't/won't get in.
/sigh/ Life has no meaning now. :)
Quote from: Bison on November 12, 2015, 02:24:20 PM
/sigh/ Life has no meaning now. :)
Don't be sad. I'd vote for him to get into the Hall of above average players! :)
Quote from: Marty Ward on November 12, 2015, 02:29:47 PM
Quote from: Bison on November 12, 2015, 02:24:20 PM
/sigh/ Life has no meaning now. :)
Don't be sad. I'd vote for him to get into the Hall of above average players! :)
Well there clearly need to be a hall of better than average and not glamorized by park avenue players.
Jealous :P
Nope. I accept the reality that New York is not the center of the universe.
At least the Yankees and Mets play in NY unlike the Giants and Jets :)
Quote from: Bison on November 12, 2015, 02:57:52 PM
Nope. I accept the reality that New York is not the center of the universe.
I agree with that statement. Now, let's agree that the hate for New York is that of the haters for the successful.
Quote from: MetalDog on November 12, 2015, 03:07:14 PM
Quote from: Bison on November 12, 2015, 02:57:52 PM
Nope. I accept the reality that New York is not the center of the universe.
I agree with that statement. Now, let's agree that the hate for New York is that of the haters for the successful.
Depends on what you call successful.
Quote from: Marty Ward on November 12, 2015, 03:11:14 PM
Quote from: MetalDog on November 12, 2015, 03:07:14 PM
Quote from: Bison on November 12, 2015, 02:57:52 PM
Nope. I accept the reality that New York is not the center of the universe.
I agree with that statement. Now, let's agree that the hate for New York is that of the haters for the successful.
Depends on what you call successful.
Exactly.
How good was Schilling those years he was pitching for Philly when they got to the World Series?
Quote from: bayonetbrant on November 12, 2015, 03:33:56 PM
How good was Schilling those years he was pitching for Philly when they got to the World Series?
He had a few really great years but he also had a lot of average years. He played for 20 years. He won 20 or more 3 times and 15 or more 5 times. He was really good in the playoffs. He also went 2-8, 9-10, 8-9, 5-6. He was definitely above average overall but I'm not sure he was HOF level.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schilcu01.shtml
Quote from: Bison on November 12, 2015, 03:12:52 PM
Quote from: Marty Ward on November 12, 2015, 03:11:14 PM
Quote from: MetalDog on November 12, 2015, 03:07:14 PM
Quote from: Bison on November 12, 2015, 02:57:52 PM
Nope. I accept the reality that New York is not the center of the universe.
I agree with that statement. Now, let's agree that the hate for New York is that of the haters for the successful.
Depends on what you call successful.
Exactly.
Well let's see...add up all the championships the Kansas City Royals have together with the team that Marty pulls for and I guarantee, between the two of them, they won't have as many as the Yankees have. Or, measure the jealousy and bitter feelings the other 29 franchises fans have that manifests as, "What do you call successful?" Either way, it's just haters hating success. :P
Quote from: MetalDog on November 12, 2015, 04:02:27 PM
Well let's see...add up all the championships the Kansas City Royals have together with the team that Marty pulls for and I guarantee, between the two of them, they won't have as many as the Yankees have. Or, measure the jealousy and bitter feelings the other 29 franchises fans have that manifests as, "What do you call successful?" Either way, it's just haters hating success. :P
Sure the Yankees had some dynasties in the past and won a lot of W.S.
More recently, since the beginning of the playoff system at least, they haven't exactly set the world on fire. From 1969 through 1995 the Yankees made the playoffs a grand total of 5 times. The stinking Orioles went to the World Series 5 times during that period. Once the playoffs were expanded then Yankees made it more regularly, along with a lot of other teams.
I wouldn't call spending ~650 million to play in 1 playoff game in the past 3 years a success either, would you?
So success depends on how you define it. They have been anything but successful these past few years.
First off, the Yankees success was, and is, within the rules of the game as it was played. When there were no playoffs, they won. And that was the rule at the time. Did you want them to have to win twice as many games because they were the Yankees in order to get to the World Series? You wouldn't ask any other team to do that, so why New York?
When the playoffs came in to being, they again played by the rules. Win as many games as it took to get to the playoffs. Then win or go home. Like it was before and is now. Any further stipulation on how the Yankees get there would be wrong. So, why does winning that much have anything to do with when they did it?
Every team has periods of suckitude. Just ask the Red Sox. Or the Cubs. Or Cleveland. Or The A's. It was inevitable that New York would, too. And for those who hate, it was a great time. The giant is slain! But, I named four teams whose futility is legend in the game. Why? Why don't they have a winning legacy? Were their players worse? What about ownership? Did they give it their all to field a winning team? New York's did.
And finally, the buying of championships. The crutch all losers lean on to explain why their team is at a disadvantage and doesn't win. Boo hoo. Cry me a river. As Marty pointed out, the Yankees sucked for thirty years. While I wasn't alive to see them all, I saw most of them and there were too many times George opened his checkbook and fell flat on his face. It's a travesty that Don Mattingly, an all time great in pinstripes, was unable to take advantage of the Yankee legacy and win a World Series. And even when money brought us to the precipice, there were STILL times the Yankees lost.
I've rooted for the Buccaneers and Saints since 1980. I picked them on purpose because I figured all the good teams didn't need one more fan among legion. I watched the Bucs take a beating in the NFC Central year after year after year after year. I hated Barry Sanders cuz he always beat us while I marvelled at his skill. Brett Favre stuck so many daggers in my heart that I could set off a metal detector a mile away. And don't get me started on how many times Montana and the Niners ruined my day after the Saints went into the fourth quarter close or ahead. Only to lose every time.
It sucks to root for a loser. And the only narrative that gives you hope is, well, the future has to be better. It can't get any worse. And when it does, it feels like the mountain top! And it's GOOD to crow about how great you are!! "Top o' the world, Ma!" But, downing other teams, especially successful ones, no matter how they get there, is just a crappy way to be a fan. And certainly not befitting of either of you fine gentlemen.
All I know is who's the champ this year?
-smh- I gave props to the winners and you. Look in the 2015 Baseball thread.
I'm not really a Yankees hater. I just don't cheer for them. Ever, really. That has more to do with the arrogance of the average New York fan and not the team per say. Trust me. My in-laws are Yankees fans. My father-in-law is a huge Yankees fan. Conversations go like this "Should be a good year of baseball. The Royals look good on paper, as do the Cardinals, Orioles, ect..." "Yankees blah blah blah" "I'd don't think Mattiingly will make it through the season as the Dodgers manager." "Yankees blah blah blah Jeter blah blah blah" Every conversation and I mean every conversation is somehow related to the Yankees. It's like that with all the New York fans I'm forced to interact with out there. That's why I say New York fans refuse to admit baseball exists west of the Hudson.
Boston fans are about the freaking same. Worst thing that happened was Boston winning a couple of series. Now it doesn't stop. Cubs fans are only tolerable because the Cubs find a way to lose every year. The humility keeps their arrogance in check.
I usually only flash my Yankee love when people poke at them. Most times, I've played fantasy sports for so long, I am more interested in individual players rather than teams. I feel your pain on the in-laws, too. My ex's family are all Cardinal fans.
For much of my youth, when I played little league at least, we didn't get games other than two types. The TBS broadcast of the Braves and the Saturday game of the week. I watch them both religiously and the Saturday morning this week in baseball. I collected a bunch of cards that I bought with my own money. I loved the game. I followed individual players more than teams mostly because my teams weren't on every day or every weekend. I played 2nd Base and shortstop. Trammel and Whitaker were the ultimate duo. Smith was the wizard. Ripken brought power and grace to the SS position. It was a different era and time in baseball, before ESPN and the dominance of football over the sporting landscape.
I was blessed. Along with the Yankees on WPIX, we had the Mets on WOR (which is where I first heard Tim McCarver (who was very good at the time)), the Red Sox on WSBK and the Braves on WTBS. I had over 5,000 baseball cards and learned all I could about baseball. Absorbing books on trivia and the all time greats of the game. It was my fervent wish and desire to grow up to be a baseball player. Football was something my father hogged the tv with all day Sunday.
That's a triangle of horror! Yankees Mets and Red Socks! It's surprising the amount of Braves baseball I watched growing up that they aren't one of my teams. I don't mind watching them, but their season for better or worse makes no impact on my baseball life. The only Brave I really liked growing up was Dale Murphy.
It certainly helped form my likes and dislikes through the years.
im just glad you didn't have the Dodgers thrown in for good measure.
Me, too!
Quote from: MetalDog on November 12, 2015, 05:29:56 PM
First off, the Yankees success was, and is, within the rules of the game as it was played. When there were no playoffs, they won. And that was the rule at the time. Did you want them to have to win twice as many games because they were the Yankees in order to get to the World Series? You wouldn't ask any other team to do that, so why New York?
My point about the playoffs was the Yankees didn't do that well for ~25 a year period when they only had to beat 1/2 the number of teams as they did before to get in. In the modern era, since divisions were formed, they have done well but nothing like in the 30's, 40's or 50's when they won 15 WS in 30 years.
Quote from: Bison on November 12, 2015, 08:20:17 PM
That's a triangle of horror! Yankees Mets and Red Socks! It's surprising the amount of Braves baseball I watched growing up that they aren't one of my teams. I don't mind watching them, but their season for better or worse makes no impact on my baseball life. The only Brave I really liked growing up was Dale Murphy.
Weren't the Braves the first club to have their games broadcast nationwide?
Quote from: Marty Ward on November 12, 2015, 11:54:36 PM
Weren't the Braves the first club to have their games broadcast nationwide?
I think so because TBS was a cable channel and Turner owned the Braves at the time. I know some teams like the Cubs have a big broadcast range, because of WGN but WGN isn't or a least wasn't a cable channel.
WTBS was an over-the-air channel and local affiliate of the Braves, b/c Turner owned them both.
WGN was an over-the-air channel and local affiliate of the Cubs, b/c (IIRC) the Tribune company owned them both.
In the early 80s, when cable networks were eager to have add'l channels to entire customers to sign up, both WGN and TBS (which dropped the "W" on cable) were able to negotiate their way onto many cable packages. Baseball was a major way they were able to do this, since they were able to legitimately offer programming that others couldn't/didn't. ESPN didn't have a baseball contract back then, and was barely starting out and showing a lot of college hoops.
The net effect - especially for the Cubs - was that a lot of people around the country became fans b/c there were teams they could watch no matter where they were. In the Cubs case, it was a lot of kids that became fans b/c with no night games, the Cubs were always on TV whenever the kids came home from school or were around the house on a rainy day in the summer.
Quote from: Marty Ward on November 12, 2015, 11:51:18 PM
Quote from: MetalDog on November 12, 2015, 05:29:56 PM
First off, the Yankees success was, and is, within the rules of the game as it was played. When there were no playoffs, they won. And that was the rule at the time. Did you want them to have to win twice as many games because they were the Yankees in order to get to the World Series? You wouldn't ask any other team to do that, so why New York?
My point about the playoffs was the Yankees didn't do that well for ~25 a year period when they only had to beat 1/2 the number of teams as they did before to get in. In the modern era, since divisions were formed, they have done well but nothing like in the 30's, 40's or 50's when they won 15 WS in 30 years.
Their dominance of the 20's through the 50's was over seven other teams. The American League expanded to ten teams in 1961 and to 12 in 1969. From '61 to '68, the American League had 9 teams for the Yanks to face, and they won 4 of the 8 Pennants. Since division play started in '69, there have been various configurations in division with New York. And while they certainly haven't dominated like the early days, the Yankees have 11 pennants since '69 which is almost double the next closest team, the Oakland A's, who have 6, and the Baltimore Orioles, who have 5. I would think with more teams to beat, it would be less likely to be able to dominate and that has proven out. But, it's still New York over everyone else. That's an accomplishment, don't you think?
Quote from: MetalDog on November 13, 2015, 07:22:08 AM
Their dominance of the 20's through the 50's was over seven other teams. The American League expanded to ten teams in 1961 and to 12 in 1969. From '61 to '68, the American League had 9 teams for the Yanks to face, and they won 4 of the 8 Pennants. Since division play started in '69, there have been various configurations in division with New York. And while they certainly haven't dominated like the early days, the Yankees have 11 pennants since '69 which is almost double the next closest team, the Oakland A's, who have 6, and the Baltimore Orioles, who have 5. I would think with more teams to beat, it would be less likely to be able to dominate and that has proven out. But, it's still New York over everyone else. That's an accomplishment, don't you think?
Without a doubt they have been good over their entire existence. But like the Celtics, there was a period where they were unquestionably the best team in the their sport, and perhaps in the world, for a 3 decade period. That will never be repeated.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on November 13, 2015, 06:38:09 AM
WTBS was an over-the-air channel and local affiliate of the Braves, b/c Turner owned them both.
WGN was an over-the-air channel and local affiliate of the Cubs, b/c (IIRC) the Tribune company owned them both.
In the early 80s, when cable networks were eager to have add'l channels to entire customers to sign up, both WGN and TBS (which dropped the "W" on cable) were able to negotiate their way onto many cable packages. Baseball was a major way they were able to do this, since they were able to legitimately offer programming that others couldn't/didn't. ESPN didn't have a baseball contract back then, and was barely starting out and showing a lot of college hoops.
The net effect - especially for the Cubs - was that a lot of people around the country became fans b/c there were teams they could watch no matter where they were. In the Cubs case, it was a lot of kids that became fans b/c with no night games, the Cubs were always on TV whenever the kids came home from school or were around the house on a rainy day in the summer.
Yes I remember seeing both clubs on TV back then. Hell they didn't even broadcast every Oriole game on TV at the time but I could watch NL ball just about every day if I wanted.
We didn't get WGN, which is why I wasn't sure it was cable network. Of course you can now pay for MLB Network, but not be able to watch your local market team. This is a complete pain in the ass if you don't have cable like me, because the local market team is tied to a network provided only over cable. One would think that a simple revenue scheme would allow me to actually watch the Royals games, if I chose to pay the absurd annual MLB Network fee to watch the games online. So I just listen to them on the radio now a days for the most part, which is fine because one of my secret joys in life is listening to baseball broadcast over AM radio.
Quote from: Bison on November 13, 2015, 09:40:02 AM
We didn't get WGN, which is why I wasn't sure it was cable network. Of course you can now pay for MLB Network, but not be able to watch your local market team. This is a complete pain in the ass if you don't have cable like me, because the local market team is tied to a network provided only over cable. One would think that a simple revenue scheme would allow me to actually watch the Royals games, if I chose to pay the absurd annual MLB Network fee to watch the games online. So I just listen to them on the radio now a days for the most part, which is fine because one of my secret joys in life is listening to baseball broadcast over AM radio.
I'm lucky, or cursed depending on the season. MASN carries both the O's and the Nats so there is always a game on. Lots of times two at once!
Not an O's fan, but I would like to see the Nats more often. It's too bad they are dysfunctional, with a douche superstar and a new manager that is going to pitch the arms off his staff.
@Bison: AM baseball is one of my favorites, too. The Braves are on both AM and FM here and unless the signal is better on the FM, it's AM all the way!
Quote from: MetalDog on November 13, 2015, 11:34:46 AM
Not an O's fan, but I would like to see the Nats more often. It's too bad they are dysfunctional, with a douche superstar and a new manager that is going to pitch the arms off his staff.
@Bison: AM baseball is one of my favorites, too. The Braves are on both AM and FM here and unless the signal is better on the FM, it's AM all the way!
The only thing I don't like are the Nats announcers. They are really bad. I like watching the NL for a change of pace.
The O's have about 6 announcers who rotate in throughout the year. Most are pretty good except for Palmer who just rambles and Hunter who is just to much of a cliche 'homer' guy for me.
Some interesting facts/figures from SI.com
http://www.si.com/mlb/2016/01/05/hall-fame-ballot-preview
QuoteMike Mussina: Rare sustained Hall of Fame greatness. Mussina won more AL games in the designated hitter era than any pitcher except Roger Clemens. He is one of only a dozen pitchers in history with 10 seasons with an ERA+ of 125 or better. Clemens, kept out of the Hall because of his association with PEDs, is one. The others: first-ballot Hall of Famers Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Jim Palmer, Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver, Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson, plus fellow Hall of Famers Pete Alexander, Lefty Grove and Bert Blyleven.
QuoteCurt Schilling: One of the most precise big-game pitchers ever, Schilling owns the greatest strikeout-to-walk ratio since the pitching distance was set at 60'6" in 1889. He started five games when his team faced postseason elimination, and his team won every one of them, with Schilling posting a 1.47 ERA in those win-or-go-home crucibles (and a 2.23 mark in 19 postseason games overall).
That second piece - about 5 elimination games - is pretty damned cool. I don't know that it makes you a HOF'er by itself, but... wow :o
Schilling is a HoF in my opinion without a doubt.
My hate for Schilling is based on his screwing the Yankees twice. Once in the World Series and once as a Red Sox. That he was big time in big games, there is no doubt. A shoe in? I'm not so sure.
His sock is already in the hall and it's time to let the man whose blood is on it in too.
What? He can't buy a ticket like the rest of us?
Here's an article containing arguments for 5 potential HoF'ers:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/5-forgotten-baseball-hall-of-fame-candidates/ar-AAgo9Y8?li=BBnba9I&ocid=mailsignout
There is considerable discussion that Curt Shilling's politics (conservative Republican and against terrorists) is hurting his Hall of Fame nomination.
See: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-05/are-curt-schilling-s-gop-politics-keeping-him-out-of-the-hall-of-fame-
for an analysis of HOF voting patterns.
Griffey Jr. and Mike Piazza are in the HoF.
I'm fine with the selections, but I remained completely disgruntled by the selection process.
I would love to see a Sabremetric approach to balloting. That way, you can produce the numbers to back up the numbers you used to elect the new inductees.
I'm pretty sure the voters get a sabermetric breakdown along with the ballot. I think personal bias plays a large role in the voting. There is no fucking way Piazza is a HoFer and Raines isn't.
I think Piazza deserves in. Raines, too. Here's one for you, talking to the local sports radio guy and I told him you could put together a starting 9 of HoF'ers that didn't win a World Series. This is what I came up with:
C Piazza (Fisk if you prefer)
1B Mattingly
2B Biggio
3B Santo
SS Yount
OF Dawson
OF Griffey
OF Gwynn
P Sutton
Whadda ya' think?
I'm thinking Mattingly isn't in the hall of fame. Not a bad team but Fisk is a better catcher than Piazza.
You are absolutely correct. Wishful thinking on my part I guess ;) Then I offer Rod Carew. Or Frank Thomas.
Carew.
Quote from: Bison on January 06, 2016, 08:47:14 PMCarew.
If nothing else, for his reference in "Sure Shot" by The Beastie Boys.
Quote from: Bison on January 06, 2016, 07:28:59 PM
I'm pretty sure the voters get a sabermetric breakdown along with the ballot. I think personal bias plays a large role in the voting. There is no fucking way Piazza is a HoFer and Raines isn't.
I'm hoping Raines jumping from 55% to nearly 70% puts him over the top for next year. He might be the single most ridiculous HoF exclusion in any sport right now.