Sign in to follow this  
Sean-Regan

Mariano and the Hall

53 posts in this topic

I feel like this is more about the changing landscape of baseball devaluing certain roles.  Plus hes using isolated examples, not careers, to justify his opinion.  i dont think anyone, regardless of numbers would put his examples in the same conversation as Rivera.   You could perhaps argue Vinatieri as hes no doubt one of the leagues best all time, but still, im not sure i buy his logic on this one at all.

A "closer" wasnt even a thing till saves became a thing in the 70s and recently it seems to have been dismissed as being as important.  While i agree with much of that logic, a save in the 6th is every bit as important as one in the 9th for example, i dont think we can use how we see the game today, to evaluate how it was then. 

When i think of the hall it isnt about stats alone, its also about those things not reflected in the box score.    Rivera was, without question, the most dominant closer of his day, period.  When he came in you thought you were done.  Beating him was enough to put teams on runs from the confidence.  To me, thats hall worthy almost regardless of the numbers, but he had those too.

I wonder would this writer argue Kaufax?    He only played 11 seasons and was really only super dominant in 5 or 6 of them in a time where there were a lot of very good pitchers in the league.   The first half of his career was in fact rather pedestrian in comparison. 

And yes as someone else has pointed out, you cant discount the fact that no Boston writer will ever give a Yankee his due, its part of the reason we all hate the chowds.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean-Regan said:

Not sure if there’s a better place for this...

Writer from Boston argues that closers don’t do enough to be eligible for the Hall of Fame - including Rivera:

https://www.telegram.com/news/20181222/bill-ballou-mariano-rivera-not-getting-this-writers-hall-of-fame-vote

Honestly, I don’t disagree. 

He opens up by admitting Rivera is the greatest closer of all time -- point blank..  then....

Even so, I am not voting for him for the Hall of Fame, and three people come to mind as part of the reason why — Craig Kimbrel, Adam Viniateri and Taylor Dakers....

The dude then goes on to point out how it felt when Kimbrel pitched.   Because you know -- the performance of others, including people in other sports should be taken into consideration when talking about ONE specific individual.   Beyond that -- this guy also closed with this...

Thus, I’m not voting this year. A submitted blank ballot is “no” vote for every candidate, so I’m doing a Switzerland and not sending one at all.

I mean it's great that he's justifying his BS by saying he doesn't want to deny the dude the chance to be the first guy to be unanimously elected but -- his publicly taking the position he has screams I want to be the douchebag that didn't vote for him but also didn't keep him out.  Sorry but this screams "look at me!!!!" more than anything else.  If someone believes something as strongly as this twat is trying to imply then he should be willing to take on whatever criticism might come his way.  Not a fan of writers trying to make themselves the story and this sort of feels that way.

FTR -- I have no problem with people voting how they believe, and I'm a big believer in closers being overrated and a champion of closers being more mythology than anything else.  But the HOF is supposed to be about the best players that ever played at their respective positions and Mariano was far and away the greatest closer of all time.    And yeah -- I checked this guy has left Edgar off his ballot every year but he had said this about David Ortiz/Edgar  

"I get more mail about Martinez than any other candidate, and he was a great player, no doubt. And yes, it’s not fair that David Ortiz got into so many more postseason games than did Martinez, and thus became larger than life. But that’s the Hall of Fame — larger than life, full of players who can fill a stadium just because they are in the lineup."

Hold fast to that last bit about being larger than life -- this was his reasoning last year when he voted for Vladi

Guerrero? Fits my description of a Hall of Famer. A great player whose appeal went beyond statistics. Every one of his plate appearances was a baseball mini-series. You couldn’t wait to see what might happen on the next pitch.

I'm sorry -- but if thats his definition of a HOFer -- how does Mariano not fit that description?   Is there anyone on this board that didn't feel a rush on the rare occasions when the Angels did get to Rivera?

When it's all said and done -- I don't care if he votes for a guy or not -- it's his ballot, but this sort of shit pisses me off.  Sort of like when an umpire tries to make himself the story...

Edited by Inside Pitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean-Regan said:

Not sure if there’s a better place for this...

Writer from Boston argues that closers don’t do enough to be eligible for the Hall of Fame - including Rivera:

https://www.telegram.com/news/20181222/bill-ballou-mariano-rivera-not-getting-this-writers-hall-of-fame-vote

Honestly, I don’t disagree. 

dennis-eckersley.jpg?w=625

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any argument that is founded on such a ridiculous and arbitrary principal as, "i don't think their role is significant" is an argument without merit and not deserved of being discussed by those familiar in the subject.

here's a valid statement that can be argued by those in the know: mariano is by far and away the best relief pitcher, of any kind, the game has ever known. 

he's a first ballot hall of famer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ukyah said:

any argument that is founded on such a ridiculous and arbitrary principal as, "i don't think their role is significant" is an argument without merit and not deserved of being discussed by those familiar in the subject.

here's a valid statement that can be argued by those in the know: mariano is by far and away the best relief pitcher, of any kind, the game has ever known. 

he's a first ballot hall of famer.

Any argument for a closer has to conveniently ignore innings pitched. At the end of the day Rivera was a failed starting pitcher. Closer love is about an arbitrary statistic and media/fan narrative. 

The fact that Rivera probably is a first ballot guy while Edgar and Mussina are still trying to get in shows how moronic and unable to analyze, well, anything, the average fan and writer is. At best, Rivera should be a borderline Hall of Fame guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

Any argument for a closer has to conveniently ignore innings pitched. At the end of the day Rivera was a failed starting pitcher. Closer love is about an arbitrary statistic and media/fan narrative. 

The fact that Rivera probably is a first ballot guy while Edgar and Mussina are still trying to get in shows how moronic and unable to analyze, well, anything, the average fan and writer is. At best, Rivera should be a borderline Hall of Fame guy. 

this is the exact bs i don't have any interest in getting involved in. i could not care less about the closer label. put him against all relief pitchers ever. he is absolutely the best relief pitcher of all time, there is little argument to be made against that point. he played for eighteen years. he was absolutely instrumental in his team winning 5 championships. my favorite stat about him? more people have walked on the moon than have scored on him in the postseason. he pitched a full SP's season worth of innings in the postseason, 141 innings with 11 earned runs (13 unearned) in total. 

the accomplishments and accolades go far beyond that. simply put and as i already said, irregardless of role in the bullpen, he is the all time greatest relief pitcher and 2nd isn't that close.

the same rule would apply to DH's as well. if they are an all time great hitter, and they play an instrumental role in their team's success over many years, then yes they should be in the HOF, without question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ukyah said:

this is the exact bs i don't have any interest in getting involved in. i could not care less about the closer label. put him against all relief pitchers ever. he is absolutely the best relief pitcher of all time, there is little argument to be made against that point. he played for eighteen years. he was absolutely instrumental in his team winning 5 championships. my favorite stat about him? more people have walked on the moon than have scored on him in the postseason. he pitched a full SP's season worth of innings in the postseason, 141 innings with 11 earned runs (13 unearned) in total. 

the accomplishments and accolades go far beyond that. simply put and as i already said, irregardless of role in the bullpen, he is the all time greatest relief pitcher and 2nd isn't that close.

the same rule would apply to DH's as well. if they are an all time great hitter, and they play an instrumental role in their team's success over many years, then yes they should be in the HOF, without question.

DH’s are a hell of a lot more valuable than relievers. Even the best relievers are overrated. 

Just a quick observation:

Mike Mussina: 82.9 bWAR, 82.2 fWAR 

Edgar Martinez: 68.4 bWAR, 65.5 fWAR

Mariano Rivera: 56.3bWAR , 39.7 fWAR

We can debate over the value of WAR as a tool for rating players, but the numbers aren’t even close. That’s two different valuation systems that put him on the low end of player value. 

Theoretically we could give him a bump up for playing in ‘high leverage situations’, but that doesn’t make up the difference. Rivera pitched over 100 innings one time in his career. Besides that, he topped out at 80 innings. His career IP is under 1300 - Mussina three almost three times as many, yet can’t break through 75% in however many years on the ballot it is now. 

IMO, Relievers don’t belong in the Hall. Even the best of them - Rivera - is borderline in value. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Sean, but no player ever wanted to step in the box with the game on the line and have to face Mariano Rivera. Not even the most competitive player wanted that scenario and that is a testament to his Hall of Fame credentials. 

WAR is a very flawed counting stat. The ability to generate those numbers is simply by the amount of chances, like home runs and RBIs. More opportunities create higher totals. But the Hall of Fame isn't necessarily about counting stats. It's about how that player fared against his peers in the same time frame. 

No pitcher was as consistently dominant as Rivera was, innings pitched not withstanding. He was simply the best at his profession year in and year out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever hear this joke...

Old, crusty man walks into a bar and sits down next to a beautiful young woman. Old man says: "Hey, would you sleep with me for $1 million?" The woman looks him up and down, considers the million bucks, and says: "OK."

Then the man says, "OK, would you sleep with me for $10?"

She gasps and says: "No. What do you think I am!!??"

"We already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price."

---

Here's the moral of the story. His premise that closers aren't as valuable as starters is 100 percent accurate. If you had a choice of the best starter in baseball or the best closer, which would you take? 

Modern metrics have taught us that the "save" is a bad stat, and that you should not necessarily preserve your best pitcher for the 9th when the highest leverage spot might be in the 7th or 8th.

So all he's done is taken a perfectly reasonable stance and stretched it so far that it's not reasonable any more. Like the old man switching his offer from $1 million to $10.

I think if he just pulled it back a little and said "closers aren't as valuable as starters, which is why I'm not going to vote for the 3rd or 5th or 7th best reliever of all time but I still will vote for the best."

If he did that, he'd be me. I didn't vote for Trevor Hoffman or Lee Smith, but I did vote for Rivera. And the reason I didn't vote for the 3rd best reliever, but I would vote for the 3rd best starter or the 3rd best first baseman, is because it's a different, easier, job. He's right. He just took it too far.

---

Finally, a point that a lot of people seem to miss -- which is the writer's only fault because he buried it -- is he said he's not casting a ballot at all, because he doesn't want to be the one to keep Rivera from being unanimous. That is a whole other argument, and I'm not even sure how I feel about it. He's essentially NOT voting what he believes because of public pressure. Now if Rivera is unanimous, will it have an asterisk?

Anyway, we shouldn't get all worked up about. He's getting in the HOF. There are about 50 more deserving HOFs than Rivera who also weren't unanimous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Ever hear this joke...

Old, crusty man walks into a bar and sits down next to a beautiful young woman. Old man says: "Hey, would you sleep with me for $1 million?" The woman looks him up and down, considers the million bucks, and says: "OK."

Then the man says, "OK, would you sleep with me for $10?"

She gasps and says: "No. What do you think I am!!??"

"We already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price."

---

Here's the moral of the story. His premise that closers aren't as valuable as starters is 100 percent accurate. If you had a choice of the best starter in baseball or the best closer, which would you take? 

Modern metrics have taught us that the "save" is a bad stat, and that you should not necessarily preserve your best pitcher for the 9th when the highest leverage spot might be in the 7th or 8th.

So all he's done is taken a perfectly reasonable stance and stretched it so far that it's not reasonable any more. Like the old man switching his offer from $1 million to $10.

I think if he just pulled it back a little and said "closers aren't as valuable as starters, which is why I'm not going to vote for the 3rd or 5th or 7th best reliever of all time but I still will vote for the best."

If he did that, he'd be me. I didn't vote for Trevor Hoffman or Lee Smith, but I did vote for Rivera. And the reason I didn't vote for the 3rd best reliever, but I would vote for the 3rd best starter or the 3rd best first baseman, is because it's a different, easier, job. He's right. He just took it too far.

---

Finally, a point that a lot of people seem to miss -- which is the writer's only fault because he buried it -- is he said he's not casting a ballot at all, because he doesn't want to be the one to keep Rivera from being unanimous. That is a whole other argument, and I'm not even sure how I feel about it. He's essentially NOT voting what he believes because of public pressure. Now if Rivera is unanimous, will it have an asterisk?

Anyway, we shouldn't get all worked up about. He's getting in the HOF. There are about 50 more deserving HOFs than Rivera who also weren't unanimous.

I agree on the last part: That was the one part I disagreed on. Based on his rationale, I want someone like him voting. But whatever.

My basic point is simply that I think Rivera is incredibly overrated compared to people who ought to be in and ridiculously aren’t and there isn’t a good reason for it. Rivera was incapable of being a good starter which is why he was in the bullpen.

Now, being realistic, how many average starters could end up with a better career doing what Rivera did? Hard to say. But I suspect most would do worse. That’s worth something that WAR probably can’t quantify. But is it enough to put him in unanimous territory? That notion just makes me shake my head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Sorry, Sean, but no player ever wanted to step in the box with the game on the line and have to face Mariano Rivera. Not even the most competitive player wanted that scenario and that is a testament to his Hall of Fame credentials. 

WAR is a very flawed counting stat. The ability to generate those numbers is simply by the amount of chances, like home runs and RBIs. More opportunities create higher totals. But the Hall of Fame isn't necessarily about counting stats. It's about how that player fared against his peers in the same time frame. 

No pitcher was as consistently dominant as Rivera was, innings pitched not withstanding. He was simply the best at his profession year in and year out.

 

28 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

I hate the Yankees and have no rooting interest either way but, Jesus, he's 1st ballot...to debate otherwise is to look foolishly obtuse.

So, to you two, a simple question: If Rivera is first ballot, should Mussina and Edgar be first ballot? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

Eleven sportswriters voted No on Babe Ruth's admission to the Hall. How that could be is a mystery.

I have never understood the idea of not voting for someone on the first ballot, but voting for him on all subsequent ballots just so that it isn't unanimous. A guy doesn't suddenly become a Hall of Famer after the first ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • AngelsWin.com Ad-free Membership Options