Hank Scorpio
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
You're gonna die now!
Posts: 573
|
Post by Hank Scorpio on Jan 8, 2009 17:45:01 GMT -5
Cambridge already addressed the draft picks, but weren't we talking strictly about the CC deal as it relates to the failure to acquire Santana? As it stands, it was either: Santana and last year's first rounder, this year's first rounder (before Teixeira and Burnett) OR Hughes, Kennedy, Cabrera and Sabathia I'm going with option #2 every time, as I think Hughes is going to be a very good 2/3 pitcher and Kennedy could be a servicable 4/5. Melky I would deal happily...but as is, he could be a decent 4th OF. All 3 of those guys are less than 23 years old. Furthermore, if the choice was between: CC, AJ and Teixeira OR 3 draft picks and 60 million per year in salary space Who, if they could afford it, wouldn't take the first one? And if you want to take it back to the Santana equation, we can do it like this: CC, AJ and Teixeira AND Hughes, Kennedy and Cabrera OR Santana, last year's first rounder (and 40 million dollars in salary, but the Yanks aren't worried about money), this year's first rounder, this year's 2nd rounder, and this year's third rounder... You take the first one. Every single time. they didn't just give up money. cc, burnett, and tex are all type a free agents. they lose 1st round draft picks for each signing. those are better assets than cabrera or kennedy.
|
|
Hank Scorpio
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
You're gonna die now!
Posts: 573
|
Post by Hank Scorpio on Jan 8, 2009 17:58:16 GMT -5
I think they're comparable, Sabathia's peripherals have trended slightly upwards the past 3 seasons while Santana's have trended slightly downward. Santana is slightly older, CC has thrown more innings. Santana is a reasonable preference, but I don't think there is a chasm between them. As for the BoSox CC's made seven regular season starts against Boston in his career, 48.1 IP. 3.91 ERA. 1.22 WHIP. 35 Ks, 8 BBs, 2 Wins, 4 Losses. Santana has pitched against them 12 times. 55.2 innings, 3.40 ERA, 1.24 WHIP. 58 Ks. 16 BBs. 4Ws, 4Ls. Small sample sizes...we'll see how he holds up to the AL East gauntlet...though I know the comparisons to Santana will continue the next 7 years, 19 games a year against the Red Sox, Rays, Toronto and Balt is not the same as 19 against the Phils, Braves, Marlins, and Nats. I think Santana is better than CC, hands down. But, that's a completely subjective opinion. Objectively though, CC has been pretty horrible against the Sox. So, I'm not sure I'd be all geeked up about that signing. It could be a disaster. I'd be much more smug about Teixeira, he's a complete stud.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 8, 2009 18:22:17 GMT -5
I think they're comparable, Sabathia's peripherals have trended slightly upwards the past 3 seasons while Santana's have trended slightly downward. Santana is slightly older, CC has thrown more innings. Santana is a reasonable preference, but I don't think there is a chasm between them. As for the BoSox CC's made seven regular season starts against Boston in his career, 48.1 IP. 3.91 ERA. 1.22 WHIP. 35 Ks, 8 BBs, 2 Wins, 4 Losses. Santana has pitched against them 12 times. 55.2 innings, 3.40 ERA, 1.24 WHIP. 58 Ks. 16 BBs. 4Ws, 4Ls. Small sample sizes...we'll see how he holds up to the AL East gauntlet...though I know the comparisons to Santana will continue the next 7 years, 19 games a year against the Red Sox, Rays, Toronto and Balt is not the same as 19 against the Phils, Braves, Marlins, and Nats. I think Santana is better than CC, hands down. But, that's a completely subjective opinion. Objectively though, CC has been pretty horrible against the Sox. So, I'm not sure I'd be all geeked up about that signing. It could be a disaster. I'd be much more smug about Teixeira, he's a complete stud. I'm too lazy to look them up, but what are the numbers in Fenway? I know Yankee stadium is a whole new kettle of fish now, so I won't bother speculating as to how it will play for the pitchers.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jan 12, 2009 16:25:33 GMT -5
I just find it funny that a guy who statheads believe is undeserving was generally disliked by old school baseball writers for being surly in the clubhouse, yet somehow he became more palatable 20 years after he retired, perhaps as a result of the backlash by old school baseball writers against statheads. At least the Baseball HOF creates a decent barstool argument. I always loved poring over the baseball almanac on a slow night at Clyde's back bar or Chadwick's. Every decent bar should have a baseball almanac on hand. Semi-related, Rob Neyer makes a very compelling case for why it is criminal that Tim Raines received less than half as many votes as a man with a .323 career OBP who just happens to be his long time teammate in Montreal, the Hawk, Andre Dawson: sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3827958&name=Neyer_Rob
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,441
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jan 12, 2009 19:31:49 GMT -5
Tim Raines should be in the HOF. His poor vote count is a joke.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 12, 2009 19:58:15 GMT -5
Raines was awesome and was/is doomed because writers are a) too stupid to recognize the value of a leadoff man and b) he was a contemporary of Rickey and c) he spent his best years in Montreal.
Rice is not a quality HOF. Someone, someday, in the mainstream is going to recognize park effects and that outs are a bad thing.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,077
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 12, 2009 21:25:05 GMT -5
Rice is not a quality HOF. Someone, someday, in the mainstream is going to recognize park effects and that outs are a bad thing. Hater.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 13, 2009 1:36:48 GMT -5
I know you're just being a homer, but there are about 10 other similar players from Rice's era that were just as good as him.
|
|
ichirohoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 535
|
Post by ichirohoya on Jan 13, 2009 2:46:47 GMT -5
If Jim Rice hadn't been on the Red Sox would he be going into the HOF this summmer?. Lets say, I dunno, he had played for the Pirates (who won a world series during his career), would he have gotten into the Hall?
Who deserves enshrinement in the HOF is way too loaded of a question to be tackled in a civil fashion. Emotions get involved as debates rage over players from our favorite teams or about players we idolized/admired/liked. Emotions equally come into play when folks who enjoy statistics get into the argument.
I wanted to shoot Bill Simmons after he dared to challenge the divinity of Cal Ripken. Why? I'm from Baltimore. Same deal over the debate several summers ago about Rafael Palmiero. (Then the whole steroid thing came up and we stopped having that discussion) To actual red sox fans (note that i do not say Red Sox Nation here) Jim Rice is one of the all-time greats and deserves the accolades hes getting.
I think Mike Mussina belongs in the Hall of Fame. I don't think Curt Schilling belongs in the Hall of Fame. Why? I saw Mussina pitch for my team during his prime. Had the Orioles not traded Curt Schilling for some magic beans in December 1990, I would probably believe Schilling belongs in the Hall. Part of being a fan, I guess. Tell TBird that Kirby Puckett isn't worthy of his plaque in Cooperstown. Then duck.
So, congratulations Jim Rice. Congratulations to the legion of Red Sox rooters who get to enjoy one of their own going into the hall this summer. I hope that the Red Sox partisans who flock to Cooperstown this summer are the sort who can truly appreciate the moment. The type of folks who cringe at hearing the name Bucky Dent and who remember the days of Bruce Hurst and Rich Gedman and John Marzano and Oil Can Boyd. Maybe, just maybe, the pink Varitek jerseys, shirts which simply read "Papi," and all of that offensive green apparel beloved by bandwagon-hoppers will be absent from Cooperstown for the ceremonies.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,077
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 13, 2009 6:46:15 GMT -5
Nah. Chain yanker. I was a Reds fan in 75.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,995
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jan 13, 2009 6:59:33 GMT -5
i completely agree with buff and said as much last year when goose got in. the entire process is a joke, thanks to the voting system and the morons that do the voting.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 13, 2009 10:10:53 GMT -5
Raines c) spent his best years in Montreal. Agree, but as a White Sox fan I'll add Rock was still great when he played on the South Side. For discussion's sake, here are his basic stats: www.baseball-reference.com/r/raineti01.shtml
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 13, 2009 16:36:24 GMT -5
Buffalo's agreement with Skip Bayless means that he should never get into the Hoyatalk Hall of Fame, should that ever happen.
It's like betting on baseball or taking steroids. Just despicable.
Baseball has by far the most stringent requirements to be in the HOF. No matter what you do, people will argue for a "Small Hall" or a more inclusive one. The best you can do is to set a number/standard and make sure the right people get in.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,077
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 13, 2009 17:41:22 GMT -5
Luis Tiant. Crime of the Century.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,441
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jan 13, 2009 18:06:54 GMT -5
Luis Tiant. Crime of the Century. That was Supertramp. Raines is quite possibly the second greatest lead-off hitter ever. If he hadn't played at the same time as Henderson, he would be receiving way more credit. Yes, the HOF may have been diluted somewhat, but not everyone is Walter Johnson or Willie Mays, and entry shouldn't be held to that high a standard. Jim Rice? Nah, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it (or over the election of any other person, for that matter, unless Dave Kingman gets in; I remember almost praying that he wouldn't get to 500 home runs).
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Jan 14, 2009 0:43:38 GMT -5
Rice does not belong. Raines probably not either, but I would put him in before Dawson and Rice. It has become so diluted. But damn you, Buff. You made me take a look at the Rock & Roll Hall of the Decent and Some Not Even Remotely Appropriate list of inductees. Seems like R&R had as bad a year as MLB, what with John Mellencamp, Leonard Cohen and Madonna this year. Seriously? www.rockhall.com/inductees/inductee-list/
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 14, 2009 9:57:15 GMT -5
I agree about Rice for the most part, he was definitely borderline, but what happens to borderline guys on an HOF ballot...eventually they get in. His numbers according to Baseball-Reference.com put him squarely on the line:
Black Ink: Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer = 27) Gray Ink: Batting - 176 (57) (Average HOFer = 144) HOF Standards: Batting - 43.0 (114) (Average HOFer = 50) HOF Monitor: Batting - 144.5 (89) (Likely HOFer > 100)
And when I see that four of the ten players "most similar" to his stats are in the HOF, and at least two more of them are locks for the hall of fame, making it 6/10, I figure the "high" standards as some of you purists seem to believe have only recently been dilluted, were in fact dilluted long ago.
HOF Goose Goslin: 2,735 hits, 248HR, .316 avg, .500 slg, 11 100+ RBI years, 1 25+ HR years Duke Snider: 2,116 hits, 407HR, .295 avg, .540 slg, 6 100+ RBI years, 7 25+ HR years Orlando Cepeda: 2,351 hits, 379HR, .297 avg, .499 slg, 5 100+ RBI years, 8 25+ HR years Willie Stargell: 2,232 hits, 475HR, .282 avg, .529 slg, 5 100+ RBI years, 10 25+ HR years Billy Williams: 2,711 hits, 426HR, .290 avg, .492 slg, 3 100+ RBI years, 9 25+ HR years
Jim Rice: 2,452 hits, 382HR, .298 avg, .502 slg, 8 100+ RBI years, 7 25+ HR years
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 14, 2009 10:42:46 GMT -5
I don't know enough hockey to evaluate their HOF. I do think baseball is much more exclusive to me than football or basketball.
There are something like 225 HOF in baseball, I think, that are actually players. The game has spanned over 130 years.
That may be too many -- nowadays there are about 800 or so major leaguers at any one time, so having 20-30 playing at a time may be too much.
But if you toss the Veteran's Committee selections (awful) the number goes down susbstantially and it is generally pretty good. Since the veteran's committee has been neutered, the selection has gotten very rigid. (Which is one reason Rice annoys me -- there's a ton of better players).
Seriously, how many would you put in? A single roster? One lineup? Fifty? One Hundred? What happens as time passes? Do you kick people our or is it one a year?
I could go for one a year. Less than that is a bit far, I think. Considering there are nine positions and depth in the pitching staff (pitchers should be more than 1/9th the Hall) getting too much smaller means that you'd only have a couple players from some positions over 130 years.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,441
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jan 14, 2009 15:41:05 GMT -5
SF, I wouldn't put a number on how many could be in or how many could get in every year. I would just stop with the Jim Rice's, the Bruce Sutter's, the Phil Rizzuto's, the Goose Gossage's, etc. Its too late, I know. The hall is already overrun with guys who don't belong (in my mind), and things aren't going to change any time soon. Just curious, what is your standard for relief pitchers? I'm sure you wouldn't reject the entire category and would allow the premier ones in, right (Rivera, Eckersley)?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jan 14, 2009 16:32:13 GMT -5
Any truth that there's actually a movement to have the name legally changed to the "Baseball Hall of Pretty Good?"
|
|