Real MLB Thread

[HouWarrior]

I was surprised to hear that Verlander had only pitched on 3 days rest one time in his career before today. And once I heard that, I was surprised the Astros trotted him out there.

Let him get his normal rest and use the future Hall of Famer in Game 5 if necessary. As a bonus, if you win Game 4 without him, you can start him in Game 1 of the ALCS.

I guess it was easier to do with Garret Cole rested and ready for Game 5, but I still didn't like the decision.

Ditto

As Hinch was pulling Grienke in game 3 the dugout cam showed him talking to Verlander...Im guessing he was asking if he would Pitch Tuesday.

Yet previously...In local Hinch behind the scenes stuff he explained that his analytics use allows him to preplan all in game decisions against the data....b/c , he said...in game decisions in the heat of the battle are usually bad....

Then....Violative of his personal discipline...and
In the heat/excitement over Grienke getting blasted,  Hinch panicked and made a poor on the spot in game choice to  use Verlander....without the data that he had NEVER done so before. Dumb mistake

Over many decades of my watching playoff baseball,  my guess is that short rest starts succeed less than half the time.

We will overcome Hinch's error...Cole should be fine back home here in Houston...Astros in 5...but...

Hinch's in the moment panic may have screwed up the ALCS rotation

[MU82]

Simmons is top ten all time WAR for catchers (all other eligible catchers in top ten are in HOF) He is 2nd all time for catchers in hits and RBI’s...etc...He’s a good candidate.

With regards to the other things, yes it does matter with regards to media markets and popularity with media. A borderline candidate will have more challenges. A close friend of mine has been a long time MLB and NFL HOF voter. So I have a little bit of an idea of what their experience is with the process and players.

Guys like Jim Edmonds, Chris Carpenter, Adam Wainwright etc...are Hall of the very good type players not HOF. Or more simply put they are or will be in the Cardinals team HOF which has a handful of candidates annually.

Simmons did suffer from playing at a similar time with a few of the all time catching greats.

Not bragging (because it's really nothing to brag about), just stating fact: I have been a Baseball HOF voter since 1996. Just FYI, the process is considerably different from the way football chooses its HOFers.

Hundreds and hundreds of BBWAA members select for baseball. Each is allowed to choose up to 10 per year (can choose anywhere from 0 to 10). Otherwise, as long as they are on the official ballot, there are no rules.

In football, a committee chooses the candidates and a small committee then votes and selects each year's HoFers. Lobbying takes place. Football, unlike baseball, wants to elect X number of HoFers every year.

Baseball's veterans committee is more like football's regular committee. They elect guys who were passed over for one reason or another. It's always been a little suspect to me. Players who were vetted for years by hundreds of longtime baseball observers, most of whom had little to no ulterior motive, get rejected over and over again ... and then a small panel steps in and puts those players in the Hall. I guess some guys could have fallen through the cracks for one reason or another ... but otherwise that's how you get the likes of Harold Baines in the Hall. So yes, maybe Simmons still has a shot.

[shoothoops]

Yep. Much different processes. With NFL, My friend was asked to be the presenter for a certain candidate, successfully. It was a ton of work and lobbying for him.  But when you present a good case, it can really open some eyes in some situations. I’ll ask him once in a while ahead of time if this is the year for such and such a player. There are often logjams at positions. (wide receiver comes to mind) It can be pretty interesting. I know that there are some voters that take the process more seriously and objectively than others.  (Like any other walk of life)

Overall, as I said it isn’t a big interest of mine. Once in a while something may stand out such as a specific candidate for some reason that interests me. But much of the time it comes and goes without too much interest from me.

[Benny B]

Not bragging (because it's really nothing to brag about), just stating fact: I have been a Baseball HOF voter since 1996. Just FYI, the process is considerably different from the way football chooses its HOFers.

Hundreds and hundreds of BBWAA members select for baseball. Each is allowed to choose up to 10 per year (can choose anywhere from 0 to 10). Otherwise, as long as they are on the official ballot, there are no rules.

In football, a committee chooses the candidates and a small committee then votes and selects each year's HoFers. Lobbying takes place. Football, unlike baseball, wants to elect X number of HoFers every year.

Baseball's veterans committee is more like football's regular committee. They elect guys who were passed over for one reason or another. It's always been a little suspect to me. Players who were vetted for years by hundreds of longtime baseball observers, most of whom had little to no ulterior motive, get rejected over and over again ... and then a small panel steps in and puts those players in the Hall. I guess some guys could have fallen through the cracks for one reason or another ... but otherwise that's how you get the likes of Harold Baines in the Hall. So yes, maybe Simmons still has a shot.

Overheard at BBWAA HQ once a year for the past 30 years:

"Dammit, will someone please call the bald guy and tell him to stop writing in Eddie Gaedel."

[CTWarrior]

Not bragging (because it's really nothing to brag about), just stating fact: I have been a Baseball HOF voter since 1996. Just FYI, the process is considerably different from the way football chooses its HOFers.

Hundreds and hundreds of BBWAA members select for baseball. Each is allowed to choose up to 10 per year (can choose anywhere from 0 to 10). Otherwise, as long as they are on the official ballot, there are no rules.

In football, a committee chooses the candidates and a small committee then votes and selects each year's HoFers. Lobbying takes place. Football, unlike baseball, wants to elect X number of HoFers every year.

Baseball's veterans committee is more like football's regular committee. They elect guys who were passed over for one reason or another. It's always been a little suspect to me. Players who were vetted for years by hundreds of longtime baseball observers, most of whom had little to no ulterior motive, get rejected over and over again ... and then a small panel steps in and puts those players in the Hall. I guess some guys could have fallen through the cracks for one reason or another ... but otherwise that's how you get the likes of Harold Baines in the Hall. So yes, maybe Simmons still has a shot.

I think the Veteran's Committee serves a purpose.  Some legitimately great players (Arky Vaughan, for example) were missed by the writers.  Harold Baines was really bad selection greatly influenced by having a committee makeup of his friends and well wishers, and may change the Veteran's Committee process the way Bill Mazeroski did, but I doubt it.  There are many worse players than Ted Simmons in the HOF and many voted in by the writers.

Simmons was hurt by being a contemporary of Bench so you never thought of him as the  best catcher at any time, and that kept him from resonating with a lot of voters, and he played prominently for the Brewers at the end of his career when he wasn't so good so I get the feeling that is how voters remembered him when it was time to vote on him.  Not a travesty that he is not in, but I think he probably deserves it.

[MU82]

Overheard at BBWAA HQ once a year for the past 30 years:

"Dammit, will someone please call the bald guy and tell him to stop writing in Eddie Gaedel."

That's Mr. Bald Guy to you, pal.

And I only wrote in the little guy once, after I had been out celebrating our EE win over Kentucky.

[#UnleashSean]

@mu82


Yes or no to Rose

[BM1090]

So the Cardinals-Braves game is certainly something...

[MU82]

@mu82


Yes or no to Rose

First of all, he was not on the ballot. A few voters wrote him in but not many, and I was not one of them.

Otherwise ...

In the fairly distant past, my position was that he should be in the Hall as a player but should not be allowed anywhere near the game -- not as GM, manager, coach, "ambassador," nothing. The thought process was that he didn't bet on baseball as a player -- so he should be allowed in for his playing exploits -- but he did bet on his own games when he was a manager, so that is a lifetime ban away from the game.

However, more recently, credible evidence surfaced that he indeed did bet on his games when he was an active player. For me (and obviously for the Hall), that is absolutely disqualifying.

[Dr. Blackheart]

First of all, he was not on the ballot. A few voters wrote him in but not many, and I was not one of them.

Otherwise ...

In the fairly distant past, my position was that he should be in the Hall as a player but should not be allowed anywhere near the game -- not as GM, manager, coach, "ambassador," nothing. The thought process was that he didn't bet on baseball as a player -- so he should be allowed in for his playing exploits -- but he did bet on his own games when he was a manager, so that is a lifetime ban away from the game.

However, more recently, credible evidence surfaced that he indeed did bet on his games when he was an active player. For me (and obviously for the Hall), that is absolutely disqualifying.

What about the Juicers?

[Cheeks]

@mu82


Yes or no to Rose

No.

When I worked for the Angels we had in the clubhouse in huge letters about betting.  The team had to go through detailed training from MLB on no betting.  Every MLB team got the same training, same notice.  It was so crystal clear.  You bet on baseball you are done. Period.  No exceptions.  People were so damn scared to even do NCAA pools. 

Factor in Pete lies about it again and again.

NO

[ZiggysFryBoy]

What about the Juicers?

The cream and the clear weren't on the banned substance list.

Traditionalists will still side w/ the No's.  The strict constructionalists will side with the Yes's.

(Not using those terms in a political way at all.  GBA!)

[Cheeks]

The cream and the clear weren't on the banned substance list.

Traditionalists will still side w/ the No's.  The strict constructionalists will side with the Yes's.

(Not using those terms in a political way at all.  GBA!)

I’d be curious why you say that if the rules were plain as day at what is and isn’t allowed.  Doesn’t that feed into the constructionist mindset?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I’d be curious why you say that if the rules were plain as day at what is and isn’t allowed.  Doesn’t that feed into the constructionist mindset?

Baseball traditionalists still think that the game is a gentleman's affair in the 1900s.  Honor and the rules are everything. (Prob could put TGFIBs here, but one of their own was a user.)

The strict constructionalists would say "hey, the weren't banned substances in the late 90s, early 2000s, so the game allowed it, so their stats and records count.

[DegenerateDish]

Oh playoff Kershaw...happened again.

[MU82]

What about the Juicers?

A lot of nuance there. Some were proven to have done it, but some only innuendo. Some very good evidence, some less so. Some didn't start juicing (allegedly) until well after they had established themselves as Hall-worthy, some wouldn't have sniffed Hall-worthy stats without roids.

Interestingly, neither the Hall of Fame nor the commissioner's office nor the BBWAA gives voters any guidelines on juicing. They leave it to us to come to our own conclusions.

Of course, well down on the list of rules, it says:

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Obviously, one could instantly DQ any juicer based on lack of integrity, sportsmanship and character. Then again, there are racists, wife-beaters, adulterers, drunks and other assorted miscreants in the Hall. (And that's just the media wing - ha!)

Over the years, most voters have not given the integrity/character part of the rule anywhere near the weight of the stats/contributions part.

[DegenerateDish]

Holy $hit.

[buckchuckler]

Holy $hit.

Bye Felicia.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Bananas, yo!

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Dave Roberts:  great, great teacher of the game.  Turrible, turrible manager.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Biggest choke job in NL history?  Go Natty's.

[Benny B]

Biggest choke job in NL history?  Go Natty's.

Nah.  Dodgers weren’t that great to begin with.  Otherwise it wouldn’t have went to 5. 

[Cheeks]

Anybody but the Doyers....wish granted and a Doyers vanquished by long time Halo...HOWIE!!!

Going to be a tough day tomorrow for Angelinos here.

[dgies9156]

@mu82


Yes or no to Rose

YES

[dgies9156]

Good morning Cub Fans. And assorted other fans as well.

It's a great day in the neighborhood.

How many of you on June 15th would have predicted the NLCS would begin in St. Louis and include the Washington Nationals?

And that the Cubs would be hibernating and the Dodgers would be thinking about firing their manager?

Give the Cardinals a lot of credit. They played well in the second half of the season. And their pitching is young and, well, really good. The biggest questions: Can they hit and will Carlos Martinez become the latter day version of Joaquin Andjuar?

In the meantime, this is fun because it was soooooo unexpected!