|
|
Post by inger on Oct 22, 2024 1:01:56 GMT -5
Ok, this third part will be short, and to the point. If I had to vote for the Hall for Nettles again now, 20 years later, I would say yes, for four reasons: 1) There are only 17 3rd basemen in the Hall of Fame, and that's if you count Martinez and Molitor, both of whom, as has been noted, played the majority of the game at some other position. If you discount 2 or 3 of Veterans Committee selections, which should be discounted as, in my opinion at least, they're not really Hall of Famers, that means you have just 12 or so legit 3rd baseman in the Hall, and that's too few for the entirety of MLB history. 2) The standards for the Hall of Fame at 3rd are clearly lower than they were before, particular with the additions of Santo and especially Rolen, whom Nettles is almost exactly on-par with. It's fair to conclude that if Rolen is in, Nettles should be in as well. 3) With the exception of Schilling, there's not a significantly better candidate than Nettles waiting to be let in. 4) Sentimental: The great performance at 3rd in the 1978 post-season, helping the Yanks win their 2nd title in a row. Good enough for me: So, yes, I've changed my mind. Nettles should be in the Hall. I wonder if this means I should take another look at the other 5 Yankee fan favorite near-misses. I hope not; this one was exhausting, and I'm getting too old for this... Your commentary has made me quite happy. You took the assignment quite seriously and delivered excellent points. I think because we have lots of offensive stats and BR at the ready, we tend to look past the glove work and only at offense, and that’s a mistake. Great gloves deserve to be included, especially if offense is similar… |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Oct 22, 2024 1:03:41 GMT -5
PS. I am planning a short series of these. You may get your chance to go at it again…🤓
|
|
|
|
Post by qwik3457bb on Oct 22, 2024 2:33:05 GMT -5
PS. I am planning a short series of these. You may get your chance to go at it again…🤓 If you can wait until after the World Series is over, that would work better for me, because I’ll be doing the Series preview and all the game previews until it’s over. |
|
|
|
Post by 1955nyyfan on Oct 22, 2024 8:52:05 GMT -5
But still worthy of discussion. I didn’t want to say, “If Rolen is in, Nettles should be in… Of course Nettles will win this. It’s a Yankee site… 🤓 Not sure if this will become a thread with other discussions but if so, two that I've looked at in the past which might be interesting are Olivia (who is in the HOF) and Mattingly. Their stats are remarkably close. Another is Posey and Munson. When Posey retired there was a lot of HOF talk from the local press where I live. I compared his stats to Munson and was surprised how similar they were. |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Oct 22, 2024 9:00:32 GMT -5
I hope I haven't killed this thread with the too-long analysis and answer. Standing O for that essay, qwik. Are you sure you're not Bill James? Has anyone ever seen the two of you at the same time? Just a few random comments since it's beyond my capacity to do an analysis like that. On the burning issue of Jimmy Collins -- from anything I have heard or read, he may get the Bresnahan exemption for changing the way the position was played. Renowned for his ability to charge bunts and slow rollers while smoothly pegging the runner out in one smooth motion -- apparently he was the first third sacker to do this consistently. I think he was almost universally regarded as the best third baseman of the deadball era. I knew a man who had seen him play and he talked about him the way my generation talked about Brooks Robinson. As a kid I had a book that sounded very similar to the one you called Baseball's Best. Except this would have been late 50s or early 60s. It had really good black and white portraits of the players, and on it's all-time team Pie Traynor was the third baseman, as he seemed to be for every list made almost until the 1970s. Hard to believe he was the first third baseman ever voted in by the BBWAA, and that not until the late 1940s. He held an awful lot of third base records both offensively and defensively pre-Mathews and pre-Brooks, so I have no problem with him being in Cooperstown even though his stock has fallen with the proliferation of great third basemen that really took off in the 70s. Like George Kell (who I agree is not HOF-worthy) and even to some extent the great Scooter himself (who is) he was greatly helped by being a popular broadcasting presence, in his case in Pittsburgh, starting during World War II and up through the 1960s. I'm still on the fence with Nettles. I agree with Chi that he's undervalued not just by the baseball intelligentsia but by the Yankees themselves, no doubt largely due to his prickly relationship with The Boss. I loved him as a player, but just among Yankees is he more deserving than the other "borderline" guys like Munson and Mattingly and Williams and Posada and Pettitte? Not to mention Charlie Keller, who should be at or near the top of that list. Concur on Schilling, whose exclusion seems to be almost entirely political. I'm not a fan and won't be at the front of the parade to put him in, but it seems obvious to me. Personally I'm a Dick Allen booster among the borderliners, but that's for another time. Anyhoo, top-notch research and thought piece. |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Oct 22, 2024 9:07:43 GMT -5
But still worthy of discussion. I didn’t want to say, “If Rolen is in, Nettles should be in… Of course Nettles will win this. It’s a Yankee site… 🤓 Not sure if this will become a thread with other discussions but if so, two that I've looked at in the past which might be interesting are Olivia (who is in the HOF) and Mattingly. Their stats are remarkably close. Another is Posey and Munson. When Posey retired there was a lot of HOF talk from the local press where I live. I compared his stats to Munson and was surprised how similar they were. To me, if you watched all four of those guys play they all looked like HOFers. All had careers whose productive years were somewhat truncated by injuries or death, but when you actually watched them there was little doubt that they were elite. |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Oct 22, 2024 9:14:49 GMT -5
I’m more of a proponent of looking at the peak of careers rather than the totality of a long career. How long was the peak? It should be at least 7 years in my opinion. Then how high was the peak? The totality deserves secondary consideration. Albert Pujols first ten years earn him a HOF spot, not the backend of his career…
|
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Oct 22, 2024 9:58:12 GMT -5
I’m more of a proponent of looking at the peak of careers rather than the totality of a long career. How long was the peak? It should be at least 7 years in my opinion. Then how high was the peak? The totality deserves secondary consideration. Albert Pujols first ten years earn him a HOF spot, not the backend of his career… I agree that great players in their peak years are what makes the game most compelling. Like Aaron Judge right now. But there is something to be said for the compilers who give many years of first-rate performance while rarely being at the very top. I think Mike Mussina falls into that category -- very little black ink for such a long career -- only 15 (average HOF pitcher is 40) but lots of gray ink -- 250 (average HOFer is 185.) |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Oct 22, 2024 10:25:25 GMT -5
I’m more of a proponent of looking at the peak of careers rather than the totality of a long career. How long was the peak? It should be at least 7 years in my opinion. Then how high was the peak? The totality deserves secondary consideration. Albert Pujols first ten years earn him a HOF spot, not the backend of his career… I agree that great players in their peak years are what makes the game most compelling. Like Aaron Judge right now. But there is something to be said for the compilers who give many years of first-rate performance while rarely being at the very top. I think Mike Mussina falls into that category -- very little black ink for such a long career -- only 15 (average HOF pitcher is 40) but lots of gray ink -- 250 (average HOFer is 185.) Yes. That’s why both should be considered. The length of peak, too. Ten years peak is greater than 7… |
|
|
|
Post by Max on Oct 22, 2024 14:57:48 GMT -5
If I remember correctly the Yankees were down in the series 2 games to 0. In my opinion, that world series game 3 was the first and only time that I have seen a player take away a team's momentum with his fielding.
|
|
|
|
Post by ypaterson on Oct 22, 2024 15:22:01 GMT -5
I’m more of a proponent of looking at the peak of careers rather than the totality of a long career. How long was the peak? It should be at least 7 years in my opinion. Then how high was the peak? The totality deserves secondary consideration. Albert Pujols first ten years earn him a HOF spot, not the backend of his career… I agree that great players in their peak years are what makes the game most compelling. Like Aaron Judge right now. But there is something to be said for the compilers who give many years of first-rate performance while rarely being at the very top. I think Mike Mussina falls into that category -- very little black ink for such a long career -- only 15 (average HOF pitcher is 40) but lots of gray ink -- 250 (average HOFer is 185.) Mike Mussina was a lot more than a compiler. The man finished in the top 6 in the CY voting 8 times in a decade. Mike Mussina earned his spot in the Hall before he signed with the Yankees. Any system that does not recognize that needs to be reworked ! Players have to be judged against their peers. Comparing Mussina's career stats to Walter Johnson, Bob Feller or even Whitey Ford loses its relevance. I doubt if any of those guys pitched against a batter useing amphetamines or steroids. For his career years, Mussina was an ACE. |
|
|
|
Post by JEGnj on Oct 22, 2024 16:07:09 GMT -5
Nettles deserves the HOF BUT something that can be done is the Yankees honor him and retire #9 also for him and give him a plaque. Settle the beef and let him get a few more cheers at the stadium and let us fan's remember him.
|
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Oct 22, 2024 18:31:12 GMT -5
I agree that great players in their peak years are what makes the game most compelling. Like Aaron Judge right now. But there is something to be said for the compilers who give many years of first-rate performance while rarely being at the very top. I think Mike Mussina falls into that category -- very little black ink for such a long career -- only 15 (average HOF pitcher is 40) but lots of gray ink -- 250 (average HOFer is 185.) Mike Mussina was a lot more than a compiler. The man finished in the top 6 in the CY voting 8 times in a decade. Mike Mussina earned his spot in the Hall before he signed with the Yankees. Any system that does not recognize that needs to be reworked ! Players have to be judged against their peers. Comparing Mussina's career stats to Walter Johnson, Bob Feller or even Whitey Ford loses its relevance. I doubt if any of those guys pitched against a batter useing amphetamines or steroids. For his career years, Mussina was an ACE. ypaterson, I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. I absolutely believe that Mussina deserves to be in the HOF. I was simply pointing out that he got there through years of sustained excellence, consistently ranking among the pitching leaders, rather than in actually leading the league in key pitching categories, which he did not do by HOF standards (although far above the standards of most pitchers.) Black ink measures how many times a player led the league in any significant statistical category. Gray ink measures how many times a player finished in the top ten in those categories. Pretty reasonable stat I think. We can compare Mussina not to pitchers from different eras, but with pitchers who were contemporaries. In this case I only looked at pitchers whose career overlapped with his for at least ten years. First number is black ink, second is gray ink. Mussina -- 15; 250 Randy Johnson -- 99; 280 Greg Maddux -- 87; 336 Pedro Martinez -- 58; 215 Roy Halladay -- 48; 180 Curt Schilling -- 42; 205 John Smoltz -- 34; 199 Tom Glavine -- 29; 202 David Cone -- 19; 168 I didn't include Roger Clemens for obvious reasons, but for the record his numbers were an insane 100; 320. So what this shows is that Mussina's great virtue was not that he racked up a lot of league-leading numbers, but that other than Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux -- two of the greatest pitchers in baseball history -- he was a dominant presence on the overall leaderboard. Pretty great achievement in my book. You mentioned Cy Young voting, a reasonable measure as well. Here Mussina does not stand up as well as his top contemporaries. Here's the list of career CYA shares for some of these guys: Johnson -- 6.50 Maddux -- 4.92 Martinez -- 4.26 Halladay -- 3.50 Glavine -- 3.15 Schilling -- 1.85 Cone -- 1.38 Smoltz -- 1.19 Mussina -- 0.92 Again for the record the disqualified Clemens was at 7.66, highest in baseball history. I just put these numbers up so you can see where I'm coming from when I say that Mike Mussina's great achievement was in being such a presence year in and year out among the best rather than in having a few boffo seasons and then falling off a cliff. We are in total agreement that he was a great pitcher who deserves to be in Cooperstown. |
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on Oct 22, 2024 21:12:08 GMT -5
Mike Mussina was a lot more than a compiler. The man finished in the top 6 in the CY voting 8 times in a decade. Mike Mussina earned his spot in the Hall before he signed with the Yankees. Any system that does not recognize that needs to be reworked ! Players have to be judged against their peers. Comparing Mussina's career stats to Walter Johnson, Bob Feller or even Whitey Ford loses its relevance. I doubt if any of those guys pitched against a batter useing amphetamines or steroids. For his career years, Mussina was an ACE. ypaterson, I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. I absolutely believe that Mussina deserves to be in the HOF. I was simply pointing out that he got there through years of sustained excellence, consistently ranking among the pitching leaders, rather than in actually leading the league in key pitching categories, which he did not do by HOF standards (although far above the standards of most pitchers.) Black ink measures how many times a player led the league in any significant statistical category. Gray ink measures how many times a player finished in the top ten in those categories. Pretty reasonable stat I think. We can compare Mussina not to pitchers from different eras, but with pitchers who were contemporaries. In this case I only looked at pitchers whose career overlapped with his for at least ten years. First number is black ink, second is gray ink. Mussina -- 15; 250 Randy Johnson -- 99; 280 Greg Maddux -- 87; 336 Pedro Martinez -- 58; 215 Roy Halladay -- 48; 180 Curt Schilling -- 42; 205 John Smoltz -- 34; 199 Tom Glavine -- 29; 202 David Cone -- 19; 168 I didn't include Roger Clemens for obvious reasons, but for the record his numbers were an insane 100; 320. So what this shows is that Mussina's great virtue was not that he racked up a lot of league-leading numbers, but that other than Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux -- two of the greatest pitchers in baseball history -- he was a dominant presence on the overall leaderboard. Pretty great achievement in my book. You mentioned Cy Young voting, a reasonable measure as well. Here Mussina does not stand up as well as his top contemporaries. Here's the list of career CYA shares for some of these guys: Johnson -- 6.50 Maddux -- 4.92 Martinez -- 4.26 Halladay -- 3.50 Glavine -- 3.15 Schilling -- 1.85 Cone -- 1.38 Smoltz -- 1.19 Mussina -- 0.92 Again for the record the disqualified Clemens was at 7.66, highest in baseball history. I just put these numbers up so you can see where I'm coming from when I say that Mike Mussina's great achievement was in being such a presence year in and year out among the best rather than in having a few boffo seasons and then falling off a cliff. We are in total agreement that he was a great pitcher who deserves to be in Cooperstown. Good stuff, Pipps! |
|
|
|
Post by ypaterson on Oct 23, 2024 10:08:16 GMT -5
Mike Mussina was a lot more than a compiler. The man finished in the top 6 in the CY voting 8 times in a decade. Mike Mussina earned his spot in the Hall before he signed with the Yankees. Any system that does not recognize that needs to be reworked ! Players have to be judged against their peers. Comparing Mussina's career stats to Walter Johnson, Bob Feller or even Whitey Ford loses its relevance. I doubt if any of those guys pitched against a batter useing amphetamines or steroids. For his career years, Mussina was an ACE. ypaterson, I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. I absolutely believe that Mussina deserves to be in the HOF. I was simply pointing out that he got there through years of sustained excellence, consistently ranking among the pitching leaders, rather than in actually leading the league in key pitching categories, which he did not do by HOF standards (although far above the standards of most pitchers.) Black ink measures how many times a player led the league in any significant statistical category. Gray ink measures how many times a player finished in the top ten in those categories. Pretty reasonable stat I think. We can compare Mussina not to pitchers from different eras, but with pitchers who were contemporaries. In this case I only looked at pitchers whose career overlapped with his for at least ten years. First number is black ink, second is gray ink. Mussina -- 15; 250 Randy Johnson -- 99; 280 Greg Maddux -- 87; 336 Pedro Martinez -- 58; 215 Roy Halladay -- 48; 180 Curt Schilling -- 42; 205 John Smoltz -- 34; 199 Tom Glavine -- 29; 202 David Cone -- 19; 168 I didn't include Roger Clemens for obvious reasons, but for the record his numbers were an insane 100; 320. So what this shows is that Mussina's great virtue was not that he racked up a lot of league-leading numbers, but that other than Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux -- two of the greatest pitchers in baseball history -- he was a dominant presence on the overall leaderboard. Pretty great achievement in my book. You mentioned Cy Young voting, a reasonable measure as well. Here Mussina does not stand up as well as his top contemporaries. Here's the list of career CYA shares for some of these guys: Johnson -- 6.50 Maddux -- 4.92 Martinez -- 4.26 Halladay -- 3.50 Glavine -- 3.15 Schilling -- 1.85 Cone -- 1.38 Smoltz -- 1.19 Mussina -- 0.92 Again for the record the disqualified Clemens was at 7.66, highest in baseball history. I just put these numbers up so you can see where I'm coming from when I say that Mike Mussina's great achievement was in being such a presence year in and year out among the best rather than in having a few boffo seasons and then falling off a cliff. We are in total agreement that he was a great pitcher who deserves to be in Cooperstown. I reviewed your posts and admit I misinterpreted your message. I reacted to the appearance of the word compiler. Often the word carries a pejorative sense which you clearly did not intend. We agree that Mussina deserved recognition as a HOF pitcher. And we agree that comparisons are best made against a player's peers. Mussina had peak seasons that deserve to be remembered along with a long productive career. Regarding he CY Shares, Mussina finished behind great relievers, Eckersley and Rivera, and relievers who had great years. Without diminishing their importance to the game, they played a different "position'. I concede that Mussina was not the the very best of his era but he was elite, not merely someone who stuck around long enough to accumulate stats. |
|
