MLB 2019 Off-season

1479480482484485489

Comments

  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 9,162
    pjhawks said:
    igotid88 said:
    Mariano 100%
    while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

    Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.
    Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml


    agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 
  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 9,579
    edited January 23
    Mussina, never was the best pitcher in the league. Didn’t get 300 wins when it was still achievable. No on the Hall

    Halladay. Best pitcher for a solid 5 or 6 years. I’d personally give him the nod over Mussina but his career numbers don’t blow my hair back.


    At this point I was hoping no one would get 100%. I don’t feel like “if anybody deserves it, it’s him” like I’m reading a lot of.
    Post edited by DewieCox on
  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 24,691
    HOW ABOUT FUCKING DOMINANT FOR A LONG FUCKING TIME??????? :angry:

    I’m actually fine with this class. It’s the last class of juicers (pudge, bagwell, piazza) that these sanctimonious cocksuckers put in, while denying bonds and clemens, that pisses me off.
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 27,791
    Wobbie said:
    HOW ABOUT FUCKING DOMINANT FOR A LONG FUCKING TIME??????? :angry:

    I’m actually fine with this class. It’s the last class of juicers (pudge, bagwell, piazza) that these sanctimonious cocksuckers put in, while denying bonds and clemens, that pisses me off.
    I agree with this. I love this class

    ill pick this back up tomorrow after I get some sleep, but looking bad for Clemens and bonds. It’s crap
  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 24,691
    harold baines > barry bonds.
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 16,606
    Wobbie said:
    harold baines > barry bonds.
    Are you drinking again?
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 16,606
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    igotid88 said:
    Mariano 100%
    while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

    Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.
    Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml


    agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 
    DewieCox said:
    Mussina, never was the best pitcher in the league. Didn’t get 300 wins when it was still achievable. No on the Hall

    Halladay. Best pitcher for a solid 5 or 6 years. I’d personally give him the nod over Mussina but his career numbers don’t blow my hair back.


    At this point I was hoping no one would get 100%. I don’t feel like “if anybody deserves it, it’s him” like I’m reading a lot of.
    The longevity thing I agree with.

    I'm also noticing if a player killed it for 10 years they are getting in.  They might not necessarily have the 500, 300, 3000 etc but for 10 years they put up monsters they are getting in.

    Still trying to figure out how Baines got in though...
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 27,791
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    igotid88 said:
    Mariano 100%
    while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

    Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.
    Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml


    agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 
    So I generally lead towards peak being more important, but that is also the Don Mattingly argument, and he never got in. I have said a number of times that I always though Halladay is borderline and I have probably said I don't think Mussina is a hall of famer.  That said, If Halladay gets in, I am more than fine with Mussina getting in. I am fine with them both getting in.

    Like I said, I am a big fan of this class in general.
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 16,606
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    igotid88 said:
    Mariano 100%
    while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

    Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.
    Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml


    agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 
    So I generally lead towards peak being more important, but that is also the Don Mattingly argument, and he never got in. I have said a number of times that I always though Halladay is borderline and I have probably said I don't think Mussina is a hall of famer.  That said, If Halladay gets in, I am more than fine with Mussina getting in. I am fine with them both getting in.

    Like I said, I am a big fan of this class in general.
    Donnie Baseball only had 5 great years though right?

    I loved Mattingly but no way he ever goes in.

    I'm fine w Rivera and Martinez finally getting in.

    Halladay and Mussina I am not so happy with...
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,357
    pjhawks said:
    igotid88 said:
    Mariano 100%
    while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

    Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.
    I agree. It seems they are watering down the class because they are unwilling to take guys like Clemens and Bonds so instead you get Martinez, Mussina and Halladay, who 20 years ago wouldn't have had a chance at getting in with their up and down careers and not achieving any of the big milestones. How many years did it take Blyleven to get in and he has very similar numbers to Moose, but with more K's and wins. I would have taken McGriff over Mussina, Martinez and maybe Halladay (good short career, but not that impressive). That guy killed it in the 90's. He had 7 straight years of 30 plus homers and 11 overall in his career. Loved that guy. He sits at 493 and doesn't get in. Wow.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • JK_LivinJK_Livin South JerseyPosts: 6,924
    Guy never wears a glove and gets in the HOF.
    Alright, alright, alright!
    Tom O.
    "I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
    -The Writer
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 16,606
    JK_Livin said:
    Guy never wears a glove and gets in the HOF.
    Stop it.  He wore batting gloves.  Also used to field.  That's how he was brought up.

    I also think Mr Arias, AKA Big Poppi, AKA David Ortiz should make it in on his first try.
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 15,762
    edited January 23
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    igotid88 said:
    Mariano 100%
    while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

    Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.
    Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml


    agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 
    So I generally lead towards peak being more important, but that is also the Don Mattingly argument, and he never got in. I have said a number of times that I always though Halladay is borderline and I have probably said I don't think Mussina is a hall of famer.  That said, If Halladay gets in, I am more than fine with Mussina getting in. I am fine with them both getting in.

    Like I said, I am a big fan of this class in general.
    Donnie Baseball only had 5 great years though right?

    I loved Mattingly but no way he ever goes in.

    I'm fine w Rivera and Martinez finally getting in.

    Halladay and Mussina I am not so happy with...
    Compared to Baines, Mattingly should be shoo-in. Only reason Mattingly had only 5 or so dominant years was because of the back. But he still put up decent numbers after. And only played 14 season(12 full). If he played another 5 or 6 years. He would get his 3,000 hits, would have over 600 doubles, 350-400 hr. . MVP. Could have been back to back MVP. Top 10 MVP 5 times
    Post edited by igotid88 on
    I miss igotid88
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 13,280
    igotid88 said:
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    igotid88 said:
    Mariano 100%
    while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

    Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.
    Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml


    agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 
    So I generally lead towards peak being more important, but that is also the Don Mattingly argument, and he never got in. I have said a number of times that I always though Halladay is borderline and I have probably said I don't think Mussina is a hall of famer.  That said, If Halladay gets in, I am more than fine with Mussina getting in. I am fine with them both getting in.

    Like I said, I am a big fan of this class in general.
    Donnie Baseball only had 5 great years though right?

    I loved Mattingly but no way he ever goes in.

    I'm fine w Rivera and Martinez finally getting in.

    Halladay and Mussina I am not so happy with...
    Compared to Baines, Mattingly should be shoo-in. Only reason Mattingly had only 5 or so dominant years was because of the back. But he still put up decent numbers after. And only played 14 season(12 full). If he played another 5 or 6 years. He would get his 3,000 hits, would have over 600 doubles, 350-400 hr. . 
    You would expect him to get another 850 hits, 130-180 HR, and 180+ doubles in 5 or 6 more season in his late 30s?
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 16,606
    igotid88 said:
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    igotid88 said:
    Mariano 100%
    while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

    Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.
    Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml


    agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 
    So I generally lead towards peak being more important, but that is also the Don Mattingly argument, and he never got in. I have said a number of times that I always though Halladay is borderline and I have probably said I don't think Mussina is a hall of famer.  That said, If Halladay gets in, I am more than fine with Mussina getting in. I am fine with them both getting in.

    Like I said, I am a big fan of this class in general.
    Donnie Baseball only had 5 great years though right?

    I loved Mattingly but no way he ever goes in.

    I'm fine w Rivera and Martinez finally getting in.

    Halladay and Mussina I am not so happy with...
    Compared to Baines, Mattingly should be shoo-in. Only reason Mattingly had only 5 or so dominant years was because of the back. But he still put up decent numbers after. And only played 14 season(12 full). If he played another 5 or 6 years. He would get his 3,000 hits, would have over 600 doubles, 350-400 hr. . 
    He would have had to play another 9 years to reach 3000. I think his drop off would have been even worse had he kept playing.  But hey that's a different discussion.

    Baines led one thing in all of his career...I'm not impressed with his career numbers either...
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 9,263
    Baines is one of the most egregious inductions of all time.
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 15,762
    igotid88 said:
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    igotid88 said:
    Mariano 100%
    while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

    Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.
    Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml


    agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 
    So I generally lead towards peak being more important, but that is also the Don Mattingly argument, and he never got in. I have said a number of times that I always though Halladay is borderline and I have probably said I don't think Mussina is a hall of famer.  That said, If Halladay gets in, I am more than fine with Mussina getting in. I am fine with them both getting in.

    Like I said, I am a big fan of this class in general.
    Donnie Baseball only had 5 great years though right?

    I loved Mattingly but no way he ever goes in.

    I'm fine w Rivera and Martinez finally getting in.

    Halladay and Mussina I am not so happy with...
    Compared to Baines, Mattingly should be shoo-in. Only reason Mattingly had only 5 or so dominant years was because of the back. But he still put up decent numbers after. And only played 14 season(12 full). If he played another 5 or 6 years. He would get his 3,000 hits, would have over 600 doubles, 350-400 hr. . 
    You would expect him to get another 850 hits, 130-180 HR, and 180+ doubles in 5 or 6 more season in his late 30s?
    Maybe not the hr. But the hits and doubles were doable. He would have spent the final years as a DH part time 1st base. The final 3 years facing Tampa Bay's pitching.
    I miss igotid88
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,357
    What does Baines have on the committee? Maybe he has evidence that the MLB purposely ignored juicing for years, but is now simply discrediting all the players they let make them billions while they move on with their new clean image. At least everyone can now agree on the most absurd inductee - wait, nevermind, Sutter and Mazeroski are still a mystery.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Indifference71Indifference71 ChicagoPosts: 12,966
    tbergs said:
    What does Baines have on the committee? Maybe he has evidence that the MLB purposely ignored juicing for years, but is now simply discrediting all the players they let make them billions while they move on with their new clean image. At least everyone can now agree on the most absurd inductee - wait, nevermind, Sutter and Mazeroski are still a mystery.

    It was Jerry Reinsdorf who had been pushing Baines to get in for years.  As a lifelong white sox fan even I know that Baines getting in there is absurd.  He had a very nice career but definitely not HOF worthy.
    6/18/03, 5/17/06, 6/30/06, 8/5/07, 6/22/08, 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 5/7/10, 9/3/11, 9/4/11, 7/19/13, 11/21/13, 11/23/13, 11/24/13, 10/17/14, 10/20/14, 4/18/16, 4/20/16, 5/2/16, 5/3/16, 8/20/16, 8/22/16
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 16,606
    edited January 23
    Poncier said:
    Baines is one of the most egregious inductions of all time.
    He changed 3 teams
     in one year FIVE TIMES!!!

    I don't remember this though...
  • cutzcutz Posts: 7,821
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    igotid88 said:
    Mariano 100%
    while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

    Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.
    Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml


    agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 
    DewieCox said:
    Mussina, never was the best pitcher in the league. Didn’t get 300 wins when it was still achievable. No on the Hall

    Halladay. Best pitcher for a solid 5 or 6 years. I’d personally give him the nod over Mussina but his career numbers don’t blow my hair back.


    At this point I was hoping no one would get 100%. I don’t feel like “if anybody deserves it, it’s him” like I’m reading a lot of.
    The longevity thing I agree with.

    I'm also noticing if a player killed it for 10 years they are getting in.  They might not necessarily have the 500, 300, 3000 etc but for 10 years they put up monsters they are getting in.

    Still trying to figure out how Baines got in though...
    Albert Belle is a good case for a player that was dominant for 10 years. 

    Bonds & Clemens not in the HOF is a joke! And, it appears ther not getting in, either. These Holyier-In Thou BB Writers need to get off their high-horse.
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 15,762
    edited January 23
    cutz said:
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    igotid88 said:
    Mariano 100%
    while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

    Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.
    Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml


    agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 
    DewieCox said:
    Mussina, never was the best pitcher in the league. Didn’t get 300 wins when it was still achievable. No on the Hall

    Halladay. Best pitcher for a solid 5 or 6 years. I’d personally give him the nod over Mussina but his career numbers don’t blow my hair back.


    At this point I was hoping no one would get 100%. I don’t feel like “if anybody deserves it, it’s him” like I’m reading a lot of.
    The longevity thing I agree with.

    I'm also noticing if a player killed it for 10 years they are getting in.  They might not necessarily have the 500, 300, 3000 etc but for 10 years they put up monsters they are getting in.

    Still trying to figure out how Baines got in though...
    Albert Belle is a good case for a player that was dominant for 10 years. 

    Bonds & Clemens not in the HOF is a joke! And, it appears ther not getting in, either. These Holyier-In Thou BB Writers need to get off their high-horse.
    I think Clemens moved up 2%. If Ortiz gets in they should. Just glad he wasn't the first to get 100%
    Post edited by igotid88 on
    I miss igotid88
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 15,762
    Forget Mariano taught Halladay the cutter
    I miss igotid88
  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 24,691
    JK_Livin said:
    Guy never wears a glove and gets in the HOF.

    I also think Mr Arias, AKA Big Poppi, AKA David Ortiz should make it in on his first try.

    big sloppi should NOT but probably will.

    at that point, I will REALLY get fired up about bonds’ treatment. :angry:
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 16,606
    cutz said:
    pjhawks said:
    pjhawks said:
    igotid88 said:
    Mariano 100%
    while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

    Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.
    Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml


    agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 
    DewieCox said:
    Mussina, never was the best pitcher in the league. Didn’t get 300 wins when it was still achievable. No on the Hall

    Halladay. Best pitcher for a solid 5 or 6 years. I’d personally give him the nod over Mussina but his career numbers don’t blow my hair back.


    At this point I was hoping no one would get 100%. I don’t feel like “if anybody deserves it, it’s him” like I’m reading a lot of.
    The longevity thing I agree with.

    I'm also noticing if a player killed it for 10 years they are getting in.  They might not necessarily have the 500, 300, 3000 etc but for 10 years they put up monsters they are getting in.

    Still trying to figure out how Baines got in though...
    Albert Belle is a good case for a player that was dominant for 10 years. 

    Bonds & Clemens not in the HOF is a joke! And, it appears ther not getting in, either. These Holyier-In Thou BB Writers need to get off their high-horse.
    Agree 100%.

    Belle will never see the inside of the Hall unless he purchases a ticket...
  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 24,691
    giants just picked up some stumblebum pitcher with an ERA over 6 last year to go with his 3 stints on the DL.

    I’m pumped :angry:
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 9,263
    But he's bringing a World Series ring with him, maybe he can teach them something about winning.
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 13,280
    Wobbie said:
    giants just picked up some stumblebum pitcher with an ERA over 6 last year to go with his 3 stints on the DL.

    I’m pumped :angry:
    I'm surprised the Cubs didn't jump on that, especially considering he played for Boston & San Diego previously.
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 15,035
    He has pitched well at times and is dirt cheap.  I think it is a fine move.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • igotid88igotid88 Posts: 15,762
    You can pretty much see a lockout or strike the next CBA.
    I miss igotid88
Sign In or Register to comment.