MLB 2025 Season

HesCalledDyer

Schilling ahead of Clemens & Bonds. I think we need to drug test the writers.

mfc2006

HesCalledDyer said:

Schilling ahead of Clemens & Bonds. I think we need to drug test the writers.

Absolutely 

eeriepadave

igotid88 said:

find out tomorrow who gets in

F Me In The Brain

Love that the Reds are active, love the idea of getting Gray, not sure what their strategy is overall and am interested to see how it plays out . 
If their division wasn't so tough I think they could contend.  Will take top seasons from their SPs to allow for that, but pretty much anything is better than sucking.  Glad for the guys who suffered through the last few years that they can be competitive again for a bit.
(And signing Harper would be ok.  )

igotid88

Edgar Martinez, Roy Halladay, Mike Mussina, and Mariano Rivera

igotid88

Mariano 100%

eeriepadave

igotid88 said:

Mariano 100%

Congrats! Well deserved as are the others.

Wobbie

Bonds - career WAR 163

Martinez 68, while playing half the game.

pjhawks

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.

Cliffy6745

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

pjhawks

Cliffy6745 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

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.

Wobbie

HOW ABOUT FUCKING DOMINANT FOR A LONG FUCKING TIME???????

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.

Cliffy6745

Wobbie said:

HOW ABOUT FUCKING DOMINANT FOR A LONG FUCKING TIME???????

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

Wobbie

harold baines > barry bonds.

tempo_n_groove

Wobbie said:

harold baines > barry bonds.

Are you drinking again?

tempo_n_groove

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 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...

Cliffy6745

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 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_groove

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 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...

tbergs

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.