MLB 2025 Season

JK_Livin

Guy never wears a glove and gets in the HOF.

tempo_n_groove

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.

igotid88

tempo_n_groove said:

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...

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

HesCalledDyer

igotid88 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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...

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_groove

igotid88 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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...

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...

Poncier

Baines is one of the most egregious inductions of all time.

igotid88

HesCalledDyer said:

igotid88 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

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...

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.

tbergs

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.

Indifference71

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.

tempo_n_groove

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...

cutz

tempo_n_groove 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. 

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.

igotid88

cutz said:

tempo_n_groove 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. 

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%

igotid88

Forget Mariano taught Halladay the cutter

Wobbie

tempo_n_groove said:

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.

tempo_n_groove

cutz said:

tempo_n_groove 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. 

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...

Wobbie

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

Poncier

But he's bringing a World Series ring with him, maybe he can teach them something about winning.

HesCalledDyer

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

I'm surprised the Cubs didn't jump on that, especially considering he played for Boston & San Diego previously.

F Me In The Brain

He has pitched well at times and is dirt cheap.  I think it is a fine move.

igotid88

You can pretty much see a lockout or strike the next CBA.