Comments on: Moose and the Hall http://riveraveblues.com/2008/08/moose-and-the-hall-3700/ A New York Yankees Blog Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:23:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: the most felonious vocalist in the wide world of showbusiness http://riveraveblues.com/2008/08/moose-and-the-hall-3700/#comment-132026 the most felonious vocalist in the wide world of showbusiness Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:54:30 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=3700#comment-132026 Murray Chass was fired/let go by <i>The New York Times</i> earlier this year. It seems that he is no longer paid to write about baseball. I am not sure if he still has a Hall of Fame vote. Murray Chass was fired/let go by The New York Times earlier this year. It seems that he is no longer paid to write about baseball. I am not sure if he still has a Hall of Fame vote.

]]> By: MikeD http://riveraveblues.com/2008/08/moose-and-the-hall-3700/#comment-131781 MikeD Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:48:03 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=3700#comment-131781 I'm not sure he's a HOFer by my standards, but by the standards of pitchers already elected, then he is a HOFer. There are certainly pitchers not as good as Mussina in the Hall and by a good margin. What I do know is that I don't agree with ANY of Chass' arguments on why Mussina is not a HOFer. It's pretty annoying that people like Chass, who clearly has a limited understanding of the game, is actually paid to report on baseball and offer his opinion. Chass no doubt will change his mind if Mussina reaches 300 wins, yet he won't really understand why Mussina's 300 wins would be far more impressive than some who have come before. Mussina is already at 265, a very high number considering Mussina's entire career has been during the era of the five-man rotation, reducing his number of win opportunities. Without even also addressing the reduced number of decisions because of the increased use of the bullpen, he's recorded about five to six less starts per year for a front-of-the-rotation pitcher because he pitched in a five-man rotation.. Mussina probably could have recorded two to three more wins per year over the past eighteen years if he pitched under the same conditions of the pitchers Chass seems to admire. That puts Mussina somewhere in the 300-320 range...and counting. Wake up Murray and join the 21st Centruy. Hmmm...I may have just convinced myself. I’m not sure he’s a HOFer by my standards, but by the standards of pitchers already elected, then he is a HOFer. There are certainly pitchers not as good as Mussina in the Hall and by a good margin. What I do know is that I don’t agree with ANY of Chass’ arguments on why Mussina is not a HOFer. It’s pretty annoying that people like Chass, who clearly has a limited understanding of the game, is actually paid to report on baseball and offer his opinion.

Chass no doubt will change his mind if Mussina reaches 300 wins, yet he won’t really understand why Mussina’s 300 wins would be far more impressive than some who have come before. Mussina is already at 265, a very high number considering Mussina’s entire career has been during the era of the five-man rotation, reducing his number of win opportunities. Without even also addressing the reduced number of decisions because of the increased use of the bullpen, he’s recorded about five to six less starts per year for a front-of-the-rotation pitcher because he pitched in a five-man rotation.. Mussina probably could have recorded two to three more wins per year over the past eighteen years if he pitched under the same conditions of the pitchers Chass seems to admire. That puts Mussina somewhere in the 300-320 range…and counting.

Wake up Murray and join the 21st Centruy.

Hmmm…I may have just convinced myself.

]]> By: Dave P. http://riveraveblues.com/2008/08/moose-and-the-hall-3700/#comment-131403 Dave P. Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:31:39 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=3700#comment-131403 Like I said in my first post about all this, I guess I'm just turning sour on the Hall of Fame. I mean you're supposed to be going in because you had a Hall of Fame career right? But when you do look at it from Koufax's stand point he didn't have a Hall of Fame career, he had a Hall of Fame five-year stretch. Same thing with Joe Morgan. I wonder if Sandy Koufax had those five great seasons to start his career and then had those six mediocre years would he still be in the Hall? Like I said in my first post about all this, I guess I’m just turning sour on the Hall of Fame. I mean you’re supposed to be going in because you had a Hall of Fame career right?
But when you do look at it from Koufax’s stand point he didn’t have a Hall of Fame career, he had a Hall of Fame five-year stretch. Same thing with Joe Morgan.
I wonder if Sandy Koufax had those five great seasons to start his career and then had those six mediocre years would he still be in the Hall?

]]> By: Steve H http://riveraveblues.com/2008/08/moose-and-the-hall-3700/#comment-131376 Steve H Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:08:50 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=3700#comment-131376 If 20 years ago the Orioles and Braves had swapped Glavine and Moose, with Glavine spending his whole career in the AL East, and Moose in the NL East, Moose would have his 300 wins, maybe a CY, probably a 20 win season, and possibly even a ring. Both got the benefit of playing for winners, so that is equal. Had Glavine had to pitch in smaller parks, against the DH, and against the Sox and Yankees for the first half of his career, and the Sox several times a year in the 2nd half, I highly doubt he would have matched Moose's success. If 20 years ago the Orioles and Braves had swapped Glavine and Moose, with Glavine spending his whole career in the AL East, and Moose in the NL East, Moose would have his 300 wins, maybe a CY, probably a 20 win season, and possibly even a ring. Both got the benefit of playing for winners, so that is equal. Had Glavine had to pitch in smaller parks, against the DH, and against the Sox and Yankees for the first half of his career, and the Sox several times a year in the 2nd half, I highly doubt he would have matched Moose’s success.

]]> By: adam b. http://riveraveblues.com/2008/08/moose-and-the-hall-3700/#comment-131372 adam b. Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:05:05 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=3700#comment-131372 what a horrible argument by chass i mean seriously, oh he didnt have a 20 win season, so what? he's consistently been one of the best pitchers year in and year out for winning ball clubs. 20 is such an arbitrary number, sure its a nice pleateau but plenty of pitchers who arent half the pitcher moose is have had 20 win seasons does that mean they're better? besides moose has a ridiclous winning percentage and as was mentioned he's been a very good postseason pitcher. i think at the end of the day mussina will be in there 20 win or no 20 win season what a horrible argument by chass i mean seriously, oh he didnt have a 20 win season, so what? he’s consistently been one of the best pitchers year in and year out for winning ball clubs. 20 is such an arbitrary number, sure its a nice pleateau but plenty of pitchers who arent half the pitcher moose is have had 20 win seasons does that mean they’re better? besides moose has a ridiclous winning percentage and as was mentioned he’s been a very good postseason pitcher. i think at the end of the day mussina will be in there 20 win or no 20 win season

]]> By: Travis http://riveraveblues.com/2008/08/moose-and-the-hall-3700/#comment-131369 Travis Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:02:57 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=3700#comment-131369 Reggie did have nearly 2,600 hits and was in the Top 5 of All-Star voting five times. Reggie did have nearly 2,600 hits and was in the Top 5 of All-Star voting five times.

]]> By: Travis http://riveraveblues.com/2008/08/moose-and-the-hall-3700/#comment-131362 Travis Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:57:09 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=3700#comment-131362 Are you really Murray Chass in disguise? LOL. That was my question, too. Are you really Murray Chass in disguise?

LOL. That was my question, too.

]]> By: The Fallen Phoenix http://riveraveblues.com/2008/08/moose-and-the-hall-3700/#comment-131357 The Fallen Phoenix Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:47:34 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=3700#comment-131357 That argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If you're arguing that you cannot consider a player's peak performance in evaluating that player's performance - which is what your argument against Joe Morgan is ultimately reducible to - then it doesn't really matter how dominating that peak was, does it? But let's play along anyway, because Joe Morgan's peak was pretty dominating for a second baseman. His OPS+ 149, 154, 159, 169, 187 in those five seasons you want to discount. And outside of those five seasons, Morgan had five other seasons with an OPS+ over 130. Sandy Koufax's peak five seasons? ERA+ of 141, 159, 187, 160, 190. His next highest ERA+ was 123. Sure, Koufax had a higher peak - two seasons with an ERA+ over 180, while Morgan had one season with an OPS+ over 180. But the difference between the two, relative to the normalized performance of their peers of their respective eras, is not as great as you imply, Dave. So I'll say it again: you can't have it both ways. If you discount Morgan's peak five seasons, you might as well do the same for every other player in the Hall of Fame. That argument doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. If you’re arguing that you cannot consider a player’s peak performance in evaluating that player’s performance – which is what your argument against Joe Morgan is ultimately reducible to – then it doesn’t really matter how dominating that peak was, does it?

But let’s play along anyway, because Joe Morgan’s peak was pretty dominating for a second baseman. His OPS+ 149, 154, 159, 169, 187 in those five seasons you want to discount. And outside of those five seasons, Morgan had five other seasons with an OPS+ over 130.

Sandy Koufax’s peak five seasons? ERA+ of 141, 159, 187, 160, 190. His next highest ERA+ was 123.

Sure, Koufax had a higher peak – two seasons with an ERA+ over 180, while Morgan had one season with an OPS+ over 180. But the difference between the two, relative to the normalized performance of their peers of their respective eras, is not as great as you imply, Dave.

So I’ll say it again: you can’t have it both ways. If you discount Morgan’s peak five seasons, you might as well do the same for every other player in the Hall of Fame.

]]> By: Dave P. http://riveraveblues.com/2008/08/moose-and-the-hall-3700/#comment-131328 Dave P. Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:14:51 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=3700#comment-131328 Seriously? Really? Sandy Koufax was the MOST DOMINATING PITCHER from 1962-1966. I hardly think Joe Morgan was the most dominating player from 72-76. Don't make that comparison. Seriously? Really?
Sandy Koufax was the MOST DOMINATING PITCHER from 1962-1966. I hardly think Joe Morgan was the most dominating player from 72-76.
Don’t make that comparison.

]]> By: Dave P. http://riveraveblues.com/2008/08/moose-and-the-hall-3700/#comment-131323 Dave P. Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:04:15 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=3700#comment-131323 So you're saying you want your leadoff man to score 60 runs? Anyway we are gonna dance around this all night. You like Morgan, I don't. You like OPS+, I like the meat and potatoes of the RBIs and runs. But that's what's so great about baseball. The endless debates. Thank you for your keeping me busy the last couple of hours and for refusing to sound condescending while making your arguements. So you’re saying you want your leadoff man to score 60 runs?
Anyway we are gonna dance around this all night. You like Morgan, I don’t. You like OPS+, I like the meat and potatoes of the RBIs and runs.
But that’s what’s so great about baseball. The endless debates. Thank you for your keeping me busy the last couple of hours and for refusing to sound condescending while making your arguements.

]]>