Bonafide Baseball Hall of Famers

[cjericho]

Buerhle's not a shoo-in. As far as recent: Johnson, Clemens, Smoltz, Glavine, Hoffman and Rivera are shoo-ins. Pedro Martinez is probable

Clemens will have to wait awhile. There are at least 26% of HOF voters who are not going to vote for someone they suspected did HGH/PEDs. And you left off Maddux.

Good point. Maddux and Glavine - very similar, benefited from a 21-plus inch plate
in their prime. Both were not as good as Martinez. If he stayed in the NL, Glavine and
Maddux would probably have 3 combined Cy Youngs.

 

[Songbird]

cjericho,

In my mind, Maddux was better than Glavine. Not by much, but better, and how you compare them I don't know.

But Martinez in his prime was not better than Maddux in his prime. Different pitchers, that's all. Maddux was a killer on the loose even if he didn't throw harder than 85 or whatever his top speed was. Just a master tactician.

 

[cjericho]

cjericho,

In my mind, Maddux was better than Glavine. Not by much, but better, and how you compare them I don't know.

But Martinez in his prime was not better than Maddux in his prime. Different pitchers, that's all. Maddux was a killer on the loose even if he didn't throw harder than 85 or whatever his top speed was. Just a master tactician.

yeah a master tactician, who threw strikes 4 inches off the plate. in those prime years, Maddux
was in the NL. Even if you only consider that he got to face the pitcher and forget the fact that the AL was a stronger offensive league in those years it makes a pretty big difference. I don't have the video evidence to prove it, but if you watched Maddux and Glavine you know they got a ridiculous amount of (off) the corners. Also Maddux in the postseason was mediocre.

 

[zimmaniac06]

cjericho,

In my mind, Maddux was better than Glavine. Not by much, but better, and how you compare them I don't know.

But Martinez in his prime was not better than Maddux in his prime. Different pitchers, that's all. Maddux was a killer on the loose even if he didn't throw harder than 85 or whatever his top speed was. Just a master tactician.

Greg Maddux's peak was longer--he was at the top of his game for seven years. But nobody has put together two better seasons than Martinez did in 1999 and 2000.
Posnanski wrote about this on his blog a few months ago...here's the link: http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/04/28/more-on-maddux-and-pedro/

 

[Songbird]

I know it's part of the equation because the AL uses the DL, but it's an inferior league because of it (yes, I'm a purist: put the bat in the pitcher's hands!). So I won't argue the extra batter v. pitcher thing. If that makes Pedro better because he faced 9 hitters instead of 8, so be it.

But he wasn't better than Maddux. Maddux owned his pitches and owned his batters. By all means necessary. Maybe he threw an inch or two off hte plate, but if batters don't have the discipline to stay away from those pitches, it's on them. And, of course, some might say the home plate umps were a bigger aid to Maddux than were the batters. That's a whole 'nother argument.

My bottom line is that Maddux and Pedro were nutbusters, equal in their devastation, only they took different avenues to achieve their goal. And let's not pretend Pedro didn't throw a few inches off the plate and not get the same called strikes Maddux did.

 

[outofplace]

Well, Buehrle's career ERA+ is 123--same as Juan Marichal and Mike Mussina, one point better than Bob Feller (and Babe Ruth), two points better than Don Drysdale and CC Sabathia. Now, in the cases of Marichal, Feller and Drysdale, their ERA+ includes their late-career regression...

And Mussina. I kind of like the Steib comparison, but I think steib had a better peak. I bet he some high finishes in the Cy Young voting. For some of those years, he was right up there with the best pitchers in the league. I don't think buehrle had any seasons that good.

Good point about Mussina--I keep forgetting he's no longer active.

As for Steib, his highest finish in the Cy Young voting was 4th in 1982 (he has 19 complete games that year!)...he also had a 5th and two 7ths, so that's not all that different from Buehrle. Steib also had multiple seasons when he pitched better than his record (he was 14-13 in '85 despite leading the league in ERA). Something I never really realized: Steib led the league in HBP five times. Kinda bizarre for a low-strikeout guy like him. But look at his career arc and Buehrle's, including the random down season in the middle of their careers.
Here are the BR pages...
Steib: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/stiebda01.shtml
Buehrle: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/buehrma01.shtml

And Steib's career ERA is still a good bit lower than Buehrle's, 3.44 to 3.76.

 

[Seahawk]

Two no hitters hardly puts Buehrle in the Hall. Someone mentioned Vander Meer, and Hideo Nomo also threw a pair of no-hitters. He's not getting in either. At this point, Buehrle is not a sure-fire bet.

And it is baffling that anyone might think Pedro is anything but a lock.

 

[JackReacher]

Two no hitters hardly puts Buehrle in the Hall. Someone mentioned Vander Meer, and Hideo Nomo also threw a pair of no-hitters. He's not getting in either. At this point, Buehrle is not a sure-fire bet.

And it is baffling that anyone might think Pedro is anything but a lock.

Well, it's not just two no-hitters. It's one perfect game and one no-hitter, which was one walk away from a perfect game. 27 batters faced in each one.

That's pretty damn spectacular.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Well, Buehrle's career ERA+ is 123--same as Juan Marichal and Mike Mussina, one point better than Bob Feller (and Babe Ruth), two points better than Don Drysdale and CC Sabathia. Now, in the cases of Marichal, Feller and Drysdale, their ERA+ includes their late-career regression...

And Mussina. I kind of like the Steib comparison, but I think steib had a better peak. I bet he some high finishes in the Cy Young voting. For some of those years, he was right up there with the best pitchers in the league. I don't think buehrle had any seasons that good.

Good point about Mussina--I keep forgetting he's no longer active.

As for Steib, his highest finish in the Cy Young voting was 4th in 1982 (he has 19 complete games that year!)...he also had a 5th and two 7ths, so that's not all that different from Buehrle. Steib also had multiple seasons when he pitched better than his record (he was 14-13 in '85 despite leading the league in ERA). Something I never really realized: Steib led the league in HBP five times. Kinda bizarre for a low-strikeout guy like him. But look at his career arc and Buehrle's, including the random down season in the middle of their careers.
Here are the BR pages...
Steib: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/stiebda01.shtml
Buehrle: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/buehrma01.shtml

And Steib's career ERA is still a good bit lower than Buehrle's, 3.44 to 3.76.

OK, but it was a different era. Those are probably pretty comparable.

 

[zimmaniac06]

Well, Buehrle's career ERA+ is 123--same as Juan Marichal and Mike Mussina, one point better than Bob Feller (and Babe Ruth), two points better than Don Drysdale and CC Sabathia. Now, in the cases of Marichal, Feller and Drysdale, their ERA+ includes their late-career regression...

And Mussina. I kind of like the Steib comparison, but I think steib had a better peak. I bet he some high finishes in the Cy Young voting. For some of those years, he was right up there with the best pitchers in the league. I don't think buehrle had any seasons that good.

Good point about Mussina--I keep forgetting he's no longer active.

As for Steib, his highest finish in the Cy Young voting was 4th in 1982 (he has 19 complete games that year!)...he also had a 5th and two 7ths, so that's not all that different from Buehrle. Steib also had multiple seasons when he pitched better than his record (he was 14-13 in '85 despite leading the league in ERA). Something I never really realized: Steib led the league in HBP five times. Kinda bizarre for a low-strikeout guy like him. But look at his career arc and Buehrle's, including the random down season in the middle of their careers.
Here are the BR pages...
Steib: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/stiebda01.shtml
Buehrle: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/buehrma01.shtml

And Steib's career ERA is still a good bit lower than Buehrle's, 3.44 to 3.76.

Yeah, but era/park/etc adjusted to the league average, they're basically identical: Steib's ERA+ is 122 and Buehrle's is 123.

EDIT: Guy beat me to it.

 

[outofplace]

Buerhle's not a shoo-in. As far as recent: Johnson, Clemens, Smoltz, Glavine, Hoffman and Rivera are shoo-ins. Pedro Martinez is probable

Clemens will have to wait awhile. There are at least 26% of HOF voters who are not going to vote for someone they suspected did HGH/PEDs. And you left off Maddux.

Good point. Maddux and Glavine - very similar, benefited from a 21-plus inch plate
in their prime. Both were not as good as Martinez. If he stayed in the NL, Glavine and
Maddux would probably have 3 combined Cy Youngs.

That last part is not accurate. Maddux won the last of his four Cy Young awards in 1995. Martinez did not win his first until 1997 and he did not leave the National League until 1998.

Maddux finished with four Cy Young awards, 355 victories, a 3.16 ERA and 3,371 strikeouts. Glavine has one Cy Young award, 305 victories, a 3.54 ERA and 2,607 strikeouts. They are both Hall of Famers, but the gap between them is not insignificant.

 

[Claws for Concern]

Thoughts on Todd Helton as a Hall of Fame candidate? Upfront, I am a Rockies fan, but my feelings lean toward him as a borderline HOF. Seems likely to be the first true Rockies player with a shot of getting in. Larry Walker, to me anyway, is another borderline guy. Both have made a World Series, even if both lost to the Red Sox.

 

[Seahawk]

Two no hitters hardly puts Buehrle in the Hall. Someone mentioned Vander Meer, and Hideo Nomo also threw a pair of no-hitters. He's not getting in either. At this point, Buehrle is not a sure-fire bet.

And it is baffling that anyone might think Pedro is anything but a lock.

Well, it's not just two no-hitters. It's one perfect game and one no-hitter, which was one walk away from a perfect game. 27 batters faced in each one.

That's pretty damn spectacular.

Not meaning to take anything away from the no-hitter or perfect game. I just don't think it's enough to get him in. When I think of Buehrle, I think of a guy capable of dominating, but not necessarily a guy who is/was dominant.

 

[ArnoldBabar]

Barring something unforeseen in the future, Buehrle doesn't even come close. Doesn't mean he's not a great pitcher, but he'd need about 100 more wins to even be considered.

 

[zimmaniac06]

Thoughts on Todd Helton as a Hall of Fame candidate? Upfront, I am a Rockies fan, but my feelings lean toward him as a borderline HOF. Seems likely to be the first true Rockies player with a shot of getting in. Larry Walker, to me anyway, is another borderline guy. Both have made a World Series, even if both lost to the Red Sox.

Todd Helton, at home: .361 BA / .458 OBP / .648 SLG / 197 HR / 704 RBI
Todd Helton, on the road: .295 BA / .395 OBP / .494 SLG / 124 HR / 472 RBI

Now, he is an excellent player. But playing his prime in Colorado before they started freezing the baseballs or whatever made an enormous difference -- more than 200 OPS points. Away from Coors, he's basically Will Clark.

 

[Della9250]

Buehrle is collecting the individual bulletpoints to make him a candidate once he starts reaching those career milestones. But you can't seriously talk about him as a HOF candidate until he gets to at least 200 wins (and for him, that's still four years away, minumum). But once he crosses that threshold, those who want to argue his chances can point to winning a World Series ring and a perfect game and a no-hitter.

As for some other comments: I think Helton is a borderline candidate because of his home park. Right or wrong, it will obviously play a major factor in whether he gets in or not.

Pujols isn't in yet.....only because he's not eligible. Once we get past next year's Opening Day, he's officially a lock.

And with the steroid cloud the way it is, bonafide Hall of Famer takes on a whole new meaning for guys like Manny and A-Rod.

 

[cjericho]

Buerhle's not a shoo-in. As far as recent: Johnson, Clemens, Smoltz, Glavine, Hoffman and Rivera are shoo-ins. Pedro Martinez is probable

Clemens will have to wait awhile. There are at least 26% of HOF voters who are not going to vote for someone they suspected did HGH/PEDs. And you left off Maddux.

Good point. Maddux and Glavine - very similar, benefited from a 21-plus inch plate
in their prime. Both were not as good as Martinez. If he stayed in the NL, Glavine and
Maddux would probably have 3 combined Cy Youngs.

That last part is not accurate. Maddux won the last of his four Cy Young awards in 1995. Martinez did not win his first until 1997 and he did not leave the National League until 1998.

Maddux finished with four Cy Young awards, 355 victories, a 3.16 ERA and 3,371 strikeouts. Glavine has one Cy Young award, 305 victories, a 3.54 ERA and 2,607 strikeouts. They are both Hall of Famers, but the gap between them is not insignificant.

should've looked that up before. i thought martinez was better his first couple years with
montreal. the gap between maddux and glavine is not significant but maddux is better.
both are locks, glavine became a lock when he won 300, although he probably would've
been in anyway. Martinez also is a lock. the AL vs. NL does make a difference. if a purist wants
to say the NL is better because that's the way it's supposed to be that's fine. but the AL
is tougher on a pitcher because facing a DH is tougher than facing a pitcher. Just look at
Martinez's ERA his first year with the Mets. Boston knew he was on the downside of his career
and he lowered his ERA by about a run in 05. by 06 he lost even more and his shoulder was pretty much shot.

 

[outofplace]

Buerhle's not a shoo-in. As far as recent: Johnson, Clemens, Smoltz, Glavine, Hoffman and Rivera are shoo-ins. Pedro Martinez is probable

Clemens will have to wait awhile. There are at least 26% of HOF voters who are not going to vote for someone they suspected did HGH/PEDs. And you left off Maddux.

Good point. Maddux and Glavine - very similar, benefited from a 21-plus inch plate
in their prime. Both were not as good as Martinez. If he stayed in the NL, Glavine and
Maddux would probably have 3 combined Cy Youngs.

That last part is not accurate. Maddux won the last of his four Cy Young awards in 1995. Martinez did not win his first until 1997 and he did not leave the National League until 1998.

Maddux finished with four Cy Young awards, 355 victories, a 3.16 ERA and 3,371 strikeouts. Glavine has one Cy Young award, 305 victories, a 3.54 ERA and 2,607 strikeouts. They are both Hall of Famers, but the gap between them is not insignificant.

should've looked that up before. i thought martinez was better his first couple years with
montreal. the gap between maddux and glavine is not significant but maddux is better.
both are locks, glavine became a lock when he won 300, although he probably would've
been in anyway. Martinez also is a lock. the AL vs. NL does make a difference. if a purist wants
to say the NL is better because that's the way it's supposed to be that's fine. but the AL
is tougher on a pitcher because facing a DH is tougher than facing a pitcher. Just look at
Martinez's ERA his first year with the Mets. Boston knew he was on the downside of his career
and he lowered his ERA by about a run in 05. by 06 he lost even more and his shoulder was pretty much shot.

Regarding Maddux and Glavine, three Cy Young awards, 50 victories, more than a third of a point in ERA and 764 strikeouts are significant. Glavine became a lock when he won 300 games. Maddux was one long before reaching that milestone.

By the way, when Glavine won his Cy Young award in 1998, his ERA was half a run lower than Martinez's. I think that is enough to balance the difference between leagues (that was Pedro's first year in Boston). They were comparable pitchers that season.

 

[cjericho]

Thoughts on Todd Helton as a Hall of Fame candidate? Upfront, I am a Rockies fan, but my feelings lean toward him as a borderline HOF. Seems likely to be the first true Rockies player with a shot of getting in. Larry Walker, to me anyway, is another borderline guy. Both have made a World Series, even if both lost to the Red Sox.

No chance for Helton. Very good player but probably will end up with less than 450 career HRs and in this era that's not enough. his career avg is 360 home and 296 away. had to look that up, i would've thought 340-310. i would think Walker has a better chance because he was real good when he was on Montreal. he also was a good fielder with a good arm. if he wasn't hurt so much he probably would've reached some milestones that could get him in.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Thoughts on Todd Helton as a Hall of Fame candidate? Upfront, I am a Rockies fan, but my feelings lean toward him as a borderline HOF. Seems likely to be the first true Rockies player with a shot of getting in. Larry Walker, to me anyway, is another borderline guy. Both have made a World Series, even if both lost to the Red Sox.

No chance for Helton. Very good player but probably will end up with less than 450 career HRs and in this era that's not enough. his career avg is 360 home and 296 away. had to look that up, i would've thought 340-310. i would think Walker has a better chance because he was real good when he was on Montreal. he also was a good fielder with a good arm. if he wasn't hurt so much he probably would've reached some milestones that could get him in.

I think Helton is a borderline case, but he's a far better candidate than Walker.