Baseball Hall of Fame ballot released

Really sidetracking here, but I think there's a solid case for Rivera's season being more valuable than Santana's. Leverage for relievers matters quite a bit, and I think you can make a case that pitching one-third of the innings twice as effectively in twice-as-important situations (on average) is more important.

(I could outline the case more mathematically, but that'd involve posting about things like Leverage Index that'd explode the thread).

 

Trammell, and Whitaker for that matter, were either the best or second best player at their position for the better part of a decade. That should count more than stats.

 

The Hall of Fame. It's just a museum. Really.

 

Yeah, but bad logic really bugs me. And I like Bert.

 

I'm sure the debate will continue long past this, but this year's results are released on Wednesday.

 

Why?

 

Anybody think there's a real possibility the BBWAA will elect NOBODY?

 

Wait a minute. Haven't you argued against the importance of closers, one of those discussions where you insist that performing under pressure is a myth?

 

One reason people hate "stats" is because they still correlate them to the 1980's "Elias" guide era when it would flash on the screen, for example, that Ozzie Smith is batting .314 with runners in scoring position on Tuesdays in July during odd-numbered years.

Over Christmas, I was trying to explain during a fantasy baseball discussion why I consider strikeouts/walks more predictive than ERA, and my brother spews that, "There's too many stats in baseball! Like how many strikeouts someone had on Tuesday day games in June!"

In other words, people think that something like WHIP is the same as those kind of meaningless stats, when in reality a lot of the sabermetric response was to that bombardment of meaningless stats. People started looking for numbers that actually 1) Measured past value of performance and 2) Helped accurately predict future performance.

 

Not to speak for Rick, and maybe it's splitting hairs, but he's not necessarily contradicting himself, but instead explaining why Rivera's innings were more valuable than Santana's to his team (because they came in close games). It doesn't necessarily follow that Rivera would have been any better or worse in easier situations.

 

Nope. I do think they make Alomar wait. But they have to put someone in, so I think Blyleven and Dawson both go.

But I thought Blyleven was home, last season.

 

He has argued that it takes no special ability to handle closing as opposed than middle relief. You can't do that, then argue for Rivera by saying he pitched in more important situations. I get the difference, but really, it is semantical bullshit.