Baseball Hall of Fame ballot released

There's nothing to say "they have to put somebody in.'' I would not be surprised to see no one get 75%.

I agree that Alomar waits a year or so.

 

Bert gets in this year. Hillsman's work is done.

Btw, I like Zoilo, so be nice

 

Well, right. Just like there's nothing to say that Alomar has to wait a year or two. Just tends to be how they operate.

Looked it up, spnited. 1996 was the last time the BBWAA didn't vote anyone in. I thought it might have even been longer than that. So it's a possibility. But I still think Bert's in.

 

I knew there was one year within the last 20 or so when no one got elected.
I also know guys who in the past have submitted blank ballots.

I have always been on the fence about Blyleven. Your arguments in his favor have made me think he deserves to be in. Too bad I don't have a vote.

 

Spahn = lefty. Blyleven = righty.

I think Blyleven belongs, but the two are apples and hand granades.

 

I have never understood that argument. I get why teams would value left-handers more when they are active, but why does it matter what arm a guy threw with when evaluating the careers of retired pitchers for things like Hall of Fame consideration?

 

Yes and no. My arguments are as follows:

Closers are just relief pitchers who happen to pitch in closing situations, there is no special "closing" ability that teams should look for when trying to filll the spot.

Any relief pitcher who pitches mostly in key situations (tie games are the most important, one-run games in either direction are next, after that you start to get into the less important situations) is going to have a shot at being just as valuable to his team as a starter who soaks up a lot more innings. Because of the way modern bullpens are used, this is usually the closer and the primary setup man.

There is no special ability to pitch in those situations, beyond just being a good pitcher.

 

No, and if you genuinely can't understand the difference, I pity you.

There is no special *ability* to pitching in clutch situations, above and beyond just being a good pitcher.

Since managers have a choice about when their relief pitchers pitch, they can and do choose to pitch their best relief pitchers only in key innings, which drives up their value to the team as compared to starters, who just soak up a bunch of innings at predetermined intervals. This is the only position in the sport that has that option (You can't wait until the team has the bases loaded and one out and then decide to send in Pujols).

Imagine your team could have Pujols, but the caveat was that he could only bat with 2 on, none out, and your team leading or trailing by more than five runs. Pujols wouldn't be very valuable, but his ability would be the same as it is now. But what if you could have Pujols, and he got to bat any time there were runners on base. His ability would be the same, but his value would go through the roof.

Relief pitchers who only pitch key innings have more value than relief pitchers who do not, and roughly the same value as starters who pitch a lot more innings but less important ones. That does not mean that those relief pitchers have some special clutch ability that allows them to pitch in those situations above and beyond their normal abilities.

 

True, then there are further sub-degrees of situations. Coming in with a two-run lead and nobody out, or coming in with a 15-3 lead in the seventh and going three, or coming in with the bases loaded and a one-run lead with one out and the universe's best bunter are all entirely different deals. In the end, they're all +1 in the save column. Hard to differentiate unless it's in an LCS or WS with everyone watching.

 

There's a stat called "leverage index" that does a good job of measuring it.

*runs from the pitchforks and angry townsfolk*

 

Aww, somebody doesn't like having his ridiculous theories questioned. Poor little stathead.

I understand the difference just fine. You are playing games with semantics to justify your theory, as usual.

Funny how every manager in baseball disagrees with you. You know, the guys who know much more about the sport than you or I ever will and understand that there is more to evaluating baseball than numbers on a stat sheet.

 

If you are just trolling to get a rise out of me, I'm mildly amused.

If you don't understand why this is not a semantic difference and why both arguments are logically consistent, whether you agree with them or not, then you are just not a smart person. I wonder if deep down you know that you aren't smart, and that's what makes you so argumentative.

Disagreeing with either assertion (That closing isn't a special ability or that relief pitchers can have their value increased by pitching in important situations) is perfectly rational. Making nonsensical accusations about this being mere semantics and trying to pretend like you've got me in some nonexistent contradiction is just stupid. Not "stupid" in the traditional message board insult sense, but stupid in the sense that I suspect anyone who believes this to be of well below-average intelligence.

No, they don't. Many managers do agree with it.