Klecko73isGod Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Why? Your 20 years and 216 wins argument does not stand any test. And as much arguing you did for Andy and the HofF in his retirement thread, I am having difficulty understanding what game you are watching. Especially after you say he doe snot belong in this thread. My argument was Pettitte vs. Schilling and that IF Schilling gets in (HUGE, HUGE "IF") then Pettitte deserves it as well. The benchmark that will be used to make an argument for Pettitte is that he finished more than 100 games over .500 and every other pitcher who did so and is eligible is in. In fact, you can see that being the new benchmark to replace 300 wins since no one is ever going to win 300 again. Oh, and 216 wins in 20 years is dogsh*t. So you come back with, well, Schilling was really only a fulltime starter for 16 years. Well 216 wins in 16 years (I'll give him the 4 wins he picked up prior to then) is only 13.5 wins per year which still isn't remotely Hall of Fame-worthy, no matter how much red magic marker he uses on his socks. I seriously can't wait until the steroid evidence against that annoying cocksucker comes to light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 If you don't put in Schilling, then Pettitte doesn't belong. Yankee fans want to talk about how Pettitte's post season numbers give him a bump, but Schilling was by far the more effective post season pitcher. My call-Neither deserve to get in. I didn't see anything else you posted Don Sutton put the HoF off the rails. Also true of Catfish Hunter, a good but by no means great pitcher. Along with Phil Niekro, all lucked into a lull of great ptichers in the 1970s once you get past Carlton and Seaver. Because at no point in his career, damn his 300+ wins,was Sutton as good as Mussina, Schilling nor Petitte.it's become the Hall of the Very Good, so I don't see how you can deny all 3 entry. And Jim Kaat and Tommy John too-both of whom were better pitchers than Sutton, John literally better in the same rotation with Sutton with the Dodgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I was offering opinions on who should be in, not who I think will be. The sanctimonious ****s in the BBWA may very well screw all three of those guys. Don't know who allowed the writers to now, after the fact, determine who did or did not use. These guys were all allwoed on the field,and that's all that should amtter. If you want to mention PEDs on their plaques, fine. But Biggio, Piazza, Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and McGwire should all get in. It's such cowardice that practically nobody confronted any of these gusy until late in their careers. It was too easy. And even if they used they were not the only ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonEJet Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 The only thing you might be able to argue is that he might not get in first ballot. He's in for sure though. Nomar is better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonEJet Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 If they feel like watering down That started with the likes of Don Sutton being inducted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimmeShelter Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Don Sutton put the HoF off the rails. Also true of Catfish Hunter, a good but by no means great pitcher. Along with Phil Niekro, all lucked into a lull of great ptichers in the 1970s once you get past Carlton and Seaver. Because at no point in his career, damn his 300+ wins,was Sutton as good as Mussina, Schilling nor Petitte.it's become the Hall of the Very Good, so I don't see how you can deny all 3 entry. And Jim Kaat and Tommy John too-both of whom were better pitchers than Sutton, John literally better in the same rotation with Sutton with the Dodgers. Catfish Hunter was a great pitcher. His earl W-L numbers suffered from when the A's sucked in his early years. He would post a 2.81 ERA yet lose 17 games. One of the best of his time however. Never put him in the area of a Don Sutton. Catfish was head and shoulders better. Jim Palmer was also a great pitcher in the 70's and Fergie Jenkins enters that argument as well. Gibson, Ryan are no brainers. Agree that Sutton is simply a compiler. In fact he is a #3 or 4 SP on good staffs. The 70's had some great pitchers though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 My argument was Pettitte vs. Schilling and that IF Schilling gets in (HUGE, HUGE "IF") then Pettitte deserves it as well. The benchmark that will be used to make an argument for Pettitte is that he finished more than 100 games over .500 and every other pitcher who did so and is eligible is in. In fact, you can see that being the new benchmark to replace 300 wins since no one is ever going to win 300 again. Oh, and 216 wins in 20 years is dogsh*t. So you come back with, well, Schilling was really only a fulltime starter for 16 years. Well 216 wins in 16 years (I'll give him the 4 wins he picked up prior to then) is only 13.5 wins per year which still isn't remotely Hall of Fame-worthy, no matter how much red magic marker he uses on his socks. I seriously can't wait until the steroid evidence against that annoying cocksucker comes to light. He is annoying, but steroids? Really? Your win argument does not hold water because you think it exists in a vacuum. You say Petitte merits induction because all pitchers 100 games over .500 are in the Hall. My argument is that stat is greatly padded by him being a good pitcher on a great team that won five championships during his career. Yet, you chime that Schilling's 216 wins does not merit consideration because it was done over 20 years. By the time he was traded he was on his 11th losing team in his 13th season. See the flaw in your logic? So during his prime he was on perennial losers. Yet, during his first 8 full seasons as a starter, he was in the Top 10 in ERA five times, four times in Top 10 in strikeouts, four times Top 10 in innings pitched, six times Top 10 in complete games and six times Top 10 in shutouts. He did this on a team that had one winning season and while missing the part of three seasons (around 50 starts). Your argument id dumb and does not stand even the slightest scrutiny, but you watch the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 He is annoying, but steroids? Really? Your win argument does not hold water because you think it exists in a vacuum. You say Petitte merits induction because all pitchers 100 games over .500 are in the Hall. My argument is that stat is greatly padded by him being a good pitcher on a great team that won five championships during his career. Yet, you chime that Schilling's 216 wins does not merit consideration because it was done over 20 years. By the time he was traded he was on his 11th losing team in his 13th season. See the flaw in your logic? So during his prime he was on perennial losers. Yet, during his first 8 full seasons as a starter, he was in the Top 10 in ERA five times, four times in Top 10 in strikeouts, four times Top 10 in innings pitched, six times Top 10 in complete games and six times Top 10 in shutouts. He did this on a team that had one winning season and while missing the part of three seasons (around 50 starts). Your argument id dumb and does not stand even the slightest scrutiny, but you watch the game. Here's your problem - you can't read. I never said I personally think Pettitte should get in. I said the greatest argument in his favor is that he was 100 games over .500. I don't think either of them belong in the Hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Here's your problem - you can't read. I never said I personally think Pettitte should get in. I said the greatest argument in his favor is that he was 100 games over .500. I don't think either of them belong in the Hall. Yeah, you never said he belonged but you did a lot of arguing for him. Is "every pitcher 100 games over .500" tatooed on your a$$? Again, your agument does not hold upto scrutiny. In the last 16 years of their respective careers, Andy had 240 wins and Schill had 212. Andy never played on a losing team. He was a "rock" of the rotation that won 5 champuionships. It was not until the later part of Schil's career did he benefit from playing on championship teams. He had to toil away during his prime on a crappy Philly team that had one winning season in Schil's first 8 full seasons as a starter. Plus, Schill was dominant during the post season, but Andy had 19 wins. Yes, he did, because he was a Yankee. He won 19 games with an average ERA. Schill was 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA. Yet, you wrap your fingers around his 19 wins. If Andy was a Philly or a Royal during his career he would have been Gil Meche. An Ok pitcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Yeah, you never said he belonged but you did a lot of arguing for him. Is "every pitcher 100 games over .500" tatooed on your a$$? Again, your agument does not hold upto scrutiny. In the last 16 years of their respective careers, Andy had 240 wins and Schill had 212. Andy never played on a losing team. He was a "rock" of the rotation that won 5 champuionships. It was not until the later part of Schil's career did he benefit from playing on championship teams. He had to toil away during his prime on a crappy Philly team that had one winning season in Schil's first 8 full seasons as a starter. Plus, Schill was dominant during the post season, but Andy had 19 wins. Yes, he did, because he was a Yankee. He won 19 games with an average ERA. Schill was 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA. Yet, you wrap your fingers around his 19 wins. If Andy was a Philly or a Royal during his career he would have been Gil Meche. An Ok pitcher. I am not making an argument for anyone to be in the Hall of Fame. But I find it funny that you keep bringing up the bolded. It seems to me that, according to you, no one was personally responsible for the Yankees winning five championships. All of those players merely look better because they were on great teams yet none of them actually were the reason the team was great. It makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Catfish Hunter was a great pitcher. His earl W-L numbers suffered from when the A's sucked in his early years. He would post a 2.81 ERA yet lose 17 games. One of the best of his time however. Never put him in the area of a Don Sutton. Catfish was head and shoulders better. Jim Palmer was also a great pitcher in the 70's and Fergie Jenkins enters that argument as well. Gibson, Ryan are no brainers. Agree that Sutton is simply a compiler. In fact he is a #3 or 4 SP on good staffs. The 70's had some great pitchers though. I loved Catfish with the Yankees; by all accounts a good man who met an awful end. And his early career, including a pefect game, was a case of playing with bad teams. By the same token the rest of his career benefited from playing on some great teams. He was better than Sutton, but I'm not sure he should have been inducted. Hunter might be a reach, Sutton is a mistake. But if they're going to go there, let in Kaat, John, Guidry, Schilling,Pettitte, Morris and Mussina. Expect that Clemens, Glavine, Maddux and Smoltz re all no brainers. But for this steroids nonsense. I think of Gibson as more from the 1960s, and Ryan is a total anomaly. Simply forgot Palmer, who is a no doubt HoFer. As to Jenkins his numbers also would seem to fall into the Hall of the Very Good. Also, SABR guys swear Byleven, and while the numbers are good, I don't get it. About steroids; these idiot writers put Phil Niekro and Gayold Perry in and both guys admitted to cheating. Now they want to get high and mighty about steroids. With Niekro and Perry as precedents it's a little late to get their virginity back when it comes to supposed cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 Okay so this thread was weird. Everyone agrees on the greatness we call Jeter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I am not making an argument for anyone to be in the Hall of Fame. But I find it funny that you keep bringing up the bolded. It seems to me that, according to you, no one was personally responsible for the Yankees winning five championships. All of those players merely look better because they were on great teams yet none of them actually were the reason the team was great. It makes no sense. I bring it up because those are your words like he is the sole reason for their success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain_the_foe Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (obviously talking about when he retires). Who wants to argue this? Sure, it is slow and I am just stirring sh*t. Because Jeter is clearly a first ballot hall of famer. But who wants to argue why he shouldn't be? El Capitan! A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Thats Derek Jeter. I tried to find a quality argument but all I kept coming up with were his clutch playoff performances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 El Capitan! A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Thats Derek Jeter. I tried to find a quality argument but all I kept coming up with were his clutch playoff performances Yep. I like the way he even got his foot to block the tag so the haters can't say that Posada missed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain_the_foe Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Yep. I like the way he even got his foot to block the tag so the haters can't say that Posada missed him. Hence, making the team "GREAT"! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Hence, making the team "GREAT"! lol THE TOTAL PACKAGE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain_the_foe Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 THE TOTAL PACKAGE! El Capitan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted March 28, 2011 Author Share Posted March 28, 2011 Yep. I like the way he even got his foot to block the tag so the haters can't say that Posada missed him. :D:D:D:D:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Not suggesting any such thing. Stating it outright. Gotta keep a spot open for the immortal Jorge Posada, I'm guessing. Jeter's going to make the HoF while never being anything more than the 5th best player on his own team at any point in his career. Impressive, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 El Capitan! A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Thats Derek Jeter. I tried to find a quality argument but all I kept coming up with were his clutch playoff performances Posada is a good hitter. But rankles that he insisted until now that he was a good catcher.And defensively and calling a game he has always been horrible. And as the sweep tag photo shows you he NEVER blocks the plate. He was badly injured in the minors from a collision at the plate, but that doesn't excuse that. If he wants to be known for his catching, he's pretty awful at it. Suspect if he wasn't in the Yankees lineup he's basically Jason Kendall with power. Another odd thing; Posada seemed to argue with El Duque and Contreras most of all, every pitch every game, and yet those guys had some success after they left the Yanks. And most of those conversations were probably all in Spanish.To his credit, he did have the biggest hit vs. Pedro Martinez in game 7 of the ALCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Posada is a good hitter. But rankles that he insisted until now that he was a good catcher.And defensively and calling a game he has always been horrible. And as the sweep tag photo shows you he NEVER blocks the plate. He was badly injured in the minors from a collision at the plate, but that doesn't excuse that. If he wants to be known for his catching, he's pretty awful at it. Suspect if he wasn't in the Yankees lineup he's basically Jason Kendall with power. Another odd thing; Posada seemed to argue with El Duque and Contreras most of all, every pitch every game, and yet those guys had some success after they left the Yanks. And most of those conversations were probably all in Spanish.To his credit, he did have the biggest hit vs. Pedro Martinez in game 7 of the ALCS. Not for nothin' but El Duque had quite a bit of success with the Yankees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.