Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

BBF Top 100 Pitchers of All Time #91-95

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    P
    Originally posted by Mongoose View Post

    I went into the demographic reasons in the Koufax thread. No reason to retype all that here. Johnson dominated a league with double the teams. His period of excellence was a lot shorter than Spahn's. Because of this, I said there was an argument Spahn was better. There is.



    Don't feel like talking about Glavine anymore, so you're "changing the subject", eh? LOL



    Gooden came into the league the best pitcher in history. He had the lowest FIP ever his rookie season and went 37-5 with a 1.39 record over a long stretch between 1984 and 1986. He pitched better than his record indicated. Then Mel Stottlemyre and the Mets organization fixed his mechanics so he'd pitch more to contact. He did, and that was that.

    To this day, only Pedro Martinez ever had a lower FIP for a season as a starter. He did it once. Gooden's greatness was no fluke. If you saw him at 19 and 20, you'll never forget it.
    Yes...nobody has or will question how otherworldly dominating he was in1985 and parts much of his rookie season. If one values absolute dominance at absolute best the most... that is fine. That is not how I personally vote and how the polls have tracked so far at all.

    BTW...I don't have Golden THAT far from here.

    And no...I am not the least bit afraid or apprehensive of defending Glavine from the same things you have said about Glavine 300X here over the years. Lord knows I have done it 300X.

    Nobody here wants to hear people argue about guys who were so good that they were elected in the 30s. We'd much rather talk about Golden and relevant guys to where we are.

    I love how you are using FIP, BTW!!!!
    Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 02-13-2018, 11:08 AM.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
      P

      But I lose interest when more than half came in one year. He just wasn't a great pitcher for a massive majority of his career. He had 2 all-star type seasons and obviously one was extremely fluky. Even guys like Faber had a second GREAT season.

      This is what people mean when they say rote WAR and WAA do not tell the whole story. They are right.
      More than half of Gooden's career WAA did not come in year. Gooden has a career 22.4 pitching WAA & a 27.4 overall WAA. In 1985, he had a 9.6 pitching WAA & a 10.7 overall WAA, which are less than half. However, if one includes Gooden's rookie season of 1984 when he had 3.4 PitchingWAA & a 3.7overallWAA. Combining his first two seasons, they do account for more than half his career pitching WAA & overall WAA.

      Faber will finish ahead of him, probably by one spot. I have Faber 78th & Gooden 85th. Faber is also hurt by league quality. I didn't vote for Gooden this round. I voted for Felix Hernandez, whose top two overall WAA seasons are 4.6 & 4.5 I have Chuck Finely one post above Gooden, Finley had top WAA seasons of 5.4, 5.0 & 4.8. overall, I would hesitate to describe any of Finely's seasons as great, maybe e very good or excellent, at best. I have Mark Buehrle one spot behind Gooden, he had no great seasons, and is something of a complier, to be honest. The rest of the contenders, either had truncated careers, hurt by league quality or were best by injuries, or were undated. besides those mentioned, they would include Bob Lemon, Bucky Walters, Charlie Buffington, Wilbur Cooper, Wilbur Wood, Noodles Hahn, Ron Guidry, Jerry Koosman, and Frank Viola. Others who merit mention are Clark Griffith, Cliff Lee, Nap Rucker, Carlos Zambrano, Mark Langston, Jimmy Key, Don Newcombe, Hippo Vaughn, Eddie Rommel, Burleigh Grimes, Silver King, Adam Wainwright, Dizzy Trout, and a few others.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by NJRob65 View Post

        More than half of Gooden's career WAA did not come in year. Gooden has a career 22.4 pitching WAA & a 27.4 overall WAA. In 1985, he had a 9.6 pitching WAA & a 10.7 overall WAA, which are less than half. However, if one includes Gooden's rookie season of 1984 when he had 3.4 PitchingWAA & a 3.7overallWAA. Combining his first two seasons, they do account for more than half his career pitching WAA & overall WAA.

        Faber will finish ahead of him, probably by one spot. I have Faber 78th & Gooden 85th. Faber is also hurt by league quality. I didn't vote for Gooden this round. I voted for Felix Hernandez, whose top two overall WAA seasons are 4.6 & 4.5 I have Chuck Finely one post above Gooden, Finley had top WAA seasons of 5.4, 5.0 & 4.8. overall, I would hesitate to describe any of Finely's seasons as great, maybe e very good or excellent, at best. I have Mark Buehrle one spot behind Gooden, he had no great seasons, and is something of a complier, to be honest. The rest of the contenders, either had truncated careers, hurt by league quality or were best by injuries, or were undated. besides those mentioned, they would include Bob Lemon, Bucky Walters, Charlie Buffington, Wilbur Cooper, Wilbur Wood, Noodles Hahn, Ron Guidry, Jerry Koosman, and Frank Viola. Others who merit mention are Clark Griffith, Cliff Lee, Nap Rucker, Carlos Zambrano, Mark Langston, Jimmy Key, Don Newcombe, Hippo Vaughn, Eddie Rommel, Burleigh Grimes, Silver King, Adam Wainwright, Dizzy Trout, and a few others.

        Yes - I corrected that first fact on my last post.

        Some of this has ALWAYS been about personal preference. I would rather a guy have 15 years of 4-5.5 WAR than a guy with one at 13, one at 5.5 and tons of of 2.5-3-5.

        But also like I have said before - everything is a toss-up between about 80-120. Gooden fits well-ish here. I guess more than thinking he is so out of place, I am more surprised at how some people seem to be voting against normal practices.
        1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

        1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

        1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


        The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
        The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Mongoose View Post

          I went into the demographic reasons in the Koufax thread. No reason to retype all that here. Johnson dominated a league with double the teams. His period of excellence was a lot shorter than Spahn's. Because of this, I said there was an argument Spahn was better. There is.



          Don't feel like talking about Glavine anymore, so you're "changing the subject", eh? LOL



          Gooden came into the league the best pitcher in history. He had the lowest FIP ever his rookie season and went 37-5 with a 1.39 record over a long stretch between 1984 and 1986. He pitched better than his record indicated. Then Mel Stottlemyre and the Mets organization fixed his mechanics so he'd pitch more to contact. He did, and that was that.

          To this day, only Pedro Martinez ever had a lower FIP for a season as a starter. He did it once. Gooden's greatness was no fluke. If you saw him at 19 and 20, you'll never forget it.
          If he was washed up at 21, wouldn't that mean his previous seasons were flukes? Pedro's great years, by contrast, were not flukes because he had a bunch of them. Huge difference. After age 21 Gooden was a league average pitcher for his entire career.

          This is a situation where sabermetrics may have made a difference; at the time, Gooden was still considered great from 1986-1991, mainly due to his w/l record. He was considered a lock for 300 wins (he was 132-53 at age 26). So MAYBE the change to his mechanics were considered a success, which may not be the case today with deeper study.

          The reality is, that despite his WAR and WAA totals, Gooden really should be at the level of a Denny McClain. He he surely closer to McClain than he is to Faber. We are talking about Gooden, at 2800 IP and a 111 ERA+, and Faber at 4000+ innings and a 119 ERA+.

          That means there's about six All Star quality seasons difference between them. How much league quality credit are we giving here?

          Can't just look at WAR and WAA.
          Last edited by willshad; 02-13-2018, 11:44 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by willshad View Post

            If he was washed up at 21, wouldn't that mean his previous seasons were flukes? Pedro's great years, by contrast, were not flukes because he had a bunch of them. Huge difference.

            This is a situation where sabermetrics may have made a difference; at the time, Gooden was still considered great from 1986-1991, mainly due to his w/l record. He was considered a lock for 300 wins (he was 132-53 at age 26). So MAYBE the change to his mechanics were considered a success, which may not be the case today with deeper study.

            The reality is, that despite his WAR and WAA totals, Gooden really should be at the level of a Denny McClain.
            For the record - I have Gooden higher than McClain by A LOT. I do have Koosman higher than Gooden - and may be voting for him depending on how this round shakes out.
            1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

            1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

            1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


            The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
            The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post

              For the record - I have Gooden higher than McClain by A LOT. I do have Koosman higher than Gooden - and may be voting for him depending on how this round shakes out.
              I think it makes a difference if we can remember when the guys played, and see how they were viewed at the time. The old timers like Faber, Walters, Rixey, Trout, Vaughan etc it is unknown if they were ever considered great or not. If they were disappointments it is not really known, so I just go by their overall record. Guys like Gooden and Koosman I actually remember, and it makes a difference: I recall Koosman as similar to Gooden--a washed up guy just hanging around on horrible Mets teams and going 8-20, who long ago was once Seaver's equal for a season or two. It makes a difference when we remember these guys as having great potential when young and flaming out very early. It also doesn't help that I have no idea how to rank the second and third tier guys from that era in general; I think the Koosmans, Woods Tananas, Blues, Kaats, Tiants (and even the top tier Niekro's, Perry's and Blylevens) etc are overrated on here, and are to an extent a product of their era. I tend to give the older guys the benefit of the doubt, especially the 1920s and 1930s guys when it must have totally sucked to be a starting pitcher.

              I know next to nothing about Lon Warneke, bu it appears he was a Gooden/Koosman type who was awesome for a couple of years when young then faded. He went 22-6 with a league leading 160 ERA+ at age 23, then the next year topped that at 165. He was pretty good after that, but didn't approach that level again. I would still put him above Gooden and Koosman.

              'League quality' tends to be thrown around a lot, but it appears to me that Koosman and Gooden had environments much more favorable to pitchers than Wrigley field in the 1930s. The guy could hit, too, and was good in the post season.
              Last edited by willshad; 02-13-2018, 01:58 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by willshad View Post

                I think it makes a difference if we can remember when the guys played, and see how they were viewed at the time. The old timers like Faber, Walters, Rixey, Trout, Vaughan etc it is unknown if they were ever considered great or not. If they were disappointments it is not really known, so I just go by their overall record. Guys like Gooden and Koosman I actually remember, and it makes a difference: I recall Koosman as similar to Gooden--a washed up guy just hanging around on horrible Mets teams and going 8-20, who long ago was once Seaver's equal for a season or two. It makes a difference when we remember these guys as having great potential when young and flaming out very early. It also doesn't help that I have no idea how to rank the second and third tier guys from that era in general; I think the Koosmans, Woods Tananas, Blues, Kaats, Tiants (and even the top tier Niekro's, Perry's and Blylevens) etc are overrated on here, and are to an extent a product of their era. I tend to give the older guys the benefit of the doubt, especially the 1920s and 1930s guys when it must have totally sucked to be a starting pitcher.

                I know next to nothing about Lon Warneke, bu it appears he was a Gooden/Koosman type who was awesome for a couple of years when young then faded. He went 22-6 with a league leading 160 ERA+ at age 23, then the next year topped that at 165. He was pretty good after that, but didn't approach that level again. I would still put him above Gooden and Koosman.

                'League quality' tends to be thrown around a lot, but it appears to me that Koosman and Gooden had environments much more favorable to pitchers than Wrigley field in the 1930s. The guy could hit, too, and was good in the post season.
                Did you actually look at Koosman's numbers?

                He led the NL in K/9 in his 20 loss season, and was 7th in the league in H/9. His peripherals were about the same as ever deep into his career. He was top 10 in his league in K/9 from 1974 through 1981. He was playing for late 70s Mets teams that couldn't hit or field well, so he lost accordingly. As soon as he was traded to Minnesota he won 20 again. In fact he led the AL in FIP in 1982 at the age of 39. If he'd played for good teams he would have won at least 250.

                Your recollection of Koosman is mistaken.

                Gooden was an upper tier starter into the early 90s. He had 7 top 10 finishes in FIP (even more than Tom Glavine!). Most would consider him really good. Even after 1985, Fangraphs valued him at 6.8, 6.0, 4.8 and 4.0 WAR in various subsequent seasons.
                Last edited by Mongoose; 02-13-2018, 08:56 PM.


                "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

                Comment


                • #68
                  For the record, I think Spahn is much closer to Unit than he is to Glavine too.

                  That being said, Unit's FIP is about a quarter runs per game better than Spahn's, FWIW.

                  Though personally, I don't care much about FIP for pitchers with a lengthy careers - we know that the BABIP, sequencing rates, wild pitches, GIDP rates, pitcher defense,controlling the running game, and many other things that FIP ignores completely are all very real, very impactful, and can be (mostly) quantified for pitchers with careers as long as Gooden, Glavine ,Spahn, Koosman, etc. . Sounds like Mongoose is more of a saber-nerd than I am. (Smiley face).
                  Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 02-13-2018, 10:18 PM.
                  1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                  1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                  1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                  The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                  The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
                    For the record, I think Spahn is much closer to Unit than he is to Glavine too.

                    That being said, Unit's FIP is about a quarter runs per game better than Spahn's, FWIW.

                    Though personally, I don't care much about FIP for pitchers with a lengthy careers - we know that the BABIP, sequencing rates, wild pitches, GIDP rates, pitcher defense,controlling the running game, and many other things that FIP ignores completely are all very real, very impactful, and can be (mostly) quantified for pitchers with careers as long as Gooden, Glavine ,Spahn, Koosman, etc. . Sounds like Mongoose is more of a saber-nerd than I am. (Smiley face).
                    Forget FIP, there is no stat, saber or otherwise, that can bring Spahn close to Unit. Unit has a better winning percentage, a 135-119 ERA+ advantage, with 12 more pitching WAR and 27 more WAA despite over 1000 less innings pitched.

                    That doesn't even get into where Johnson's REAL advantages lie..in strikeouts and peak seasons. He had seven seasons with 8 or more WAR, and Spahn had one, despite pitching in an era where guys pitched more innings. Spahn only had two ERA+ seasons as good as Johnson's career mark. I won't even get into the strikeouts.

                    Well, Spahn was a better hitter, I'll give him that.

                    He matches up rather well with Glavine as non dominant guys who were good-great forever with a couple of really good years scattered about.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Yeah I d
                      Originally posted by Mongoose View Post

                      Did you actually look at Koosman's numbers?

                      He led the NL in K/9 in his 20 loss season, and was 7th in the league in H/9. His peripherals were about the same as ever deep into his career. He was top 10 in his league in K/9 from 1974 through 1981. He was playing for late 70s Mets teams that couldn't hit or field well, so he lost accordingly. As soon as he was traded to Minnesota he won 20 again. In fact he led the AL in FIP in 1982 at the age of 39. If he'd played for good teams he would have won at least 250.

                      Your recollection of Koosman is mistaken.

                      Gooden was an upper tier starter into the early 90s. He had 7 top 10 finishes in FIP (even more than Tom Glavine!). Most would consider him really good. Even after 1985, Fangraphs valued him at 6.8, 6.0, 4.8 and 4.0 WAR in various subsequent seasons.
                      I did underrate Koosman at the time(hey I was eight years old), and a reassessment of his stats has shown he was actually pretty good for the duration of the 70s. I still feel that he peaked very early, and his career was disappointing, and that he largely was a product of his times. 20 win seasons, great ERA seasons, high WAR seasons, they were are pretty common back then, and the fact that a Koosman could get lost in the shuffle kind of shows that. Being Seaver Jr (and sometimes overshadowed by Matlack as well) for much of his career definitely didn't help him.

                      Fangraphs WAR must calculate things very differently than BBref WAR, which has Gooden peaking with 4.4 in 1986, and then topping out at 3.7. I would go with the lesser WAR totals, as his years don't look all that impressive to me looking back (in 1990 he finished fourth in the CY voting with a 98 ERA+). It is an extremely front heavy career no matter how you slice it.
                      Last edited by willshad; 02-14-2018, 01:22 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        As fascinating as all this is, when can we expect results? I believe pretty much everyone has filed a ballot by now and I'm eager to get to unraveling the mystery of our Final Five.
                        "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                        "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                        "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                        "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
                          As fascinating as all this is, when can we expect results? I believe pretty much everyone has filed a ballot by now and I'm eager to get to unraveling the mystery of our Final Five.
                          I am actually very busy Friday and Saturday, so I will change over tomorrow.
                          1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                          1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                          1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                          The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                          The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                          Comment

                          Ad Widget

                          Collapse
                          Working...
                          X