Toggle sidebar

2018 Hall of Fame Ballot released (Vlad, Chipper, Thome & Hoffman are in)

Filthy Dangles

Registered User*
Oct 23, 2014
28,574
40,147
3.38 ERA over 2750 Innings pitched, 2 Cy Youngs

67 Complete games, averaged 7 and 1/3 innings per start for a decade in his prime. career 203-105 record.

Halladay belongs in the hall.
 
GIN ANTONIC

GIN ANTONIC

Registered User
Aug 19, 2007
18,880
14,897
Toronto, ON
I'm obviously biased but I think there's a pretty solid case to put Doc in on his numbers alone. Add in the fact that he was the face of a franchise and has a great reputation amongst his peers and others in the sport I think he'll have the support to be voted in.
 
Cheese Wagstaff

Cheese Wagstaff

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
1,418
976
I'd put Halladay in, but the Hall voters have absolutely no idea what to do with modern starting pitchers. It's hard to anticipate how they'll vote on anyone now that they don't have the 300 win benchmark to use. If he gets in next year I'll be happy for his fans, but Mussina and Schilling have far better resumes in my view.
 

blueandgoldguy

Registered User
Oct 8, 2010
5,285
2,540
Greg's River Heights
Halladay's resume is very comparable to Don Drysdale who was voted into the Hall rather easily decades ago. He might not get in for his first eligible year, but he will get in by his second or third year at worst.

Best workhorse of the new millenium. No one came close to the number of innings pitched, complete games and shutouts as Roy. He was very economical with his pitches, always pitching right around the strike zone. This is the reason he was able to pitch deep into games on a consistent basis - he rarely walked anyone and rarely went deep into pitching counts with individual batters. No one did it better over a 10 - 11 year period.
 
darko

darko

Registered User
Feb 16, 2009
70,269
7,797
blueandgoldguy said:
Halladay's resume is very comparable to Don Drysdale who was voted into the Hall rather easily decades ago. He might not get in for his first eligible year, but he will get in by his second or third year at worst.

Best workhorse of the new millenium. No one came close to the number of innings pitched, complete games and shutouts as Roy. He was very economical with his pitches, always pitching right around the strike zone. This is the reason he was able to pitch deep into games on a consistent basis - he rarely walked anyone and rarely went deep into pitching counts with individual batters. No one did it better over a 10 - 11 year period.
Click to expand...

Yup very comparable but imo neither should be in.

If Doc does get in you won't hear any complaining from me. For me he is in that Hall of Very Good group. Like Vlad.
 
Blackhawkswincup

Blackhawkswincup

RIP Fugu
Jun 24, 2007
187,247
20,678
Chicagoland
blueandgoldguy said:
Halladay's resume is very comparable to Don Drysdale who was voted into the Hall rather easily decades ago. He might not get in for his first eligible year, but he will get in by his second or third year at worst.

Best workhorse of the new millenium. No one came close to the number of innings pitched, complete games and shutouts as Roy. He was very economical with his pitches, always pitching right around the strike zone. This is the reason he was able to pitch deep into games on a consistent basis - he rarely walked anyone and rarely went deep into pitching counts with individual batters. No one did it better over a 10 - 11 year period.
Click to expand...

That is pretty big exaggeration on this stat and I can think of another workhorse who ate up Innings far more consistently from his era

Roy Halladay had 8 career seasons of 200+ innings pitched

Mark Buehrle had 14 straight seasons of 200+ innings pitched
 
Neutrinos

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,605
3,610
LiasAndersson said:
3.38 ERA over 2750 Innings pitched, 2 Cy Youngs

67 Complete games, averaged 7 and 1/3 innings per start for a decade in his prime. career 203-105 record.

Halladay belongs in the hall.
Click to expand...

If Halladay belongs in the Hall of Fame, so does Johan Santana
 
Blackhawkswincup

Blackhawkswincup

RIP Fugu
Jun 24, 2007
187,247
20,678
Chicagoland
GIN ANTONIC said:
I agree he's not an HOFer but he has a lot better case than many would probably realize.
Click to expand...

Mark Buehrle
214-160 record
3.81 ERA
33 CG
10 SHO
3,283.1 IP
1,870 K's
1.281 WHIP
58.5 WAR

He is not that far off from someone like Andy Pettitte or Mike Mussina who people want in HOF

Pettitte
256-153 record
3.85 ERA
26 CG
4 SHO
3,316 IP
2,448 K's
1.351 WHIP
60.8 WAR

Mussina
270-153 record
3.68 ERA
57 CG
23 SHO
3,562.2 IP
2,813 K's
1.192 WHIP
83.0 WAR

Buehrle never had luxury of playing on stacked Yankee teams like those two. If he had he would likely be in similiar win range

Naturally Mussina is more impressive overall but I would argue Buehrle was better pitcher then Andy and Buehrle didn't need to use anything to build his career

Like Greg Maddux he relied on accuracy and knowing how to pitch rather then physical talent
 
darko

darko

Registered User
Feb 16, 2009
70,269
7,797
Mussina is HOF. Pettitte isn't.

Difference between Mussina and Buehrle isn't small.
 
Last edited:
GIN ANTONIC

GIN ANTONIC

Registered User
Aug 19, 2007
18,880
14,897
Toronto, ON
Blackhawkswincup said:
Mark Buehrle
214-160 record
3.81 ERA
33 CG
10 SHO
3,283.1 IP
1,870 K's
1.281 WHIP
58.5 WAR

He is not that far off from someone like Andy Pettitte or Mike Mussina who people want in HOF

Pettitte
256-153 record
3.85 ERA
26 CG
4 SHO
3,316 IP
2,448 K's
1.351 WHIP
60.8 WAR

Mussina
270-153 record
3.68 ERA
57 CG
23 SHO
3,562.2 IP
2,813 K's
1.192 WHIP
83.0 WAR

Buehrle never had luxury of playing on stacked Yankee teams like those two. If he had he would likely be in similiar win range

Naturally Mussina is more impressive overall but I would argue Buehrle was better pitcher then Andy and Buehrle didn't need to use anything to build his career

Like Greg Maddux he relied on accuracy and knowing how to pitch rather then physical talent
Click to expand...

Agreed on Pettite but he's not really close to Mussina. Not many are. He's probably the most underrated pitcher of all time and he should have been a surefire HOFer. He didn't get a WS ring or a CY but he was consistently great for a very long time. You don't get to 83 WAR by mistake and is identical to what Pedro ended up with. Obviously Pedro was the better pitcher with the exceptional peak and did this in about 20-25% fewer innings but it's still impressive.

Pettite and Buehrle don't make the cut for me because while they have some very good stats and are worthy of having a conversation about they don't have the dominance that guy like Halladay or Schilling have. If you're gonna be a compiler rather than a peak type guy then you've got to have some pretty eye popping stats to get in the HOF. If you want to call Mussina more of a compiler, that's fine but I think he's got those numbers to back it up.
 
Cheese Wagstaff

Cheese Wagstaff

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
1,418
976
I once told a girlfriend that I cared more about Andy Pettitte than I did about her and even I wouldn't be shameless enough to vote for him. And I think his postseason resume gives him a decent advantage over Buerhle.
 

blueandgoldguy

Registered User
Oct 8, 2010
5,285
2,540
Greg's River Heights
Blackhawkswincup said:
That is pretty big exaggeration on this stat and I can think of another workhorse who ate up Innings far more consistently from his era

Roy Halladay had 8 career seasons of 200+ innings pitched

Mark Buehrle had 14 straight seasons of 200+ innings pitched
Click to expand...

Buehrle did have some impressive innings pitched, early in his career, but Halladay had a longer stretch of impressive innings pitched per start for an 8 -10 year period..I'm not talking about just barely above 200 innings, but well above. Halladay was in a world of his own.

Buehrle did have a good career but Roy was clearly a step above, especially when you look at their peaks. Halladay was consistently at the top of his respective league in innings pitched, complete games and shutouts. He was top WAR pitcher several times and in the top-10 several other times. He also was at or near the top in baseball in walks per nine innings and his FIP and ERA was far superior to Buehrle.

Halladay's peak was also better than Mussina as well. Just compare the two pitchers JAWS 7. Halladay has Mussina beat by a somewhat substantial 7 or 8 WAR. The other notable difference between the two is that Mussina had slightly longer longevity - Mussina was a pretty good pitcher from ages 34 until the end of his career whereas Halladay was pretty much done by the age of 35 due to a nagging injury. I think many HOF committee members prefer dominant peaks to longevity (nothing wrong with that) and Halladay is superior to Mussina's in that regard. I would also point out that Halladay's career ERA and FIP is superior to Mussina's as well...something that HOF committee members take a look at. In the end, Halladay will require fewer years of eligibility to get the call to the hall.
 
Cheese Wagstaff

Cheese Wagstaff

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
1,418
976
blueandgoldguy said:
Halladay's peak was also better than Mussina as well. Just compare the two pitchers JAWS 7. Halladay has Mussina beat by a somewhat substantial 7 or 8 WAR. The other notable difference between the two is that Mussina had slightly longer longevity - Mussina was a pretty good pitcher from ages 34 until the end of his career whereas Halladay was pretty much done by the age of 35 due to a nagging injury. I think many HOF committee members prefer dominant peaks to longevity (nothing wrong with that) and Halladay is superior to Mussina's in that regard. I would also point out that Halladay's career ERA and FIP is superior to Mussina's as well...something that HOF committee members take a look at. In the end, Halladay will require fewer years of eligibility to get the call to the hall.
Click to expand...

Mussina has almost 800 more inning shots pitched, that's not slightly more longevity. It's 30% of Halladay's career total.

I mean it's odd you cited Jaws7 and leave out that Mussina has a significantly better overall score.
 
Bjorn Le

Bjorn Le

Hobocop
May 17, 2010
19,592
609
Martinaise, Revachol
darko said:
In fact I wouldn't vote for Doc. He's in Hall of very good.
Click to expand...

Hall of Very good is for people who were very good but not Hall of Fame caliber. Halladay was a first ballot Hall of Famer almost his entire career, and then in his second last season he started to have shoulder problems that wrecked his arm. He could have, like many pitchers, pushed through it to put up 3-4 more seasons of 4.50+ ERA and 180+ innings. Which would have given up upwards of 20 more wins, 4-5 more WAR, a few hundred more strikeouts, etc. Why did he need that to be a Hall of Famer? He had 10 years where he was a top five pitcher in baseball, several seasons where he was the best, a perfect game, a no-hitter, Cy Young's in both leagues. Halladay is the epitome of the modern-ERA Hall of Fame pitcher.

People said the same thing about Vlad. Halladay is going to get in. I would have said 2nd or 3rd ballot before his death, but there's a reasonable chance for first ballot now.

Cheese Wagstaff said:
Mussina has almost 800 more inning shots pitched, that's not slightly more longevity. It's 30% of Halladay's career total.

I mean it's odd you cited Jaws7 and leave out that Mussina has a significantly better overall score.
Click to expand...

Obviously Mussina had a longer career, but it's also obvious Hallady was a better pitcher. Halladay was an elite pitcher for 10 years, while Mussina was a very good pitcher for 17 years. Both should be Hall of Famers. ​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom