Your 2037 BBA Media Guide!

[7teen]

i think recte needs to put jesse wright, hurley reyes and Robert jowers on the ballot as veterans guys next year. Settle this once and for all.

Add Rasmussen to that list and you may get my vote for a few of these other guys.

Rasmussen was on as a veterans guy once. But by the old standards of voting. He finished 4th and had about 80% of votes in the top 6 but wasn’t high enough to get in by the old voting method.

[agrudez]

Far be it for me to be critical of the fact we just voted a starting pitcher into the HOF with less than 200 wins and 4 all-star appearances. Does he have some HOF attributes? Sure! Does the body of work meet those standards? I strongly disagree.

I wasn't planning to chime in here, but this one really took me by surprise. I figured it was Antonio Sanchez that got your feathers ruffled (he's a pretty bad inductee, imo), but you're really upset about Ramirez? He racked up 69.5 WAR over 12 seasons (discounting his partial rookie year and 3 brutal final years after he had firmly lost it). That's averaging just about 5.8 per season for over a decade and had a sterling career 3.39 FIP. For comparison, Estes compiled 71.6 WAR over 16 seasons (discounting his rough final 3 seasons as well) for a 4.47 per season average and finished with a 3.56 career FIP. I don't think it's particularly close for me which of the two was better. Even if you go with an old school and/or counting stat method Ramirez had more career strikeouts in 4 less seasons and has 2 extra Nebraskas.

PS. Estes was a fine inductee in my book, was just using the comparison to highlight how awesome Ramirez was.

[7teen]

Far be it for me to be critical of the fact we just voted a starting pitcher into the HOF with less than 200 wins and 4 all-star appearances. Does he have some HOF attributes? Sure! Does the body of work meet those standards? I strongly disagree.

I wasn't planning to chime in here, but this one really took me by surprise. I figured it was Antonio Sanchez that got your feathers ruffled (he's a pretty bad inductee, imo), but you're really upset about Ramirez?

My feathers weren’t ruffled at the results. Just making my own obervations. How some responded did that. I commented on a Sánchez as being a guy that wasn’t a lock but I voted him last year (along with Williams) because I felt they had a characteristic that was deserving.

Are the three pitchers deserving of being in the Hall of Fame? Maybe. Im curious as to how they’re in and John Rasmussen isn’t?

[aaronweiner]

Sanchez had elite counting numbers - 583 homers is a LOT. The fact that he played for years in a hitter's park influenced my vote too because he might have had 600+ in Calgary or more. I get that one though - he was close.

But Nelson Ramirez? You're out of your mind if you think Nelson Ramirez isn't a Hall of Famer.

He has THREE Steve Nebraskas. SPEAKING of Steve Nebraska, Ramirez has a walk ratio so absurd that he's the ALL TIME BBA LEADER in OBP, ahead of Steve Nebraska.

And, there's no apparent mark for K/BB ratio but if there was one, I'd say that Ramirez's 2909/281, or TEN POINT FREAKING 3 Ks to ONE Walk, is the all-time record for anyone with any kind of innings. Nebraska's was outstanding at around 9-1 but that's not quite as high as Ramirez.

I'm not saying Ramirez is Steve Nebraska. I'm saying fuck yes he's a Hall of Famer.

[Ted]

I've just never liked the "magic number" arguments. All star appearances, awards, etc, are all less accurate than cold hard stats that compare players directly to players they played with. I mean, we all know that award voting is wonky and largely biased by popularity and previous success. Similarly, the game changes continually, so what was a magic number threshold just may not be anymore. Pitchers don't get as many decisions as they used to because they don't throw as many innings. Does this mean that after a point, no pitcher is hall eligible anymore?

As for the response ruffling your feathers, consider perhaps that your dismissive assessment of how our Hall of Fame is being voted for as something that could be "ruffling" to other people. I don't mind being ruffled a bit, or even needled, but come on. You make the same arguments over and over. At least a few people don't agree with you. You don't have to change your mind, but you clearly don't give any credence to our opinions either. In that case, I'm of little to no obligation to give any to yours. If you don't like that, don't state your opinions and whine about how you don't like the hall of fame voting.

As to the John Rasmussen argument, he's not in because people like you die on hills about single players, so when these guys are brought up on vet committee, we can't get them in because people like you have refused to vote for any other players like them, because their own pet hobby horse isn't in. YOU AND YOUR VOTING HABITS ARE THE REASON RASMUSSEN ISN'T IN.

[usnspecialist]

Sanchez had elite counting numbers - 583 homers is a LOT. The fact that he played for years in a hitter's park influenced my vote too because he might have had 600+ in Calgary or more. I get that one though - he was close.

But Nelson Ramirez? You're out of your mind if you think Nelson Ramirez isn't a Hall of Famer.

He has THREE Steve Nebraskas. SPEAKING of Steve Nebraska, Ramirez has a walk ratio so absurd that he's the ALL TIME BBA LEADER in OBP, ahead of Steve Nebraska.

And, there's no apparent mark for K/BB ratio but if there was one, I'd say that Ramirez's 2909/281, or TEN POINT FREAKING 3 Ks to ONE Walk, is the all-time record for anyone with any kind of innings. Nebraska's was outstanding at around 9-1 but that's not quite as high as Ramirez.

I'm not saying Ramirez is Steve Nebraska. I'm saying fuck yes he's a Hall of Famer.

I dont have the all time K/BB but I do have the list for current guys (500 IP minimum). I posted it on the other thread I made, but it is relevant here so I will post it as well (along with innings pitched).

1 Jimmy Greenwood 1523.33 6.78
2 Bobby Lynch 601.66 6.10
3 Alfredo Contreras 1857.33 5.89
4 Kevin Morales 862.66 5.56
5 Julio Velasco 1003.66 5.03
6 Aki Kondo 555.33 4.58
7 Ruben Nunez 802.33 4.53
8 Ricardo Diaz 3812.00 4.28
9 Arturo Cruz 833.33 4.06
10 Lawrence LaLoosh 2120.33 3.94

Greenwood is pretty much considered the gold standard for that these days, and he is nowhere close.

[7teen]

I’d bet you a million to one at least 3 of those guys in this year don’t make it by the old voting standards. The same ones Rasmussen were up against.

[Ted]

Sanchez had elite counting numbers - 583 homers is a LOT. The fact that he played for years in a hitter's park influenced my vote too because he might have had 600+ in Calgary or more. I get that one though - he was close.

But Nelson Ramirez? You're out of your mind if you think Nelson Ramirez isn't a Hall of Famer.

He has THREE Steve Nebraskas. SPEAKING of Steve Nebraska, Ramirez has a walk ratio so absurd that he's the ALL TIME BBA LEADER in OBP, ahead of Steve Nebraska.

And, there's no apparent mark for K/BB ratio but if there was one, I'd say that Ramirez's 2909/281, or TEN POINT FREAKING 3 Ks to ONE Walk, is the all-time record for anyone with any kind of innings. Nebraska's was outstanding at around 9-1 but that's not quite as high as Ramirez.

I'm not saying Ramirez is Steve Nebraska. I'm saying fuck yes he's a Hall of Famer.

But did he have enough pitching wins? You know, the end all be all stat? Especially in a league where pitchers don't hit and therefore cannot possibly win a game on their own? Ever? Remember, paying enough attention to remember that Ramirez played his entire career on a team that didn't score many runs doesn't matter. Neither does knowing how run scoring environments affect accumulation of pitching wins. it's all about one number. Maybe we're voting for the Hall of very Good. But Wilson's is even dumber. It's the Hall of Arbitrary Stat Thresholds. John Rasumussen is a better pitcher than Nelson Ramirez because pitching wins.

[aaronweiner]

That might be true, Chris. Rasmussen was probably a good choice also, but Ramirez is clearly HOF-worthy if you know the story.

[agrudez]

I’d bet you a million to one at least 3 of those guys in this year don’t make it by the old voting standards. The same ones Rasmussen were up against.

That's a good point. We had an era where it was hard to impossible for many players to get into the hall (Jason's system was designed to let 1 OR 2 get in per year... and every year usually had at least one slam dunk to steal a spot) and now we have an era where it is much, much easier for many to get in. I'd like to think that is what the veteran's committee is doing with their nominations, though? Giving those guys whom missed out specifically because of the voting system another chance?

Btw, I'd vote for Rasmussen in our current system. He matches up pretty well with Estes (4.8 WAR/season discounting his final 2 MBBA seasons and a career 3.75 FIP).

[Spiccoli]

What the?

Sooo... anyone want to discuss if Raider should be in the HOF?

[Lane]

Rasmussen is probably a HoFer. Ramirez undoubtedly is.

[Ted]

I’d bet you a million to one at least 3 of those guys in this year don’t make it by the old voting standards. The same ones Rasmussen were up against.

Maybe. Things change. But then stop bringing up guys you really seem to think should be in. If you want to say, I have a high threshold and don't think these guys should be in, fine.

But then don't say, "All these guys that played for me aren't in, so no one else gets in." That just sounds like sour grapes.

Let me be perfectly clear. I think you are wrong. I think you demonstrate over and over that you have a flawed and outdated understanding of player value and contributions to winning games. I do not think I know everything (regardless of how much of an asshat I come across as). I am wrong all the time. We can exist in a world where we disagree. But if you think you can just state opinions that everyone else is doing something wrong, and not hear people tell you they disagree in return, you are living in a magical fantasy land. And if you expect to never once evolve your argument in response to their complaints, and say the same handful of things over and over, expect dismissal. This doesn't mean I'm right. There are two possibilities. You are wrong, and should consider other ideas. Or you agree right, but everyone else is stupid. In either case, restating the same thing over and over at us is a useless gesture. Convince me I'm wrong. Convince me why I should give a shit about all star appearances or 200 wins more than I should care about statistics that attempt to measure a player against their peers. Give me a reason to reconsider.

[7teen]

Sanchez had elite counting numbers - 583 homers is a LOT. The fact that he played for years in a hitter's park influenced my vote too because he might have had 600+ in Calgary or more. I get that one though - he was close.

But Nelson Ramirez? You're out of your mind if you think Nelson Ramirez isn't a Hall of Famer.

He has THREE Steve Nebraskas. SPEAKING of Steve Nebraska, Ramirez has a walk ratio so absurd that he's the ALL TIME BBA LEADER in OBP, ahead of Steve Nebraska.

And, there's no apparent mark for K/BB ratio but if there was one, I'd say that Ramirez's 2909/281, or TEN POINT FREAKING 3 Ks to ONE Walk, is the all-time record for anyone with any kind of innings. Nebraska's was outstanding at around 9-1 but that's not quite as high as Ramirez.

I'm not saying Ramirez is Steve Nebraska. I'm saying fuck yes he's a Hall of Famer.

But did he have enough pitching wins? You know, the end all be all stat? Especially in a league where pitchers don't hit and therefore cannot possibly win a game on their own? Ever? Remember, paying enough attention to remember that Ramirez played his entire career on a team that didn't score many runs doesn't matter. Neither does knowing how run scoring environments affect accumulation of pitching wins. it's all about one number. Maybe we're voting for the Hall of very Good. But Wilson's is even dumber. It's the Hall of Arbitrary Stat Thresholds. John Rasumussen is a better pitcher than Nelson Ramirez because pitching wins.

We can ignore the higher WAR and better ERA+ of Rasmussens.

But you be you Ted.

[Ted]

I’d bet you a million to one at least 3 of those guys in this year don’t make it by the old voting standards. The same ones Rasmussen were up against.

That's a good point. We had an era where it was hard to impossible for many players to get into the hall (Jason's system was designed to let 1 OR 2 get in per year... and every year usually had at least one slam dunk to steal a spot) and now we have an era where it is much, much easier for many to get in. I'd like to think that is what the veteran's committee is doing with their nominations, though? Giving those guys whom missed out specifically because of the voting system another chance?

This was my point. I voted for Rassmussen when he came up as a vet. I'd do so again. For the record I'd vote for Hurley Reyes. I think anyone who was on the ballot, especially vets, during the use of Jason's system should get evaluated for another chance because it was incredibly restrictive. But I'm confused. If Chris doesn't think Rassmussen et al should be in, he should stop bringing them up. If he does, he should vote for players like them.

[7teen]

I’d bet you a million to one at least 3 of those guys in this year don’t make it by the old voting standards. The same ones Rasmussen were up against.

That's a good point. We had an era where it was hard to impossible for many players to get into the hall (Jason's system was designed to let 1 OR 2 get in per year... and every year usually had at least one slam dunk to steal a spot) and now we have an era where it is much, much easier for many to get in. I'd like to think that is what the veteran's committee is doing with their nominations, though? Giving those guys whom missed out specifically because of the voting system another chance?

Btw, I'd vote for Rasmussen in our current system. He matches up pretty well with Estes (4.8 WAR/season discounting his final 2 MBBA seasons and a career 3.75 FIP).

This is probably my biggest beef of all. Rasmussen was on the vets committee once. On a ballot where we used the OLD WAY AGAIN.

[Ted]

Sanchez had elite counting numbers - 583 homers is a LOT. The fact that he played for years in a hitter's park influenced my vote too because he might have had 600+ in Calgary or more. I get that one though - he was close.

But Nelson Ramirez? You're out of your mind if you think Nelson Ramirez isn't a Hall of Famer.

He has THREE Steve Nebraskas. SPEAKING of Steve Nebraska, Ramirez has a walk ratio so absurd that he's the ALL TIME BBA LEADER in OBP, ahead of Steve Nebraska.

And, there's no apparent mark for K/BB ratio but if there was one, I'd say that Ramirez's 2909/281, or TEN POINT FREAKING 3 Ks to ONE Walk, is the all-time record for anyone with any kind of innings. Nebraska's was outstanding at around 9-1 but that's not quite as high as Ramirez.

I'm not saying Ramirez is Steve Nebraska. I'm saying fuck yes he's a Hall of Famer.

But did he have enough pitching wins? You know, the end all be all stat? Especially in a league where pitchers don't hit and therefore cannot possibly win a game on their own? Ever? Remember, paying enough attention to remember that Ramirez played his entire career on a team that didn't score many runs doesn't matter. Neither does knowing how run scoring environments affect accumulation of pitching wins. it's all about one number. Maybe we're voting for the Hall of very Good. But Wilson's is even dumber. It's the Hall of Arbitrary Stat Thresholds. John Rasumussen is a better pitcher than Nelson Ramirez because pitching wins.

We can ignore the higher WAR and better ERA+ of Rasmussens.


But you be you Ted.

This is the first time you have brought these up today. I'm glad to know you look at them. All of your arguments have been about all star appearances and pitcher wins. So, how do you feel about WAR per season? How do you feel about saying a guy was only an all star 4 times, but not voting for a guy with three Nebraskas. How do you feel about Aaron pointing our that Ramirez out OBP'd Steve Fucking Nebraska. You're just crying over and over about the same handful of guys because you like them and don't like when guys disagree with you.

You though you could make a snarky comment about everyone else's voting practices and then got all defensive when someone told you to shove it.
You continually cry about the same players so often no one even has to look at old posts to know who they are. Cherry pick shit all you want Chris. I'm done here.

[usnspecialist]

Rasmussen is probably a HoFer. Ramirez undoubtedly is.brewster_2037-03-31_15-50-47.jpg

I looked at the 4 guys in question and came down this way if i were to vote.

Rasmussen: yes
Reyes: maybe
Wright: no, just not long enough dominance
Jowers: no (hall of consistently good).

P.S read your damn emails lane, good god.

[Lane]

Rasmussen is probably a HoFer. Ramirez undoubtedly is.brewster_2037-03-31_15-50-47.jpg

I looked at the 4 guys in question and came down this way if i were to vote.

Rasmussen: yes
Reyes: maybe
Wright: no, just not long enough dominance
Jowers: no (hall of consistently good).

P.S read your damn emails lane, good god.

Huh? Are you trying to get in touch with me?

[Ted]

But man, that media guide is great! Too bad some dipshit detracted from the original point of this thread with his constant inability to not take offense, get worked up, and argue in an only marginally civil manner. Sorry guys. Sorry Chris. Someday I'll learn.

Edit: To be clear, I'm the only one I'm calling a dipshit here. I love these arguments, but it's not okay when I'm abusive of other people. I think the tone of everyone else's points is considerably better than mine.