Your 2037 BBA Media Guide!

[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.

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

i meant in game sorry. Not real emails.

[aaronweiner]

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.

Lil' much. Dial that back a bit. Chris is entitled to make cases for Jessie Wright and Rasmussen.

Pretty sure the baseball Wright won his 30th with is in the Hall anyway.

[Ted]

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.

Lil' much. Dial that back a bit. Chris is entitled to make cases for Jessie Wright and Rasmussen.

Pretty sure the baseball Wright won his 30th with is in the Hall anyway.

So I've written to Chris privately about my comments and apologized. But, read the initial posts I made and you'll see I did not make a point that Chris wasn't entitled to make an argument. He started that debate with this

"Oh I guess I can’t be critical either. Youre right Ted. I’ll just align my thoughts with yours and just become a HOF voting sheep.

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."

There is not a post before this where anyone says anything about someone not being entitled to opinions or is even rude. Up to this point, it is simply Chris making an observation, several people disagreeing. No one says Chris can't be critical. No one says he's not entitled to an opinion. I actually state explicitly that he is entitled to his opinion. I only said that he made a statement open to debate, and should then expect debate. We continued said debate. We clearly see things differently. That's fine. Again. I said so, with actual words. This is the first personal attack in the entire thing. I should not have gotten worked up in response. I have apologized for it. But I'm getting pretty damn tired of being the one who "lost his temper about the whole thing". When people express strong opinions, they need to be okay with hearing disagreement. I should have let this go, but like I said, I'm getting pretty sick of being cast as the guy who "started the whole thing". I'm just the guy who is too damn stupid to keep his nuclear temper under control.

[Lane]

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?

i meant in game sorry. Not real emails.

LOL

my game always goes SO SLOW when I try to read emails so I avoid it at all costs.

[bcslouck]

Oh I guess I can’t be critical either. Youre right Ted. I’ll just align my thoughts with yours and just become a HOF voting sheep.

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 voted for him because he has 3 Nebraska's. Only 15 pitchers have done that in league history.

[7teen]

Good conversation guys. Would have been nice to have had it more here going in.

viewtopic.php?f=100&t=25502

viewtopic.php?f=100&t=25500

viewtopic.php?f=100&t=25497

At least the conversation for Estes and Boone was a little more extensive. Looks like the 3 weren’t slam dunks by all. Sorry for causing a ruckus.

Yes I’m biased towards Rasmussen and Wright. Can make comparable remarks about when you start talking counting stats or short term dominance. Wright won 2 Nebraska Awards fwiw.

Time to move on.

It’s all good Ted.

Anyone want to start talking tipping etiquette (inside joke that maybe only one or two still get).

[Lane]

Anyone want to start talking tipping etiquette (inside joke that maybe only one or two still get).

Don't make me lock this thread!

[bcslouck]

I can tell you guys that was fun to read. I try to vote for players independently of who's gotten in and who's not. I'm not sure I even got the chance to vote for Chris's guy. And All-Star games is something to use but they really are only a award for half a season. They mean something but aren't the be-all end-all. Some of the stats pointed out by the other guys on top of the 3 Nebraska's had him in.

If Chris is right about those guys he mentioned never getting a crack at this voting method, it wouldn't bother me to go ahead and put them back on. Not sure how others feel about that or if it's a unwritten rule or something about not putting a guy on the ballot via vet's committee more than once. That something I'll let the BBA leadership figure out.

I know we wanted to be done with it here but just wanted to add that.

[Ted]

I can tell you guys that was fun to read. I try to vote for players independently of who's gotten in and who's not. I'm not sure I even got the chance to vote for Chris's guy. And All-Star games is something to use but they really are only a award for half a season. They mean something but aren't the be-all end-all. Some of the stats pointed out by the other guys on top of the 3 Nebraska's had him in.

If Chris is right about those guys he mentioned never getting a crack at this voting method, it wouldn't bother me to go ahead and put them back on. Not sure how others feel about that or if it's a unwritten rule or something about not putting a guy on the ballot via vet's committee more than once. That something I'll let the BBA leadership figure out.

I know we wanted to be done with it here but just wanted to add that.

You probably couldn't tell through my vehemence earlier, but I'd be on board with this too. Frankly, I'd be happy with anyone that fell off the ballot during the list method getting another shot. The problem I see, is that as Recte has mentioned, none of the vets really get much traction. Even the ones that seem like locks to me, especially the pitchers. I don't know if its a function of being on the same ballot with current guys? But then we risk running into shit like whatever version of MLBs alternate path to the HOF that just keeps putting in non deserving chumps because you lose all perspective. Or Jerry Reinsdorff keeps paying for hookers for the other committee members. (I'm not convinced I'm not joking about that last bit).

[recte44]

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.

I'm happy to put him on again. Thinking about revamping the Veterans Committee just a bit.

[usnspecialist]

I agree with revamping the committee, when was the last time someone actually got in as a veterans selection? Not saying there should be a ton (after all there is a reason they didn't get in the first time), but if you have none or go a decade between them there probably is an issue.

[bcslouck]

I agree with revamping the committee, when was the last time someone actually got in as a veterans selection? Not saying there should be a ton (after all there is a reason they didn't get in the first time), but if you have none or go a decade between them there probably is an issue.

I do partially agree with this. Someone mentioned league turnover and that does have some affect on voting strategies or thoughts. I'm not sure what the turnover is every 10 in league seasons. But I'd wager it's at least 25%. So wonder if maybe every 10+ seasons, we revisit some guys. Even if they never get in, they at least get a chance and maybe we avoid stuff like this. Probably not though.

[agrudez]

But I'm getting pretty damn tired of being the one who "lost his temper about the whole thing".

Well then, perhaps we should fight so we can both lose our temper? Have at thee, you yellow bellied nincompoop!

[Ted]

But I'm getting pretty damn tired of being the one who "lost his temper about the whole thing".

Well then, perhaps we should fight so we can both lose our temper? Have at thee, you yellow bellied nincompoop!

It's been awhile. And my belly is red dammit! (I actually got a burn from my laptop. I should move more, but video games)

[udlb58]

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.

The old voting system was broken. Under that system, it would be impossible for more than a couple of guys to get voted in simply because if you didn't vote a guy top 3-4, he was pretty much eliminated from consideration unless every single other person voted him 1 or 2.

[agrudez]

The old voting system was broken. Under that system, it would be impossible for more than a couple of guys to get voted in simply because if you didn't vote a guy top 3-4, he was pretty much eliminated from consideration unless every single other person voted him 1 or 2.

Eh, I didn't mind it. It made sure only the best of the best got in. It's unfair that some players were subjected to it and now others get an easier path, though.

[7teen]

The old voting system was broken. Under that system, it would be impossible for more than a couple of guys to get voted in simply because if you didn't vote a guy top 3-4, he was pretty much eliminated from consideration unless every single other person voted him 1 or 2.

Eh, I didn't mind it. It made sure only the best of the best got in. It's unfair that some players were subjected to it and now others get an easier path, though.

I didn’t necessarily mind it either. It made the HOF way more exclusive. Outside of one or two guys being in, I could justify “my guys” being on the outside looking in.

But with the new format it does seem that Rasmussen would get in. I think if he we’re on this ballot, with his numbers alongside the guys we had, he’d have been voted in.

[7teen]

But then again I say that and Mike Love finished third ahead of Rasmussen on the last ballot he was on and Love still isn’t in. So maybe I’m just blindly biased in the end.