Golden Age Baseball HOF Ballot

[tycobb420]

His ERA was 3.71 that season, whip was 1.434, he walked 129 and surrendered 37 HR. It was 1969 and he just plain stunk that season.

Whip is a little high, but a 3.71 ERA is not horrible. Kaat was good. He played forever, he wasn't great. There has to be a cut off somewhere, and I would cut him off and let a player that was dominate during his prime in like Tiant.

3.71 today is not bad. In 1969, in the pre-DH era, was poor.

 

[jimrice]

It is called dominance. I would put Pedro Martinez in over Mike Mussina even though Mussina has a much higher win total. Tiant had 2 years with ERA's under 2.00. Wins are over rated.

Win are not overrated when a pitcher is expected to finish what he started. Tiant and Kaat pitched in an era in which pitchers were expected to go 9. Therefore, win totals are indicative of a pitcher's effectiveness for that generation.

Kaat started almost 150 more games. If you are going to focus on wins so much, shouldn't you factor in win percentage, too?

 

[jimrice]

I think HOF inductees should either have benchmark numbers, like 3000 hits or 300 wins (pitchers from earlier eras) or have been considered superstars during their prime. Some guys like Koufax or Pedro Martinez don't have those eye popping totals, but were among the best ever.

Guys like Kaat shouldn't be in. He was a fine player, but he was neither dominant nor did he hit the big benchmarks. Having one great year is not enough.

Santos has been held back by longevity, in my opinion. Looking at third basemen, I think he's right there in the second tier. Should be in.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Yeah but when you say a 3.30 with 223 wins gets in over 3.45 and 283 I don't think so. .15 era isn't much. And I'm not sure what your reason is, Tiant might have had some dominate years, under 2.00 but with a career 3.30 he must have had some not so good years either.

Lets say he pitched 3 mre year's (all shitty) and got to 300, he'd be good?