Bonds & Clemens Not Voted into MLB HOF

[ccured]

Originally Posted by COCKDIESEL

Biggio was a nice player but he is not more worthy than Murphy. Two NLMVP's on that horrible team. His numbers would have been much better had he had anyone behind him. Easy guy to pitch around when no one else scares you.

You have lost your mind if you think murphy was a better player than biggio. Howevrr i wouldnt have my feelings hurt if he was in. The writers that were on a non steroid era player could have proven a point by putting murph in based off of his clean living image. He was the antithesis of the steroid era players. If he had used peds his career wouldnt have just fallen off like it did at the end. His bad numbers in his only post season series hurt him bad but like you said he had no one around him to take up any slack. You took him out you took the braves out. He had a great run for 8 or 9 years though

[Gyle41386]

Originally Posted by ccured

actually it does. He was long suspected of being a user. His numbers aren't that good comparably. He is just below HOF to me. Definitely a good player though

By who? I don't remember seeing his name on the Mitchell Report or in any other investigations.

As for his numbers not being that good...what cutoff did he miss?

[cockinraleigh]

Originally Posted by COCKDIESEL

Murphy was one of the best all around players of his era. I never said Biggio wasn't good I just think Murphy is more worthy of consideration.

I don't think it's fair to compare an outfielder to a second baseman in that era. Today you can because it seems everybody hits for power. In Biggio's prime years second baseman were #2 or #6,7,8 hitters.

That being said, Murphy definitely deserves to be in based solely on HR's. 300 HR's used to be the magic number and I think that should be taken into consideration. If your gonna put Jim Rice in in 2009 with 382 HR's then Murphy's 398 HR's has to be good enough too.

[ccured]

Originally Posted by Gyle41386

By who? I don't remember seeing his name on the Mitchell Report or in any other investigations.

As for his numbers not being that good...what cutoff did he miss?

Only had 2100 hits and didnt get 500 homers or 1500 rbis either. He played longer than most people remember. I do think being an everday catcher for so long kept hom from getting in. Lots of the dodgers from the mid to late 90s were suspected as were the early 2000s mets. I dont know everyone on mitchell report but if i recall it named something like 80-90 players but it was mainly only 5 or 6 teams. Mcquire wasnt named in it either.

[Tailfeathers]

Originally Posted by ccured

do you know the difference between an at bat AB and a plate appearance PA?

You're one assuming ass****. My point is all the hits, the doubles the walks, the runs scored are a result of his PA. He had a lot of them. Quantity over quality.

[trapper82]

Originally Posted by cockinraleigh

I don't think it's fair to compare an outfielder to a second baseman in that era. Today you can because it seems everybody hits for power. In Biggio's prime years second baseman were #2 or #6,7,8 hitters.

That being said, Murphy definitely deserves to be in based solely on HR's. 300 HR's used to be the magic number and I think that should be taken into consideration. If your gonna put Jim Rice in in 2009 with 382 HR's then Murphy's 398 HR's has to be good enough too.

The problem to me is all of the benchmark numbers that were used before are now skewed. If a guy didn't do anything, but was really good and going against pitchers that did, his numbers will fall below the threshold. Who is to say who was and who wasn't doing anything, and if a guy wasn't, yet still produced well, what do you do with him?

[ccured]

Originally Posted by cockinraleigh

I don't think it's fair to compare an outfielder to a second baseman in that era. Today you can because it seems everybody hits for power. In Biggio's prime years second baseman were #2 or #6,7,8 hitters.

That being said, Murphy definitely deserves to be in based solely on HR's. 300 HR's used to be the magic number and I think that should be taken into consideration. If your gonna put Jim Rice in in 2009 with 382 HR's then Murphy's 398 HR's has to be good enough too.

I do agree that murphy should be in over jim rice

[ccured]

Originally Posted by Tailfeathers

You're one assuming ass****. My point is all the hits, the doubles the walks, the runs scored are a result of his PA. He had a lot of them. Quantity over quality.

Easy killer. Im not trying to offend you at all. You said you didnt understand me. If you look at Plate Appearances then you should look at On Base Percentage and if you look at official At Bats then you should look at Batting average. If you compare PA to batting average something gets lost in translation. Its not apples to oranges but is kind of like granny smith apples to golden delicious. Its the same but different. I was not trying to offend at all just going to make my point easier. Im sorry. Also i asked about Yount because he is extremely comparable

[Tailfeathers]

Originally Posted by ccured

no. I am just curious because I have heard this before about Biggio and honestly I used to side towards him not being HOF caliber. You got to look at some of those teams they were horrible. His numbers are on par with a majority of HOF.

Walter Johnson played for a real horrible team and he may be the greatest pitcher ever. No excuses especially a hitter. Here's what I used to do, not so much anymore. It's what a batter does per PA, i.e. Runs/PA, HR/PA, Walks/ PA, etc. Its what separates the HOF's from the very good players.

[Tailfeathers]

Originally Posted by ccured

Easy killer. Im not trying to offend you at all. You said you didnt understand me. If you look at Plate Appearances then you should look at On Base Percentage and if you look at official At Bats then you should look at Batting average. If you compare PA to batting average something gets lost in translation. Its not apples to oranges but is kind of like granny smith apples to golden delicious. Its the same but different. I was not trying to offend at all just going to make my point easier. Im sorry. Also i asked about Yount because he is extremely comparable

There you go again. I already looked at OBP .363 isn't great, especially for a utility player like Biggio. In fact OBP is the first thing I look at.

[ccured]

Originally Posted by trapper82

The problem to me is all of the benchmark numbers that were used before are now skewed. If a guy didn't do anything, but was really good and going against pitchers that did, his numbers will fall below the threshold. Who is to say who was and who wasn't doing anything, and if a guy wasn't, yet still produced well, what do you do with him?

Agreed. Personally i dont think they should even worry about who used and who didnt. It was so prevelant that it everyone should be judged by what happemed on the field whether they did or didnt use. Are you gonna go back and weed out all the cocaine users of the late 70s and the 80s? All the amphetimine users of the 60s and early 70s? Players have been getting unfair advantages since the game has been played.

[ccured]

Originally Posted by Tailfeathers

There you go again. I already looked at OBP .363 isn't great, especially for a utility player like Biggio. In fact OBP is the first thing I look at.

Utility player? He hit 2nd most of his career with the intent purpose of trying to get the runners moved over for Caminiti and Bagwell. Do you consider robin yount a hof?

[cockinraleigh]

Originally Posted by Tailfeathers

You're one assuming ass****. My point is all the hits, the doubles the walks, the runs scored are a result of his PA. He had a lot of them. Quantity over quality.

You could say that Jeter only got to 3000 hits cause he played so long. You have to play a long time to get 3000 hits. Only like 30 guys ever have 3000 hits.

What's a great hits total for a year today? 200 hits a year? It may be more now I'm not real sure. At that rate you have to play 15 years.

[Gyle41386]

Originally Posted by ccured

Only had 2100 hits and didnt get 500 homers or 1500 rbis either. He played longer than most people remember. I do think being an everday catcher for so long kept hom from getting in. Lots of the dodgers from the mid to late 90s were suspected as were the early 2000s mets. I dont know everyone on mitchell report but if i recall it named something like 80-90 players but it was mainly only 5 or 6 teams. Mcquire wasnt named in it either.

The Dodgers and Mets were two of those teams that had players who were named in the Mitchell Report. Like, a bunch of players. A Mets clubhouse employee turned over a bunch of names. A credible accusation against Piazza has never been made that I'm aware of. I've seen a New York Times columnist claim he had bacne (which he equated to steroid use), but that's about it.

While he didn't reach the "lock status" numbers that you mentioned, .308/.377/.545 for 16 years isn't anything to sneeze at. Obviously, he's the greatest hitting catcher of all time by a wide, wide margin. I'm sure those who are into advanced metrics would reference his WAR and OPS+ as HOF-worthy.

[cockinraleigh]

Originally Posted by Gyle41386

The Dodgers and Mets were two of those teams that had players who were named in the Mitchell Report. Like, a bunch of players. A Mets clubhouse employee turned over a bunch of names. A credible accusation against Piazza has never been made that I'm aware of other than a New York Times columnist claiming he had bacne.

While he didn't reach the "lock status" numbers that you mentioned, .308/.377/.545 for 16 years isn't anything to sneeze at. Obviously, he's the greatest hitting catcher of all time by a wide, wide margin. I'm sure those who are into advanced metrics would reference his WAR and OPS+ as HOF-worthy.

I agree that Piazza should be in.

12 time all star and was easily the best catcher of his era. 427 Hr's for a catcher is outstanding.

[ccured]

Originally Posted by Tailfeathers

There you go again. I already looked at OBP .363 isn't great, especially for a utility player like Biggio. In fact OBP is the first thing I look at.

Its lime like top 300 ever. Not the best but better than average which is something like 330. It in conjunction with other numbers. Also what there you go again mean? I clairied my stance on ba/ab and ops/pa.

[USCBatgirl21]

Let's not forget Piazza's career .991 fielding %.

Gyle is correct...no credible accusation has ever been made by Piazza. Everyone just assumed he was because of his power playing the most brutal position in baseball, and doing it quite well for a LONG time.

If Gary Carter is in the Hall, no reason why Mike should not be.

[ccured]

Originally Posted by Gyle41386

The Dodgers and Mets were two of those teams that had players who were named in the Mitchell Report. Like, a bunch of players. A Mets clubhouse employee turned over a bunch of names. A credible accusation against Piazza has never been made that I'm aware of. I've seen a New York Times columnist claim he had bacne (which he equated to steroid use), but that's about it.

While he didn't reach the "lock status" numbers that you mentioned, .308/.377/.545 for 16 years isn't anything to sneeze at. Obviously, he's the greatest hitting catcher of all time by a wide, wide margin. I'm sure those who are into advanced metrics would reference his WAR and OPS+ as HOF-worthy.

Like i said i could go either way. He was definitely the best hitting catcher of his era if not all time. Still think pudge rodriquez was a better catcher than piazza. He called a better game and his defense was better even though piazza was better offensively

[ccured]

Originally Posted by USCBatgirl21

Let's not forget Piazza's career .991 fielding %.

Gyle is correct...no credible accusation has ever been made by Piazza. Everyone just assumed he was because of his power playing the most brutal position in baseball, and doing it quite well for a LONG time.

If Gary Carter is in the Hall, no reason why Mike should not be.

I can agree with if gary carter is in the piazza should be. I just think its funny that people say credible claim when it suits them to discrimate against or advocate for one player over another. Bagwell is assumed to have but piazza is assumed not to have. But anyway i would not vote against piazza just not for him

[USCBatgirl21]

Originally Posted by cockinraleigh

I agree that Piazza should be in.

12 time all star and was easily the best catcher of his era. 427 Hr's for a catcher is outstanding.

Not to mention he is one of 3 players to hit a HR OUT of Dodger Stadium, over the Pavillion cover.