Pancake Bear

3 hours ago, Rico said:

He had 10 starts as a rookie.  His 4 first starts he was rocked, but he later came back and pitched well.  Can we really say he was incapable of being a starter?  

Yes, we can. No one pitches relief if they can start. There’s not enough money in it. 

20 minutes ago, Blarg said:

That is two separate arguments. I think Rivera is a 1st ballot for the job he accomplished over such a long period of time. 

Neither Edgar or Mussina established the same level of complete dominance over their careers. Sure, they have a ticket that should probably be punched but they were not the best that was during their careers. 

Mussina for instance never once lead the league in any significant catagorey through his entire 18 year career. The best you could say is for a long stretch he pitched a lot of innings. He was very consistent but not exactly dominating for stretches at a time. He was not Pedro Martinez, the guy he was second to in Cy Young voting in his best season. 

During Rivera's career there was almost no relief pitcher that came close to his near perfection. That is the difference. One separated himself from his peers by a huge margain, the other was an also ran every season. 

Ignores the fact that Mussina’s value dwarfs Rivera’s by contrast. Mussina is a clear Hall of Famer, Rivera is a borderlinen guy. Yet there’s enough voters who are stuck in the dark ages and can’t see that. Relievers - even fantastically successful and talented ones like Rivera - simply aren’t as valuable as fans think. 

1 hour ago, arch stanton said:

It's cool to call him the greatest closer of all time but remember that the modern one inning closer was just invented in 1988

Yeah - on that point:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/goose-egg-new-save-stat-relief-pitchers/

41 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Sorry, Sean, but no player ever wanted to step in the box with the game on the line and have to face Mariano Rivera. Not even the most competitive player wanted that scenario and that is a testament to his Hall of Fame credentials. 

WAR is a very flawed counting stat. The ability to generate those numbers is simply by the amount of chances, like home runs and RBIs. More opportunities create higher totals. But the Hall of Fame isn't necessarily about counting stats. It's about how that player fared against his peers in the same time frame. 

No pitcher was as consistently dominant as Rivera was, innings pitched not withstanding. He was simply the best at his profession year in and year out.

28 minutes ago, mulwin444 said:

I hate the Yankees and have no rooting interest either way but, Jesus, he's 1st ballot...to debate otherwise is to look foolishly obtuse.

So, to you two, a simple question: If Rivera is first ballot, should Mussina and Edgar be first ballot? 

14 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Ever hear this joke...

Old, crusty man walks into a bar and sits down next to a beautiful young woman. Old man says: "Hey, would you sleep with me for $1 million?" The woman looks him up and down, considers the million bucks, and says: "OK."

Then the man says, "OK, would you sleep with me for $10?"

She gasps and says: "No. What do you think I am!!??"

"We already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price."

---

Here's the moral of the story. His premise that closers aren't as valuable as starters is 100 percent accurate. If you had a choice of the best starter in baseball or the best closer, which would you take? 

Modern metrics have taught us that the "save" is a bad stat, and that you should not necessarily preserve your best pitcher for the 9th when the highest leverage spot might be in the 7th or 8th.

So all he's done is taken a perfectly reasonable stance and stretched it so far that it's not reasonable any more. Like the old man switching his offer from $1 million to $10.

I think if he just pulled it back a little and said "closers aren't as valuable as starters, which is why I'm not going to vote for the 3rd or 5th or 7th best reliever of all time but I still will vote for the best."

If he did that, he'd be me. I didn't vote for Trevor Hoffman or Lee Smith, but I did vote for Rivera. And the reason I didn't vote for the 3rd best reliever, but I would vote for the 3rd best starter or the 3rd best first baseman, is because it's a different, easier, job. He's right. He just took it too far.

---

Finally, a point that a lot of people seem to miss -- which is the writer's only fault because he buried it -- is he said he's not casting a ballot at all, because he doesn't want to be the one to keep Rivera from being unanimous. That is a whole other argument, and I'm not even sure how I feel about it. He's essentially NOT voting what he believes because of public pressure. Now if Rivera is unanimous, will it have an asterisk?

Anyway, we shouldn't get all worked up about. He's getting in the HOF. There are about 50 more deserving HOFs than Rivera who also weren't unanimous.

I agree on the last part: That was the one part I disagreed on. Based on his rationale, I want someone like him voting. But whatever.

My basic point is simply that I think Rivera is incredibly overrated compared to people who ought to be in and ridiculously aren’t and there isn’t a good reason for it. Rivera was incapable of being a good starter which is why he was in the bullpen.

Now, being realistic, how many average starters could end up with a better career doing what Rivera did? Hard to say. But I suspect most would do worse. That’s worth something that WAR probably can’t quantify. But is it enough to put him in unanimous territory? That notion just makes me shake my head. 

5 minutes ago, ukyah said:

this is the exact bs i don't have any interest in getting involved in. i could not care less about the closer label. put him against all relief pitchers ever. he is absolutely the best relief pitcher of all time, there is little argument to be made against that point. he played for eighteen years. he was absolutely instrumental in his team winning 5 championships. my favorite stat about him? more people have walked on the moon than have scored on him in the postseason. he pitched a full SP's season worth of innings in the postseason, 141 innings with 11 earned runs (13 unearned) in total. 

the accomplishments and accolades go far beyond that. simply put and as i already said, irregardless of role in the bullpen, he is the all time greatest relief pitcher and 2nd isn't that close.

the same rule would apply to DH's as well. if they are an all time great hitter, and they play an instrumental role in their team's success over many years, then yes they should be in the HOF, without question.

DH’s are a hell of a lot more valuable than relievers. Even the best relievers are overrated. 

Just a quick observation:

Mike Mussina: 82.9 bWAR, 82.2 fWAR 

Edgar Martinez: 68.4 bWAR, 65.5 fWAR

Mariano Rivera: 56.3bWAR , 39.7 fWAR

We can debate over the value of WAR as a tool for rating players, but the numbers aren’t even close. That’s two different valuation systems that put him on the low end of player value. 

Theoretically we could give him a bump up for playing in ‘high leverage situations’, but that doesn’t make up the difference. Rivera pitched over 100 innings one time in his career. Besides that, he topped out at 80 innings. His career IP is under 1300 - Mussina three almost three times as many, yet can’t break through 75% in however many years on the ballot it is now. 

IMO, Relievers don’t belong in the Hall. Even the best of them - Rivera - is borderline in value. 

23 minutes ago, ukyah said:

any argument that is founded on such a ridiculous and arbitrary principal as, "i don't think their role is significant" is an argument without merit and not deserved of being discussed by those familiar in the subject.

here's a valid statement that can be argued by those in the know: mariano is by far and away the best relief pitcher, of any kind, the game has ever known. 

he's a first ballot hall of famer.

Any argument for a closer has to conveniently ignore innings pitched. At the end of the day Rivera was a failed starting pitcher. Closer love is about an arbitrary statistic and media/fan narrative. 

The fact that Rivera probably is a first ballot guy while Edgar and Mussina are still trying to get in shows how moronic and unable to analyze, well, anything, the average fan and writer is. At best, Rivera should be a borderline Hall of Fame guy. 

Not sure if there’s a better place for this...

Writer from Boston argues that closers don’t do enough to be eligible for the Hall of Fame - including Rivera:

https://www.telegram.com/news/20181222/bill-ballou-mariano-rivera-not-getting-this-writers-hall-of-fame-vote

Honestly, I don’t disagree. 

2 hours ago, Second Base said:

I don't understand the Alden hate.....maybe because he left to cover the Dodgers? My mistrust of nationally renown reporters stems from their consequence free false rumors. How often are Nightengale, Rosenthal, Brown, Morosi,, etc....all wrong? 

Those guys dream up connections that make sense and then write articles claiming such. The only difference between them and you, is more often than not, a pedestal. 

The only guy that is right more often than not, is Jeff Passan. His recent work is a lot better than it used to be when his articles dropped with his Rangers fandom. He seems more balanced now. He even wrote just how wrong he was about Shohei Ohtani. How many of these guys are willing to publicize their mistakes?

I'd love to see Morosi or Rosenthal write about all the crap they get wrong versus what they actually get right. 

Alden Gonzalez left Mlb.com to cover the Rams for ESPN. Now he covers LA sports in general, I believe. As far as I’m aware, he never covered the Dodgers after he left the Angels coverage. Could you be confusing him for Pedro Moura who covered the Angels for a while at the Times before shifting to the Dodgers? (There’s others who’ve made the switch also - Bill Plunkett, for instance - but Moura is the most recent.)

6 hours ago, Blarg said:

The Angels roster listed 4 of the 9 starting position players (Ohatani included as DH) with an OBP under .300. Of all of the substitutes and bench players only David Fletcher had an OBP over .300. 

Let that sink in. 

When Ohatani was not the DH only 4 players had an OBP over .300 and one of them was the leadoff, Kinsler, with a .305 OBP. He was later replaced by Fletcher with a .316 OBP until he went down with an injury. 

The offense never had a chance. 

Who is this Ohatani you speak of?

He has a ten year post retirement contract. He’s going nowhere. No. Chance. Whatsoever. Maybe if he ends up effectively:as a bench player in 2019, he effectively retires (permanent DL, or something), but his contract is going nowhere. 

2 minutes ago, Reveille1984 said:

What is the hype with Harper anyways?  He had a monstrous season four years ago and has basically been a 3-4 WAR guy the past three years.  I get that he's only 26, but paying $400M over 10 years for "potential" seems like a giant gamble.  

I'd gladly pay Machado though if he's willing to play 3B, even with his attitude issues.  Has been way better than Harper production wise, but someone gets lumped in with him constantly.  

Try 350 for 12 years. 

3 minutes ago, DCAngelsFan said:

I'm concerned about the shoulder and drop in velocity - shoulder injuries in their various forms are career-enders for pitchers - it's not TJ.  

Anyway - I have to wonder what Otani would feel like if we dumped a bunch of money on another Japanese player, one not as good as he is?   Would he feel like we're rubbing his face in the fact he came "early?"  

Also recall that, apparently, a factor in Ohtani's choosing the Angels was *not* having had a Japanese star before.  Never got what his issue with that was . . ?   Or still is?  

Of course, getting some talent that doesn't *cost* us talent is a great notion - but think we'd better pay respect to Ohtani's feelings on the matter.  

And also, let's MRI Kikuchi's shoulder until you could use him as a refrigerator magnet...

Key word is ‘apparently’. Was this ever confirmed? Also, I seriously doubt Eppler would pursue Kikuchi if Ohtani made an issue of it. I suspect that was just a fan/media narrative that wasn’t accurate. 

1 hour ago, totdprods said:

The other line we need to top is Kinsler's:
.239/.304/.406/.710 - 33 XBH, 32 RBI, 30 BB, 40 K

It’s not Kinsler’s offensive line that needs to be topped. That wouldn’t be especially difficult. But Kinsler put up gold glove defense last season. You have to top that offensive line by a good margin or put up similar defense to top the value he provided. 

There is no money, is there? It’s a minimum deal, unless I’m missing something. Toronto is still on the hook for the rest. 

Assuming my understanding is correct, I’d be okay with it if they don’t have to give him too many assurances about playing time. 

Having said that, I heard Boras is up in the same area with Kikuchi, so Eppler may have been up there to meet them and just dropped by. 

9 minutes ago, Tyler said:

Yeah, our only competitive option is to shorten the games, not give a third of our space to a once every 5 days guy who isn't exactly an Angel in the clubhouse.

Might want to get educated. This kind of thinking is the opposite of how front office think these days. 

9 minutes ago, Tyler said:

Embarrassing. Horrible use of funds. 

Aren’t you the guy who’s been saying they need a bunch of relievers? 

Little high, but that’s the market. One year, who cares if it’s slightly more?

Performance wise, this is a really good bet. A guy who has been an ace derailed with injury issues is the kind of guy you want to bet on with the team’s new coaching staff and analytics work. 

My concern is 100% Matt Harvey the person. I’ve never liked him. He seems like a self-centered pos. Hopefully he doesn’t create a toxic atmosphere. 

Someone else already did.

2 hours ago, totdprods said:

Curious if anyone thinks we should go after Gerrit Cole when he hits FA next winter. Maybe that's part of the reason we aren't spending big on pitching this offseason.

Definitely. We’re waiting to spend big on...Gerrit Cole.

This dude is probably a buddy of Bour’s who is now using the fact that he ‘amazingly’ predicted one FA to get attention.  

Harper isn’t signed now and won’t be for weeks.

Seriously doubt he signs with the Dogs (not that I give a crap), given how they’ve been laying off expensive free agents, but who knows. 

1 minute ago, jessecrall said:

It depends on cost. Grandal is better than Ramos, more consistent, he's a year younger, he hits well from the left side and while neither one's exactly a burner, he's faster. I wouldn't give up $50 mil AND a draft pick but if his price starts to drop into Ramos' range, I don't see why you wouldn't go for it. I'm not saying this WILL happen or that it isn't a better idea to get a caretaker catcher in a low-risk trade, just that I wouldn't think in absolutes.

Grandal’s price would have to be low before I’d be interested. Basically, I’m trading a 2nd for him, so what contract would I make that trade for? I think sub-10mil, I’d be okay with it, maybe even 10-12. Even then, though, I wouldn’t love it. 

Recent first round picks:

2018: Jordyn Adams

2017: Jo Adell

2016: Matt Thaiss

2015: Taylor Ward

2014: Sean Newcomb

2013: None 

2012: None

6 minutes ago, popo85 said:

Grandal would cost a high pick, go get Ramos Billy boy

The pro-Grandal crowd seem to ignore this. It isn’t insignificant. It’s one thing for a legit star, but the Dodgers (who wouldn’t have to pay a draft pick) aren’t rushing to bring him back. He’s up there for a catcher - to me, there’s no good reason to pursue Grandal. 

13 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

This guy is something else...

 

 

At his funeral, he’ll be trying to trade coffins with the stiff next to him.