|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2012 0:37:50 GMT -5
Allen -- Even the bad teams in the 60s had players who were HOF quality. Rog -- I suspect you are right. Part of the reason for that is that they had less competition. Allen -- Look at the Cubs of the 60s. Never won a damn thing, and they had Banks, Santo, Billy Williams, Fergie Jenkins. Rog -- Makes you wonder about their managers, doesn't it? I think the Cubs' problem for the most part is that behind their Hall of Famers, they lackeed. Allen -- Four HOFers. Name me four Padres, Pirates, Astros, or Marlins who will make the Hall. Rog -- I don't know, but the Pirates were around back then too. They may already have four Hall of Famers, although I don't know that for sure. Allen -- The Giants have won two of the last three years. Name me four Giants that will make the Hall. Rog -- Barry Bonds seems highly likely. Jeff Kent seems likely. Buster Posey is off to a good start. Matt Cain is hurt primarily by his won-loss record. Pablo Sandoval has a shot if he can stay healthy. Madison Bumgarner has a shot. Tim Lincecum has a shot if he can bounce back anywhere close to his previous "self." Brandon Belt is a longshot at this point, but that could change. One difficulty players will have beginning this year is that there starting to be so many qualified retirees that it will be tough for players to achieve the necessary 75%. Few will argue that this year's class isn't the best since the original Hall vote in 1936. But in answer to your question, I suspect there are four Giants not yet in the Hall who will get there. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2GEA4KXxT
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2012 0:40:46 GMT -5
Don -- what you people don't seem to get my point .....if I guy can be good going both ways, just imagine how good he could be if he only concentrated on one side of the ball Rog -- I think we get it. Our point is that those players played primarily against players who also went both ways, so they weren't especially disadvanted by going both ways. Our other point is that those players wouldn't be able to play both ways today. It's kind of like starters not pitching as many innings now. The game has changed. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2GEBz6I2o
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 27, 2012 11:29:05 GMT -5
Sorry, I never saw Rice as overweight. He had a workout regimen that probably would have killed Hutson. I don't see Calvin Johnson as overweight either. Bednarik was a good player, a tough player, but he just couldn't physically compete with today's players.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2012 12:45:21 GMT -5
Allen -- Sorry, I never saw Rice as overweight. He had a workout regimen that probably would have killed Hutson. I don't see Calvin Johnson as overweight either. Bednarik was a good player, a tough player, but he just couldn't physically compete with today's players. Rog -- Right on the money, Allen. Anyone who saw the ultra-conditioned Rice as overweight was a little light in the eyeballs. I do have a lot of respect for Hutson. I would probably rank him as my #2 receiver behind only Rice. Heck, maybe if I researched it, I would rank him AHEAD of Rice, I don't know. For now, let's just say they BOTH were amazingly great. In terms of physical prowess, I don't think even most of Hutson's staunchest supports would compare him with Rice physically. You and I disagree on the effect it has on the game of baseball, but few would argue against today's athletes being far better physically than those of yesteryear. Training, nutrition and facilities have all improved, and along with them, the athletes. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=4#8145#ixzz2GH6CI2CG
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 27, 2012 13:18:15 GMT -5
Don -- what you people don't seem to get my point .....if I guy can be good going both ways, just imagine how good he could be if he only concentrated on one side of the ball Rog -- I think we get it. Our point is that those players played primarily against players who also went both ways, so they weren't especially disadvanted by going both ways. Our other point is that those players wouldn't be able to play both ways today. dk...no, you still don't get it...Don Hutson stood out on both sides of the ball...head and shoulders against any of his opponents...and on a par with anyone playing today...if he played today and only had to play on one side of the ball and could concentrate on the skills and strengths required to specialize on that side, he would be head and shoulders better than the Rices of the world...in my opinion.....there is nothing stopping players from playing both ways in today's game...in fact, there have been several players that have done this on a select basis....the thing that stops it is the players...and lack of ability and strength.... It's kind of like starters not pitching as many innings now. The game has changed. dk..once more, a stupid statement...the game hasn't changed, only the players...there are several pitchers out there who pitch more complete games than the rest....why is it that the game didn't change all that much for Halladay? There were also some teams that went back to a 4 men rotation for periods of time....
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2012 15:19:07 GMT -5
dk..once more, a stupid statement...the game hasn't changed, only the players... Rog -- So there has been no change in the strategy or tactics used? Don -- there are several pitchers out there who pitch more complete games than the rest....why is it that the game didn't change all that much for Halladay? Rog -- Roy is the best example of an active pitcher being able to complete his games. Yet his 19% pales in comparison to the high 40%'s that were average after the switch to the live ball. That percentage remained in the 40's until 1947, when it hit the 30's for the first time. It touched the 20's for the first time in 1956. It reached the teens for the first time in 1977. It reached single digits for the first time in 1991, where it has stayed since. Last season the number declined to just 2% for the first time. (The numbers I am using are National League numbers.) So what we see is a gradual decline once the live ball era began, accelerating in the 40's and 50's, then accelerating again in the late 70's. Since complete games reached a high of 97% in 1885, it has been gradually declining to the point where 50 years later it was less than half that rate. 50 years after that, it had declined by more than 80%. This past season the decline reached 95% for the first time. The decline in complete games has run a little less than 10% per decade, to a point where there are almost no complete games at all. The decline has varied a little in its rate, but most decades have approached 10%. Roy is outstanding in completing games for this generation. Even then, he is completing only a fifth as many as were completed 115 years before. The complete game is going the way of the buggy whip. But unlike buggies being replaced rather dramatically by cars, the slide in complete games has been far more gradual. Roy Halladay is to be applauded. He has done an outstanding job of bucking the trend. But the trend began in 1896 and has gradually gone from there. The switch from the dead ball to the live ball briefly accelerated the trend, but it then slowed up until 1947. Since then, it has been somewhat stead in nature. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=4#8151#ixzz2GHgiYMcZ
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 27, 2012 19:59:36 GMT -5
dk...no, you still don't get it...Don Hutson stood out on both sides of the ball...head and shoulders against any of his opponents...and on a par with anyone playing today.
Allen- Really? Rice is the all time TD leader. By 33 TDs over Emmit Smith. Hutson is 16th. Rice is the all time leader in receptions. By 312 receptions. Hutson is 128th. Dwight Clark has more career receptions than Hutson. Rice is the career receiving yardage leader. By 6,961 yards. Hutson is 85th. Roddy White has more yards, in what is thus far a shorter career.
..if he played today and only had to play on one side of the ball and could concentrate on the skills and strengths required to specialize on that side, he would be head and shoulders better than the Rices of the world...in my opinion.
Allen- Your opinion. You're enntitled to it. IMO, Hutson would have trouble making a team today.
....there is nothing stopping players from playing both ways in today's game.
Allen- Sure there is. The game is simply too physically punishing. Players are too big, too strong, too fast. If it keeps going the game itself may become obsolete. It may be just too dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 28, 2012 13:18:24 GMT -5
dk..once more, a stupid statement...the game hasn't changed, only the players... Rog -- So there has been no change in the strategy or tactics used? Allen- Now here's where we get into an interesting area. Have the physical limitations of the players necessitated changes in tactics and strategy, or has there simply been a paradigm change in how to optimally use players?
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 28, 2012 13:26:18 GMT -5
Allen -- Even the bad teams in the 60s had players who were HOF quality. Rog -- I suspect you are right. Part of the reason for that is that they had less competition. Allen -- Look at the Cubs of the 60s. Never won a damn thing, and they had Banks, Santo, Billy Williams, Fergie Jenkins. Rog -- Makes you wonder about their managers, doesn't it? I think the Cubs' problem for the most part is that behind their Hall of Famers, they lackeed. Allen- They had Durocher as manager for awhile, and they did a "manager by committee" for awhile. I remember them as having some other good players. Glenn Beckert, Holtzman, Bill Hands, Randy Hundley. A good little secondbaseman named Ken Hubbs who was killed in a plane crash. Rog -- I don't know, but the Pirates were around back then too. They may already have four Hall of Famers, although I don't know that for sure. Allen- Stargell, Clemente, Mazeroski. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any more. Allen -- The Giants have won two of the last three years. Name me four Giants that will make the Hall. Rog -- Barry Bonds seems highly likely. Jeff Kent seems likely. Buster Posey is off to a good start. Matt Cain is hurt primarily by his won-loss record. Pablo Sandoval has a shot if he can stay healthy. Madison Bumgarner has a shot. Tim Lincecum has a shot if he can bounce back anywhere close to his previous "self." Allen- I'm talking current Giants, Rog. The team that has won two of the last three. I'm seeing Posey and Cain as the only even possibles at this point. But things can change.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 29, 2012 2:04:49 GMT -5
Allen- I'm talking current Giants, Rog. The team that has won two of the last three. I'm seeing Posey and Cain as the only even possibles at this point. But things can change. Rog -- If we're talking about possibles, I think you're cutting the number short. Add in Tim Lincecum and Pablo Sandoval at the very least. Madison Bumgarner. Brandon Belt would be a longshot, and even Sergio Romo isn't out of the question. A few years back -- probably 2009 or 2010 -- I posted on another board that the Giants likely had two or three Hall of Famers. I believe the names I mentioned were those above, with the exception of Sergio Romo. Right now I would say 1.5 might be the over/under. The possibility of two or three is still decent though. Matt Cain is a tough case. But if he can get run support and put up another decade of solid work, he could have a shot despite breaking .500 only this season (due to horrible run support, not to his pitching). I just remembered something about Matt when he record was so poor despite his good (not great at that time) pitching. A poster here talked about how often he had a late lead and blew it. I researched it, and that flat-out wasn't the case. Because the Giants were scoring so few runs for him, he didn't really have all that many leads to blow -- and when he did have the chance to blow late leads, he very rarely did so. A note on Tim Lincecum. A year ago he looked like he had a very fine shot at the Hall. He had a sub-3.00 ERA, and those are quite rare -- especially in today's higher scoring game. Now he looks to some like a guy whose career is more or less shot. The truth likely lies in between, but I recently read something that may very well be true. The comment was that if Tim has a strong bounce-back season this year, he might receive as much as $200 million in free agency a year from now. Even with Tim's horrible 2012 season, his 3.31 career ERA is nearly half a run lower than Zack Greinke's, and Zack just signed for $147 million. This is hard to believe, but Tim's career ERA mark is lower than over half the starters in the Hall of Fame. And that's despite pitching in a higher scoring game than most did. It would be fair to add that AT&T has played as an extreme pitchers' park -- but only during the two more recent of Tim's six major league seasons. In other words, despite an unbelievably bad 2012, if Tim is only a third of the way through his career (which would mean pitching to age 40) and he continues at his present pace, he would wind up 237-168 with that 3.31 ERA -- and likely make the Hall. What a difference a year makes. At this point in time it appears unlikely he will accomplish that, but it is certainly far from impossible. Oh, and if Barry Zito suddenly became Jamie Moyer -- a highly unlikely but not impossible event -- he too would have a fine shot at the Hall. It's tough to keep a 300-win pitcher out of the Hall -- especially in today's game -- and Moyer has won 185 games after age 34, which is Barry's age. Zito already had 160 wins. HIGHLY unlikely, but one can see it's not impossible. Moyer's ERA through age 34 was higher than Barry's. I would put the over/under at 1.5 on Hall of Famers on the present Giants. But four is certainly not impossible. Oh, one more thing: Yes, the Giants have won two World Series in three seasons now, but their combined regular season won-loss record of 272-214 over those three seasons is very good but not great. Three things to remember when we see that the hapless Cubbies had four Hall of Famers in the 60's. First, they weren't good because they had little behind their big four. Second, the big four weren't necessarily hitting on all four cylinders in a given year. Third, there were half as many teams back then, which meant the Hall of Fame vote wasn't spread so thinly, making 75% of the voting much more easily attained than today. To place an asterisk as well, none of those four guys where at the very TOP of the Hall of Famers. Buster Posey has a shot at making it there. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=4#8169#ixzz2GQ5AWhHv
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 29, 2012 13:25:17 GMT -5
Rog -- If we're talking about possibles, I think you're cutting the number short. Add in Tim Lincecum and Pablo Sandoval at the very least. Madison Bumgarner. Brandon Belt would be a longshot, and even Sergio Romo isn't out of the question. Allen- I'd say you're being pretty optimistic here. Out of the players you named, I'd say Bummy has the best chance. I'd like to be wrong, but for some reason, I just don't see Timmy returning to hiis pre-2012 form. Pablo? I think off the field problems will get him. Not ruin his career mind you, but keep him from bing all he can be. Belt? Way too early to tell. I don't think AT&T will allow him to attain the power numbers necessary to make the hall. But he may not spend his entire career as a Giant. As I said, alot can change. Oh, and if Barry Zito suddenly became Jamie Moyer -- a highly unlikely but not impossible event -- he too would have a fine shot at the Hall. It's tough to keep a 300-win pitcher out of the Hall -- especially in today's game -- and Moyer has won 185 games after age 34, which is Barry's age. Zito already had 160 wins. HIGHLY unlikely, but one can see it's not impossible. Moyer's ERA through age 34 was higher than Barry's. Allen- Do you see Moyer as a HOFer? Third, there were half as many teams back then, which meant the Hall of Fame vote wasn't spread so thinly, making 75% of the voting much more easily attained than today. Allen- Interesting point. Are there more voters, (and thus more votes) today? I don't know, I'm asking. To place an asterisk as well, none of those four guys where at the very TOP of the Hall of Famers. Buster Posey has a shot at making it there. Allen- Every player has a shot. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=4#8169#ixzz2GQ5AWhHv[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 30, 2012 2:27:06 GMT -5
Rog -- Oh, and if Barry Zito suddenly became Jamie Moyer -- a highly unlikely but not impossible event -- he too would have a fine shot at the Hall. It's tough to keep a 300-win pitcher out of the Hall -- especially in today's game -- and Moyer has won 185 games after age 34, which is Barry's age. Zito already had 160 wins. HIGHLY unlikely, but one can see it's not impossible. Moyer's ERA through age 34 was higher than Barry's. Allen- Do you see Moyer as a HOFer? Rog -- Not very close. But if Barry becomes Moyer from age 35 on and finishes with 345 wins (which would make him second behind only Warren Spahn among southpaws), it would be tough to keep him out. It is a huge longshot that Barry will do so, but Moyer has proven it wouldn't be impossible. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=4#8177#ixzz2GWAAluqs
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 30, 2012 2:34:56 GMT -5
Rog -- Third, there were half as many teams back then, which meant the Hall of Fame vote wasn't spread so thinly, making 75% of the voting much more easily attained than today. Allen- Interesting point. Are there more voters, (and thus more votes) today? I don't know, I'm asking. Rog -- I don't know either, although with more teams it would seem likely. That probably makes it harder to get to 75%, as well. With more teams, the writers get to see players less. I do believe that this year will become a line of Hall of Fame demarkation. As we have been discussing for several years now, the number of Hall of Fame-level players is suddenly increasing. It is almost certainly true that steroids have contributed to the numbers, but most consider this year's Hall of Fame new eligibles to be the best since the Hall had its first voting in 1936. And the wave of talent will continue. Just among pitchers, Greg Maddux becomes eligible in a year, and Pedro Martinez in two. Two off the greatest peaks in history, and in Maddux's case, he pitched well and long enough to become #8 all-time in wins. Somewhere around 2020, the greatest closer in history will become eligible. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=4#ixzz2GWB0SH2P
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 30, 2012 2:36:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 30, 2012 2:38:42 GMT -5
Rog -- If we're talking about possibles, I think you're cutting the number short. Add in Tim Lincecum and Pablo Sandoval at the very least. Madison Bumgarner. Brandon Belt would be a longshot, and even Sergio Romo isn't out of the question. Allen- I'd say you're being pretty optimistic here. Out of the players you named, I'd say Bummy has the best chance. I'd like to be wrong, but for some reason, I just don't see Timmy returning to hiis pre-2012 form. Pablo? I think off the field problems will get him. Not ruin his career mind you, but keep him from bing all he can be. Belt? Way too early to tell. I don't think AT&T will allow him to attain the power numbers necessary to make the hall. But he may not spend his entire career as a Giant. As I said, alot can change. Rog -- Most of what you say seems reasonable, and I agree that Mad Bum may have the best shot of the bunch, with Romo having the least. But we're talking about a lot of players who do have at least some logic behind their having (various levels of) a shot. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=4#ixzz2GWDOEEbN
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 30, 2012 12:18:39 GMT -5
Allen- Do you see Moyer as a HOFer?
Rog -- Not very close. But if Barry becomes Moyer from age 35 on and finishes with 345 wins (which would make him second behind only Warren Spahn among southpaws), it would be tough to keep him out.
It is a huge longshot that Barry will do so, but Moyer has proven it wouldn't be impossible.
Allen- A huge longshot? That's quite an understatement. Barry has 160 wins at this point. He is entering his age 35 season. Even if he pitched to age 45, he would have to win 18.5 games per year for the next ten years.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 30, 2012 13:30:41 GMT -5
|
|