Phil Rogers argues for Buehrle to the Hall of Fame case building

[lasttriptotulsa]

There are certain magic numbers that A & B hit that are HOF benchmarks, but you have to look at their individual seasons to really get how good they were.

 

Player A (Tom Glavine) - 300 wins.....thats huge in the HOF eyes. but also, his career from 1991-1997 were pretty darn good...he just happened to stick around long enough in the aging curve to really suppress his WHIP #s. But I like to think of Frank Thomas...really damned good/elite in the 90s, but 2001-2007 was good, but not elite. He got in because of those 90s numbers. Comparatively Buehrle throughout his career has been consistently good, but only one season (2005) where he might have been considered near the top of MLB.

 

Player (B) Smoltz - 3000 strikeouts...again his numbers as a starter in the 90s were really really good/elite. Then as a closer he also was really good.

 

So ultimately, Glavine & Smoltz had very good peaks, and then tapered off, where Buerhle was 'good'...not elite, but good.

 

Tom Glavine 1991-1997, 30 fWAR, 4.28 fWAR per season

 

Mark Buehrle 2002-2008, 28.8 fWAR, 4.11 fWAR per season

[fmartija]

Tom Glavine 1991-1997, 30 fWAR, 4.28 fWAR per season

 

Mark Buehrle 2002-2008, 28.8 fWAR, 4.11 fWAR per season

 

 

ok...what i will give you is that their primes were VERY CLOSE

 

Tom Glavine 1990-1998

 

Mark Buehrle 2001-2009

 

i don't know if fWAR is a metric that HOF voters use (for better or worse) when making their votes, so it may be irrelevent in this discussion

 

But, the other peripheral stuff IE awards:

 

Glavine won 2 Cy Youngs, 2 Silver Sluggers, 9 all star bids

Buehrle won 5 all star bids, 4 gold gloves

 

We can argue the merit of the votes of these awards in another debate, but they are what they are....

 

TWICE, Glavine was recognized as the best of his peers thru the Cy Youngs. Again, the HOF is an honor of being the best of your generation. All i'm saying is that my opinion is that Buehrle is not among the best of his generation, whereas Glavine was. In addition, Glavine won some very relevant awards, and met some of the key statistics that are currently part of the Hall of Fame decision-making. Perhaps the benchmarks might change in the future to accommodate the current era. But based on all this criteria, i still don't believe him to be a HOFer.

 

Now, if tarp sliding was a consideration, then no doubt about it, that puts him over the top.

 

 

 

 

[witesoxfan]

Tom Glavine also won the Cy Young award twice, twice finished 2nd, and twice finished 3rd. That's 6 seasons where he was considered by the voters to be one of the 3 best pitchers in the league. Buehrle's highest finish was 5th in 2005. That's a significant difference.

 

Personally though, I think Buehrle does merit some consideration for the Hall of Fame. He's currently 83rd all time in fWAR for pitchers at 51.8. A 2.5 fWAR season puts him at 72nd all time, ahead of guys like Carl Hubbell, Tommy Bridges, and Javier Vazquez (yes), while a 3 fWAR season moves him ahead of Billy Pierce and Luis Tiant for 70th all time. Using ERA as our basis for WAR (bWAR or RA9-WAR), he's currently 86th at 59.2, 0.1 behind CC Sabathia. A 3 bWAR season puts him at 62.2, tied with Frank Tanana and just behind Andy Pettitte.

 

He's not going to win a major pitching award at this point, but he'll get 200 wins and it's certainly possible that, if he pitched another 3-4 years, he could conceivably end up around the 60 fWAR area and the 65 bWAR area, and I think, to some extent, that diminishes his ability to hold runners on base and prevent runners from stealing as well as his fielding prowess.

 

Not sure if I think he is a Hall of Famer or not, but his career isn't over. I think he'll remain on the ballot for a few years but will ultimately fall short. Perhaps I'm wrong.

[Reddy]

Tom Glavine also won the Cy Young award twice, twice finished 2nd, and twice finished 3rd. That's 6 seasons where he was considered by the voters to be one of the 3 best pitchers in the league. Buehrle's highest finish was 5th in 2005. That's a significant difference.

 

Personally though, I think Buehrle does merit some consideration for the Hall of Fame. He's currently 83rd all time in fWAR for pitchers at 51.8. A 2.5 fWAR season puts him at 72nd all time, ahead of guys like Carl Hubbell, Tommy Bridges, and Javier Vazquez (yes), while a 3 fWAR season moves him ahead of Billy Pierce and Luis Tiant for 70th all time. Using ERA as our basis for WAR (bWAR or RA9-WAR), he's currently 86th at 59.2, 0.1 behind CC Sabathia. A 3 bWAR season puts him at 62.2, tied with Frank Tanana and just behind Andy Pettitte.

 

He's not going to win a major pitching award at this point, but he'll get 200 wins and it's certainly possible that, if he pitched another 3-4 years, he could conceivably end up around the 60 fWAR area and the 65 bWAR area, and I think, to some extent, that diminishes his ability to hold runners on base and prevent runners from stealing as well as his fielding prowess.

 

Not sure if I think he is a Hall of Famer or not, but his career isn't over. I think he'll remain on the ballot for a few years but will ultimately fall short. Perhaps I'm wrong.

 

Worth pointing out that Buehrle would've won a Cy Young or two pitching for the Braves in the 90s too...

 

Context matters.

[fmartija]

Worth pointing out that Buehrle would've won a Cy Young or two pitching for the Braves in the 90s too...

 

Context matters.

 

but he didn't....

 

the Babe would have hit 100 hrs in 2000....

[witesoxfan]

Worth pointing out that Buehrle would've won a Cy Young or two pitching for the Braves in the 90s too...

 

Context matters.

 

How do you figure? Because pitching for the Braves was some golden ticket to winning Cy Youngs? The years Glavine won the Cy Young, his ERAs were 2.55 and 2.47. I love FIP to death, and his FIPs during those years weren't bad, but there's something to be said about keeping runs off the board, even if it's "lucky."

[shysocks]

Tom Glavine also won the Cy Young award twice, twice finished 2nd, and twice finished 3rd. That's 6 seasons where he was considered by the voters to be one of the 3 best pitchers in the league. Buehrle's highest finish was 5th in 2005. That's a significant difference.

 

Personally though, I think Buehrle does merit some consideration for the Hall of Fame. He's currently 83rd all time in fWAR for pitchers at 51.8. A 2.5 fWAR season puts him at 72nd all time, ahead of guys like Carl Hubbell, Tommy Bridges, and Javier Vazquez (yes), while a 3 fWAR season moves him ahead of Billy Pierce and Luis Tiant for 70th all time. Using ERA as our basis for WAR (bWAR or RA9-WAR), he's currently 86th at 59.2, 0.1 behind CC Sabathia. A 3 bWAR season puts him at 62.2, tied with Frank Tanana and just behind Andy Pettitte.

 

He's not going to win a major pitching award at this point, but he'll get 200 wins and it's certainly possible that, if he pitched another 3-4 years, he could conceivably end up around the 60 fWAR area and the 65 bWAR area, and I think, to some extent, that diminishes his ability to hold runners on base and prevent runners from stealing as well as his fielding prowess.

 

Not sure if I think he is a Hall of Famer or not, but his career isn't over. I think he'll remain on the ballot for a few years but will ultimately fall short. Perhaps I'm wrong.

RA9-WAR is the way to go when you're talking HoF cases. If a guy's FIP doesn't equal his ERA after 3000 innings then the guy is doing something outside FIP's boundaries.

 

Buehrle's run of 200-inning seasons is something that is unique today and will probably not happen again, but the lack of a dominant peak will hurt him. Regardless of how much longer he pitches, I feel comfortable predicting that he won't get as many votes as he deserves and I will get mad.

[southsider2k5]

Tom Glavine also won the Cy Young award twice, twice finished 2nd, and twice finished 3rd. That's 6 seasons where he was considered by the voters to be one of the 3 best pitchers in the league. Buehrle's highest finish was 5th in 2005. That's a significant difference.

 

Personally though, I think Buehrle does merit some consideration for the Hall of Fame. He's currently 83rd all time in fWAR for pitchers at 51.8. A 2.5 fWAR season puts him at 72nd all time, ahead of guys like Carl Hubbell, Tommy Bridges, and Javier Vazquez (yes), while a 3 fWAR season moves him ahead of Billy Pierce and Luis Tiant for 70th all time. Using ERA as our basis for WAR (bWAR or RA9-WAR), he's currently 86th at 59.2, 0.1 behind CC Sabathia. A 3 bWAR season puts him at 62.2, tied with Frank Tanana and just behind Andy Pettitte.

 

He's not going to win a major pitching award at this point, but he'll get 200 wins and it's certainly possible that, if he pitched another 3-4 years, he could conceivably end up around the 60 fWAR area and the 65 bWAR area, and I think, to some extent, that diminishes his ability to hold runners on base and prevent runners from stealing as well as his fielding prowess.

 

Not sure if I think he is a Hall of Famer or not, but his career isn't over. I think he'll remain on the ballot for a few years but will ultimately fall short. Perhaps I'm wrong.

 

This is it exactly. Buehrle is never going to get into the Hall of Fame because he never was thought of as the best. Even at his best, he was at least one tier below the best pitchers in the game. For my two cents, my top HOF criteria is how dominant they were in their era of the game. Mark Buehrle was never dominant. Really good? Sure.

[shysocks]

Regardless of how much longer he pitches, I feel comfortable predicting that he won't get as many votes as he deserves and I will get mad.

Like, to clarify, he should get at least many votes as ****ing Nomar Garciaparra or I will be personally insulted.

[lasttriptotulsa]

This is it exactly. Buehrle is never going to get into the Hall of Fame because he never was thought of as the best. Even at his best, he was at least one tier below the best pitchers in the game. For my two cents, my top HOF criteria is how dominant they were in their era of the game. Mark Buehrle was never dominant. Really good? Sure.

 

I agree with the part about Buehrle never being the best and maybe just a step below, but the Hall of Fame is full of guys who were never the best. Plenty have made it just by being very good for a long time. Take Biggio for instance. Did anybody ever really think they were watching a Hall of Famer when watching him? I know I didn't. The thing that got him in was hitting that magical number of 3000 hits. If he ends up with 2800 hits, I don't think he gets in. I think Buehrle is a similar case. To get in, he really needs the 300 wins and that is a long shot. He would need 7+ years of his average total to get there. If he ends up with 240 or so wins he'll be a guy who stays on the ballot awhile and maybe comes close to election but will probably fall just short. I see him getting the Jack Morris, Tommy John, Jim Kaat type treatment. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with being Jack Morris, Tommy John, or Jim Kaat. They all had hell of careers. Buehrle will be remembered he just probably won't get a plaque unless he can keep going strong and decides to pitch until he's 42 or 43.

[southsider2k5]

I agree with the part about Buehrle never being the best and maybe just a step below, but the Hall of Fame is full of guys who were never the best. Plenty have made it just by being very good for a long time. Take Biggio for instance. Did anybody ever really think they were watching a Hall of Famer when watching him? I know I didn't. The thing that got him in was hitting that magical number of 3000 hits. If he ends up with 2800 hits, I don't think he gets in. I think Buehrle is a similar case. To get in, he really needs the 300 wins and that is a long shot. He would need 7+ years of his average total to get there. If he ends up with 240 or so wins he'll be a guy who stays on the ballot awhile and maybe comes close to election but will probably fall just short. I see him getting the Jack Morris, Tommy John, Jim Kaat type treatment. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with being Jack Morris, Tommy John, or Jim Kaat. They all had hell of careers. Buehrle will be remembered he just probably won't get a plaque unless he can keep going strong and decides to pitch until he's 42 or 43.

 

Biggio was one of the leagues best 2B's and hitting C's for a period of time. 7 ASG's and 2 top 5 MVP's. Led MLB in individual categories at different times, including steals, 2B's, and runs. The big counting number of 3k hits is also big.

[Harry Chappas]

Biggio was one of the leagues best 2B's and hitting C's for a period of time. 7 ASG's and 2 top 5 MVP's. Led MLB in individual categories at different times, including steals, 2B's, and runs. The big counting number of 3k hits is also big.

Compared to Jeter

 

Jeter lead MLB in runs once and hits twice and has 400 more total hits

 

Biggio lead in runs twice, doubles and SB once, has 31 more HR, 83 less K's and 78 more walks

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Compared to Jeter

 

Jeter lead MLB in runs once and hits twice and has 400 more total hits

 

Biggio lead in runs twice, doubles and SB once, has 31 more HR, 83 less K's and 78 more walks

 

Biggio didn't play SS.

[fmartija]

Compared to Jeter

 

Jeter lead MLB in runs once and hits twice and has 400 more total hits

 

Biggio lead in runs twice, doubles and SB once, has 31 more HR, 83 less K's and 78 more walks

 

filtering out shortstops with 10000 plate appearances since 1900, there were 11 shortstops that returned on the query. Derek Jeter's OPS ranked 4th in that group.

 

expand it to 8000 plate appearances, it returned 39 shortstops and he was 5th in that group in OPS....

 

impressive.

[Harry Chappas]

Biggio didn't play SS.

 

Neither did Jeter

[fmartija]

With a minimum of 8000 plate appearances, Biggio ranks 12th out of 28 in OPS. #13 is Ryne Sandberg.

[greg775]

You know what would be a good tradeoff: Dump Danks for Buehrle in our rotation. Mark's style of pitching rubs off on others and he always sets a good example. Danks arguably has better stuff, but I'd take the tradeoff.

 

I realize Mark makes a ton of money now, though. I can't rip the Sox front office since they've added a lot of salary already since last season, but in theory ...

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

You know what would be a good tradeoff: Dump Danks for Buehrle in our rotation. Mark's style of pitching rubs off on others and he always sets a good example. Danks arguably has better stuff, but I'd take the tradeoff.

 

I realize Mark makes a ton of money now, though. I can't rip the Sox front office since they've added a lot of salary already since last season, but in theory ...

 

I'd be all for this. I'd take this version of Buehrle over Danks anyday.

[Eminor3rd]

With a minimum of 8000 plate appearances, Biggio ranks 12th out of 28 in OPS. #13 is Ryne Sandberg.

 

No idea why you'd set the PA bar that high, unless you were specifically trying to give him credit for being a "compiler," which is the biggest criticism against him. Also, it makes no sense to use OPS when comparing player across different time periods, especially when you're talking about someone whose career spanned the entirety of one of the most extreme periods of offense in history.

 

If you set it to minimum 2000 PA, and use wRC+ (which is an index adjusted to the offensive environment of the era), he's #31. #32 is Bobby Doerr.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Eminor3rd

[fmartija]

No idea why you'd set the PA bar that high, unless you were specifically trying to give him credit for being a "compiler," which is the biggest criticism against him. Also, it makes no sense to use OPS when comparing player across different time periods, especially when you're talking about someone whose career spanned the entirety of one of the most extreme periods of offense in history.

 

If you set it to minimum 2000 PA, and use wRC+ (which is an index adjusted to the offensive environment of the era), he's #31. #32 is Bobby Doerr.

 

Because the hall of fame is also all about performing at a high level for a long time. 2000 PA is only 3-4 seasons. I can't think of any hall of famer that only played for 3-4 seasons, can you?

 

8000 PA can range between 10-13 seasons.

[Eminor3rd]

Because the hall of fame is also all about performing at a high level for a long time. 2000 PA is only 3-4 seasons. I can't think of any hall of famer that only played for 3-4 seasons, can you?

 

8000 PA can range between 10-13 seasons.

 

No, but I can think of lots of solid second basemen that played for at least 3-4 season that definitely aren't hall of famers, and it turns out a lot of them were better hitters than Craig Biggio over the course of their careers. Some examples: George Grantham, Danny Murphy, Jim Delahanty, Ben Zobrist, Don Buford, Fred Dunlap. Also, tied for Biggio in career wRC+ is Neil Walker.

 

I'm not saying Biggio isn't a hall of famer, I'm just saying it wasn't due the the brute force of his bat. Pointing out that using a particularly inflated offensive statistic puts him in the middle-of-the-pack among guys who managed to play a long time isn't a good argument for him. I mean, how many guys ABOVE him on your list aren't even in? Off the top of my head I can think of three likely: Jeff Kent? Bobby Grich? Lou Whitaker?

 

EDIT: Just checked. No Lou Whitaker (though Lou has a higher wRC+), but there is Alfonso Soriano!

Edited January 16, 2015 by Eminor3rd

[southsider2k5]

You know what would be a good tradeoff: Dump Danks for Buehrle in our rotation. Mark's style of pitching rubs off on others and he always sets a good example. Danks arguably has better stuff, but I'd take the tradeoff.

 

I realize Mark makes a ton of money now, though. I can't rip the Sox front office since they've added a lot of salary already since last season, but in theory ...

 

Who in the world would take John Danks for Mark Buehrle right now?

[witesoxfan]

You know what would be a good tradeoff: Dump Danks for Buehrle in our rotation. Mark's style of pitching rubs off on others and he always sets a good example. Danks arguably has better stuff, but I'd take the tradeoff.

 

I realize Mark makes a ton of money now, though. I can't rip the Sox front office since they've added a lot of salary already since last season, but in theory ...

 

That would be a good tradeoff for the White Sox. That would be an absolutely terrible tradeoff for the Blue Jays. Why would they trade a better pitcher who has a decent contract for a bad pitcher with a poor contract?

[fmartija]

No, but I can think of lots of solid second basemen that played for at least 3-4 season that definitely aren't hall of famers, and it turns out a lot of them were better hitters than Craig Biggio over the course of their careers. Some examples: George Grantham, Danny Murphy, Jim Delahanty, Ben Zobrist, Don Buford, Fred Dunlap. Also, tied for Biggio in career wRC+ is Neil Walker.

 

I'm not saying Biggio isn't a hall of famer, I'm just saying it wasn't due the the brute force of his bat. Pointing out that using a particularly inflated offensive statistic puts him in the middle-of-the-pack among guys who managed to play a long time isn't a good argument for him. I mean, how many guys ABOVE him on your list aren't even in? Off the top of my head I can think of three likely: Jeff Kent? Bobby Grich? Lou Whitaker?

 

EDIT: Just checked. No Lou Whitaker (though Lou has a higher wRC+), but there is Alfonso Soriano!

 

not saying that his bat is "The" reason why he's in...as everyone has said previously...a choice of who goes in is ultimately a composite decision...mostly of where you stand versus your peers/generation (offensively, defensively, pitching, etc) , longevity, your accomplishments (whether awards, championships, etc), where you stand in history (most incomparable due to changes in game over time). When i cite his OPS, its not me saying "see! this is why he should be in!", but rather a simple complement to him for being on that list. I personally like OPS as a singular general overview of offensive prowess, but am aware that there may be other statistics that might be more relevant, but aren't as simple for the layman to understand.

[lasttriptotulsa]

not saying that his bat is "The" reason why he's in...as everyone has said previously...a choice of who goes in is ultimately a composite decision...mostly of where you stand versus your peers/generation (offensively, defensively, pitching, etc) , longevity, your accomplishments (whether awards, championships, etc), where you stand in history (most incomparable due to changes in game over time). When i cite his OPS, its not me saying "see! this is why he should be in!", but rather a simple complement to him for being on that list. I personally like OPS as a singular general overview of offensive prowess, but am aware that there may be other statistics that might be more relevant, but aren't as simple for the layman to understand.

 

OPS is not really a good stat to compare players from different generations as it's not adjust for park and league factors. If you really want to compare them you need to use OPS+ or better yet wRC+.