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

[Eminor3rd]

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+.

 

Yep, exactly. I rant for wOBA against OPS about every three months, but even if you want to use OPS, you should go for OPS+ if you're comparing guys across eras, simply because it adjusts for offensive environment, and therefore adds context.

 

Both OPS+ and wRC+ are indexes, which means they compare differences to average. 100 is league average every year, adjusted to the environment, and each point in either direction represents 1% above or below average. Raw stats from the steroid era don't compare to raw stats today, but an index takes care of this for us.

 

Great example: Craig Biggio (OPS: .796 | OPS+: 112) vs. Lou Whitaker (OPS: .789 | OPS+: 117). Biggio had the better raw numbers, but they were less valuable than Lou's because Lou was doing what he did in an era where offense was down. Lou was a better hitter compared to his contemporaries than Biggio was compared to HIS contemporaries. Lou was 17% above average (in terms of OPS) for his career, Biggio was 12% above average.

[fmartija]

Yep, exactly. I rant for wOBA against OPS about every three months, but even if you want to use OPS, you should go for OPS+ if you're comparing guys across eras, simply because it adjusts for offensive environment, and therefore adds context.

 

Both OPS+ and wRC+ are indexes, which means they compare differences to average. 100 is league average every year, adjusted to the environment, and each point in either direction represents 1% above or below average. Raw stats from the steroid era don't compare to raw stats today, but an index takes care of this for us.

 

Great example: Craig Biggio (OPS: .796 | OPS+: 112) vs. Lou Whitaker (OPS: .789 | OPS+: 117). Biggio had the better raw numbers, but they were less valuable than Lou's because Lou was doing what he did in an era where offense was down. Lou was a better hitter compared to his contemporaries than Biggio was compared to HIS contemporaries. Lou was 17% above average (in terms of OPS) for his career, Biggio was 12% above average.

 

like i said, however, OPS is a very simple concept for the layman to understand. OPS+, wRC+.....great for us geeky statheads, but meaningless to the average joe (and HOF voter)

[Reddy]

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."

 

Lol because while Mark Buehrle played for the s***ty White Sox and won 19, 16, games etc, he would've won more with those sick Atlanta teams of the 90s. In no world is that a stretch of a statement.

 

Glavine won the Cy's because of his 20 wins and low ERAs in the National League in the 90s where there was no roided up DH to deal with.

 

[witesoxfan]

Lol because while Mark Buehrle played for the s***ty White Sox and won 19, 16, games etc, he would've won more with those sick Atlanta teams of the 90s. In no world is that a stretch of a statement.

 

Glavine won the Cy's because of his 20 wins and low ERAs in the National League in the 90s where there was no roided up DH to deal with.

 

Then by your justification, Buehrle should have won 20 games and a Cy Young with the 2005 White Sox, who were the best team in the league and eventual World Champions. That didn't happen.

 

Really, 2005 is the only year you can say Buehrle was one of the absolute best starters in the league. He should have garnered more Cy Young votes than he did, as he was the 2nd best starter in the AL that year.

 

Also, Glavine won the Cy Young awards because he was a phenomenal pitcher whom the writers felt was the best pitcher in his league in those seasons. There was some circumstance that aided it, but "pitching for the Braves against no roided up DH" is not why he won.

[fmartija]

Then by your justification, Buehrle should have won 20 games and a Cy Young with the 2005 White Sox, who were the best team in the league and eventual World Champions. That didn't happen.

 

Really, 2005 is the only year you can say Buehrle was one of the absolute best starters in the league. He should have garnered more Cy Young votes than he did, as he was the 2nd best starter in the AL that year.

 

Also, Glavine won the Cy Young awards because he was a phenomenal pitcher whom the writers felt was the best pitcher in his league in those seasons. There was some circumstance that aided it, but "pitching for the Braves against no roided up DH" is not why he won.

 

Johan Santana was in his prime during all of Buehrle's prime years....had a far better peak, but fell off faster...any opinions on if he's a HOFer?

[witesoxfan]

Johan Santana was in his prime during all of Buehrle's prime years....had a far better peak, but fell off faster...any opinions on if he's a HOFer?

 

He was the absolute best starter in the league for a 3 year period and a top 5 pitcher for probably 5 years, but he was only good otherwise and then he fell off and had no longevity of which to speak. I think he's going to fall into the same boat as Buehrle where he'll get a fair amount of consideration but he'll ultimately fall short. His peak wasn't anything like Sandy Koufax's, which is what you'd need in a situation like that.

 

Personally, I think if Buehrle pitches till he's 40 (another 4 years) and he accrues another 10 WAR or so, I think he should be in, but I'm not sure he wants that. That would likely put him at 240-250 wins, a good ERA- and FIP-, 60+ fWAR and 65+ bWAR along with a World Series ring and, using revisionist history, a brief period of time where he could have been considered a top 10 starter in the AL and otherwise a good to very good pitcher. I'm not sure he wants to pitch till he's 40 though.

[shysocks]

Johan Santana was in his prime during all of Buehrle's prime years....had a far better peak, but fell off faster...any opinions on if he's a HOFer?

He isn't.

[Steve9347]

Mark Buehrle has been inducted into my heart's Hall of Fame. Isn't that enough!?!?