Jump to content

dt35456884

Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame - 1985 Elections

Recommended Posts

Alan,

First off your facts are wrong. The team came tied in second during the second-half of that abbreviated season. With two days left in the season it was up to Detroit and Milwaukee. They did not finish in third.

Second, I have said pretty much from day one that when we get to more current seasons win shares should be adjusted to make up for the era and how starting pitchers were used. But also, I have said in the past those stats usually support my arguments and are a reason why I have found them pretty darn interesting. Actually, in the past you have debunked either all or most posts about win shares. Also I've never listed career win shares EVER on a post as a reason for someone to make the list or not. I have people like you and estrepe argue this against me stating it doesn't jive with my thought process yet that's your thought process and not mine. I have never said 200 win shares gets you in or anything like that. In fact until now I've never seriously addressed that issue because those points are not important to me. It may be to you (and perhaps estrepe because I remember him making posts about career win shares) but it isn't me.

Third, you took one point in one paragraph of a loooooong comment and made it the sole reason why I said he's worth consideration. And the reason he's getting consideration (on my third tier mind you where I have yet had a candidate make my ballot) that was all I said - consideration. Actually I didn't even say that on that list. I said "Getting looks." Whitehill actually started higher than that. I started my search on him litterally weeks in advance knowing he was going to be the standard bear of what I think a pitcher needed to make it in or not. He fell on the other side of that list. Not to say he didn't have value for the Tigers. He certainly did and I never ever said he didn't. However, for a HOF I want concrete quality points to prove he had value. If you look at your own argument, Wilcox actually had the better ERA+ which may be one of the top 2 to 3 points you can make for pitchers that have qualifying innings. Runs saved - Whitehill pitched more innings at a minutely less level of effectiveness. That's what gets him the edge on Wilcox there. Simply too close to call. Well actually not too close to call. I gave Whitehill the edge there. I said something about "filling his season." Again Wilcox balanced that with one outstanding season during a key season and another solid season where he was a key contributor to a World Championship season. I could've added another solid season for 1983, and actually I do give him a bit of a nod on that one, although a bit less than a season where the race goes into the final weekend. Think it's fair or not, luck means something in the sports world and actually the world in general. Having the good fortune of being on teams that do well does enhance players. Baseball is a team sport. Sometimes the team can help enhance the individual's cause. I have no issues with that and actually embrace it. And, as I've said before, it's not that a guy that was on a 60-win team is hurt by it. I kind of grade the players 1-100 and THEN see if there are positive reasons to boost up that grade. Maybe the only player that has ever earned a drop had nothing to do with his teams. It had to do with his other issues. And that player was Denny McLain. And as you can see McLain was listed as a "lock" for me. As I've said before "luck" certainly wasn't on Whitehill's side. A season more with the Tigers (that next year was pretty awesome) and I can say, he was more than average. A year or two just being solid on a contender and he may have done it. That's the team and he's a part of that team. Again does he get "hurt" by it. No his ranking still ranks around mid-40s for me. But if he had those bonuses, then he may get to 51 and that would get him in. Wilcox - I have him around a 40, actually lower than Whitehill so I have him as a weaker player than Whitehill.

Fourth, let's go back to your statement about 1981. The length of that season is of no consequence to me now. It was a set format that was agreed upon by MLB. That's good enough for me. I am to base that season on that - just as winners and losers were. Basing it on something that didn't decide penant winners makes little sense to me. Kind of like the Reds that year. If I remember correctly they put up a banner saying they were the best team in the NL that year. Well they weren't based on the format approved, so there is little room to gripe.

And to be honest I am tired of one point of my posts being picked out and being stated or hinted at as that being THE REASON why I voted for or didn't vote for a player. Estrepe was a master of this and I even pointed it out quite often. And then the one time I used his statistical analysis to prove a point on a pitcher or two, he was upset with it. Yet I never explained it was the sole reason he made decisons. In fact I don't know if I have a post like that at all through this entire HOF because more often than not people haven't listed entire explanations why they voted for players. I have no troubles pointing out why I did or didn't vote for anyone. I do this to help me make decisions and with Rogell (and Whitehill actually) it helped. And even if people don't agree with me, I hope it hleps them as well. I think we need more conversation about the players and I try my darndest to have that happen. Actually I'd argue I've done that more than anyone. So argue points, that's fine. But don't take one comment and make it my sole reason why I selected or didn't select someone.

Also I'd like to say if you want me to convert, giving me your full explained reasons is the best way to make me change. It has happened. I kept Whitehill on my potential lists quite often and did so because I thought he deserved a second look. Does that mean he's going to make it? Probably not. But others have done it. I didn't like Benton at first and didn't vote for him. We had a few posts here and I kept examining him and actually voted for him. Rogell went from a guy on Monday I didn't think I'd vote for to one I've voted for frequnently. I have had a few guys that I orginally voted for but have softened my views on as well. I'd love to see reasons why people voted for candidates.

You don't have to worry. Wilcox is most likely not going to get on my ballot. As I stated he was on my third tier. And right now no one has ever made it off my third tier. In fact a lot of second tier guys don't make it. I have the third tier because I want to make sure through my research that I didn't miss anything. If it comforts you I do think Whitehill was a better player. Wilcox was never a dominating player and I would suggest Whitehill probably came close to doing that. But 1981 helps a lot as does 1983 and 1984. If he was better in those two years, that would give him more of a boost and would've helped his overall case as well. Unfortunately on my list, it's not going to be enough I fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan,

First off your facts are wrong. The team came tied in second during the second-half of that abbreviated season. With two days left in the season it was up to Detroit and Milwaukee. They did not finish in third.

My mistake. Tied for second. Did Boston hold the tiebreaker? I don't know and it probably doesn't matter. Tied for second in a 52-game quasi-season.

If you look at your own argument, Wilcox actually had the better ERA+ which may be one of the top 2 to 3 points you can make for pitchers that have qualifying innings.

No he didn't. Whitehill had the better ERA+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of my favorite games I've ever listened to was the Pat Underwood vs. Tom Underwood game. It was Pat's first ever start if I recall right and it was against his brother and he won 1-0. I think his bro went the distance while Underwood went 8 1/3rds innings I do know he went 8 1/3rds.

It's a game I wish I taped and I wish I could find on tape.

Box score for that game. Jerry Morales homered, Hiller got the save. Notice the poor starts for some of the Tigers, especially Tram.

I also remember watching this game on TV. I remember someone saying this might be the best game ever between two brothers.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR197905310.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding this election, almost every player has been, "Oh, he was good", followed by a review or their stats and a, "Well, I guess he wasn't that good".

I never was sure what role Fetzer had in the Tigers being late in breaking the color line and adding black players to the team but you have to consider him on your ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nate,

I don't think the game was on TV. I would've watched it. I didn't miss TV Tiger games in those days. I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's hoping there's enough room on enough ballots to get Earl Whitehill the spot into the Hall of Fame he so rightly deserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could actually have as few as three guys on my ballot this time

(Colavito, Maxwell, Whitehill). I'll give Rogell another look too.

I'll give Kemp, Wilcox, and Lopez a look, but I only see Kemp as a strong candidate at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DaYooper,

Have you voted for Rogell before? If you have and may keep a less-than-five name ballot next time but Rogell may not be on it, what has changed your mind about him? It seems unless you've had something change your mind that people would at least vote for those they have in the past if they don't have a complete ballot yet.

If you didn't vote for Rogell before then my post matters little and you can forget it. :classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DaYooper,

Have you voted for Rogell before? If you have and may keep a less-than-five name ballot next time but Rogell may not be on it, what has changed your mind about him? It seems unless you've had something change your mind that people would at least vote for those they have in the past if they don't have a complete ballot yet.

If you didn't vote for Rogell before then my post matters little and you can forget it. :classic:

Rogell has always been right on the borderline for me. I like to review those guys once in a while, to make sure I haven't missed anyone. I know it's hard to compare across eras, but I'm open to a comparison with Donie Bush, who I strongly supported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...