Terrell Davis should not be a HOF

[Dr. Strangelove]

I think the baseball hall of fame gets it right because it requires that someone was truly one of the best of the best, and not just that someone was a star player who had some memorable postseason games.

They don't really have any such requirement, per se. The veterans committee inducted Bill Mazeroski based largely on one historic home run, did they not? He had a solid and steady career but was hardly HOF worthy. Of course, most of the bad HOF choices in baseball came from the earlier eras when the stats and numbers weren't looked at as closely. I just don't think it's as clear as most people seem to think. There is always personal perspective and bias put into every one of these things.

 

[soxfan1468927]

For the too short of career crowd:

Player A: 68 games, 6263 rushing yards, 1307 receiving yards, 39 total touchdowns.

Player B: 86 games, 8747 rushing yards, 1411 receiving yards, 60 total touchdowns.

Player A: never won a championship, never MVP, in the hall of fame.

Player B: won 2 championships, one MVP and Super Bowl MVP, just voted in.

Spoiler

Player B is Terrell Davis
Player A is Gale Sayers

Gale Sayers had 4956 rushing yards and 56 total TDs. FYI

 

[Robotech]

They don't really have any such requirement, per se. The veterans committee inducted Bill Mazeroski based largely on one historic home run, did they not? He had a solid and steady career but was hardly HOF worthy. Of course, most of the bad HOF choices in baseball came from the earlier eras when the stats and numbers weren't looked at as closely. I just don't think it's as clear as most people seem to think. There is always personal perspective and bias put into every one of these things.

Good point about Mazerorski, but I still think that for the most part, the voters for the baseball hall of fame do the best job of having a high standard for induction.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Good point about Mazerorski, but I still think that for the most part, the voters for the baseball hall of fame do the best job of having a high standard for induction.

I think they're inconsistent. Bruce Sutter in, but Schilling and Mussina not?

 

[shopson67]

I think they're inconsistent. Bruce Sutter in, but Schilling and Mussina not?

Bruce Sutter was among the first pitchers to feature the split-finger fastball and was one of the early dominant relievers. The only reliever to lead the NL in saves 5 times.

That doesn't mean the other two don't deserve it, but Sutter does as well. Both Schilling and Mussina came up through my home town AAA club (Baltimore affiliate at the time) the Rochester Red Wings, so I've always been a fan of both. Schilling is getting a bit of the TO treatment, as it's more about his mouth than his play that is keeping him out right now.

 

[Roy Munson]

The writers are fucking stupid.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Bruce Sutter was among the first pitchers to feature the split-finger fastball and was one of the early dominant relievers. The only reliever to lead the NL in saves 5 times.

That doesn't mean the other two don't deserve it, but Sutter does as well. Both Schilling and Mussina came up through my home town AAA club (Baltimore affiliate at the time) the Rochester Red Wings, so I've always been a fan of both. Schilling is getting a bit of the TO treatment, as it's more about his mouth than his play that is keeping him out right now.

Don't care at all about the save stat, or the invention of a pitch. He had 1000 IP, doesn't deserve it.

 

[Sir Robin Of Camelot]

Lynn Swann shouldn't be in either. But he is.

 

[shopson67]

Don't care at all about the save stat, or the invention of a pitch. He had 1000 IP, doesn't deserve it.

Glad you're not a voter.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Glad you're not a voter.

The save statistic is the most overrated in sports. Protect a 3 run lead for an inning? Whoopie! It's arbitrary and doesn't measure how good a reliever actually is. Stranded inherited runner percentage, WPA, and whip are all better. Sutter didn't play nearly long enough and wasn't nearly dominant enough, and doesn't have anywhere close to the "big moments" that might put him in.

And I happen to agree with the 76.1% of voters who DIDN'T vote for him in his 1st year. If the 10-year rule was in place, he wouldn't have gotten in.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Glad you're not a voter.

And if Sutter is in, Quisenberry should have been a lock. Shows the inconsistency of the voters.

 

[Mike A. S.]

Davis isnt even in the top 30 in yards, the mark of consistency is essential to not water down the RB HOF selection. Davis benefited from blocking and a fucking amazing QB. Crazy the guy played i think 4 complete seasons. Every now and then one slips by.

Not good enough.

Davis was good enough to make the HOF. But I will give you that perhaps his career wasn't long enough to merit getting in. I was surprised he made it because I thought it was too short of a career. But I don't necessarily think he shouldn't have. I wouldn't have argued if he never made it, but I also think as a player he was indeed good enough to be in...just questionable whether it was long enough.

 

[shopson67]

And if Sutter is in, Quisenberry should have been a lock. Shows the inconsistency of the voters.

They're not equals though. Sutter was a 6 time all-star, while Quisenberry was a 3 timer. Sutter struck out more than twice as many as Quisenberry in almost the exact same number of innings pitched for their careers. Sutter had 60 more saves. Sutter also had a longer stretch of strong play (11 out of 12 seasons with 10+ saves, while Quisenberry had 10+ saves in 7 out of 14 seasons).

 

[soxfan1468927]

They're not equals though. Sutter was a 6 time all-star, while Quisenberry was a 3 timer. Sutter struck out more than twice as many as Quisenberry in almost the exact same number of innings pitched for their careers. Sutter had 60 more saves. Sutter also had a longer stretch of strong play (11 out of 12 seasons with 10+ saves, while Quisenberry had 10+ saves in 7 out of 14 seasons).

1. Don't think either should be in anyway.

2. Don't care about All-Star Games. They do a decent job of measuring half a season. I also don't think there should be so many relievers in the All-Star Game. Quisenberry finished top 5 in Cy Young voting more times than he made the All Star Team.

3. Yes, Quisenberry wasn't a strike out guy, but he had half the walks Sutter did.

4. Don't care about saves, as I said. Their WHIP is nearly identical, as is their WPA and inherited runner% (with Quisenberry inheriting more runners). Also, Quisenberry only played 12 seasons, not 14. And really only 11 since he pitched 6 innings that last year. And, just because Sutter got to 10 saves, doesn't mean it was strong play. He had 21 saves in 1983 and he sucked that year. He blew 30% of his chances.

5. Quisenberry and Sutter is really splitting hairs, and that's my point. Quiz was one and done on the ballot (as he should have been) and Sutter got in. It's completely inconsistent.

 

[shopson67]

The stats for 88 were separated into 3 lines which threw off the seasons count (KC, STL, and total).

Sutter actually WON a Cy Young. The difference between Sutter's accomplishments and Quisenberry's is the difference between being a HOFer and not apparently. It's not as close as you are trying to make it seem.

The fact that you don't care about saves removes any credibility from your argument. That's like saying you don't care about sacks, so defensive players should only be evaluated on tackles.

 

[Niner Outlaw]

Terrell Davis becomes fifth Bronco elected into Pro Football Hall of Fame

RUSHING
Year Team G Att Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD Lng 1st 1st% 20+ 40+ FUM
2002 Denver Broncos 0 -- 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2001 Denver Broncos 8 167 20.9 701 4.2 87.6 0 57 39 23.4 4 1 2
2000 Denver Broncos 5 78 15.6 282 3.6 56.4 2 24 14 17.9 1 0 1
1999 Denver Broncos 4 67 16.8 211 3.1 52.8 2 26 11 16.4 1 0 1
1998 Denver Broncos 16 392 24.5 2,008 5.1 125.5 21 70 100 25.5 15 6 1
1997 Denver Broncos 15 369 24.6 1,750 4.7 116.7 15 50T 99 26.8 5 1 4
1996 Denver Broncos 16 345 21.6 1,538 4.5 96.1 13 71T 92 26.7 6 2 5
1995 Denver Broncos 14 237 16.9 1,117 4.7 79.8 7 60T 58 24.5 7 1 4
TOTAL 78 1,655 21.2 7,607 4.6 97.5 60 71 413 25.0 39 11 18

Davis isnt even in the top 30 in yards, the mark of consistency is essential to not water down the RB HOF selection. Davis benefited from blocking and a fucking amazing QB. Crazy the guy played i think 4 complete seasons. Every now and then one slips by.

Not good enough.

I couldn't agree more. Davis is not a HOF-level player and it's not even close. 4 years? With one of those just being a "good" season? That's a joke. If 4 years on a team with a HOF QB can get you into the HOF, they should build real HOF RBs like Sanders and Peterson their own wing.

Once Elway retired, Davis only lasted 3.5 games, but in those games he was ...average. Then he got hurt and Olandis Gary took over, and Gary's per game stats dwarf Davis' that same season. Davis always had Elway, but in the years after Elway was gone, not only did Davis's production fall to nearly half what it was (and injuries piled up), he was outplayed by lesser RBs.

1999 Olandis Gary, 12 games (12 starts), 1,159yds, 4.2ypa, 7TDs (over 16gm = 1,545yds, 9TDs)
2000 M. Anderson, 16 games (12 starts), 1,487yds, 5.0ypa, 15TDs
2001 Davis and Anderson split the season. 701yds/678yds, 4.2ypa/3.9ypa, 0TD/4TD
2002 Clinton Portis, 16 games (12 starts), 1,508yds, 5.5ypa, 15TDs and Anderson added 386yds, 4.6ypa
2003 Clinton Ports, 13 games (13 starts), 1.591yds, 5.5ypa, 14TDs

When that Elway-less team lost Davis, supposedly a HOF RB, and replaced him with nobodies like Gary and Anderson, there should've been a HUGE drop off in production, but there wasn't. Injuries derailed Davis' HOF career? No, sir. Imo, that injury in 1999 and the subsequent injuries SAVED his skimpy case for the HOF b/c it led people to believe he'd still be a great RB but for those injuries.

By putting Davis in the HOF, the HOF bar has been lowered.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Schilling is getting a bit of the TO treatment, as it's more about his mouth than his play that is keeping him out right now.

That was really my point about personal perspectives and biases by the voters. Guys like Owens and Schilling are disliked and for good reason but it shouldn't have a bearing on how good they were on the field. Unfortunately, it does though. And conversely, guys that are really liked by the media sometimes get in when they are borderline. It just is what it is and it's human nature.

 

[soxfan1468927]

The stats for 88 were separated into 3 lines which threw off the seasons count (KC, STL, and total).

Sutter actually WON a Cy Young. The difference between Sutter's accomplishments and Quisenberry's is the difference between being a HOFer and not apparently. It's not as close as you are trying to make it seem.

The fact that you don't care about saves removes any credibility from your argument. That's like saying you don't care about sacks, so defensive players should only be evaluated on tackles.

It's actually exactly as close as I said. Just because Sutter won a Cy Young that I don't think he deserved doesn't change that. Nolan Ryan never won a Cy Young, doesn't mean he isn't a hell of a lot more deserving than Sutter.

The fact that you value saves removes any credibility of YOUR argument. Familia had the most saves last year and you would be an idiot to think that he was better than Zach Britton. Not giving up 3 runs in the 9th inning is supposed to be valuable? It's an arbitrary stat that poorly measures the value of a reliever. Andrew Miller had just 12 saves last year, and he was the 2nd best reliever in baseball easily. 2014, Delin Betances and Wade Davis combined for just 4 saves, they were the top 2 relievers in baseball.

 

[soxfan1468927]

The stats for 88 were separated into 3 lines which threw off the seasons count (KC, STL, and total).

Sutter actually WON a Cy Young. The difference between Sutter's accomplishments and Quisenberry's is the difference between being a HOFer and not apparently. It's not as close as you are trying to make it seem.

The fact that you don't care about saves removes any credibility from your argument. That's like saying you don't care about sacks, so defensive players should only be evaluated on tackles.

And to your last part, this comparison makes no sense. Not blowing a 3-run lead, isn't valuable. The game isn't "saved" in the 9th inning just because that's the last inning. Relievers who come in, with runners on base, in the 7th and 8th inning are just as valuable as the guy who comes in with the bases empty in the 9th. If you watched baseball, and can appreciate guys like Betances, Davis, Miller, Herrera, Watson, Reed, and O'Day. Guys who don't rack up saves but can be just as valuable, and often more so, than guys like Jansen, Rodriguez, Robertson, etc.

Like I said, the "save" is the most overrated statistic in baseball, and the closer position is the most overrated in sports.

 

[soxfan1468927]

The stats for 88 were separated into 3 lines which threw off the seasons count (KC, STL, and total).

Sutter actually WON a Cy Young. The difference between Sutter's accomplishments and Quisenberry's is the difference between being a HOFer and not apparently. It's not as close as you are trying to make it seem.

The fact that you don't care about saves removes any credibility from your argument. That's like saying you don't care about sacks, so defensive players should only be evaluated on tackles.

Some examples of what I'm talking about with the save, and you'll notice them if you watch the game instead of just read a stat sheet. And I'll use the same two guys we were talking about because some of their best games of their careers, came in games where they didn't get the save.

April 21, 1985: Quisenberry enters the game in the bottom of the 10th, tie game, bases loaded, one out. Gets out of it with a double play, pitches the 11th and 12th innings unscathed, Royals win it in the 13th. Larry Gura gets the save, Quiz is clearly the most important pitcher in that game.

1980 World Series, Game 3: Quisenberry enters the game in the 8th inning, runner on 3rd, tie game. Quiz gets out of it, pitches the 9th and 10th inning, Royals win it in the bottom of the 10th. No save. Quiz is arguably the most important PLAYER in that game.

September 11, 1976: Sutter enters the game in the bottom of the 10th, tie game, runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out. He gets the next two batters without giving up the winning run. Pitches the 11th unscathed, Cubs take a 3-run lead in the top of the 12th, Joe Coleman comes in and protects the 3-run lead and gets the save. Sutter doesn't get the save, but is clearly the most valuable pitcher in that scenario.

1982 World Series, Game 2: Sutter enters the game in the top of the 7th, runner on 2nd, tie game. Sutter gets his man, pitches the next two innings, Cardinals get the win. Sutter doesn't get the save. Compare that to Game 7, when he only had to protect a 3-run lead, and he DID get the save. Which performance was more valuable? Clearly the one when he entered a tie game and the go-ahead run in scoring position, but it wasn't a save situation.

Throughout this "save era" of baseball, you fill find scenarios like this happening all the time. So no, I don't care about the fact that Bruce Sutter had 56 more saves than Dan Quisenberry in 96 more opportunities.