Edgar H.O.F Thread

[StanMarsh51]

You don't need to repeat yourself. I read it the first time. I'm no more impressed this time around. And why did you cut off at 180 innings? Does it inflate the perception of Fassero's ERA? If you are making a point about ERA, you should use 162 innings which is the cutoff for eligibility for qualifying for the ERA title.

Would you consider a 3.85 ERA in 162 innings to be more impressive than 3.87 ERA in 240 innings? That's why you need some cutoff with rate stats...if you don't use any cutoff of any sort, you'd be thinking that Mark Mulder's 3.13 ERA in 186 innings in 2003 is more impressive than Halladay's 3.25 in 266 innings.



If you want to go by WAR, these were the WARs of each AL team's 2nd best starter in 1998:


ANA 3.8
BAL 4.5
BOS 2.8
CHW 0.3
CLE 3.7
DET 2.9
KCR 1.6
MIN 3.2
NYY 3.9
OAK 2.1
SEA 4.1
TBD 3.2
TEX 3.0
TOR 2.6


That would make Fassero arguably the 2nd best #2 starter in the AL, but that's unacceptable for you

 

[PolarVortex]

Fassero was also in the top 10 in IP in 1997 and 1998.

Well, this isn't about 1997. It's about 1998, and Fassero would have had far fewer IPs if the Mariners bullpen had not sucked. Mike Timlin was the only relief pitcher on the team that year who threw 27 or more innings and had an ERA under 5.32.
1998 Seattle Mariners Statistics | Baseball-Reference.com

 

[PolarVortex]

Would you consider a 3.85 ERA in 162 innings to be more impressive than 3.87 ERA in 240 innings? That's why you need some cutoff with rate stats...



If you want to go by WAR, these were the WARs of each AL team's 2nd best starter in 1998:


ANA 3.8
BAL 4.5
BOS 2.8
CHW 0.3
CLE 3.7
DET 2.9
KCR 1.6
MIN 3.2
NYY 3.9
OAK 2.1
SEA 4.1
TBD 3.2
TEX 3.0
TOR 2.6


That would make Fassero arguably the 2nd best #2 starter in the AL, but that's unacceptable for you

You are avoiding. Where did he place in ERA among pitchers who threw at least 162 innings?

 

[StanMarsh51]

You are avoiding. Where did he place in ERA among pitchers who threw at least 162 innings?

38th.....so that would in theory easily make him a top 10 #2 pitcher considering many #2's aren't throwing anywhere near 224 innings, correct?

MLB Baseball Career Pitching Leaders - Major League Baseball - ESPN


Easily a top 10 #2 pitcher = horrible disappointment?

 

[TheDayMan]

It’s appropriate that Edgar’s HOF thread has turned into an argument about how the Mariners still managed to suck, even when they were good. Very Mariners....

 

[PolarVortex]

38th.....so that would in theory easily make him a top 10 #2 pitcher considering many #2's aren't throwing anywhere near 224 innings, correct?

MLB Baseball Career Pitching Leaders - Major League Baseball - ESPN

Maybe for a team that is not expecting to compete for a title.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Maybe for a team that is not expecting to compete for a title.

For a guy throwing among the most innings in baseball as a #2, it should be.

So, would you say Mark Mulder's ERA in 2003 was more impressive than Halladay's since you don't care about workload?

 

[PolarVortex]

For a guy throwing among the most innings in baseball as a #2, it should be.

So, would you say Mark Mulder's ERA in 2003 was more impressive than Halladay's since you don't care about workload?

You are dragging in workload about an arguement you originally started about ERA. You like moving goalposts. Maybe you should get a job officiating Saints' playoff games.

 

[StanMarsh51]

You are dragging in workload about an arguement you originally started about ERA. You like moving goalposts. Maybe you should get a job officiating Saints' playoff games.

I posted about his top 10 AL WHIP too in the original post but you seemed to brush that aside because it doesn't help your argument

 

[PolarVortex]

I posted about his top 10 AL WHIP too in the same post but you seemed to brush that aside because it doesn't help your argument

A 1.29 WHIP doesn't really help your arguement either.

 

[StanMarsh51]

A 1.29 WHIP doesn't really help your arguement either.

Top 10 in the AL = quality

 

[Hillbillyzombie]

It’s appropriate that Edgar’s HOF thread has turned into an argument about how the Mariners still managed to suck, even when they were good. Very Mariners....

Sad but true.

 

[seahawksfan234]

Ya, my bad. You know what I meant though. Across from the Pink are two definitions of great run pro franchises. Inside the Pink is a rutterless ship.

Please don't tell me this is what we're calling Safeco Field now.

 

[blstoker]

Top 10 in the AL = quality

It’s really hard for Mariner fans Jon here to accept much as positive in the team’s history. They are just so jaded. 1999 will be how Fassero is remembered by many, and by extension, 1998 will be tainted by how bad he was in 1999.

 

[wazzu31]

Arguable....the Mariners had better talent at the top (Griffey, RJ, A-Rod), but I'd say the Indians had more depth of talent....

Think of all the all stars and/or HOF caliber players the Indians had in the mid/late '90s at some point:

-Thome
-Alomar
-Lofton
-Manny
-Vizquel
-Justice
-Belle
-Matt Williams
-Eddie Murray
-Dennis Martinez
-Colon

They also had Kent, Burnitz, Giles and traded them away right before their primes...

Of all of that list, I’d Thome over Blowers at 3B, and Alomar over Cora at 2B and even Every other person you named the Mariners had beat on offense let alone how much. The Indians had more depth in their pitch.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Of all of that list, I’d Thome over Blowers at 3B, and Alomar over Cora at 2B and even Every other person you named the Mariners had beat on offense let alone how much. The Indians had more depth in their pitch.

Thome switched to 1B in '97 when Fryman was acquired, and Fryman was better than Blowers/Davis at 3B.

Also, Manny > Buhner (I know M's fans love Buhner but let's be real here)...

And Albert Belle/Brian Giles > whoever the M's had at LF.


With that, I see the Indians being better at 1B, 2B, 3B, LF, RF.

 

[FirebreathingMonkey]

 

[wazzu31]

Please don't tell me this is what we're calling Safeco Field now.

I don’t know, I heard it on the radio and it safes the whole Safeco, I mean T Mobile Park sentence. Plus I also heard the city is being petty jerks with not allowing the Mariners or whoever is in charge of taking down all the Safeco Field signs.

 

[wazzu31]

Thome switched to 1B in '97 when Fryman was acquired, and Fryman was better than Blowers/Davis at 3B.

Also, Manny > Buhner (I know M's fans love Buhner but let's be real here)...

And Albert Belle/Brian Giles > whoever the M's had at LF.


With that, I see the Indians being better at 1B, 2B, 3B, LF, RF.

The Fryman/Thome combination is at best at best a slight advantage over Tino and Blowers. But ARod being the SS again pushes the infield talent of the Mariners well past the advantage Thome put over Tino or Blowers. I’m not counting Davis as he wouldn’t be on the club.

Manny was better than Buhner no question, but Buhner and Griffey >>>>>>Lofton and Manny. The difference between Griffey and Lofton is more than the difference between Manny and Buhner. Manny was a better hitter while Buhner was a better fielder.

Edgar was much better than Murray.

Dan Wilson was a push with Alomar and there isn’t any debate Varitek was better than Alomar.

You are right I forgot about Belle so touché but even with Belle, Cruz, Buhner and Griffey are a much better defensive OF than the Indians and the same in collective talent.

We can agree to disagree, I think the Mariners offense and defense was much better. The Mariners pitching wasn’t anywhere close though which was my point comparing the two franchises.

 

[StanMarsh51]

The Fryman/Thome combination is at best at best a slight advantage over Tino and Blowers.

That's farfetched - Thome from '95 to '99 averaged a 1.005 OPS. Tino with the Mariners never topped .920 (and for his career never hit .950), and Blowers after '93 never topped .809. Thome alone makes this one a landslide for the Indians given how much better he was.

Manny was better than Buhner no question, but Buhner and Griffey >>>>>>Lofton and Manny. The difference between Griffey and Lofton is more than the difference between Manny and Buhner. Manny was a better hitter while Buhner was a better fielder.

You're combining positions so one player (in this case Buhner) can leech off of Griffey's advantage over Lofton. They should be compared separately. And Buhner was rated a below average fielder for most of his career, so it's not a big difference there while Manny was a better hitter.