Brian Kenny and Christopher Russo debate the merits of a few players on the 2015 Hall of Fame ballot and discuss what they look for in a Hall of Famer.
And the fact that you think a guy with a .385 OBP who stole 800 bases shouldn't have a high WAR shows why the average fan and writer are Flat Earther buffoons.
How does it show the problem with WAR? Because it doesn't match up with your guess on how good a player is? Most fans dramatically underrate fielding, baserunning and on base percentage and overrate stats like batting average, total hits and total home runs.
John smoltz is the most underappreciated pitchers in baseball history to be a solid starting pitcher and transition to closer and not lose a beat. Dennis eckersley is a hall of famer because of Tony larussa out the box thinking made him the best regular season closer in the late 80's early 90's.
Comparing Rains to Gwynn is blasphemous. Gywnn hit .338, won eight batting titles, five gold gloves, had over 3K. Raines hit forty-five points lower. Had zero of what I listed for Tony. Gwynn OPS .847 to Raines .810. Plus Gywnn had tougher hitting environments.
Not blasphemous. They are very similar. Tony Gwynn was a below average fielder. So eliminate the Gold Glove argument. Tony Gwynn was at bat better than Raines but not by ton. You left off Tony's On Base Percentage was .388. Raines' was .385. Tony had a great batting average and did hit his share of doubles which put him ahead of Raines at the plate but Raines walked. Tony did not. A walk is as good as a hit. And when Raines got on base he stole more bases than almost anyone which makes up for hitting fewer doubles than Tony. Hence, very similar offensive players.
Comparing Mussina to Smoltz is blasmphous as well. Smoltz had a better ERA, and won a Cy Young unlike Mussina. Smoltz was better in the playoffs. Also, he is the only pitcher with 200 Wins and 150 saves.
I agree with Dog here, these geeks are ruining our sport with these WARs and these other statistical analysis that can be misleading. To me a hall of famer should be a player who dominates in his era, not just a player with a few good years or an average player. Dog is a baseball purist, but unfortunetely geeks are taking over the world and next thing you know we'll have a panel of robots deciding who gets into the HOF.
Their OPS are about the same, they were just about the same player defensively, and Raines was a MUCH better baserunner. Your definition of absurd is interesting to say the least.
+Jason Torres Raines' career average is ~40 points below Gwynn's, sure, but Raines walked a hell of a lot more often (career rate of 12.8% and never once had a season below 10%, while Gwynn walked ~8% of the time in his career, only topping 10% twice), so their career OBP are within three points. Neither was a great power hitter, but Raines has the edge in home runs (170 to 135) and ISO (.131 to .120 [ISO, by the way, is just slugging average minus batting average, which basically means we're only looking at extra-base hits). By career wRC+, Gwynn has a slight lead, with 132 to Raines' 125, so yes, Gwynn was the better hitter, but barely. Defensively, as Frank said, they're basically the same. Going by Total Zone (one of the best ways we have to measure defense from players who played before ~2002/3 or so) Gwynn was a barely above average over his career (worth ~5 runs in the outfield) while Raines was barely below average (worth ~ -4 runs). Raines more than makes up for the difference in hitting/defense with his baserunning, though. In basic stats, he stole 808 bases with a success rate of ~85%, which is excellent (Rickey Henderson's career success rate stealing bases is ~80%, for reference), while Gwynn stole 319 with a meager ~72% success rate, which is actually a bit below what we'd like to see (typically a baserunner is actually doing more harm than good with a rate below 75%). All told, Gwynn was worth ~11 runs above average as a baserunner in his career, while Raines was worth an astonishing 100.6 runs (second all-time behind only Henderson). basically they were worth just about the same as players because gwynn was the better hitter while raines was the better baserunner
@@wyssmaster thats all fine and dandy but basically means jack shit....Tony Gwynn will go down as one of the best hitters of alltime. Raines on the other hand was a pretty good hitter primarilary known for stealing bases. Which is basically irrelevant in todays game. Raines needed to hit a major milestone number to be in to me, hes lucky to have gotten in at all
If you're gonna go by ERA+ you should point out that Mussina was always a starter, while Smoltz spent a good amount of years as a reliever, who of course tend to have lower ERA, therefore a higher ERA+.
I agree with Russo though. You can't just put "very good" players in the HOF. Look, there are some guys who were very good but the HOF really should be reserved for the true stars of the game. The ones who sold the game and were faces of baseball in their respective times. I didn't see Tim Raines play. But Edgar Martinez and Mike Mussina I did. Martinez was a great hitter, but he only stepped onto the field 4 times during a game (his at-bats), he wasn't playing every inning of every game. Mussina was a good pitcher who threw strikes and played good defense. But he wasn't anything more special than just a very good pitcher.
Tate Adams haha why would i sit on my couch if i have a job? YOU are the one sitting on your couch calling people a dumbass with no job....and your name is TATE lol
mrbiggs36 lol u don't know me. Lol what's funny about Tate? It's not that uncommon of a name. Just because you got a job doesn't mean your a not dumbass, dumbass
mrmajikjr Thank you. no offense to the math savants of the world, but it is baseball. Man throws ball at guy with bat. I don't trust money ball. How many world series did the Billy Beane A's win? 0
Don't get ahead of yourself, How many World Series have the Yankees and Dodgers go to combined since 2003? 2, in a combined 28 seasons for them. The Red Sox owe their 3 World Series to Billy Beane and Sabremetrics. They could have never won an all out bidding war. The A's wouldn't have won 40 games a year without "money ball." The real Sabremetric kings have been the Rays and the Royals, Yeah, who've combined for more League titles, 3, than the spending giants. The Stats work... they just aren't 100.00%. A guy who gets an 83 in a class isn't always smarter than the guy who gets an 81.
the answer is.... Bonds is a Hall of Fame player with or without steroids. he has to be in. and the same goes for Clemens. no way piazza, Pudge or Bagwell should have gotten in before Barry Bonds.
I agree with mad dog barry Larkin is not a hall of famer is in because he played in weakest era of national league shortstops in my lifetime he isn't the the best shortstop in reds history in my lifetime
Reds fan here we can debate the HOF but I believe Larkin was better then Concepcion. Larkin was the best Reds Shortstop from the 70's to the present in my opinion.
I dont know..go check your comparative analysis to answer that one...my gut says they DO enjoy a colorful, dynamic, honest, personality like Chris Russo. I'd say "yes" the average fan does....you want facts? Go look at his ratings from his "Mike and the Mad Dog" Years and the success hes had on SIRIUS ...this game lacks dynamic personalities and he is a pleasure to listen to and if you actually LISTENED to what he says...he actually makes very good points and shows hes a true sports fan and baseball historian.
i like the discussion and back and forth debate, what Russo understands that all these proponnents of stastics do not is all these fancy figures do not put buts in the seats, The fans come to see their team win, not to hear some overpaid analyst quote them a bunch of unendingly boring and to them useless stats.
There's hall of fame & all-star players. I think the players mentioned are all-stars more than they're hall of famers. Also, today's managers are cheapening what it means to be an all-star when they pick first timers just because it would be nice. They might be doing them a favor but end up ruining it for millions of fans by picking unproven players over the proven players. I don't mind as long as the stats aren't close. It seems every year there are more first timers in the all-star game. They expect fans to say "Awww, they must be so happy. They probably have their families in the stadium".
I do think Mussina is a HOF 270-158 record. EVERY pitcher in the history with a W-L record of 100+ is in The HOF. I also think Mussina could've gotten to 300 wins if he wanted to. He was 20-9 In his last season. With that said, Mussina never seemed to produce in a big game. Trammell is not CLOSE to being a HOF'er .285 185Hrs 1000RBIs? Come on!
I just don't see him as a HOF... all my life paying attention to baseball, he was there and a solid player, but I can't remember any standout things he did, very good player but not someone you look at and see a legend
Mike Youngblood I so disagree but that's ok. Schilling had insane playoff numbers. His Phillies teams were so bad that's a reason why his wins aren't higher.
@@patrickgray5633 Actually Mussina is better for his career than Marichal and it is not close. Marichal had a much bigger drop off in his career. Everything counts not just your top two or three years.
if you could just look at a player and go there is a hall of famer then why do even need a voting process? All the yelling and he had nothing to add to the argument.
Russo might yell and sound annoying .. but honestly the guy knows what he is talking about . (But I do like his annoying voice, I grew up on mike and the mad dog lol)
What a great debate! Grew up listening to mike n the maddog n love Russo never thought anyone could go toe to toe with him on baseball like Brian Kenny did? Both guys are unbelievable analyst
@@patrickgray5633 Ummm... You see. There is a thing in baseball called a walk. Not as good as a hit but something that is better than an out and always you to be in a position to score a run. Tim Raines and Tony Gwynn are within .003 On Base Percentage for their careers. And Tim Raines stole 800 bases. So while Gwynn was a better hitter and a marginally better fielder, Raines got on base just as much as was significantly more effective once he was on base than Gwynn.
Brian, how can you compare Tim Raines to Tony Gwynn?!! Dog is absolutely right!! You have to lead the league in something, you have to have been tops in some categories.
To answer your question, Tim Raines walked. Tony Gwynn did not. And when Tim Raines got on base he stole more bases than almost anyone in history.. A walk is almost as good as a hit. A walk and a stolen base gets you into scoring position. Batting average doesn't give credit for walks. Gwynn and Raines have identical on base percentages. Tony hit more doubles. Raines stole bases. Hence almost identical careers.
Mad Dog has said he judges players' HOF credentials by "black type" - leading the league in categories. Well, Tim Raines has led his league in runs (2), doubles (1), stolen bases (4), batting average (1) and OBP (1). How can you have been the best in your league in 5 different categories and not be a Hall of Famer? As for Mike Mussina, he had 270 wins, including 20 wins in his final season at age 39. He had 2,813 strikeouts and four 200-strikeout seasons. He has led the league in wins (1) shutouts (1) and W-L % (1). What's doggie thinking?
I agree with russo. Moose was my favorite pitcher n I didn't think he was a hof pitcher. Curt wasn't a hofer but he was clutch just like Bernie Williams. Rolen... edmonds... torii... Jimmy.... not are hofers. I think andruw Jones is a hofer possibly
Honestly curt schilling should be in the hall of fame you can’t keep him out because of things he said or the medias view on him if someone doesn’t vote for him because of his media views then they shouldn’t be voting
Mike Mussina was a better pitcher than Juan Marichal, Nolan Ryan, Jim Palmer, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Don Drysdale along with a bunch of guys who are way worse in like Jack Morris and Catfish Hunter. Mussina isn't that far from Steve Carlton and Bob Gibson.
Those War stats are stupid. I look at overall play Bonds was great player but his numbers vs Yaz are closer then people think much of Bonds Giants career is tainted due to steroids Yaz 3,000 hits Triple Crown 3 batting titles MVP in 67 plus Yaz defense in my opinion was better the one thing Bonds lacked was a Outfielder arm Yaz led the AL in OF assist. My opinion Yaz is way underrated as a player. Yaz is better then Ricky Henderson in my opinion.
It is worth noting though that you have stupid opinions based on nothing. Bonds is almost identical to Babe Ruth and they have no close peers statistically. Bonds had an OPS+ of 182 and was a good fielder. Bonds stole 500 bases. Yaz had and OPS+ of 130 and was worse in the field. Rickey (not Ricky) had a similar OPS+ to Yaz but stole 1400 bases to Yaz's 168. Ricky had a .401 OBP to Yaz's .379.
Dog is right, just saying. If you saw Raines play his whole career, you'd know that he is good but not HOF-good: but now that the Hall has been watered down some .....
WAR is like religion. If you say, "I understand it, but I don't subscribe to it", you are looked at by believers as if you have three heads. WARites are quick to shake their heads and tell you that you're not thinking...when what they have a problem with is that you're not thinking like them. The truth probably lies somewhere between these two.
I'm tired of people giving the HOF voters so much credit. I feel like there are some who look at the names and spend 10 seconds on it every year based on their "gut check" That's why it takes some players 10 years of slow and painful experience of climbing up in % each year. We see players who had 20% one year get in with over 75%. That means 50% of the people are terrible at doing their jobs and were not able to figure it out in year one. If they spent days analyzing each player we would have a shorter list and we could get people in when they're still alive to enjoy it. Life is short so lets give it the attention it deserves so people don't waste 10 years in misery / limbo when they should of gotten in all along. If voters don't want to spend their time doing a good job and think its funny how they all flip in year 10 after rejecting them for many years in a row. Then please remove yourself as a voter because you're not like nor appreciated by this fan. I see voters do this malarkey of rejecting Schilling and it's non-sense he was one of the most successful starting pitchers in his 20 years and should of gotten in within the first 5 at least. And they will be too ashamed not to vote him in year 10 because they know for a fact no matter what he's getting in it because he's legit and there is no denying it. Father Time will prove me right.
Tim Raines was a better base stealer than Jim Rice was a home run hitter. On top of that, Raines walked a hell of a lot more than he struck out. Rice was a strikeout machine. A base stealer who can get on base and get the ball in play is more valuable than a one dimensional home run hitter.
"The fans don't care about WAR." The fans voted for Fernando Tatis for the All-Star Team when he hadn't played a single game. (This was before the failed drug test.) That's why we don't let them vote on something even more important.
For non saber believers here me out. If Kershaw was traded to Colorado would his era, whip and losses go up?? Yes they would. Saber and WAR put players and numbers in their proper context by looking at only what the player can control. Last year Altuve had a 340 BA with a 380 OBP and stole over 50 bases and didn't even score 90 runs. Saying Rains didn't have 100 runs is a joke because it has to do with the talent of others on the team. Did you guys know WHIP wasn't even a common baseball stat used up until the 90s. Even then teams thought it was a dumb saber stat, and now it's very well known. It's only a matter of time until people start coming around and stop being ignorant
It is virtually impossible to find a true leadoff hitter. On base % speed and a mix of power. There has only been 2 in the history of baseball and they are Tim Raines and Rickey Henderson.
Mussina definitely deserves to be in the HOF. He had a .636 winning percentage, 1.197 career WHIP barely lower than Koufax. Mussina had more strikeouts than Koufax and Palmer.
Dude GTFO with your cherry picked bullshit stats. Are you kidding me? Winning percentage? More strikeouts? I’ll give you the Palmer argument maybe but to even mention him with Koufax is blasphemy
I actually agree w russo. Trammell and raines were not hofers. Neither was mussina. Martinez not playing any d is an issue too. I'd rather see the best players in there, not just pretty good players on up.
So you want Tony Gwynn out of the Hall of Fame Raines is out? And if Mussina is out, I guess you want Glavine, Smoltz, Palmer, Ryan, and Marichal out too.
WAR is an important stat. But I would much rather have a guy hitting .320 with 25 HR and a 400 obp who is a mediocre fielder than someone hitting .300, 15 HR, and a 330 obp who is a great fielder during an important game.
Richie Bambara keep in mind.... Kenny just said that Tim Raines and Tony Gwynn had "essentially the same career". That, my friend, is dumber than shit. And shit is pretty unintelligent.
Wow, this didn't age well for Russo. If you went with his standard over the past 5 years no body is getting in ever. SMH. The Hall needs people. Without New Inductees it fails to serve a purpose. The worst thing about the Hall of Fame to me is when they have a year where they vote and not 1 player gets inducted. Everyone has grow old waiting for the obvious to work it's way out over a decade. Come on man hurry up and stop dragging your feet. Some years I feel like 10 people should get into the hall of fame at once. Why people half of them should of been voted in already in previous years and it greats backlog.
Mad Dog makes himself look bad when he says stuff like Marichal won 25 EVERY year. Yes, doing that three times is very impressive, but he didn't do it every year.
The fact that Russo has zero rational arguments to support his entirely subjective opinion is nearly as annoying as his voice. And it's obviously fallacious to call him an "analyst" considering his refusal to analyze WAR. He's merely a gimmick; a caricature; a sensationalized version of the kind of dinosaur pundit who's thinking isn't just antiquated and facile- it's just plain old hack stupidity.
WAR, to me, is akin to the NFL's QB rating, where a Tony Romo is better than a Dan Marino. Dinosaurs who actually watched these guys day in and day out know the game better than a computer.
Marc Altamura You really need me to explain why you're an idiot? LOL. Because you think statistics that help us understand better what is happening are "ridiculous". Get it?
Marc Altamura Umm deciding who is a HOF is exactly when those types of stats are useful. At least people that like to use their brain believe so. How in the fuck are objective statistics that show what happened nonsense? How fucking dumb can you get?
i get it that ppl are annoyed about mad dog, but cmon what is baseball without a loud new york italian shouting about seasons from a decade ago?
sersarsor love it😂😂
Russo might yell a lot, but it doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.
@@vbassone he 100% does NOT know what he's talking about
@@ShoeAlmighty You're wrong. Russo is EXACTLY correct on this one.
@@vbassone be a
That fact that Tim Raines ranks that high in career WAR shows you the problem with WAR
And the fact that you think a guy with a .385 OBP who stole 800 bases shouldn't have a high WAR shows why the average fan and writer are Flat Earther buffoons.
How does it show the problem with WAR? Because it doesn't match up with your guess on how good a player is? Most fans dramatically underrate fielding, baserunning and on base percentage and overrate stats like batting average, total hits and total home runs.
i love these baseball HOF discussions.
russo's hilarious
I love Russo. One of the great baseball historians in America today.
Memory like a goddamned elephant.
+Mark Murphy I can't tell if this is a joke.
wyssmaster let’s all hope it is
🤣🤣 yeah with all other workers finding stats for him
John smoltz is the most underappreciated pitchers in baseball history to be a solid starting pitcher and transition to closer and not lose a beat. Dennis eckersley is a hall of famer because of Tony larussa out the box thinking made him the best regular season closer in the late 80's early 90's.
Comparing Rains to Gwynn is blasphemous. Gywnn hit .338, won eight batting titles, five gold gloves, had over 3K. Raines hit forty-five points lower. Had zero of what I listed for Tony. Gwynn OPS .847 to Raines .810. Plus Gywnn had tougher hitting environments.
True!
Not blasphemous. They are very similar. Tony Gwynn was a below average fielder. So eliminate the Gold Glove argument. Tony Gwynn was at bat better than Raines but not by ton. You left off Tony's On Base Percentage was .388. Raines' was .385. Tony had a great batting average and did hit his share of doubles which put him ahead of Raines at the plate but Raines walked. Tony did not. A walk is as good as a hit. And when Raines got on base he stole more bases than almost anyone which makes up for hitting fewer doubles than Tony. Hence, very similar offensive players.
@@Markdfadf a walk isn't always as good as a hit
I have no idea what they are talking about I just love hearing maddog scream.
I know it's easy to hate on Russo, but I can't get enough of the guy haha. And Russo vs. Kenney is fantastic.
I would watch an hour of just those two.
Comparing Mussina to Smoltz is blasmphous as well. Smoltz had a better ERA, and won a Cy Young unlike Mussina. Smoltz was better in the playoffs. Also, he is the only pitcher with 200 Wins and 150 saves.
no.... but when I watched Bonds and Clemens.. I said they are hall of fame players. no doubt... no questions....
Russo is CORRECT; it is NOT the Hall of the "very good", it should be the home for only GREAT players.....
Great players like Tim Raines for instance.
MAYBE@@Markdfadf
I agree with Dog here, these geeks are ruining our sport with these WARs and these other statistical analysis that can be misleading. To me a hall of famer should be a player who dominates in his era, not just a player with a few good years or an average player. Dog is a baseball purist, but unfortunetely geeks are taking over the world and next thing you know we'll have a panel of robots deciding who gets into the HOF.
Amen nerds stats
For Kenny to suggest that Raines and Tony Gwynn "essentially had the same career" is about the most absurd baseball-related thing Ive ever heard.
Their OPS are about the same, they were just about the same player defensively, and Raines was a MUCH better baserunner. Your definition of absurd is interesting to say the least.
+Jason Torres Raines' career average is ~40 points below Gwynn's, sure, but Raines walked a hell of a lot more often (career rate of 12.8% and never once had a season below 10%, while Gwynn walked ~8% of the time in his career, only topping 10% twice), so their career OBP are within three points. Neither was a great power hitter, but Raines has the edge in home runs (170 to 135) and ISO (.131 to .120 [ISO, by the way, is just slugging average minus batting average, which basically means we're only looking at extra-base hits). By career wRC+, Gwynn has a slight lead, with 132 to Raines' 125, so yes, Gwynn was the better hitter, but barely.
Defensively, as Frank said, they're basically the same. Going by Total Zone (one of the best ways we have to measure defense from players who played before ~2002/3 or so) Gwynn was a barely above average over his career (worth ~5 runs in the outfield) while Raines was barely below average (worth ~ -4 runs).
Raines more than makes up for the difference in hitting/defense with his baserunning, though. In basic stats, he stole 808 bases with a success rate of ~85%, which is excellent (Rickey Henderson's career success rate stealing bases is ~80%, for reference), while Gwynn stole 319 with a meager ~72% success rate, which is actually a bit below what we'd like to see (typically a baserunner is actually doing more harm than good with a rate below 75%). All told, Gwynn was worth ~11 runs above average as a baserunner in his career, while Raines was worth an astonishing 100.6 runs (second all-time behind only Henderson).
basically they were worth just about the same as players because gwynn was the better hitter while raines was the better baserunner
agreed it's insane!!!
Jason Torres I about threw up when I heard that it's totally insane Gwynn is a legend.
@@wyssmaster thats all fine and dandy but basically means jack shit....Tony Gwynn will go down as one of the best hitters of alltime. Raines on the other hand was a pretty good hitter primarilary known for stealing bases. Which is basically irrelevant in todays game. Raines needed to hit a major milestone number to be in to me, hes lucky to have gotten in at all
If you're gonna go by ERA+ you should point out that Mussina was always a starter, while Smoltz spent a good amount of years as a reliever, who of course tend to have lower ERA, therefore a higher ERA+.
You definitely have to compare rate metrics for volume
I agree with Russo though. You can't just put "very good" players in the HOF. Look, there are some guys who were very good but the HOF really should be reserved for the true stars of the game. The ones who sold the game and were faces of baseball in their respective times.
I didn't see Tim Raines play. But Edgar Martinez and Mike Mussina I did. Martinez was a great hitter, but he only stepped onto the field 4 times during a game (his at-bats), he wasn't playing every inning of every game. Mussina was a good pitcher who threw strikes and played good defense. But he wasn't anything more special than just a very good pitcher.
Ur dumbass
Tate Adams
Coming from an unemployed, bitter kid named "Tate", that means nothing to me.
mrbiggs36 blah blah blah go sit on your couch and eat cheetos dumbass then go work at what ever minimum wage job you work
Tate Adams
haha why would i sit on my couch if i have a job? YOU are the one sitting on your couch calling people a dumbass with no job....and your name is TATE lol
mrbiggs36 lol u don't know me. Lol what's funny about Tate? It's not that uncommon of a name. Just because you got a job doesn't mean your a not dumbass, dumbass
To be fair... To be fair... It isn't the "Hall of Objective Statistical Performance"
mrmajikjr Thank you. no offense to the math savants of the world, but it is baseball. Man throws ball at guy with bat. I don't trust money ball. How many world series did the Billy Beane A's win? 0
Don't get ahead of yourself, How many World Series have the Yankees and Dodgers go to combined since 2003? 2, in a combined 28 seasons for them. The Red Sox owe their 3 World Series to Billy Beane and Sabremetrics. They could have never won an all out bidding war. The A's wouldn't have won 40 games a year without "money ball."
The real Sabremetric kings have been the Rays and the Royals, Yeah, who've combined for more League titles, 3, than the spending giants. The Stats work... they just aren't 100.00%. A guy who gets an 83 in a class isn't always smarter than the guy who gets an 81.
the answer is.... Bonds is a Hall of Fame player with or without steroids. he has to be in. and the same goes for Clemens. no way piazza, Pudge or Bagwell should have gotten in before Barry Bonds.
SO FUCKING TRUE
Biggio too. Albert Belle should be in
There's no bigger mismatch than Brian Kenny vs. Chris Russo in a HOF debate. It's like a guy with a baseball PhD going against a kindergartener.
Theyre just old school vs new school, cant just call Russo dumb because hes paid to do his job.
Mad dog is a baseball genius man. Guy knows everything
Except baseball. Doesn't know much about baseball.
I agree with mad dog barry Larkin is not a hall of famer is in because he played in weakest era of national league shortstops in my lifetime he isn't the the best shortstop in reds history in my lifetime
Reds fan here we can debate the HOF but I believe Larkin was better then Concepcion. Larkin was the best Reds Shortstop from the 70's to the present in my opinion.
Tim Raines does not stack up. Russo is right. I hope they don’t fire Russo for arguing with the fabulous Brian Kenny !
Dog RA Dickey beat out Kershaw for Cy Young. Cy Young awards are subjective.
Dickey should not have won it that year.
Please. Please. No more Brian Kenny.
Hey, you think the average fan enjoys listening to this guy yell and blab and make no valid points? nah.
oh my god and pitchers' wins/losses are some of the dumbest baseball stats ever.
Jason Martinez right behind "range factor"
He's the white version of Stephen A. Smith.........
I dont know..go check your comparative analysis to answer that one...my gut says they DO enjoy a colorful, dynamic, honest, personality like Chris Russo. I'd say "yes" the average fan does....you want facts? Go look at his ratings from his "Mike and the Mad Dog" Years and the success hes had on SIRIUS ...this game lacks dynamic personalities and he is a pleasure to listen to and if you actually LISTENED to what he says...he actually makes very good points and shows hes a true sports fan and baseball historian.
Brian Kenny? I know, he's fuckin annoying
i like the discussion and back and forth debate, what Russo understands that all these proponnents of stastics do not is all these fancy figures do not put buts in the seats, The fans come to see their team win, not to hear some overpaid analyst quote them a bunch of unendingly boring and to them useless stats.
Mike Mussina is not nearly the pitcher Smoltz was
There's hall of fame & all-star players. I think the players mentioned are all-stars more than they're hall of famers. Also, today's managers are cheapening what it means to be an all-star when they pick first timers just because it would be nice. They might be doing them a favor but end up ruining it for millions of fans by picking unproven players over the proven players. I don't mind as long as the stats aren't close. It seems every year there are more first timers in the all-star game. They expect fans to say "Awww, they must be so happy. They probably have their families in the stadium".
I do think Mussina is a HOF 270-158 record. EVERY pitcher in the history with a W-L record of 100+ is in The HOF. I also think Mussina could've gotten to 300 wins if he wanted to. He was 20-9 In his last season. With that said, Mussina never seemed to produce in a big game. Trammell is not CLOSE to being a HOF'er .285 185Hrs 1000RBIs? Come on!
I just don't see him as a HOF... all my life paying attention to baseball, he was there and a solid player, but I can't remember any standout things he did, very good player but not someone you look at and see a legend
MrBaddog7676 I'd put Mussina in before Schilling.
Lac2900 exactly
Mike Youngblood I so disagree but that's ok. Schilling had insane playoff numbers. His Phillies teams were so bad that's a reason why his wins aren't higher.
I agree with Mad Dog that most of the"Hall of Fame" (tweeners) are getting in because of the "lock players under anabolic hgh suspicion.
As much as I can't stand Russo, I love it when he yells at Brian Kenny. I absolutely hate Brian Kenny.
Don't be dumb.
Agree Kenny is a idiot. Use common sense something he can't do as Russo said one of his rare good points watch the games.
Patrick Gray you're an idiot
Love This. Mad Dog is the Don Cherry of Baseball. Canadians will get what that means lol
Bryan Mills minus the suits
A loudmouth who's stuck in the past? Oh wow you're right.
Bryan Mills i know who don cherry is and im from nyc
Bryan Mills great comparison!
I love how Kenny tries to bring in Barry Larkins HOF resume as proof of Alan Trammells candidacy, and Dogg just spits in back into his face
Reds fan I agree with Russo on Larkin very good player HOF I'm not sure, Kenny is dumb Mussina not better then Juan Marichal not close.
@@patrickgray5633 Actually Mussina is better for his career than Marichal and it is not close. Marichal had a much bigger drop off in his career. Everything counts not just your top two or three years.
I agree with Brian... Tim Raines is one of the top 2 lead-off hitters of all-time... It is very hard to find lead-off hitters
This guy got so pissed when he mentioned WAR.
if you could just look at a player and go there is a hall of famer then why do even need a voting process? All the yelling and he had nothing to add to the argument.
Russo is yelling for no reason wow talk about needing attention - can he debate w/o yelling?
Apparently you don't know New Yorkers or Italians.
He yells all the time 😂
I left my t.v for like 30 mins and I missed this -_-
Russo might yell and sound annoying .. but honestly the guy knows what he is talking about . (But I do like his annoying voice, I grew up on mike and the mad dog lol)
Brian Kenny lost his credibility when he said mike trout should’ve been mvp over Miguel Cabrera in 2012 when miggy won the triple crown.
What a great debate! Grew up listening to mike n the maddog n love Russo never thought anyone could go toe to toe with him on baseball like Brian Kenny did? Both guys are unbelievable analyst
Tim Raines I love but nowhere close to Tony Gwynn.
@@patrickgray5633 Ummm... You see. There is a thing in baseball called a walk. Not as good as a hit but something that is better than an out and always you to be in a position to score a run. Tim Raines and Tony Gwynn are within .003 On Base Percentage for their careers. And Tim Raines stole 800 bases. So while Gwynn was a better hitter and a marginally better fielder, Raines got on base just as much as was significantly more effective once he was on base than Gwynn.
Brian, how can you compare Tim Raines to Tony Gwynn?!! Dog is absolutely right!! You have to lead the league in something, you have to have been tops in some categories.
To answer your question, Tim Raines walked. Tony Gwynn did not. And when Tim Raines got on base he stole more bases than almost anyone in history.. A walk is almost as good as a hit. A walk and a stolen base gets you into scoring position. Batting average doesn't give credit for walks. Gwynn and Raines have identical on base percentages. Tony hit more doubles. Raines stole bases. Hence almost identical careers.
Mad Dog has said he judges players' HOF credentials by "black type" - leading the league in categories. Well, Tim Raines has led his league in runs (2), doubles (1), stolen bases (4), batting average (1) and OBP (1). How can you have been the best in your league in 5 different categories and not be a Hall of Famer? As for Mike Mussina, he had 270 wins, including 20 wins in his final season at age 39. He had 2,813 strikeouts and four 200-strikeout seasons. He has led the league in wins (1) shutouts (1) and W-L % (1). What's doggie thinking?
It is a joke Raines is in the HOF. He was a good player, but not great.
Russo is 100% correct here...WATCH THE GAMES!
This video is like crack to me. Nothing is better than Baseball HOF debates
Hall of pretty darn good players
Mag Dog is so ON HERE , MOST OF THE NAMES KENNY MENTIONED ARE NOT HOF'ERS. WAR SUCKS BY THE EAY
Whoops Way.
Mad dog needs to drop the act.
I agree with russo.
Moose was my favorite pitcher n I didn't think he was a hof pitcher.
Curt wasn't a hofer but he was clutch just like Bernie Williams.
Rolen... edmonds... torii... Jimmy.... not are hofers.
I think andruw Jones is a hofer possibly
I agree with pretty much every word Russo said. It's not the hall of very good.
Honestly curt schilling should be in the hall of fame you can’t keep him out because of things he said or the medias view on him if someone doesn’t vote for him because of his media views then they shouldn’t be voting
The Hall only lets 1% of players in and they still do!
I agree, Mussina was very good but not hall worthy.
Mike Mussina was a better pitcher than Juan Marichal, Nolan Ryan, Jim Palmer, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Don Drysdale along with a bunch of guys who are way worse in like Jack Morris and Catfish Hunter. Mussina isn't that far from Steve Carlton and Bob Gibson.
It's very close.
Anyone else notice how phlegmy Russo sounds at 7:59 when he says, "Hall of Famer?" 😂
matt nokes has to be in the hall of fame
Lmao
Not a single fan cares about WAR just greatness of statistics and the fame they recieve
WAR is the shits
No HOF discussion has any relevance until Pete Rose is put in.
The baseball you watch plays a role.. I mean markets. Some guys can fly under the radar
Tim Raines, come on now.
Those War stats are stupid. I look at overall play Bonds was great player but his numbers vs Yaz are closer then people think much of Bonds Giants career is tainted due to steroids Yaz 3,000 hits Triple Crown 3 batting titles MVP in 67 plus Yaz defense in my opinion was better the one thing Bonds lacked was a Outfielder arm Yaz led the AL in OF assist. My opinion Yaz is way underrated as a player. Yaz is better then Ricky Henderson in my opinion.
It is worth noting though that you have stupid opinions based on nothing. Bonds is almost identical to Babe Ruth and they have no close peers statistically. Bonds had an OPS+ of 182 and was a good fielder. Bonds stole 500 bases. Yaz had and OPS+ of 130 and was worse in the field. Rickey (not Ricky) had a similar OPS+ to Yaz but stole 1400 bases to Yaz's 168. Ricky had a .401 OBP to Yaz's .379.
Dog is right, just saying. If you saw Raines play his whole career, you'd know that he is good but not HOF-good: but now that the Hall has been watered down some .....
Mad dog is right
WAR is like religion. If you say, "I understand it, but I don't subscribe to it", you are looked at by believers as if you have three heads. WARites are quick to shake their heads and tell you that you're not thinking...when what they have a problem with is that you're not thinking like them. The truth probably lies somewhere between these two.
Comparing WAR to a religion or something you need to "believe" in is like saying people who think math is useful are "believers".
Jim Palmer had 211 complete games.
Wish you all woulda discuss Lee Smith
I'm tired of people giving the HOF voters so much credit. I feel like there are some who look at the names and spend 10 seconds on it every year based on their "gut check" That's why it takes some players 10 years of slow and painful experience of climbing up in % each year. We see players who had 20% one year get in with over 75%. That means 50% of the people are terrible at doing their jobs and were not able to figure it out in year one. If they spent days analyzing each player we would have a shorter list and we could get people in when they're still alive to enjoy it. Life is short so lets give it the attention it deserves so people don't waste 10 years in misery / limbo when they should of gotten in all along. If voters don't want to spend their time doing a good job and think its funny how they all flip in year 10 after rejecting them for many years in a row. Then please remove yourself as a voter because you're not like nor appreciated by this fan. I see voters do this malarkey of rejecting Schilling and it's non-sense he was one of the most successful starting pitchers in his 20 years and should of gotten in within the first 5 at least. And they will be too ashamed not to vote him in year 10 because they know for a fact no matter what he's getting in it because he's legit and there is no denying it. Father Time will prove me right.
The future of the hall of fame is not looking good. It is going to get smaller and smaller
Russo is right
Just because you shout and interrupt doesn't make you right.
I'm with dog. I hate the insane math analytics. Trying to say that Tim Raines was better than Jim Rice?!?! GIVE ME A BREAK
Tim Raines was a better base stealer than Jim Rice was a home run hitter. On top of that, Raines walked a hell of a lot more than he struck out. Rice was a strikeout machine. A base stealer who can get on base and get the ball in play is more valuable than a one dimensional home run hitter.
2:17 Pot calling the kettle black.
Dude mussina is faaaaar from a HOFer. That dude blew so many big games for the Yanks. Made me want to smash my TV
The Hall of Fame is a joke now thanks to dudes like Brian Kenny.
"The fans don't care about WAR." The fans voted for Fernando Tatis for the All-Star Team when he hadn't played a single game. (This was before the failed drug test.) That's why we don't let them vote on something even more important.
*Sees Bonds have 162 WAR*
Bruh
Imagine trying to argue that Tim Raines isn't a deserving HoFer. The only knock against Tim Raines was that he wasn't Rickey Henderson.
Objective methodology watch the games 3:47
For non saber believers here me out. If Kershaw was traded to Colorado would his era, whip and losses go up?? Yes they would. Saber and WAR put players and numbers in their proper context by looking at only what the player can control. Last year Altuve had a 340 BA with a 380 OBP and stole over 50 bases and didn't even score 90 runs. Saying Rains didn't have 100 runs is a joke because it has to do with the talent of others on the team. Did you guys know WHIP wasn't even a common baseball stat used up until the 90s. Even then teams thought it was a dumb saber stat, and now it's very well known. It's only a matter of time until people start coming around and stop being ignorant
It is virtually impossible to find a true leadoff hitter. On base % speed and a mix of power. There has only been 2 in the history of baseball and they are Tim Raines and Rickey Henderson.
russo.. so.. many.. self-contradictions...
That yelling SOB is an unqualified dumbass. Absolutely shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Mussina definitely deserves to be in the HOF. He had a .636 winning percentage, 1.197 career WHIP barely lower than Koufax. Mussina had more strikeouts than Koufax and Palmer.
Dude GTFO with your cherry picked bullshit stats. Are you kidding me? Winning percentage? More strikeouts? I’ll give you the Palmer argument maybe but to even mention him with Koufax is blasphemy
larkin lfmao
Brian Kenny is a clown
This is manufactured debate
Jeff bagewell should be in
Next year Piazza is gonna be in the HOF
Guy on left is ridiculous
I actually agree w russo. Trammell and raines were not hofers. Neither was mussina. Martinez not playing any d is an issue too. I'd rather see the best players in there, not just pretty good players on up.
So you want Tony Gwynn out of the Hall of Fame Raines is out? And if Mussina is out, I guess you want Glavine, Smoltz, Palmer, Ryan, and Marichal out too.
WAR is an important stat. But I would much rather have a guy hitting .320 with 25 HR and a 400 obp who is a mediocre fielder than someone hitting .300, 15 HR, and a 330 obp who is a great fielder during an important game.
The guy with .320/25/.400 would almost surely have a higher WAR though.
I can't believe mlb network hired this goon(russo)!!!!! :/
As usual Maddog couldn't look much dumber.
Richie Bambara keep in mind.... Kenny just said that Tim Raines and Tony Gwynn had "essentially the same career". That, my friend, is dumber than shit. And shit is pretty unintelligent.
Wow, this didn't age well for Russo. If you went with his standard over the past 5 years no body is getting in ever. SMH. The Hall needs people. Without New Inductees it fails to serve a purpose. The worst thing about the Hall of Fame to me is when they have a year where they vote and not 1 player gets inducted. Everyone has grow old waiting for the obvious to work it's way out over a decade. Come on man hurry up and stop dragging your feet. Some years I feel like 10 people should get into the hall of fame at once. Why people half of them should of been voted in already in previous years and it greats backlog.
Omg that guy needs to shut up. Who the hell is he?
Mussina belongs in as a Yankee
Mad Dog makes himself look bad when he says stuff like Marichal won 25 EVERY year. Yes, doing that three times is very impressive, but he didn't do it every year.
The fact that Russo has zero rational arguments to support his entirely subjective opinion is nearly as annoying as his voice. And it's obviously fallacious to call him an "analyst" considering his refusal to analyze WAR. He's merely a gimmick; a caricature; a sensationalized version of the kind of dinosaur pundit who's thinking isn't just antiquated and facile- it's just plain old hack stupidity.
WAR, to me, is akin to the NFL's QB rating, where a Tony Romo is better than a Dan Marino. Dinosaurs who actually watched these guys day in and day out know the game better than a computer.
Kenny bringing up his nerdy ridiculous advanced stats. Get out of here.
You're a fucking idiot
Eric Viola How so dumb ass?
Marc Altamura You really need me to explain why you're an idiot? LOL. Because you think statistics that help us understand better what is happening are "ridiculous". Get it?
Dummy when people indicate what a HOF is nobody care's about their WAR,OPS+, SF etc? It's all nonsensical bull shit
Marc Altamura Umm deciding who is a HOF is exactly when those types of stats are useful. At least people that like to use their brain believe so. How in the fuck are objective statistics that show what happened nonsense? How fucking dumb can you get?
Russo is a complete fool when it comes to analysis.
Who's getting blown?