I dunno... was Dave Kingman a hot commodity back in the day? (that being said, Kingman's career numbers still outweigh Carter's). Actually, the old-school metrics also still say that Carter is a bad hitter (low average, high K rate).
He made higher than the MLB average (by a good margin). Mark Reynolds is the most similar offensive player I can think of and he was never non-tendered. Even last year after putting up a .216/.303/.395 line over the previous 3 years he still got $2.6M. Mike Napoli got $8.5M despite having very similar numbers to Carter the last couple of years.
ESPN has noticed. Over a 36-day span in November and December, he was designated for assignment and claimed on waivers five times. Now he's been DFA'd by the Cubs and is in limbo yet again. http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...season-odyssey-makes-another-stop-waiver-wire
Got to talk to Shane Reynolds for a while watching his kid at UT. Ryan Reynolds, LH freshman starting 3B, is going to be a player. I brought up how much fun the late 90's were, he volunteered "****ing Hitchcock". He said Kevin Brown was in everybody's head, ala Mike Scott v Mets in '86 or Pedro in whatever year that was. He swears, and I agree, that the Stros win a 7 game series and have an even shot versus the Yankees that year.
Interesting retrospective thought exercise (and what else are we going to talk about besides A.J. Reed's weight?) So, had it been a 7 game series... they would have been down 3-1 with one more game in SD, correct? I presume the game 5 matchup would be Reynolds vs. Ashby... total advantage Astros (this would be a re-match of game 2, the only game they won), and its hard to beat any team 3 games in a row, let alone the 1998 Astros. You then go back to the Dome for games 6 & 7... what is unclear is if they'd give more days off, since they inexplicably had days off between games 1, 2 AND 3. Lets just say they do... Its Hampton vs. Brown in Game 6, both on 3 days rest... with Brown now with 2 starts on 6 days rest total. If he was truly in their heads, Astros don't win that game (and I'm not sure what Hampton's historical performance was with 3 days rest). If somehow you get it to a game 7, its now Randy vs. ****ing Hitchcock in game 7, both on 3 days rest... i'd have expected the 98 offense to have busted that game wide open, especially if they had found a way to survive Brown the day before. (If there are no days off in between games 5 & 6, then its Lima vs. Joey Hamilton in game 6... big advantage Houston.... with Hampton vs. Brown in game 7 both on 3 days rest, which would be the same scenario as above, with an added game 7 mental issues compounded with the Kevin Brown mental issues). All be told... it would still be a toss-up in a 7 game series, not because of Hitchcock... but because Kevin Brown was that ****ing good that series (he also had a CG shutout of the Braves in the NLCS in his very next start, so it was more than simply the Astros getting themselves out).
His point was it would have changed their whole mindset for the series. Which I don't entirely disagree with, given that Hunsicker went ballistic after they announced the schedule (the many off days were a massive disadvantage to the team with the deeper pitching staff). Really good guy, he'll be at the Disch, as will Clemens, pretty much every game this year. Next time I'll ask about '99 and Walt F'ing Weiss.
Truth be told, barring steroid concerns for Kevin Brown, I think he would be in the HOF. At his peak he was as fearsome as Clemens or Pedro, scarier than any of the Atlanta three. The dude just could not stay healthy, and in the thick of his prime too, getting ridiculous injuries after sleeping with his pitching raised above his head and stuff. In retrospect I think those dumb injuries (see Sammy Sosa sneezing) are things that you tend to see more with roid users. But who knows, maybe that's just baseball players in general. Someone made the point earlier that our entire era, or at least my era of baseball that I religiously watched while growing up, might only produce 5 HOF starting pitchers. Randy Pedro and the Atlanta three. Clemens is obviously deserving, and I think it's a matter of time, whether the writers vote him in or the veterans' committee. There's a clear line of demarcation in his career for when he started roiding (after joining the Blue Jays, when Dan Duquette called him washed up), and like Bonds he was already a HOFer before that moment. After that you have Roy Halladay and then a bunch of borderline guys until you get to Clayton Kershaw. Compared to other eras and the amounts of pitchers that got in, that's horrible. If hitters profited from the steroids era then eventually some adjustment will have to be made to compensate for the pitchers that had to pitch in it. First, Mussina should be in by all rights. But after that, it's a pretty open field, and while I doubt anyone else gets voted in during their eligibility to period, don't count out some of our longtime heros making it in 20, 30 years, when I'll be in my 50's. That would include Roy Oswalt in my opinion. Once we revise our standards for what a HOF starter should be, he has just as good an argument as any (Pettitte, Verlander, Sabathia, Santana, Hudson etc). And for Pete's sake, keep Schilling out of the Hall. If anyone should be blackballed it's that guy.
Roy O was great, but not all-time great. Just not a hall of famer, in my opinion. Rather make the standards for hitters in that area higher than drop standards for pitchers.
Oswalt was one of the league's 5 best pitchers over a 10 year stretch. He's not a surefire hall of famer, but he garners consideration.
Seems a surefire way to ensure he WON'T be at the Disch pretty much every game this year. "Hey, Shane - tell me about this OTHER horrible memory in which the team failed...." "Uhm, you know... I'm going to sit over here.........."
He averaged 32 starts/year between 1991 and 2000. The only two years he didn't hit at least 32 were the strike years. His peak ('96-00) was great; it just wasn't long enough and his other years were, collectively, rather pedestrian. (And given that his peak occurred between ages 31-35, he obviously looks like a prime PED suspect.) BTW, I had NO IDEA he was one and done with San Diego. What a kick in the balls that was.
Agreed, but they pretty much have to change the pitching standard as pitching has changed. Roy Halladay should be a HOFer, but his numbers aren't going to blow you away. Especially the 203 wins, which is very low for a HOFer. The main difference between him and Oswalt is essentially 2 seasons. Very few pitchers are reaching the 200 win plateau and historically wins do matter for the HOF. With fewer innings pitched, starters are also struggling to match the WAR totals of the players that came before them.
Yes, ERA & ERA+ are probably the two top factors I'd consider as a voter (not that I would ignore others). Then you have to decide at what level of innings pitched have to be achieved at those levels to be a HOFer? What does a stretch of dominance do for a candidacy (i.e. Koufax)? RoyO has a similar WAR & ERA+ to Koufax in a similar number of IP, but Roy was never the best pitcher in baseball, while Koufax was for 5 years. As much as I wish I could be a HOF voter, I think the job is difficult and appreciate the guys that take it very seriously. I think we'll see guys like Justin Verlander, Felix Hernandez, Jon Lester, Max Scherzer, David Price, Cole Hamels & Zack Greinke receive HOF consideration. If they fall off like Oswalt did, they they won't make it. If they pitch well for another 4-5 years, they will have a real shot. If they can go to 40, like guys used to, they'll probably be in.
Well said. It's easy to advocate for a single candidate; but having to at least kick the tires on 20-25 players every year.... I mean, it's not *hard* in the grand scheme of things - but it's not easy by any stretch. And it's further complicated by a lot of the writers having greater insight (ie Bonds is a jerk, etc.) As much as I pushed for Bagwell, obviously... I find myself being far more critical, for instance, of Guerrero, McGriff... Hard not to bring your own bias into it.
His floor joists and rafters are outstanding, his furniture top-notch. Maybe he didn't hit so well because he was a Shaker? It's hard to drive a buggy across country these days.
