Bob Ryan's gut is omniscient

In a prime example of a long-tenured sportswriter doing whatever the fuck he wants, Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe is emptying out his brain all over the paper - which is just a bullet list of random crap that he thinks. Sounds awesome!

The New Orleans Hornets should know that in James Posey they are getting a pure mercenary, totally devoid of sentiment. But he has walked the championship walk in both Miami and Boston, and we will tell them what Pat Riley told us: You will like him in the regular season and you will love him in the money games. Never before has a 7-point-per-game man been so sought after.

Unfortunately for the lone purveyor of slick backed hair and Mr. Ryan, they actually measure clutch stats for hoops. Cat's out of the bag now!

Posey in the clutch as defined by 82games.com:
Per 48 minutes - 14.8 points (I got tired of counting how far down on the list that was)/0.353% FG/0.357% 3PFG%

Let me sigh a huge, Texas-sized meh. For some perspective, former Celtic and current nobody, Ryan Gomes puts up 19.9/48 minutes in the clutch. Oh, and LeBron drops 56.

I'll let Ryan define "money games," in which I am sure Posey scores like 80 points/48 minutes.

I don't know what to call the stat (RPB: runs per base?),

Bunk per junk stat?

but I'm here to tell you that few regulars in baseball score runs a higher percentage of the time they get on base than Jacoby Ellsbury, who has scored 60 runs on 121 total bases. The only regulars who are in his league are Toronto's Marco Scutaro (41 runs, 92 TB) and Milwaukee's Rickie Weeks (58 runs, 110 TB). Then there's the fascinating Willy Taveras (Colorado), who has scored 41 runs on 88 total bases with an OBP of .296.

Funny thing is Scutaro and Weeks both kind of stink while Taveras is terrible. That's some whack company. And that stat is more teammate reliant than RBIs, which are also kind of silly.

We can manipulate numbers all we want, but in the end, it's a gut call when deciding if someone should be a baseball Hall of Famer. So, yes, Curt, you have my vote. You're a vital part of late 20th- and early 21st-century baseball history.

Caveman say ugh.

Good to know one of the most important sportswriters for the Globe goes with his gut when deciding HOFers.

"What about Greg Maddux, Bob?"
"I just had a chilli dog, my gut says no."

Mr. October, candy bars, 'Phews' and hundreds of other anecdotes

Curt Schilling is near the end of his career. His Hall candidacy will be much-talked about until 2013-14, mainly because he's not a "stat" guy as much he was a "big game" guy.

Robert Moyer, at my beloved DugoutCentral.com, is a "big game" guy guy.

Stats are great.

I love stats. At times in my life I have literally lived them, and better ones are being developed constantly.

Me too! Wanna have a beer sometime and talk about Robinson Cano's BABIP or Roy Oswalt's FB/HR ratio?

But let’s not get lost in them, folks. With the power at our hands today it’s all too easy to do so.

Invitation rescinded.

Phil Melita’s recent article on Curt Schilling’s potential Cooperstown worthiness made a number of great points and elicited a stream of terrific responses ... However, the impact of a player on the Game is more, and sometimes less, than the sum of his statistics.

Best part of that paragraph, capilization of the Game. Like the Game is more important than You Are.

An area where Schilling most certainly does merit consideration, whether he adds a single W to his career total, is his personal impact on the sport – and that is indeed an intangible. Did he entertain people? Enthrall them, at least at some sustained peak? Was he a “character” that added to the color of the game? Did he rise above it when the spotlight was on him?

I don't care, none of that matters, it's impossible to determine, blah blah blah...

Seriously, "a 'character' that added to the color of the game?" Like Jon Papelbon? Is someone who is weird more Hall worthy than someone who is "normal?" Who decides who is a "character?" Is Carl "Dinosaurs Are Fake" Everett slightly more HOF worthy because he was a nut job? Couldn't one argue that everyone is a character, somehow? Is there a star in baseball who's personality-less (Pujols, maybe?)? I could ask a billion more questions, but they all come down to...

Who the hell cares.

All these things more rightfully enhance a player’s chances of reaching Cooperstown. Oppositely, no matter the quality of their statistics, deficiency in any or all of them shaves their prospects – just as stratospheric numeric performance can and does compensate for otherwise blandish presence.

Let me break it down, MC Hammer-style:

Awesome stats, cool dude = increased chance for Hall

Awesome stats, boring dude = slightly less chance

Really awesome stats, boring dude = push

Reggie Jackson and Rafael Palmeiro ... had “relatively” similar careers

Except Jackson had like twice the Ks, less hits, slightly worse: OBP/SLG/RBI/2B. Similar enough I suppose.

But what fan who watched both players in their primes would begin to argue that Palmeiro had a fraction of the electrifying impact Jackson had on the game, especially when the pressure was greatest and spotlight brightest?

I guess no one - Mr. October, straw that stirs the drink and such. But what does it matter again?

Jackson was a first-ballot Hall of Famer who earned fully 94% of baseball writers’ votes in spite of a middling .262 career BA and record shattering 2,597 whiffs.

And - assuming no one cares about roids, which effs up this comparison anyway - Palmeiro should be 100% first ballot. Benchmarks are lame, but 3,000 hits and 500 homers is pretty nuts. Plus, dude won a gold glove when he played like 1/2 a season. That's gotta be worth something.

Reggie didn’t get the nickname “Mr. October” by accident. And it wasn’t an accident that he had a candy bar named after him and created waves of headlines and ripples in the crowd wherever he appeared. Opposing fans always knew when he would come to bat; they would time their beer runs and bathroom breaks to make sure they wouldn’t miss his titanic swings. Entire stadiums sat on the edge of their seats and let out collective “Phews!” when he fanned with a game on the line, or crossed their fingers and mumbled prayers to their Almighty that he get a chance to tie one when they were down. They would scan their scorecards and beg for walks, hit batsmen, anything, ahead of him just to get him into the batter’s box.

I have nothing to say about this anecdote avalanche, just wanted to get it out there. Buzz Bissinger better watch his ass, this guy is a pro(se).

There are no statistics for these things, but fans know them, respect them and employ them as their own measures of Hall of Fame worthiness,

Which is ridiculous because people have crappy, false memories.

every bit as much as numbers, awards, and the opinions of baseball Talking Heads.

Funny thing is, talking heads love the anecdote explosion you just dropped earlier. Much more than stats and junk.

Oh, and:

And you may find yourself living in a shotgun shack
And you may find yourself in another part of the world
And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife
And you may ask yourself - "Well...How did I get here?"

Letting the days go by/Let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/Water flowing underground
Into the blue again/After the money's gone
Once in a lifetime/Water flowing underground.

We must not lose sight of intangibles as our data-mining tools become more powerful and contributors and readers alike grow ever more agile in their use. These tools leave us richer in numbers, but if we aren’t careful about how we use them, they can make us poorer in context.

I understand what is being said here. Being a big, memorable character should increase your Hall worthiness ever so slightly. But to say that two guys with almost identical numbers - one is an attention hog, the other, a quiet guy - should have a disparity between their Halliness, is patently dumb.

If David Ortiz gets in on the back of his game winning bombs and "clutch" hits when he's done (assuming he doesn't go Bonds on us), I will scream and crown Robert Moyer king of all that is anecdotal and right with the Hall.

Schilling’s stats may be borderline for Cooperstown – may be. Are his contributions between them – his swagger, sweat, bloody sock and promises made and promises kept – enough to push him over the top?

If I were a betting man, I would bet that Schilling gets in at some point.

Note to all borderline HOFers: start a crazy blog, call out Kobe Bryant, put ketchup on your sock during the playoffs and start a video game studio.

Add this to the list of reasons to dislike Joe Buck

Joe Buck. You hate him, I hate him, almost every sports fan I know hates him. He handled broadcasting duties this past Sunday during the Red Sox/Reds contest and was speaking about Mario Soto's influence on some of the Reds young pitchers.

"If he [Soto] was on better teams, he'd be walking into the Hall of Fame."

So me, being a picky jerk, decided to look up Mr. Soto's numbers.

About that walk into the Hall...

W/L - 100/92
So this is probably where Buck is on point. With a career 3.47 ERA (which is pretty good) he could have had more than 100 wins with better run support. In a season where he had a 2.79 ERA, his W/L was 14-13. Point for Buck.

ERA/WHIP - 3.47/1.18
The WHIP is actually pretty good, better than HOFers like Gibson and Spahn. Granted, those guys pitched for longer than Soto's 12 seasons, but, oh well. The ERA is tied with a lot of people for 392 all-time. Looking around the 390+ range, I only see Glavine as someone who has a similar ERA and is in (when the time comes) the Hall. We split this one.
Buck: 2 Me: 1.

K/BB - 1449/657
His K's are good for 185 all-time, which is pretty solid considering the 12 seasons. Ahh but that bugaboo known as the walk hurts Soto. He's ranked 806 in BB/9IP, behind studs like Kid Gleason, Johnny Allen and Bobby Bolin. Again, split decision.
Buck: 3 Me: 2.

ERA+ - 108
League average is 100. Yeah, 108 is not that good. He's tied with many others for 353 all-time including Tim Wakefield, David Wells and Mike Boddicker. That's one for me.
Buck: 3 Me: 3.

Cy Youngs/All-Star games - 0/3
He finished 5, 9, 2, 6 in Cy voting over his career. Now however dumb award voting is, that's not very good. Sure, wins are a big part of it (as are better pitchers who pitched the same time as him), but I'd counter with the all-star appearances. He was only good enought to be voted to three ASGs? And he's going to walk into the Hall?
Buck: 3 Me: 5.

HOF Standard/Monitor score - 15/27
The average HOFer has scores of about 50 and 100, respectively. So like four Mario Sotos would just barely be a HOF pitcher. Good to know.

Remember Glavine, who has a higher career ERA than Soto? His HOF Monitor score is 176. Pitchers with a 27: Danny Graves and Mike Meyers.
A billion points for me.
Buck: 3 Me: 1,000,000,005.

Winner!

I'm not saying Jayson Stark is wrong, just not right

Jayson Stark. Smart dude, good writer. 

Over at his most recent installment of "That's Debatable," wherein he debates things that "are debatable," he talks about Griffey Jr. and Manny Ramirez, who are at or near milestones of 600 and 500 home runs, respectively.

It's close as to whose better, so props to Stark for taking a stand. But slops to his logic. 

Griffey suffered a million injuries and could have somewhere between 800 and 900 homers, which is insane. I also have basic researching skills and can look things up, so I know Manny has played less than Griffey. Let's see where this goes.

You can certainly argue Ramirez was a more complete hitter than Griffey (.312 average to Griffey's .289, .408 on-base percentage to Griffey's .373, .591 slugging percentage to Griffey's .550). And it's impossible to dispute that Manny has had the steadier career

All very convincing. Let me add some more, seeing as I know the outcome of the article (spoiler alert: it's not Manny).

Seasons: Griffey - 20 Manny - 16

OPS+: Griffey - 139 Manny - 154

Silver Slugger awards: Grif - 7 Man Ram - 9

All Star games: G - 13 M - 11

MVP finishes: Griffey - 19, 9, 17, 5, 2, 4, 1, 4, 10 Manny - 12, 6, 3, 6, 9, 9, 6, 3, 4, 18

All very close. Except seasons. And OPS+. 

Manny still has a few more seasons in him, and could, mayyyyybe, get to 600. For some reason this four season gap is never mentioned. 

Well, let's start with some basic mathematics. Last time I checked, 600 was a lot bigger number than 500. 

One hundred bigger, actually. Which is a whopping 2.5 of Manny's 162 game average of 41 homers. Did I mention Manny is four seasons behind Griffey?

And 20 is bigger than 16. 

Manny was the 24th name in the ever-swelling 500-Homer Club. 

I assume this is steroids-era dig. Why oh why are players who achieve certain landmarks (which are arbitrary, by the way) later than those before them, penalized? In 50 years, when Albert Pujols III joins the other 40 members of the 500 home run club, is it any less important than say, Jimmie Foxx? 

There are going to be more and more awesome players of the game of baseball as the years go on. More and more are going to hit 500 home runs. It's just the way things work. Players aren't going to suddenly stop hitting home runs for long periods of time. 

Griffey will be joining only Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays and Sammy Sosa in the 600-Homer Club. Big difference.

Big diff. 40% of those guys probably used steroids. As opposed to 41%* in the 500 home run club. 

Yes, joining a group of five is cooler than a group of 24. But Manny could join that group when he's done. For the one hundredth time: Griffey has played longer. Manny, less so.

But of course, Griffey also has a few other attributes. Like 10 consecutive Gold Gloves, a unanimous MVP award, three Players Choice awards, a spot on the All-Century Team and another spot on the all-time Rawlings Gold Glove team. Among other things.

Griffey was absolutely a better defender. But Gold Gloves are silly, they're given to whoever won it the previous year and I doubt the committee (if one exists) uses any metrics beyond "fielding %" and "plays that made me scream 'WEB GEM!'"

Unanimous MVP is pretty rad, a spot on the all-century team is essentially meaningless, as it had no criteria and I have no idea what the hell a players choice award is. If it's anything like the Nickelodeon Kid's Choice Awards, then it's awesome.

And "among other things" is straight-up lazy.

With all apologies to the Manny Being Manny Fan Club, I deduct points for all those jogs to first base, week-long midseason vacations and inability to fit spring training into our man Manny's busy schedule.

Ugh. Double ugh. Triple ugh. These have nothing to do with Manny's ability to play baseball. 

I deduct points from Griffey for being on the Mariners, having a kickass baseball video game and playing with his dad.

Plus, I guess I missed the news about those 10 Gold Glove trophies Manny secretly won.

Ohhhhhhh snap. Epic burn. 

After he picks Griffey, Stark opens it up for comments. Some of which are not completely moronic.

Dave (Colorado Springs): We always talk a lot in Major League Baseball about stats and comparing one to another to determine greatness, when in the end, the only thing that matters is winning. ... How many championship teams has Griffey been on again?

Jayson Stark: You know, you make a valid point. But I'm always hesitant to make judgments about any player based on how many rings he might wear. If we're going to use that standard, then I guess Luis Sojo was a greater player than Griffey. So I'm fine with factoring in championships, but I'm not so fine with using them as any firm barometer.

But how many gloves of gold they wear, I am totally down with.

*made up figure

Robert Horry hall of fame? More like hall of LAME

It appears Robert "Cheapest, dirtiest player in the game after two incidents, one of which was not that bad and the other was an award-winning flop-job" Horry will be retiring soon.

Dude has seven championship rings. Knee-jerk reaction from the world: he might be a HOFer. Career stats may not be great, but he's a winner. Let the debate begin!

J.A. Adande, of Around the Horn fame, thinks he's in. Me? Not convinced.

Just know this: The NBA hasn't seen a winner like Horry in three decades. John Havlicek retired in 1978, the last member of the Boston Celtics' 1960s dynasty to check out, and one of only six players in NBA history with a championship ring collection larger than Horry's seven.

Of those six players -- Bill Russell (11 rings), Sam Jones (10), Tom Heinsohn, K.C. Jones, Tom Sanders and Havlicek (eight each) -- Sanders is the only one not in the Hall of Fame. But the fact that K.C. Jones is makes the case for Horry.

My favorite Hall argument in any sport? "Player X is in, so player Y must be in if he's similar." What if they messed up? Isn't that possible?

And I counter with "Sanders didn't get it, so why should your guy?" So there.

Jones averaged 7.4 points, 3.5 rebounds and 4.3 assists per game in his nine-year career. Horry has averaged 7.0 points, 4.8 rebounds and 2.1 assists per game in 16 seasons.

So they both kind of stunk.

And nine years with those stats and like six other Hall teammates gets your ticket punched?

Jones proved there's a place in the Hall for underwhelming statistics if they came on winning teams.

Over at databasebasketball.com (a bunk-ridden nerd site, I know) they have this magical invention called the HOF monitor. Basically, it places values on various achievements one could accrue during an NBA career. MVP is the most highly weighted, as every MVP is in the hall. Go read about it if you want to know more, it's not that complicated, makes a ton of sense and isn't perfect. But it's something. And, much to Horry's chagrin, three-pointers made in the Finals is not worth that much. Zero, to be exact.

Anyway, Jones' score is 135, right at the average for a HOFer. Horry's score? 90. Conclusion = Jones was a better player of the game of basketball than Horry. At least more Hall-worthy. [Update: I was looking at Sam Jones' score, not K.C. Jones'. I blame the fact that there are two Jones' in the article and that I am dumb. K.C.'s score is actually 88, less than Horry's 90. So I actually helped out J.A. here. Meh, it happens.]

For reference: current dudes Antoine Walker, Baron Davis and Mike Bibby are all 95+ and I doubt they're on their way anytime soon. Dennis Johnson, who most see as borderline, has a 134. Hell, Reggie Miller is at 130 and is the same player as Horry, but actually good in non-clutch situations.

Maybe Horry didn't get his teams to that point, but he brought them home. If relievers like Bruce Sutter and Rollie Fingers can get into the baseball Hall of Fame,

Really J.A.? Two crazy-good relievers compared to a guy who makes "clutch" shots? I think the more fitting comparison would be an awesome pinch-hitter. Of which I doubt there are any in the Hall of Fame (correct me if I'm wrong).

and people believe kicker Adam Vinatieri deserves a bust in Canton, there's a place for Horry in the basketball Hall.

Now we're getting silly. Vinatieri didn't just come in and make some kicks in the playoffs. He's one of the most accurate kickers ever - ninth all-time in FG%. If we want to do some crazy apples to oranges to tomatoes comparison, Horry isn't even in the top 100 in three-point percentage at 34%. And in the clutch-tastic playoffs? 36%. Seems right in line with his career... "No he is clutch!" (that was J.A.)

Think about it: Has there been anyone you'd dread seeing in position to kill your team more than Horry?

I seem to remember a certain Jordan guy who was OK.

And just for a frame of reference, his HOF monitor score is 731, second all-time. That's 8.12 Robert Horries. That's also the number of milliseconds it took me to think about someone I am more afraid of killing my team.

He has appeared in more NBA playoff games than anyone else,

This is the definition of cherry-picking. Appeared is the key word. He could have appeared for one second in 1,000 playoff games, and turned the ball over 1,000 times with 1,000 fouls for all I know. Luckily, a thing called the internet exists and I can see that Horry is number 12 all-time in playoff minutes, not including this post season. He could easily get top ten, but Kareem (number one) has almost 2,000 more minutes than Horry. That's 42+ more games.

See, I can cherry-pick too.

made more 3-pointers in the Finals than anyone else

I take back the definition of cherry picking from the previous statement and move it to this one. Three-pointers made in the Finals? If scrub player X somehow made it to the Finals one thousand times and makes one stinkin three in each of those games does he deserve to go to the Hall (ignoring his freakish longevity and age)? And what if he made a ton, but missed three-times as many? I normally try and stay away from statements like this but: Give. Me. A. Break.

Because when he's gone, you'll never see another player like him.

A mediocre to good role-playing three-point shooter who got insanely lucky to be on teams that got to/won the NBA championship seven times, of which the outcome may or may not have been slightly affected by his shooting, but also a bajillion other factors?

Well, Adande may have me there.