Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.
You’d be surprised by the amount of behind the scenes conversation in the past week or so regarding today’s debate.
What started as a vocal debate about whether or not we’ll ever see another 300 game winner in Major League Baseball turned into a conversation about whether or not the threshold for Hall of Fame credentials should be lowered to 275 wins from the current total of 300.
I must be clear that I do feel that there will be some starting pitchers in the future who will win less than 300 wins that will likely make a trip to Cooperstown. C.C. Sabathia is a name that comes to mind, though Sports Geek believes it’s a possibility that Mr. Sabathia could chase 300 wins. I see no reason, however, to lower the “threshold” to 275 wins. For one reason, it just doesn’t sound as forward and clear as 300 anyway!
There are certain landmarks that must be reached in baseball in which you essentially guarantee yourself a trip to the Hall of Fame after you hang up the jersey. Getting 3,000 hits is certainly one of them. To a slightly lesser extent, hitting 500 home runs without steroid accusations (Bonds, Palmerio, McGwire) is another. And, as of right now, so is achieving 300 wins.
As Babe Ruthless stated in his intro, there are currently 24 members in the 300 win club, with Randy Johnson being the last one to join when he won his 300th game last season. While there is no specific reward given to the members, it’s a personal plateau reached, and an extremely difficult honor to accomplish. Lowering the threshold to 275 essentially slaps the face of 24 current or future Hall of Fame pitchers. Obviously, you don’t take away anything statistically from them, but do you really think people are going to start calling it “The 275 Win Club.”
Let’s look at Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Jamie Moyer. He’s a solid major league pitcher who has had a lengthy career. He’s extremely well-respected by his peers, and who wouldn’t respect him? It’s an accomplishment in itself to still be a starting pitcher for one of the better teams in baseball at the age of 47, and it’s even more amazing due to his style of being a finesse pitcher. He is ignoring the calls of Father Time by getting batters out who are half his age. Hats off to him. He currently has 265 wins in his lengthy career. If he gets ten more wins, does he warrant a Hall of Fame nomination? He does not. Look at his career. He’s made ONE all star team. He has a career ERA of 4.23, with it never being below three in any season. Yet, if you go by Bleacher Fan’s proposed rules, and if Moyer gets ten more wins, he will have reached The Threshold, and warrants an automatic spot in Cooperstown. Do you really feel Jamie Moyer is a Hall of Fame pitcher? Has he ever been considered the best at his position for even ONE season?
Let’s assume you just finished your 30th year at your place of work. And let’s say that after thirty years on the job management gives you a nice gold watch and a vacation to the destination of your choice. When you come back, you find an email in your inbox saying the company is going to start honoring those who have been on the job for 25 years by giving them the same reward. How do you feel? Yes, that doesn’t take away the time you have put in and everything you have accomplished, but part of you probably feels cheated. It’s the same situation with this argument.
No one will ever take away 300 wins. It’s a legitimate personal accomplishment shared by only 24 men in this world. To cheapen their accomplishment would be totally disrespectful, and would be a step in the wrong direction.
Posted by Babe Ruthless 
The What Makes a Better In-Game Analyst Debate – Analyze This!
August 5, 2009Read the debate intro and read Sport’s Geek’s argument that someone with no playing experience makes a better in-game analyst.
This is sure to be an interesting and unique debate, and it is appropriate that Sports Geek and I debate it. We both have backgrounds in various types of media, both on-air broadcast and print. Plus, we are both fascinated with sports media. Heck, we read the same TV media columns, including our favorite written by USA Today columnist Michael Hiestand.
Bleacher Fan asks us what qualification makes for a better in-game sports analyst. And to me, a better analyst is someone who has played the game. A better analyst is someone who can break down the X’s and O’s and the nuances of the game he is analyzing. In his intro, Bleacher Fan asks Sports Geek to argue that the better analyst possesses “an ability to communicate in a manner that makes the sport compelling to watch.” The onus should fall on the play-by-play commentator to do that.
Let’s use a couple of examples. I will hopefully prove that this is an excellent way to get the point across and it is something that only someone who has played the game can talk about.
Don Sutton, a Hall of Fame pitcher who won 324 games, is currently a commentator for the Atlanta Braves radio network and very underrated as an analyst. He was and still is a student of the game. What he does better than most is go inside the head of a pitcher. When a situation comes up in a game he will often talk about what is in the head of a pitcher from a psychological perspective. He’ll break down scouting reports of not only pitchers, but also hitters. He often breaks down what a pitcher does – or should do – on his non-throwing days. It really does vary from pitcher to pitcher. He can talk about this and have instant credibility because of his background as a Hall of Fame pitcher. He is someone listeners trust. His words mean more than someone like Steve Phillips when he says something to about a pitcher. I respect Phillips and his front office background. He did, after all, build a team that made it to the World Series (2000 New York Mets). But, what does he know about pitching? If Sutton was not in the broadcast booth, he could be in the dugout as a pitching coach. Having met the guy in person, he is a heckuva nice guy… and even comes across that way on air.
Another analyst and former player I like is Troy Aikman. When Aikman was first hired by FOX in 2001, I thought it was a match made in hell. Aikman never came across to me as someone who could break down a game the way an analyst should. Folks, I was wrong. He has quickly shot up the FOX chain of command and is now the analyst on the lead crew with Joe Buck on FOX. Aikman’s dry wit and smooth persona go along with his deep knowledge of the game. He is able to see things in the coverage of defenses that Tony Kornheiser can’t see (to be fair, that was not Tony’s role on Monday Night Football). Perhaps Aikman keeps his eye on linebacker or a safety from the booth – much the same way he did on the field – and is able to express how Peyton Manning was able to hit Dallas Clark over the middle. These are little things that make a broadcast more effective… these are little things that Kornheiser might study film and be able to say that, but he is not a Hall of Fame quarterback. He is not Troy Aikman. Whose opinion do you value more when discussing football? It is nothing against Kornhesier. I absolutely love him on Pardon the Interruption. But again, he is not Troy Aikman and would probably tell you so.
Imagine you are at a doctor’s office awaiting a consultation with your cardiologist. You are talking to the nurse and she says, “What they usually do is go in and…” Now, ten minutes later, you talk to your doctor and he tells you, “Loyal Homer, I have done hundreds of surgeries like this. What I will do is connect this valve to this valve and…” Now, who makes you feel better there?
Analysts analyze. Just ask yourself… can you really effectively analyze if you have not been in that position yourself? No you cannot!