Okay, let me be a little less literal -- were you among the best players of your generation. Obviously both of them get in. I'm not originating this idea, you hear it from all of the voters all of the time. I'm not sure there is a hard fast rule, and I'm fine with that. If you don't think a guy "feels" like a HOF'er than that is great, but you shouldn't have to compare him to someone from a different era to prove your case. That is my point.

 

 

What about Tejada?

Okay, let me be a little less literal -- were you among the best players of your generation. Obviously both of them get in. I'm not originating this idea, you hear it from all of the voters all of the time. I'm not sure there is a hard fast rule, and I'm fine with that. If you don't think a guy "feels" like a HOF'er than that is great, but you shouldn't have to compare him to someone from a different era to prove your case. That is my point.

 

 

I don't like the voters either, but that's a whole other issue.

Yes... Arod will have better numbers than Jeter

 

I know, but when/if ARod moves back to SS that makes Jeter not the best of his generation and if I'm reading hssrb's post right only the best of the era can make it. Tejada is pretty good and he has no chance in the best of the era argument.

 

I think you are taking my post (and their [writers who espouse such theories]) too literally. My point still is this: compare a guy to his peers of his era, see where he stacks up, and make the call. Don't worry yourself with players of previous eras, regardless of adjusted computer comparisons, it just will never be truly equal.

 

Honestly, again, I don't care this much. Ask the freaking writers how they vote and then criticize their choices. I'm saying this:

 

1. IMHO Biggio gets in.

2. I don't care how he compares to Lou Whitaker.

3. I think any computer program that tries to equalize for me Babe Ruth and Mark McGwire's best years is statistical noise.

4. I can't control how voters vote, but I like the fact that how they compare to their peers means something.

5. This conversation has gotten silly. I think we all know multiple players can get in at a position from the same era (Ozzie, Ripken, for example), no harm, no foul. Just don't bother yourself with how Ozzie compares to Pee Wee Reese, regardless of what the "equalized stats" tells us.

Yes... Arod will have better numbers than Jeter

 

I know, but when/if ARod moves back to SS that makes Jeter not the best of his generation and if I'm reading hssrb's post right only the best of the era can make it. Tejada is pretty good and he has no chance in the best of the era argument.

Just my opinion but not many, if any better defensive SS, than Jeter.

 

Offensively, A-Rod I believe will be the all-time HR leader, eclipsing Bonds and may approach 800, "if" he remains healthy and continues playing.

 

Both offensive and defensive stats, are considered in my book, when choosing/commenting on players, that are HOF and best, at their position. Right now, A-Rod doesn't play SS. Same argument with Smoltz, when he was a reliever....can't compare him with starters, when his role was a reliever and now, can't compare him with relievers, when he's now a starter.

What about Tejada?

 

He doesn't "feel" like a HOF'er to me, but I'm still not credentialed.

I think you are taking my post (and their [writers who espouse such theories]) too literally. My point still is this: compare a guy to his peers of his era, see where he stacks up, and make the call. Don't worry yourself with players of previous eras, regardless of adjusted computer comparisons, it just will never be truly equal.

 

Honestly, again, I don't care this much. Ask the freaking writers how they vote and then criticize their choices. I'm saying this:

 

1. IMHO Biggio gets in.

2. I don't care how he compares to Lou Whitaker.

3. I think any computer program that tries to equalize for me Babe Ruth and Mark McGwire's best years is statistical noise.

4. I can't control how voters vote, but I like the fact that how they compare to their peers means something.

5. This conversation has gotten silly. I think we all know multiple players can get in at a position from the same era (Ozzie, Ripken, for example), no harm, no foul. Just don't bother yourself with how Ozzie compares to Pee Wee Reese, regardless of what the "equalized stats" tells us.

 

I agree w/ most of your points on here, but I still don't like the writers. I think comparing players of differnet eras is tough, but if there's a way to do it it should be at least glanced at. A "computer geek" programmed a lot of stuff I use so why not at least look at what they have to say.

 

I also believe as someone else said earlier if you don't get in on the first vote you're not in. A player isn't better 6 years after retirement than he was 5 years after. I can live w/ two votes though. I could deal w/ a two tiered hall. Absolute legends get in on the first vote and the rest on their second year.

He doesn't "feel" like a HOF'er to me, but I'm still not credentialed.

 

 

He will wind up w/ very good career numbers and that streak of games played was impressive.

 

What about Larkin?

He doesn't "feel" like a HOF'er to me, but I'm still not credentialed.

I agree and plus, he only been around 11-12 years, so time will tell. He's half way, to the magical 3,000 hit club.

 

Had a great year, got the big FA money and still has many more years, of numbers to put up, to be considered for the HOF.

I would be 100% fine with every player gets on the ballot one year so long as you don't limit the players that can get in. I'd also be okay with saying that a guy who doesn't get in can wait 5 more years and be eligible for a one-time ballot of Current living Hall-of-Famers. I'd be 100% fine with both of those.

What about Larkin?

 

Doesn't "feel" like a HOF'er to me either.

He will wind up w/ very good career numbers and that streak of games played was impressive.

 

What about Larkin?

I don't think Larkin gets in. I like him and his effort each night but If memory serves me, around 2,300 hits but a lot of E's, at the SS position.

I agree and plus, he only been around 11-12 years, so time will tell. He half way, to the magical 3,000 hit club.

 

Had a great year, got the big FA money and still has many more years, of numbers to put up, to be considered for the HOF.

 

I'm with you on this. I just looked at his profile and he's only 31, right now I don't think he makes it but he could easily play another 10 seasons and I think the future will decide his place.

I would be 100% fine with every player gets on the ballot one year so long as you don't limit the players that can get in. I'd also be okay with saying that a guy who doesn't get in can wait 5 more years and be eligible for a one-time ballot of Current living Hall-of-Famers. I'd be 100% fine with both of those.

 

I don't mind the players being able to be on the ballot for multiple years mainly for this reason: If they're good enough to get enough votes to make it back on the ballot it allows some more time to pass and the voters to gain more perspective. The voters are human and sometimes they can allow personal feelings to color their votes. For instance if Jim Rice swapped personalities with Tony Perez would he be in the Hall of Fame? Quite possibly, but he's not and a lot of that has to do with his relationship with the writers. However, since more and more time has passed since he has played he's started to gain some momentum on making it. Did he get any better in the meantime. Not really, but I think a lot of the reason is the fact that as time passes less attention is paid to those old relationships and more to his career and how feared he was as a hitter. I wouldn't have a problem with maybe raising the number of votes required to stay on the ballot but I do think that a player should get more than one chance. Many voters will only vote on a certain number of players each year and I think allowing players to stay on the ballot helps deserving players make it.

I don't think Larkin gets in. I like him and his effort each night but If memory serves me, around 2,300 hits but a lot of E's, at the SS position.

 

 

Larkin was one of my favorites but I agree with you on this one. His injuries and missed games kept him from reaching a bunch of round number/milestones that would have helped him. He had 2340 hits, not 3,000 or 2,500. He had 198 homeruns not 200, he had 960 RBIs not 1,000. He had 379 steals, not 400, and he hit .295 not .300 for his career. The only major catagories that he's in the top 100 in are steals (81st), Doubles (88th), and Runs (99th for now). He only played in 2180 games in 19 seasons for an average of 115 per year. If he'd have average 135 games a year I think his numbers would be such that he'd be in. As it is I think he's a little short.

Larkin was one of my favorites but I agree with you on this one. His injuries and missed games kept him from reaching a bunch of round number/milestones that would have helped him. He had 2340 hits, not 3,000 or 2,500. He had 198 homeruns not 200, he had 960 RBIs not 1,000. He had 379 steals, not 400, and he hit .295 not .300 for his career. The only major categories that he's in the top 100 in are steals (81st), Doubles (88th), and Runs (99th for now). He only played in 2180 games in 19 seasons for an average of 115 per year. If he'd have average 135 games a year I think his numbers would be such that he'd be in. As it is I think he's a little short.

Larkin had a long career, but you're 100% correct, on the lack of games played. That has been the downfall, of many players. Just think where a healthy Griffey, could possibly be.

 

Biggio has had a long career as well. Here are the years and games played....

 

Larkin - 19yrs (2,180)

Biggio - 20yrs (2,801)

 

Which is a difference of 621 games and 3.83 years of games....big difference in numbers/stats.