August 9, 200719 yr It is true that you cannot fairly compare players from different eras. Therefore, most historians compare how each player stacked up against the other players of his era. We are in a time where many expect a video game. Lots of glitz, fireworks, duds long past their prime hanging on as DHs, juiced balls, overly thin handled bats, etc. We even see ballparks designed to aid not only homeruns but also certain players (ie: Great American Ballpark admittedly set up for Griffey to break Ruth's record). While a lot can be said, one story sums it all. One baseball historian was asked what Ty Cobb would bat if he played today. He responded by stating that Cobb would hit about .325. The questioner was shocked and asked why Cobb wouldn't hit higher. The historian replied, "You must remember that Cobb would be 120 years old." That says it all.
August 9, 200719 yr Andre Dawson should be in. Jim Rice should be in. Bert Blyleven should be in. I also think Ron Santo should be in. Santo career .277 BA, 342 HR, 1331 RBI, .464 SLG. Season Avg. .277, 25 HR, 96 RBI Santo was a 9-time All-Star and a 5-time Gold Glover winner
August 9, 200719 yr I think the question should be in regard to how many H of F members should not have been elected. If it is truly a hall for the elite, it should be limited to the absolute best who were ever associated with the game. There are too many "good" players in now. It only dilutes the hall to have players who were elected because they were buddies of many who voted. An earlier veterans committee was notorious for this and we ended up with the Lindstroms, Hermans, Doerrs, Kells, Rizzutos, Ferrells, Newhousers, Lemons, and many more less than "great" performers. . We are in complete agreement. IMO it should be for the elite or the elite OF the elite. Its not that way today.
August 9, 200719 yr I agree that Jim Rice, Bert Blyleven, and Fred Lynn should be in. I also agree that I couldn't understand why Dawson wasn't voted in. A large part of the hall is longevity and he endured at a high level for 21 seasons.
August 9, 200719 yr Let's focus on some of the names being listed, for some discussion. Out of the names, if you "had" to choose 2 for the HOF, who would they be and in what order. Dawson Rice Blyleven Lynn Parker Kent Whitaker Murphy Santo Palmeiro I would select Dawson Jim Rice
August 9, 200719 yr If Bonds is found to have taken steroids, is he completely out of the HOF?Yes, he will be treated as Palmeiro will be and as Rose, by the voting members. IF given two, it would be Dawson and Rice.I really like Blyleven also. His CV, was absolutely devastating. He played on some not very good teams.
August 9, 200719 yr Let's focus on some of the names being listed, for some discussion. Out of the names, if you "had" to choose 2 for the HOF, who would they be and in what order. Dawson Rice Blyleven Lynn Parker Kent Whitaker Murphy Santo Palmeiro I would select Dawson Jim Rice Agree,you cannot go wrong with the two you selected.:thumb:
August 9, 200719 yr Yes, he will be treated as Palmeiro will be and as Rose, by the voting members. Lets assume that Bonds gets nailed for steroids for the sake of this following question. MLB tells the HOF that they MUST take either the roided Bonds or the betting Rose but they can only take one. You're the final vote on the HOF committee. Who gets in?
August 9, 200719 yr Lets assume that Bonds gets nailed for steroids for the sake of this following question. MLB tells the HOF that they MUST take either the roided Bonds or the betting Rose but they can only take one. You're the final vote on the HOF committee. Who gets in? Given your scenario, of either Rose or Bonds.....NO question, the greatest hitter and epitome of hustle, Rose.
August 9, 200719 yr Yes, he will be treated as Palmeiro will be and as Rose, by the voting members. I really like Blyleven also. His CV, was absolutely devastating. He played on some not very good teams. I know I threw out Blyleven based on wins and Ks, but after doing some deeper digging I came up with this. Only won 20 games once. Only made two all-star teams Led the league in strikeouts once. Finished in the top four in wins in a season once. Never finished higher than third in the Cy Young balloting Longevity says he's a no-brainer. Of course, he pitched in an era that included Nolan Ryan, Jim Guidry, Don Sutton, Fergie Jenkins, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, etc. Are his numbers being compared to those guys too much?
August 9, 200719 yr Given your scenario, of either Rose or Bonds.....NO question, the greatest hitter and epitome of hustle, Rose. Agreed. However, I'm curious if we have the same reasoning. Rose did nothing to enhance his performance significantly like Bonds. Both lose on the integrity of the game issue so Rose gets in.
August 9, 200719 yr I know I threw out Blyleven based on wins and Ks, but after doing some deeper digging I came up with this. Only won 20 games once. Only made two all-star teams Led the league in strikeouts once. Finished in the top four in wins in a season once. Never finished higher than third in the Cy Young balloting Longevity says he's a no-brainer. Of course, he pitched in an era that included Nolan Ryan, Jim Guidry, Don Sutton, Fergie Jenkins, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, etc. Are his numbers being compared to those guys too much? He always was near the top, in K's per year. Had over 240 complete games and his WHIP ratio, was consistently in the top ten. His BB to K's ratio, was nearly 3 to 1. Put him on a "decent" team, he would approach 330-350 wins, with his stuff. Blyleven played on some bad teams. You're right, his comparison to some of the greats, is unfair. Ryan also played on some not very good teams and had a super lefty, in Frank Tanana.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.