If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Grantland)   If you use marginal HoF players and Al Cowens to argue that your favorite player is Hall of Fame worthy, maybe you started at a bad place. Also, if you argue that OBP and walks are why he is so great, try listing those stats. Bill James fail   (grantland.com) divider line 131
    More: Fail, Al Cowens, Hall of Fames, stolen bases, sabermetrics, Bob Feller, Dwight Evans, on-base percentage, Andre Dawson  
•       •       •

2018 clicks; posted to Sports » on 13 Feb 2012 at 12:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



131 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-13 01:26:49 PM

MugzyBrown: The best way to look at hall of famers is in the context of when they played.

Were they considered the top one or two players in their position for a good 4-6 years?
Did they win any MVPs or come close several times?
Were they in the all-star game several years in a row?
Did they lead the league in a major statistic?
Did they win any awards several times? (Siliver slugger, gold glove, cy young, etc)
Did you make an impact on the game beyond stats.. historic moment, etc?


If you don't score highly in these categories, you're not a hall of famer. If you have to create an argument for the player, they probably shouldn't be in.



That's the kind of argument a sports radio jock from New York makes because "If he ain't big in NYC, he ain't big."
 
2012-02-13 01:27:45 PM

chimp_ninja: I'm not upset than Winfield is in, but I think he's closer to the line than his reputation suggests.


There have been tons of players that played above average for many years. Longevity is an ability like any other. Winfield also played in the 80's with the constant labor issues that shortened seasons that lowered his seasonal numbers.

stebain: Huh?


I'll admit there are lots of non-stats factors that play into the Hall of Fame. Was that player the best of his era, where does he rank at his position? Those are all things you look at if the numbers don't automatically say yes. But you have to look at the numbers first, baseball is a numbers game. If you start at anything other than numbers when deciding who should get a HoF vote, then you are doing it wrong. Saying, "Well, I don't think Hall of Fame when I say his name." would make the Hall have 30 people in it.

It's like when Sports radio jocks in big cities say "He can't be good cause I've never heard of him."
 
2012-02-13 01:29:44 PM

MugzyBrown: The best way to look at hall of famers is in the context of when they played.

Were they considered the top one or two players in their position for a good 4-6 years?
Did they win any MVPs or come close several times?
Were they in the all-star game several years in a row?
Did they lead the league in a major statistic?
Did they win any awards several times? (Siliver slugger, gold glove, cy young, etc)
Did you make an impact on the game beyond stats.. historic moment, etc?


If you don't score highly in these categories, you're not a hall of famer. If you have to create an argument for the player, they probably shouldn't be in.


murph passes those criteria and not in, so not good criteria? 2 mvps, 5 gold gloves, 4 silver sluggers, lead league in home runs 2x, rbis 2x (ok not a good stat), runs 1x, slugging 2x, Total bases 1x, 7 time all star (6 in a row)
 
2012-02-13 01:30:26 PM
That's the kind of argument a sports radio jock from New York makes because "If he ain't big in NYC, he ain't big."

That's the kind of empty retort a dope on fark makes.

Having the 5th-best guy in baseball for 5 years is worth a lot more than one MVP season. I think you pick something like 20-30. Dwight Evans' average season is more like a 15 guy, vs. a Dale Murphy or Don Mattingly, who is more like a 7 guy.

It's hall of fame, not hall of valuable piece on a team.
 
2012-02-13 01:34:05 PM
murph passes those criteria and not in, so not good criteria? 2 mvps, 5 gold gloves, 4 silver sluggers, lead league in home runs 2x, rbis 2x (ok not a good stat), runs 1x, slugging 2x, Total bases 1x, 7 time all star (6 in a row)

If I were the HOF god I'd say no just because his great period was either too short or not great enough.

His period was 5-6 years, if he did that for 8-10 I'd say yes, or if those 5-6 years were more like .320 / 40 / 130 I'd say yes.
 
2012-02-13 01:34:46 PM

farbekrieg: chimp_ninja: I'm not upset than Winfield is in, but I think he's closer to the line than his reputation suggests. He's not a bad pick like Jim Rice or any number of the doofuses the Veterans' Committee let in.

yes but the list of players with over 3k hits that are not in the hall

1> pete
2> jeter
3> biggio
4> palmeiro

its really weird, it used to be an automatic qualifier, get 3k hits or 500 home runs and you were in.... palmeiro has both while not going to be a first ballot guy will eventually have to get there? right? and biggio is one of those guys who probably isnt a hofer without the 3k hits,

but there is that 2nd tier of guys not quite good enough to get in, you let in evans dont chili murph parker baines mattingly and i guess damon get in as well?


On the flip side of that, Ted Williams never had 200 hits in a season, and retired with 2,654 hits. Yet if you ask people who the best hitter of all time was, his name is in the discussion.

I agree that 3,000 hits is still more or less a free ticket to the HOF. I'm just saying that maybe it shouldn't be. Biggio is a good example whose argument for induction will have to include talk about his defensive contributions (*), given his era. Take Craig Biggio'shiatting numbers and put them on a schlumpy 1B, and there's no way he should sniff the HOF.

(*) And his ability to be hit by baseballs, because that is Biggio's gift and you can't take that away from him. He retired with 285, and the nearest active player is 40-year-old Jason Giambi, with 173.
 
2012-02-13 01:35:55 PM
wait a second, why is evans getting consideration before fred mcgriff?

/slipped my mind
 
2012-02-13 01:37:37 PM

farbekrieg: wait a second, why is evans getting consideration before fred mcgriff?


Because McGriff doesn't work with Bill James.
 
2012-02-13 01:42:57 PM

farbekrieg: wait a second, why is evans getting consideration before fred mcgriff?

/slipped my mind


mediamikes.com
 
2012-02-13 01:43:51 PM

chimp_ninja: Take Craig Biggio'shiatting numbers and put them on a schlumpy 1B, and there's no way he should sniff the HOF.


Germans love baseball.
 
2012-02-13 01:44:58 PM

WTF Indeed: But you have to look at the numbers first, baseball is a numbers game. If you start at anything other than numbers when deciding who should get a HoF vote, then you are doing it wrong.


I am looking at the numbers. Winfield was a career .283/.353/.475 hitter (130 OPS+) with ridiculous longevity. The numbers suggest he was a slightly below-average RF. He ran the bases well, but wasn't exceptional. Excellent player. Maybe not a top-10 all-time RF.

WTF Indeed: Longevity is an ability like any other.


Agreed. It's Winfield's best argument.

WTF Indeed: Winfield also played in the 80's with the constant labor issues that shortened seasons that lowered his seasonal numbers.


Huh? He wasn't playing in 1972. He lost ~50 games to the 1981 strike. The 1985 strike was two days long and they made up the games. 1990 started a few days late and they made up the games. He lost games in 1994 and 1995, but by then he was a part-timer who hit .191/.285/.287 after that strike, so it didn't exactly hurt his career.

He lost ~1/3 of a season in his prime. Add 60 hits and 10 HR if you wish.
 
2012-02-13 01:47:17 PM

WTF Indeed: mitchcumstein1: From about '82-'85 Dale Murphy was as good as it got. Prince Fielder is a very apt comparison, but if Dale Murphy isn't in the Hall, Dwight Evans has no business being there.

Actually it was about '82-'87. During those years he averaged 35 homers, 105 rbis, and batted .285. Those were age 26-31. Most players don't reach free agency until 27-28, half way through the prime years. GMs for some reason still think players are good till 40 like they were when steroids were in the game. The reason most of these guys in the 90's hung around so long is because they were on the juice. It will be interesting to see what happens to Pujols and Cabrera when they hit 35.


5 Seasons isn't enough, see Mattingly, Don.

The difference between Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly, to me, is that Dale Murphy was in the league for 5 years with one great seasons before he became a monster (1982 - 1987) while Mattingly played a half season before becoming a monster (1984 - 1987... 1988-1989 were good/great) years, better than any post-peak Murphy years by far, but nothing like 1984 - 1987.

Neither Murphy nor Mattingly deserve to be in the HOF, both are poster children for not waiting for the peaks to be over before declaring players to be HOF quality.
 
2012-02-13 01:48:46 PM

farbekrieg: wait a second, why is evans getting consideration before fred mcgriff?


1) Excellent RF vs. Middling 1B.

2) Era. McGriff was a slugger in an era where almost everyone was a slugger. Evans had overlap, but in his early years runs were harder to come by. McGriff is the better hitter, but the gap isn't that big.
 
2012-02-13 01:50:17 PM

JohnHall: Neither Murphy nor Mattingly deserve to be in the HOF, both are poster children for not waiting for the peaks to be over before declaring players to be HOF quality.


This much is true-hoo-hooo.
t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-02-13 01:57:12 PM

MugzyBrown: The best way to look at hall of famers is in the context of when they played.


The problem with that is it's entirely possible to have most of the guys at your position be dogcrap during an era, so the best at his position isn't really any good. Or it screws a guy like Tim Raines, who is certainly one of the great leadoff hitters of all time but had the misfortune of playing at the same time as the #1-by-a-country-mile leadoff hitter.
 
2012-02-13 02:09:56 PM

farbekrieg: and biggio is one of those guys who probably isnt a hofer without the 3k hits


Not sure if serious.
 
2012-02-13 02:11:04 PM

GQueue: MugzyBrown: The best way to look at hall of famers is in the context of when they played.


The problem with that is it's entirely possible to have most of the guys at your position be dogcrap during an era, so the best at his position isn't really any good. Or it screws a guy like Tim Raines, who is certainly one of the great leadoff hitters of all time but had the misfortune of playing at the same time as the #1-by-a-country-mile leadoff hitter.


I don't think people look at Raines and think "He's good, but he's no Rickey Henderson".

I'm not sure what the argument to not having him be in the hall. He is possibly top 5 leadoff of all time. (not that saying "top 5 #[position] hitter" is a discrete qualifier, but leadoff is a different animal)
 
2012-02-13 02:11:07 PM
The problem with that is it's entirely possible to have most of the guys at your position be dogcrap during an era, so the best at his position isn't really any good. Or it screws a guy like Tim Raines, who is certainly one of the great leadoff hitters of all time but had the misfortune of playing at the same time as the #1-by-a-country-mile leadoff hitter.

I don't think Raines is a HOF player. Really good, but not quite there.
 
2012-02-13 02:11:53 PM

NetOwl: farbekrieg: and biggio is one of those guys who probably isnt a hofer without the 3k hits

Not sure if serious.


If you get away from Houston and NL Central, not a lot of people think of Biggio as a great player. [He was, just it was quiet]
 
2012-02-13 02:13:09 PM
 
2012-02-13 02:17:11 PM

GQueue: MugzyBrown: The best way to look at hall of famers is in the context of when they played.


The problem with that is it's entirely possible to have most of the guys at your position be dogcrap during an era, so the best at his position isn't really any good. Or it screws a guy like Tim Raines, who is certainly one of the great leadoff hitters of all time but had the misfortune of playing at the same time as the #1-by-a-country-mile leadoff hitter.


Duke Snider was really really good but had the misfortune of playing the same position at the same time IN THE SAME CITY as two of the best players in the history of the game. That's tough
 
2012-02-13 02:40:00 PM

MugzyBrown: I don't think Raines is a HOF player. Really good, but not quite there.


Where does he fall short?
 
2012-02-13 02:48:52 PM

Rex_Banner: Where does he fall short?


He didn't have TEH FEAR.
 
2012-02-13 02:50:13 PM

Rex_Banner: MugzyBrown: I don't think Raines is a HOF player. Really good, but not quite there.

Where does he fall short?


too many years in montreal, not enough in new york
 
2012-02-13 02:50:51 PM

farbekrieg: Rex_Banner: MugzyBrown: I don't think Raines is a HOF player. Really good, but not quite there.

Where does he fall short?

too many years in montreal, not enough in new york


Sad, but true.
 
2012-02-13 02:54:20 PM

stebain: NetOwl: farbekrieg: and biggio is one of those guys who probably isnt a hofer without the 3k hits

Not sure if serious.

If you get away from Houston and NL Central, not a lot of people think of Biggio as a great player. [He was, just it was quiet]


bagwell is the better player and for some god awful reason not in the hall. (did he get fingered for roids?) ive given up on the debate, if you have the stats you get in (mcgwire and palmeiro)
 
2012-02-13 02:56:23 PM

stebain: mitchcumstein1: Frank Thomas was an asshole though.

Really? I don't live in Chicago, so I can't know of the local spin on him but I don't recall him being worthy of the moniker.


He didn't kiss the ass of the press, so he was vilified. Most of the fans liked him, despite him having no knowledge about pr. My buddy worked at a restaurant he always frequented, and he said he was a really nice guy and was a good dad to his kids.

/Saw him in Vegas once, he was pretty nice to me.
//CSB
 
2012-02-13 02:57:29 PM

farbekrieg: ive given up on the debate, if you have the stats you get in (mcgwire and palmeiro)


Not before guys like Mattingly, Evans, Raines and Murphy and every other borderline guy from the 80s gets in. Can you imagine what they could have done with roids? Murphy and Evans would both be 500+ home run guys.
 
2012-02-13 03:01:32 PM

farbekrieg: but i said the same thing about rice... playing for the yankees/sox has its privileges


There really isn't any basis for saying that. Sure, Rice is in, undeservedly, but he benefits from being pretty much the exact opposite of Evans: overrated because of his supposed "run producing ability," devoid of defensive value, low walks, thought to be "feared" in his day. Aside from Rice, Yankees and Red Sox don't have an inordinate amount of support; you don't see massive support for people like Evans, Luis Tiant, Don Mattingly and Ron Guidry for the Hall, any more than one would expect if they had the same careers for other teams. Heck, Bernie Williams just got on the ballot and barely registered, even though his case is stronger than you might think; Andy Pettitte will likely do the same in a few years.
 
2012-02-13 03:05:33 PM

GQueue: MugzyBrown: The best way to look at hall of famers is in the context of when they played.

That's exactly how the BBWA looks at it. Was the player the best at his position for a certain period of time or was he dominate long enough to make an impact on his team. Think of it this way, the steroid era made the writers change their criteria for getting in the HOF. They now have to decide if the player was great only because of roids or if the player was great in-spite of them. Should be interesting when Bonds comes up for vote next year

 
2012-02-13 03:05:34 PM

farbekrieg: bagwell is the better player and for some god awful reason not in the hall. (did he get fingered for roids?) ive given up on the debate, if you have the stats you get in (mcgwire and palmeiro)


I agree with you, but I can at least understand the reason why McGwire and Palmeiro are being kept out. They've at least been linked to stuff. As far as I can tell, the greatest evidence against Bagwell is his size and his era. It's ridiculous that he's not in already.
 
2012-02-13 03:10:59 PM

farbekrieg: stebain: NetOwl: farbekrieg: and biggio is one of those guys who probably isnt a hofer without the 3k hits

Not sure if serious.

If you get away from Houston and NL Central, not a lot of people think of Biggio as a great player. [He was, just it was quiet]

bagwell is the better player and for some god awful reason not in the hall. (did he get fingered for roids?) ive given up on the debate, if you have the stats you get in (mcgwire and palmeiro)


Re: Bagwell vs Biggio
If you're picking for a nonspecific position, Bagwell is the first to be picked when making a new team or league. If you are talking about by position, I think Biggio goes earlier among 2b than Bagwell does among 1b.

Bagwell has, to my knowledge, never been fingered for roids. (proctology joke skipped) I do think he suffers the same taint that this generation of ballplayers are burdened with.

Also, F Palmeiro and McGwire.
 
2012-02-13 03:12:04 PM

GQueue: Rex_Banner: Where does he fall short?

He didn't have TEH FEAR.


What if Tim Raines had calm eyes, yet was having so much fun playing the game the right way that he looked like a kid out there? First ballot?
 
2012-02-13 03:14:05 PM
Now that Santo's in, I went to check Baseball-reference to check their 'Hall of Fame Monitor' stat. (Scoring 100 in this stat is thought of to be a good possibility of getting into the Hall, 130 makes you pretty much a lock.) I'm not saying I agree with the rankings; in fact, I didn't even know who I'd end up listing when I started this post.

Top ten eligible batters and pitchers not yet in:

PITCHERS
194- Jim McCormick (1878-1887)
170- Bob Caruthers (1884-1893)
169- Tony Mullane (1881-1894)
162- Bobby Mathews (1871-1887)
142- Tommy Bond (1874-1884)
141- Will White (1877-1886)
135- Lee Smith (1980-1997)
130- Charlie Buffinton (1882-1892)
130- Jim Kaat (1950-1983)
126- Gus Weyhing (1887-1901)

BATTERS
178- Rafael Palmeiro (1986-2005)
170- Mark McGwire (1986-2001)
150- Jeff Bagwell (1991-2005)
147- Larry Walker (1989-2005)
134- Albert Belle (1989-2000)
134- Don Mattingly (1982-1995)
134- Bernie Williams (1991-2006)
132- Edgar Martinez (1987-2004)
130- Steve Garvey (1969-1987)
124- Dave Parker (1973-1991)
 
2012-02-13 03:15:37 PM

gridlocksammy: GQueue:They now have to decide if the player was great only because of roids or if the player was great in-spite of them. Should be interesting when Bonds comes up for vote next year


Bonds should be a lock in spite of steroids. If he doesn't get in, it's the steroids. If he does get in, he deserves it. That cat was awesome before he turned into The Tick.
 
2012-02-13 03:17:10 PM

chimp_ninja: GQueue: Rex_Banner: Where does he fall short?

He didn't have TEH FEAR.

What if Tim Raines had calm eyes, yet was having so much fun playing the game the right way that he looked like a kid out there? First ballot?


damn. I can't think what that is a reference to.
 
2012-02-13 03:21:58 PM
I wonder what Art Howe thinks?
 
2012-02-13 03:25:32 PM

stebain: Bagwell has, to my knowledge, never been fingered for roids. (proctology joke skipped) I do think he suffers the same taint that this generation of ballplayers are burdened with.


My compromise on this is that I don't think he should be assumed guilty, but I do think that he should be compared to the other players of his (inflated) era. By that standard, Bagwell still looks excellent-- 38th all-time by OPS+, 37th all-time among position players in WAR, reasonable longevity (14+ seasons, 2150 games).

He's basically the NL's Frank Thomas (who I think should waltz in), with more glove and a little less bat.
 
2012-02-13 03:25:39 PM

feefifofimmy: I wonder what Art Howe thinks?


Probably still has Marissa Tomei's tit on the brain.
 
2012-02-13 03:27:40 PM

stebain: gridlocksammy: GQueue:They now have to decide if the player was great only because of roids or if the player was great in-spite of them. Should be interesting when Bonds comes up for vote next year

Bonds should be a lock in spite of steroids. If he doesn't get in, it's the steroids. If he does get in, he deserves it. That cat was awesome before he turned into The Tick.


Given how all the other steroid trial balloons have fared in Hall of Fame voting, Bonds should be worried about if he's even going to get to live long enough to see his induction. That 'character clause' can be a nasty, nasty thing. Roberto Alomar had to wait a year because he spit on an ump. Juan Marichal had to wait two years because of the attack on Johnny Roseboro and even then Roseboro had to personally vouch for him so he didn't wait even longer. There's nobody coming to Bonds' aid except to say 'yeah, well, look at his stats, put him in and teach the controversy'.

Here's the thing. They're not going to acknowledge any controversy on your Hall of Fame plaque. And there's no way to take you back out. Once he's in, he's in forever, given the game's single highest honor. To let Bonds in with anything even RESEMBLING expediency is to undermine every single word of anti-steroid campaigning that has been uttered since BALCO. Bonds is the face of the steroid scandal. At minimum, he needs to have to wait for the Veterans' Committee- the jury of his peers- to decide to forgive him themselves. At maximum, he goes to the same limbo occupied by Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe.
 
2012-02-13 03:30:50 PM

chimp_ninja: stebain: Bagwell has, to my knowledge, never been fingered for roids. (proctology joke skipped) I do think he suffers the same taint that this generation of ballplayers are burdened with.

My compromise on this is that I don't think he should be assumed guilty, but I do think that he should be compared to the other players of his (inflated) era. By that standard, Bagwell still looks excellent-- 38th all-time by OPS+, 37th all-time among position players in WAR, reasonable longevity (14+ seasons, 2150 games).

He's basically the NL's Frank Thomas (who I think should waltz in), with more glove and a little less bat.


I never think of Bagwell has HoF, even during his career. But, in retrospect, if asked I would probably give a noncommittal "yes".
 
2012-02-13 03:32:57 PM

Gosling: Here's the thing. They're not going to acknowledge any controversy on your Hall of Fame plaque. And there's no way to take you back out. Once he's in, he's in forever, given the game's single highest honor. To let Bonds in with anything even RESEMBLING expediency is to undermine every single word of anti-steroid campaigning that has been uttered since BALCO. Bonds is the face of the steroid scandal. At minimum, he needs to have to wait for the Veterans' Committee- the jury of his peers- to decide to forgive him themselves. At maximum, he goes to the same limbo occupied by Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe.


Agreed. If he never made it, I wouldn't be upset. If someone, however, argued that he only got the consideration (if he made it in) because of the advantage gained through steroids, I would argue that he was an incredible player before being replaced by Dick Sargent.
 
2012-02-13 03:37:59 PM
the thing with roids is, some of the guys who got caught you were not surprised by, some you were.

How can you reconcile the idea you cant be 100% sure of players active between 75-02 was on juice/greenies and who wasnt. its the hall of fame for players who put up stats, and adding bronze statues of known juicers among the greats should act a stigma on baseball and the commisioner for allowing it to happen.

personally i believe bagwell is being viewed as a juicer since caminiti was a juicer, the guilt by association/speculation/failed tests is going to only drag out an ugly bitter period for baseball.
 
2012-02-13 03:50:46 PM

farbekrieg: How can you reconcile the idea you cant be 100% sure of players active between 75-02 was on juice/greenies and who wasnt. its the hall of fame for players who put up stats, and adding bronze statues of known juicers among the greats should act a stigma on baseball and the commisioner for allowing it to happen.


You can't. But that doesn't mean you can't go after the players you do know about.

Ancient Greece did have a statue-based way of shaming cheaters, though, back in the ancient Olympics. When they caught a cheater, what happened was that the cheater had to pay for the construction of a bronze statue of Zeus, called a 'Zane'. On that Zane, they'd inscribe the cheater's name, his parents' names, his hometown, and the nature of his infraction.

Just saying.
 
2012-02-13 03:55:19 PM

stebain: I never think of Bagwell has HoF, even during his career.


Huh. Despite playing for some poor (and some good) Astros teams in his career, he won the MVP once, finished 2nd once, and finished third once more, so he wasn't that under the radar. You could make a case for him winning in 1994, 1996 (probably Bonds), and 1999. In 1998, he hit .304/.424/.557 on a playoff team but didn't get a single vote on an MVP ballot.

He was one of the best hitters in the NL from 1993-2000. He was also a pretty good defensive 1B who ran the bases quite well.

In addition to the 'bad teams' years, he also had the misfortune of playing at the same time as Barry Bonds, who had a habit of taking the spotlight even before the head-balloon era.
 
2012-02-13 03:56:51 PM

Gosling: Ancient Greece did have a statue-based way of shaming cheaters, though, back in the ancient Olympics. When they caught a cheater, what happened was that the cheater had to pay for the construction of a bronze statue of Zeus, called a 'Zane'. On that Zane, they'd inscribe the cheater's name, his parents' names, his hometown, and the nature of his infraction.

Just saying.



so you are saying we need to take the known cheaters, oil them up and make them wrestle like the ancient greeks?

/sorry when i heard ancient greece i just zoned out
 
2012-02-13 03:57:55 PM

chimp_ninja: stebain: I never think of Bagwell has HoF, even during his career.

Huh. Despite playing for some poor (and some good) Astros teams in his career, he won the MVP once, finished 2nd once, and finished third once more, so he wasn't that under the radar. You could make a case for him winning in 1994, 1996 (probably Bonds), and 1999. In 1998, he hit .304/.424/.557 on a playoff team but didn't get a single vote on an MVP ballot.

He was one of the best hitters in the NL from 1993-2000. He was also a pretty good defensive 1B who ran the bases quite well.

In addition to the 'bad teams' years, he also had the misfortune of playing at the same time as Barry Bonds, who had a habit of taking the spotlight even before the head-balloon era.


also spent half his career in the astrodome which didnt help the numbers
 
2012-02-13 03:59:10 PM

stebain: Gosling: At maximum, he goes to the same limbo occupied by Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe..


I wouldn't put him there. Baseball abides cheaters, but they never abide players gambling
 
2012-02-13 04:03:22 PM
Native Houstonian here.

Biggio should be a first ballot HOF player. I'm in the local minority that thinks he roided and doesn't deserve the Hall.
 
2012-02-13 04:07:26 PM

chimp_ninja:
On the flip side of that, Ted Williams never had 200 hits in a season, and retired with 2,654 hits. Yet if you ask people who the best hitter of all time was, his name is in the discussion.


Missing 3 years of your prime to fight in a war tends to do that. Also, shorter seasons and leading the league in walks in 6 consecutive (for him, anyway) seasons tends to reduce your hits. He would have easily crossed 3k hits otherwise. (All I'm saying is that Ted Williams is a bad person to use for comparisons.)

I agree that 3,000 hits is still more or less a free ticket to the HOF. I'm just saying that maybe it shouldn't be. Biggio is a good example whose argument for induction will have to include talk about his defensive contributions (*), given his era. Take Craig Biggio'shiatting numbers and put them on a schlumpy 1B, and there's no way he should sniff the HOF.

I agree, but position matters here too. Biggio doesn't look very impressive if you are comparing him to Outfielders, but against 2B or catchers he sticks out a bit. FWIW, Baseball-reference doesn't think too highly of his defense in most years however.

/On a general note, if you have to argue this strenuously for someone to get in, you are probably grasping at straws
 
Displayed 50 of 131 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report