ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 184
01/10/10 02:27 PM
Posts: 857
01/10/10 02:40 PM
Posts: 601
01/10/10 02:50 PM
TedRoethke wrote: Extending the logic. As for Jim Palmer and Mike Flanagan: if they haven't spoken up for Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, Dick Allen, and others (and perhaps they have), what do they have against these guys? Are they being HOF snobs?
01/10/10 02:55 PM
rusty staub wrote: TedRoethke wrote: Extending the logic. As for Jim Palmer and Mike Flanagan: if they haven't spoken up for Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, Dick Allen, and others (and perhaps they have), what do they have against these guys? Are they being HOF snobs? I don't think they were asked
01/10/10 03:03 PM
01/10/10 03:11 PM
rusty staub wrote: Who's putting a lot of weight?? Just a comment in support of Rice You guys care about this way too much -- don't worry Joe DiMaggio isn't rolling over in his grave because Jim Rice and Andre Dawson is in the Hall of Fame.
01/10/10 03:37 PM
Posts: 9161
01/10/10 04:05 PM
rusty staub wrote: I'm with you on this one powersackers. As for Powersackers reference to power/speed numbers, i think it was a fair attempt to support The Hawk within the reasoning (Sabremetrics) being used against him. I haven't read much about The Hawk. But I know when Rice was getting bashed like this last year, Jim Palmer & Mike Flanagan disagreed with the doubters. But what do Palmer & Flanagan know about Jim Rice and baseball right? Maybe former players should vote for the Hall.
Posts: 682
01/10/10 05:22 PM
You guys care about this way too much
01/10/10 05:32 PM
01/10/10 09:17 PM
Posts: 159
01/10/10 09:20 PM
sposfan1 wrote: The problem is that there is no set guidelines for the Hall of Fame, nor has there ever been. I disagree. With this method, you would have a Hall of Fame similar to the LPGA: set number of years you must play, certain tournaments you must win, and a set number of points you must earn (based on tour victories. If I'm not mistaken, the qualifications for the LPGA Hall of Fame have been altered over the years. I like the human decision and voting factor to be involved. I doubt the LPGA boards have a discussion like this!
The problem is that there is no set guidelines for the Hall of Fame, nor has there ever been.
01/10/10 09:24 PM
The Hall of Fame's mission is to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball. Likewise the institution functions as three entities under one roof with a museum, the actual Hall of Fame and a research library. With these parts working together the Museum is committed to fulfilling its mission by: Collecting, through donation, baseball artifacts, works of art, literature, photographs, memorabilia and related materials which focus on the history of the game over time, its players and those elected to the Hall of Fame. Preserving the collections by adhering to professional museum standards with respect to conservation and maintaining a permanent record of holdings through documentation, study, research, cataloging and publication. Exhibiting material in permanent gallery space, organizing on-site changing exhibitions on various themes, with works from the Hall of Fame collections or other sources, working with other individuals or organizations to exhibit loaned material of significance to baseball and providing related research facilities. Interpreting artifacts through its exhibition and education programs to enhance awareness, understanding and appreciation of the game for a diverse audience. Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements. Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements.
01/10/10 09:51 PM
yankee6 wrote: sposfan1 wrote: The problem is that there is no set guidelines for the Hall of Fame, nor has there ever been. I disagree. With this method, you would have a Hall of Fame similar to the LPGA: set number of years you must play, certain tournaments you must win, and a set number of points you must earn (based on tour victories. If I'm not mistaken, the qualifications for the LPGA Hall of Fame have been altered over the years. I like the human decision and voting factor to be involved. I doubt the LPGA boards have a discussion like this!
01/10/10 10:21 PM
TedRoethke wrote: Really, I don't care about it much at all. I'm pretty much in agreement with the viewpoint Dave Cameron expressed in the article quoted earlier in this thread. I'm an awards atheist.
01/10/10 10:30 PM
sposfan1 wrote: >David Segui-1 Eric Karros-2 Jay Bell-2 Shawon Dunston-1 Travis Fryman-2 Dante Bichette-3 Eric Davis-3 (same year as bichette) Walt Weiss-1 Doug Jones-2 Ozzie Guillen-5 Hal Morris-5 Tony Phillips-1 Terry Steinbach-1 Jim Eisenreich-3 THREE!?!!?!?!?!?!? Rick Honeycutt-1 John Kruk-1 Jim DeShaies-1 Bill Gullickson-1 Lonnie Smith-1 Dave Henderson-2 Charlie Hough-4 Now, does anyone thing ANY of these guys are Hall of Famers by ANY definition??? Yet some member of the BBWA voted for them, and in some cases up to 4. Jim Eisenreich got THREE votes. Make it an open process and fix it that any joker that votes for players of this calibre LOSE their ballot.
Posts: 471
01/10/10 11:05 PM
rusty staub wrote: TedRoethke wrote: Really, I don't care about it much at all. I'm pretty much in agreement with the viewpoint Dave Cameron expressed in the article quoted earlier in this thread. I'm an awards atheist. That's cool, and I also realize that i apparently care enough to post about this too. I was just honestly completely surprised to read arguments that make a case to oust someone from the Hall of Fame, just not what i expected to read. And whoever posted that this is better than arguing about V10, point well taken!
01/10/10 11:06 PM
Now, does anyone thing ANY of these guys are Hall of Famers by ANY definition???
01/10/10 11:07 PM
What Cheer Wombat wrote: Now, does anyone thing ANY of these guys are Hall of Famers by ANY definition??? Before I trigger an avalanche of "Are you kidding me??" posts, let me clarify up front that I don't think Eric Davis should be in the HOF. I think he had more than enough talent to be a HOFer and his career was certainly long enough in terms of seasons, but he lost too many games, and possibly too much of his skill, to injuries. He had 7 truly excellent seasons if you consider productivity and playing time, and that isn't a HOFer in my book. But how many truly excellent seasons did Lefty Gomez have? Looks like 7 to me. How many outstanding seasons did Sandy Koufax have? I'd say 6. Yes, I know that Koufax's 6 excellent seasons were in a different class than either Gomez' or Davis' 7 excellent seasons. But still, 6 seasons? As long as there has been so much discussion of Dawson's HOF credentials, it is interesting to compare Dawson's and Davis' stats per 162 games: BA .269 .279 OBA .359 .323 SLG .482 .482 OPS+ 125 119 2B 24 31 3B 3 6 HR 28 27 TB 256 295 BB 74 36 SB 35 19 CS 7 7 R 93 85 RBI 93 98 GDP 11 13 I know the columns won't line up quite right but I think it is possible to keep them straight. On a per-162-game basis, it is pretty hard to see why one of them got elected to the HOF and the other one was virtually ignored in the voting. Of course Dawson produced numbers at that rate over 2600+ games while Davis did it for only 1600+ games, and that makes an enormous difference, or at least it should. But Davis' career works out to about the equivalent of 10 full-time seasons, which is pretty much what Gomez' career works out to, given the number of innings pitched by the typical rotation starter of his day. And Koufax, who played only 12 seasons, also pitched about enough innings for roughly 10 full-time seasons. There are a few others in the Hall with only 6 or 7 truly excellent seasons as well. So while I wouldn't vote for Davis for the HOF, obviously voters on occasion have considered 6 to 8 excellent seasons sufficient to qualify someone as a HOFer, and therefore the scattering of votes he has received doesn't seem quite as ridiculous as the votes given to the others on the list. It would have been pretty indefensible to vote him in, but it doesn't surprise me that he got a few votes.
01/10/10 11:12 PM
Share This