Is this a HOFer?
full disclosure here, I'm a Yankee fan and those battles in the 70's between the teams and fans were epic but I don't ever remember saying to myself Jim Rice is a Hall of Fame player. Carlton Fisk yes (and I know there are people who have problems with his selection) but Rice no. A good player with some great seasons for sure. I always thought of him as just having a longer career than Fred Lynn, another good player who had some great seasons. Another example of the HOF being watered down in my book.
posted by greg8370 at 11:30 AM
5 Comments:
My issue with HOF selections today are mostly statistical and World Series wins. 500 HR's is automatic as are 300 wins for a pitcher. WS championships carry too much weight. But today's candidates aren't on a level playing field with players from the past. The biggest issue in my mind is todays players have a 162 game schedule compared to a 154 game schedule for players from the late 50's (or early 60's). A twenty year career today gives a player an extra year to pad his stats.
But simplified, I think the guys going in today are not always deserving. Today's players are great athletes, but how many of them play the game? How many can sacrifice, how many hit the cut off man, how many can drink and womanize like the Babe? (and on a measly 100K/yr)
Bottom line to me is, HOF criteria should be revised. Greg's right, it is watered down today.
4:51 PM
Hondo,
I laughed my *^%$# off when I read your comment on Ruth. Funny stuff!
I agree. Things have gotten out of hand...Ozzie Smith, although a tremendous and magical SS, isn't any better than Trammell. In fact, I give Trammell an edge. He was a better offensive player and didn't need to steal bases on those Tigers teams. Very, very good defensively but lost out on some Gold Gloves b/c of Vizquel and Fernandez. In my mind, neither is a HOFer. With Ozzie getting in that easy, Mark Belanger should be considered. Yikes.
7:19 PM
I'm getting fed up with the hype for EME. For those of you who do not subscribe to SF Dugout, Brute's been rating the 50 top Giant prospects, 5 at a time, and EME chimed in at #32. Brute aptly points out the improvement in the on base % , higher BA, an lower K's.
But he also mentions improved defense???????? and attributes the loss of power to recovering from injury and/or playing in a power unfriendly league.
The league does not inhibit doubles and triples, it encourages them, especially at Dodd. As far as defense last year, he hurt the team more then he helped.
I respect Brute's knowledge of the game a lot, and especially his knowledge of the Giant prospects, but when it comes to EME, he's always worn rose colored glasses. EME ain't ever going to shine.
6:20 AM
EME should not be in Top 50, no way, no how.
4:48 PM
Jim Rice was good but not great.
10:56 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home