189 replies to this topic

[slink]

Any love out there for Bert Blyleven?His stats are comparable to Don Sutton's (except for wins)Sutton: 1. 324 wins 2. 12 seasons of 15+ wins 3. 3574 K's 4. 3x ERA under league avg. by 1 run or more 5. 178 complete gamesBlyleven 1. 287 wins 2. 10 seasons of 15+ wins 3. 3701 K's 4. 8X ERA under league avg. by 1 run or more 5. 242 complete gamesThe numbers of complete games are sick by guys pre 1990

[7s7c]

He should be in if for nothing else other than this:

[slink]

http://assets.espn.g...antasy5_300.jpgNot is Chris Ferguson's class, but still quite the dancer?

[slink]

How about Roberto Alomar?

[7s7c]

slink, on Tuesday, August 5th, 2008, 6:19 PM, said:

How about Roberto Alomar?

In. 5 Top 6 MVP finishes. 10 GG's. 3 Top 6 BA finishes. Great postseason player. Best player at his position (along with Biggio) for a long period of time. Not as good as Biggio, but in nonetheless.

[aadams_22]

slink, on Tuesday, August 5th, 2008, 1:42 PM, said:

Any love out there for Bert Blyleven?His stats are comparable to Don Sutton's (except for wins)Sutton: 1. 324 wins 2. 12 seasons of 15+ wins 3. 3574 K's 4. 3x ERA under league avg. by 1 run or more 5. 178 complete gamesBlyleven 1. 287 wins 2. 10 seasons of 15+ wins 3. 3701 K's 4. 8X ERA under league avg. by 1 run or more 5. 242 complete gamesThe numbers of complete games are sick by guys pre 1990

Blyleven should have been in a long time ago.

[slink]

Jim Rice?Averaged 30 HR's and 113 RBI's in 16 seasons presteroid.WTF?

[aadams_22]

slink, on Wednesday, August 6th, 2008, 5:13 PM, said:

Jim Rice?Averaged 30 HR's and 113 RBI's in 16 seasons presteroid.WTF?

he was one of the most dominating players at his position during his era...he's in

[slink]

how about McGwire, Palmiero, and Bonds?I say yes

[TommyGavin81]

slink, on Wednesday, August 6th, 2008, 6:10 PM, said:

how about McGwire, Palmiero, and Bonds?I say yes

Bonds for sure because he was a hall of famer before he used steroids. McGwire and Palmiero are a little iffy. McGwire because he was extremely injury-prone prior to using and was pretty much only a homerun hitter. Palmeiro was never great, just good. His lifetime numbers are helped a lot by the roids.

[AmScray]

TommyGavin81, on Wednesday, August 6th, 2008, 4:17 PM, said:

Palmeiro was never great, just good.

Huh?500 HR club memberTen 30+ HR seasons Ten 100+ RBI Seasons3000 Career hitsOver .500 Slugging 12 seasonsWe can argue whether he deserves to get in based on the whole 'roids thing, but IMO, if you can look past the 'roids, Palmeiro was definitely a great player. Not massive-supro-enormoid-giganto superstar great, but certainlly "great" ala Kirby Puckett or Clyde Drexler.

[TommyGavin81]

AmScray, on Wednesday, August 6th, 2008, 6:38 PM, said:

Huh?500 HR club memberTen 30+ HR seasons Ten 100+ RBI Seasons3000 Career hitsOver .500 Slugging 12 seasonsWe can argue whether he deserves to get in based on the whole 'roids thing, but IMO, if you can look past the 'roids, Palmeiro was definitely a great player. Not massive-supro-enormoid-giganto superstar great, but certainlly "great" ala Kirby Puckett or Clyde Drexler.

His career took a new arc after the strike. If you notice all his great seasons were from 1996-2003. Not saying the roids were responsible for all of it. But it certainly was responsible for him getting 500 HR as well as helping him remain injury-free to rack up the hits. I didn't say for sure no, just iffy. Its hard to say how much steroids helped him but there is no argument that he was good, but not great from 1986-1996.

[slink]

Bonds:

• 1 rbi for every 5 ab's 23rd all time
• 3rd all time in rbi's
• all those HR's obv
• 4th all time OPS

McGwire:

• 1 rbi for every 4.3 ab's 7th all time
• 65th all time in rbi's
• 8th in hr's
• 10th all time OPS

Palmiero:

• 1 rbi for every 5.6 ab's
• 14th in rbi's
• 10th in homers
• 59th in OPS

Obviously bonds is a no brainer, but Mac and Rafe deserve it too based on stats. 'Course so do others that are not in.

[aadams_22]

...

[PMJackson21]

Maury Wills? http://maurywills.com/HallOfFame.aspx3 WS titles, 1 MVP, and I don't think anyone can argue that he didn't change the game. In 1959, Willie Mays led the NL in SBs with 27; in 1962, Wills stole 104.

[7s7c]

slink, on Wednesday, August 6th, 2008, 5:07 PM, said:

Bonds:

• 1 rbi for every 5 ab's 23rd all time
• 3rd all time in rbi's
• all those HR's obv
• 4th all time OPS

McGwire:

• 1 rbi for every 4.3 ab's 7th all time
• 65th all time in rbi's
• 8th in hr's
• 10th all time OPS

Palmiero:

• 1 rbi for every 5.6 ab's
• 14th in rbi's
• 10th in homers
• 59th in OPS

Obviously bonds is a no brainer, but Mac and Rafe deserve it too based on stats. 'Course so do others that are not in.

Putting aside the "I didn't do it" and then testing positive the next day or whatever it was...I still don't know if Palmeiro is HOF worthy IMO. It really depends on if your view of the HOF includes compilers or just the best of the best as it were. I'm a bigger peak dominance guy and Palmeiro just doesn't measure up. Putting together a stretch of 30-40 homerun seasons in an era when guys like Brady Anderson were hitting 50 doesn't do it for me. Palmiero was never truly among the top 5 players in the league (1 Top 5 MVP finish...he finished 5th in 1999). He NEVER ONCE led the league in batting average, homeruns or RBIs. He was consistently very good to excellent, while under a cloud of suspicion (later proven) and never led the league in anything except lies. He's not in IMO. I'd put McGriff in before him.I think McGwire is a bit different. To me he was the most feared hitter in baseball for a stretch and that's a significant difference in the 2 players. McGwire led the league in homeruns 4 seasons and was in the top 5, 5 other times. Led the league in SLG% 4 times, OPS 2X, etc. He drew a ton of walks and thus had an amazing OBP% for a homerun hitter during his peak. Is he a HOFer? I don't know, injuries killed his career numbers but I think he's a better case than Palmeiro if you are talking dominance.I really have no idea what's going to happen with these guys because baseball is still wonky from the Mitchell report stuff and the senate hearings, etc. I don't know if I'd reward Palmeiro for being consistently a top 10 power hitter during the steroid era but I also don't know if I should reward McGwire for being the best power hitter during the steroid era either. I think McGwire's dominance with respect to the league gives him an edge though if anything.Put another way, if you were to "normalize" the steroid data...just hypothetically speaking say reduce the number of homeruns hit by an arbitrary % or whatever. Their career numbers would obviously suffer a bit, but with respect to the league, McGwire would still have led the league in homeruns whether you knocked it down to 40 or what have you. Palmeiro's career numbers would also suffer the same way but he also still would not be in possession of any league leaderboard wins as well whereas McGwire would. He would look a lot more pedestrian in this comparison.

[7s7c]

PMJackson21, on Monday, August 18th, 2008, 8:22 AM, said:

Maury Wills? http://maurywills.com/HallOfFame.aspx3 WS titles, 1 MVP, and I don't think anyone can argue that he didn't change the game. In 1959, Willie Mays led the NL in SBs with 27; in 1962, Wills stole 104.

Quite frankly if Phil Rizzuto's in, there should be no reason Wills shouldn't be. If Rizzuto is the measuring stick that is. He was better than Rizzuto both at the plate and in the field. They both have 1 MVP, multiple rings and both hit about the same in postseason play. Wills was the more dominant player during his peak by far.

[PMJackson21]

7s7c, on Monday, August 18th, 2008, 11:12 AM, said:

Quite frankly if Phil Rizzuto's in, there should be no reason Wills shouldn't be. If Rizzuto is the measuring stick that is. He was better than Rizzuto both at the plate and in the field. They both have 1 MVP, multiple rings and both hit about the same in postseason play. Wills was the more dominant player during his peak by far.

Yeah, agreed.

[GeneralGeeWhiz]

Tommy John?

[AmScray]

7s7c, on Monday, August 18th, 2008, 11:12 AM, said:

Quite frankly if Phil Rizzuto's in, there should be no reason Wills shouldn't be. If Rizzuto is the measuring stick that is. He was better than Rizzuto both at the plate and in the field. They both have 1 MVP, multiple rings and both hit about the same in postseason play. Wills was the more dominant player during his peak by far.

Rizzuto is the HOF's Mendoza Line. IMO, it should be much, much higher.