|
|
Post by Doobs on Jan 9, 2007 7:48:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by theforty on Jan 9, 2007 8:43:16 GMT -5
Yeah...Comparing guys hitting in the 90's versus hitting in the pitching dominated 60's is almost a (if not a complete) waste of time.
Also, virtually every position has a guy or two whose inclusion in the hall is regrettable. Some of those guys are mentioned in these comparisons. Using a mistake as a gauge for induction in the hall only serves to make more mistakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by ndbooster on Jan 9, 2007 8:50:57 GMT -5
This guy does the comparison job better than a lot of people I've seen, and he's actually honest enough to use major stats in presenting his case (when somebody argues the Hall of Fame for a player on the basis of sacrifice flies or doubles with two men out, the debate is lost before it's begun) - however, any chance I'll take him seriously is gone when he compares Albert Belle to Hank Greenberg.
|
|
|
|
Post by ndbooster on Jan 9, 2007 9:09:00 GMT -5
And I suspect the only reason he brings up Bobby Wallace (an 1890s guy who I think is the earliest shortstop in the Hall) is that he's one of the few Hall of Fame shortstops with fewer career homers than Dave Concepcion. (The others include Ozzie Smith and Luke Apping, who for some reason aren't mentioned as a yardstick for Concepcion.) If you have to go to a previous CENTURY to find a favorable HOF comparison for your guy, maybe your guy isn't a Hall of Famer.
|
|
|
|
Post by theburns on Jan 9, 2007 21:01:38 GMT -5
I hate these crazy ass statistical comparisions. Give me some time and I'll present a case for Richie Hebner for the Hall of Fame.
|
|
