Register now to remove this ad

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 48 of 48

Thread: 2018 Hall of Fame Class

  1. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    I can agree with that.

    They kept out Gil Hodges and Luis Tiant and Carl Mays but let in Bill Mazeroski and Dave Bancroft...
    Certainly Tiant and Hodges deserve to be in the Hall, and it highlights why the players would have tough standards. I wouldn't disparage Mazeroski, and don't know enough about Bancroft to disparage him. Most people here aren't old enough to remember Maz, and even if they were old enough, they probably had very little exposure to NL baseball in the 50's and 60's. Maz was a legendary fielder. When he retired he held a slew of fielding records. No one turned the DP like him, earning the nickname "no-touch". The number of DPs that he was involved in was off the charts. He played in a pitching dominated era when middle infielders didn't hit much, and his kind of fielding was highly valued by his peers. Putting him in the Hall doesn't dilute it. He was the best second baseman of his generation.
    The King of TalkSox has Spoken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
    [T]he conclusion to be drawn is that there is no practical value in seeking this ideal lineup, and in that case any way in which it might be meaningfully termed "best" is irrelevant, academic at best, pedantic at worst
    Quote Originally Posted by a700hitter View Post
    Unlike hot streaks and clutch, the “Cliff” is a myth. It can’t be defined, and it’s future existence cannot be proved.

  2. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by a700hitter View Post
    Certainly Tiant and Hodges deserve to be in the Hall, and it highlights why the players would have tough standards. I wouldn't disparage Mazeroski, and don't know enough about Bancroft to disparage him. Most people here aren't old enough to remember Maz, and even if they were old enough, they probably had very little exposure to NL baseball in the 50's and 60's. Maz was a legendary fielder. When he retired he held a slew of fielding records. No one turned the DP like him, earning the nickname "no-touch". The number of DPs that he was involved in was off the charts. He played in a pitching dominated era when middle infielders didn't hit much, and his kind of fielding was highly valued by his peers. Putting him in the Hall doesn't dilute it. He was the best second baseman of his generation.
    Bancroft was the original example of cronyism. He had several teammates in the Hall, and they were the ones who elected him. Statitisically he was rather bland, and his main accomplishment seems to be that he played for a long time.

    Mazeroski had the defensive reputation, but his career totals are not much better than Lou Whitaker as a 2B. Whitaker did play 2 more seasons, but he also was an offensive contributor. Really, there are arguments for and agaist Mazeroski, especially over other players. But what are the arguments against Tiant, Mays and Hodges?

    And if you had to rank the 4 players I mentioned for Hall worthiness, how do you rank them? I know this is tough, since none of us saw most if not all of them play. But then I would also bet that most of the people who elected Mazeroski never say Mays pitch either, yet they didn't vote him in.

    In fact, doesn't letting Hall members vote create an obvious bias towards players the members played with and against?

  3. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    Bancroft was the original example of cronyism. He had several teammates in the Hall, and they were the ones who elected him. Statitisically he was rather bland, and his main accomplishment seems to be that he played for a long time.

    Mazeroski had the defensive reputation, but his career totals are not much better than Lou Whitaker as a 2B. Whitaker did play 2 more seasons, but he also was an offensive contributor. Really, there are arguments for and agaist Mazeroski, especially over other players. But what are the arguments against Tiant, Mays and Hodges?

    And if you had to rank the 4 players I mentioned for Hall worthiness, how do you rank them? I know this is tough, since none of us saw most if not all of them play. But then I would also bet that most of the people who elected Mazeroski never say Mays pitch either, yet they didn't vote him in.

    In fact, doesn't letting Hall members vote create an obvious bias towards players the members played with and against?
    As I mentioned, they should all be in the Hall imo. The fact that Tiant, Hodges and Mays have not made it bolsters the argument that letting the HOF membership vote would not water down the standards. As for Maz, it isn’t fair to compare him to Lou Whitaker(who I think deserves to be in), because they were from different eras. Maz was clearly the best second baseman of his generation (especially in the NL), and that is how a player should be judged. Tiant was great and deserves to be in the Hall imo, but he was not the best at his position in his generation.
    The King of TalkSox has Spoken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
    [T]he conclusion to be drawn is that there is no practical value in seeking this ideal lineup, and in that case any way in which it might be meaningfully termed "best" is irrelevant, academic at best, pedantic at worst
    Quote Originally Posted by a700hitter View Post
    Unlike hot streaks and clutch, the “Cliff” is a myth. It can’t be defined, and it’s future existence cannot be proved.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •