lol of all things I forgot to look at it was strikeouts
Printable View
lol of all things I forgot to look at it was strikeouts
If Chad Kreuter doesn't make the HOF, Chan Ho Park won't be able to make it either.
Stop using wins and losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Blyleven finished in the top 10 in his league in ERA+ 12 times, with 1 time leading the league and 7 times in the top 5. He finished in the top 5 in strikeouts 12 times.
Blyleven is a victim of playing on relatively poor teams.
http://www.baseballanalysts.com/ - Check out the "Bert Blyleven series" on the side.
Tony Mullane should be in, but he played in an era where players like him were more common. And Blev is one of the most underrated players ever. Stop being like Metsguy and using the W/L arguement, because it is flawed, as has been proved and stated many times on here
And why no on McGwire? He hit nearly 600 homeruns, walked a ton, had a career OPS+ of 162, which is higher then most players single season bests
Because he allegedly used steroids.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
(I 100% disagree with that argument against him, but it's the only legitimate argument against him).
and because he's a red-headQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I also disagree with the arguement against him, and yes, I am sure that is Poets complaint. Though I am sure some will say he had too few hits or played to short or something gayQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
My Choices:
Harold Baines
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Tommy John
Don Mattingly
Mark McGwire
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Tim Raines
Jim Rice
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
Rickey Henderson
David Cone
Mark Grace
Woah-oh, Big Hall guy here...:p
I bolded the ones that I think stand any chance at all at appealing to the BBWAAQuote:
Originally Posted by RickD
I'd vote for Henderson, Raines, Blyleven, McGwire, probably Dawson. I'd give some serious consideration to Lee Smith, and not just because of the saves.
bingoQuote:
Originally Posted by etothep
Henderson and McGwire, definitely.
Tim Raines, probably. Best pure leadoff hitter of his generation.
Blyleven? A career 118 ERA+ (very good, but not legendary) and never a better finish than third in Cy Young voting, with only 4 top-10 finishes in 23 seasons? I just can't get behind him as a HOFer. Big career stats but nothing making him stand out as one of the greatest of his generation.
If Dale Murphy hasn't been voted in by now, he shouldn't be, although I think he belongs, by a hair. If he's not in, Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Harold Baines, and pretty much everyone else on this list doesn't belong.
David Cone? Why? His career is underwhelming. Parker, no. Mattingly, absolutely no. Trammell, kinda close, but no. Mark Grace, no. Everyone else, no.
I tend to feel strongly about very strict HOF standards. I don't like seeing very good players squeak by on account of "almost having 3000 hits" or "a career ~.300 AVG." Names like Grace, Baines and Cone don't belong with names like Gehrig, Ruth, Cobb, Musial, Koufax, etc.
I think too many very-good-but-not-phenomenal players tend to be over-glorified.
He deserved anywhere from 1-3 Cy Young awards, but was victimized by playing on poor teams and thus having poor won-loss records. He's also sort of the Mike Mussina of his generation - near the top of the league for a very long team but rarely ever AT the top. And I think Mussina deserves to be in the HOF.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy