Printable View
lol
I'd like to see a defense of why that's a bad stance to take, though. The Hall Of Fame isn't just "These are the best players in the history of baseball", it's intended to be about the history of baseball itself. Tommy John, a notable pitcher of his time, undergoing a revolutionary surgical procedure and being able to return and continue his career is certainly historical. To deny that can only be described as narrow minded.
Had Tommy John actually invented the procedure or performed it himself....then we may have something to talk about.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
What does that have to do with him coming back and continuing to perform?
Regardless, he had the procedure. "Tommy John Surgery" is part of the lexicon of baseball now, so what sort of sense does it make to not put the namesake into the hall?
???:confused:???Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
That's what I'm saying to:
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
See, this is a case where I think it's important to mention the distinction that exists in the Hall. The players that are inducted into the Hall of Fame with their plaques and all represent one half of the Hall. This is, in my opinion, meant to honor the best players in the history of baseball. The other half of the Hall is the museum, which features tons of historical artifacts and stories, many of which come from players that wouldn't ever even be considered close to induction. The museum half of the Hall is meant to tell the story of the history of the game. Tommy John, his story, and the surgery absolutely belong in that part of the Hall (if they're not already, I don't know).Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
For the plaque room of the Hall, I believe that only small credit should be given for "historical moments" such as the first to receive that surgery. For Tommy John, it's certainly arguable that his performance record plus minor credit for his historical significance is enough to get him in. I disagree, but it's a perfectly defensible stance. I absolutely 100% disagree with any stance that argues for a player's induction into the plaque room of the Hall based solely on something like that. Curt Flood would have a better argument than Tommy John if that was the case, for being a major player at the forefront of the battle for free agency, which is definitely of more historical significance than ligament replacement surgery.
There's plenty of surgeries and other medical procedures that are major parts of today's game. For each of them, there's also a first player to have undergone the procedure. I'm sure a portion of those players also went on to be productive after whichever procedure they had (and I'm sure some failed). It just so happens that the procedure never got named in honor of them. If Tommy John surgery was never given that nickname, would there still be an argument for his induction on that basis? I don't know.
Tommy John's performance plus his historical significance = Hall of Fame is a fair argument. Tommy John getting in because of the surgery, I don't think is. The performance record is absolutely needed for the Tommy John induction argument to really be valid in my opinion.
1) Ozzie Smith is a far cry from the most overrated Hall of Famer. He was a fairly good hitter for a shortstop, an excellent baserunner, and an absolutely brilliant defensive player. Many players made the HOF for great hitting, but were less than stellar on defense. Smith, like Brooks Robinson and Bill Mazeroski made the HOF because they were considered as the best defensive players at their respective positions...and they could hit a little too.
Comparing Ozzie Smith to Duane Kuiper is like comparing Mike Schmidt to Don Wert. They both played the same position....
2) Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally were the players who challenged the Reserve Clause, and won, which led to free agency as we know it. Curt Flood lost. Maybe they should all be in the HOF, along with Arbitrator Peter Seitz, who is responsible for the deciding vote in the famous Messersmith-McNally decision.
Not even. Kuiper was a second basemen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
Thanks for the correction. All 3 were highly influential in it, which was really my point with Flood. Flood is just the first that came to my mind when I thought of the early years of free agency.Quote:
2) Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally were the players who challenged the Reserve Clause, and won, which led to free agency as we know it. Curt Flood lost. Maybe they should all be in the HOF, along with Arbitrator Peter Seitz, who is responsible for the deciding vote in the famous Messersmith-McNally decision.
Wasn't really a correction. People seem to remember Flood, and many, many think that his case led to free agency. As noted, he lost his appeal. I suppose that he may have inspired others to challenge the Reserve Clause, even though the Supreme Court ruled against him.
Now that you mention Curt...
:)
Oh, and SwampDog, I get the impression that you lived through the Curt Flood saga, but even so I think it's still a good idea to read the book about it: A Well Paid Slave. It puts the whole story together, if nothing else, and gives readers a very good perspective on the whole issue.
This is actually a bad topic. HF'ers earn there way in. There is no auto. And to think that the guys who vote are a problem. Come the **** on. I cant think of a guy who has been held out.
:confused:Quote:
I cant think of a guy who has been held out.
Ok, sorry Ohms, but who?
The reason that I used the :confused: smiley is because I'm not sure what you're actually trying to say.
What I am saying is that the HOF com. has done a good job over time. Except for maybe 2-3 players that we can argue to death. I am sick of hearing about how certain players arent in.
Like me. I still think that Gary Carter is a waste of space, but oh well
I guess this argument applies to closers who dont pitch a whole game like starters because of lack of endurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Or to power hitters who only hit homers but cant steal base.
I could go on, but it comes a point where it sounds like ur hating on Ozzie.
No. Being good at NO parts of the game make you unuseful. If you can do one thing well, it is up to the manager to get you in as many of those situations as possible, and out of all others.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
But being good at one part of the game doesn't make you a good player. It makes you wildly unbalanced and unuseful.
That's the point of a manager, to give players the best opportunity to be successful.
Ozzie is in and should be in. Remember, you are getting flack from a bunch of guys who never played the game. The Wii (is that right?) actually is giving assholes the right to criticize sports.
SS is the the hardest postion on earth. I played 5 games before I asked to go to OF.
I would nominate catcher as the most difficult position to play.
I agree, catcher is hardest to play, because of the physical demands placed on the players as well as its defensive importance, while ss is extremely important defensively..Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
You know, I read a book on Flood years ago, but I dont know if it was this one. Might have been. You are right, nonetheless, the Flood story is a good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
There are a number of players on the outside that surely deserve to be in, and a number of players that are in who have no place being in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshopper
Only one person here is arguing that Ozzie shouldn't be in.Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshopper
What? :confused:Quote:
The Wii (is that right?) actually is giving assholes the right to criticize sports.
As Swampdog said, this has gotta be catcher.Quote:
SS is the the hardest postion on earth. I played 5 games before I asked to go to OF.
I dunno, guys. Did Ozzie look better IRL then his stats show? Is there some sort of illusion here? He seems highly...average
You're only looking at his offensive stats, where he IS average.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
He made errors nearly 3 percent of the time though. That's good, but not that great.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
As I explained to you already, that's a horrible way to judge fielding, and even if you do use it, he comes out looking very good, as his fielding percentage was .978, 12 points above average.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
You're also overlooking that Ozzie Smith had a lot more chances to make errors than other players because he had impeccable range, and that impeccable range (and good arm) is what made him the best defensive shortstop to ever play the game.
So it's bad to judge a fielder by how often he makes errors?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
And what's range?
Errors are an extremely subjective stat, which is why they're such a poor stat to judge a fielder on.
What else do you judge a fielder on? If you mess up alot, your not good. If you mess up less, your good.Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
Take this example. Both players are left fielders playing a ball hit to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Player A has little range. He doesn't reach the ball, which rolls to the wall, allowing the runner to get a double.
Player B has great range. He reaches the ball, but it pops out of his glove as he goes to catch it. He picks it up and gets it in quickly, limiting the runner to a single, but getting charged with an error.
Range is simple - how much ground a player covers. Ozzie Smith covered a ton of ground. It allowed him to get to a lot more balls than other shortstops, balls that would get past other shortstops and roll into the outfield. Therefore, he had a lot more chances to make errors. There is way more to defense than "not making errors."
To Bring home HGM's point a little more
Derek Jeter is playing short stop. 100 balls are hit in his general vicinity. He gets to 80 of them and make 3 errors. That's a .963 fielding percentage.
Ozzie Smith is playing short stop. 100 balls are hit in his general vicinity. He gets to 90 of them and makes 4 errors. That's a .955 fielding percentage.
Derek turned 77 ground balls into outs. 77%
Ozzie turned 86 ground balls into outs. 86%
Who's better?
Yep, exactly. Turning balls into outs is the goal of a fielder. It's not to "not mess up" (even though, obviously, the two are connected).
I was about to make the same point that Filihok just made. It isn't so much the plays that you dont make (errors), its how many plays you do make. The same applies to outfielders, of course. There have been OF's that went a full season with no errors. While thats a fairly impressive feat, it really does not tell you how many balls in play they turned into outs.