Yes
No
E=I*R
Right, and I agree with that. Like I said above, defense should play a larger role in selections. I just think that it could easily be as much of a dis-qualifier as it is a qualifier. I honestly can't think of any good examples off the top of my head, but if defense were part of the equation, then I'm sure that more than one big name HOF'er who was inducted due to offensive numbers played terrible defensively.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Banned
Bill Mazeroski, he is the whole the reason the veterans commitee was changed. His selection was so heavily critizied that it lead to the change. Santo wouldn't be the worst selection ever, but I think the Veterans have done a good job as IMO none of the canodates in the last few years have been HOF worthy.
E=I*R
But, Mazeroski was good defensivly and bad offensively I thought... looking at his numbers, he seems barely average as an offensive player, and a pretty good defensive player.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Some call me Mr.Biggles
pretty good defensive player, not great tho and that's why some feel he shouldn't be in the hall.Originally Posted by ohms_law
E=I*R
That kind of illustrates the larger problem with factoring in defensive stats. There just not that good.
"Fielding Statistics in baseball, as you probably know, are kind of a mess."
-Bill James, The Fielding Bible
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
Borderline in a HoF context.
Valentine Lake Horror
Huh? This may well be the first time I have ever heard of anyone refer to Maz as a "pretty good defensive player, not great tho....". Mazeroski is widely considered as one of the greatest defensive players in baseball history. Defense is precisely why he got into the HOF. Look at what Bill James wrote ....
"In the win shares system I have Mazeroski credited with 113 win shares for his defense at second base, which is the highest total of all time". Also...
"The selection of Mazeroski as the most effective defensive second baseman ever is not a surprise to anyone; Total Baseball rates him as the best defensive player at any position, and he won eight gold gloves". Oh, one last quote...
"Mazeroski was better than anybody who ever lived at turning double plays".
Bill Mazeroski set the standard for play at second base....think of Ozzie Smith without the backflips . Yeah, I would say he was "pretty good" all right.
E=I*R
That's what I thought, I just wasn't certain is all. I knew that I had heard the name before, at least.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Valentine Lake Horror
Well you were right, ohms. Its funny, Maz was considered the greatest defensively while he played, and for decades since. But he is remembered best for an offensive moment...the one swing of the bat that resulted in the walk-off homer in game 7 of the 1960 World Series.
E=I*R
Offense is always what is ultimately remembered. It's the most visible aspect of any player, besides pitchers obviously.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Like a midget at a urinal
I still can't believe Roger Maris isn't in the Hall. It's like everyone likes to pretend it *means* something that he isn't *good enough* for the hall.
Before Big Mac, Maris was one of the most well known (famous if you will) players of all time. I know that his chances of getting in were likely shot when his record fell, but I really think the hall of fame in general is SOOO snobbish it's sickening.
As for Santo, he DID play in one of the absolute toughest eras for hitters, when the ERA leaders would be in the 1.50-2.00 range REGULARLY, and a 2.50 wasn't a big deal. Unfortunatly I never saw the man play, so without anything compelling to wrap my mind (Like the most famous baseball record in history) around I have to say no, with regret.
They ought to have an area (permanent) to recognize great accmoplishments. Guys who didn't have the career numbers, but for one season, one game, one streak, were great.
New User
I agree.
o
That's why theres two parts to the Hall of Fame - the Hall itself, and the museum...
Jose Canseco (if you are old enough to remember the incident) was a hitter, pure and simple, but........ One of the first things that come to my mind when I think of him is his defense. More specifically, a long fly out that bounced off his melon and over the fence for a homerun. Lol. It works both ways (sometimes).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote