|
|
Post by rlh on Dec 24, 2010 10:26:25 GMT -5
My son and I were having an interesting discussion....who, in any sport, is not in that sports Hall of Fame....but should be....My favorites are Roger Maris in baseball, Richard Dent in football (unbelievable he's not in), Dale Murphy in baseball.....and I'm sure there are others if I take the time to think about it.....BTW, i am ambivalent on Ron Santo, although he was a great 3rd baseman....who are some of your favorites that have not been enshrined in their sports Hall....?
|
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Dec 24, 2010 13:29:05 GMT -5
I would also go with Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris, but they were both caught having some good years on bad teams. My best recollection of Jack Morris was his clutch 1991 performance in the World Series for the Twins. He was a warrior on the mound that series. In other sports, I can't really put other names down because I didn't see them play, plus the stats don't always give the best indicator of why a person should or shouldn't be in their Hall of Fame.
The Ron Santo debate will go on forever, and I'm not sure if that's an issue with the Baseball Writers' Association or the Veterans Committee of current Hall of Famers, but his stats show he belongs, and if its something about his era of playing on mostly bad Cubs teams, unlike Brooks Robinson, who played the same position on good Baltimore Orioles teams, then what's the deal, they were in opposite leagues. It wasn't like the All-Star Game where the fans could have voted them in or they made the team as their team's representative, but that didn't happen until later.
|
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Dec 24, 2010 14:57:58 GMT -5
I agree with Blyleven, Morris to me is borderline.....but I wouldn't have a problem with it. Marvin Miller is another. The attorney who started the Players Association. He had more of an impact on not only baseball, but all professional sports than almost anyone else ever.....and of course the big one in baseball, Pete Rose....for certain sure should be in....
|
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Dec 24, 2010 15:22:26 GMT -5
I would also go with Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris, but they were both caught having some good years on bad teams. My best recollection of Jack Morris was his clutch 1991 performance in the World Series for the Twins. He was a warrior on the mound that series. In other sports, I can't really put other names down because I didn't see them play, plus the stats don't always give the best indicator of why a person should or shouldn't be in their Hall of Fame. The Ron Santo debate will go on forever, and I'm not sure if that's an issue with the Baseball Writers' Association or the Veterans Committee of current Hall of Famers, but his stats show he belongs, and if its something about his era of playing on mostly bad Cubs teams, unlike Brooks Robinson, who played the same position on good Baltimore Orioles teams, then what's the deal, they were in opposite leagues. It wasn't like the All-Star Game where the fans could have voted them in or they made the team as their team's representative, but that didn't happen until later. The main Santo issue I keep hearing about is that he used his disease to buy sympathy from the hall voters. That's the overwhelming impression, at least. They say at the very least he allowed family and friends to do that for him and he didn't put a stop to it. I wouldn't know myself, that's just what I hear. |
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Dec 24, 2010 16:31:46 GMT -5
I hadn't heard that one, but then we get Chicago media so they probably wouldn't have brought that up....and maybe they were part of the problem
|
|
|
|
Post by 78crusader on Dec 24, 2010 16:51:06 GMT -5
Blyleven should not be in the HOF. An argument can be made that he has achieved more fame in trying to get into the HOF than he acquired while playing the game, which, admittedly, he did very well for 22 years.
He was only an All Star twice in those 22 seasons. That means people usually did not think of him as one of the best in the game. He never won a Cy Young. He strongest argument is that he pitched well for 22 years. However, it is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Good-but-not Great Careers that go on for a Long Period of Time. I should also point out that in his first year of eligibilty for the HOF, Blyleven only received 14% of the vote. So back then, when memories were clear and voters could recall how Blyleven compared with his peers, he was obviously not thought of as a HOFer. His percentage has steadily increased over time, which I think is the result of a steady media campaign to get him into the HOF.
He did win 287 games and throw 60 shutouts. However, although he was dominate in many games, he never had a SEASON in which he was a dominate pitcher, as witnessed by his total of only 2 All Star selections and no Cy Young awards. He only won 20 games one season. By contrast, there is a pitcher who had consecutive seasons of 23-11, 24-8, 20-9, 18-12, 18-13, and 22-10 and is not in the HOF. His name is Mike Cuellar, a player who, like Blyleven, had a very good, but not HOF-worthy, career.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Dec 24, 2010 18:38:12 GMT -5
Blyleven had more wins than 21 other pitchers, some of which were contemporaries, who ARE in the HOF....including Robin Roberts, Ferguson Jenkins, Red Ruffing, Burleigh Grimes, Jim Palmer, Bob Feller, Eppa Rixey, Carl Hubbel, Al Spalding, Bob Gibson, Vick Willis
Joe McGinnity, Amos Ruisie, Juan Marichal, Herb Pennock, Mordicai Brown, Clark Griffith, Waite Hoyt, Whitey Ford, Jim Bunning and Catfish Hunter.....I would say he did plenty enough......
|
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Dec 24, 2010 19:34:42 GMT -5
I hadn't heard that one, but then we get Chicago media so they probably wouldn't have brought that up....and maybe they were part of the problem That's exactly where I heard it from. |
|
|
|
Post by bbtds on Dec 25, 2010 1:36:10 GMT -5
plus the stats don't always give the best indicator of why a person should or shouldn't be in their Hall of Fame. The Ron Santo debate will go on forever.................but his stats show he belongs, Are those not contradictory statements? |
|
|
|
Post by bbtds on Dec 25, 2010 1:55:39 GMT -5
The MLB players union should start their own Hall of Fame and Marvin Miller and Curt Flood should be the first 2 inductees.
|
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Dec 25, 2010 11:04:29 GMT -5
plus the stats don't always give the best indicator of why a person should or shouldn't be in their Hall of Fame. The Ron Santo debate will go on forever.................but his stats show he belongs, Are those not contradictory statements? I suppose you're right. When I initially said that I was thinking of the other sports like basketball, football, hockey, college sports, sports where you don't have as wide a base of stats to work with. Plus in baseball, the player has to do the work to get the 3,000 hits, .300+ batting average, 500 homers. He doesn't have to rely on someone else getting him the ball or puck so he can score. Sure, the batter has to rely on the pitcher getting the ball to the plate, but the batter has to hit the ball to get on base. |
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Dec 25, 2010 13:31:13 GMT -5
Are those not contradictory statements? I suppose you're right. When I initially said that I was thinking of the other sports like basketball, football, hockey, college sports, sports where you don't have as wide a base of stats to work with. Plus in baseball, the player has to do the work to get the 3,000 hits, .300+ batting average, 500 homers. He doesn't have to rely on someone else getting him the ball or puck so he can score. Sure, the batter has to rely on the pitcher getting the ball to the plate, but the batter has to hit the ball to get on base. I wish that were completely true, but unfortunately, RBIs are still used to judge who should get into the Hall of Fame, and the only way to garner that stat without help is to hit one out of the park. And then you'd still have to hit about 120 HRs to reach the level that's considered significant -- season after season after season. Same goes for Runs Scored, of course. On the pitching side, the same goes for Wins. |
|
|
|
Post by redheadbed on Jan 13, 2011 23:02:32 GMT -5
plus the stats don't always give the best indicator of why a person should or shouldn't be in their Hall of Fame. The Ron Santo debate will go on forever.................but his stats show he belongs, Are those not contradictory statements? Santo was not even the best Cub third baseman of all time. That was Ron Cey. Neither Santo nor Cey was the best Chicago third baseman of all time. That was White Sox Bill Melton. |
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Jan 20, 2011 16:31:10 GMT -5
i'm a huge Dodger fan, always have been....but to say Ron Cey (the former Dodger third sacker) was the equal of Ron Santo is totally without merit....and I love the Penguin
|
|
|
|
Post by redheadbed on Jan 20, 2011 16:58:05 GMT -5
i'm a huge Dodger fan, always have been....but to say Ron Cey (the former Dodger third sacker) was the equal of Ron Santo is totally without merit....and I love the Penguin Well at least you do not deny the supremecy of Melton, and how could you?! The Cubs still wanted to trade Santo, and since his preference was to stay in Chicago, they worked out a deal with the White Sox, acquiring catcher Steve Swisher, and three young pitchers: Jim Kremmel, Ken Frailing, and one of Santo's future co-broadcasters, Steve Stone. The White Sox already had a third baseman, Bill Melton, so Santo was relegated mostly to designated hitter duty, which he hated. He wanted to play in the field, but White Sox manager Chuck Tanner wouldn't bench Melton (who had had a couple of 30 home run seasons for them), so he unsuccessfully tried Santo at second base. Finishing 1974 with a .221 batting average and 5 home runs, Santo retired from baseball at the age of 34. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Santo#Trade_Request |
|
