Post subject: Re: MLB HOF ~ Making the case for Bert Blyleven
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:31 pm
Got Some
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:16 am Posts: 2576 Location: Maine, formerly MA
Skitch Patterson wrote:
MattA751 wrote:
who the fuck is the 10% not voting for Alomar? I mean, the whole "first vote" thing is over and done with, how can you possibly make the argument Alomar is not a hall of famer?
I think its more disgusting that 3/4 of voters dont think trammell is a hall of famer.
Trammell was a very good player, but he wasn't a hall of famer. If he were to get in, someone like Dale Murphy should be committing mass murder on the BBWA
Post subject: Re: MLB HOF ~ Making the case for Bert Blyleven
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:46 pm
a joke
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
MattA751 wrote:
Skitch Patterson wrote:
MattA751 wrote:
who the fuck is the 10% not voting for Alomar? I mean, the whole "first vote" thing is over and done with, how can you possibly make the argument Alomar is not a hall of famer?
I think its more disgusting that 3/4 of voters dont think trammell is a hall of famer.
Trammell was a very good player, but he wasn't a hall of famer. If he were to get in, someone like Dale Murphy should be committing mass murder on the BBWA
Trammell was a great shortstop. The only better shortstop of his era was Cal Ripken. The thing holding trammell back is immediately after his career is when Offense exploded. Its absolutely terrible that a guy like Ozzie Smith is a first ballot, no brainer and trammell is lucky to get 25% of the vote.
Post subject: Re: MLB HOF ~ Making the case for Bert Blyleven
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:57 pm
a joke
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
Skitch Patterson wrote:
MattA751 wrote:
Skitch Patterson wrote:
MattA751 wrote:
who the fuck is the 10% not voting for Alomar? I mean, the whole "first vote" thing is over and done with, how can you possibly make the argument Alomar is not a hall of famer?
I think its more disgusting that 3/4 of voters dont think trammell is a hall of famer.
Trammell was a very good player, but he wasn't a hall of famer. If he were to get in, someone like Dale Murphy should be committing mass murder on the BBWA
Trammell was a great shortstop. The only better shortstop of his era was Cal Ripken. The thing holding trammell back is immediately after his career is when Offense exploded. Its absolutely terrible that a guy like Ozzie Smith is a first ballot, no brainer and trammell is lucky to get 25% of the vote.
To expand on this a little, Things that are held against trammell Lack of MVP- The same people that hold it against him, are the same people that screwed him out of the '87 MVP. Not that Many Gold Gloves/ASG: He was in a league with Cal Ripken, Tony Fernandez (who was awesome defensively for a couple of years) and Robin Yount. Meanwhile Ozzie Smith won all his with who as NL SS? Offensively, he is pretty comparable with Larkin and Yount (as a SS), and was signficantly better than Ozzie. 2 of those guys were first ballot, and larkin did over 50%. Yet Tram cant crack 25%? His stats on their own maybe borderline, but given position and the stats of other HoF SS, he should be in.
And Whitiker shouldn't have been kicked off the ballot either. and Morris shouldnt' be in.
2 of them made the hall of fame on their second ballot and were pretty much called no Brainers. 1 of them was kicked off the ballot after his first year.
Whitaker, Sandberg and Alomar. Not in that order.
ETF-typos, format
Last edited by Skitch Patterson on Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post subject: Re: MLB HOF ~ Making the case for Bert Blyleven
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:25 pm
Got Some
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:16 am Posts: 2576 Location: Maine, formerly MA
Skitch Patterson wrote:
Skitch Patterson wrote:
MattA751 wrote:
Skitch Patterson wrote:
MattA751 wrote:
who the fuck is the 10% not voting for Alomar? I mean, the whole "first vote" thing is over and done with, how can you possibly make the argument Alomar is not a hall of famer?
I think its more disgusting that 3/4 of voters dont think trammell is a hall of famer.
Trammell was a very good player, but he wasn't a hall of famer. If he were to get in, someone like Dale Murphy should be committing mass murder on the BBWA
Trammell was a great shortstop. The only better shortstop of his era was Cal Ripken. The thing holding trammell back is immediately after his career is when Offense exploded. Its absolutely terrible that a guy like Ozzie Smith is a first ballot, no brainer and trammell is lucky to get 25% of the vote.
To expand on this a little, Things that are held against trammell Lack of MVP- The same people that hold it against him, are the same people that screwed him out of the '87 MVP. Not that Many Gold Gloves/ASG: He was in a league with Cal Ripken, Tony Fernandez (who was awesome defensively for a couple of years) and Robin Yount. Meanwhile Ozzie Smith won all his with who as NL SS? Offensively, he is pretty comparable with Larkin and Yount (as a SS), and was signficantly better than Ozzie. 2 of those guys were first ballot, and larkin did over 50%. Yet Tram cant crack 25%? His stats on their own maybe borderline, but given position and the stats of other HoF SS, he should be in.
And Whitiker shouldn't have been kicked off the ballot either. and Morris shouldnt' be in.
he's not in the same class as Yount...Yount had over 3000 hits, Trammell didn't even get to 2500, Yount had significantly more extra base hits, and Yount won 2 MVPs...
as for Ozzie, he revolutionized the position defensively, something you can hardly say about Trammell on either offense or defense
I always liked Trammell and Whitaker as players, they were good or very good for the majority of their careers, but they ain't hall of famers.
2 of them made the hall of fame on their second ballot and were pretty much called no Brainers. 1 of them was kicked off the ballot after his first year.
Whitaker, Sandberg and Alomar. Not in that order.
that should read 2724 hits for Alomar, which makes a HUGE difference when arguing Whitaker vs Alomar (and no offense, but if you're actually arguing Whitaker was a better player, then you're just being a homer)
Whitaker never hit 30 home runs or drove in 100 runs in a single season, something Sandberg did twice (including 1 40 HR season), Sandberg has 9 gold gloves, 5 seasons with 30+ stolen bases (Whitaker's high is 20 which he did once, Sandberg's is 54!), an MVP, and better 162 game averages pretty much across the board than Whitaker
Post subject: Re: MLB HOF ~ Making the case for Bert Blyleven
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:33 pm
a joke
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
MattA751 wrote:
Skitch Patterson wrote:
Skitch Patterson wrote:
MattA751 wrote:
Skitch Patterson wrote:
MattA751 wrote:
who the fuck is the 10% not voting for Alomar? I mean, the whole "first vote" thing is over and done with, how can you possibly make the argument Alomar is not a hall of famer?
I think its more disgusting that 3/4 of voters dont think trammell is a hall of famer.
Trammell was a very good player, but he wasn't a hall of famer. If he were to get in, someone like Dale Murphy should be committing mass murder on the BBWA
Trammell was a great shortstop. The only better shortstop of his era was Cal Ripken. The thing holding trammell back is immediately after his career is when Offense exploded. Its absolutely terrible that a guy like Ozzie Smith is a first ballot, no brainer and trammell is lucky to get 25% of the vote.
To expand on this a little, Things that are held against trammell Lack of MVP- The same people that hold it against him, are the same people that screwed him out of the '87 MVP. Not that Many Gold Gloves/ASG: He was in a league with Cal Ripken, Tony Fernandez (who was awesome defensively for a couple of years) and Robin Yount. Meanwhile Ozzie Smith won all his with who as NL SS? Offensively, he is pretty comparable with Larkin and Yount (as a SS), and was signficantly better than Ozzie. 2 of those guys were first ballot, and larkin did over 50%. Yet Tram cant crack 25%? His stats on their own maybe borderline, but given position and the stats of other HoF SS, he should be in.
And Whitiker shouldn't have been kicked off the ballot either. and Morris shouldnt' be in.
he's not in the same class as Yount...Yount had over 3000 hits, Trammell didn't even get to 2500, Yount had significantly more extra base hits, and Yount won 2 MVPs...
as for Ozzie, he revolutionized the position defensively, something you can hardly say about Trammell on either offense or defense
I always liked Trammell and Whitaker as players, they were good or very good for the majority of their careers, but they ain't hall of famers.
As a SS Yount. He put up a lot of those numbers as an OF- including one of his MVPs. Yount deserves is based on stats accumulation, but as a SS he was not really much better than trammell.
Smith revolutionized Defense, or just played it really well? He was a great defensive player and a showman. Being a great defensive SS should not make you a first ballot hall of famer if the 2nd best offensive SS of the era is nothing more than an afterthought.
Post subject: Re: MLB HOF ~ Making the case for Bert Blyleven
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:34 pm
Got Some
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:16 am Posts: 2576 Location: Maine, formerly MA
Skitch Patterson wrote:
MattA751 wrote:
Skitch Patterson wrote:
Skitch Patterson wrote:
MattA751 wrote:
Skitch Patterson wrote:
MattA751 wrote:
who the fuck is the 10% not voting for Alomar? I mean, the whole "first vote" thing is over and done with, how can you possibly make the argument Alomar is not a hall of famer?
I think its more disgusting that 3/4 of voters dont think trammell is a hall of famer.
Trammell was a very good player, but he wasn't a hall of famer. If he were to get in, someone like Dale Murphy should be committing mass murder on the BBWA
Trammell was a great shortstop. The only better shortstop of his era was Cal Ripken. The thing holding trammell back is immediately after his career is when Offense exploded. Its absolutely terrible that a guy like Ozzie Smith is a first ballot, no brainer and trammell is lucky to get 25% of the vote.
To expand on this a little, Things that are held against trammell Lack of MVP- The same people that hold it against him, are the same people that screwed him out of the '87 MVP. Not that Many Gold Gloves/ASG: He was in a league with Cal Ripken, Tony Fernandez (who was awesome defensively for a couple of years) and Robin Yount. Meanwhile Ozzie Smith won all his with who as NL SS? Offensively, he is pretty comparable with Larkin and Yount (as a SS), and was signficantly better than Ozzie. 2 of those guys were first ballot, and larkin did over 50%. Yet Tram cant crack 25%? His stats on their own maybe borderline, but given position and the stats of other HoF SS, he should be in.
And Whitiker shouldn't have been kicked off the ballot either. and Morris shouldnt' be in.
he's not in the same class as Yount...Yount had over 3000 hits, Trammell didn't even get to 2500, Yount had significantly more extra base hits, and Yount won 2 MVPs...
as for Ozzie, he revolutionized the position defensively, something you can hardly say about Trammell on either offense or defense
I always liked Trammell and Whitaker as players, they were good or very good for the majority of their careers, but they ain't hall of famers.
As a SS Yount. He put up a lot of those numbers as an OF- including one of his MVPs. Yount deserves is based on stats accumulation, but as a SS he was not really much better than trammell.
Smith revolutionized Defense, or just played it really well? He was a great defensive player and a showman. Being a great defensive SS should not make you a first ballot hall of famer if the 2nd best offensive SS of the era is nothing more than an afterthought.
he's arguably (or maybe not so arguably) the best defensive shortstop of ALL TIME...maybe he shouldn't be in (honestly, I don't care either way), but it doesn't matter, Trammell just isn't a HOF'er
Post subject: Re: MLB HOF ~ Making the case for Bert Blyleven
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:36 pm
a joke
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
MattA751 wrote:
he's arguably (or maybe not so arguably) the best defensive shortstop of ALL TIME...maybe he shouldn't be in (honestly, I don't care either way), but it doesn't matter, Trammell just isn't a HOF'er
based on the standard of HOF SS, trammell is a HOF SS.
Post subject: Re: MLB HOF ~ Making the case for Bert Blyleven
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:46 pm
a joke
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
MattA751 wrote:
Whitaker never hit 30 home runs or drove in 100 runs in a single season, something Sandberg did twice (including 1 40 HR season), Sandberg has 9 gold gloves, 5 seasons with 30+ stolen bases (Whitaker's high is 20 which he did once, Sandberg's is 54!), an MVP, and better 162 game averages pretty much across the board than Whitaker
No, im not saying he is as good as Alomar. Alomar is a sure fire, should have been first ballot hall of famer.
Please stop pointing to Gold Gloves, they're a voted on award that have been proven time, and time again to be retarded (palmeiro a couple of years ago). And So is the MVP for that matter. The same guys that give the awards are then the same guys that hold the fact a guy didn't win them against a guy.
and im not even saying He's better than sandberg.. what im saying is, the difference between the players is not so large that one is a SURE FIRE hall of famer, and then other didnt even get enough votes to stay on the ballot for more than a year. They are, all three, very comparable players in a lot of ways. When a guy like Blyleven gets in, in large part, on the strength of a reevaluation of stats, and a guy like Morris is getting absolutely slammed by the same type thing... Guys like Whitaker should be reexamined against their contemporaries.
Post subject: Re: MLB HOF ~ Making the case for Bert Blyleven
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:06 pm
Supersonic
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm Posts: 10620 Location: Chicago, IL Gender: Male
Electromatic wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
MattA751 wrote:
as for Ozzie, he revolutionized the position defensively,
What does this even mean?
*insert backflips.
That's what I thought of too. I guess if you're a light-hitting, but extraordinarily gifted defensive shortstop and can do backflips, you can revolutionize your position defensively. Otherwise, you're just an extraordinarily gifted defensive shortstop.
Post subject: Re: MLB HOF ~ Making the case for Bert Blyleven
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:56 pm
Got Some
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:55 pm Posts: 1461 Location: PA
I feel like Blyleven was very good for a long time, but never Hall of Fame worthy. His numbers are excellent (wins, Ks, ERA), but I feel like his Ws and Ks were a benefit of him playing forever.
The HoF should be for the elite talents of the game, not for good players who played a hundred seasons.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum