I know it's not directly related to the NL Central, but is still baseball. While watching Sports Center this morning, I saw John Smoltz recorded his 3,000 K. Does that number still mean automatic inclusion into the Hall of Fame? What about 500 Home Runs? With that said, here's some players that may or may not go into the Hall. Should they get in? I've excluded Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire as I don't want this to be just about drugs and also some no brainer inclusions like Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson among others.
- Frank Thomas
- Jeff Bagwell
- Craig Biggio
- Sammy Sosa
- Barry Larkin
- Curt Schilling
- Pedro Martinez
- Jason Giambi
- Don Mattingly
- John Smoltz
- John Glavine
- Chipper Jones
- "Pudge" Rodriguez
Who else that's not on this list should be in the hall? I expect Cubs Fans to say Andre Dawson and Lee Smith and I couldn't argue against either of them.
Posts
4 comments:
I would say that Santo needs to get in. Look at his number and he has type 1 Diabetes.
And I would not argue against those guys......some of which I figure would be a shoe in.
I guess I am baffled by the whole "Hall of Fame" criteria thing. In his era, Santo was among the absolute very best in the field and at the plate, but he is out while Gaylord Perry - who admitted openly his entire career was based on cheating - is in.
(btw - I loved "Me & The Spitter" and think Gaylord is great)
It is much like the debate about who was the best second basemen of his era - Sandberg (who not only fielded the position more flawlessly than anyone ever, but did so playing 1/2 of his career on a shitty diamond along side some of the most dreadful shortstops, etc. ever) or Morgan (perfect hop carpet and surrounded by some of the best fielders ever).
And what about Andrea Dawson and Lee Smith?
I agree with all of the above with exception to Bagwell, Glavine and Giambi. I am not saying that they won't get in, but I would not put them in the same category as the others.
The fact that Ron Santo is not in the hall of fame is an absolute shame. I would say that even if I wasn't a Cubs fan.
Ryne Sandberg is a touchy subject for me...I will abstain because I cannot give a balanced opinion due to the fact that I named my son after him.
I would also like to cast my vote for...
Dick Drago: I have at least 50 of his baseball cards.
Oscar Gamble: The best hair in baseball period.
Lenny Dykstra: Best use of tobacco in history.
Both of the Reuschel brothers: For the physical specimens that they were when they played the game.
I don't get the push for Santo. He was a career .277 hitter so not a high average guy (hit .300 or higher only four times). Only hit 342 HR's so he's not a big power guy (only four seasons of 30 HR's or more) and four seasons of 100 RBI's or more. Never won an MVP, Rookie of the Year or other major award. I'm not saying I'm completely against him, but don't see much of a case for him.
I don't think they're really in the same era, but I'd take Sandburg over Morgan anyday. It's well known how bad the field was for years at Wrigley and Morgan played his entire career with turf at home in Houston and Cinci.
What I don't get about the entire hall of fame criteria is how people can not vote for someone for five years, then suddenly vote for him in year six. Is it like fine wine? The player gets better w/ age? If he wasn't good enough the first year, why is he good enough now? I think the BBWAA is extremly arrogant and believes they are better than anyone else.
I'm mixed on Bagwell. Of course I want him in the Hall since he spent his entire career in Houston. He did have some good career stats. For a 12 year period 1993-2004 he averaged over 34 home runs, 111 RBI's with a nearly .300 average per season. That looks HOF quality to me, but I might be biased.
Post a Comment