Posted by Bilfert on 5/26/2012 12:17:00 PM (view original):
I think that 60 years ago people looked at Babe and Lou as baseball players not their WAR and OPS+. I am quite sure that their position on the field was not even considered when their candidacy came up.

You're talking about two hitters who are among the top ten offensively all time.

Tex isn't.

If Teixeira was a SS, he'd be a shoe in. But he's a first baseman, so he doesn't have a great HOF case.

For ****'s sake.  Comparing Tex to Schmidt was bad.   Comparing him to Ruth/Gehrig is sad.

Posted by augie_ojeda on 5/25/2012 4:31:00 PM (view original):
Why is Todd Helton not on this list? Have you seen his career BA? Also, the fact that he is the face of  the Rockies (no current HOFERS for them) and a lifelong Rockie at that should eventually land him in the hall.  Also, I think if Jamie Moyer has an above average year this year and somehow manages one more such year, that he's got a decent shot at being elected by the Veterans Committee.  Halladay and Chipper of course are no brainers.  People have said Texiera, are you people out of your mind? Geez, he's not even clos.e

Saying he is the face of the rockies isnt a valid reason, and I think that will hurt him.....Playing all those games at Coors I think is going to cost him a lot of votes for many years......and the counting stats arent that high.....was he better than Palmero???  

But, I do agree with you about Moyer.  He seems like the perfect guy for the V.C. to elect

First, this was some sort of random list. So don't worry if your guy isn't there. ARod, Jeter, Mariano, Pujols etc aren't there either.

Second, Palmeiro's a bad comp mainly because of the PEDs. McGwire was better than both and can't get a sniff. Also, Helton's avg/obp/slg are all better than Palmeiro, despite the HRs.

Even with the Coors factor, I have a hard time denying a .320 Avg (4th active - Pujols, Ichiro, Mauer) and a .420 OBP (1st active).

Sorry, I spelled it out and of course you guys were too thick to get what I was saying.

1. I never sai Tex should be in The Hall of Fame, as a matter of fact I said the opposite.

2. I NEVER compared Tex to Ruth and Gehrig. I asked if Ruth and Gehrigs greatness should be diminished because of their positions. The defensive position argument was one that was brought up re: Schmidt. By your arguement, Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron and Foxx have less value than Mays, A-Rod and Cobb (as the numbers will eventually be comparable).

3. Schmidt was still a .270 hitter. Why does that not count against him? Because he played 3B?

Posted by Bilfert on 5/27/2012 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, I spelled it out and of course you guys were too thick to get what I was saying.

1. I never sai Tex should be in The Hall of Fame, as a matter of fact I said the opposite.

2. I NEVER compared Tex to Ruth and Gehrig. I asked if Ruth and Gehrigs greatness should be diminished because of their positions. The defensive position argument was one that was brought up re: Schmidt. By your arguement, Ruth, Gehrig, Aaron and Foxx have less value than Mays, A-Rod and Cobb (as the numbers will eventually be comparable).

3. Schmidt was still a .270 hitter. Why does that not count against him? Because he played 3B?

If you want to get weirdly picky about it, yes, Ruth's and Gehrig's greatness is "diminished" because of their positions. No one is arguing that that means they are AUTOMATICALLY less valuable than other HoF hitters who played more demanding positions.

Turn the question around: can you imagine how valuable those guys would have been if they were shortstops? They were not, which is why this question is weirdly picky, but are you actually going to argue that they would not have been even more valuable had they played a tougher position?

As for Schmidt, for the era he played in, he was a slightly better than average hitter for average. However, that alone is probably the least descriptive stat for why he was great, because it leaves out the power, the walks, and the great defense. And the long career.

rockrobster, this is what I am getting at, guys around here are picky about the lamest things.  They are always trying to prove why a guy with 2800 hits  or 485 home rune or 288 wins is not great.  There was once a thread about Ichiro not being very valuable or a good teammate because he ONLY hits singles.  For god sake he broke the record for most hits in a season.

This thread keeps bouncing around, but I'd like to weigh in on Ichiro. First off, he is great, and I think he's a HOFer. But there is one stat that slightly diminishes his luster - its how unbelievably many infield singles he gets. A regular single drives in a runner from second more than half the time. No infield singles drive in runners from second. So he's ever so slightly less great than the numbers seem.

However, his consistency, speed, average, defense and iconic stature all point to him making the HOF.

Jeez, bilfart, we're talking about induction into the HOF.   So, when you don't think a guy is worthy, you explain why he isn't.   It's easy to see him as Fred McGriff and not Cal Ripken.   At the plate, McGriff's numbers are better than Ripken's.    Yet McGriff might have gotten 20% one time while Ripken was almost unanimous.   The difference?   One played SS the vast majority of their career while the other played 1B.

Schmidt's .267 career average is more than offset by his .380 OBP, 8 HR titles, 10 GG at 3B, and 3 MVP's.  Hits aren't the only way to add value.  Even when Ichiro broke the single season hit record, there were other players that got on base more than he did and even others with still better offensive years than his.  Despite almost 100 less hits that year, Abreu got on base almost as many times, in less PA, with more doubles, HR and steals than Ichiro.  I don't think bringing that up is a knock on Ichiro.  Don't look at just at-bats, look at all plate appearances.