|
Post by Pattons3rdArmy on May 20, 2005 10:37:48 GMT -5
msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3613750I'm on the edge on 2 of these guys. Jim Edmonds is a good hitter and a great defensive CFer. I think that his defense should put him over the top and into the HOF, but not on the first ballot. Mike Mussina has had a great career. The only thing that is hurting him is that when he was the ace with the Yankees, he didn't get a ring. Now that RJ is the ace of that staff, getting the ring won't be a influential to the voters. Yes, a WS ring would help, but it would have been better as the ace of the staff. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by Metsie69 on May 20, 2005 11:05:47 GMT -5
Quite a funny article!!!!!! The only way Mussina can get in the HOF is to buy a ticket, unless ofcourse it is the Bullwinkle HOF. The writer does bring out some valid points tho'. I feel the standards of the HOF was lowered considerably when they let in Stargel.
Anyone still Yankin It In Beantown?
|
|
|
Post by DavidL on May 20, 2005 11:55:20 GMT -5
First off, this is from Fox Sports, so it's suspect right off the bat.
Secondly, while he makes some good points, alot of the guys he's talking about are still too young to be making any difinitive judgments about whether they'll end up with HOF careers. Only Mussina and Edmunds are remotely close to the end of their careers. While Ortiz may have gotten a late start, as a DH he may be able to go until he's 40 or more. If Edgar gets in, and Ortiz keeps up his current level, he'll be a realistic candidate. Nomar's body (or steroid use?) may have betrayed him, but he's still young enough that he could rebound.
Thirdly, he's comparing lots of these guys numbers with the numbers generally assumed to be "automatic" HOF standards, such as 500 HRs and 300 wins. There are many pitchers in the HOF with fewer than 300 wins, and I doubt that many would dispute that Don Drysdale, Whitey Ford, Jim Bunning, Mordecai Brown, or Bob Feller (to name a very few) don't belong.
It will be interesting to compare his list to what actually happens within, say, 10-15 years.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan9 on May 20, 2005 12:31:05 GMT -5
First off, this is from Fox Sports, so it's suspect right off the bat. Thirdly, he's comparing lots of these guys numbers with the numbers generally assumed to be "automatic" HOF standards, such as 500 HRs and 300 wins. There are many pitchers in the HOF with fewer than 300 wins, and I doubt that many would dispute that Don Drysdale, Whitey Ford, Jim Bunning, Mordecai Brown, or Bob Feller (to name a very few) don't belong. It will be interesting to compare his list to what actually happens within, say, 10-15 years. First of all. . . is there any media outlet you don't find fault with? It'll be interesting to see if 500/300 are still the benchmarks in the next several years. After Maddux, who'll be the next 300 game winner? Maybe Johnson, but not likely. No other names pop into my head. 500 HR isn't what it used to be. As far as those guys you mentioned, I've never been completely convinced that Bunning belongs there. A political move, perhaps? Had it not been for WWII, Feller would have had 300 wins easily, maybe even another no-hitter or two.
|
|
|
Post by DavidL on May 20, 2005 13:18:08 GMT -5
Well, the National Enquirer hasn't done anything objectionable lately.
|
|