amb@duke.UUCP (A. Michael Berman) (12/18/85)
I'd like to start a new topic that I hope will generate a lot of controversy.... All baseball fans mourn the passing of Roger Maris, holder of one of the best-known records in the game. There is no question that Maris was an outstanding player. My question is, does he belong in the Hall of Fame? On the plus side: 61 homeruns in 1961, 2 times MVP (60,61?), excellent and smart hitter and fielder. On the more questionable side: lifetime stats, while good, maybe a little soft for Hall of Fame -- around .270 ba, with 279 hr, in a 10 year career (this is from memory, I welcome corrections). If he had done the same for another 8 years, there would be no question in my mind. I would remind the reader that it is standing Hall of Fame policy that admission should be based on lifetime achievement and not on a single great accomplishment, e.g., consider Don Larsen. Well, I have an open mind on the issue and I look forward to a flood of opinions, educated and otherwise. Michael Berman
credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (12/19/85)
>All baseball fans mourn the passing of Roger Maris, holder of one of the >best-known records in the game. There is no question that Maris was an >outstanding player. My question is, does he belong in the Hall of Fame? > >I would remind the reader that it is standing Hall of Fame policy that >admission should be based on lifetime achievement and not on a single >great accomplishment, e.g., consider Don Larsen. > I am so glad this question was raised, because it lets me sound off on a subject which has annoyed me for a while: the use of career statistics to "demonstrate" that so-and-so does, or doesn't, deserve to be elected to the Hall of Fame. Those who read the magazine Baseball Digest will know that virtually every issue has a letter or two arguing the case of some player (usually moderately obscure) on the basis of lifetime batting average, won-lost record or stolen base achievements, as compared to those of someone who has already made the Hall of Fame. As we all know from reading the extensive arguments in this net, and everywhere else, existing statistics have their limitations and blind spots. And as we all know from common sense (surely), greatness is more than objective performance. If nothing else, it includes leadership, character and style. While I don't want to express an opinion pro or con Roger Maris, I do want to suggest that those who form opinions about him don't do it just on the basis of statistics -- either the one famous statistic, or the career full of them. Let's consider Maris the ball player, Maris the man. CAR
halle@hou2b.UUCP (J.HALLE) (12/20/85)
This is not a comment on Maris but on the use of lifetime stats. In the Football Hall of fame there is a quarterback with a so-so completion percentage, about 10-20% more interceptions than TD passes, and an overall rating that is about average. Furthermore, his team usually had losing seasons. Another QB that is NOT in the Hall of Fame is the lifetime leader in many categories:TDs, yards, and probably other stuff. The only knock I know of is that he lost three Super Bowls. So lifetime stats need not be important. The intangibles often mean more. (If you haven't figured out who these two guys are, each one has done Monday Night Football on ABC.)
roy@hpmtla.UUCP (roy) (01/03/86)
>I'd like to start a new topic that I hope will generate a lot of >controversy.... > >All baseball fans mourn the passing of Roger Maris, holder of one of the >best-known records in the game. There is no question that Maris was an >outstanding player. My question is, does he belong in the Hall of Fame? I'd would have been satisfied if they removed the asterisk before he died. It could be the greatest deliberate injustice in the history of baseball*. Roy * This, of course, applies to US Major league baseball only.
roger1@ihlpg.UUCP (Mills) (01/08/86)
> >I'd like to start a new topic that I hope will generate a lot of > >controversy.... > > > >All baseball fans mourn the passing of Roger Maris, holder of one of the > >best-known records in the game. There is no question that Maris was an > >outstanding player. My question is, does he belong in the Hall of Fame? > > I'd would have been satisfied if they removed the asterisk before he > died. It could be the greatest deliberate injustice in the history > of baseball*. > > Roy > > * This, of course, applies to US Major league baseball only. I vote for Roger Maris for the Hall-of-Fame. Maris may not have had the impact that Sandy Koufax, but in his semi-short career he did play on teams that went to a World Series 7 out of 9 years. Plus, he did get screwed by having the asterisk attached to his name. Maris may of been the first instance where the press realized that they had the ability to "destroy" a player. They no longer just reported the news, they started to make the news. And television was also just getting its start also. Perhaps this is where sleazy news got its start. I don't mean go on about how bad baseball reporting is, but it does seem to me that Roger Maris was a turning point for media ideas about reporting news. my $.02 rlm -- Roger L. Mills ihlpg!roger1