dtvh@drutx.UUCP (VanHandelDT) (12/20/85)
>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 > > Even though some of Maris' "season" records are extremely impressive, I do not believe he deserves Hall of Fame recognition. The Hall of Fame is reserved for those players who have consistently produced great seasons, year in and year out (OH MY GOD, THAT MEANS PETEY WILL MAKE IT!!). There are places for those players who have single great seasons, such as the All-Star Games, Record Books, etc. I'd like to propose the start of a new exclusive group - THE HALL OF BLAME!! My first two nominees are Rene Lachemann and Tony LaRussa; both destroyed teams capable of winning the World Series. (-: Dan Van Handel drutx!dtvh
lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/31/85)
In article <86@drutx.UUCP> dtvh@drutx.UUCP (VanHandelDT) writes: >>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. > >Even though some of Maris' "season" records are extremely impressive, I >do not believe he deserves Hall of Fame recognition. The Hall of Fame >is reserved for those players who have consistently produced great >seasons, year in and year out (OH MY GOD, THAT MEANS PETEY WILL MAKE IT!!). > >There are places for those players who have single great seasons, such as >the All-Star Games, Record Books, etc. > It's a shame the only thing everybody knows about Maris is the record. What's is the bottom line of a professional athlete? statistics, records, or championships? The Yankees was a dynasty from 60-64 with five straight pennants and two world championships. Even if Maris was a role player on such a team, he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, let alone he was the significant contributor to this dynasty. He also helped the Cardinals to two more pennants and one more world championship. I just don't believe a player who won seven pennants and three world championships is ignored by the Hall. Who else in the Hall, beside players from some other Yankee dynasties, have such credentials? Other sure Hall of Famers, like Rod Carew and Phil Niekro, have not even won a single pennant in twenty-year careers. I am surprised nobody brings this up after Maris' death. -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA
credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (01/01/86)
>> >>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. >> >do not believe he deserves Hall of Fame recognition. The Hall of Fame >is reserved for those players who have consistently produced great >seasons, year in and year out (OH MY GOD, THAT MEANS PETEY WILL MAKE IT!!). > It has come to my attention that one member of the Hall of Fame is a pitcher named Candy Cummings, who pitched exactly two seasons in the majors and had a lifetime record of 21-22. Why? He was the inventor of the curve ball. I would describe that as a single great accomplishment!
mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) (01/04/86)
It is my opinion that both great players and great achievements belong in the Hall of Fame. If Larson didn't pitch his World Series Gem, he probably would not be fame-ous, but he did and he is. However, he certainly doesn't rank with the all-time greatest pitchers, at least in my book. I agree that the Hall of Fame criterea is kind of fuzzy, and this criterea has probably changed from decade to decade (or even year to year). I don't know if being a dominating player is any more valid a criterion (is this a real word?) than some accomplishment like 61 home runs. If Maris had hit 161 home runs in one season, but hit not more than 5 in any other, would he deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? How do you compare a guy like Maris with a guy like Babe Ruth? How do you compare guys like Clemente, Johnny Bench, Pete Rose, Hank Aaron, or many of these "greats" to a Babe Ruth? Ruth hit 714 Homers, batted .342 LIFETIME, had enormous walk totals every year, and even stole a bunch of bases (pardon me if I am in error, but I think he stole something like 172 bases in his career - this is off the top of my head). None of these other guys come close. And there are many players, not as awesome as Ruth, who put these same guys to "shame" (I use this term loosely - very loosely). What it currently boils down to is a vote among the world's greatest authorities on the game - the sportswriters. They might not really be more knowledgeable than many of us fans, but at least they get paid to be experts. Clearly, the ultimate critera seems to be a consensus "gut" feeling, which takes into consideration all the things that need to be considered. Larson might not belong in the hall, but his accomplishment(s) do make him worthy of consideration. The only thing I can think of that might be fairer would be to have the fans vote, but that is a whole new can of worms that someone else can tackle. It might be fairer, it might not - it wouldn't make a difference, because once a guy is in, he obviously has met all the critera needed. Sorry to be so long winded. 8 weeks till spring training? Can't wait.... mike schwartz at 3Com Corp.