BBTV Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 23 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: You called Trout irrelevant. No one with 500 home runs and well in excess of 2000 hits (both of which he will almost certainly reach) is irrelevant. I've made my case. Yours is simply "a guy with numbers matters." I don't think it's that binary. I guess we just disagree. 1 1 Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 2 hours ago, FiddySicks said: Ooh, couldn’t disagree with you more about Goldy. I felt kind of off put by the guy, because he was a D Back and always killed the Giants. But then I got D Backs season tickets in 2013 and he was legit the ONLY bright light on that sorry ass team. God, he was just SO good, and getting to see him play up close for close to 90+ games turned him into one of my top 5 favorite players ever. That’s totally reasonable, especially since those ‘10s D-Backs teams were so bad. I had the same reaction to watching Charlie Blackmon on the Rockies since I moved to Denver. Couldn’t stand him before but now I think of him whenever I hear “I don’t want to lose your love… tonight.” That and he looks like the epitome of Colorado Man. The Rockies are now the division’s punching bag and I can’t imagine them being good for ages. Quote MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 2 minutes ago, BBTV said: I've made my case. Yours is simply "a guy with numbers matters." I don't think it's that binary. You can bring in other factors on players who don't have overwhelming numbers. But once a player gets to a certain level of accomplshment, there's no longer any argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 3 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: But once a player gets to a certain level of accomplshment, there's no longer any argument. If you mean that once you hit the magic numbers (and weren't on steroids) that you're a HOFer, then by every historical precedent, then you're right. I'm not arguing that he'll be in the HOF. I just think that while you say other factors can supplement overwhelming numbers in a way that gets a guy in, I think that the opposite can be true too, and "other factors" should negate the overwhelming numbers. Key word "should", because they don't. But in the BBTVHOF, they do. Let's really stir stuff up (because there's about two more posts before these all get moved to a newly-created "pointless HOF debate" thread: Chase Utley and Jimmy Rollins are more deserving of being in the HOF than Mike Trout (as of now.) 1 1 Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 23 minutes ago, BBTV said: "other factors" should negate the overwhelming numbers. I'm sorry, but that is not a sensible position. If the Angels have made the postseason only once during Trout's career, that's not on account of any inadequacies of Trout's contributions — just as the Cubs' lack of pennants was not down to anything that Banks failed to do. To punish Trout for the failures of other players is illogical. This guy is a three-time MVP; that alone would qualify him as a legit Hall of Famer if he retired today. The expected 500 home runs will only make him ridiculously overqualified. Nothing can diminish all of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 3 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: I'm sorry, but that is not a sensible position. If the Angels have made the postseason only once during Trout's career, that's not on account of any inadequacies of Trout's contributions — just as the Cubs' lack of pennants was not down to anthing that Banks failed to do. To punish Trout for the failures of other players is illogical. This guy is a three-time MVP; that alone would qualify him as a legit Hall of Famer if he retired today. The expected 500 home runs will only make him ridiculously overqualified. Nothing can diminish all of that. I think we're arguing different points. Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 Just now, BBTV said: I think we're arguing different points. I don't think we are. You're saying that the Angels' lack of pennants should diminish Trout's Hall of Fame case (even though you acknowledge that it will not). I consider that argument to be without merit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 11 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: I don't think we are. You're saying that the Angels' lack of pennants should diminish Trout's Hall of Fame case (even though you acknowledge that it will not). I consider that argument to be without merit. OK, you win. 1 Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 9 minutes ago, BBTV said: OK, you win. If only life actually worked like that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 6 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: If only life actually worked like that. Do you really need the last word that badly? We are talking opinions at the end of the day here. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 Banks and Trout are apples and oranges. One was forced to remain on the same team, the other clearly saw how inept ownership was and still took a hometown discount to stay. If you go era by era, you can’t fault Banks but you certainly can fault Trout. And sure, enjoy the lifestyle and lack of interesting meteorological phenomena that pique your interest but don’t expect that to help your legacy as a player. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 2 hours ago, BBTV said: The HOF should have higher standards than it does. It should be above simply the "best players". Otherwise it should be called "the Hall of Best Players". On that we are in complete agreement. To make infrared41's Baseball Hall of Fame & Outlet Store, you have to be at the "holy , that guy was amazing" level. Anything less is just a memorabilia display filled with a bunch of Larry Walkers and Fred McGriffs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: No one with 500 home runs and well in excess of 2000 hits (both of which he will almost certainly reach) is irrelevant. Rafael Palmeiro has entered the chat. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 17 minutes ago, LMU said: Banks and Trout are apples and oranges. One was forced to remain on the same team, the other clearly saw how inept ownership was and still took a hometown discount to stay. If you go era by era, you can’t fault Banks but you certainly can fault Trout. And sure, enjoy the lifestyle and lack of interesting meteorological phenomena that pique your interest but don’t expect that to help your legacy as a player. So it's fine if us civilians decide to stay somewhere for the lifestyle and weather even though we know things might be better and more lucrative elsewhere, but ballplayers hurt their legacies if they do the same thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 33 minutes ago, infrared41 said: So it's fine if us civilians decide to stay somewhere for the lifestyle and weather even though we know things might be better and more lucrative elsewhere, but ballplayers hurt their legacies if they do the same thing? Most of us civilians aren't aspiring to enter the halls of fame of our respective professions so yes, that's perfectly fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 1 hour ago, infrared41 said: Rafael Palmeiro has entered the chat. Well, the steroids guys are another matter entirely. That's where the writers have really gotten it wrong. Here is something worth being upset about. All those guys — Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, and especially Bonds — not only deserve enshrinement, but they also deserve a formal apology. I can only hope that a committee will come along one day to right that wrong. 1 hour ago, LMU said: One was forced to remain on the same team, the other clearly saw how inept ownership was and still took a hometown discount to stay. If you go era by era, you can’t fault Banks but you certainly can fault Trout. So you'd like to *fault* a guy for playing his whole career on the same team? Is this opposite day? If playing for one team for your whole career is going to cut in any direction on a guy's legacy, it's only going to enhance it, as it does for Kirby Puckett, George Brett, Robin Yount, Tony Gwynn, Mike Schmidt. In any case, when it comes to a case for the Hall of Fame, enhancing factors such as the World Series or playing for one team apply only to borderline guys, such as, let's say, Thurman Munson. For a player who has dominated as much as Trout has done, you never even get to those other factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 2 hours ago, LMU said: Most of us civilians aren't aspiring to enter the halls of fame of our respective professions. That's the problem with America today. Back in my day, making the Convenience Store Cashier HOF was something we aspired to. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: Well, the steroids guys are another matter entirely. That's where the writers have really gotten it wrong. Here is something worth being upset about. All those guys — Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, and especially Bonds — not only deserve enshrinement, but they also deserve a formal apology. I can only hope that a committee will come along one day to right that wrong. Of the players you mentioned, only Bonds was in the HOF discussion before he started juicing. Palmeiro, McGwire, and Sosa were created in a lab. So was the second half of Clemens' career. A lot of apologists believe that steroids weren't a big deal and didn't make all that much difference in a player's ability, but I know from personal playing experience how much they help. I was prescribed steroids for about a month when I was still playing in 1996. I had more power at the plate, my reflexes were faster, and I had the same amount of energy in the 9th inning that I had in the 1st inning. The steroids made a big difference. I was just some out of shape guy playing in a local league and the roids I was on weren't even the good stuff. Your boys cheated, their stats benefited a whole lot from their cheating, and now they're paying the price. It is what it is. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 4 minutes ago, infrared41 said: Of the players you mentioned, only Bonds was in the HOF discussion before he started juicing. Palmeiro, McGwire, and Sosa were created in a lab. So was the second half of Clemens' career. Bonds beat his pregnant wife and maybe held a guy prisoner, Clemens has the horrible Mindy McCready situation, and Pete Rose transported a minor across state lines with intent to fornicate. There are more visceral moral reasons beyond roids or betting to keep them out. Likewise, I consider Karl Malone my least favorite NBA player ever. The guy molested and impregnated a seventh grader when he was 19, and he got to have a Hall of Fame career in spite of his crimes. Quote MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCarp1231 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.