If one has 400 HR and 300 SB....

Career .270 hitter. How many hits do you think a player needs to get into the HOF with 400 HR and 300 SB? .270 hitter around .820 OPS.

Would 2,500 get it done?

Id say 3,500

Those stats above are of a weaker Fred McGriff with better speed.

McGriff .284 AVG 493 HR 1550 RBI with 2,490 Hits....but only 72 SB and McGriff isn't gonna sniff the HOF.

Position? Defense? NM. It was enough to get it done. The arm and D got him in. Those knees though. Turf killed a bunch of careers.

P_Manning 18 said:

Id say 3,500

Those stats above are of a weaker Fred McGriff with better speed.

McGriff .284 AVG 493 HR 1550 RBI with 2,490 Hits....but only 72 SB and McGriff isn't gonna sniff the HOF.

Click to expand...

That's a crime, dog should at least sniff HOF.

McGriff was a first baseman in an era with a ton of great hitters at the position. This guy played second base for part of his career before switching to outfield.

kerryfan5 said:

That's a crime, dog should at least sniff HOF.

Click to expand...

I see what you did there.

In this era of advanced stats I don't think he will make it regardless of his counting stats when he retires.

kerryfan5 said:

That's a crime, dog should at least sniff HOF.

Click to expand...

He should get in based solely off the Tom Emansky videos


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

Soriano? No way

He was elite for a couple years but defense has always been a liability, and you don't get into the hall for a couple of good years and good career numbers IMO. You get in for either a prolonged career of excellence or hitting milestones with your career counting stats. He would need 3000 hits but he's not going to get there.

I was thinking we were replaying the Andre Dawson debate. :lol:

Had he stayed at second base we may be having a different discussion

What is with this obsession with career totals of statistics that don't say much of anything? If he played for 6-7 more years after this and hit 20 home runs and 160 hits per year everybody would say "Oh he hit 500 homers with 3000 hits he's a hall of famer." Why is being pretty good for a long time so valued by people? And the only reason he has so many hits is because he never walks (.320 career obp).

Love these threads. Some quick things come to mind :lol:

"It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Above Average Players"

"If you have to justify your acceptance, you aren't a HOF'er"

"No milestones, no HOF"

[Insert Jim Rice bash]

[Insert Tim Raines argument]

And my favorite...

[Insert Albert Belle argument]

RyanHowardCollector6 said:

What is with this obsession with career totals of statistics that don't say much of anything? If he played for 6-7 more years after this and hit 20 home runs and 160 hits per year everybody would say "Oh he hit 500 homers with 3000 hits he's a hall of famer." Why is being pretty good for a long time so valued by people? And the only reason he has so many hits is because he never walks (.320 career obp).

Click to expand...

This is whats wrong with the mentality of todays statistic ******. They fail to see the rarity, the special nature, and the worth that revolves around a career built on above average play and longevity. Milestones are created and admired for those who can achieve the longevity and production to reach, nowadays people think its a drag race. I'll take a guy who is going to give me 160 hits per year with 20 HR's year in and year out for 20 years then any flash in the pan player who may be a top tier stud for 4 or 5 years than become a liability the next 10 - 15. And thankfully, when it comes to fan appreciation and even HOF voting, they too appreciate longevity.

matfanofold said:

This is whats wrong with the mentality of todays statistic ******. They fail to see the rarity, the special nature, and the worth that revolves around a career built on above average play and longevity. Milestones are created and admired for those who can achieve the longevity and production to reach, nowadays people think its a drag race. I'll take a guy who is going to give me 160 hits per year with 20 HR's year in and year out for 20 years then any flash in the pan player who may be a top tier stud for 4 or 5 years than become a liability the next 10 - 15. And thankfully, when it comes to fan appreciation and even HOF voting, they too appreciate longevity.

Click to expand...

20 home runs and 160 hits mean nothing though in terms of actual value. If he's playing like he is now for the next few years where he can't field, run, or get on base, but is on pace for around 150 hits and 20 home runs how is that impressive? In my opinion, it's like getting a participation trophy for always being there. I'd rather have an elite player retire after 10 fantastic years with only 300 home runs than an above average player beyond his prime compile numbers in average or below average seasons in order to reach 500.

matfanofold said:

This is whats wrong with the mentality of todays statistic ******. They fail to see the rarity, the special nature, and the worth that revolves around a career built on above average play and longevity. Milestones are created and admired for those who can achieve the longevity and production to reach, nowadays people think its a drag race. I'll take a guy who is going to give me 160 hits per year with 20 HR's year in and year out for 20 years then any flash in the pan player who may be a top tier stud for 4 or 5 years than become a liability the next 10 - 15. And thankfully, when it comes to fan appreciation and even HOF voting, they too appreciate longevity.

Click to expand...

Question for you...

Why didn't they make the minimum years to get into the HOF 15 years or more then? Just curious what your thoughts are given your statement above.


---
Looking for Albert Belle cards! PM me!

3,000

[MENTION=4063]RyanHowardCollector6[/MENTION]

I was under the impression we were still talking generically, and not about anyone specifically. Having said that I thought it safe to assume everything else equal/average for said 160 hits and 20 HR's per season, meaning decent defense, 60 - 80 Runs, 60 - 80 RBI, ect... And in that case I would take that production year in and year out for 20 years over just about anyone who could only offer a small handful of top tier production years then spotty declining years with perhaps a 10 - 15 year life cycle.



[MENTION=3754]MansGame[/MENTION]

I really have no idea why they didn't, but I agree not to. Although longevity with regards to production is highly regarded, I do not think it should be a requirement. I can see where someone could forge out a HOF career in less time. Just think of it this way, of all parts measured for HOF consideration (statistics, defense, longevity, field presence, popularity, accolades, team success, and a myriad of other factors that take consideration), not all of them need to be HOF caliber individually. Some get in on statistics alone while others clear the bar based off of a combination of some variables. So with this in mind, it is clear to see how some can be worthy of Hall of Fame enshrinement without HOF type longevity.

I think leading the league in total bases for an entire decade should warrant some serious HOF consideration.