HOF Discussion - Automatic Milestones?

[MansGame]

True, but you can't play the game for a long time if you suck.

Suck, no. Average, sure. Which is my point. If you're average, you can hang around for a while depending on your situation and team, etc. You're right though, if you "suck" then you're career might never get off the ground.

 

[MansGame]

Sometimes I feel like you have to look at how dominate you were in your era and even look at your average numbers per year... sometimes that's a different way to look at things.

 

[predatorkj]

Ok, so we are talking about being dominant. So if a guy is dominating, he can get in if he can do this for a few years. But does that mean everyone else can't be included?

 

[MansGame]

Ok, so we are talking about being dominant. So if a guy is dominating, he can get in if he can do this for a few years. But does that mean everyone else can't be included?

I'm saying one thing to look at could be if they were dominate at any point in their career. If they weren't, then such is life... if they were, that's something to consider. I mean god, people are pulling all other sorts of stuff out to consider when looking at people for the HOF. If someone was dominate for a few years or more in their career, that's something to consider I suppose.

 

[jrosales]

If a player wasn't dominant, THEN at that point do you start paying more attention to milestone markers. For instance, Pedro doesn't need 300 wins for the HOF. Had Pujols retired with 480 homers, he'd still get in because of his dominance. Someone like Don Sutton NEEDS milestones because he wasn't dominant.

 

[predatorkj]

I'm saying one thing to look at could be if they were dominate at any point in their career. If they weren't, then such is life... if they were, that's something to consider. I mean god, people are pulling all other sorts of stuff out to consider when looking at people for the HOF. If someone was dominate for a few years or more in their career, that's something to consider I suppose.

I think what I'm trying to get at is you need to be damn good for a good while. Not just damn good or play forever. Because a guy can play forever and never hit any milestone. A guy can also be dominant for 3-5 years and it would not make him a HOF'er. Nor should it. But you can't be dominant for very long. Only a couple of guys a generation are that good. You want to get too elite, I think you might cut people out you shouldn't.

I think of dominant as an outlier. One that can be looked at but only when the guy was a Pujols or the like. I don't care if guys like Fred McGriff or Don Sutton were dominant. Were they good? For how long? To me, if you can be really good for a really long time, you belong in the hall. It's just way too hard to do that. It needs to be given more respect than it's currently given.

 

[predatorkj]

If a player wasn't dominant, THEN at that point do you start paying more attention to milestone markers. For instance, Pedro doesn't need 300 wins for the HOF. Had Pujols retired with 480 homers, he'd still get in because of his dominance. Someone like Don Sutton NEEDS milestones because he wasn't dominant.

How long was Pedro or Pujols dominant for? There is no question they both were. But how long? How many years? My problem is you'd start saying well some players are dominant longer than others so it matters how long. Still not a good way to quantify their accomplishments. Besides, if we measured everyone against Pujols, nobody currently playing would be good enough to get in. Maybe Cabrera if he retired in a few years.

 

[kerryfan5]

Here's a name for u- Adrian Beltre- on pace for 3000 hits in career. Does it make him Hall of Fame worthy? I think so but?