[Archive]

Posted By: mike

The general population appears to adore two types of athletes (other than winners): 1., The type that strikes like lighting (it's probably the unpredictability of each appearance), the flash-and-burn, cold water types. Good for gamblers, I suppose; and 2., The type that performs at a high-level for a sustained period of time.

Why cannot both types of players be in the Hall? 61 homers in one season was a feat, but not enough, imo. Now, add in the MVPs, the rings and a couple of other seasons, those might be enough individual accomplishments.

The top shortstop in the NL for more than a decade? Why not? Are there rings?

That's why the writer's picks are pretty good. A consensus is established.