View Single Post
  #25  
Old 11-28-2017, 08:28 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Cole View Post
IMO, for the most part, HOF voters could care less about defense. I think that is pretty well true from 1936 on, with a couple of exceptions. Offensively, Doyle was WAAAAAAYYYYY ahead of Evers. He was also far more popular because Evers was, by all accounts, a prick. Doyle wasn't. I would have no problem with Doyle being elected but I'm pretty confident that it will not happen in my lifetime.
This is just not true. Brooks Robinson, Ozzie Smith and Ivan Rodriguez were all 1st ballot Hofers. If they were average defensively, they would never make the HoF. Why are Ryne Sandberg and Roberto Alomar in the HoF, but a superior offensive player, Bobby Grich, getting no support? Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrell, Nellie Fox, Red Schoendiest, Bill Mazeroski, Johnny Evers, Pee Wee Reese, Luis Aparicio, Joe Tinker, Travis Jackson, Phil Rizzuto and Rabbit Maranville are examples of other players in the HOF only because of defense.

There are others who would at best be borderline Hofers if not for defense. There are guys, such as Ted Simmons, who would be in the HOF if voters only cared about offense, but was below average defensively. However, Gary Carter, who was worse offensively than Ted, is considered an elite player at his position because he combined elite defense with above average offense. Do I need to go on? It should be clear that Evers being the best defensive player of his era trumps Doyle's superior offense and bad defense. If voters don't care about defense, why has Doyle recieved so little support for the HOF going all the way back to the 30s?
Reply With Quote