Quote:
Originally Posted by Misunderestimated
History is really baseball's greatest advantage over the other sports. The Cubs have been around since 1876 (not as the "Cubs, but still). I think the team HOF should have a different standard than the Cooperstown standard. As a lifelong (50+ years!) Cubs fan I'm happy with Kessinger and Buckner despite their modern "analytic" shortcomings. For a few seasons Buckner was the Cubs the preeminent player -- we thought he was their best. That's got to mean something. I felt like Kessinger was their dependable SS forever when I was kid.
A team HOF - as opposed to the big one in Cooperstown -- should be more about fandom and little less about achievement as reflected in the modern "numbers."
|
I completely agree. I incorporate a lot of non-stat stuff into my ranking like playing time, all-star games, playoff appearances, awards and so on. Even so my ranking doesn't perfectly measure what a Cubs Hall of Famer is, but for me it's nice to have a starting point that's objective and the same for all players across eras.
Your point about Kessinger is well taken (not Buckner though, I'll never get that). But you used the words "felt" and "when I was a kid." At some point someone felt that way about Woody English and Charlie Hollocher too. Why aren't they in the Cubs Hall? The fact that the selection skews toward one particular team so heavily is a red flag for me. Guys who played in the 60s were honored in the 80s. Not shocking. But "I remember when they played" shouldn't be such a big factor. That's not fair to the players of 80 or 100 or 120 years ago.