[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

The problem with most of these HOF arguments is that there is an entire lack of context.

Kenny, that's spooky. I'd finished part of the argument I was making in favor of Chick Haffey, but decided to watch the rest of my movie before diving into the statistical analysis I wanted to present.

But you've touched on the first point I am going to make:

Though I may never hold the title in any official capacity, I consider myself a baseball historian. As a child, I spent a lot of time in bed, and when I couldn't play the game I loved, or watch my friends play, I was reading everything I could find about the history of the game. My parents would find books in the public library, or go to the book store, and buy things for me to read. Friends of our family would also give me books to read. And If I've learned one thing from the literally thousands of hours I've spent reading about the players that have made the game great, it's the importance of context. When considering a player for the Hall of Fame, or determining if a player already in Cooperstown merits inclusion, it is essential to compare a player against their peers.

When I do my comparison of Hafey to the players from his era, I think it's going to be pretty evident that he belongs.

Kudos to you for seeing that. I've had more spirited debates with people on baseball history than I could ever remember. And far too often, the context of the era they played in is completely overlooked.