Quote:
Originally Posted by packs
My only point is that the HOF has rewarded players with induction for one incredible season. Dean's accomplishments are so in line with Santana's that they could be almost the same player, but one of them won 30 games and the other didn't. It's the 30 games that sets them apart and makes one a HOFer over the other. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not saying what Travis did is equal to Dean winning 30 games or Wilson's rbi record. I'm simply trying to point out that the HOF has inducted players based on one out of this world season and the promise of what could have been if not for XYZ.
You don't have an argument for Chesbro, right? We are in agreement that he's only in the HOF because he won 41 games in a season once?
|
These two had short careers, but if all they accomplished was Dean's 1934 season and Hack's RBI record, they would absolutely not be in the hall of fame. Again, I probably would not vote for either myself, but to ignore both of these mens other fantastic seasons is not just misleading, it's factually wrong.
We do not agree on Chesbro either. Chesbro was a star pitcher in 1901, 1902 and 1905 as well. He led the league in wins in 1901. He had 4 hall of fame level seasons, posting ERA's far, far better than the league. Obviously the 41 win season was his best, and a key component of his value, but if he had not had the other seasons, he would also not be in the hall of fame. He proved more durable than Dean or Santana, pitching 1,000 innings more than either of them. Even among the players I think are among the worst selections to the Hall, they are not in for 1 single season. This claim is just not true, and is easily proven incorrect by looking at their season by season statistics. There is not a single player in the Hall of Fame who only had 1 excellent/hall of fame season.