Quote:
Originally Posted by packs
We're not talking about the best season. It's the ONLY season that made him a HOFer. I'm sorry, but if Chesbro won 41 games over three more seasons he's not in the HOF. He's only in the HOF because he won 41 games in one season. To view him any other way seems like a reach to me. None of the seasons you brought up as being "excellent" seem all that excellent. Even when he led the league in wins in 1902, he wasn't even the best pitcher on his own team. Nor was he the best pitcher in 1901. Each year he was outclassed by Deacon Phillippe and Jess Tannehil, nether of whom are HOFers. Neither of whom won 41 games.
|
Does one have to be the best pitcher/hitter in the league to have a hall of fame level season now? That would put travis at a solid 0 now. We would also have to kick out half of the hall of fame, and then elect a bunch of guys who had 1 great season and were the best pitcher or hitter that year in that league. Your argument changes every single post.
I have already said, multiple times now, that Chesbro is a poor selection. But it is just not factually true that he only had 1 hall of fame level season. If he had only that season, he would not be in the hall of fame (as evidenced by the fact that not a single short-peak player in the Hall, even the worst selections, have only had 1 excellent season).
Yes, if Chesbro did what he did over a long career, it would be less impressive. That is obvious. It is true of every single player in baseball history. If Travis had his 1941 season's numbers cut into 3 years, he would have been sent to the Minor Leagues. If Willie Mays took 60 seasons to do what he did in 20, he would have been a far below average player every year and also sent packing long before his 60th season. This is an absurdist argument, that a player is not a real hall of famer or a star because if you take their best years and pretend they happened in 3 times the length, they would not be hall of famers or stars. There must be some logic, some rationality, some consistency, and we must look at the actual numbers, which are freely available.