Quote:
Originally Posted by abothebear
I don't think anyone would argue that there is more to being a great HOFer than batting average and low strikeout totals. But some might argue the implication that these two items were the sum of Kell's case. Being 6th all-time in fielding percentage among 3b with over 10000 innings isn't nothing. Six top 20 MVP seasons (three top 10) and ten-time all-star is pretty good.
But I have to say, I sure would enjoy today's game a lot more if more players only struck out in 4% of their at-bats. Maybe batting average and low-strikeout totals should be enough to be a great HOFer.
I didn't see Kell play, so I am not going to argue if he is a great HOFer or not. But he is one of my favorites and a player whose cards I try to collect because I grew up listening to him do the TV broadcasts for the Tigers along with Al Kaline. Those guys were great.
|
Well, the HOF argument is all opinion colored by fandom colored by what stats should be most important colored by likability colored by personal memories, so everyone views it differently. In some sense it is a silly discussion for that reason. And yet, we love to argue about the HOF!
I did not mean to diminish George Kell and it's unfortunate that these arguments always come down to comparisons. I was just taking issue with the opinion that Mike Schmidt was not a "great HOF third baseman" (whatever that means) because of his low batting average and high strikeouts while George Kell was given as an example of one using that criteria.
I was basing my argument on stats I thought were more relevant but others may value higher BA and a lower strikeout rate more. I think I will stay out of these arguments from now on because if it is controversial to say that Mike Schmidt was a great HOFer in comparison to George Kell then I guess there's nothing we all can agree on.