OT: Who's your vote

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

ABSOLUTELY- a player's performance as compared with their peers of the same era means as much if not more than just their yearly or career totals... clearly there was an era prior to 1893 when the mound was closer, there was a dead ball era, there was seemingly a very live ball era in the 20'-30's.. didn't the league bat nearly .300 in 1930?? (is Lefty Grove any less dominant because his ERA ended up over 3.00 or over a run higher than Ed Walsh? No), the mound was lowered after the year of the pitcher in 1968, offense died and they created the DH, and on and on. Every one of these periods affected the statistics of the players in that era, and how a player performs relative to those of his era should be taken into account when judging greatness.

What you fail to realize is that not one of the factors you mentioned constituted cheating. Every player in those era was on a level playing field, which makes comparing them to those in their era valid. Steroids put players on a different field, and now it is unfair to say Player X was the best of his era when you don't know how much of this "greatness" was artificially induced.

Overall, I think "era" and "position" are taken into account a great deal. But people (voters) don't know how to treat the steroid era because you cannot apply the same rules across the board. That's why it was CHEATING.

Originally Posted by packs

I still think its ridiculous that people even consider Biggio. He was not a HOFer. Look at things this way. If Vizquel hung around and got 3,000 hits, would that make him a HOFer? Or is he already a HOfer? If we're talking about Biggio, no one would think he's a HOFer without his milestone, and even with it people don't think he is. So why would he even be considered at all? Seems like people throwing their votes away.

Again, taking "position" into account, Biggio played catcher and second base the majority of his career and was hands down one of the best in the game in his time, at his position. He is a sure-fire HOFer who would have been elected in his first year easily had his election come twenty years ago. He was unfairly punished by the era he played in by voters who aren't sure how to handle any player from that era.

And as far as "hanging around" goes, I will never understand how longevity became such a knock on a player. If someone is good enough to play at a high level, in the very best level of competition, how is that not a positive? Are you going to say Hank Aaron was a compiler? After all, he played 23 seasons.