OT: Hall of Fame - Edgar Martinez?

[Mark70Z]

I love the defensive part of the game of Baseball and Belanger > Vizquel w/o a doubt in my mind. He’s not even mentioned in the HOF discussion, but was one, if not the best to ever play the game @ SS. Omar was an above average SS.

Don’t think Hoffman should be in, but there’s a lot of players I don’t think should be in the HOF.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

I love the defensive part of the game of Baseball and Belanger > Vizquel w/o a doubt in my mind. He’s not even mentioned in the HOF discussion, but was one, if not the best to ever play the game @ SS. Omar was an above average SS.

Don’t think Hoffman should be in, but there’s a lot of players I don’t think should be in the HOF.

Agree completely that Mark Belanger was one of the elite fielding shortstops. I grew up watching he and his Orioles consistently frustrating my Tigers from 1969 on. But except for one year that I can remember (1969?), when he hit .287, his bat was MIA. He might as well have gone up to the plate with a dowel rod. Vizquel was considerably better from an offensive standpoint.

Again, interesting post,

Larry

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Agree completely that Mark Belanger was one of the elite fielding shortstops. I grew up watching he and his Orioles consistently frustrating my Tigers from 1969 on. But except for one year that I can remember (1969?), when he hit .287, his bat was MIA. He might as well have gone up to the plate with a dowel rod. Vizquel was considerably better from an offensive standpoint.

Again, interesting post,

Larry

Larry,

I agree that Vizquel was a better offensive player for sure. Pretty much after Aparicio (which was a great shortstop as well) Belanger, even though a weak hitter, started for the Orioles in their heyday and beyond. The way I think about it is if Vizquel was on the O’s at the same time he’d have been playing a different position.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Agree completely that Mark Belanger was one of the elite fielding shortstops. I grew up watching he and his Orioles consistently frustrating my Tigers from 1969 on. But except for one year that I can remember (1969?), when he hit .287, his bat was MIA. He might as well have gone up to the plate with a dowel rod. Vizquel was considerably better from an offensive standpoint.

Again, interesting post,

Larry

Maybe he was on roids that year lol. In context it really made no sense that he would suddenly be flirting with .300.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe he was on roids that year lol. In context it really made no sense that he would suddenly be flirting with .300.

Peter,

What people don’t recall is that Belanger hit .333 in the 1965 season. He was definitely juicing that particular year...


The above is how people use stats to make things go their way.

[JollyElm]

The beauty (and, to be completely honest, the ridiculousness) of this thread is that every single one of us saw these 4 new HOF'ers (and Edgar) play throughout their entire careers. I doubt anyone here is young enough to have missed watching these guys from their early MLB beginnings. We all have a ton of first-hand knowledge regarding everyone (through ESPN and other cable stations, daily internet highlight videos, etc.), and that is beautiful!!! Since the all time greats (Cobb, Ruth, Robinson, etc., etc.) are held up almost as mythological figures by us these days, it's funny to think how many arguments swirled around each of them when they were up for induction.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

The beauty (and, to be completely honest, the ridiculousness) of this thread is that every single one of us saw these 4 new HOF'ers (and Edgar) play throughout their entire careers. I doubt anyone here is young enough to have missed watching these guys from their early MLB beginnings. We all have a ton of first-hand knowledge regarding everyone (through ESPN and other cable stations, daily internet highlight videos, etc.), and that is beautiful!!! Since the all time greats (Cobb, Ruth, Robinson, etc., etc.) are held up almost as mythological figures by us these days, it's funny to think how many arguments swirled around each of them when they were up for induction.

I doubt there were arguments about those guys, just as there were no real arguments about guys like Griffey, Ripken, Maddux, Schmidt, whoever. I suspect players on the cusp have always been the subject of some controversy.