MLB HOFer quiz

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Chicosbailbonds

Chipper Jones?

Chipper was second for Rookie of the Year behind Hideo Nomo in 1995.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Chipper was second for Rookie of the Year behind Hideo Nomo in 1995.

they both had great rookie years could not complain if either one got it

[clydepepper]

Pujols & Verlander will make it seven.

Maybe Judge someday...

Kris Bryant won't make it to the Hall.


Nobody else plays on good enough teams.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Pujols & Verlander will make it seven.



Maybe Judge someday...



Kris Bryant won't make it to the Hall.





Nobody else plays on good enough teams.

Ronald Acuna might have missed his WS window.

Yordan Alvarez still has a chance due to skill and team talent.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by todeen

Ronald Acuna might have missed his WS window.

Yordan Alvarez still has a chance due to skill and team talent.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

Acuna is 25 and the Braves have most of their young, best players signed for a long time so not sure his problem will be missing his WS window. I think it's less likely he is ever an MVP than he doesn't win a WS. Also not sure he ever gets into the HoF and if he does, would it be on the first ballot.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Acuna is 25 and the Braves have most of their young, best players signed for a long time so not sure his problem will be missing his WS window. I think it's less likely he is ever an MVP than he doesn't win a WS. Also not sure he ever gets into the HoF and if he does, would it be on the first ballot.

There are so many up and coming teams, it's hard to say that Atlanta, already at the top, can fend off young and hungry teams. They look good on paper, but look how many different teams won the last 10-15 years. They have the system to pump out winners, but they haven't proven themselves the Astros yet. I think Alvarez has a good shot.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Pujols & Verlander will make it seven.

Maybe Judge someday...

Kris Bryant won't make it to the Hall.


Nobody else plays on good enough teams.

Great point. Even in the next few years the list will remain really small even with Pujols and Verlander.

Amazing with the game being played for over 100 years and 20,272 players played in the mlb(according to mlb players almanac) that only 5 players and soon to be 7 have accomplished this feat.

and all the history in between

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Great point. Even in the next few years the list will remain really small even with Pujols and Verlander.

Amazing with the game being played for over 100 years and 20,272 players played in the mlb(according to mlb players almanac) that only 5 players and soon to be 7 have accomplished this feat.

and all the history in between

While it is truly a small number who have achieved those awards, don't forget that there was no rookie of the year award before 1947 and the MVP award was spotty the first 20 years of last century. Although I haven't done the research, others might make the list if there was an analysis of their careers and a de facto ROY award created, since there obviously was a pretty awesome group of players the first half of the 1900s.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

While it is truly a small number who have achieved those awards, don't forget that there was no rookie of the year award before 1947 and the MVP award was spotty the first 20 years of last century. Although I haven't done the research, others might make the list if there was an analysis of their careers and a de facto ROY award created, since there obviously was a pretty awesome group of players the first half of the 1900s.

you are right but sadly we can only play the MLB rules and stats and history as they provide it

Just like including when we rate how many MVP awards players won in their career and yet in the 1920's for example the rules included only 1 player from each team on the ballot and you could not win more than 1 award In the 1920s the leagues awarded MVPs, called the League Award. The American League also allowed players to win the award only once. This caused Babe Ruth to be ineligible for the award in historic 1927 season.

In addition there was only 1 LEAGUE WIDE winner until the 1930's when it was split and each league had it own winner so there was more awards to give out and people can win it more often

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

you are right but sadly we can only play the MLB rules and stats and history as they provide it

Just like including when we rate how many MVP awards players won in their career and yet in the 1920's for example the rules included only 1 player from each team on the ballot and you could not win more than 1 award In the 1920s the leagues awarded MVPs, called the League Award. The American League also allowed players to win the award only once. This caused Babe Ruth to be ineligible for the award in historic 1927 season.

In addition there was only 1 LEAGUE WIDE winner until the 1930's when it was split and each league had it own winner so there was more awards to give out and people can win it more often

Agree, and I think you just helped to make my point that it really isn't a proper sample size to include players over 100+ years using the rules now in place. More like 75, and the ROY winners during the past 20 years haven't become eligible yet (assuming a 15 year career and a five year wait), so it's more like 55. Still a remarkable accomplishment, for sure, to have made that club you listed, but that will work out to about one every 12 years or so if Pujols and Verlander go in first ballot.