Continuing the HOF debates -- Who Should NOT be in and why

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Hodes

Mike I agree that defense is imporant but most of defense in baseball is pitching. Also, in terms of position the most important defensive (non-pitcher) is probably the Catcher and then the SS at least in terms of the difference between average and great.

Faber's ratings are interesting but he seems to have a special thing for Second Baseman. He rates McPhee as the BEST 19th century player (good yes but better than all of the 300 game winners, Anson and Bouthers?) and Lajoie among the best players EVER(Lajoie is great but not on par with Ruth, Johnson, Wagner, Mays and I guess Bonds too).

Ultimately, I think Maz probably shouldn't be in and neither should Rabbit (who played a slightly more important position)they were among the best fielders ever at their respective positions but how much does that matter in terms of winning and losing given they were probably little more than average as hitters? (except for that little homer in the 1960 series!).

Also, Kevin I'm shocked at you questioning 19th century greats like Radbourne (considered the greatest Pitcher of the 19th century). Have you been reading too much Bill James ??? (kind of inside joke here because Kevin is a 19th century buff).

Relievers (as in closers) are a new thing and the dust hasn't settled on exactly where the line for true greatness is. Personally I like Sutter, Eckersley, Gossage and now Rivera (when they came in it really was the end for the other team). Conversely, Fingers' best attribute may have been playing well (but not quite great) on great teams (I am somewhat parotting Bill James here I must admit).