Posted By:
Mike (18colt)First, the save. As stated earlier in this thread, the definition needs to be changed. A pitcher can get a save by not losing the lead no matter how much it is if he pitches the final 3 innings. The Phillies could be up 15-2 over say, the Braves, and Larry Bowa could summon Terry Adams from the bullpen in the 7th, have him finish the game with a 15-2 victory, and he still gets the save. That part needs to be changed. But -- there's hope Red Sox fans. If they could trade LA for Gagne, a former starter, maybe he could pitch innings 6-8 or 7-9 and save the day.
Next, the strikeout. Its importance is determined by the guidelines set up in the fantasy league(s) you participate in. 
Seriously, though, its importance as an occurance in a game is real -- what manager would prefer any hit to any fielder than a strikeout? Even in a double play situation, if you get the K, then you have an easy force at 1st or 2nd for the last out of an inning (or another K). As to its importance as a career stat, its usefulness is determined on how you use the stat. As was pointed out, most of the greats of the last half century or so had a lot of strikeouts (Carlton, Seaver, Spahn, Feller, Koufax, Ryan, Clemens, Maddux (he has more than you think), Gibson). However, having a lot of strikeouts does not translate into greatness (Blyleven, Niekro, Sutton, Randy Johnson, Rob Dibble). One generally has to be a great pitcher for a long time to get to 300 victories. At the very least, you have to be considerably above average to last that long (a team still has to sign the player and put him on the roster).
Next, HOF recognition for pitchers. Deserves their place or should be there once eligible -- Carlton, Seaver, Spahn, Feller, Koufax, Ryan, Clemens, Maddux. Probably shouldn't be there or be considered seriously despite their stats -- Niekro, Sutton, Randy Johnson, Guidry, Blyleven, Catfish Hunter, Jim Palmer, Fergie Jenkins, Curt Schilling. Unfortunately, voters look at stats across generations, so they think that Jim Palmer is every bit that pitcher that Vic Willis was. Different eras evoke different standards (Willis may or may not really deserve to be there, but that's another discussion).
Next, my 2 cents on future HOF possibilities. Jim Rice - probably. One of 2 or 3 most feared hitters of his time. I wouldn't vote him in though. Larry Bowa - no. Fielding percentage alone won't get him in, since Schmidt's range at third took away chances Bowa would've had to make. Ron Guidry - no. Jack Morris - probably. In his time, arguably the best starting pitcher. I wouldn't put him there though. Pete Rose - yes. Someday, he'll get in. A sympathetic press corp will likely write him in if he's not reinstated. Bill Dahlen - yes. Veterans Committee will discover him.
Finally, greatness discussion of OF. Why isn't Hank Aaron given the title "Greatest Living Ballplayer"? Not that Willie Mays is undeserving, but . . . Aaron had more home runs and hits. They both stayed around too long, so one can't argue that. If you take away the play Mays made in the '54 World Series (the Vic Wertz catch and throw), would we remember Mays the fielder in the same light? Maybe Willie could run a little better and maybe field a little better, but as a hitter, was Mays a better hitter than Aaron? No. But, no matter what the outcome of this is, Barry Bonds is no better than 3rd greatest living ballplayer. He is, likely, his generation's best slugger and most-feared hitter.
I think that covers it.