you are right, I might have been a little mean towards the older voters. BUT, a lot of those guys hand waved modern stats away in the early 200's tho....
Quote:
|
Interesting debate about cumulative value vs peak value. I can see an argument for each side. I often hear people downplay a player as merely building up stats by hanging around a long time. I don't quite buy into that, since some part of me says "hey, the amount they get paid now, if a guy is merely average there's got to be some reason they don't just replace him with random prospects until one sticks. Which did happen regularly for a few years, taking some of my favorite players out of the game because they could supposedly be easily replaced with a younger player for less than the veteran minimum. Like Brian Daubach, not spectacular, but a solid slightly above average player. The big contract kicked in for 2002, went from 400K to 2.3 million. Then he was allowed to go into free agency and Chicago would only sign him to a minor league deal putting him back at 450-500K over the next couple years.
|
well.... I think the real measure when it comes to long careers, is how long they were still productive. Rose, for example, was not a very good player his last 5 seasons chasing the hit record. But, his total career value is still what it is.
I just think there is more than 1 way to get to the HOF, you can have a shorter career with better peak numbers, a long career with consistent above avg production or a combo of the two. I think Eddie Murray deserves it even tho his peak was not "hall worthy" because there is something to be said for being around a long time and being above avg. My Kaat, Tommy John argument is that they were both good pitchers who played a long time AND have a higher career WAR than several pitchers who are in. (and both are above 60 WAR which has often been touted as the dividing line for HOF consideration by sabr nerds)