Too many already . . .
.
Not intended as a slam against the Yankees, as it actually is intended for all teams with an above average percentage of the HOF population.
One of my pet peeves is that that some player performances (stats) have been influenced by playing with teams stocked with good/great players. While true the individual ballplayer had to perform, or be gone, having talented ballplayers hitting before and after you does influence the opportunities an opposing pitcher presents to you as a hitter. The opportunities presented defensively are possibly influenced by having quality pitching, and quality pitching likely influenced by having qualify defenders. The 1927 NY Yankees were an outstanding team. But I have to believe that if you had removed the two best hitters and one best pitcher from that team, while they would still have been a very good team, fewer of the remaining very good players would have made it into the HOF. Just my opinion. That is why I have a softspot for outstanding ballplayers who played for less than brilliant teams over a period of years. I feel they may have had less opportunities or ideal situations inwhich to shine, but they shone never the less with what was given them.
Personally, I feel that it is not enough to say that a player was among the best in the league, year in and year out. If that were the case, Jack Morris (among others), would have been in the HOF years ago. For me, if the player evaluated cannot be considered among the top 50% already in the HOF, then it is a no for HOF induction. I realize this completely dismisses the characteristics of the game during the particular era a ballplayer played in, and therefore is a particularly harsh measure, but I believe the HOF is for the greats of the game; not for the above average but not necessarily great. If a ballplayer cannot be considered among the best ever, then HOF is not for him.
Last edited by HexsHeroes; 03-21-2013 at 06:52 AM.
|
03-21-2013, 06:52 AM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode