Quote:
|
Originally Posted by darkhorse
Harry Heilmann 1914-32
Paul Waner 1926-45
Rabbit Maranville 1912-35
Bill Dickey 1928-46
Bill Terry 1923-36
Al Simmons 1924-44
Joe DiMaggio 1936-51
Interesting that only two of these players spent any portion of their career during the dead ball era.
|
Okay, my bad. I should have said "the previous generation." The only one in that group who can clearly be called anything close to DiMaggio's generation is Bucketfoot Al, who was in his mid-30s when Joe broke on the scene. I don't classify Barry Bonds as being in the same generation as Dave Winfield; neither do I put Simmons and DiMaggio together like that.
Also, consider that the writers added not a single player from 1940 to 1946, and overall only 12 from 1938 to 1950. War years or no, there was a bit of backlog of good players at the time.
Quote:
|
It seems even more clear that thou art grasping at straw.
|
I'll repeat this for a third time: if the best you can come up with are two guys who took 3 years to get in instead of 1, that is truly the exception proving the rule.
On a larger issue, what is it with some statheads? Yes, I absolutely agree that on a performance-analysis basis, most managers, sportswriters, general managers, scouts, and owners know a lot less than guys like Derek Zumsteg and Voros McCracken about what produces winning baseball teams. But to dismiss the way people get into an institution
called the Hall of Fame because it doesn't adhere to your strictly defined criteria of what makes a good player is just plain silly. Folks, it's not there so that people can gawk at numbers. It's there so that people can remember famous players. To a degree, that famousness can itself be measured by the same performance analysis tools. But only to a degree.