Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelric
The real Hall of Fame has a rule that a player must play ten or more seasons to be eligible. His numbers over that time show that he would most likely have been a Hall of Famer. The question is whether or not you want to have a minimum number of seasons. I like the ten year rule, so I would vote no. Without the ten year rule, yes.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by senorcoo
I agree with the sentiment that he WOULD have been a Hall of Fame lock. Unfortunately, taking into account the 10-year rule IRL, I would have to vote no. Remember, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, etc. SHOULD be in the Hall as well, but aren't. Different reasons, I know, but the Hall has rules.
|
I agree with these sentiments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by struggles_mightily
The ten year rule is arbitrary. If human societies used an octal numbering system, the limit would be eight years and Berger would be in. Dumb.
Surely the idea is to measure every guy's longevity against his ability and make case-by-case decisions that way?
|
Well, that statement was dumb. Ten years was most likely chosen for the same reason that ten years was chosen for the 'five-and-ten rule', which is that very few players survive for ten seasons, so few players will get the benefit from it. In other words, longevity IS a criterion.
As to your question, the answer is 'no'.