|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on May 6, 2020 20:52:40 GMT
So what’s more important when it comes to HOF enshrinement, peak or longevity? So say he played longer. Yes his BA would most likely have gone down but the other numbers would have gone up. I look at it like this when someone asks me which band is better, Metallica or Megadeth. The first three Metallica albums are at the highest peak of metal. The 4th is a terribly produced but still good album. Everything after that sucks outside of a song here and there. Megadeth put out solid album after solid album their whole career, but outside of Rust in Peace none of them approached those first 3 Metallica records. So who is better? Do you value consistency or a shorter period of explosive talent? It's definitely a worthwhile argument. Personally, I prefer a high peak to a career of aggregating. To me, all things being equal, I'd rather have Albert Belle than Andrew Dawson. It's where you draw that line is where it can become really murky. You mentioned JR Richard yesterday. Richard had a 4.5 year run where he was one of the best starters in the NL. I'm not saying put Richard in, but what's the cutoff? A great 8 years? 7 years? Koufax is in (rightfully so) based on basically a 5-year stretch that is arguably the best stretch any pitcher has ever had. What about someone who was just a tick under that? I think it's impossible to set defined criteria so we take everyone on a case-by-case basis. It's the only way it makes sense, but where you have borderline guys like Belle, it makes for compelling discussion.
|
|
