|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on May 6, 2020 21:15:21 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? Depends on the player. Don Sutton has 324 career wins. Sandy Koufax has 165. We all know who the better pitcher was. As far as the peak argument, the peak years have to be really up there. Like Koufax. For 4-5 years, he was one of the best pitchers in history. You can never say that about Sutton. Does Sutton deserve to be in, sure. Is Belle's numbers HOF worthy, up to you. I wouldn't gnash my teeth if he got in. Belle put up good stats but not Koufaxian stats. He's also battling that era. His biggest argument is homers. And no one takes those HR numbers seriously from that era.
Both Metallica and Megadeth aren't my cup of tea. Beatles and Stones would have been a better argument
|
|