• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

500 HR and 300 Wins measuring stick for HOF or not?

L

LeeTJ

Diamond Member
is it time to put both of these stats to rest as a measuring stick for HOF??

Outside of clemens (lock for 300 wins) Maddux (a decent shot at 300 wins) and MB glavine (outside shot at 300 wins). how many other pitchers do you see getting 300 wins??

also, IF clemens were struck down by lightening tonite and he were not able to get his 300 wins would that lessen his chances at HOF at all??

re: 500 HR, Palmero should be in the HOF, but i don't think it's the 500 HR that make him a lock. so if 500 HR's no longer makes a player a lock for the HOF, what does?? 550?? let's say palmero had hit 3 or 4 more HR each season over his career and he was now approaching 550 HR's would you then consider him a lock for the HOF??
 
I think that 500 homers can safely be put to rest. With the explosion in offense, I think we'll be seeing a lot more poeple hitting that mark in the next 20 or so years. 300 wins should, IMO, automatically get you into the HOF. Of course, as you said, it's becoming increasingly rare, there has to be other measuring sticks too. For example, although I'm no stats guy, I noticed you didn't mention Randy Johnson. He's fantastic, one of the best pitchers in baseball, and he will not reach 300 wins. I think he should be in the HOF. Besides that, I don't think that stats are the end all for determining a players worth, and I think that will take on added significance now.
 
here's why i didn't mention johnson or a few others.

More precisely
Schilling 36 Yrs old 156 wins (no chance)
Johnson 39 yrs old 225 wins, highly unlikely
Pedro 31 yrs old 154 wins, Obviously better chance than Schilling, but he has been injury prone.
For sake of comparison
Glavine 37 yrs old, 247 wins
Maddux 37 yrs old, 276 wins

I say Maddux has the best shot, glavine an outside shot (his odds went down significantly when he left the braves).

 
Originally posted by: LeeTJ
here's why i didn't mention johnson or a few others.

More precisely
Schilling 36 Yrs old 156 wins (no chance)
Johnson 39 yrs old 225 wins, highly unlikely
Pedro 31 yrs old 154 wins, Obviously better chance than Schilling, but he has been injury prone.
For sake of comparison
Glavine 37 yrs old, 247 wins
Maddux 37 yrs old, 276 wins

I say Maddux has the best shot, glavine an outside shot (his odds went down significantly when he left the braves).
Click to expand...

Randy needs 4 more seasons of 20 win baseball to reach 300. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but highly unlikely. I'd still vote for him, wouldn't you?
 
Originally posted by: Dudd
Originally posted by: LeeTJ
here's why i didn't mention johnson or a few others.

More precisely
Schilling 36 Yrs old 156 wins (no chance)
Johnson 39 yrs old 225 wins, highly unlikely
Pedro 31 yrs old 154 wins, Obviously better chance than Schilling, but he has been injury prone.
For sake of comparison
Glavine 37 yrs old, 247 wins
Maddux 37 yrs old, 276 wins

I say Maddux has the best shot, glavine an outside shot (his odds went down significantly when he left the braves).
Click to expand...

Randy needs 4 more seasons of 20 win baseball to reach 300. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but highly unlikely. I'd still vote for him, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...


Of course, in my mind, Johnson, Glavine, Clemens, Maddux and mb Pedro are LOCKS for the HOF. Schilling is a bit tougher to judge. he'll probably make it but it's tough to say he's a lock.


 
Originally posted by: TheEvil1
id vote for anyone over Clemens cause hes a Yankee
Click to expand...

too bad, your vote doesn't count and he's a LOCK. No way that he doesn't make the HOF. i'd stake my car on it.
 
i've always thought that membership in any hall of fame should be based on the player's impact on the game, on the field and off, as a whole rather than stats.
 
Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
i've always thought that membership in any hall of fame should be based on the player's impact on the game, on the field and off, as a whole rather than stats.
Click to expand...

i agree. however, can you ignore statistics??

would you NOT put Ty Cobb in the HOF because of the type of player he was?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top