View Single Post
11-15-2012, 10:56 PM
Mind of Milbury
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 25
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
As you say, it's subjective and riddled with bias, inconsistency and very questionable selections (and non-selections).
This is basically all I was driving at, just in a more longwinded manner The example I used was just to highlight how no amount of off field "goodness" (speaking of difficult to quantify...) can overcome being only very good, not a superstar, or suffering from a shortened career. Clearly it didnt help Munson, and the jury is out on Lindros. As for Pete Rose, he is banned from baseball--nothing subjective about that.

The players you brought up as to which are in and which are out are all fine examples, and there are plenty more. Going farther back, guys like Mantle and Cobb werent exactly altar boys off the field, and were total no-brainers for the HoF. We'll see how the steroid-era players make out in the coming years. In any event, Halls of Fame (in any sport) should be EXclusive, not INclusive. Too many good/very good players getting in, not superstars/legends of the game, but I digress.

By the way, in what way is hockey less quantitative? Care to explain? Not sure I get what you mean. All sport's awards and HoF voting are (presumably) stats-based endeavors for the most part, no? (present conversation excepted of course )

Mind of Milbury is offline   Reply With Quote