Posted on 01/01/2002 5:54:14 AM PST by jmccoy1252
Interesting because Ozzie had no bat. Not ever. The two shortstops you cite have a bat, but in my opinion, from a glove standpoint, could not hold a candle to Omar Visquel, let alone Oz.
Bottom line, a bat will get you to Cooperstown faster than a glove, alas, Oz only had the latter.
Jeter is very good with the glove. Good range and good arm. Should have a better year in 2002 with better health and more comfort teaming with an improving Soriano.
A-Rod has a great arm. What about Nomar? He is an acrobat. I mentioned Omar already. Top notch with the glove.
Jeter is very good with the glove. Good range and good arm. Should have a better year in 2002 with better health and more comfort teaming with an improving Soriano.
A-Rod has a great arm. What about Nomar? He is an acrobat. I mentioned Omar already. Top notch with the glove.
YES on first ballot!
And he could hit very well, thank you..
He was great on a hit and run and I remember his biggest homer and Jack Buck (my old next door neighbor, btw) saying..
Go CRAZY FOLKS
GO CRAZY!!!
Now who knows what I am talking about out there?
And any voter who thinks someone is clearly a HOFer, but doesn't vote for him his first year of eligibility because he's not a "first ballot HOFer" is a mindless idiot who needs to have his voting privledges stripped from him.
On another topic, what are folks opinions for the football HOF for Kurt Warner and Terrell Davis. I say yes to each. They don't have longevity in their corner, but I liken their careers to Sandy Koufax's. Thoughts?
I agree. That is absolutely STUPID. Or how about that fat writer from Philadelphia (Conlon perhaps? ... hes always on Sports Reporters) who only votes for 1 name and then just pulls another name OUT OF A HAT!!! WTF??
Ozzie is an obvious HOFer, but the argument that someone should be in the Hall because they are better than someone already in it is one of the many stupid HOF arguments that Bill James lays out.
Just because someone made a stupid decision earlier (Rizzuto; Pee Wee obviously belongs in the HOF) doesn't justify further stupid inclusions.
And because of the rampage of the Veteran's Committee in the 60s and 70s, there are all kinds of terrible players in the HOF from the 1930s; something like 1 out of 3 full time outfielders from the 30s are in the HOF.
If the HOF inclusion criteria became whether some player was better than the worst player in the HOF, we'd end up with 50% of the majors in the HOF eventually.
There are too many other players who've waited or are waiting too long with similar credentials ahead of Ozzie. Mazeroski and Santo are the best examples. The only way to justify Ozzie as a first ballot choice is to use the Brooks Robinson example -- that he was just so completely ahead of the pack with his glove that he should go in. And while Ozzie was truly stunning with the glove, I'm not sure he's in league with B. Robber.
For a major league sport that is going through "contraction" and probably facing a player's strike and/or a lock-out by the owners, who cares? The greed of the owners and players is destroying a once-great sport for future generations. I'll just live with the memories of my dad taking his kids to old Tiger (Briggs) Stadium.
Don't mean to be so negative. There will always be baseball but there just needs to be some blood-letting at the top. Maybe when it is all sorted out in 20-25 years, dads will once again be able to afford to take their kids to see a major league game. Until then they can vote for whoever they want for Cooperstown. I'll vote by not opening my pocketbook.
I'll also understand if my post is completely ignored by you true baseball fans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.