411 replies to this topic

[RShack]

 

Maybe Frank grabbed a bat and told them to quit screwing around?

[Pedro Cerrano]

Those unis are sweet

[mweb08]

Weber has sunk his teeth in. I love it.

 

When someone starts talking about players like Mussina, Schilling, and Raines somehow making the HOF the Hall of Very Good, and at the same time, talk up guys like Dawson, Molitor, and especially Brock, then yeah, that gets me going. 

 

The HOF is easily one of the sports topics I'm most passionate about.

 

Love talking about it and of course, I don't mind a good debate or two or one hundred from time to time. 

[DJ MC]

To be fair to the team, when you are willingly calling yourself the "White Sox" it's pretty difficult to get a good color scheme together. Either you go all-white and people hate it, or you add in other colors and people complain that it doesn't make sense to use black, or blue, or red. Same about finding a good logo. And, at least they've been willing to try.

 

That said, they've had 115 years to figure it out

[Pedro Cerrano]

When someone starts talking about players like Mussina, Schilling, and Raines somehow making the HOF the Hall of Very Good, and at the same time, talk up guys like Dawson, Molitor, and especially Brock, then yeah, that gets me going.

The HOF is easily one of the sports topics I'm most passionate about.

Love talking about it and of course, I don't mind a good debate or two or one hundred from time to time.

You do love a good debate. You'd be a good trial lawyer assuming you could avoid being held in contempt.

[mweb08]

You do love a good debate. You'd be a good trial lawyer assuming you could avoid being held in contempt.

 

I'm actually generally a very calm person. I don't think being a trial lawyer would generally bring out that side of me.

 

I also know how to control my emotions in a professional setting pretty well. Afterall, I've somehow managed to survive over a year teaching in Baltimore.

 

But say you can't be a top 5 player in NBA history without 4 ringz and I lose my shit.

[Mike in STL]

I said later on I would only write in the top 7 given a vote. Given 10 options those are my 10. Raines. Just missing the cut at 8.

 
OK, well you've also said some negative things about Mussina and Schilling.

I came back around on them.

[bnickle]

I'm actually generally a very calm person. I don't think being a trial lawyer would generally bring out that side of me.

I also know how to control my emotions in a professional setting pretty well. Afterall, I've somehow managed to survive over a year teaching in Baltimore.

But say you can't be a top 5 player in NBA history without 4 ringz and I lose my shit.

Jordan, Magic, Shaq, Russell, Kobe.

[mweb08]

Jordan, Magic, Shaq, Russell, Kobe.

 

Don't get Pedro started. 

[Icterus galbula]

Don't get Pedro started. 

You beat me to it. Pedro, I think Bill Russell is underrated.

[bnickle]

Don't get Pedro started.

Who. Me.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Bill Russell is the Lou Brock of the NBA.

Most overrated athlete maybe in sports' history.

[Icterus galbula]

Bill Russell is the Lou Brock of the NBA.
Most overrated athlete maybe in sports' history.

I dont think you value grit and winning enough.

[Icterus galbula]

Oh well blue collars and lunch pails aren't for everyone

[Pedro Cerrano]

I dont think you value grit and winning enough.

He won when there was no FA, had a ton of HOF talent around him and there were like 8 teams in the league.

Michael winning 6 and Magic winning 5 are both much more impressive

[Pedro Cerrano]

Oh well blue collars and lunch pails aren't for everyone

Sometimes I wear a blue dress shirt with my suits.

[Icterus galbula]

Bill Russell is personally responsible for 26% of everything that is good in western civilization.

[mweb08]

You do love a good debate. You'd be a good trial lawyer assuming you could avoid being held in contempt.

Going back to this and relating it to the HOF debate.

In law, precedent matters and is consistently referenced.

The same principle applies to the Hall of Fame. A precedent has been set and has become very well established in terms of what level a player needs to be to be Hall worthy.

That doesn't mean that it is applied equally on each case, nor does it mean that there is no opportunity for debate on if a player has reached the level of the precedent.

There certainly have been mistakes made along the way, but unlike with the Supreme Court for instance, these decisions can not be overturned.

That does not mean that every decision needs to be looked at as valid, but when viewing all the decisions as a whole, I reiterate that they set the precedent that has been established and perpetuated throughout the existence of the Hall of Fame.

That precedent forms the standard by which players are judged and the institution should stay constant regarding that in order to be fair to both the players and the fans of the game that would like to see the players they watched honored in the same way that their predecessors were.

So while a legitimate discussion can be had dealing with the candidacy of many players, when it comes to players such as Mussina, Schilling, and Raines, that not only meet the standard set, but surpass the average level of players at their position already in the Hall of Fame, they should be enshrined. To do so does not result in the Hall of Very Good, rather the same Hall of Fame that already exists. Otherwise, you end up with some peculiar mismatch of generations of players that do not share the same standard for admittance and therefore lack the same level of representation, which results in a poor historical interpretation and presentation of the game.

[Mike in STL]

In law, precedent matters and is consistently referenced.

The same principle applies to the Hall of Fame.

No it doesn't.

One is a set of rules laid out for the court system and the other is a museum to honor the game of baseball. Your making a Shack argument, comparing apples and oranges. But even those are more closely related than our legal system and the HOF.

Not putting Raines in is not a violation of his constitutional rights.

If anything the Hall is full of distingushing cases because each players case is very different given so many variables and numbers in the game of baseball. That's probably even a stretch trying to compare the Hall to our legal system.

In the case of Raines vs. BBWAA 2016, based on precedent in the eight cases of Raines vs. BBWAA 2008 through 2015, Raines is still not a HOFer.

However....I'm willing admit that he gets in in 2017. Last year on the ballot, he's close enough he'll get a few more votes to get in. You'll get your wish. Rub it in my face. Whatever.

I'd rather raise the bar. Or to be honest, the bar is fine right where it is given the class just elected. Steroid users aside. You would rather elect a class of 27 guys based on bad precedent. You even made a case for Scott Rolen for god sake.

To each their own. I'm moving on.

[Mackus]

No it doesn't.

One is a set of rules laid out for the court system and the other is a museum to honor the game of baseball. Your making a Shack argument, comparing apples and oranges. But even those are more closely related than our legal system and the HOF.

Not putting Raines in is not a violation of his constitutional rights.

If anything the Hall is full of distingushing cases because each players case is very different given so many variables and numbers in the game of baseball. That's probably even a stretch trying to compare the Hall to our legal system.

In the case of Raines vs. BBWAA 2016, based on precedent in the eight cases of Raines vs. BBWAA 2008 through 2015, Raines is still not a HOFer.

However....I'm willing admit that he gets in in 2017. Last year on the ballot, he's close enough he'll get a few more votes to get in. You'll get your wish. Rub it in my face. Whatever.

I'd rather raise the bar. Or to be honest, the bar is fine right where it is given the class just elected. Steroid users aside. You would rather elect a class of 27 guys based on bad precedent. You even made a case for Scott Rolen for god sake.

To each their own. I'm moving on.

 

If you raise the bar, Raines is still deserving.

 

I think there are guys that are in that shouldn't be.  Those aren't the players that I'm using to compare Raines favorably to.  Raines compares favorably to many guys who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame even with a higher bar. 

 

You mentioned several guys before, like Andre Dawson, who deserve to be in.  I agree Dawson is a Hall of Fame player.  I think Tim Raines was as good of a player, better in fact.  It's not lowering the bar from where it is, or even where it should be, to elect Raines.