Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Cusefan95, post: 5452926, member: 173"]
The eye test is nonsense - it’s basically saying “I don’t care about objective reality!  I just care about my feelings”.

The average first baseman HOF bWAR is 65.  If you’re not going to hit that, at least have a seven year stretch at 42.  Mattingly isn’t remotely close to that - he was great from ‘84-87, really good in 88-89 - and did nothing outside that window.  He’s got a career WAR of 42.4.  He was a lone bright spot in what was a pretty terrible decade for the Yankees, and his career ending right as the Yankees got good makes him a sympathetic character - but there’s absolutely no way he belongs in the HOF.  Keith Hernandez has a much stronger case with a longer prime and a career bWAR of 60 - but even he is probably consigned to the Hall of Very Good.

Totally agree that “stat compilers” shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame - but Biggio had a career bWAR of 65 (HOF average for catchers is 53, second basemen about 60) and had as much from ‘91-99 as Parker or Mattingly had in their entire careers.  If that’s your go-to for a stat compiler - you picked an exceptionally terrible guy to compare unfavorably to Parker or Mattingly.  The position that Biggio doesn’t belong while Mattingly and Parker do is indefensible with any reasonable objective measure - and I don’t think emotional attachment to particular guys is a viable criteria for them making the Hall of Fame.  The marginally better argument would be a true stat-compiler like Tony Perez being in justifies including Mattingly and Parker - but I’d rather see the HOF keep shifting away from subjectively adding likable above average players in favor of legitimately great ones.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?