2007-01-22 14:48:27 · 20 answers · asked by Bankerboy 1 in Sports ➔ Baseball
He was one of the best at his position for his time. what he doesn't have going for him was that he played in multiple cities. Unlike a player of similar talent like Ryan Sandberg who played his whole career in one city with a large fan base. Almoar was never really a true fan favorite anywhere he went. He was never the face of a franchise. Alomar also has going against the incident where he spit in the Umpires face. That incident will likely forever haunt his chances. But the real question is whether Alomar was one best of the best. The one and only thing I believe that would have got Alomar in would be if here where to have achieved 3,000 hit mark which he was unable able to do. Remember the hall of fame is for the best of the best. Alomar was a great player no doubt, but you really must ask is he hall of fame or hall of really good. I believe that sports writers will lean toward very good rather than hall of fame.
2007-01-22 18:13:23 · answer #1 · answered by Cheese 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Afraid not. At his best, Roberto Alomar was a very good player, however, he did not play at that level for a long period of time. Over his career, Alomar would have to rate only slightly above average. That is NOT good enough to make the Hall of Fame! I seriously doubt that he will even get half of the percentage of votes that Mark McGuire recently got, which was only 23% of everyone that voted. Let's not even go to the spitting incident or his uncontrollable temper (no factor).
2007-01-22 16:55:41 · answer #2 · answered by P.I. Stingray 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, anyone who says he "isn't even close" must not have watched him play, and they obviously haven't looked at his statistics.
Alomar had 2.700 hits, a .300 career average, and a career OPS+ of 116. Besides winning Rookie of the Year, he was in the top 10 of MVP voting five times, and won 10 Gold Gloves to go with his four Silver Slugger awards. He was a dominant force both at the plate and in the field, and a vital part of the Jays' Series-winning teams.
I can't believe anyone says he wasn't the best at his position for a period of time - did they not watch baseball during the early 1990s? Seriously, saying that he doesn't have a chance is just dumb.
Personally, I think he should get in. Ripken got in almost unanimously, and Alomar's numbers compare with Cal's. He may not have as many RBI or the magic 3,000 hits, but his average and OBP are far superior. Robbie should be in Cooperstown.
2007-01-23 04:00:56 · answer #3 · answered by Craig S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Roberto Alomar is considered revolutionary as a 2nd sacker.
He was a great hitter and one of the tops in league for many years. He was consistent and clutch. He could steal a base for you, too (over 400 lifetime steals).
He will get serious consideration for, and eventually get into, The Baseball Hall Of Fame.
2007-01-22 15:22:18 · answer #4 · answered by William M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Craig S to a point. Anyone who says he has no chance are idiots. Look at the numbers:
12 CONSECUTIVE All-star appearances
10 Gold Gloves
4 Silver Slugger awards
2 World Series Titles
Lifetime .300 Average
Over 200 HR, and 400 SB
Some of his numbers will lead people to take a look at him just long enough to keep him on the ballot for 15 years, and at the end he might get in.
The critics of the "steroid era" thus far have only blind accusations to throw at most players. With time, most of the truth will come out, and we will just have to wait and see what becomes of it. Nobody ever accused Alomar of steroid use, just like nobody ever accused Ripken or Gwynn of steroid use. I don't think he should get in simply because of the Hirshbeck incident. I mean, not only did he spit in the guys face, he also brought up the fact that his 8 year old son dying of a brain disease 3 years earlier was clouding his judgement out on the field. Low blow, to low in my opinion for a HOF'er. Should be fun to see how it plays out though.
2007-01-23 04:41:01 · answer #5 · answered by Josh77_98 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he apologized for the act that happened in the heat of the moment. I'm sure there are some Hall of Famers who spit on Jackie Robinson when he started playing. edit: Just wanted to add the steroids and gambling has a direct impact on the integrity and outcome of the game whereas spitting does not. Pete Rose poked an umpire in the eye. Is that worse than spitting?
2016-03-28 22:04:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
His credentials merit it, superb defensive prowess for years and somehwere near a dozen all-star game selections... but his best numbers were put up in the late 1990s (which is forever tainted) and I think George Herman is the only ballplayer that could get exempt from any ill will due to spitting in an umpires face.
2007-01-23 04:00:11 · answer #7 · answered by dude 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he hadn't played in the middle of the steroid era, his hitting would have been much more impressive and he was a great defensive player. There were years where statistics freaks like Bill James ranked him as the best player in baseball.
I think he belongs, but probably won't get in for a long time, because of his wayward spittle.
Funny that it comes down to saliva vs urine (drug tests).
2007-01-23 01:25:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I apply the following standard "Was he one of the best players at his position, for a period of several years?" Alomar isn't even close.
2007-01-23 02:23:39 · answer #9 · answered by dentroll 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was very good in his prime defensively and offensively. He hung around too long and was very weak near the end. But the spitting incident will tick off many of the old guard so he doesn't have a chance. Without the spitting his chance was slim anyway.
2007-01-22 15:30:30 · answer #10 · answered by berta44 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋