People advocate some off-the-wall Hall of Fame candidates in here (like Paul O'Neill and Chili Davis). Personally, I don't think either of them merits serious consideration, but if you think they belong, then wouldn't the guy with these stats also belong? (I'm rounding the up or down a small amount.)
2,700 hits
300 homeruns
1,450 rbi's
1,200 runs
500 doubles
.360 OBA
It's not tough to do a search and figure out who this is, but that's not the point. NO ONE considers this guy a Hall of Famer. If he's not, please explain how either O'Neill of Davis can be.
Thanks in advance for your thoughtful responses. :-)
2007-11-02 05:54:19 · 10 answers · asked by blueyeznj 6 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Dennis Y makes an excellent point. Position does matter. This player was mostly an outfielder and then switched to DH later in his career, so I felt it was fair to use him as an example in this case.
2007-11-02 09:49:55 · update #1
I don't think either O'Neill or Chili should be talked about as possible Hall inductees. O'Neill was a very good player on some great teams, but he was never among the best. Chili was a decent power hitter, but none of his numbers just out as being exceptional. He's a guy who benefited from a long career thanks to the DH rule.
The guy you posted - assuming I'm right in guessing that it's Rusty Staub - had a career that reminds me of Davis minus the DH role. He had some good years in the first half of his career, but was never a superstar and just racked up some counting stats by hanging around into his early 40s.
None of these three should be considered a worthy Hall candidate. Decent players, but by no means deserving of a spot in Cooperstown.
2007-11-02 06:08:11 · answer #1 · answered by Craig S 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is another factor to consider beside position and that is what era did this player play in and was he a key component of championship teams.
300 HR and 1450 RBI would not merit much serious consideration of today's players, but even 20/30 years ago they were solid numbers.
Also, a guy like Tony Perez is a HOFer IN PART because he was a clutch performer on great teams. That makes a difference.
Paul O'Neill and Chilli Davis are absolutely not HOF material and shouldn't even make it on the ballot a second year. If this is Rusty Staub, he deserves more consideration than the others because of his era and that Staub was considered one of the game's offensive threats over a 5-7 year period, but he also falls way short in my estimation.
2007-11-02 10:02:26 · answer #2 · answered by Matt G 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure how Chili Davis's name was even mentioned in the same sentence with the words hall of fame let alone be in it.
Paul O'Neill was a good player but was never great. No MVP's, no gold gloves, and one batting title during a strike season.
As for the stats you have up there. The only player that comes close to those numbers is Andre Dawson who's on base percentage was .323 and not .360.
2007-11-02 06:57:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Position and era matter. So does length of career and how they rate in their time.
Let's say that a player has these numbers and was a great defensive player (we'll make it at third base, where it is less crucial). But he put these numbers up in 14 seasons and was considered the best 3B in the game for 11 or 12 of them. We'll assume that he was at least average as a leader/in the clutch and had some post-season success. Then I would say he might be HOF material.
Staub did it in 23 years.
None of them should be serious candidates.
2007-11-02 11:58:43 · answer #4 · answered by Bucky 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What about Ozzie Smith and Phil Rizutto? Both hall of famers, but no where near the kind of stats all three of those players had. I love how people taut batting statistics during HOF consideration. It's like these guys are only expected to sit in the dugout and swing the bat about 50 times a game. DH's, unless they have Ruthian careers, aren't getting into the Hall of Fame.
2007-11-02 06:26:38 · answer #5 · answered by 15fsg546rge1rrheljh45hjr90459ty3 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
As much as I am a fan of both players, I don't think they will make the Hall. However, I do think the Yankees will hang up #21 for O'Neill. He deserves it.
2007-11-02 06:22:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are thousands of Wrestlers in The WWE Encyclopedia who wrestled for The WWWF/WWF/WWE over the last 5 Decades who are not in The WWE Hall of Fame and Chris Benoit is one of them. No, Chris Benoit is not going to be selected by Vincent Kennedy McMahon to go into The WWE Hall of Fame.
2016-05-27 01:28:20 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Big Yankee fan who loves Paul O'Neill, but neither him, Davis or your mystery player belong in the hall.
2007-11-02 06:13:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Personally I dont advocate either of those guys but you cant just post a players career numbers and say HoF or not. For example if that guy is a second baseman , he is 1st ballot HoF. If he is an outfilder or first baseman he probably does not get in.
2007-11-02 06:11:16 · answer #9 · answered by Dennis Y 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The answer is that despite playing with passion, neither O'Neill, Davis or Staub deserve to be in there.
2007-11-02 06:09:00 · answer #10 · answered by brettj666 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋