English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Please explain your choice, thanks.

2007-12-09 19:01:29 · 17 answers · asked by PearApple 7 in Sports Baseball

Chips: how is this question the wrong sort? Isn't it just straightforward who has better credentials for the hall? Let me know, thanks.

2007-12-10 09:12:31 · update #1

17 answers

I love Goose but Bert should have been in the hall long ago. His stats alone should have had him enshrined but he also had one of the best curve balls in MLB history. 287 wins playing for the teams that he did should be enough also. Being on a contender would have gotten him at least one extra win a season to push him to 300. I also have never heard one thing from him complaining about this snub.

2007-12-10 00:54:56 · answer #1 · answered by Mosh 6 · 2 0

This is almost impossible to answer. Both belong there and HAVE belonged there for a while. This is roughly equivalent to choosing which child you're going to save.

Ssssslight advantage to Blyleven. (No bash against Gossage at all.) 5th in strikeouts and one mediocre season from 300 wins. But I could go the other way and give a real good argument too.

2007-12-10 03:59:30 · answer #2 · answered by Sarrafzedehkhoee 7 · 1 0

Well nether pitcher were exactly superstars Bert Blyleven was an very good pitcher but he simply does not have hall of fame stats . Goose Gossage was a great relief pitcher but he too does not have stealer numbers to warrent a strong look into the hall. of the two based on their stats Goose Gossage has the better numbers .Though we all know the hall of fame is not based solely on stats . i say neither gets in this year

2007-12-10 01:49:55 · answer #3 · answered by q_ball75065 2 · 0 2

I give the edge to Gossage simply because he was more dominant at his position than Blyleven ever was. I have no strong conviction that either of them should be in the Hall of Fame. If either get elected they certainly wouldn't be lowering the standards of the Hall, but I think there are players who are ahead of them in line.

2007-12-10 01:07:27 · answer #4 · answered by blueyeznj 6 · 1 0

Goose Gossage, because he was clearly one of the most dominant players at his position during his career. Blyleven was good, but he was not one of the best players at his position ever. Both are deserving, however.

2007-12-09 19:04:33 · answer #5 · answered by dude_in_disguise2004 4 · 0 0

Burt. The Goose was totally dependent on playing on the Yankees and getting all the close calls. As soon as he left, he faded away, although he took his time doing that. Blyleven was a great starter and really performed under pressure.

2007-12-10 01:50:52 · answer #6 · answered by JJHantsch 4 · 1 0

Very simple. The guy who is the only pitcher in the top 7 all time in K's who not active, or in the HOF yet. Bert Blyleven.

2007-12-10 05:19:20 · answer #7 · answered by Chris L 1 · 1 0

The fact that Blyleven isn't in is disgraceful. Upon retirement he was 3rd on the all time strikeout list, had 287 wins, played on two teams who won the World Series and had the greatest curveball of all time.

2007-12-10 03:45:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Difficult question (and completely the wrong sort), but I'll go with Gossage (noting as well that I am completely in support of Blyleven). Better peak performance, and I don't discount his value because of the long, slow, unseemly hanging-on years.

2007-12-09 23:54:00 · answer #9 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0 1

My vote is for Goose Gossage. He alongside with Bruce Sutter somewhat defined the widespread place of the nearer and made that place the important one that's at present. i might additionally ought to vote for Jack Morris. He won't have submit the flashy stats that Nolan Ryan did, yet he replaced into between the main dominant starters of the late 80's and early ninety's. Plus he lead Tigers and Blue Jays to worldwide sequence Titles. i might additionally ought to evaluate Dave Stewart of the A's. lower back no flashy stats purely excellence over a volume of time.

2016-11-15 03:09:50 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers