grover999 wrote: I will say that I really didn't say what I meant. I meant that Kirby is more deserving than Cal. And just so you know, Mr. Mattingly is not HOF worthy. He is in the same class as Cal, except he didn't play in 2600 straight games.
I don't understand your logic. How is Mattingly in the same class as Ripken? Mattingly was clearly a much better hitter in his prime but it was cut short due to injuries very similar to a player in the HOF... your beloved Puckett. Mattingly was forced to retire because of a bad back. Have you looked at Mattingly's number in his prime? He is Kirby Puckett with more power as well as one of the best fielding first basemen ever. Ripken is more valuable than Puckett, I don't see that being much of an argument. Mattingly vs. Puckett can be a much more comparable debate.
grover999 wrote:I will say that I really didn't say what I meant. I meant that Kirby is more deserving than Cal. And just so you know, Mr. Mattingly is not HOF worthy. He is in the same class as Cal, except he didn't play in 2600 straight games.
How about Will Clark?
Will Clark: 1 Gold Glove( I think) 4 top 7 MVP. Cal Ripken Jr: 2 Gold Gloves, 3 top 7 MVP( 2 MVPs) Kirby Puckett: 6 gold gloves, 7 top 7 MVP
Gold Gloves are a joke. Rafael Palmeiro won one playing only 28 games at 1B in 1999. It's a popularity contest.
edit: and Mattingly won 9 of them...so why isn't he a HOFer?
grover999 wrote:I am a football guy and FRAA doesn't mean much to me( I have to admit I don't even know where you would get that number). Puckett was a outstanding OF. One of the best during his time. Again I don't think you can hold it against him that he played in 1200 games less than Ripken. Kirby only really had the opportunity to play MLB for 10 years.
I think you missed the entire point of my post. The 1200 extra games was just a side note. You are looking at Puckett through rose-colored glasses and choosing only to remember Ripken in terms of the streak. Ripken wasn't always the old, slow, bald guy that ESPN followed around counting down the games to Gehrig's record.
I understand that, my only problem is when some people say that Kirby shouldn't be in the hall. I just don't think you should hold it against him that he had to quit playing, while a guy like Cal could continue playing. I really don't want to take anything away from Cal, but Kirby was great when he was playing( and his fellow competitors have said that).
Kirby is not close to a HOF player in my book. To be HOF-worthy for me, you have to either have a dominant peak or compile numbers. Puckett wasn't around long enough to compile, and his peak was nowhere near dominant enough for him to receive HOF consideration from me.
Kirby Puckett is one of the weakest players in the HOF at this point and is a great comparison to Mattingly as a very strong prime career player who just didn't play long enough to deserve to be in the Hall. If I could kick any player who made the hall in the last 10 years Puckett would be in the running though I doubt he'd win the race.
Ender wrote:Kirby Puckett is one of the weakest players in the HOF at this point and is a great comparison to Mattingly as a very strong prime career player who just didn't play long enough to deserve to be in the Hall. If I could kick any player who made the hall in the last 10 years Puckett would be in the running though I doubt he'd win the race.
..which says a lot about how terrible the writers have been.
I get the feeling that some of you did not get a chance to see Puckett or Ripkin playing in the 80's.
Puckett was regularly on the news with some sort of great catch or hit. He was enthusiastic and played the game hard. Look at his body and you might think he was HR hitter, but this guy ran hard and played hard (he was the anti-MAnny in this sense). This is not a small part of why he is in the HOF.
Ripkin was star of his time. He was the first SS who hit HR at a position that didn't have HR hitters. We take that for granted today. He was 10 years early. Had he been after Arod, perhaps we would say he was good, but not great, as today there are lots of SS who hit for power. But then, I cannot think of any SS for the roughly 10 years he was a SS that hit for power. Oh, and by the way, he was excellent defensively.
On top of this, their numbers suppport them, sO I continue to support both of them for the Hall.
GotowarMissAgnes wrote: Do you pick injury prone players in fantasy drafts figuring that the last few years they were just "unlucky"? Or do you recognize that some players are more likely to be healthy than others? Unless you simply assume that those healthy players are purely blessed with genetic health (and I think any honest appraisal of health shows behavior is at least as important if not more important than genes), than you must admit that some of these players are more skillful in staying healthy.
Obviously some players are considered injury prone - such as Mark Prior, Rich Harden, Howie Kendrick, etc. I believe this is caused by genetics because these are multi million dollar athletes, why wouldn't they want to condition their hardest? The counter part are those players that are considered durable. This is a player such as Cal Ripken. But even being a durable player with great genetics and conditioning, having played so many games in a row he is lucky to not have sustained a serious injury at least once.
It's simply not the case that it is purely genetics. Most injuries and illnesses have both a genetic and behavioral component. Prior may have structural features that genetically make him prone to injury. He also pitched with a technique describes as an 'inverted W" that leads to pitching injuries. And seriously, there is WIDE variation even today in how much players train and condition, despite the dollars involved.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."