Proving how imbecilic ESPN’s crew of “analysts” can be, Shanoff’s most recent column not only makes himself look foolish (what else is new) but he blows Michel Knisley's cover as an ex-insane asylum inmate as well. Read:
“I got a fascinating e-mail from my ESPN.com colleague Michael Knisley, who pointed out that my HOF commentary yesterday about Gooden and Hershiser is eclipsed by the Great Albert Belle Debate.
Your knee-jerk reaction is probably to insist he couldn’t possibly be a Hall of Famer, but as Knisley pointed out, his stats are more than comparable with first-ballot HOF’er Kirby Puckett, who, like Belle, played 12 seasons:
Edge Belle:
HR: 381-207
RBI: 1,239-1,085
OBP: .369-.360
SLG: .564-.477
Edge Puckett:
BA: .318-.295
SB: 134-88
Rings: 2-0
It begs the question of whether Hall status should ever be a popularity contest (which Belle would never win). If not, Belle has got a decent shot, at least by the ‘Puckett standard.’”
I mean, really, do I even have to attack this one? I thought it was obvious at this point that when comparing the credentials of Hall of Famers, one does not compare a table-setting type of player to a cleanup hitter. I can see why Shanoff and Knisley got confused, since Puckett did normally hit third in the Minnesota lineup but still, I thought everyone knew that Puckett wasn’t a prototypical middle-of-the-order bat. He was more Tony Gwynn (who also batted second or third for most of his career) than he was slugger.
Why are they even using Kirby Puckett as the benchmark for all hitters deserving of enshrinement? If Kirby’s the standard then certainly Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Jose Canseco, Dave Kingman, Don Mattingly and Tim Wallach all could make arguments that they belong. I’m sure there are plenty of other hitters who hit 207 career homers that might match up favorably too. Why use Kirby and not Ozzie Smith? Ozzie hit 28 career homers with a .262 average over 19 seasons. When you look at it that way, even Paul Sorrento looks qualified with his 166 HR and .257 AVG. (Of course, I’m exaggerating…I just wanted an excuse to drop Paul Sorrento’s name in here…)
And while I’m rolling with non-sequiturs, when did World Series rings enter the equation as criteria for baseball players’ Hall of Fame chances? For managers, sure, that makes sense. But for players, that’s ridiculous! Ted Williams, Ernie Banks and Barry Bonds strike me as guys that never won rings and have Cooperstown credentials (obviously Teddy Ballgame and Ernie Banks are already in). Unlike basketball, which fairly or unfairly defines a player’s career by their championship hardware, baseball has never done so. Baseball, like football, is a team game and no one player can propel an entire roster to October glory. Without pitching, the best hitter in the world won’t see October. Without hitting, an ace won’t taste champagne. Basically, who cares how many rings Puckett won? It’s totally irrelevant.
Albert Belle might make the Hall of Fame or he might not. I think he probably doesn’t deserve it only because he didn’t play long enough to compile the types of stats required to match up favorably with his power-hitting peers. Keep in mind, Belle played in the asterisk* era where power was in abundance and sluggers were a dime a dozen. That isn’t to diminish his incredible seasons, however. His 1993-1999 stats are absolutely amazing and 1992 and 2000 were pretty solid too, but that’s just not a long enough period of dominance to be Hall-worthy in my opinion. If he’d put together two to three more years of that kind of production, I think he’d have enough to make it in. Anyway…
I hope everyone realizes that this isn’t a rant about Albert Belle or about why Kirby Puckett doesn’t belong (although I could make against the latter if I were so inclined), this is just to ask the obvious question – does Knisley have a BBWAA card? Is he a voter? I certainly hope not because if he is, we’ve entrusted the history of the great American game to a guy that can’t tell the difference between two extremely different types of hitters.
“I got a fascinating e-mail from my ESPN.com colleague Michael Knisley, who pointed out that my HOF commentary yesterday about Gooden and Hershiser is eclipsed by the Great Albert Belle Debate.
Your knee-jerk reaction is probably to insist he couldn’t possibly be a Hall of Famer, but as Knisley pointed out, his stats are more than comparable with first-ballot HOF’er Kirby Puckett, who, like Belle, played 12 seasons:
Edge Belle:
HR: 381-207
RBI: 1,239-1,085
OBP: .369-.360
SLG: .564-.477
Edge Puckett:
BA: .318-.295
SB: 134-88
Rings: 2-0
It begs the question of whether Hall status should ever be a popularity contest (which Belle would never win). If not, Belle has got a decent shot, at least by the ‘Puckett standard.’”
I mean, really, do I even have to attack this one? I thought it was obvious at this point that when comparing the credentials of Hall of Famers, one does not compare a table-setting type of player to a cleanup hitter. I can see why Shanoff and Knisley got confused, since Puckett did normally hit third in the Minnesota lineup but still, I thought everyone knew that Puckett wasn’t a prototypical middle-of-the-order bat. He was more Tony Gwynn (who also batted second or third for most of his career) than he was slugger.
Why are they even using Kirby Puckett as the benchmark for all hitters deserving of enshrinement? If Kirby’s the standard then certainly Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Jose Canseco, Dave Kingman, Don Mattingly and Tim Wallach all could make arguments that they belong. I’m sure there are plenty of other hitters who hit 207 career homers that might match up favorably too. Why use Kirby and not Ozzie Smith? Ozzie hit 28 career homers with a .262 average over 19 seasons. When you look at it that way, even Paul Sorrento looks qualified with his 166 HR and .257 AVG. (Of course, I’m exaggerating…I just wanted an excuse to drop Paul Sorrento’s name in here…)
And while I’m rolling with non-sequiturs, when did World Series rings enter the equation as criteria for baseball players’ Hall of Fame chances? For managers, sure, that makes sense. But for players, that’s ridiculous! Ted Williams, Ernie Banks and Barry Bonds strike me as guys that never won rings and have Cooperstown credentials (obviously Teddy Ballgame and Ernie Banks are already in). Unlike basketball, which fairly or unfairly defines a player’s career by their championship hardware, baseball has never done so. Baseball, like football, is a team game and no one player can propel an entire roster to October glory. Without pitching, the best hitter in the world won’t see October. Without hitting, an ace won’t taste champagne. Basically, who cares how many rings Puckett won? It’s totally irrelevant.
Albert Belle might make the Hall of Fame or he might not. I think he probably doesn’t deserve it only because he didn’t play long enough to compile the types of stats required to match up favorably with his power-hitting peers. Keep in mind, Belle played in the asterisk* era where power was in abundance and sluggers were a dime a dozen. That isn’t to diminish his incredible seasons, however. His 1993-1999 stats are absolutely amazing and 1992 and 2000 were pretty solid too, but that’s just not a long enough period of dominance to be Hall-worthy in my opinion. If he’d put together two to three more years of that kind of production, I think he’d have enough to make it in. Anyway…
I hope everyone realizes that this isn’t a rant about Albert Belle or about why Kirby Puckett doesn’t belong (although I could make against the latter if I were so inclined), this is just to ask the obvious question – does Knisley have a BBWAA card? Is he a voter? I certainly hope not because if he is, we’ve entrusted the history of the great American game to a guy that can’t tell the difference between two extremely different types of hitters.
No comments:
Post a Comment