|
Post by Craig Cumberland on Jan 11, 2006 21:11:58 GMT -8
Yeah, Clemens has handled the splitter well. I think the X factor with curves, splitters, etc is that some arms are naturally built better than others so the ones that aren't are more likely to suffer injury.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 11, 2006 21:30:44 GMT -8
I think the X factor with curves, splitters, etc is that some arms are naturally built better than others so the ones that aren't are more likely to suffer injury. i agree
|
|
|
Post by Byrd on Jan 11, 2006 23:05:21 GMT -8
Yes Craig Grayson as well throws a natural cut fastball but by no means does it look like what I call a curve. I will agree that alot of the young umpires may get confused but I stand firm that myself I have not seen a fastball that looks like a curve. A slider maybe but not a curve.
In regards to some arms being built better that is a fact no doubt. Not all arms are created equal and some can handle certain pitches better then others. Some guys can throw junk forever and others never can throw junk for strikes. Just like some arms throw in the high 90's and others in the high 80's. The key is location and variation.
|
|
|
Post by Byrd on Jan 12, 2006 7:47:17 GMT -8
Speaking of splitters the recent inductee to the Hall set the standard....I still think the "Goose" shoulda have got the vote in. Congrats to another St. Louis Cardinal getting in. The only pitcher to get in that NEVER started a game in his career....pretty good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 12, 2006 15:39:35 GMT -8
i agree gossage should have got in before souter (sp?), but i still dont think that either one of the are HOF material. i guess i just have a bias against "good" relievers.
Eckersley, yes, he wasnt good, he was great. possibles in the Future (Mariano Rivera).
i just dont think Relievers should be there, since most of them wereNT good enough to be starters
just my opinion though
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 12, 2006 21:39:53 GMT -8
If Sutter get in then so should my boyhood idol Steve Garvey...Yeah he was a Dodger (Padres) but they had skill back then Mark He had what? 5 - 200+ hit seasons? Yeah and he got something like a doz votes!
|
|
|
Post by Byrd on Jan 13, 2006 18:57:50 GMT -8
Garvey in the Hall....never happen Chris. Never had the power numbers. 5 seasons with 200 hits is far from Hall material. I am not saying Sutter deserved to get in but obviously the writers thought so. Even me being a Cardinals fan I don't agree with him getting in and not the Goose...but c'mon Garvey?? Let's try to be somewhat realistic....lol
|
|
|
Post by Craig Cumberland on Jan 16, 2006 8:53:21 GMT -8
I agree with Chris, Garvey belongs. I think you have to look beyond numbers. He hit in the clutch, consistently throughout his career. He put up steady power numbers for his era. Not big power numbers but he was always a threat so pitchers could ignore him. He hit to all fields - with pop. He had a good glove. He lead his teams to play-offs and World Series and was one of the if not the main cog each time. His streak is what, third all-time? You could count on him day in, day out. I'm a fan of Molitor and I think his career is similar to Garvey's - but Garvey played defense. His injury shortened his career otherwise he'd have put up Molitor's carrer hit totals too. If you put together an all-time team from the 70s what other third baseman would you pick over him. Pops, maybe... He had more homers but Garv hit for a higher average and their RBI totals are comparable.
Debating Garvey's induction brings to mind others that could be argued about - but who do you folks think should belong without question that is not in? Rose and Jackson for sure. Ron Santo without a doubt (same carrer numbers, some better, than Brooks - except for WS appearances). I think Andre Dawson belongs, more so than Jim Rice because he was a five tool player and during his prime dominated the way Bonds later would (pre-steroids). Dawson was a steroid free version of Bonds IMO... except that the Hawk was rveed by his teammates!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 16, 2006 9:48:58 GMT -8
I guess Garvey was so important to me not only because of his numbers but the way he carried himself, treated his fans and respected the game. Garvey stayed with the Dodgers and never demanded to renegotiate his contract despite being one of the top players in the game during the 70s. He was never a hot dog. I think historically he hasn't gotten the respect he deserves because his image as "a clean cut always do the right thing" guy hurt him. BTW, those Popeye arms of his were not the product of juice.
Its the intangibles that make him deserving. I think he was the Cal Ripken of his time. He had a streak of his own and set the National League consecutive game record. He was no wuss (Sry BK) and played through pain all the time. If I remember correctly the streak finally ended when he dislocated his thumb sliding into home.
Bottomline, who doesn't want their boyhood idol in the HOF? I think he's deserving but could never make the compelling argument Craig just did.
|
|
|
Post by Byrd on Jan 16, 2006 10:07:52 GMT -8
Yes he had a great streak and was one of the best day in and day out players. Craig I know you ment to say what other FIRST baseman but I still don't think he had the HOF numbers. If streaks are the main issue then I guess Gagne is a shoe in for the Hall based on his streak. Garvey indeed carried himself better then many. He played in a time when players respected the game on a whole unlike today where all they think about are themselves. That whole Dodger infield was a class act back then with Cey, Russel, Lopes and Popeye. I enjoyed watching him very much even tho I hated the Dodgers. He was solid but don't think he did enough to get in. He does run a nice fishing tournament tho.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 16, 2006 10:17:40 GMT -8
lol Byrd (fishing)...How about his '74 NL MVP & NLCS Championship performance several years later?
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 16, 2006 14:41:07 GMT -8
even tho I hated the Dodgers. easy there!!!! LOL
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 16, 2006 14:56:38 GMT -8
this one is really sweet for Midget... oops i mean Giants fans
|
|
|
Post by Byrd on Jan 16, 2006 17:09:45 GMT -8
No Giants fan here and the images I cannot see....I can barely see the huge Dodger logo I am so OLD!!
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 19, 2006 12:27:02 GMT -8
No Giants fan here and the images I cannot see....I can barely see the huge Dodger logo I am so OLD!! lol we will all be there one day
|
|