<< <i>There is no question a less acceptable injury would alter perception...just as news of his true character would have. >>
I generally agree with everything you write, but this is an irresponsible leap. As digicat said, there's no way to know. You can speculate, but to insist that 'there's no question' is silly. Greg Louganis wasn't suddenly vilified when he was diagnosed with AIDS. The people who hated him because he was homosexual still hated him, and the people who didn't care about his sexual orientation just felt bad for him.
Also, let's back up on the 'true character' bit. Kirby Puckett had a dark side- there's no doubt about that. But why the dark side of his personality should be considered his 'true character', while the engaging, gregarious and charitable side should be considered phony, is beyond me. Kirby Puckett-- like many of us-- had a complicated and often conflicting personality, but that doesn't mean that one aspect of it is more or less legitimate than the other.
The strongest first ballot candidate by far is Mr. Bagwell, so overall a rather weak ballot. So if Mr. Blyleven only came up five short last year, then he HAS to finally be put over the top this time. Gonzo had a few brilliant years in the 90s but he's just not worthy of first ballot, if the HOF at all.
I'll go with Blyleven and Bagwell.
As for the holdovers, I'll go with Barry Larkin and Edgar Martinez.
Boo, maybe it isn't his true character, but rather getting a more accurate picture of it. No matter, it is basically all guesswork when it comes to that aspect...and it probably isn't the best course to make decisions based on such things about people whom writers don't truly know.
It is even more foolish for fans to do, since they are even farther removed from the person.
But in the end, it still comes down to one guy getting special treatment for an injury, and another guy getting no extra treatment for injuries that hurt his career(and most likely hurt it even more). Yeah, I know, it also comes down to one guy getting extra credit for other things that are also based on perception or not completely in the players control...stuff that is basically meaningless when determining how good a player is/was.
I don't see Bagwell as a slam dunk. Will he go in? Probably. He probably deserves it. But I think Roberto Alomar is a more complete player. Not the power of the first baseman Bagwell, but Alomar had some pop. He also ran the bases like a demon, had a .371 OBP, and was pretty much a Gold Glove fixture in the infield for a decade. I hope that both go in, along with Blyleven and somehow Tim Raines gets some support too. And I hope McGwire goes under 20% this year.
Baseball, it still probably is six of one, half dozen of the other, though I know what you mean.
Wasn't Minnesota still paying Puckett after he retired? According to baseball rererence he had a salary in 1996, and 1997. That isnt very advantageous to have to be paying two salaries for one position.
But if Lynn fouls a ball of his foot and misses six weeks...and he does something like that a few times in his career. And Puckett gets glaucoma and misses the rest of his time due to that...why would each players' bad luck be treated differently when determining how good they were?
I still think some of the Puckett backers have not accounted for how Lynn's injuries happened during the prime of his career, and most likely caused a drop in his performance during his prime, thus 'hiding' his true value because those years were noticeably different than his surrounding years. Also, since these injuries happened earlier in his career, we don't know how much they affected him later in his career.
In this case, due to the above, I believe Lynn is the one who should get more 'what if' points, or extra credit for injuries derailing a career...not Puckett. It is either they both get extra credit, or neither of them do. It can't...or SHOULDN'T be one or the other.
Comments
<< <i>There is no question a less acceptable injury would alter perception...just as news of his true character would have. >>
I generally agree with everything you write, but this is an irresponsible leap. As digicat said, there's no way to know. You can speculate, but to insist that 'there's no question' is silly. Greg Louganis wasn't suddenly vilified when he was diagnosed with AIDS. The people who hated him because he was homosexual still hated him, and the people who didn't care about his sexual orientation just felt bad for him.
Also, let's back up on the 'true character' bit. Kirby Puckett had a dark side- there's no doubt about that. But why the dark side of his personality should be considered his 'true character', while the engaging, gregarious and charitable side should be considered phony, is beyond me. Kirby Puckett-- like many of us-- had a complicated and often conflicting personality, but that doesn't mean that one aspect of it is more or less legitimate than the other.
I'll go with Blyleven and Bagwell.
As for the holdovers, I'll go with Barry Larkin and Edgar Martinez.
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
It is even more foolish for fans to do, since they are even farther removed from the person.
But in the end, it still comes down to one guy getting special treatment for an injury, and another guy getting no extra treatment for injuries that hurt his career(and most likely hurt it even more). Yeah, I know, it also comes down to one guy getting extra credit for other things that are also based on perception or not completely in the players control...stuff that is basically meaningless when determining how good a player is/was.
Wasn't Minnesota still paying Puckett after he retired? According to baseball rererence he had a salary in 1996, and 1997. That isnt very advantageous to have to be paying two salaries for one position.
But if Lynn fouls a ball of his foot and misses six weeks...and he does something like that a few times in his career. And Puckett gets glaucoma and misses the rest of his time due to that...why would each players' bad luck be treated differently when determining how good they were?
I still think some of the Puckett backers have not accounted for how Lynn's injuries happened during the prime of his career, and most likely caused a drop in his performance during his prime, thus 'hiding' his true value because those years were noticeably different than his surrounding years. Also, since these injuries happened earlier in his career, we don't know how much they affected him later in his career.
In this case, due to the above, I believe Lynn is the one who should get more 'what if' points, or extra credit for injuries derailing a career...not Puckett. It is either they both get extra credit, or neither of them do. It can't...or SHOULDN'T be one or the other.