Am I a hall of famer? (Active players only)

[storrsroars]

A

or maybe be he is just lazy, has exhibited a lack of hustle since his rookie year. In fact, was. Benched multiple times for lack of effort. Cost them playoff series by not running out deep fly because he thought it was a homer. Stood at plate and was watched and took a single. Cost braves game and series. His new injury is the other leg.

Just stopped by Fangraphs to see how many infield hits he had. Turns out for the past season and a third, he's tied at sixth most in MLB with 29.

 

[Fan1978]

Just stopped by Fangraphs to see how many infield hits he had. Turns out for the past season and a third, he's tied at sixth most in MLB with 29.

And he is 1 in steals and led league in at bats and bats lead off. You are making my point. Again, I watched 80-90 percent of games

 

[storrsroars]

And he is 1 in steals and led league in at bats and bats lead off. You are making my point. Again, I watched 80-90 percent of games

So he's in a category along with Bryce Harper as guys who've stood in the box and watched a long fly turn into a single, and have been told by the team to not go all out on every play due to injury risk.

Not the worst club to belong to.

 

[Slasher]

My "on the fence" Hall of Famers:

Baseball:
1. Mike Trout: Started off historically, but injuries have really slowed him down. I think he makes it because he was the best player for a 3-5 year period. Lack of any postseason success hurts him though.
2. Freddie Freeman: Consistently excellent player, but never the best player. Seems to be getting better with age (he's 34). Playing with the other great players on the Dodgers will help him. I'm confident he makes the HOF.
3. Jacob deGrom: As a Mets fan, I think he makes it based on his pure dominance for a 2-3 year period. A bit of a Sandy Koufax scenario (where he shined so bright for a short time), but the overall statistics may hurt his resume.

Basketball:
1. Paul George: Overall career is really really good. Was also an excellent defensive player. Lack of postseason success does hurt.
2. Draymond Green: Obviously his statistics aren't impressive and his on-court indiscretions are a factor too, but he has multiple championships, and was/is an excellent defensive player.
3. DeMar Derozan: Immediately his name doesn't strike me as a HOF player, but when looking at his career, it's quite excellent. He's so consistent and reliable (not many injuries). If John Wall is a borderline HOF'er, then I think Derozan should be talked about.

Football: Is such a hard sport to evaluate, as it isn't as stat oriented (compared to the other major sports)

Is this serious? Mike Trout is a first ballot hall of famer if he retired 5 years ago.

 

[mets1090]

Obviously I know my own team best, and can say that the biggest hustle guys on the Rays don't dig out routine grounders as much as they used to. I consider Kevin Cash to be a very sober manager and have been looking for some retribution when Randy doesn't hustle out a grounder. But it never comes. I don't know if the Braves purposely advised RAJr to slow it down as @Fan1978 denies. But it seems that guys are prioritizing health over all out hustle- as contrary as it is to all the advice we've been hearing since childhood.
*note: we've accepted it in football when a quarterback no longer tries for the extra yardage but instead slides 5 yds before the nearest defender.

Without getting into specifics over who is or isn't running things out, I can say for sure the Mets (and therefore I presume most teams) have sports scientists giving them data on who sprinted how much every day and would benefit from a day off contrary to conventional wisdom - e.g. you hit two triples yesterday and made a spectacular running catch so now we're going to bench you for your own good. It wouldn't surprise me at all if any team thought there was more benefit to not full sprinting to try to beat out every routine ground ball.

Sprinting 90 feet on 50 routine ground balls throughout the year might get you on base one or two times a year, but might lead to a sore hammy that hinders you for two weeks. Not to say I would intuitively advocate not running things out, but I could be convinced by data that it is a net positive over 162 games and therefore the correct decision.

 

[Jbirdp5]

You can't have an opinion on Babe Ruth. Sorry.

lol babe Ruth is a mythical figure not someone analysts break down as a player

 

[Jbirdp5]

Stats and accomplishments*. Not seeing someone play doesn’t exempt them from a comparison. That would be a ridiculous sentiment

Comparing a guy you’ve watched play to a guy you haven’t from a different era is gonna be inaccurate at best, especially comparing football in the 2010s to 1990 is almost like comparing 2 different sports for the Qb

 

[CardiacAndre7]

Comparing a guy you’ve watched play to a guy you haven’t from a different era is gonna be inaccurate at best, especially comparing football in the 2010s to 1990 is almost like comparing 2 different sports for the Qb

Gotcha, no comparisons can be made then

 

[TheChamps990411]

Check out Pedro’s stats from 1999-2000, in the heart of the steroids era, and tell me if you think you can still say “perhaps.”

Just a couple nuggets to whet your appetite: 1.39 FIP (!!!) and 13.2 K/9 in 1999 and a 0.737 WHIP (!!!) in 2000. Against guys with heads the size of planets.

No need for the stat dump. I stand corrected. Pedro was not only unreal in those two years but he had like a 7 year span where he was ridiculous.