Jimmy Rollins: HOF?

Some Boston Red Sox scout once said Willie Mays didn't pass the eye test.

 

Will toss in my thoughts on what the "eye test" is. This does not mean I support it, but what I feel when people say "eye test."

In a nutshell, how often did the casual to ardent fan know or hear about them/see that particular player. It’s a barroom argument, not a sportswriter argument. It is about fame. Actually, FAME. Let’s use Grich Vs. Whitaker vs. Sandberg. All have very similar Hall of Fame arguments. However, Sandberg quickly went into the Hall while Grich and Whitaker died out quietly. Why? Sandberg passed the “eye” test that he had the big seasons (MVP in 1984, 40 homeruns, a lot of gold gloves, played with “heart,” was a good looking Anglo-Saxon. He passed the eye test because they saw his picture, they saw him on posters, they saw him in commercials, etc. So when writers put up the name or radio calls talk about him, people respond, with “hell, yeah, Sandberg was great. Get him in the Hall.” They talk Grich or Whitaker in some back market…no calls.

To me, that is the so-called “eye-test.” Does it play a factor? Yes. Should it? If quantifiable, Yes? If it is not, No. Can it be quantified? I have yet to see it

 

No kidding.

Some people just can't let a subject die, and insist on making the same point over and over.

They have no idea how annoying the rest of the board finds that kind of behavior.

 

Good Christ, this is 12 pages?

Dick programs you guys like the rest of us program OOPbot.

 

Don't blame me. Blame Bobby Grich, the son of a bitch.

 

True story: I didn't know until 1990, when Sports Illustrated did a retrospective on the first free agents, that Bobby Grich ever played for the Orioles.

 

I think the second part of the statement is true.
The first part seems like it should be: They think you're a huge @sshole AND you're challenging them on this.
The two conditions can exist independent of any cause-and-effect relationship.

 

I don't think Dick is an ass, per se. He just has the mistaken idea that he entertains with cross-examination.

 

You mean you don't like being used daily for Dickie's thought experiments? I'd say we're a pretty lucky bunch.

 

At least I have one grateful SJ.com child.

 

You know, after reading that, it comes off a lot more mean spirited than I intended. I thought it would be funnier.
I just saw a joke and made it.

I apologize.

I'll just add that subjectivity is part of the selection process, as in most human endeavor.
Nothing wrong with that.