Jimmy Rollins: HOF?

Do you think that it would be reasonable for a voter to leave Ken Griffey, Jr., off his ballot because he didn't feel like a Hall of Famer?

 

Well frankly, shottie, your reasoning on this thread kinda invites the cross examination.

Q: Why don't you think Grich or Rollins are HOF-worthy?
A: The eye test.
Q: What is that?
A: I can't tell you. But it's the reason they should be kept out.
Q: And could you explain that reason again?
A: The eye test.
Q: What does that mean?
A: I can't tell you.

Hey, who could dispute that logic?

 

Aside from other issues with this comparison, you left out stolen bases. Rollins has 465. Grich had 104 in his career (and he was caught 83 times). Rollins went over 40 for a season four times in his career. Grich never had more than 17.

 

Rollins' stolen bases are noted in the fourth line of this thread. By me. They are also incorporated in the players' WAR, in the post you are quoting.

 

Fair enough.

 

That qualifier is only objectionable when a poster acknowledges his or her mistake. I made no such acknowledgement.

 

I know. I was admitting error on the bot's behalf.

 

I do not think it's reasonable.
However, I also accept that the process contains an element of subjectivity.
I'm not sure that any measure of greatness can be boiled down to a strict mathematical measure.
If Bobby Grich's absence from the HoF, and Jimmy Ro's future absence, are the worst examples we have of subjectivity spoiling the induction process, then it seems the process works pretty well for the most part.
The Baseball HoF is the hardest sports HoF to get into, which is why it is the only one about which any fans or experts spend time talking. The ease with which people get into the football and basketball HoFs have rendered them mostly uninteresting.

 

No.

 

The football HOF is easy to get in to?

 

Roger Craig is confident next year is the year.

 

Nor has anyone argued that it can. That's a straw man people trot out whenever their unsupported, subjective opinions are challenged. That said, I listed several middle infielders, all Hall of Famers or likely on their way, with career OPS-pluses considerably less than Grich's. Objective evidence, accumulated over the course of nearly 9,000 major league plate appearances, that indicate that Grich was 25 percent better than his peers at the combination of getting on base and hitting for extra bases, the two most components of generating runs. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to ask what the "eye test" showed shotglass that overrides 17 seasons of accumulated, objective evidence that shows that Bobby Grich, a second baseman, was 25 percent better than his peers at generating runs.