Hall of Fame Poll

I would think it's the other way around.

If you use "fame" as your measuring stick, then you end up inducting the third-best shortstop and fifth-best catcher.

If you are objective about your evaluation, then you don't.

 

I think that the historical impact argument and the butts-in-the-seats argument are two separate ones that you are conflating here. One leads you to ponder a Roger Maris or a Jackie Robinson. The other leads you to ponder a Mark Fidrych.

Then again, I'm just the condescending philosopher-king, getting all haughty by daring to have a different opinion than the great Dooley_Womack. What do I know?

 

Mark Fidrych had one inarguable Hall of Fame season.

That's where the Fidrych discussion begins and ends.

(And Dick, settle down. Nobody questioned your manhood.)

 

I don't lecture anybody. If I did, I would be invoking the "whiny bitch" clause here.

 

All right, all right.

Guy just gets under my skin sometimes.

People who don't have the ability to put together good arguments resort to cheap shots. I should just remember that whenever I'm inclined to get upset at a Dooley post. I wouldn't get mad at a child, right?

 

I see your point that there are two different arguments, but I think in this case they are somewhat related. At least to the point I was making. The guy had a lasting impact in more than one facet. And it was over a much longer period than The Bird.

 

At least this whole exchange allowed you to prove you aren't the least bit condescending.

 

Oh, if he's going to invite it, I'll bring it.

 

I will point out that claiming the other guy is condescending is a tried-and-true debate ploy around these parts.

Not doggin' ya, dools; just sayin'.

 

Really? I don't remember that impression of Whitaker at all. I recall him having a kind of quiet dignity.