Angels acquires Tommy La Stella from Cubs – HardballTalk


On Monday, December 9th, today's Baseball Hall of Fame Game Committee, which spans the years 1988 to 2018, will vote for the 2019 promotion candidates. Here we will review the ten candidates, one by one, to assess their ability to be in the room.

And yes, we did it two years ago, the last time the Today & # 39; s Game ballot was put to the vote, most of the same candidates having appeared. As such, much of this material will be repeated, sometimes even verbatim. However, our point of view is that if the Hall of Fame can continue to recycle the same ballot, we can recycle the analysis as long as it has not changed.

Next step: Will Clark. And yes, that's exactly what I wrote about it a few years ago, because I was very happy about it.

The case for his enthronement:

Like artists, musicians and writers, we tend to see the baseball players that appear on the stage in a broad, seemingly completely formed, as always great way, no matter what will pass later. Sometimes, like James Dean, if they disappear while still young and old, they are immortalized forever. Other times, like Bob Dylan, they have a second and third act that builds on that initial promise, justifying and reinforcing their heritage. At other times, like Orson Welles, they multiply, then decline, in a relative way, somehow dragging us and leaving us perplexed as to why they can not replicate this early success. Will Clark seems to belong to the Orson Welles category.

By the time Will "The Thrill" Clark was 25 years old, he had already finished three of the top five polls for the most valuable player in the NL-Columbia and led his Giants to the 1989 world championship. is found with his swing on the cover of magazines and was the idea of ​​each of the next big star of baseball.

He was going to have another great season in San Francisco in 1991 and some good ones, but the power quickly disappeared and he never dominated 16 homers between 28 and 33 years old. His rate statistics were always excellent – he played on a solid base and played a good first base – but this power reversal took place in the mid-1990s when most members of the Hall of Famers found this second report that Clark had never found. Clark had a fantastic last year in 2000, sharing time between the Orioles and the Cardinals and batting .319 / .418 / .546 in 507, but then retired to spend time with his very young son. good reason to retire, to be fair. In the end, his career stats were pretty good – .303 / .384 / .497 – but he only played 15 seasons, which is a bit light for a Hall of Fame.

The case against his enthronement:

The number of careers and longevity are not at the rendezvous. This 2000 season, he finished with the Cardinals and looked like Welles' "Touch of Evil". Great, but not enough to buy years spent wandering the desert. Although he had seasons close to MVP earlier than expected, his peak does not scream at the "Hall of Famer" and his 15-season career that has earned him a run for being part of the Hall of Famer's 39, prevented from compiling the kind of figures that one could expect from a candidate. compile. Heck, even if he played 20 years, he may not have gotten there. Much of its value was defense and defense-related, and these figures do not necessarily appear, even overall. He was also not the most durable player late in his career, which prevents him from making an imaginary career of 20 years and making it worthy of Cooperstown totals.

Would I vote for him?

Probably not. He had "fame", at least at the beginning of his career, but this fame and name have exceeded his performance over the years. It gives me a John Olerud atmosphere. He was much better than Wally Joyner, but he feels closer to him than most of the Hall of Famers I can think of. A few other peak seasons and you could talk to me about it, but I think it's missing.

Will the committee vote for him?

I doubt it.

Playing in Texas and Baltimore between the mid-to-late 90s and totaling only 20 homers, is a strange pattern for a guy who was once renowned for his power, especially when he was a first baseman. Everything about positioning expectations is unfair to Clark – it's not his fault that he was good at a lot of things in first place, and not as good as people expect at first base – light. This is why he played only one role in the vote of the editors and that will probably also condemn him to the vote of the Committee today. Saying that someone does not feel like a Hall of Famer was a lazy copout, but in this case, I think it's a copout that coincides with objective reality.

Do not let yourself go, Will. You have always had your "Citizen Kane" years in San Francisco. We could watch this again and again.

Source link