Re: What is the most overrated record in MLB?
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Not really. You don't hype up players that have already proven their greatness. You hype up players who are expected to achieve greatness. That, to me, is the difference between the hype I'm talking about and the hype you are talking about.
I just don't see how you can hype a player or his records when he's been out of the game for years.
He's talked about alot because he was a great player, that's not hype. That's recognition.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
One thing to consider is who has been driving such discussion. For example, did you ever see the movie 61*? Do you remember the scenes where the sports writers and Ford Fricke were meeting about how to treat the record Maris would eventually break? Do you remember the kind of reverance for Ruth that existed that compelled such bias? If for decades there have been members of the press pushing certain records in the effort of demonstrating the greatness of Joe D, I think that could easily be considered over-hyped. I agree that he was great. I also dont think he needs a trumped up record as proof. If the media were to hype one of his records it should have been his HR:K.
Again, I really do think the 56 game hitting streak is overhyped when you really think about it. Lets assume Joe D had 92 hits during his streak ( I think he hit aound .410*56*4 AB/gm). Lets also assume that Tony Gwynn over 56 games at one time had 100 hits. Does it really matter how the hits were distributed; does it really matter that Joe D's hits were spread out over each game? The 56 game hitting streak is interesting in the sense that its an anomaly but I dont think its terribly important in a bottom line sense.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Not really. You don't hype up players that have already proven their greatness. You hype up players who are expected to achieve greatness. That, to me, is the difference between the hype I'm talking about and the hype you are talking about.
I just don't see how you can hype a player or his records when he's been out of the game for years.
He's talked about alot because he was a great player, that's not hype. That's recognition.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
One thing to consider is who has been driving such discussion. For example, did you ever see the movie 61*? Do you remember the scenes where the sports writers and Ford Fricke were meeting about how to treat the record Maris would eventually break? Do you remember the kind of reverance for Ruth that existed that compelled such bias? If for decades there have been members of the press pushing certain records in the effort of demonstrating the greatness of Joe D, I think that could easily be considered over-hyped. I agree that he was great. I also dont think he needs a trumped up record as proof. If the media were to hype one of his records it should have been his HR:K.
Again, I really do think the 56 game hitting streak is overhyped when you really think about it. Lets assume Joe D had 92 hits during his streak ( I think he hit aound .410*56*4 AB/gm). Lets also assume that Tony Gwynn over 56 games at one time had 100 hits. Does it really matter how the hits were distributed; does it really matter that Joe D's hits were spread out over each game? The 56 game hitting streak is interesting in the sense that its an anomaly but I dont think its terribly important in a bottom line sense.
Comment