If the sox can win another couple championships that would change everything

 

I concur.

Try 7.

exactly what years are you talking about hall of fame wise. Hes had some nice power numbers some years and has dabbled at 300 for some years but hes .17 below 300 career and post 30 and not even half way to 500 hrs. Those are not hof numbers. When I think hof I think of dominating at your position for an extended period of time.

exactly what years are you talking about hall of fame wise. Hes had some nice power numbers some years and has dabbled at 300 for some years but hes .17 below 300 career and post 30 and not even half way to 500 hrs. Those are not hof numbers. When I think hof I think of dominating at your position for an extended period of time.

You used the word "good" not "hall of fame caliber".

You used the word "good" not "hall of fame caliber".

I figured in a thread debating hof status that would of been clear, good enough for hof status if you will

I figured in a thread debating hof status that would of been clear, good enough for hof status if you will

I stopped assuming anything on here a looooong time ago. After your clarification though, it makes sense.

Two words here to put things in perspective ... Don Sutton.

What do you mean to say here?

Jon Garland has a shot. A long one, but a shot. What he did in June, July and August last season was awesome. He's shown flashes of brilliance and seems to be putting them together for longer periods of time during the season. I keep thinking that one season, he's going to dominate. There's no reason he shouldn't be a 20 game winner and with his delivery and build, he can do it for years to come. He's 27, still young enough to get it going. Curt Schilling had 34 wins by the time he was Garland's age. Garland has 82.

Edited February 19, 200719 yr by The Ginger Kid

Jon Garland has a shot. A long one, but a shot. What he did in June, July and August last season was awesome. He's shown flashes of brilliance and seems to be putting them together for longer periods of time during the season. I keep thinking that one season, he's going to dominate. There's no reason he shouldn't be a 20 game winner and with his delivery and build, he can do it for years to come. He's 27, still young enough to get it going. Curt Schilling had 34 wins by the time he was Garland's age. Garland has 82.

What do you mean to say here?

 

Sutton is in the Hall. He never was the "best" at his position. In fact, I never considered him great. He was good, but never great.

Sutton is in the Hall. He never was the "best" at his position. In fact, I never considered him great. He was good, but never great.

 

But Don Sutton had longevity. In 22 seasons, he made it to the All-Star Game only four times and never won a Cy Young award. However, he won 324 games and put in an impressive string of 200+ inning seasons. He was a consistently above-average pitcher, spent his career at that level.

 

Then, of course, the park comparisons--Sutton spent half his career pitching in Chavez Ravine, best pitcher's park in the modern era. Buehrle pitches to DHs in a hitter's paradise. Buehrle has put together four out of five full seasons in the bigs on par with Sutton's career.

 

If Mark Buehrle has another decade and a half in him of 15-or-so win seasons and can keep his ERA in the 3s and 4s, he could have a similar trajectory ending in Cooperstown. It shows that you don't need to be Sandy Koufax or Johan Santana if you can put together a couple of decades' worth of solid seasons.

 

Don't get me wrong, though--those are ifs the size of icebergs.