Nice piece, insights, and overview of Dave's career, although I'd also note that Winfield drove in 100+ RBI eight times and came close with 97 in another season, which, pre-analytics etc., was probably the best measure of a slugger's effectiveness and clutch ability: driving in teammates on base and generating runs. Such a tremendous, imposing athlete whom you respected and feared from both sides of the plate (a powerful throwing arm too) when he played your team. As for A-Rod, well, of course his sheer numbers are gaudy and cartoonishly great ... mostly, IMHO, because of the steroids. It will never happen, but I've thought a drastic but perhaps fair way to factor in steroid enhancements was to officially lop off one-third or so of the career numbers of Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, Manny R., etc., call it "punishment" or consequences, and see where the totals stand. They'd likely be in keeping with what they were on track to accomplish pre-steroids (although didn't A-Rod start early with the Rangers?). But I get it: it's the cheating element that all-but disqualifies them, not adjusting numbers. Unfortunately, with Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, if they didn't get greedy and 'roid up (yes, there's no proof, I know), each of those guys would still be a HOFer based on their first decade pre-steroids. Anyway, thanks for another thoughtful piece and for inspiring the old synapses as I recover from a nasty flu!
Winfield was an RBI machine with the Yankees. Not so much with the Pads, though his best overall season came with San Diego in 1979. No doubt the upgraded talent in the Bronx helped him, and vice versa.
I'd prefer to just leave the record book alone and figure a way for writers to leave their moral judgements out of the voting process, at least for guys who aren't banned (sorry, Pete). About as much chance of that happening as lopping off a third of a player's stats, I suppose!
Nice piece, insights, and overview of Dave's career, although I'd also note that Winfield drove in 100+ RBI eight times and came close with 97 in another season, which, pre-analytics etc., was probably the best measure of a slugger's effectiveness and clutch ability: driving in teammates on base and generating runs. Such a tremendous, imposing athlete whom you respected and feared from both sides of the plate (a powerful throwing arm too) when he played your team. As for A-Rod, well, of course his sheer numbers are gaudy and cartoonishly great ... mostly, IMHO, because of the steroids. It will never happen, but I've thought a drastic but perhaps fair way to factor in steroid enhancements was to officially lop off one-third or so of the career numbers of Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, Manny R., etc., call it "punishment" or consequences, and see where the totals stand. They'd likely be in keeping with what they were on track to accomplish pre-steroids (although didn't A-Rod start early with the Rangers?). But I get it: it's the cheating element that all-but disqualifies them, not adjusting numbers. Unfortunately, with Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, if they didn't get greedy and 'roid up (yes, there's no proof, I know), each of those guys would still be a HOFer based on their first decade pre-steroids. Anyway, thanks for another thoughtful piece and for inspiring the old synapses as I recover from a nasty flu!
Winfield was an RBI machine with the Yankees. Not so much with the Pads, though his best overall season came with San Diego in 1979. No doubt the upgraded talent in the Bronx helped him, and vice versa.
I'd prefer to just leave the record book alone and figure a way for writers to leave their moral judgements out of the voting process, at least for guys who aren't banned (sorry, Pete). About as much chance of that happening as lopping off a third of a player's stats, I suppose!
Thanks for the thought-provoking note!