I've Been Thinking

    A lot of writers (including myself at times), when evaluating a Hall of Fame candidate, look at a player's late start almost as a point in his favor. They'll right stuff like, "Hoyt Wilhelm was one of the greatest relief pitchers of all time. He pitched 1,070 games, won 143 of them, captured two ERA Titles, and had 228 career saves. And all after his 29th birthday." Now this is all true, but then you'll hear the author explain why this makes him better than Mariano Rivera, and keep referring to his late start, and giving him credit for his age 21-28 seasons. (In this particular example, that doesn't quite cut it because Rivera probably had two or three good years left in him when he quit, but I'm making a different point here.) The writer says, "If he had debuted younger, he certainly would have 175 wins and 3,000 innings, and a shot at 300 saves." However, the bottom line is that he never actually recorded those additional figures. The New York Giants had to make do with other players when Wilhelm wasn't with them. Again, this wasn't the best example (Wilhelm actually fought in WWII, including the Battle of the Bulge, so he probably would have made it to the Majors earlier), but it illustrates my point. If a player is trapped in the minors until he's 30 and finally gets his call up at an advanced age, whose problem is that? If the player produces counting statistics that rival some of the greats after their age 30 seasons, would that alone make him one of the greats? No. It's something to think about.