Future Baseball Legends

[Jack of Arcades]

The problem is that it's1 lazy sportswriting that is creating this. Rather than finding something to actually write about, they write another article about David Eckstein's hustle.

Eric Neel embracing this is terrible.

[Rubeskies]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that it's1 lazy sportswriting that is creating this. Rather than finding something to actually write about, they write another article about David Eckstein's hustle.

Eric Neel embracing this is terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree that his conclusion that this is a great thing is off. But he isn't just writing another article about Eckstein's hustle. He is examining WHY we write articles about Eckstein's hustle and why people read them. Perhaps contributing to instead of debunking the legend was a mistake on Neel's part, but he brings up some interesting issues.

[pauliewalnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
And Johan Santana -- who, while undeniably great, also is undeniably uninteresting, sparkless, without flair or fearsomeness.


[/ QUOTE ]

Admittedly, I've never faced the guy, but I find this a little hard to believe. He obviously isnt as imposing as Randy Johnson, but still it isnt like youre facing Jamie Moyer. I'm sure many a player has been intimidated by Johan these past few years.

Obviously though, in regards to the article, he is far from a legend.

[MuresanForMVP]

damn JoA, you're wigging out for no reason. Different people remember different players for different reasons. If both players stopped playing today, who do you think more would recognize in 15-20 years: David Eckstein or Bobby Abreu? That doesn't mean Eck's better, he's just more memorable therefore more likely to fit into our definition of "legendary".

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
If both players stopped playing today, who do you think more would recognize in 15-20 years: David Eckstein or Bobby Abreu? That doesn't mean Eck's better, he's just more memorable therefore more likely to fit into our definition of "legendary".

[/ QUOTE ]

In 15-20 years how many people are going to recognize David Eckstein? Certainly not many.

He'll be about as recognizable as Craig Counsell.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If both players stopped playing today, who do you think more would recognize in 15-20 years: David Eckstein or Bobby Abreu? That doesn't mean Eck's better, he's just more memorable therefore more likely to fit into our definition of "legendary".

[/ QUOTE ]

In 15-20 years how many people are going to recognize David Eckstein? Certainly not many.

He'll be about as recognizable as Craig Counsell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that's true, but if Abreu doesn't go to the Yankees then Eckstein has a far better name recognition factor right now. It's hard to say who will be recognized 15-20 years from now, but I believe if they both stopped playing at this very moment noone would give a damn about Abreu while there would be people who still remembered Eckstein.

[Triumph36]

no thoughts to David Eckstein becoming another Bobby Richardson? His name is at least better remembered than Counsell or Lemke - though that may be NY bias talking.

[Jack of Arcades]

Sure, we think his name is more remembered now, but it wasn't long ago that Craig Counsell had that crazy batting stance, scored the winning run in the world series, and nearly was on base when the winning run was scored in another world series.

Mark Lemke might well be a carbon copy of Eckstein. Short guy, good glove (Eckstein's good defensively despite his arm) and a reputation for being clutch. Lemke bat .400 in a couple of series (91 WS, 96 NLCS) despite having only 1 postseason home run.

Of course, Lemke was pretty forgettable. So is Eckstein.

[Triumph36]

Lemke didn't win a WS with that kind of performance.

I feel like Bobby Richardson is a good analogue, though he won a WS MVP in defeat. Still, his career average was .266, career OBP .299, but he hit .305/.331 in 131 postseason ABs.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]

He is examining WHY we write articles about Eckstein's hustle and why people read them. Perhaps contributing to instead of debunking the legend was a mistake on Neel's part, but he brings up some interesting issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

He writes like 4 sentences about Eck, and it's nothing new. He's not examining anything, really.

I normally think Neel is one of the better Page 2 guys, because he usually writes fun pieces and doesn't stray too far from what he's good at. But this is a really bad article.