HOF nominees
by njjohn on Nov 27, 2009 4:14 PM EST
45 comments
The 2010 Hall of Fame ballot has been announced. Of the 26 players, yet again the most interesting nominee is McGwire, on the ballot for the fourth time. Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven are also holdovers and perhaps have the best chance at induction.
Newcomers to the ballot include Roberto Alomar, Edgar Martinez, and Fred McGriff. Nominees face a difficult task to move from a mere nominee to an inductee. It requires a 75% vote in their favor from the several hundred eligible sportswriters to secure induction. After the break I will include the full list of nominees and a breakdown on those most qualified for induction including one you might be surprised by.
The complete ballot includes the following: Roberto Alomar, Kevin Appier, Harold Baines, Bert Blyleven, Ellis Burks, Andre Dawson, Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, Ray Lankford, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Don Mattingly, Fred McGriff, Mark McGwire, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Tim Raines, Shane Reynolds, David Segui, Lee Smith, Alan Trammell, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile.
I think that can pretty easily be narrowed to the following 14 players as having a legitimate chance (with OPS+/ERA+ numbers for a quick reference):
Roberto Alomar (116 OPS+) Bert Blyleven (118 ERA+) Andre Dawson (119) Barry Larkin (116) Edgar Martinez (147) Don Mattingly (127) Fred McGriff (134) Mark McGwire (162) Jack Morris (105) Dale Murphy (121) Dave Parker (121) Tim Raines (123) Lee Smith (131) Robin Ventura (114)
It's an interesting group. There are no Rickey Hendersons among the bunch. The only lock down HOFer according to the numbers is McGwire, but we all know the *other* problem he presents. (Incidentally, I heard an HOF voter on the radio the other day stating that he wouldn't vote for McGwire, not because of steroids, but because he "wasn't an HOF caliber player." That's total hogwash. Surely McGwire K'd too much and played 1B like a statue, but the 162 OPS+ along with the other counting numbers make him a lock were it not for his probable PED use.)
Before we move past McGwire -- having had this much time from his first induction, has your opinion changed of his HOF credentials at all? I have to admit that my opinion has changed. I'm not going to go picketing for the guy or anything, but Balco and all the other testimonies have made me more and more suspicious of any HOF nominees going forward. I would support inducting McGwire, Clemens, et al, but would want some note of the suspicion/proof of their PED use noted.
Onto the other candidates: for some reason (Chicago homerism: cough, cough) Andre Dawson continues to get widespread support from the voting community and despite the anecdotal evidence that he was a good fielder (we don't have any fielding metrics going back to his hey day, mind you), I just don't see any way that an OF with a career 119 OPS+ warrants HOF induction.
Bert Blyleven, on the other hand, seems to get penalized for being stuck with crummy teams for his entire career, and it is likely the fact that three of his final four seasons were awful, the lasting memory of him among those who were still around wasn't as sparkling as it was before. It seems to me Blyleven deserves a nod.
The player it might surprise you most that I would vote for is Fred McGriff. The Crime Dog also spent most of his career mired in poor teams, but his counting numbers (nearly 2500 hits, 500 HRs) along with his outstanding OPS+ of 134 put him just into the HOF, in my opinion. Sure, he played at a position with offensive fire power, but none more so than OF, where players with sub 120 OPS+'s are routinely considered. Furthermore, check out his baseball reference page, where all four of his offensive measurables they have ranked as HOF worthy. I doubt McGriff makes so much as a wave in the voting, though, which is too bad.
None of the other players, in my opinion, deserve inclusion, although the Alomar certainly deserves a long look since his numbers were put up at a position that is historically offensively challenged. Edgar Martinez and Lee Smith also deserve long looks, although, while both have sparkling numbers, they did it at positions where such numbers are expected to be well above the norm (DH, closer).
0 recs |
45 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I voted for Bert
while I know that a goodly number of our posters here are sabermetric adherents, I also believe that you can’t judge a career solely by the numbers and profess to have an understanding of their impact. The game is still played by humans after all and during his time in the game Blyleven was one of the best, regardless of the team he played on. I don’t think anyone ever had the feeling of “there’s the best player that I’ve ever seen” when Blyleven pitched, but each time you had a pretty good feeling that Blyleven would either find a way to help his team to win or else it would be a close game that he kept his squad in. If you want a comparison, think Dan Haren from last year and then extrapolate that over a fifteen year period. Maybe for some he simply falls into the category of the “pretty good” if so, then we need to do some purging of the halls imho, based on the criteria that has been established by past admissions, I believe that Blyleven has met that standard. guys like Bert are often dissed because everyone seems to think that HOF players only play on chamionship teams, which is total bs.
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....
by piratedan7 on Nov 27, 2009 4:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’d love to be able to figure out what Bly’s career numbers would have been had he retired four seasons (or even two seasons) earlier. My hunch is that his sabermetric numbers would have looked even better (although frankly, even by sabermetric standards, they’re pretty good numbers).
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 27, 2009 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Go to his b-ref page
Click on his rookie year row so that it turns blue. Then click on whatever year end row you want, and it’ll sum up all the career to date totals for you.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Nov 27, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow. What a great tool. Career ERA+ through 1987 = 124; through 1989 = 121.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 27, 2009 7:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Blyleven
it’s still a travesty that he has not been elected into the hall of fame… and it’s a crock saying that because he fell 13 wins short of 300 that is preventing it. 3701 strikeouts 3.31 career ERA 1.20 career WHIP… those are hall of fame stats hands down.
Professional Lurker... if you see this, there may be a problem..
by GuruB on Nov 27, 2009 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I voted for Bert
although its too bad that Jack Morris isn’t getting more attention. He was an excellent pitcher, solid citizen, and had a long, effective career.
by NASCARbernet on Nov 27, 2009 9:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would love
for everyone here to do away with the stupid sabermetrics. Whenever you start over-analyzing a player’s day/week/season/career, you are trying to either make him seem better or worse than he is. I know that ballpark dimensions, field surface, clubhouse cockroach infestation, and hot dog meat content profoundly influences on-field performance, but please, spare me the nitpicking. BA, OBP, slug, ERA, and K/BB are the only stats worth using.
Bring back the Baltimore Chop!
by dima1109 on Dec 1, 2009 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you kidding or seriously living in the dark ages?
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Dec 1, 2009 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I think he's onto something.
The only stat of any value that I’d add is RISP w/2 outs on Tuesdays in the 5th inning. That really gives you a clear look at the best hitters and most clutch pitchers.
by Azreous on Dec 2, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On Tuesdays?
Oh, come on, dude! We’ve had this discussion! Tuesdays are a junk stat.
And how are you ignoring BABIP with runners on in the second game of a day-night doubleheader, north of the Mason-Dixon line?
"Spam headline: 'YOU ARE CHOSEN!' Oh, Morpheus, you're getting pretty lazy."
"Or they are informing you you are Jewish in a very lame conversion campaign."
"In either case, sending me spam is not the way to invite me to Zion."
by kishi on Dec 2, 2009 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well all that is well and good
but is the wind blowing in or out or is it instead going from left to right or right to left?
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....
by piratedan7 on Dec 2, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot the most important component
On Astroturf.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 2, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lol. very funny.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Dec 2, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dawson
I loved him as a kid but looking at the numbers as put them, they really just don’t add up.
by Spaghetti_Monster on Nov 27, 2009 6:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
nope, not at all.
Before we move past McGwire — having had this much time from his first induction, has your opinion changed of his HOF credentials at all?
This must mean that Barry Bonds will get serious consideration then, correct?
"If there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe!"
by unnamedDBacksfan on Nov 27, 2009 7:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I also think Bonds deserves to be in (with the PEDs charges noted). I know this is heresy here at the Pit, but I just don’t see any other way of dealing with the mess that baseball has been for the past 20 years.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 27, 2009 7:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All those sins
seem to be placed on Bonds shoulders. He (Bonds) wasn’t paid to be as nice as Mr Rogers. If the solution is to place a huge asterisk over this era of baseball, then so be it. But I cannot see how McGwire gets in and Bonds does not.
"If there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe!"
by unnamedDBacksfan on Nov 27, 2009 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Point taken
although I wouldn’t support the election of either, given that they made choices that ultimately hurt the game.
by NASCARbernet on Nov 27, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The criteria is supposed to involve “a player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, and character.” Three of those five criteria would, ostensibly, be non-performance related in nature and keep out the McGwires and Bonds and McGraws and Cobbs of the world. But in practice those three have been largely ignored except in cases the establishment has (arbitrarily?) decided a “line” has been crossed (Jackson, Rose).
I think, while noble, those standards are largely meaningless in practice and should either be retroactively applied to the entire HOF (which would mean booting some significant names out) or eliminated.
As it pertains to this era, I just don’t see how we’re going to make decisions on dozens of players without proper evidence re: their PED use. Nailing those who have been outed (or at least, by popular opinion, have been considered guilty) seems like whitewashing a muddy fence.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 28, 2009 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Raines
Alomar
Blyleven
Larkin
Trammell
Provisional No’s:
McGwire
McGriff
Edgar
The last three were rather one dimensional players who could really hit. It’s possible they all deserve it, however I’d like my understanding of PEDs to improve before I irreversibly knight them. We’ve learned a great deal about PED penetration in just the past couple years, and I’d like the benefit of additional information and disclosures.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Nov 27, 2009 8:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree on Larkin and respect your thinking re: holding off to gain perspective on PEDs. But why Raines? Wasn’t he a Dawson photocopy offensively speaking with (as far as I understand), worse defense?
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 27, 2009 8:41 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
And make the case for Trammell to me. 114 OPS+ from a 3B doesn’t exactly scream hoG to me.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 27, 2009 8:44 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Trammell was actually a gold glove shortstop
(he won four), who played a long time and maintained a 110 ops+, which puts him smack in the middle of historical shortstop inductees, and light years ahead of whiney cases like Dave Concepcion and Omar Vizquel. He was also the 1984 World Series MVP.
He was a contemporary of Ozzie Smith and many people kind of forgot about Trammell’s offense after Jeter, A-Rod and Garciaparra “burst” onto the scene. But evaluating his career, he’s one of the fifteen best shortstops ever….and possibly one of the top ten.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Nov 27, 2009 9:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Shows you what I know...
… for some reason I remembered him at 3B. 110 OPS+ is pushing it for any position, but checking now he did win several gold gloves (of course that doesn’t mean too much, but without stats, how else can one judge?), so I’m fine with that.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 28, 2009 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Defensively
Trammell was about 80 runs above average SS, career. For perspective, here’s a list of quality shortstops who are praised for their defense in various quarters:
Ozzie +239
Belanger +238
Ripken + 176
Vizquel +128
Trammell +81
Campaneris +71
Bill Russell +50
Concepcion +48
Rollins +47
Furcal +37
Bud Harrelson +34
Nomar +33
Bowa +30
Templeton +29
Larkin +28
Yount +25
Renteria -10
Hanley Ramirez -10
Stephen Drew -11
Roy Smalley -13
Shawon Dunston -91
Jeter -123
Ripken was a better hitter than Trammell (112 ops+ v 110), but you have to scroll pretty far down to find anyone else who hit nearly as well. Down to Nomar’s abbreviated career (124 ops+), Larkin (116) and Yount (115) – and, of course, to Cinderella Jeter(121).
Hall of Fame shortstops, by OPS+
Wagner 150
Arky Vaughan 136
Banks 122 (played SS only nine seasons)
Boudreau 120
Cronin 119
Larkin 116?
Yount 115
Appling 112
Ripken 112
Trammell 110 ?
Pesky 108
Sewell 108
Reese 99
Tinker 95
Rizzuto 93
Ozzie 87
Aparicio 82
Maranville 82
The HOF wont combust if Trammell’s shut out, but I think he’s about as good as your average Hall of Fame shortstop. To play that position twenty years, til you’re 38, and be a career net plus defensively, while maintaining a 110 ops+ all that time, may not merit MVP awards and oohs and ahhs – but it’s a rarer acheivement than many people think.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Nov 29, 2009 1:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair defensively
but much better offensively than Dawson, due to the wheels. Raines created as many runs, per game (6.6) and over their careers (1636), as Tony Gwynn. Gets discounted for being a crackhead, toiling in Montreal and being a leadoff contemporary of Rickie Henderson, but Raines was a phenomenal offensive player – arguably second or third best leadoff man all time.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Nov 27, 2009 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I still don’t see how he gets in. I’ll grant you he was better than Dawson (although in my book, Dawson shouldn’t be near the HOF doors), but I still don’t think he’s quite good enough.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 28, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Raines will have a tough time
getting in, because he didnt dazzle in the traditional Triple Crown categories (HR, RBI, BA) and voters tend to discount his strengths (Runs, OBP, BB, SB, SB%, low GIDP, etc).
Defensively, he was about a run worse than “Gold Glover” Tony Gwynn, each year. Offensively, as noted above, they’re value was identical. In terms of overall value, they’re incredibly close. Yet Gwynn was a near unanimous first ballot shoo- in, whereas Raines barely registers.
The big reason, I think, is that Gwynn derived his value in a manner we’re more comfortable and familiar with. He sprayed alot of hits, had a high average, was a maestro with the bat and all that Carew batting title stuff. All Raines did was walk alot – alot more than Tony. But if you extracted thirty walks each year out of Raines BB column and added thirty singles instead, you’d basically have Tony Gwynn. Raines would have 3000 hits, several 200 hit seasons and be hitting north of .320. Instead, he’s got 2600 hits, zero 200 hit seasons and he hit .294.
So, naturally, half the BBWAA finds Raines barely indistinguishable from Otis Nixon
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Nov 29, 2009 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
barely indistinguishable
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Nov 29, 2009 2:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought I'd pop in and say
That my family’s very good friends with Edgar Martinez’s nephew. To stay on topic:
I don’t see how I always seem to think of McGwire as the “good guy” and Bonds as evil one, but I do. Bonds seems to just be the figurehead for the entire steroid era (well, he is) and McGwire… I dunno. I’ve always felt more sympathy towards him. I wouldn’t mind McGwire in the HoF, but I’d absolutely hate seeing Bonds make it in.
Warning: the above represents the thoughts and opinions of a 16-year-old.
Wanna see how bad I suck at softball? See my stats...
by Wailord on Nov 28, 2009 3:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
That double standard though
is hypocrisy at its finest.
Why would you feel sympathy for a cheater like McGwire and hatred towards Bonds? I feel nothing but utter disgust for Markie mcgwire, probably the same feeling you have towards Bonds. I guess I just will never understand this double standard
"If there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe!"
by unnamedDBacksfan on Nov 29, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Without wishing to open a can of worms here
There seems to be more of a perception that McGwire’s use is his “tragic flaw”, to use a line more common when discussing Shakesperean characters such as Macbeth – a generally good-guy with one flaw that destroys him. Bonds, on the other hand, is largely regarded as a complete a-hole, with few redeeming features, and has been since his college days, IIRC. The room for sympathy there is a good deal less.
[Note. I’m not saying this is how I feel, just attempting to explain the general public view]
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Nov 29, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Opening a can
That is the general public view, that Bonds is more of a douche, but your stark dichotomy between a “complete A-hole” and some poor Shakespearean hero vanquished by “one tragic flaw”, seems indicative of the bias under discussion.
Barry and Mark are both frauds, but McGwire’s career is almost assuredly the more fundamental lie, in that his PED use came earlier and was more integral to his HOF numbers than Bonds’ late career usage was to his. I mean, it’s awfully curious how often fans’ HOF stances on Bonds & McGwire seem to gravitate around the normally peripheral issue of which player was “the bigger A-hole”, rather than, say, that Bonds earned impeccable HOF credentials as a skinny, clean Pirate and Giant for a dozen years, while his most viable competition (incl McGwire) literally used up the ass.
Why contemplate such damning distinctions when we all “know” McGwire is a Shakespearean good guy and Bonds the black hearted evildoer, who uniquely stained the game. This ‘knowledge’, after all, is so paramount to HOF consideration. Character and Jay Bell and all ;-)
Bonds’ near certain usage taints his historical claim as the greatest hitter ever and as the All Time Home Run king. That’s the extent of his fraud. PEDs dont call into question his objective qualifications as a mere Hall of Famer, however. He was an unequivocal Hall of Famer before pretenders and MLB enablers effectively diminished his legacy by condoning rampant drug use and artificial acheivement.
It’s less clear if McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Thome, Bagwell, etc would be Hall worthy without the benefit of PEDs. Each candidate deserves a fair hearing, but let’s be honest. It’s much, much less clear.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Nov 29, 2009 11:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just one part of the equation
PEDs dont call into question his objective qualifications as a mere Hall of Famer, however. He was an unequivocal Hall of Famer
Except, of course, that Hall of Fame credentials are absolutely not limited to game performance. From the Hall of Fame site:
Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.Half the criteria, in fact, can’t be found at baseball-reference.com. While Bonds’ numbers would still likely have been HoF quality if he hadn’t got pally with Victor Conte and the BALCO boys – there’s also no denying (except by the most fervent Bazza apologists) that Bonds has a long record of deficiency in the areas highlighted above.
Now, you can argue there are some pretty suspect characters in the HoF e.g. Ty Cobb. However, he was elected in 1936, in a very different world from now, and so that’s irrelevant unless you think we should judge all candidates by 1936 standards.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Nov 30, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn't it be said though
that McGwire is also suspect in at least two of these areas?
Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
In my opinion, those two highlighted were grossly violated by one Mr McGwire and for me, to see the scorn heaped on Bonds while McGwire skates off into the sunset just doesn’t seem right. I have enough scorn and disdain to all involved. Just my half cent.
"If there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe!"
by unnamedDBacksfan on Nov 30, 2009 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We'll see what happens when Bonds gets on the ballot
I think it helps him in the court of public opinion that McGwire has kept a very low public profile from his retirement in 2001 until his announcement as a hitting coach, save the congressional hearings in 2005.
I wouldn’t vote for either of them going into the HoF at this point; too many questions, and it’s basically impossible to UNelect someone from Cooperstown [has it ever been done?]. There’s absolutely no rush.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 1, 2009 6:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t vote for either of them going into the HoF at this point; too many questions
What questions do you have about Bonds, relative to his HOF qualifications? Questions whose resolutions could conceivably lead you to supporting his candidacy. You’ve been propping him up as The Bane of Baseball for so long, it’s hard to imagine circumstances under which you’d support his induction.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 3, 2009 1:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I dunno...
Some honesty from Bonds might be nice? Openness about his actions? Full co-operation with the investigating authorities? A sincere apology? Hell, even PSA’s denouncing steroid use?
There’s plenty he could be doing to convince people he doesn’t rate close to a complete zero in half the HoF criteria. Not holding my breath though.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 3, 2009 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As I stated earlier in this thread, I think the HOF either needs to go through its halls and retroactively apply these criteria to the enshrined players or revise the criteria that are actually being used: the player’s record, playing ability, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
The only of the other three that is applied in any shape or form has been “integrity” — but that has been done with great irregularity.
My feeling has come to be that Bonds ought to be in the HOF and McGwire probably should be in the HOF.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Dec 1, 2009 8:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
have a hard time
saying Bonds wouldn’t be worthy just based on his carer as a Pirate alone imho,
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....
by piratedan7 on Dec 1, 2009 10:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Roberto Alomar
Would be the first Diamondback player to enter the HoF. Of course, he won’t go in as a Diamondback, but it’s still kinda cool that he played for us.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Nov 28, 2009 10:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
That didn’t occur to me. And I think he’ll probably go in. But it will likely take a few years. Johnson or Schilling still might be him in (as Johnson will go in the first ballot and Schilling likely within the first few tries).
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
by njjohn on Nov 28, 2009 11:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Still waiting on Dawson
The guy deserves a spot- one of six players with 300+ home runs and stolen bases, the only eligible player with over 1000 extra base hits that isn’t in the Hall of Fame yet, he played great defense, and probably would have had an even more impressive career if it weren’t for the Olympic Stadium screwing up his knees.
"Spam headline: 'YOU ARE CHOSEN!' Oh, Morpheus, you're getting pretty lazy."
"Or they are informing you you are Jewish in a very lame conversion campaign."
"In either case, sending me spam is not the way to invite me to Zion."
by kishi on Nov 28, 2009 12:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm a fan
Of Edgar Martinez. Yeah, he was a one-trick pony, one of those unholy DH-types us NL purists despise. But he was almost a perfect hitter – More career walks than strikeouts. 500 doubles, 300 home runs, OPS+ of 147 over the span of eighteen seasons. The guy instilled fear in pitchers from his fourth year in the majors (and first season of over 100 games, 1990) until his second-to-last season in the majors (until that whole 2004 debacle), with a one year haitus (injury-shortened 1993). That’s thirteen years of fear.
The numbers of course are one thing, and perhaps this is just me here, but I always have a thing for a guy who plays his entire career in one place, regardless of sport. Edgar never left for more money, and didn’t try to extend his career when it was over by taking middling contracts with the Orioles or Nationals. Granted, it’s not always up to the players, but teams aren’t usually purposefully trying to deal their stars. That’s the kind of thing that makes me respect guys like Edgar, John Stockton, Larry Bird, Cal Ripken, Craig Biggio, and Ted Williams. Because for every one of them, there are fifteen Jordan’s, Malone’s, Payton’s, etc. I know the latter two did so to try to get a ring, but, at least personally, I would rather retire with a legacy deeply rooted in one team than try to chase a title with a rival of that team.
Most Depressing Math Question Ever courtesy of Probability class: "Clark and Anthony are two old friends. Let A be the event that Clark will attend Anthony's funeral. Let B be the event that Anthony will attend Clark's funeral. Are A and B independent? Why or why not?"
by IHateSouthBend on Nov 29, 2009 4:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think
Mattingly and Blylevyn deserve to go and I’m glad the veterans committee chose Herzog. That was a real slight since his career win numbers are good.
by Reynolds rapper on Dec 9, 2009 11:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
