Hall of Fame Ballot 2010

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

on the ballot for the first time are Roberto Alomar, Edgar Martinez, Barry Larkin, Fred McGriff, Kevin Appier, Ellis Burks, Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, Ray Lankford, Shane Reynolds, David Segui, Robin Ventura and Todd Zeile.

i don't remember mike jackson : /

http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/resources/2006/06/seguiforearm.jpg

i used 2 <3 big cat galarraga

is larkin gonna make it? he strikes me as close

shane reynolds sounds familiar but i have no idea who he is

Good luck, Barry Larkin.

my ballot:

Roberto Alomar
Bert Blyleven
Edgar Martinez
Mark McGwire
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell

Alomar for sure. I'm in Toronto, where he's completed a full-360: from godlike status in '92-'93, to pretty much being run out of town three years later (and, post-spitting incident, getting crucified every return visit for the next few years; the one game I saw I made it a point to applaud loudly every time he came up), to again being treated worshipfully post-retirement (they had to close off his table two hours beforehand when he was here for an alumni autograph-session last summer). For what it's worth, I don't discount the HIV rumours, the truth of which would certainly help explain his bafflingly abrupt decline. I'd like to see Edgar Martinez get in there too, although I wish his greatest years (1995-2001) didn't fit so neatly into the steroid era. (If you consider that a non-issue, then he oughta go in; I'm still wavering.) And I'd take Lee Smith over Bruce Sutter any day.

Roberto Alomar
Bert Blyleven
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell

i'm just not sure on mcgwire anymore.

can anyone post keith law's ballot as posted on his blog today? i'm not a premium espn member...

Law selected:

Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, Bert Blyleven, Alan Trammell, Roberto Alomar, Edgar Martinez and Barry Larkin.

i don't think he should get in but i hope fred mcgriff sticks around for a few voting cycles

i have nothing useful/interesting to add here.
but every time i see Bert Blyleven's name i think of a list someone linked to once of some announcers weirdo nicknames for people - and of course - Bert "Be Home Blyleven".
that is all.

My 2010 Hall of Fame ballot

Monday, November 30, 2009 | Feedback | Print Entry

I don't have a ballot for the Hall of Fame yet -- just nine years to go -- but if I did, my ballot would include:

Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, Bert Blyleven, Alan Trammell, Roberto Alomar, Edgar Martinez and Barry Larkin.

I've written about Raines and his embarrassing vote totals before; I'm not clear on why a tremendous base stealer who reached base more times in his career and hit for more power than Tony Gwynn can't get even a third of the voters to list him on their ballots. Blyleven is one of the 20 or so best pitchers in the history of the game but didn't earn enough wins -- which are about as relevant to an evaluation of pitching performance as hat size -- and is going to struggle to get in before his 15 years are up. McGwire isn't in largely because the voters didn't like what he said in front of Congress, and even though all we know about his use of performance-enhancing drugs is that he used a supplement that was permitted by MLB at the time, he's been branded a cheat and ostracized. Trammell has no shot to get in, but I would vote for him because he was an above-average hitting shortstop and plus defender who had the misfortune to be a close contemporary of Cal Ripken, one of the best players in the history of the game.

Roberto Alomar should waltz in on the first ballot, although I get the sense that he won't. He was, during his peak, pretty clearly seen as a Hall-bound player, the best second baseman in the game for several years and one of its best overall players, while playing on good teams (not that it should matter, but it does). He played on two World Series champions and several other playoff teams, hit well in the postseason, was a very good defender for much of his career, added a lot of value on the bases (from 1994 to 2003, he was never caught 10 times in any season and stole 227 bases against 47 times he was caught), and finished with a 116 OPS+, dragged down by a nasty, brutish and short decline phase that coincided with his trade from Cleveland to the Mets. What may be hurting his candidacy is that very phase: He flopped in a major market, and his eventual retirement came after one of the worst spring training innings I have ever personally witnessed. He also has taken hits to the intangible part of his candidacy, both legitimate (the spitting-on-the-ump incident) and illegitimate (the unproven smears in his ex-girlfriend's lawsuit). None of those things affect his value on the field to the teams that employed him, which has to be the main criterion for enshrinement. He should be in.

Edgar Martinez's case is almost as clear-cut and yet far more controversial because he spent most of his career as a DH. We should absolutely discount his statistics based on his inability to play a position, but even for a DH, Edgar was outstanding. He spent his whole career in good pitchers' parks and still managed a .418 OBP and a .933 OPS; by comparison, Frank Thomas, who should go in on the first ballot in 2013, had a .417 career OBP and .974 OPS. Martinez's career started late (he wasn't a full-timer until he was 27) and he peaked late (age 32 was his first OPS over 1.000, and his OPS was .993 or better for the next five years). But at age 41, his abilities slipped noticeably and, to his credit, he decided to hang 'em up. It left him well short of the commonly used milestone numbers for hitters -- he didn't reach 3,000 hits or 400 homers, although he's 40th all-time in walks drawn -- and he adds no value to his candidacy through glovework. I hope he gets in, but I'm not sanguine about his chances this year.

The main argument against Larkin is his relative lack of playing time. He reached 140 games played -- an arbitrary standard for a full season -- only seven times in his career, one of which was the 2002 season, which demonstrated that he shouldn't be playing every day even if he could. But he was probably the best player in the game in 1995 and followed it up with a huge 1996 season, posted an OPS+ of 116 for his career while playing a good shortstop and adding value on the bases and has the ancillary things that seem to matter to voters (an MVP, 12 All-Star appearances, some postseason time). His stats hold up very well against other shortstops in the Hall, and while his career was short (in terms of playing time) by Hall standards, it's more than long enough, with roughly 15 full seasons of plate appearances to his credit.

Returning to the holdovers, I expect Andre Dawson will get in this year on the heels of the election of the inferior Jim Rice. If Rice is in, Dawson probably belongs, but I don't think I'd be a party to it. Dawson posted a .323 career OBP, including six full seasons in which he couldn't even muster .310, while playing the majority of his games at positions (mostly right field, with a smattering of games in left and at DH) where the offensive standard is high. Yes, you will hear the argument that the value of OBP wasn't recognized during Dawson's career to the extent that it is today and that he shouldn't be penalized for it. But OBP measures how often a hitter doesn't make an out, and if you think that players, coaches and executives in the 1970s and 1980s didn't realize that making outs was bad, you are saying that people in the game in that era were, collectively, a giant box of rocks.

I didn't make Wins Above Replacement an explicit criterion on my ballot, but as it turns out, there are six hitters on the ballot right now who rank among the top 100 in baseball history in WAR, and I'd vote for all six, and no other hitters. Note that Lou Whitaker, who fell off the ballot after just one year, ranks 54th.

Notes

• The best sportswriter in the world, Joe Posnanski, runs down recent Hall candidates who were "one and done" -- they spent one year on the ballot and received a handful of votes but didn't receive enough to stick around. He leads with Whitaker.

• WEEI's Alex Speier writes about the risk of signing Roy Halladay, given how unusual it would be for a pitcher to maintain Halladay's workload through his mid-30s. I tend to agree with his caveat, though:

Of course, Halladay would seem to merit special consideration. His frame, mechanics, pitch efficiency and track record all suggest a pitcher who is freakishly durable.

He's also never had a major arm injury. If I was going to bet on any starter to throw 800 innings over the next four years, it would probably be Doc.

• Twins bonus baby Miguel Angel Sano will play under his formal name, Miguel Jean, according to MLB.com's Kelly Theiser. Within the same mailbag, she speculates that the Twins are "intrigued" by Jarrod Washburn and Rich Harden.

• MVN's Tyler Hissey points out that next winter's free-agent class is "loaded." He includes players with options for 2011, but even if you remove those names, the class still potentially includes Joe Mauer, Lance Berkman, Carl Crawford, Jayson Werth, Halladay and Cliff Lee.

• Richard Justice wants your suggestions on how to build the 2010 Astros. Can you release the owner? He defends, in a way, GM Ed Wade and shadow GM Tal Smith, but criticism of those two men seems quite valid given their recent track record. The Astros have been expensive and poorly constructed for the past two years, and there's a long fallow period coming before the young players added by scouting director Bobby Heck and his staff can help at the big league level.

• Fangraphs' Erik Manning points out that two sets of defensive projections show some good defense for Cincinnati in 2010.

• Shawn at Squawking Baseball points out that MLB's habit of keeping its books closed allows Scott Boras to say whatever he wants about revenue sharing.

• I have never played Strat-o-Matic, but I know many of you have, so you might enjoy this NPR interview with founder Hal Richman and researcher Scott Simkus.

• You all kept the bones from your Thanksgiving turkeys, right? And made or plan to make stock from them? I've got the bones (and the neck) in a Ziploc bag in my freezer, ready to throw in a stock pot once I exhaust my current supply of chicken stock. It's one of the most indispensable ingredients for any cook, especially in winter, when soups and comfort foods are the order of the day.

i gotta believe edgar gets in sooner than people think and does a lot better on the ballot than people think, too. mostly because i get the sense people just really like him, and i get the sense that some of these other dudes have had trouble because they're regarded as "prickly" or something.

Thanks, cankles.

Cannot argue with any of that.

I can. Turkey stock is just as valuable in summer as it is in winter, with a .809 S/BSC% (stock:bowls of soup created). wtf is KLaw thinking gawd.

Jayson Stark is correct about Fred McGriff:

Weighing McGriff's HOF candidacy

Monday, November 30, 2009 | Print Entry

I haven't even gotten my Hall of Fame ballot in the mail yet. But how come I already have the impression Fred McGriff's candidacy is going to get trampled in the Roberto Alomar/Barry Larkin/Edgar Martinez debate?

I haven't decided yet whether I'm absolutely, positively voting for McGriff. But I think the people who have concluded -- way too quickly -- that he's not a Hall of Famer just because his 493 home-run trots don't mean what 493 home-run trots used to mean are missing something:

Fred McGriff's greatest years came BEFORE the numbers exploded on us in 1993.

This man was a difference-maker before the world went haywire on us. So how come so many people are lumping him in there with the rest of the PED generation?

I understand that those 12 seasons from 1993-2004 comprise two-thirds of McGriff's career. But let's look at the numbers he put up early in his career, when 30-homer seasons were a feat for real, live middle-of-the-order mashers, not No. 6 hitters:

From 1988-92, McGriff had four seasons with an adjusted OPS-plus of 153 or better, more than anyone else in either league.

Both of his two home run titles came in that span (1989 and '92).

He finished in the top four in his league in home runs, OPS and home run ratio in all five of those years. And how many other players could say that? How about zero.

And if we expand his period of greatness through 1994, consider this: McGriff ripped off seven straight 30-homer seasons from 1988-94. OK, that may not seem like much of a streak now, considering there have been 11 streaks that long since then. But at the time, the only players in history who had hit 30-plus at least seven years in a row were Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Eddie Mathews, Mike Schmidt, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron and Ralph Kiner. For more info on those men, go to Google and type in the word, "Cooperstown."

So this perception that McGriff wasn't a feared slugger at any point in his career is just flat wrong. He finished in the top 10 in six MVP elections, ranked among the league leaders in intentional walks eight times and had a bunch of great Octobers (.303, with 10 homers and a .917 OPS in 50 postseason games).

Now does that make him a lock Hall of Famer? Absotively not. The point here is that Fred McGriff isn't a guy whose credentials should be hurt by the PED era. If anything, he ought to be helped by it -- because he was pretty close to the same player from 1993 on that he was before 1993. Take a look:

• 1988-92: .283 average, .393 OBP, .531 slugging.

• 1993-2002: .290 average, .373 OBP, .506 slugging.

As the steroid age raged around him, he kept on doing pretty much exactly what he'd always done. Except that if you were a 31-homer, 102-RBI kind of guy in 1991, you had a chance to lead the league. If you were the same kind of guy in 2001, there were about 36 other men doing the same thing.

So the question us Hall of Fame voters need to ask about players like this is a big one:

Should we factor in the strong likelihood that Fred McGriff was one of The Clean Ones when we vote, and when we measure him against his peers?

And the answer, for this voter, is: You're darned right we should.

McGriff played for my team and I never felt like I was watching a hall of famer when I was watching him.

same

anybody who watched the Braves in '93 and '94 had to think he had a good shot at the Hall.

i was a mark lemke fan~

the lemmer~~~~~~

ya, same here. weird.

xposts

mcgriff was sort of the second coming of billy williams

McGriff has better numbers than Williams, who is, of course, in the Hall already.

after the strike i stopped watching baseball for quite a while. might explain why i never thought McGriff=hof. Stark's got me convinced tho!

Billy Williams' prime was in a truly depressed offensive era. His lifetime OPS+ was 133, McGriff's was 134. I don't know for sure if Williams was deserving, but "that guy is in, so we must put this guy in" is the road to hell.

also, Stark is a dumbass, and I stop reading anything as soon as I see a phrase like "clean players."

mcgriff is at worst a "close call" imo, he was pretty amazing relative to other players (offensively speaking) from '88-'94, i guess his "problem" is that he didn't start hitting 45 HR and driving in 150 like a lot of other players during the last half of the '90s, he kinda stuck around 30/100/.510/.880

without the strike he'd have his 500 HRs, his 40 homer season, and a plaque in Cooperstown. he might still get one, but it'll probably take longer than it should.

The best sportswriter in the world, Joe Posnanski

guhhhhhh

the lemmer~~~~~~

loool

I think the hall needs fewer marginal guys like McGriff, not more.

i think it needs more J's, not less.

http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/11/hall_of_famers_and_numbers_wit.html

keith olbermann has "interesting" opinions here

Roberto Alomar- Alomar will eventually get into the hall, but this guy really fell apart all at once. He looked like a lock for 3000 hits. I think it won't happen this year.
Harold Baines- Weird career arc, but very consistent hitter. The odd thing I think about Baines is that it was a big deal when he left the White Sox the first time, he was a player very tied to his club. Heck, I think the Sox did something odd like retire his number the next time he came to town with another club. Then he became this left handed bat nomad who went to half the AL including a couple trips back to the Southside. I think the fact that he was a DH for most of his career and never really had any post season big success kind of sinks him from getting into the Hall.
Bert Blyleven- The guy was a very good pitcher for a long time spending years on many cruddy clubs. Blyleven came through a couple of times the playoffs happened for him. I think he is overdue for the hall.
Andre Dawson- Great player at his peak including at a season or so being arguably the best player in the game. Dawson lost a lot of numbers to injuries but I think the thing that will keep him out at least to the vets committee is that he pretty much stunk in the playoffs.
Barry Larkin- Larkin lost a whole lot of games to injuries, so he doesn't have the key counting stats, but he was a hell of an all around player who played in his hometown and won it all once (and an MVP). I think he will get in, but it might not happen immediately.
Fred McGriff- Crime Dog was a good player for a long time. The guy did his job for the most part in the post season when it came up, but he only won it all once (but was a big part of the Braves winning their lone title). I think he might be a bit under appreciated, as he played a long time in Toronto and San Diego. You think this would be a question if he put up all of those home runs numbers on the Yankees (and he was only one of many good prospects they gave away for nada in the 80s). I always liked him and would probably vote for him.
Mark McGwire- The guy was a freak of power. Those HR to at bat numbers are freakish. I don't know how all of those injuries and lost games figure into the use of performance enhancing drugs. I don't think he will get in for a good long time, but if you go by the numbers it is kind of silly to say he shouldn't be in the hall.
Jack Morris- The guy was a pretty good starter for years in a period of time where starters would have a couple of years and flame out. He might be one of those guys the vets committee puts in the hall down the line, as I think that ERA is going to keep the votes from ever happening.
Dale Murphy- Murphy was the best player in the game for a couple of years, but he was kind of up and down the rest of his career.
Dave Parker- Parker is a bit better player than his vote total might tell. Like Dawson, injuries kind of drug down his counting stats, but unlike the Hawk, there are the off field items that kind of follow him too being tied into that cocaine scandal in Pittsburgh. The guy had a cannon of an arm.
Tim Raines- Raines was a bad ass player who was in his prime just about as dangerous as Rickey. He got tied into coke in the 80s like many other players and that might be dragging on his total. I saw Raines play a bunch when he was in his prime with the Expos and he was pretty amazing. I'd definitely vote for him.
Lee Smith- Dude has a lot of saves, but he stunk in the playoffs. I don't think he is a hall of famer.
Alan Trammell- He was a really good player who is underrated but I think the fact that injuries slowed his career probably will keep him out of the hall.

even for a DH, Edgar was outstanding. He spent his whole career in good pitchers' parks and still managed a .418 OBP and a .933 OPS

i want edgar in as much as anyone but the kingdome
was soooo not a pitcher's park

haha, i'm kinda feeling olbermann on some of those challops, and i usually fucking despise the dude

so Olbermann wouldn't vote for Alomar, Larkin, or Trammell? Apparently middle infielders are the worst people in the world.

Anybody who wouldn't vote for Alomar doesn't understand baseball. (And this is a Mets fan who got to witness his crash.)

the thing that will keep him out at least to the vets committee is that he pretty much stunk in the playoffs

This is never a big factor (look up Willie Mays' WS hitting record sometime, not that he needed extra help getting in). Dawson, for his career, was kind of an out machine.

neither deserve the hall but Lee Smith and Ray-ray Lankford are aiight in my book

I've never been very enthusiastic about Dawson's candidacy, but I'd hardly place much weight on his post-season performance. You're talking about a 59-AB sample--two series' worth in the '81 strike season with Montreal, and one series with the Cubs in '89.

Ditto times a thousand when it comes to Lee Smith. ("Dude has a lot of saves, but he stunk in the playoffs. I don't think he is a hall of famer.") For his entire career, he pitched exactly 5.1 innings in the post-season! You're going to give that any weight whatsoever in evaluating his HOF credentials?

You are obviously not a Cubs fan.

lmao that olbermann blog post (i didnt even know he had an mlb blog) reads like a fuckin parody.

Neyer on McGriff:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/1557/fisking-the-crime-dogs-candidacy

"You are obviously not a Cubs fan."

I went back into baseballreference.com's playoff log, and I see what you're talking about now: Garvey's two-run homer in the bottom of the ninth off Smith to win Game 4. Come to think about it, I was rooting for the Cubs that year too. And having suffered through Joey McLaughlin and the '83 Jays, I've been there.

But: in Smith's only other appearance of the series, he saved Game 2; he had no part in San Diego's come-from-behind win in Game 5. I'm sure I'm taking an off-handed remark too literally, but if you are serious, you're essentially taking one inning of one playoff game and pointing to that as a reason he shouldn't go into the Hall of Fame.

To clarify: '84 NLCS.

It isn't helping Lee Smith's cause. I saw Lee Smith pitch a bunch, he was very solid and kept a good fastball well into his 30s. But 2 out of the 4 times he got the job of closing the door in a playoff game he failed. Leon Durham is ultimately the big goat of that game, but I'm sure that if say Lee Smith had fought for say 3 scoreless innings and the Cubs went to a world series, that memory would change some perceptions.

You don't think if Andre Dawson would have say clobbered 3 homers and led the Cubs to a victory over the Giants and to a World Series it would not change some perceptions of him as a player?

I think for the borderline player, that post season success is something that comes into play. Whether or not they should be there, I'd say with guys like Tony Perez or Catfish Hunter, it was a huge reason they got into the Hall of Fame.

Perez's candidacy is shaky enough, but I guarantee he didn't get in there for his post-season performance--he was awful (and over a decent sampling of almost 200 ABs). In six NLCS and five World Series, he hit .238, had an OBP of .291, and slugged .378. (His NLCS and World Series stats were very similar.) I still remember his huge home run off Bill Lee in '75, but by the looks of it, that might have been the beginning and the end of what he accomplished in October. With Hunter, yes, he was brilliant in the A's three World Series wins, and I'm sure that factored into his induction. For what it's worth, his overall post-season stats (winning pct. of .600, 3.26 ERA) were virtually identical to what he did in the regular season (.574, 3.26). I think there are rare cases where post-season performance might tip the scales; the two recent ones that come to mind are Schilling and Smoltz. But it has to be a decent-sized sampling of innings or ABs. Factoring in Lee Smith's 5.1 innings--especially, in essence, factoring in one specific inning--as a reason against his induction makes as much sense to me as arguing that Dusty Rhodes oughta go in because of four great ABs in the '54 Series.

Look up the actual games, Big Dog Perez hit huge home runs in the 75 series.

i'm not clear on the argument we're having right now. we're debating the effectiveness of PEDs for the sake of the record books? i mean, even if we all agree doing something like steroids has no effect on a players numbers whatsoever (which i'm not convinced of)(sorry) - it doesn't change the fact that alot of players were using them. how does a players ineffectiveness at cheating have any baring on the fact that they were cheating? or at least trying to?

i'm just sort of confused at this point abt why we're debating what the effect of PEDs may have been here. we know people were using them - and they wouldn't have been unless they were trying to gain an unfair advantage in some way. or are we simply looking at things from a numbers standpoint here?

i think it's a little weird to have those dudes turn in those enormous power seasons that were way beyond what they'd done before, then we discover they were dedicated PED users, and then we try to find every other reason that those three could have achieved those numbers *beyond* steroids. it's not like expansion turned a bunch of other players into 65-70 HR men. i tend to believe that maybe those three were more into the shit than others and so maybe the effects were more extreme, and coupled with their skill set foundation it just turned them into these amazing beasts? i think the circumstantial evidence is stronger that PEDs did something for these guys (because it was these guys who ended up with the record-breaking stats) more than expansion or smaller parks, b/c tbh there were very few players who had a huge leap in stats and i don't think reasons that would supposedly be applicable MLB-wide to every single player would only effect a select few this drastically.

again i say that i don't care if these guys get into the HOF eventually or not, esp. bonds since before his alleged PED use began he was already working on 10 seasons of total dominance.

I dunno, expansion and hitters ballparks have been factors in other hitting eras so I wouldn't say that we're going out of our way with those explanations. Steroids also played a factor, but the 60 homer guys are the exceptions. Expansion, ballparks, watering down of pitching, etc. affects hitting over the entire league.

i guess my question w/r/t the notion that they don't actually help is then are baseball players being conned by steroids? have they been using them (in large numbers), convinced that they're helpful, and they're actually not? are these players delusional? are the effects psychological and not physical?

I think this is a real possibility. How many players are doing the roids without any advice from someone who knows what's what? If you're a pitcher and juice and keep doing bicep curls or stupid Gape-Kapleresque shit, it's not going to make you a better player. And if you're a hitter who can't hit a curve, no amount of steroids will help you, obv.

Steroids aid in recovery (both injury and day-to-day) and building muscle. Unless we want to argue that neither of those has value in baseball, it's hard to argue that steroids do not or cannot enhance performance. Steroids used by bodybuilders or powerlifters are generally used to help them increase workload in order to build more muscle - which might be why we see so many middle relievers using. That minor percentage boost in recovery makes them marginally more effective pitching every other day, keeping them in the majors?

and then we try to find every other reason that those three could have achieved those numbers *beyond* steroids.

hey don't forget us!
http://mysearchspot.com/entertain/images/alex_rodriguez.jpghttp://www.wcbias.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/david-ortiz-manny-ramirez-steroids-red-sox-dodgers-boston-los-angeles.jpg

hi boys!

music died when ppl started using synthesizers, man

maybe synthesizers changed music in certain ways, it's possible....

gay marriage just isn't right, you know?

in my day, the ballplayers did it the right way

i guess at this point steroids probably is just another way, not a right way or wrong way.

lol k3v this is the worst random contrarianism i've ever seen

naw kevin's right, finding fault with anything ever is pining for them old days

"you think something isn't a good idea! fuck you, old man: every idea ever is great!"

"they're talking about adding a fourth strike"
"oh cool, they wouldn't be doing it unless it was awesome"

I'm the flat-earther??? Because I think drugs that give you speedier recovery, enable harder training and build muscle might help a specific type of power player hit balls harder? You're fucking nuts.

I JUST THE BIG PAPI
JUST DRINKING THE MILSHAKE (innocent blush)

COME, EAST AT BIG PAPI'S GRILLE

― sanskrit

I'm the flat-earther???

Yeah, you are. Thanks for stopping by. You might want to read the thread when you get a chance, there's some good discussion here.

lets not turn this into a mlb.com level message board here guys.

If there was no testing, I don't see how it's cheating (btw, could somebody detail Bill James invoking Babe Ruth's corked bat?

And again: THE FUCKING NFL?

...when, in fact, they all know that the drugs don't actually help them in any way.

Ballplayers believe lotsa stupid shit; many of the ones who aren't Republicans probably think Obama's an idealist.

I've never said I thought Bonds would've hit 73/755 w/out his substances. I just don't care.

(I don't think Obama would be president without the biggest campaign warchest of all time either.)

speedy recovery? *shudder*

you will recover just like everyone else, dammit!

i think that these dudes who are most deserving but who have used almost *have* to be allowed into the HOF, if only because i don't think you can realistically not include some of the great players from the past twenty years esp. when you don't know just how much they did. i was iffy on mcgwire at one point and sosa as well (among others), and while i think they were helped perhaps substantially by the PEDs, if you start to blacklist confirmed or suspected PED users than who will represent the '90s and '00s? a few pitchers (not clemens), ichiro, biggio, alomar, larkin, edgar martinez, frank thomas, griffey, and....? all of these dudes are deserving imo but i don't think you can arbitrarily allow certain guys and disallow others when tbh a couple of them might have used for awhile, and one of the guys who got caught might have used a single time. hell, maybe palmeiro never did use PEDs before his testimony and he had a small injury issue and decided to risk it. i understand both sides of this argument very well of course and i have no problem whatsoever with people (especially players who didn't use) who are pissed about it. but i do think you might as well, in the end, vote everyone in and try to make sure guys are clean in the future.

dont forget JEETZ

isn't Sportsman of the Year enough for him?

xxpost

I agree with everything you said ... but it goes even further than that, because guys who haven't tested positive yet (or are suspected PED users) may have still used. Not to point fingers at any one particular player, but it's safe to say that:

1) a majority of the players who used PED's before 2004 have yet to be caught (and will almost certainly never be caught)
2) some players from the 90's and 00's who used PED's will be elected to the HOF, and some (prob. most) of those players will never be caught

And that's the real issue here -- there is no litmus test to be sure about who used and who didn't use (barring a positive test or a confession for a very small percentage of the total number of users), so that evens the playing field and you have to look at everyone as being equal (including known users).

^^^wise poster imo^^^

http://thisisframingham.com/images/big-papi.jpg

Dawson will enter the Hall as an Expo.

that is awesome! Carter gets some company after all!

Dawson himself wanted to go in as a Cub.

there is no such thing as "going in as." It's just the plaque.

I know, I know.

And broadcasters aren't actually HOF members.

http://www.roguesbaseballindex.com/2010/01/29/the-raines-delay/

I read Rob Neyer too.

well, that's good!

Frick Award to Jon Miller.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof10/news/story?id=4877543

Well deserved, imo

He's a little gimmicky but I love listening to him call a game.

also, great Spanish pronunciation.

not just spanish, he takes a lot of pride in pronouncing foreign language names accurately. he's quite nuanced.

He really loves to roll out the Caray and Scully impressions at the SABR conventions.

any good new articles about how Dawson really doesn't belong?

Matt Klaassen of Fangraphs has a good article in ESPN Insider about how Dawson should be the baseline for entry in the hall for outfielders (if you weren't as good as Dawson, you definitely don't belong), but it isn't anti-Dawson exactly.

hey, it's another Vets Committee plan! Neyer weighs in.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/4511/hall-revamps-vets-committee-again

The voting process will now focus on three eras, as opposed to four categories, with three separate electorates to consider a single composite ballot of managers, umpires, executives and long-retired players.

Eras: Candidates will be considered in three eras -- Pre-Integration (1871-1946), Golden (1947-1972) and Expansion (1973-1989 for players; 1973-present for managers, umpires and executives).

Two Obvious Questions:

1. Golden? Really? Could you possibly have come up with a more loaded proper adjective? Aren't there already enough people who think baseball was best when there were only 16 teams and the few games on TV were in black-and-white?

2. Expansion? Beginning in 1973? The first round of expansion happened in 1961 and '62. The next -- and it was a big one -- came in 1969. Then another in 1977. What on earth makes 1973 the beginning of anything? The only thing that happened in 1973 was the designated hitter in the American League, but I can't imagine what bearing that might have on the Hall of Fame.

I haven't figured out the math yet, but one can't help suspecting that drawing the line after 1972 is some sort of gerrymandering, designed to facilitate the election of a particular candidate, or candidates.

TAMPA, Fla. (AP)—The wife of retired baseball star Roberto Alomar has obtained a temporary injunction against him, following a domestic dispute over the weekend.

Maria Del Pilar Alomar, 33, said in a complaint filed Monday that the couple got into an argument at their Hillsborough County home on Sunday. Deputies responded, and the wife told them that she had to push Alomar away when he got several inches from her. No arrests were made.

The complaint also described an incident in June, where Alomar, 42, reportedly yelled at his wife and pushed her. In April, he threatened her with a knife, according to the complaint.

Alomar’s agent, John Boggs, said Wednesday that the allegations against his client were false and defamatory.

“Anyone who knows this couple will immediately recognize that her claims are baseless,” Boggs said. “Mr. Alomar looks forward to his day in court, where he is certain the truth will emerge.”

A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 13.

so we find out the 'Expansion Era' choices on Dec 6.

http://baseballhall.org/news/press-releases/expansion-era-committee-consider-12-candidates-hall-fame-election-december%27s

from a recent BP commenter:

What happened to Mike Norris, Matt Keough, Rick Langford and all the other pitchers from the 1980 A's? 94 complete games by a pitching staff? What kind of sick manager does that? What was Martin trying to prove? None of these pitchers ever threw 100 innings in a season after 1982. When you count up Martin's titles, also count up how many players' careers he ruined.
Yes...he turned Rickey Henderson loose to steal 130 bases...and get thrown out 42 times. Big whoop. Billy Martin for HOF? Get real.

I didn't even know this thing existed...My inclination would be to go with Miller (even though I'd much rather see him get in through the front door) and, admitting to personal bias, Gillick. A couple of others, maybe.