"[Certifiably] untainted," eh? You can't prove a negative. Not a trivial point, I think.

I have voted a number of times for Red Sox icon Jim Rice, who polled 63.5 percent past year, but is down to his final 2 years of eligibility. Rice is the only player ever to collect 30-plus homers and 200-plus hits three times.

Hey, it is possible to speak about Rice without using the words "fear" or "intimidating!" :-)

If you ask me, there aren't enough headlines that include the word "taint."

Hey, it is possible to speak about Rice without using the words "fear" or "intimidating!"

Yeah, but you have to keep the word count under fifty or "dominating" will slip in there, guaranteed.

Edit: Or "dominant."

I wish he'd have either included Raines or swapped out one of Morris, Smith, Dawson, or Rice for him, but being a big hall guy - I really don't have a big issue with his ballot... at least he's got Blyleven.

Among those 4 -- Morris, Smith, Dawson, and Rice -- which I'd say are BTF consensus "Hall of Very Good, But Not More" picks, how would you rank them?

To be honest, for all the brouhaha over Rice, I think if I had to pick one from that group, I'd take Rice... and that's coming from a Cubs fan. I don't know of any Cubs fan that thinks Lee Smith should be in the HOF, and it's not just because he let that Nazi child molestor go yard in game 4 of the '84 LCS.

Had it not been for his knees, I think Dawson would have compensated for the shortfalls in his game with superior counting stats, but I guess we only give injury credit when the injury ends a career, not hampers it.

Strictly by the numbers, I wouldn't vote for Morris -- but I don't have a huge problem with "aura votes" -- and growing up in the '80s, I certainly do remember a big game aura around Morris.

Rice is the only player ever to collect 30-plus homers and 200-plus hits three times.


Funny, the second player I looked at---Al Simmons---had seasons of 34hr/212hits; 36hr/211hits; and 35hr/216 hits...

Maybe Conlin means Rice is the only hitter in history to have three seasons of 30+ homer and 200+ hits between 1975-1986.

repoz,

where does your BBWAA poll stand now - especially in regard to Raines, McGwire, Rice, & Gossage.

Among those 4 -- Morris, Smith, Dawson, and Rice -- which I'd say are BTF consensus "Hall of Very Good, But Not More" picks, how would you rank them?

Dawson, Morris, Rice, and Smith.

And Babe Ruth had three seasons of 200+ hits and more than 40 homers.

...and Stan Musial did it four times...

...as has Vlad Guerrero....

Nothing says Hall of Fame like "dogged toilers". Yup, when I want to see the best of the best I start out by recognising the langishing and the untainted.

I'm not really a big hall guy but I tend to indulge myself in a big hall pick each year or two. But Conlin, instead of making a considered selection from the options before him, seems to be grabbing anyone who retired before things got confusing just to make a point. I'm having trouble articulating that point, but what I seem to get so far is a lot of hand wringing over the fact that after these old guys pass on he won't know who's good anymore.

...and Lou Gehrig may take the cake, having done it seven times.... geez, maybe I misread the Conlin quote---he couldn't have screwed it up that bad, could he?

Rice is the only player ever to collect 30-plus homers and 200-plus hits three times.

The complete list of guys who have done it, courtesy, b-ref's PI feature

geez, maybe I misread the Conlin quote---he couldn't have screwed it up that bad, could he?

Why not? It wasn't a serious argument on his part; like most sportswriters, he wouldn't understand how to construct a serious argument. He just decided he wanted to vote for Rice, and then invented facts to fill a column about it. The facts have nothing to do with the actual decision, so they don't actually need to be true.

Jim Rice is the only player eligible but not inducted to have done it, which is probably what he meant to say.

Yeah, and I meant to pull out.

It doesn't matter what he meant, as far as I'm concerned, only that he couldn't be bothered to care about editing his work or checking his facts. The more I learn about the BBWAA, the less forgiving I become.

Interesting list, quick count shows 22 times it happened while 30 or older, 19 times while 25 or younger, no one under 20 no one over 35. FWIW Rice came very close to 200 hits and 40 hrs, with HR years of 39, 46, 39.

Among those 4 -- Morris, Smith, Dawson, and Rice -- which I'd say are BTF consensus "Hall of Very Good, But Not More" picks, how would you rank them?

I'd rank them Dawson, Smith, Morris/Rice.

The HoM elected Dawson, the others only get a handful of votes.

where does your BBWAA poll stand now - especially in regard to Raines, McGwire, Rice, & Gossage

After 44 (Not counting those found today) ballots...

86%-Gossage
68%-Rice
66%-Dawson
64%-Blyleven
50%-Raines
43%-J.Morris

After 44 (Not counting those found today) ballots...


Approximately how many ballots are out there?

This ballot is starting to make my fears come true, as it's an overbroad overcompensation for the steroid era that puts people from the clean (less unclean, if you will) era in who have no business being in.

In addition to the nonsensical and flat out wrong material about Rice, Conlin apparently completed a ballot with seven 70s-80s guys that didn't include Alan Trammell. That alone should disqualify the ballot.

I'm actually kind of hoping the steroid questions dogging the ballot members of the last 20 years fragments the vote enough so that nobody gets in 3 of the 4 next votes (only Henderson is a new slam-dunk for the voters), causing the Hall to re-think the process.

They're already clearly annoyed that no players are getting in with the Vet Committee. Couple that with no players period getting in and the Hall and Cooperstown lose the incredibly lucrative induction week crowd. Yeah, Dick Williams and some dead executives are in, but I don't think Cooperstown is going to get flooded with A's fans for Williams's induction. Weaver did draw a crowd, but that was only 10 years after he managed the Orioles, rather than 35 since Williams managed the A's, and Weaver is still a unanimously worshiped figure in Baltimore.

Plus its a lot easier for Baltimore fans to make a weekend trip to Cooperstown.

I'm actually kind of hoping the steroid questions dogging the ballot members of the last 20 years fragments the vote enough so that nobody gets in 3 of the 4 next votes (only Henderson is a new slam-dunk for the voters), causing the Hall to re-think the process.

TangoTiger's suggestion has been to change it from a yes/no ballot to a yes/no/ask me next year.

That probably makes too much sense for them to adopt. Sure would be nice to keep Lou Whitaker and Dwight Evans around for more than one vote though.

1-Gossage
2-Dawson
3-Rice
4-Blyleven
5-J. Morris
6-T. John
7-L. Smith

From this list, I would only elect Bert Blyleven and Lonnie Smith. I didn't realize that the latter was on the ballot, though.

He had quite a peak, you know.

Yeah. A widows peak, maybe.

Lonnie Smith was the best bad outfielder of all time. He deserves to make it as least as far as Schenectady.

When I saw "L. Smith" my first reaction was also "Lonnie Smith".... and, knowing that wasn't right, I had to think for a moment to remember who the "L. Smith" was....

I had to think for a moment to remember who the "L. Smith" was....

me too--I had completely forgotten that Chipper Jones' real name was Larry Smith

If no one gets inducted for a few years they could re-induct Ripken. They drew a humongous crowd for him.

Another crowd of Negro leaguers would work too, if they took care to choose people with lots of living relatives within easy traveling distance. Or maybe Advanced Media could handle the whole thing -- they've got the Midas touch these days.

If no one gets inducted for a few years they could re-induct Ripken. They drew a humongous crowd for him.

And maybe they can also get Oprah or Shirley MacLaine up on the platform so that Cal can have a chat with his Dad.

Jime Rice also 4 consecutive years led the league hitting into double plays.(82-85).

Jim Rice sure didn't walk much for a guy who was "most feared".

I'm actually kind of hoping the steroid questions dogging the ballot members of the last 20 years fragments the vote enough so that nobody gets in 3 of the 4 next votes (only Henderson is a new slam-dunk for the voters), causing the Hall to re-think the process.

BBWAA elections in the last 40 years where no one went in:

1996
1971

Hmm .. . .I don't see your wish getting fulfilled, Szym.

Gossage got over 70% of the vote last year, as his totals surged after Sutter's election strengthened his case he'll go in this year. My own WAG on the next few years worth of elections:

2008: Gossage, Rice
2009: Henderson
2010: Dawson
2011: Raines
2012: Alomar, Blyleven

They're already clearly annoyed that no players are getting in with the Vet Committee. Couple that with no players period getting in and the Hall and Cooperstown lose the incredibly lucrative induction week crowd.

You can't prove a negative

Your statement is false. To prove that something does not exist, simply assume that it does exist and show why this leads to a contradiction.

2008: Gossage, Rice
2009: Henderson
2010: Dawson
2011: Raines
2012: Alomar, Blyleven

Barry Larkin becomes eligible in 2010 and Jeff Bagwell in 2011.

BBWAA elections in the last 40 years where no one went in:

1996
1971

Hmm .. . .I don't see your wish getting fulfilled, Szym.

Normally, I wouldn't either, but when else has there ever been an event that caused the writers to suddenly doubt a whole generation of players? They already seem to be applying higher standards as it is, with a portion of the writers acting as if 300 wins is some sort of bright line for Hall of Fame worthiness. Add in the trouble McGwire looks to have and possible trouble for Clemens, Bonds, Sosa and certainly Palmeiro.

This issue isn't going away, no matter what drug-testing program is instituted. A lot of these guys were using drugs that wouldn't have been detected at the time even if McCain's dream drug-testing program was in place. And that will continue. It hasn't taken actual evidence for whisperings, sometimes quite loud, to start for players. Sure, there's a good reason to believe Bonds or Lo Duca or Clemens were using stuff at some point, but there's absolutely none for the Gileses or Bagwell or Thome or Boone, yet that hasn't kept the speculation down.

Conlin sure is sloppy

No more needed for that statement. But he has an IQ over 150.

No more needed for that statement. But he has an IQ over 150.

In pesos, maybe.

Normally, I wouldn't either, but when else has there ever been an event that caused the writers to suddenly doubt a whole generation of players? They already seem to be applying higher standards as it is, with a portion of the writers acting as if 300 wins is some sort of bright line for Hall of Fame worthiness. Add in the trouble McGwire looks to have and possible trouble for Clemens, Bonds, Sosa and certainly Palmeiro.

I don't see it causing them to doubt a whole generation of players. It's causing them to doubt Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, and Palmerio. My hunch is that Clemens will go in eventually; possibly Bonds depending on how his legal situation works out. (I know his legal situation is an off-field issue, but if he goes to jail, some will pull out the character clause to vote against him).

Besides, none of those guys, other than McGwire obviously, will even reach the ballot in the next 3 or 4 votes. (checks). OK, Palmerio arrives in four.

Barry Larkin becomes eligible in 2010 and Jeff Bagwell in 2011.

Barry Larkin will be lucky to get as much support as Alan Trammell. Bagwell will probably have to fight his way up, like Dawson and/or Sandberg; only it will likely be more of a fight for him.

Barry Larkin will be lucky to get as much support as Alan Trammell. Bagwell will probably have to fight his way up

Really?

I can't see Robbie Alomar getting elected before Barry Larkin. He's the best shortstop in the National League since Ozzie Smith, he was a key player on a World Champ, and he won an MVP award. I don't see the argument against him.

Bagwell's basically got the exact same resume minus the World Championship - best NL first basemen before Pujols since - who? actually I'm drawing a blank on who would have been better - McCovey? there must have been somebody in between. He won an MVP. I don't see the argument against him either.

It's causing them to doubt Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, and Palmerio.

The interesting thing will be to see if the voters try to make any sort of "steroid adjustments" for guys for which there's no evidence (including Sosa). Jeff Kent and Jim Edmonds, for example, are two guys who have credible HOF cases if you take their stats at face value but for whom it wouldn't be completely unreasonable to think might have had some help (they both had late offensive peaks and played with notorious users). I think the case against both is pretty damn weak, but if those kinds of players get painted with the steroid brush, then the voters practically are doubting that entire generation.

Okay, Jim Rice is the only player to hit 39 or more home runs, and 200 hits, three years in a row.

So Conlin was correct. The 30 was a typesetter's error for 39, and the editor accidentally edited out the words "in a row".

I think Larkin's the kind of guy who glanced off everyone's collective consciousness. I was a casual baseball fan for most of the 1990s, and I hardly knew he existed. As for best NL SS - yeah, but I don't think that's going to make too much difference when there's several AL SS better (Yount, Ripken, arguably Trammell, Jeter, A-Rod, etc). It's seen as an indictment against the field more than anything else. He has an MVP, but was only 210th in career MVP shares.

Bagwell has many of the same problems. He's one of those guys always overshadowed. No 500 homers, or even 450. No 3,000 hits or even 2,500. His best season was interrputed by the strike. His best seasons came in the Astrodome. He was famous for not playing well in the postseason, and was at the end of his playing rope in his only Series. He's not even the best player born on his birthday. Best NL firstbaseman from Pujols to McCovey? Well, in terms of perception, that's certainly not the case. He was selected to four All-Star Games, and started only 2. Plus, he'll hit the ballot one year after Fred McGriff, and will have trouble showing 75% he's better right off the bat.

Kent and Edmonds? Well, first off, keep in mind that I'm entirely taking this from teh point of view of will-they, not should-they, get elected. That's why I made my prediction in post #38 (I'd never support Rice and wouldn't wait on Blyleven on merits). From that perspective, I don't see Edmonds getting in any time too soon. He's come off as a B-list candidate. He was a late bloomer, outshone by others on his own team who has received almost no MVP support whatsoever.

I can't see Robbie Alomar getting elected before Barry Larkin.

I can. Robbie has the .300 BA, the big seasons, the two rings, 474 Stolen Bases, 10 gold gloves, 12 All Star Appearances, including 9 as a starter, 1,500 R, 1,000 RBI. That is a lot of very shiny objects that attract the voters.

Larkin, even with the MVP, never had quite the press that Alomar did, and did not put up quite the numbers.

I think Larkin stands a very good chance of going in, mind you. I just think Alomar, because of his traditional appeal as a super-defender (true or not) who hit .300, stole 474 bases and hit 200 home runs, is more likely to be within spitting distance of being a First Ballot Lock.

Bagwell has many of the same problems.

But I think Bagwell was in the public's eye, along with Biggio, as being "stars" for a long time. If he can avoid steroid taint, I think he will be thought of well.

I can. Robbie has the .300 BA, the big seasons, the two rings, 474 Stolen Bases, 10 gold gloves, 12 All Star Appearances, including 9 as a starter, 1,500 R, 1,000 RBI. That is a lot of very shiny objects that attract the voters.

Don't get me wrong. I think Robbie Alomar's a deserving HOFer. But Larkin's not chopped liver here. He was a career .295 hitter, he stole 379 bases (w/ 77 CS vs. 114 for Alomar), he only won 3 Gold Gloves, but that's only because he was playing in the same league as Ozzie Smith. He matched Alomar with 12 All-Star appearances and started 5 of them.

Statistically, they're very, very similar players (in fact, Larkin is Alomar's #1 comp on BB-Ref; Alomar is Larkin's #5 comp). Given two offensively-equal middle infielders, I would expect the BBWAA to agree with me and choose the shortstop over the second baseman. Maybe I'm wrong; I don't know.

I think Larkin stands a very good chance of going in, mind you. I just think Alomar, because of his traditional appeal as a super-defender (true or not) who hit .300, stole 474 bases and hit 200 home runs, is more likely to be within spitting distance of being a First Ballot Lock.


Spitting? That's always the first thing that comes to my mind with Alomar.

Oh, one other thing about Alomar having a better shot over Larkin. Once or twice I saw a poll asking people who they thought the best current player was, with Alomar picking up 1-2%. I was surprised he got anything, but there he was. 1-2% isn't much, but not that many people get any support at all. I never saw Larkin.

Re: post #49 - right about Bagwell being in the public eye more, and I think he's got a shot, but I don't see him going in right away.

What colors my thoughts is Sandberg having to work his way up from 50% for a few elections. I'm sure I'm colored by being a Cubs-fan living in Cook County on this one, but I was floored he couldn't get in. MVP at an early age, considered the best at his position every year for about a decade. Good on the bases, good hitter, good power, set a error-less streak record. 50% opted not to vote for him one year. It left me with a clear impression: either a candidate has to have an utterly fantastic peak to get in or the serious counting stats. And I'd don't mean 2700 hits or 450 homers. Dawson's around there, and he's stuck in the backlog as well. If Sandberg had to fight for a few years, and Dawson still has to fight (this upcomer will be his 6th ballot), then I don't see Bagwell or Larkin sailing in.

I only put Alomar in right as early as I did, because I think the series of weak ballots will push someone up, and he's the best bet from my perspective.

Though I disagree with Szym earlier in this thread, there is a good shot we have another election cycle with no one elected sooner rather than later. If that happens, it won't cause a rethinking about the BBWAA like Szym hopes, but instead it'll cause them to loosen up the VC, and we have a danger of revisiting the Frisch Follies.

It's a damn shame because right before Joe Morgan's ego trip in creating the SuperFriends, we had a system I think was the best in HoF history. The BBWAA has generally done a good job in their task. The VC had been housebroken - they had a steering comittee that picked the best 15, and the full body voted on them, with a maximum number possible to elect every year. Members served for only a set number of years instead of the lifetime pass they had back in the day. The worst possible selection they could have was someone like Mazeroski. If he's the worst case scenario, they have some fairly effective safeguards in place.

Then Joe Morgan said it was becoming "too easy" to get in. What garbage. Prior to the SuperFriends committee, it was actually harder to get in than any time since the 1940s blockage. The BBWAA has fewer names on the ballot than ever in its history (yes, I've looked it up), and the VC couldn't do much damage. "Too easy" that sanctimous little #### said. My problem with Morgan and his ilk is that 1) they think their #### smeller sweeter than everyone else's, and 2) they see the HoF as their own personal playpin rather than something they've been honored enough to be elected to.

What colors my thoughts is Sandberg having to work his way up from 50% for a few elections.

Honestly, this is why I think Larkin'll get in before Alomar. Rick Morrissey (sp?) once wrote a column, probably right before the election when Sandberg got elected, in which he basically argued that being the best second baseman in baseball wasn't enough to get into the Hall of Fame, because second base was where you put the guys who weren't good enough to play shortstop or third base (he may not have added the third base, but he clearly viewed second base as a sort of "spare" position).

Edit: Googling, I found this quote: "Taking an anti-Sandberg position, Morrissey likened the position of second base in the major leagues as being the equivalent of playing right field in little league."

"Taking an anti-Sandberg position, Morrissey likened the position of second base in the major leagues as being the equivalent of playing right field in little league."

What's the equivalent of being Morrissey? Getting beaten up by the rightfielder? I mean geez, Rick Morrissey's like the kid that got kicked out of the lunch table of the special ed. kids.