User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 1.6476 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
So the Rockies and Diamondbacks are the only teams who've never had a Hall of Famer, right? (Elect Dale Murphy!)
EDIT: Obviously I didn't include the Nationals, if you were to separate them from the Expos, since anyone who played for the Nationals wouldn't even be eligible yet.
Sheffield should be a Marlin if elected. Walker would be a Rockie, but he won't be elected, sadly. Who is the Angels' viable candidate? Maybe Guerrero, but he's an Expo to me.
Well, Boggs played for the Rays, but I guess you mean a player who played a significant portion of their career there. Maaaaaaaaybe McGriff could sniff the HoF, but he's pretty borderline as both a HoFer and a Ray.
Four, since Schilling will be on the ballot before Unit.
I was looking back at old newspaper clips and when Dawson signed with the Marlins, he promised to go into the Hall as a Marlin (back when players could choose their cap).
Johnny Damon has a non-zero chance at making the Hall someday. What would he go into the Hall in as if he continues to bounce around? Its hard to fathom, but he has still played more games for the Royals (803 commpared to 597 with Boston and 576 with NY) than anyone else.
What I meant was thew played is depicted as a Ray (or Marlin, or whatever) on his plaque.
I assume Vlad will go in as an Angel. MVP and post season should trump more time (about 1 season's worth) as an Expo. He has more value as an Expo, but it's not overwhelming.
Whle Johnson reached a higher peak with Arizona, he actually pitched more innings and won more games with Seattle. It will be interesting to see what the Hall does there.
I think ultmately Schilling is going to have a harder time getting in that alot of people think. I mean, if Jack Morris can't get in.....
Unit will always be a Mariner in my eyes. Vlad is a tough one, but I lean Expos.
Expo 67.
It's a good thing the Mets didn't get going a few years later or we'd be cheering for the New York Fairgoers or some such nonsense.
Johnson won 4 Cy Young awards and had his signature moment (during the 2001 World Series) as a member of the D-Backs. That he returned to them later in his career in an effort to get his 300th win there will just be used as further evidence of his place as a D-Back.
Edit: coke to Jose
Damon's pretty close to a zero chance for the Hall of Fame. And Dawson's choice suggests that the Hall of Fame takes the cap designation pretty seriously, so I wouldn't rule out the Phillies for Schilling.
WAR by team:
Reggie - OAK 50.3, NYA 16.9
Unit - SEA 37.4, ARI 45.1
It may be similar in popular perception, but Unit was actually better in Arizona, rather than just being more famous, or whatever Reggie was more of in NY (he wasn't even more successful there).
Unless he gets to 3000 hits.
Probably. He played the most games in the uniform, first became recognized as a star while there, won 2 World Series there, and had most of his signature moments (like the HR off of Eck in the playoffs) there.
When things are close, the Hall has indicated they're willing to allow a player to choose the uniform, but I can't see Alomar going into the Hall as anything other than a Blue Jay.
Yes, this is what I meant by higher peak.
That he left after an acrimonious contract negotiation and ended up signing with the Giants to go get his 300th win may mitigate that somewhat. Of course he left Seattle the same way. Based on some of his public comments over the last year, it wouldn't be surprising to me if he happened to indicate to the HOF that his own preference would be Seattle, not that such an indication would necessarily sway their decision, but it might. Personally it would seem B.S. to me if that were to happen. He SHOULD go in as a D Back, but you just never know.
Yes, then he moves from zero chance to slight chance but still very unlikely. And yes, I know I'm largely alone in that opinion.
Sheffield would be a Marlin. Which is okay.
Put me on the Unit--Arizona and Damon(ha!)--Boston team.
Amazing.
Yeah, I don't listen to talk radio, but my sense from living in the city is that Chicagoans view Dawson as a Cub, first and foremost. The ridiculous thing is that the Cub version of Andre Dawson would be a worse Hall-of-Fame selection than Jim Rice. At least Rice arguably deserved his MVP award. I think it's easier to make an argument that Dawson didn't even belong on the ballot in 1987 than that he actually deserved to win the thing. In retrospect, that was pretty much pure hang-around time for Dawson. Really, it'd be pretty similar to T&B;'s suggestion in #32: putting Griffey in as a Red.
Heh.
Eh, you haff to use some scripty Canadien type font, eh?
Dawson should be an Expo, Shilling a Phillie and Damon (although I'm with SoSH on his viability) as a Royal, unless he logs a couple of more years with the Yankees.
Not just more time, but also a higher level of play.
As an Expo:
1004 games, 4220 PA, .323/.390/.588 (148 OPS+)
As an Angel:
846 games, 3606 PA, .319/.381/.546 (141 OPS+)
In a fair world, he's an Expo.
And if Schilling was likely to get in on the first ballot, that would be relevant. I think bloody sock means he'll be close on the first year, but we are talking about a guy with only 216 wins, no Cy Youngs, and a career era of 3.46. (Note that I'm a bit down on Schilling, and I'm not sure that he was better than Smoltz, for example.)
Somebody "clever" will probably suggest that people will want Schilling and Johnson should enter the Hall together, and thus Schilling should be held back a year as well.
So what? Smoltz is a pretty easy choice as a Hall of Famer, even if you just look at him as a much better kind of Eck.
Not that I disagree that it might take Schilling a little while for the other reasons you cite, but both he and Smoltz are well-qualified for Cooperstown
As I grew older it struck me how averagish Dawson was with the Cubs via the numbers. He had the star atmosphere about him; but that's baseball before the internet, right? Once a guy becomes an Established Major League All-Star, it doesn't go away until he's dead. A guy could be 40 and hitting .220 and people would still talk him up for the time he hit 35 dingers and stole 30 bases fifteen years earlier.
But I have gone off on a cosine. I always felt a little betrayed, like Tiny Teal (Baby Black?) had been taken advantage of. "Bu-bu-but...I thought you were good!" Dawson doesn't make my Hall for numbers reasons so much as because I feel like he was but one element in a massive conspiracy to push fraudulent baseball analysis on a susceptible and vulnerable youth.
Just this morning, I heard the WGN sports guy say that Dawson would go in as an Expo since he played more years there, but he had his best seasons in Chicago, with 5 all-star appearances in six years.
Once again, I was ashamed to be a Cub fan.
Oh, I agree with that, but I think it's more obvious that Smoltz will require multiple years to get in to the Hall than Schilling, mainly because he doesn't have as big a signature moment. I'm just pointing out my relative biases.
I agree with previously stated opinions that Vladimir Guerrero should go in as an Expo, but will obviously go in as an Angel.
Hey, can we put a Twins cap on Jack Morris's plaque, since the only reason anyone ever thought to vote for him is the 1991 World Series?
I don't know that anyone was specifically hosed. Ozzie would have been a decent choice.
So too was Rock, particularly if you give collusion credit (hell, he still played more games than Clark despite being forced to take the first month off).
I don't know that anyone was specifically hosed. Ozzie would have been a decent choice.
So too was Rock, particularly if you give collusion credit (hell, he still played more games than Clark despite being forced to take the first month off).
Or Tony Gwynn, or Darryl Strawberry... the important thing is that there were several far better choices than Dawson.
or Ozzie Smith or Tony Gwynn or Tim Raines. That's just off the top of my head without checking BB-Ref.
Skimming the MVP voting from that year, you could maybe add Tim Wallach, Will Clark, Darryl Strawberry, maybe Howard Johnson and Dale Murphy as more deserving that Dawson. It was kind of a blah year for pitchers (Bedrosian was the only pitcher to get MVP votes and he wasn't the best choice ever for the Cy), but you could probably add Reuschel, Hershiser, and maybe Ryan depending on what you think of his 8-16 record (he actually got Cy votes despite that record). Like I said, I think you could make a pretty decent argument that Dawson shouldn't even be on your 10-person MVP ballot that year.
Yeah, but don't forget about his ridiculous 2001 World Series co-MVP award. You'll never convince me that was the product of anything other than manipulation by the league office rather than an honest vote by the writers (whose occasional stupidity in award voting I freely acknowledge, but come on).
Isn't there a guy in the Hall of Merit with 176 wins, no Cy Youngs, and a career ERA of 3.44, in a lower run context, with fewer innings than Schilling?
Why would the league have cared if Schilling and Johnson shared the MVP award? He pitched four extra innings than Randy at a lower (but still ridiculously high) level. The only reason to get hung up on that choice is if you put too much emphasis on W-L, which I thought was a cardinal sin around here.
That or if you're a big Randy Johnson fan, hate Curt Schilling's guts, or are just cynical as hell.
The 'Selig forced it' opinion isn't wholly unreasonable, but I find it perfectly plausible that a majority of the writers wrote 'Johnson/Schilling' on their ballots, especially given the way Game 7 played out.
They get the World Series MVP right a hell of a lot more than the NFL writers get the Super Bowl MVP right.
Since Ryan is the only player whose entire career was spent on the four original expansion teams**, I was always hoping that he could have just kept switching his caps during his induction speech.
**And what are the odds against that?
Schilling started three games, two on short rest, and yielded 4 runs in 21.1 innings. Blowhard or not, that's a pretty magnificent performance as well.
Dawson told WMVP-AM in Chicago that he thought hall officials would discuss the issue with him in detail before the decision was made. He said he wanted a chance to tell them "what really catapulted me to Hall of Fame status and pretty much what my preference was but I think their decision had been made. It was a little gut-wrenching for me to hear that but it's their decision."
"I'm disappointed," Dawson told the ESPN Radio affiliate. "I can proudly say that because Chicago was my preference."
Blimey, it's as though I didn't write this in the very next sentence:
"He has more value as an Expo, but it's not overwhelming."
Well, that's disappointing. I'm sorry he got in, then.
Exactly. You wrote that he had more accumulated career value by virtue of spending more time in Montreal, and I noted that he had a higher peak in Montreal as well. If you had mentioned peak in your post, I wouldn't have needed to bring it up.
Dawson was one of my heroes growing up in Montreal and I always thought Cub fans treated him very well. I didn't see a lot of Cubs games in those days but I think the very first time I saw a "we're not worthy" bow was the Cub faithful to Dawson. I understand why both he and Cub fans feel slighted - but the 8 year old in me is glad we are not forgotten by baseball.
If he had retired under the current Hall of Fame rules, I don't believe Jackson would go in as a Yankee.
Yeah, Dawson:Expos:Cubs seems like a pretty close analogy to Reggie:As:Yankees
I'm sure the Hall wasn't happy about making this decision, but if they didn't they would lose all credibility on this point.
If anything you're underselling it. The hand-wringing is monumentally silly.
http://digamma.net/btfwiki/Which_logo_is_on_Andrew_Dawson's_HOF_cap
Edited for link.
Well, if he had simply done the right thing and taken his steroids, he probably would have won!
No I didn't. You inferred that. I said he had more playing time, and had more value.
And why exactly did you feel the need to point that out? I said he had more value in Montreal, but the difference isn't overwhelming. All your quibbling did was show stats that say he had more value in Montreal, but it wasn't overwhelming. Since the HOF is not bound by WAR or OPS+, it's perfectly reasonable to say that Vlad's MVP (and much higher MVP support in general) and his post season exposure in Anaheim, can outweigh his 1 seasons worth of play and 7 point OPS+ advantage in Montreal. If it possible for anyone to be exactly split down the middle, it's him.
Nolan Ryan going in as a Ranger might be even worse.
You don't understand why presenting those facts in that order would lead a reader to the inference that you were connecting between the two? That the order and manner of presentation implies that he had more value because he had more playing time, insted of some other reason that's never stated in any fashion whatsoever?
Because your post only mentioned the fact that he was in Montreal longer, and left out the fact that he was also better when he was there.
Why should the Angels get extra credit for the MVP award? He got more MVP consideration with the Angels not because he was any better as a player, but because certain conspicuously unintelligent sportswriters are reluctant to give MVP support to a player from a losing team (or, if you come down to it, a small market). The playoff performance is real, but it's a comparatively minor factor, given that a) he didn't perform particularly well in the postseason - .740 OPS and b) the Angels didn't win anything of significance while he was there.
When you account for his contributions in both cities, don't forget that in addition to Montreal's edge in both playing time and overall quality of performance, there's also the matter of Vlad spending almost 1/3 of his time in Anaheim as a DH. Meaning that he gets significant negative fielding credit for those games, which isn't reflected at all in his plain offensive line.
That and he was never the best player in the National League. Hard to pinpoint the year he was truly robbed in MVP voting as a result of his small-market status.
True, but he was going up against Barry Bonds for his entire NL career. That's a pretty tough peer group. And it's not like he was actually the most valuable player in the AL the year he won, either.
Who was better? Santana's the only other guy who looks like he had an argument.
Absolutely. I'm just saying that his performance in the NL MVP voting (at least in his two best years. I ignore down-ballot injustices) looks like it's in line with his on-field performance relative to his peers and not the byproduct of being relegated to small-market living.
Well, I thought I covered that with "he had more value there." I'm sorry I didn't use the words peak or OPS+. Your correction strikes me as being overly literal and nitpicky.
It has nothing to do with giving the Angels credit. Would you seriously argue that Randy Johnson's 4 CYAs in Arizona vs 1 in Seattle shouldn't be a consideration in how the Hall should recognize him? It's not the Hall of OPS+ or ERA+.
If you go by WAR, the ranking goes:
Santana (7.7)
Schilling (7.3)
Tejada (6.8)
A-Rod (6.7)
Ichiro (6.5)
Mora (6.3)
Pedro (5.7)
Radke (5.7)
Rowand (5.6)
Vlad (5.6)
Carlos Guillen (5.5)
Pudge (5.4)
So he belongs in the conversation, and deserved some votes, but probably wasn't the best choice.
If your post doesn't say what you mean it to say, that's not my fault. Write more clearly next time.
Randy Johnson won four CYAs in Arizona compared to one with Seattle because he was a significantly better pitcher relative to the league with the Diamondbacks than he had been with the Mariners.
Vlad, in contrast, was a better player with the Expos (as we've already established), but drew more MVP support with the Angels, due to their higher profile and better record as a team. As such, your comparison is invalid.
I had thought the logo was primarily an "M" (as most, not all, caps have the city's initials) and that an obscured "EMB" stood for "Edgar Miles Bronfman."
I thought of them as the Elbows for years. And then when I figured out that it was a big "M," I'd promptly forget again. Actually, I don't know if I've ever looked at that logo and thought "M" instead of "Elbows."
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main