Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, January 12, 2009

MLB: Henderson, Rice given Hall passes

Player	Total Votes	Percentage

Rickey 	        511	94.8%
Jim Rice	412	76.4%
Andre Dawson	361	67.0%
Bert Blyleven	338	62.7%
Lee Smith	240	44.5%
Jack Morris	237	44.0%
Tommy John	171	31.7%
Tim Raines	122	22.6%
Mark McGwire	118	21.9%
Alan Trammell	94	17.4%
Dave Parker	81	15.0%
Don Mattingly	64	11.9%
Dale Murphy	62	11.5%
Harold Baines	32	5.9%
Mark Grace	22	4.1%
David Cone	21	3.9%
Matt Williams	7	1.3%
Mo Vaughn	6	1.1%
Jay Bell	2	0.4%
Jesse Orosco	1	0.2%
Ron Gant	0	0%
Dan Plesac	0	0%
Greg Vaughn	0	0%
Repoz Posted: January 12, 2009 at 07:08 PM | 302 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, history

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.

Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   101. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 12, 2009 at 07:54 PM (#3049888)
RE: Ventura

It seems to me that Matt Williams had a higher peak and nearly as much career value. Personally I think both are probably underrated among most writers and fans. But I find both to be substantially lacking in terms of HOF qualifications.
   102. SoSH U at work Posted: January 12, 2009 at 07:55 PM (#3049890)
I guess I'll skip Cooperstown on our next trip through New York state. Maybe they'll get things within a zone of reasonableness during the next 10 years, but I am not counting on it.


Have you been there? It would be a terrible mistake to skip the HOF because you disagree with some of the inductees.
   103. catseyepub Posted: January 12, 2009 at 07:55 PM (#3049891)
I would not have voted for Rice, he's certainly not even close to the worst players that are in the HOF, but I easily admit that although Roy White was a nice steady player for my Yankees, Jim Rice was a far better player.

Sorry Mr james.
   104. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 12, 2009 at 07:56 PM (#3049892)
What the heck is the problem with a token vote for Jay Bell?

Based on what was posted on ESPN.com, it appears that Pedro Gomez only voted for Jay Bell and no one else. As a first-ballot Hall of Famer, Jay Bell??? Don't see how you justify dissing everyone else to throw a bone to Jay Bell.
   105. Mike A Posted: January 12, 2009 at 07:56 PM (#3049893)
The plaque room is probably the most boring part of the Hall of Fame.

I spent about 5 minutes there and about 5 hours everywhere else.
   106. Repoz Posted: January 12, 2009 at 07:56 PM (#3049894)
Jon Heyman's anti-Raines stance IS really pissing me off...

Yet he votes for Mattingly.
   107. DanG Posted: January 12, 2009 at 07:56 PM (#3049895)
I just hope Blyleven doesn't get the Gil Hodges treatment.

Hodges reached 50% his 3rd year, 60% his 8th year, but only 63.4% his 15th and final year.
   108. Moloka'i Three-Finger Brown (Declino DeShields) Posted: January 12, 2009 at 07:56 PM (#3049896)
I guess I'll skip Cooperstown on our next trip through New York state.


By all means, skip Interstate 88. They were doing heavy roadwork there this summer, and my Honda Accord bumped uglies with a wayward construction marker about 30 miles northwest of Binghamton. The only bright spot was that, thanks for the good folks at AAA-Plus, rather than getting eaten alive by a bear or something on the side of the road, I got to spend a night in lovely Binghamton.
   109. base ball chick Posted: January 12, 2009 at 07:57 PM (#3049897)
i really WISH that the guys who didn't vote for rickey but voted for other guys were forced to explain why they believe that those other players were more worthy than rickey

then again, one of the guys who reads my blog (hi daddy) commented that he absolutely HATES rickey and would only vote for him grudgngly

so maybe it was personal with the no sayers

but how you could justify voting for a juicer like matt williams (AND calling him a "great guy" when juice users are by definition evil terrible people) and saying that maybe someday rickey might could get in - well, seems you should have your vote taken away. or at the very least, your great grandkidz
   110. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: January 12, 2009 at 07:58 PM (#3049898)
my predictions.

Got the top seven in order. Got two going in correctly.

Of the fifteen I guessed on, I only got the perfect percentage once (Grace), but was off by 1% on five others (Morris, John, McGwire, Parker, and Baines). My biggest errors were Rice (off by 9%, Blyleven, off by 6%, and Trammell - off by 4%).

In all, an average error of 3.1%, which is better than I did last year.
   111. Cris E Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:01 PM (#3049899)
Raines got ten less votes in 2009. What exactly changed for those voters?

Rickey. It's the Year Of Henderson, so that's who the election-by-memory crowd are recalling. Some folks see two similar guys on the ballot and feel they have to drop the one that looks significantly inferior. In the absence of hard numbers they fall back on relative standards and the lesser guy suffers. If they had a better grasp of the candidates and their own HoF standards they might be able to correctly identify Raines as both worse than Rickey and good enough for the Hall.
   112. Fridas Boss Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:01 PM (#3049901)
I guess I'll skip Cooperstown on our next trip through New York state. Maybe they'll get things within a zone of reasonableness during the next 10 years, but I am not counting on it.

I would also advise against this. I went in the fall and it was a blast. I also agree that the "museum" is far more interesting and with a lot more content than the plaque room. Plus the plaques are organized in a strange manner..
   113. Mister High Standards Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:05 PM (#3049902)
Have you been there? It would be a terrible mistake to skip the HOF because you disagree with some of the inductees.


The research library is amazing?
   114. jmurph Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:05 PM (#3049903)
Edgar Martinez is absolutely not going to get into the Hall of Fame. I'm very surprised anyone on here would predict that he will. You guys think BBWAA voters are going to put in a DH with 2200 hits and 300 homeruns? No way.
   115. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:05 PM (#3049904)
There's also a museum there.
   116. The District Attorney Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:06 PM (#3049907)
Interesting thoughts about next year. I agree that none of Robbie, Larkin, and Edgar, even if they get in eventually, won't be 1st year. And I've often seen McGriff referred to in a "yeah, right, HE's a Hall of Famer" way, although honestly, I'm not quite sure why. I mean, I guess it's because of the comparison to the next gen guys -- Pujols, Thome, etc. -- but that shouldn't require all that much thought to dispel. Still, I doubt that anyone who gets that treatment post-retirement ever gets in.

So, yeah, even though they like to elect somebody, and even though Dawson and Blyleven are both already close... I could still see no one getting in next year. Rice had the huge, huge advantage of Boston-based advocacy. That is what put him over the top, IMO: that the discussion was successfully transformed into a "how can you leave out Jim Rice??" discussion. Dawson's HOF case, on the other hand, was basically made in a city where they haven't played baseball for a good long time now. I'm not sure Chicago is going to pour everything into getting behind him, and even if they did, it wouldn't be quite the same. And Bert's a little too far away from 75%. So yeah, I could totally see it.
   117. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:06 PM (#3049908)
No slam-dunks. Alomar and Larkin have good chances.

I would be shocked if Roberto Alomar does not walk into the Hall of Fame next year.
   118. Mike Green Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:07 PM (#3049909)
I took my family there 20 years ago. My then 8 month old son didn't think much of Babe Ruth's locker but did manage a smile for the camera.

"Disagreeing with some of the inductees" doesn't begin to capture it. I have no respect for the process or results. Some of it is, of course, not new. The writers missed Arky Vaughan and Johnny Mize, but not having been around during these players' careers and during their eligibility period and knowing that the information about the players and their times was less comprehensive than we have today, I made allowances. There is no excuse for this. Or as AROM put it, "morons".
   119. AROM Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:07 PM (#3049911)
although Roy White was a nice steady player for my Yankees, Jim Rice was a far better player.


I'd really like to see someone make this case with facts. Not raw counting stats - of course Rice had more RBI. But in terms of what each player meant in runs and wins, given the context in which they played, and an argument that doesn't conveniently ignore things like baserunning and defense. I'm not being sarcastic. I just wonder if it's possible to do so while being objective and using sound methodology.
   120. catseyepub Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:13 PM (#3049915)
I'd really like to see someone make this case with facts. Not raw counting stats - of course Rice had more RBI. But in terms of what each player meant in runs and wins, given the context in which they played, and an argument that doesn't conveniently ignore things like baserunning and defense. I'm not being sarcastic. I just wonder if it's possible to do so while being objective and using sound methodology


Being a Yankee fan who is ahem ,Older, I will say that Roy was faster, a better baserunner. Covered more ground than Rice.

He had a wet noodle for a throwing arm, did not hit for power and was generally thought of as a nice complimentary player but by no means, a force in the lineup or the field.
   121. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:13 PM (#3049916)
What the heck is the problem with a token vote for Jay Bell?

Its the Hall of Fame vote, not a "shout on" segment on Total Request Live.
   122. AROM Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:15 PM (#3049918)
I don't see an idiot sportswriter vote for us to backlash against next year. Alomar and Larkin appear to be the top candidates, along with Edgar. I don't think most of us are opposed to those candidates.

Blyleven and Dawson are the top returning candidates and if either goes it it will probably be a happy day on BTF. Dawson is borderline but the opposition to him is that he's not quite good enough, not that he shouldn't be anywhere near the HOF.

There's the idiot vote that keeps out Raines and Trammell, but there are so many deserving players getting little support that it's hard to focus.

Rice being THE leading candidate is something we'll miss, as far as generating arguments. If Jack Morris leapfrogs Blyleven and becomes the next lock of a candidate it will be similar, but not quite the same, Morris has some legit claim to extra credit for his postseason work. There are far fewer pitchers standing between him and a legitimate HOF spot than there are outfielders and Rice.

The only way we'll have a Rice situation again is if the writers elect nobody, but make someone like Andres Galarraga the leading guy heading into 2011 with 70% of the vote or something.
   123. AROM Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:17 PM (#3049920)
He had a wet noodle for a throwing arm, did not hit for power and was generally thought of as a nice complimentary player but by no means, a force in the lineup or the field.


And if you could show me how many more wins Rice was worth than Roy White I'd be much obliged.
   124. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:17 PM (#3049921)
Its the Hall of Fame vote, not a "shout on" segment on Total Request Live.


Besides, if I were Jay Bell, Jesse Orosco or whomever, I would be more embarrassed than honored.
   125. An Athletic in Powderhorn™ Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:19 PM (#3049923)
Congratulations to Rickey! (That's not an exclamation. Rickey's! name should always be spelled Rickey!) And congratulations to us all: no more Jim Rice threads!

My ballot for next year:

Raines
Alomar
Blyleven
Trammell
Larkin
McGwire
McGriff
maybe Edgar. I'll have to take a closer look at him.
   126. jmurph Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:21 PM (#3049924)
I don't see an idiot sportswriter vote for us to backlash against next year. Alomar and Larkin appear to be the top candidates, along with Edgar. I don't think most of us are opposed to those candidates.


AROM, I think there's a 0% chance Edgar gets in. I just said this 6 or 7 posts ago, but I'm very surprised you or any others here would think he will. To me, his extreme lack of counting stats and the DH thing is going to keep him out; what is the case for his inclusion? Because I'll be honest, I like to think I'm smarter than the Woody Paiges of the world, but I don't see it.
   127. John Northey Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:21 PM (#3049925)
I don't see Edgar getting in, and possibly missing the 5% cut off. He'll get Seattle votes and a few stat savvy votes but that'll be it. He DH'ed for the most part, didn't come close to the major milestones (3000/500) and played for a team that never won it all. I feared Raines would suffer the 5% risk though so maybe there is hope but I wouldn't bet on it.
   128. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:21 PM (#3049926)
CONSPIRACY THEORY TIME!!

Like Chairman Sean & a few others here, right now I don't think anyone will get in next year. There are two guys near the cusp but have no momentum, and a bunch of strong candidates, but no one who is quite a first-ballot shoe-in. Plus, with so many guys clamoring near the top, any over-the-top surge might be split and no one gets in.

Plus, IIRC, none of the incarnations of the VC meets next year, meaning NO players get inducted for the first time in nearly (over?) a half-century.

See, that's bad. Once upon a time the induction ceremony was a small little affair with several hundred or maybe a thousand attendees. (I read a Thomas Bowswell piece once where he noted that prior to Brooks Robinson the induction weekend record crowd was 2200 for Mantle).

Nowadays, of course, tens of thousands show up. And you know what they bring with them? Their MONEY. That speaks loudly folks. If no inductions, tens of thousands of no-shows and hundreds of thousands in lost profits.

CONSPIRACY THEORY: Who, if anyone, certifies the Hall's votes? Does Cooperstown just tally it up on their own or is there an actual outside service that does it? . . . . Because if it's just the Hall of Fame, I find it INCREDIBLY unlikely no one goes in next year. I still maintain no one will get 75% of the BBWAA vote, but they'll announce Andre Dawson had 75.2% of the vote. Then move to re-re-re-do the VC.

Seriously though - does anyone know if any outside source certifies the Hall's votes? If anyone knows, I'd like to hear about it. If not ... . things coul get very interesting.
   129. SoSH U at work Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:21 PM (#3049927)
If no one is elected, and with no Veteran's committee selections (I think), the big debate will be how to revamp the voting process. No induction weekends aren't particularly welcome in upstate NY.

Edit: Obviously Dag's a little more imaginative than I am.
   130. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:27 PM (#3049929)
"What the heck is the problem with a token vote for Jay Bell?"

Not voting for Rickey is a big problem, but I don't see a vote for Bell as that much more ridiculous than a vote for Rice. So if he's a clown, then at least he's got lots of company.
   131. DL from MN Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:27 PM (#3049930)
I'll say it again, a vote for Jay Bell is as legit as a vote for Jim Rice. Both had one really super year and not enough to be worth inducting otherwise.

My ballot for next year:

Blyleven
Larkin
Raines
Trammell
Alomar
McGwire
Smith
Edgar
Ventura
Appier

sorry to Dawson and McGriff the ballot is out of room
   132. shoewizard Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:28 PM (#3049933)
There are so many compelling and comprehensive cases that have been made for Blyleven, so this may seem somewhat redundant, especially around here. However obviously 1/3 of the electorate has either not read or not been swayed by those excellent articles. Perhaps a shorter and to the point type message, such as this may make it easy to understand stat might help:

There are only 17 pitchers that have thrown 4000 innings since integration, (1947), a major feat and milestone in and of itself. Among those 17, Blyleven ranks 6th in ERA+, ahead of 7 Hall of famers and one guy who is sure to make it in when eligible. He didn't just compile innings. His combination of quality of run prevention and durability puts him in the top half dozen pitchers over the last 60+ years. What the hell else is there ?

Clemens 143
Johnson 137
Maddux 132
Seaver 127
Spahn 119
Blyleven 118
Glavine 118
Perry 117
Niekro 115
Carlton 115
Jenkins 115
Roberts 113
Ryan 111
John 110
Sutton 108
Kaat 107
Tanana 106

Personally I think there are those that will just never vote for Blyleven specifically because the sabermetric community supports him so strongly. Anyone who doesn't vote for him is called an idiot, so those that don't vote for him probably just dig in their heels. Nobody likes being called an idiot.
   133. Srul Itza Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:29 PM (#3049934)
Alomar: won't get 75%, but possibly >50%

Possibly? Anyone willing to bet that he doesn't get a least 50%, let me know.
   134. esseff Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:30 PM (#3049935)
Seriously though - does anyone know if any outside source certifies the Hall's votes? If anyone knows, I'd like to hear about it. If not ... . things coul get very interesting.


Ernst & Young does the accounting/auditing of the HoF vote. The Hall doesn't just make stuff up.
   135. GregD Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:33 PM (#3049936)
I don't think it takes fraud to change the voting behavior for next year, just a strong whisper campaign among some of the writers with ties to the organization (not just voting rights) to remind each other that it's a good year to add an extra person to your ballot.
   136. catseyepub Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:33 PM (#3049938)
And if you could show me how many more wins Rice was worth than Roy White I'd be much obliged


Although I am a big advocate of sabermetrics I also go by what one sees with their own eyes for a lengthy period of times, just as valuable. So if you are looking for sabermetric stats ...can't help you...maybe someone out their can. Heck, since Bill James said Roy was better than Rice, contact him.
   137. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:35 PM (#3049939)
Besides, if I were Jay Bell, Jesse Orosco or whomever, I would be more embarrassed than honored.
I'd be honored. How many people can say, "You know, I once got a vote for the HOF"?
   138. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:35 PM (#3049941)
I would vote Edgar Martinez for anything, including President of the United States and surrogate father, so I'm probably not the most reliable indicator as far as he goes.

This statement mirrors my feelings exactly.
   139. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:36 PM (#3049942)
I don't see Edgar getting in, and possibly missing the 5% cut off. He'll get Seattle votes and a few stat savvy votes but that'll be it.
There's no way Edgar gets in next year, and he may never get in at all, but there's also no chance he misses the 5% cutoff. He is/was so universally well-loved in the game at large, with a pretty compelling case for induction absent all other considerations, that he's guaranteed a Trammell-like floor at the very least. (For example, I'm betting he gets solid support from voters who cover/covered AL West teams during that era - that alone gets him over 5%.)

If Edgar ever gets inducted, that will be the year I actually make a pilgrimage to Cooperstown for the ceremony. I've actually got one of my (prospective) children's middle names set aside for him.

Let's just hope I don't have only daughters. Because that would be awkward.
   140. kwarren Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:39 PM (#3049945)
people get angry when you correct their grammer in real life, too.

What about spelling?

Brilliantly played!

He couldn't have asked for a better set-up.
   141. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:40 PM (#3049946)
I'd be honored. How many people can say, "You know, I once got a vote for the HOF"?


If the voter actually felt I deserved it, sure. However, I still wouldn't feel honored if it was just a pat on the back.
   142. AROM Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:41 PM (#3049947)
Didn't mean to imply that Edgar is going in next year. He probably won't. But if you think he's being slighted, he'll have plenty of company - Raines, Trammell, Bert, not to mention guys off the ballot like Whitaker, Santo, Grich, and a D Evans or two. Hard to focus on him.

Heck, since Bill James said Roy was better than Rice, contact him.


No need to. I've read his case for White and generally agree with it. I'm waiting for anybody to make a logical case that Rice was better, other than "I saw them" or "I'm older than you and I know it".
   143. Ron Johnson Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:43 PM (#3049948)
AROM, I've found you can approach it the other way. Establish the offensive difference and then ask yourself if there's any way baserunning and defense could cover the difference.

To me though the discussion sums up just how lame Rice's HOF career is. If you can have a good faith discussion about the relative value of Roy White and any given player and it's even remotely close, the guy's not a HOFer.

Dale Stephenson sees their peak (by his definition -- best 5 years. Don't have to be consecutive) as indistinguishable in value, with Rice providing a total of roughly 3.1 offensive wins over the course of an extra 208 games for their careers.

Odd to see a Rice comp come down to career value.

Certainly seems plausible that White had enough defensive value to cover the offensive difference. I wouldn't trust defensive numbers based on what amounts to range factor, assists and errors any farther than I can throw them, but what I see suggests that you have to set replacement level very low and make generous assumptions in Rice's favor (specifically explaining away his significant time at DH) to get Rice out in front by any kind of margin.
   144. Kyle S at work Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:43 PM (#3049949)
The best part about everyone here slagging on Jay Bell? According to BPro, he has a better HOF case than Jim Rice! He was worth 6-8 wins more over their respective careers, depending on if you prefer WARP1 or WARP3.

Outstanding.
   145. Rusty Priske Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:44 PM (#3049951)
I was prepared for Rice to get in, even though I think he doesn't belong.

What I wasn't prepared for was Rice getting in while a more deserving player falls off the ballot for not getting enough support.

Mark Grace is more deserving than Jim Rice.

(There are others on there more deserving than Grace, but they get more shots at it.)
   146. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:46 PM (#3049953)
Will Alomar be hurt by the spitting incident?
   147. RJ in TO Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:47 PM (#3049954)
Edgar is going to have a serious uphill battle to get in. If you do a check of his career totals, he's basically Larry Walker, without the MVP, Gold Gloves, or steals, and Larry Walker doesn't have a hope of getting into the Hall.

Walker: 1988 Games, 8030 PA, 1355/383/1311, .313/.400/.565 (140 OPS+)
Edgar: 2055 Games, 8672 PA, 1219/309/1261, .312/.418/.515 (147 OPS+)

Yeah, they played in different offensive environments, but that whole DH thing is going to result in tons of writers voting against Edgar just for that.
   148. salvomania Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:49 PM (#3049958)
Roy White vs. Jim Rice

"Consistent Peak: Consecutive Seasons with OPS+ of 130+"
Rice: 3
White: 5

"Quality Seasons Overall: Seasons with OPS+ over 120"
Rice: 9
White: 8

"Postseason Performance:"
Rice: .225/.313/.366 in 18 games
White: .287/.378/.430 in 25 games

"Defensive Value"
Pct. Games as DH:
Rice: 25.4
White: 5.9

</cherry picking>
   149. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:50 PM (#3049960)
And I've often seen McGriff referred to in a "yeah, right, HE's a Hall of Famer" way, although honestly, I'm not quite sure why.

McGriff has to have some of the worst timing ever, in terms of when he hit his peak. He hit 30 homers 7 years in a row, which won't impress the voters too much because several players did similar things a little later, and McGriff never got higher than 37. But two of those seasons led the league (1989 AL, 1992 NL), and another one came in 113 games in 1994. I don't know whether I'd support him or not, but his 7-year peak as a hitter (OPS+ of 157, 166, 153, 147, 166, 143, 157) is much better than the raw numbers make it look. It's certainly better than Rice's peak (as a hitter, no position or defensive adjustments included); Rice only had three OPS+ marks that match McGriff's seventh-best.
   150. Obama Bomaye Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:50 PM (#3049961)
There are only 17 pitchers that have thrown 4000 innings since integration, (1947), a major feat and milestone in and of itself. Among those 17, Blyleven ranks 6th in ERA+, ahead of 7 Hall of famers and one guy who is sure to make it in when eligible. He didn't just compile innings. His combination of quality of run prevention and durability puts him in the top half dozen pitchers over the last 60+ years. What the hell else is there ?

Clemens 143
Johnson 137
Maddux 132
Seaver 127
==================
==================
Spahn 119
Blyleven 118
Glavine 118
Perry 117
Niekro 115
Carlton 115
Jenkins 115
Roberts 113
Ryan 111
John 110
Sutton 108
Kaat 107
Tanana 106


It's a pretty strong argument, but I wonder how well it will persuade someone who simply does not think Blyleven is a HOFer. The top 4 guys on that list are off on their own. After that, you have a bunch of names packed together. The error bar on ERA+ (not counting unearned runs, inaccuracy of park factors, facing different schedules) makes it as likely that Blyleven "deserves" to be 12th on that list as 6th. I mean, no one is going to buy that he was a better pitcher than Steve Carlton and his 4 CYAs.
   151. cardsfanboy Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:51 PM (#3049962)

If the voter actually felt I deserved it, sure. However, I still wouldn't feel honored if it was just a pat on the back.


you may not, but other people may feel differently (how about that guy in Houston that was campaigning for a vote)

I don't have any problems at all with an attaboy vote, Willie McGee definately deserved some type of local praise. Now if these attaboy votes potentially push someone over, then that is too many of course, so I do think that only the local guy for their primary team should consider an attaboy vote. I'm hoping Ray Lankford gets a couple of votes next year also.
   152. RJ in TO Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:51 PM (#3049963)
Will Alomar be hurt by the spitting incident?


Maybe a little, but his later apology to the ump, as well as their later friendship will probably bail him out on that.

Even if he does take a bit of a shot because of that, he's still carrying the following in the + column:
- 12 time All-Star
- 4 Silver Sluggers
- 5 times in top 10 MVP voting
- 10 time GG
- 0.300 career BA
- major part of 2 WS champs
- in the playoffs a total of 7 times for a .313 .381 .448 line with a 20/2 SB/CS ratio.
   153. McCoy Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:51 PM (#3049964)
The roads up to that area are insane during the winter time. It really is a stupid place to put a national musuem.
   154. Gamingboy Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:52 PM (#3049965)
Rickey 511 94.8% I should probably make my faux-induction speech for him now.
Jim Rice 412 76.4% Good for him.
Andre Dawson 361 67.0% Obviously an anti-Expo conspiracy (and, sorry Cubs fans, but he'd go in as an Expo)
Bert Blyleven 338 62.7% Obviously a anti-Dutch conspiracy.
Lee Smith 240 44.5% Trevor Hoffman had better hope they figure out Closers by the time he shows up.
Jack Morris 237 44.0% Wait, you mean the BBWAA wasn't able to look past his 3.90 ERA
Tommy John 171 31.7% if they had put in Sandy Koufax's fastball instead of Mrs. Koufax's...
Tim Raines 122 22.6% The guy on the ballot who got the least respect. Almost certainly part of the Anti-Expo conspiracy.
Mark McGwire 118 21.9% Sorry, too easy.
Alan Trammell 94 17.4%
Dave Parker 81 15.0%
Don Mattingly 64 11.9%
Dale Murphy 62 11.5%
Harold Baines 32 5.9%
All of these guys had fine careers, but not HOF careers. They def. deserve to be on the ballot, though, as they will.
Mark Grace 22 4.1%
David Cone 21 3.9%
Matt Williams 7 1.3%
Mo Vaughn 6 1.1%
Jay Bell 2 0.4%
Bye guys!
Jesse Orosco 1 0.2% Ouch. I mean, I know he's Jesse Orosco, the blower of leads and bane of my existence during the later half of the 90s, but only one vote? I mean, c'mon, he had to have done something right to hold the record for most P appearances! He definitely didn't deserve to get past the first ballot (and, thank god, he will not), but 1 vote is cruel.
Ron Gant 0 0%
Dan Plesac 0 0%
Greg Vaughn 0 0%
The Mr. Irrevelents of the BBHOF voting.
Repoz Wait, how the hell did you get here? Oh, I must have got your name in the copy/paste.
   155. RJ in TO Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:53 PM (#3049966)
McGriff has to have some of the worst timing ever, in terms of when he hit his peak. He hit 30 homers 7 years in a row, which won't impress the voters too much because several players did similar things a little later, and McGriff never got higher than 37. But two of those seasons led the league (1989 AL, 1992 NL), and another one came in 113 games in 1994. I don't know whether I'd support him or not, but his 7-year peak as a hitter (OPS+ of 157, 166, 153, 147, 166, 143, 157) is much better than the raw numbers make it look. It's certainly better than Rice's peak (as a hitter, no position or defensive adjustments included); Rice only had three OPS+ marks that match McGriff's seventh-best.


Don't forget that the strike also cost him his shot at 500 HR, which would give him a big-deal milestone for the BBWAA.
   156. DL from MN Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:53 PM (#3049967)
The case for Larkin:

12 time All-Star, 1 MVP, 3 gold gloves, 9 silver sluggers and the Roberto Clemente award for character.
   157. Baldrick Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:54 PM (#3049968)
Edgar.

The MSM case: .312 career batting average. He'll also get a lot more sympathy there for being blocked until he was 27. And for saving baseball in Seattle.

The stathead case: list of non-HOF players with a better career on-base percentage (the single most important basic statistic): Bill Joyce (3000 AB in the 19th century), Ferris Fain (4000 AB), Max Bishop (4500 AB), Barry Bonds, Todd Helton, Pujols, Shoeless Joe, and Frank Thomas. So, people with incredibly short careers, people who are banned for life, mortal locks, a Coors-driven guy who hasn't gone through a decline phase and might still merit inclusion anyways, and steroids-infused Bonds.

You have to drop all the way to #58 to find a guy who cleared 6000 AB and probably won't make the HOF (Larry Walker - though this exercise demonstrates a good reason why maybe he SHOULD be in). Lu Blue almost makes the cut at 5900 AB, but his OBP was higher than his SLG for his career. I suppose that some of the active guys between there might keep up their OBP but not make the HOF (Giambi, Brian Giles, or Abreu for example) - but even a modest decline from them and they'll drop like a stone out of the top 100.

Also, sure he played lots of games at DH, but he did manage 563 games of acceptable defense at 3B, which is more valuable than if he was purely a 1B/DH type. How much value do you get for 3B v. 1B? I don't really know, but let's say that 563 games is worth something like 850 games of 1B. That would make it a lot closer to a 50/50 field vs. DH ratio. That's still not much defensive value, of course, but it's slightly more than you'd expect if you just look at games DHed.
   158. GregD Posted: January 12, 2009 at 08:55 PM (#3049970)
That list probably won't convince anyone who isn't already persuaded. To me, the simplest case is that longevity matters--everybody who pitched more innings is either in or guaranteed (Maddux). Tommy John becomes the challenge to this case, as he pitched one season less and quite effectively and hasn't picked up momentum.
   159. McCoy Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:06 PM (#3049977)
It could be until 2012 that another player gets elected to the hall. I'm thinking that is the year Dawson and Bagwell get in, maybe with Larkin as well but I don't see it happening with him for awhile.
   160. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:13 PM (#3049979)
Has Rickey made a comment about this yet? I'd like to hear his thoughts (on pretty much anything actually).
   161. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:16 PM (#3049982)
Possibly? Anyone willing to bet that he doesn't get a least 50%, let me know.

He's got a better shot than Larkin, so I probably shouldn't have implied that their chances were equal. Although I'd place the over/under on Alomar closer to 60% than 50%, I still think that it's possible that he'll wind up somewhere in the 40%'s realm.

Alomar seems like the type of guy that some writers like to vote against the first time and then support on future ballots. He's obviously going to make 5%, but some people (especially old-timers) feel that he's overrated so they'll take the opportunity to pass on him for the first ballot. I do think that the spitting incident hurts him, as well as the mediocre end of his career (which cost him the 3000 hit milestone, which most fans/writers expected him to achieve). In addition, he's similar to McGriff in that he played the first third of his career in the late 1980s and early 1990s, so he might get pinched on the superficially weak power numbers (although HR were the center of his HOF case, so the penalty will be less severe than for McGriff).

How about I change my handicapping of Alomar to "possibly not >75%, but probably at least 50%"?
   162. RJ in TO Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:17 PM (#3049984)
Has Rickey made a comment about this yet? I'd like to hear his thoughts (on pretty much anything actually).


He probably needs to spend some time standing in front of a mirror before he's ready to address the press.
   163. Chris Fluit Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:19 PM (#3049985)
What is most disturbing though is the lack of forward progress by most of the electorate, that indicates to me that voters are digging in their heels.


Doubtful. There's a long-standing pattern of voters not adding backlog candidates to their ballot when there's a very strong first-time candidate such as Rickey Henderson. With no sure-things being added to the ballot next year (from a BBWAA point of view- Alomar and Larkin aren't quite in the class of Henderson, Ripken or Gwynn), there's a very good chance that most of these guys will add 5-10% to their totals to get in.
   164. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:19 PM (#3049986)
Alomar and Larkin appear to be the top candidates, along with Edgar. I don't think most of us are opposed to those candidates.

Let me state clearly that I LIKE Edgar Martinez, that I believe him to have been one heckuva hitter and he did many wonderful things on a baseball field.

However, I am opposed to his induction into the Hall of Fame. It's not the Hall of Hitters. It's not the Hall of Nice Guys. It's not the Hall of They Just Elected Jim Rice so why Not Player "X".

I understand that I now leave Baldrick to re-open this discussion and hammer away at just one of SEVERAL points I made about Edgar. I accept that risk.

I oppose the induction of Dick Allen and in many ways Dick was the better player. And that's just one of several examples. I simply cannot remain philosophically consistent and support Edgar's candidacy.
   165. catseyepub Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:20 PM (#3049987)
No need to. I've read his case for White and generally agree with it. I'm waiting for anybody to make a logical case that Rice was better, other than "I saw them" or "I'm older than you and I know it".


As much as I grew upon Bill James and loved his writing, he could be mistaken as well. Do you recall his vehement(as seen on ESPN) defense of Pete Rose?????????? I ain't saying.....just saying.
   166. JPWF13 Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:22 PM (#3049989)
I would be shocked if Roberto Alomar does not walk into the Hall of Fame next year.


just looking at his 10 bbref comps
Larkin (well that tells us nothing)
Jeter (ditto, though I assume that he'll end up with much better career numbers offensively)
Whitaker (not in- off ballot)
Frisch (in)
Julio Franco (not in and won't get in)
Sandberg (in, but not first ballot)
IROD (not really applicable)
Trammell (not in)
Joe Morgan (in)
Ted Simmons (not really applicable)

Alomar's premature cliff dive cost him 3000 hits, but he did keep his avg above .300 (barely)
I think he'll get in- but it will take 2-3 years
   167. Chris Fluit Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:23 PM (#3049992)
actually, I think the anti-Rice voices will go the way to pimping for actual deserving candidates now that the standard has been dramatically lowered. Andre Dawson probably gets in easily next year, when the most recent standard for outfield is a clearly lesser player like Rice. Murphys vote total goes up, heck Parkers vote goes up. McGriff relative to Rice is a slam dunk, Edgar Martinez is another slam dunk, it's a domino effect. meanwhile Raines still doesn't garner support.


Again, doubtful. There's just not a history of this. Sure, plenty of observers will decry that the standards have lowered. "You let player X in, why not let player Y in as well?" But it just doesn't happen that way. Don Sutton's election didn't suddenly create support for Tommy John or Jim Kaat. Catfish Hunter's election didn't suddenly create a lower bar for Luis Tiant or Orel Hershiser (credit goes to Rob Neyer for that one). Dale Murphy's total actually went down the year after Kirby Puckett got in.
   168. Ron Johnson Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:23 PM (#3049993)
One of the things that surprised me about Blyleven is that he doesn't do particularly well -- or badly -- by peak (at least by support neutral value over replacement)

His peak comes right between Tom Glavine and Dave Stieb. 24th in the Retrosheet era but with no significant difference between 18 (Jim Bunning) and 29 (Catfish Hunter)

Only 7 guys had more value outside their peaks though. Not how I remember him, but his real value was the large number of good years.
   169. Steve Treder Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:25 PM (#3049995)
As much as I grew upon Bill James and loved his writing, he could be mistaken as well. Do you recall his vehement(as seen on ESPN) defense of Pete Rose?????????? I ain't saying.....just saying.

Bill James is as human as any of the rest of us, and most definitely has been mistaken about many things. That doesn't mean he was wrong about the White/Rice comparison.

If there were a logical, fact-based case that Rice was meaningfully better than White, someone would have made it. No one has, because none exists.
   170. esseff Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:26 PM (#3049996)
I'm waiting for anybody to make a logical case that Rice was better, other than "I saw them" or "I'm older than you and I know it".


HoF Monitor shows Rice 144, White 17, so -- without examing the individual components that go into the Monitor -- there must be some qualitative argument in Rice's favor.
   171. JPWF13 Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:27 PM (#3049997)
As much as I grew upon Bill James and loved his writing, he could be mistaken as well. Do you recall his vehement(as seen on ESPN) defense of Pete Rose?????????? I ain't saying.....just saying.


I didn't see it, but I read it, and to say I was shocked is putting it mildly, I'd read all the Abstracts, his ability at logical reasoning FAR surpassed any sportswriter I'd read before- and all that went out the window when he wrote about Rose and the Dowd Report- I was honestly baffled, what had gotten into him?

He has gotten a bit cranky in later years, but even so, his Rose exoneration stuff was and thankfully remains, an outlier in his writing.
   172. base ball chick Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:28 PM (#3049998)
catseyepub Posted: January 12, 2009 at 04:20 PM (#3049987)

As much as I grew upon Bill James and loved his writing, he could be mistaken as well.


- bill james?
make a mistake???!!!

oh heavens to goodness gracious betsey

bill james knows everything about everything and he can't POSSIBLY be wrong abut ANYTHING
   173. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:28 PM (#3049999)
Stieb's peak plus durability equals HOFer, IMHO. Not inner circle, but most definitely in their category of clear HOFer.
   174. Steve Treder Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:30 PM (#3050000)
HoF Monitor shows Rice 144, White 17, so -- without examing the individual components that go into the Monitor -- there must be some qualitative argument in Rice's favor.

You understand how the HoF Monitor works, right?
   175. GregD Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:30 PM (#3050001)
You know that the HOF Monitor measures their likelihood of being picked, nothing else, right? Rice gets points for leading league in HRs and All-Star appearances, things that are nice but not definitive in terms of his value.
   176. RJ in TO Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:30 PM (#3050002)
Stieb's peak plus durability equals HOFer, IMHO. Not inner circle, but most definitely in their category of clear HOFer.


Completely true. He was well on his way to the Hall of Fame when he hurt his back in 1991, and ended up with tendonitis problems as a result of the changed motion.
   177. catseyepub Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:32 PM (#3050003)
That doesn't mean he was wrong about the White/Rice comparison


You are right, doesn't mean he was wrong about it but when cases are made based upon experience of those who saw both of their careers while both active and in their primes , that argument does not suffice for those who are 100% into numbers and numbers alone.

Even Bill James will tell you that's faulty premise.
   178. esseff Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:32 PM (#3050004)
You understand how the HoF Monitor works, right?


If you mean the difference between telling us who has gone into the Hall and who someone thinks ought to go in, yes I do. Still, gives Rice a case based on the longstanding Hall standards.
   179. Babe Adams Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:33 PM (#3050005)
bill james?
make a mistake???!!!

oh heavens to goodness gracious betsey


Where is Cedric the Entertainer when you need him?
   180. JMPH Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:34 PM (#3050007)
The only way we'll have a Rice situation again is if the writers elect nobody, but make someone like Andres Galarraga the leading guy heading into 2011 with 70% of the vote or something.

Which isn't ridiculous, given that the Big Cat and Rice have remarkably similar career numbers, and Galarraga was a pretty damn good first baseman, IIRC.
   181. flournoy Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:34 PM (#3050008)
Don't forget that the strike also cost [McGriff] his shot at 500 HR, which would give him a big-deal milestone for the BBWAA.


As far as I'm concerned, he's already there. 503 including the postseason. Those count in my book.
   182. Guapo Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:34 PM (#3050009)
MLB Network Video... Jimmy Rollins' Rickey imitation. Quite entertaining!

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200901123740359
   183. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:36 PM (#3050011)
HoF Monitor shows Rice 144, White 17, so -- without examing the individual components that go into the Monitor -- there must be some qualitative argument in Rice's favor.

Rice had 1 MVP (8 points) and 6 more All Star games (3 points each), so that's 26 points right there.

Here's the description of each component:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor
   184. Obama Bomaye Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:36 PM (#3050012)
HoF Monitor shows Rice 144, White 17, so -- without examing the individual components that go into the Monitor -- there must be some qualitative argument in Rice's favor.

The Monitor is only intended to monitor positive indicators for a player's HOF chances. It is NOT intended to make any statement about the relative value of a player. Only to predict his chances of induction, based on achievements which voters have rewarded in the past. And since Rice has been elected and White was not close, it seems to be accurate in this case.

SORRY...the posts are coming in too quick for me.
   185. JMPH Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:37 PM (#3050015)
As far as I'm concerned, he's already there. 503 including the postseason. Those count in my book.

I've always thought that about McGriff. It's not like those homers never happened. Hell, they were more important than the other 493.
   186. Steve Treder Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:39 PM (#3050016)
You are right, doesn't mean he was wrong about it but when cases are made based upon experience of those who saw both of their careers while both active and in their primes , that argument does not suffice for those who are 100% into numbers and numbers alone.

I'm honestly not quite certain I understand what this means.

But I'll tell you this. I saw both of their careers while both active and in their primes. My assessment then and now is that they're roughly equal talents, very different sets of strengths and weaknesses obviously, but on balance pretty much equal. If I had them both on my roster in their primes, and had room to play them only in left field, I'd platoon them.
   187. Ron Johnson Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:42 PM (#3050018)
James didn't write an Rose exoneration. He argued much as Ray D. has argued in the case of McGwire that the case against Rose wasn't compelling(phrasing it something like, "you don't know and I don't know"). He was arguing more against the certainty than anything else. (And you have to go into the report in quite a bit of detail to make a fairly compelling case. There's a great discussion between Dale Stephenson and James Withrow in RSB that does the best job I've ever seen)

And what a lot of people appear to forget is that James did in fact agree that a HOF ban makes sense regardless of the reason that Rose chose to agree to the permanent ban.

I doubt that he regrets a word of what he wrote in the wake of Rose's subsequent admissions.

I'd argue that the hatchet job on Allen is more egregious. And he backed well off of that (though he applies a pretty large subjective downgrade) in NHA.
   188. Steve Treder Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:43 PM (#3050020)
Still, gives Rice a case based on the longstanding Hall standards.

A case for likely being elected to the Hall of Fame and a case of actually being a better baseball player are, most definitely and regrettably, not the same thing.
   189. JPWF13 Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:47 PM (#3050021)
HoF Monitor shows Rice 144, White 17, so -- without examing the individual components that go into the Monitor -- there must be some qualitative argument in Rice's favor.


Rice did the things that HOF voters historically liked, that's all the HOF monitor figures mean.

This what you need to know, Jim Rice played from 1974 to 1989 in Fenway, his offensive context was .271/.337/.407, he had 9058 PAs of 128 OPS+ hitting. He had 1500 games as a mediocre LF and 500 games as a DH.

Roy White played from 1965 to 1979 in Yankee Stadium (2 years in Shea), his offensive context was .252/.320/.372, he had 7735 PAs of 121 OPS+ hitting. He had 1500 games in LF and 100 games at DH. He was a better LF than Rice.

White's problem? 2 of them-
1: He played in a very poor offensive context- his "air" rating is 89, extraordinarily low for a post 1920s player with any kind of career length- basically guys like Wilie Davis, Ron Fairly and Cesar Cedeno (who played in 1960s Dodger Stadium, or 70s Astrodome) have career "air" ratings that low.
2: No strengths- he hit for a good average- .271 when average is .252 is "good" not great, but good. IN a .270 context he'd be close to .300, which wouldn't be any better, but would LOOK a lot better.
He hit for decent power- 15-20 homers when league slugging is .370 is GOOD (not great, not league leading, but good.
He walked, but his career high was 99...

Basically he was better than average at a LOT of things, mediocre at the rest.
Rice was much better than average at a few things, mediocre at some, and actually bad at the rest.

Rice has a slight career length edge, and a slight 3 year peak edge, I think James was wrong, Rice was better- but it was close, far closer than one would ever imagine by relying on traditional stats and contemporary opinion.
   190. JPWF13 Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:53 PM (#3050027)
James didn't write an Rose exoneration. He argued much as Ray D. has argued in the case of McGwire that the case against Rose wasn't compelling(phrasing it something like, "you don't know and I don't know").


He went quite a bit further than that, he LATER referred to Rose as Baseball's "wronged man" and outlined a process whereby Rose would be reinstated and eventually elected to the HOF- it was pretty clear by the time of the NBJHA that he thought Rose was actually innocent.
   191. Johnny Tuttle Posted: January 12, 2009 at 09:54 PM (#3050028)
6-4-3 has already mostly done so, but how could we build a case against Alomar?

I've been wrong before, watching guys during their youth and peak and predicating HoF chances, of course, but I have always seen Alomar as a future HoF, or at least I have since 1992. I'm completely biased in favor of him, in other words, and I'd like to hear the rationale for his not being voted in.
   192. Mike Green Posted: January 12, 2009 at 10:02 PM (#3050034)
The case against Alomar is pretty weak, but not as weak as the case against Larkin. Alomar is not the best second baseman not in the Hall (Grich), and all those Gold Gloves were undeserved. You can certainly argue that he is a lesser player than Raines, Larkin and Blyleven and shouldn't be inducted in 2010.

What you're left with in the long run is this. Top-drawer offensive career for a second baseman. Adequate, at least, defence. 10,000 PAs.
   193. J. Michael Neal Posted: January 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM (#3050036)
The case for Larkin:

12 time All-Star, 1 MVP, 3 gold gloves, 9 silver sluggers and the Roberto Clemente award for character.


Best college shortstop I've ever seen.
   194. AROM Posted: January 12, 2009 at 10:05 PM (#3050037)
Easy to build a case against anybody. Pick out something he didn't do. Some record he couldn't break. If the player has broken too many records, keep him out because he did it on steroids. The HOF standards are pretty tough these days unless the writers decide to make you their pet.
   195. kwarren Posted: January 12, 2009 at 10:07 PM (#3050039)
WARP Comparisons - best eight seasons.....career total

Jay Bell - 11.1, 10.6, 9.0, 8.1, 8.0, 7.6, 6.9, 6.8....88.8

Roy White - 10.5, 10.4, 9.4, 9.0, 8.1, 7.3, 7.1, 6.5...84.6

Jim Rice - 9.7, 8.9, 7.5, 7.4, 7.3, 6.8, 5.7, 5.0.....80.2


Rice is in, and people laugh at the writer who voted for Bell.

A-Rod got it right "MORONS", and yes White was a better player than Rice.
   196. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: January 12, 2009 at 10:07 PM (#3050040)
I'm kind of surprised that Gracie didn't get more votes. I thought there would be a Most Hits in the 90s contingents, and besides, isn't the consensus that he was always throwing his teammates under the bus as an "anonymous source" to sportswriters?

Although maybe they viewed that as a character flaw even if it helped them, I dunno.
   197. Ron Johnson Posted: January 12, 2009 at 10:09 PM (#3050042)
Again I think you miss a key point. James ' point is that if MLB was relying on the Dowd report they'd be placed badly if it ever came to litigation. And that Giamatti's statement (probably) gave Rose the leverage to get the agreement (where he signs away any right to sue or any say in the process) tossed.

I've been assured by any number of lawyers that James is probably wrong on the second point (which makes everything moot), but I also know that most lawyers wouldn't want to test the issue.

As to the first point, having been involved in discussions about a lawsuit flowing from a less than totally compelling investigation of a cheating accusation in bridge (leading to a suspension) I know that courts are generally uninterested in the specifics of the investigation. Just whether it was procedurally fair. And it was.

So while I disagee with you about what James was saying, it's pretty clear to me that he was wrong -- provided MLB didn't cave.
   198. Baldrick Posted: January 12, 2009 at 10:10 PM (#3050043)
Imagine if Jack Morris pitched to Mark Grace at midnight on December 31, 1989. Surely he'd give up like 25 hits, but then win the game. And then they'd both stroll into the Hall of Fame.
   199. Johnny Tuttle Posted: January 12, 2009 at 10:11 PM (#3050044)
AROM,

That's cyncical, but I agree. I've long thought that for popularity in music & other entertainment genres. Either the media treats the person/pop cultural product with a lot of inexplicable leeway (Beyonce or Gwen Stefani/Braveheart), or the person or product gets ignored or savaged, playground style (Bjork/The Patriot).
   200. Srul Itza Posted: January 12, 2009 at 10:18 PM (#3050052)
Rickey's plaque is going to be very crowded, what with listing all the teams he played with, his records, and so on.

I lay even money that the words "one of the most feared", or some derivative thereof, show up on Rice's plaque.
Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4547 - 8:29am, Dec 18)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9149 - 8:20am, Dec 18)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(299 - 7:57am, Dec 18)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(28 - 6:59am, Dec 18)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogAZCentral: Miley's Preparation Apparently an Issue for DBacks
(15 - 6:39am, Dec 18)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogMLBTR: Padres-Rays-Nationals Agree to Three-Team Trade
(35 - 5:10am, Dec 18)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogRoyals sign Edinson Volquez for two years, $20 million
(4 - 4:58am, Dec 18)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(643 - 2:32am, Dec 18)
Last: Howling John Shade

NewsblogMorosi - Effects of US Shift on Cuba Policy
(8 - 1:46am, Dec 18)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(74 - 1:04am, Dec 18)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogThe Dan Shaughnessy Hall Of Fame Ballot
(58 - 12:17am, Dec 18)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Ballot
(6 - 12:08am, Dec 18)
Last: lieiam

NewsblogSource: Myers to Padres in 11-player deal with Rays, Nats | MLB.com
(3 - 11:39pm, Dec 17)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOrioles agree to one-year deal with LHP Wesley Wright, pending physical, source says
(11 - 8:58pm, Dec 17)
Last: escabeche

NewsblogIndians sign Gavin Floyd to deal
(9 - 8:37pm, Dec 17)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

Page rendered in 0.9321 seconds
48 querie(s) executed