$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jul 1, 2009 12:15:55 GMT -5
God is more a change-up specialist. He doesnt air it out.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jul 1, 2009 12:24:28 GMT -5
Didn't God and John Franco pitch in A-ball together?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jul 1, 2009 21:19:53 GMT -5
Jesus has a great pickoff move to second.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jul 2, 2009 12:31:41 GMT -5
Moses was a master hitting to the gaps....especially against the RED Sox.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jul 27, 2009 7:00:13 GMT -5
Interesting article here: online.wsj.com/article/SB124864577360682129.htmlIt talks about how predictable the writers are when it comes to the HOF. It also lists likelihood of some people making it, though of course the choices they have are all obvious no brainers. I hope this link still exists in a few years when some of these people will actually be voted on.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Nov 28, 2009 10:46:49 GMT -5
Rob M posted this in the Hall of Fame thread - heres a better place for what turns into our heated arguments. Get to it -
Hall Of Fame Ballot
2009 candidates
• Roberto Alomar • Harold Baines • Bert Blyleven • Andre Dawson • Andres Galarraga • Barry Larkin • Edgar Martinez • Don Mattingly • Fred McGriff • Mark McGwire • Jack Morris • Dale Murphy • Dave Parker • Tim Raines • Lee Smith • Alan Trammell Kevin Appier Ellis Burks Pat Hentgen Mike Jackson Eric Karros Ray Lankford Shane Reynolds David Segui Robin Ventura Todd Zeile
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 28, 2009 14:57:35 GMT -5
Mike Jackson, hands down.
|
|
|
Post by heartybooooo on Jan 6, 2010 8:12:35 GMT -5
Results are announced today. I think Alomar makes it in, Dawson, and maybe Blyleven.
My hypothetical ballot would be Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Raines, Martinez, Trammell, McGuire, and Dale Murphy. I'm on the fence about Dawson.
Some quick thoughts- Alomar and Dawson were two of my favorite non-Yankee players. I think people forget how good Dale Murphy was and that Trammell and Raines were not fully appreciated in their time (also Blyleven). I never thought of Larkin as that great but on further research and reading that is on me. Maybe it's because his counting stats season by season weren't that good as he always missed 15-20 games a year.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 6, 2010 8:54:18 GMT -5
Im a big Blyleven backer. I hope this is your year. Im more in the Dawson camp than I was, but if he got my vote it would be with trepidation. I agree on Alomar, Larkin, and yes, Alan Trammell, who is savagely underrated. I vote no on McGwire, but its more for his one-dimensional style than his steroid history. Too many guys and too many records have been tainted for this to really matter in regards to him. Im also on the fence regarding Raines.
Chris, do you think the spitting incident still hurts Alomar's standing at all, although that was totally swept under the bridge by the parties involved, and forven.
|
|
|
Post by heartybooooo on Jan 6, 2010 9:03:14 GMT -5
I think Alomar's numbers and performance by far outweigh one incident, while horrible, done in the heat of the moment. And the spittee is one of his strongest supporters.
And on McGuire, he was actually two dimensional- HRs and walks. He had an impressive OBP. And when you do one thing, hit HRs, at an unbelievable clip, that might be sufficient as well. I get the steroid thing, but I ignore it. It was a big part of the game, at best actively ignored, at worst encouraged. That's my view.
I am a big Raines supporter. Lots of good stuff written. I think Posnanski wrote a great piece on him. He has quickly become one of my favorite writers.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2010 9:15:59 GMT -5
That's the problem--you ignore the steroid thing. Without the steroids, McGwire is a zero dimensional ballplayer.
His numbers are as tainted as his piss.
Anyone implicated in steroids should never make the HOF. That includes McGwire, Clemens, Bonds. I don't care what their numbers are. They're shit.
I don't think the spitting incident matters for Alomar at all. Anyone who uses that as a reason NOT to vote for the guy is a schmuck.
|
|
|
Post by heartybooooo on Jan 6, 2010 9:41:24 GMT -5
I know different people think differently about the steroid thing. And we'll never agree. I think it becomes a slippery slope with other drugs including amphetimines.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 6, 2010 10:11:48 GMT -5
Im with Chris on this one.
Hey, Mickey Mantle admitted to using amphetemines. Whitey Ford doctored the ball and bragged about it. We can go on and on with semantics. A whole generation of ballplayers is implicated in the steroid mess. Time to move on.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2010 10:14:19 GMT -5
First, the "two wrongs make a right defense" is such a stupid argument, it could only be supported by the likes of Tom.
Second, any drugs Mantle took made him worse, not better. Yes, a whole generation of ballplayers are implicated in the steroid mess.
NONE of them should be in the HOF.
They cheated. No Hall, move on.
I'm glad McGwire is struggling.
|
|
|
Post by heartybooooo on Jan 6, 2010 10:18:24 GMT -5
How do you know who used them and who didn't? Let's not do this again.
Who would be on your list? Who do you think will make it?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2010 10:47:55 GMT -5
For starters, there's that list of 104 people who tested positive. Start by releasing that.
You have people like McGwire, Manny, ARod, Ortiz, Pettitte, Sosa, Giambi, Clemens--all of whom were caught in some capacity.
None of them belong in the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by heartybooooo on Jan 6, 2010 11:47:30 GMT -5
So back to the subject of the thread.
Who would you vote for? Who do you think will make it?
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 6, 2010 12:17:52 GMT -5
The Larkin talks are getting as boring as the Mattingly talks.
Mattingly & Larkin - NO & NO!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2010 13:31:36 GMT -5
Not using the lesser standard that got Puckett in, and actually voting for people that should really be there,
Alomar definite.
Blyleven definite. Just because Tommy John is off the ballot doesn't change that both men belong.
I lean against with Dawson. If Dawson's in, how would you not vote in Harold Baines? Do 50 HR over a career really change things?
And it may be a bit unfair, but Dawson's OBP is a little low. Dawson, and even Raines less so, are borderline. I wouldn't be outraged if either got in, especially given the lower bar set post-Puckett and Rice, but ultimately, I hold the line at Alomar and Blyleven.
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Jan 6, 2010 14:05:34 GMT -5
DAWSON IN!
BLYLEVEN AND ALOMAR JUST FALL SHORT!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2010 14:15:25 GMT -5
Got to figure Blyleven and Alomar are going to make it next year, though again--how does Dawson make it and Baines not?
And no, I don't think that Baines is a HOFer, but his numbers are better than Dawson's.
|
|
|
Post by heartybooooo on Jan 6, 2010 14:34:29 GMT -5
Dawson had a better peak and stole bases and was a better defensive player. Baines was more consistent for longer. But not a hall of famer.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2010 14:40:11 GMT -5
But the HOF is based on a career, not a peak period. If I wanted to pick a player, I would take Baines 10 times out of 10--even in their primes.
Baines had twice as many .300 seasons. And while yes, Dawson had some career years, that's not what the HOF is honoring. If that were the case, Mattingly would be in since his peak years were easily HOF worthy, and his numbers match Puckett's.
Baines' OBP, which you were touting just this morning, is SIGNIFICANTLY better than Dawson's.
When there are people with no shot at the HOF that are better than people who are in, the case for the person that is in, is weak.
|
|
|
Post by heartybooooo on Jan 6, 2010 14:44:51 GMT -5
I said I was on the fence with Dawson. Mainly for those reasons, low OBP, not a huge peak and maybe not long enough at very good. I think his defense and base stealing are pluses that Baines didn't have. I am a little biased as Dawson was one of my favorite players as a kid.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2010 14:46:27 GMT -5
Certainly, defense matters, and sure, the basestealing was there. But I think Baines makes up for where Dawson was better in other areas of the game.
I haven't seen the ballot, but these guys are very close and the ballot should reflect that. I'm confident it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Jan 6, 2010 15:51:44 GMT -5
Anyone watch some old school games on MLB network when Baines is rocking the White Sox pitiful unis while playing RF? He was skinny as a rail.
Dawson was more of a complete player than Baines. Period.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2010 17:53:53 GMT -5
I think it's fair to say that yes, overall Dawson was more complete. I can't really argue against that. Dawson's OBP is a real knock against him though, and Baines bested him there significantly.
As hitters though, the two are pretty similar. Dawson has a huge advantage in steals, but Baines does make up in other categories.
Defensively, the edge goes to Dawson in a landslide.
Yet again, they are VERY similar players. The inconsistency in the voting is where I really take issue. 76 percent to 6 percent. They weren't that far apart for such a difference in voting.
Nice to see Mattingly gain 5 percent.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 6, 2010 18:17:52 GMT -5
Dawson just came across to his peers as much more dangerous in many facets. Baines was steady. Baines also was a liability in the field, and spent a lot of time DHing. When is Mattingly off the ballot already? He'll never get in, nor should he, bless the man though.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2010 19:23:41 GMT -5
Not that it matters, but Mattingly gained ground this year again.
Who knows? Maybe he'll steadily gain ground until year 15, and then fall off the ballot like Tommy John.
I get how some could perceive Dawson as more dangerous--especially in his prime years. But at the same time the HOF is over a career, and over the careers, the numbers were VERY similar, and Baines was more consistent for a longer period. Without going to baseball-reference, didn't Baines hit .300 as late as age 40?
Baines was a DH for more than half his career and Dawson spent almost his whole career in the NL where that wasn't possible.
Dawson has said that had he been told to walk more, he would have. Hard to say if that's even possible to prove.
If you were to say, "I would take Dawson over Baines," it's a fair statement. Give up the OBP for the SB and defense. The OPS is so close that it's not a terrible choice by any stretch.
But if you are to say that these players legitimately were so different that one is a HOFer while the other almost fell off the ballot, that just doesn't make sense.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2010 19:25:09 GMT -5
Also, why is that the best pure DH ever, Edgar Martinez, didn't even come close?
Can a DH even get in the HOF? If so, how can Edgar not make it?
|
|