ghost of miles Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Mike Cuellar was a damn good pitcher for a fair amount of time that everybody seems to have forgotten about. Didn't get w/a good team until he was 32. Wasn't he a part of the Orioles rotation that featured four 20-game winners in the same season? Doubt that will ever happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 these go for $20/$25 a pack now 10 cents in 1978 a pack IIRC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost of miles Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 I'll bet that chewing gum's really hard now... I was really into cards as a kid, then sold off all of mine to a collector for a few hundred bucks when I was 19. In some ways I wish I would've kept them (esp. seeing those beautiful '78 cards again), but when I think back on all the places I've lived, and what's happened just to things like books that I've carted around... we just cleaned out the garage at our old house, and I threw out all of my Strat-O-Mat scoresheets from the '77 season that I was recreating as a kid (got about 2/3 of the way through the schedule). The cards would've deteriorated at some point, I'm sure, during the bohemian daze/phase of my youth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Even Joe DiMaggio got less than half the vote his first year, 1953, and failed again the next year before getting in. WOW, now that is amazing since DiMaggio was voted Greatest Living Player in 1969 when baseball was celebrating the 100th anniversary of baseball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost of miles Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Was the waiting time different then? DiMaggio retired after the '51 season... nowadays it's what, 5-6 years before you're eligible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Mike Cuellar was a damn good pitcher for a fair amount of time that everybody seems to have forgotten about. Didn't get w/a good team until he was 32. Wasn't he a part of the Orioles rotation that featured four 20-game winners in the same season? Doubt that will ever happen again. You got that right -- four man rotations are long gone, as well as starters going over 300 innings pitched. In Joe D's time, you could get in right after retirement, that's why a first-year entry use to be a sign of a very special player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Mike Cuellar was a damn good pitcher for a fair amount of time that everybody seems to have forgotten about. Didn't get w/a good team until he was 32. Wasn't he a part of the Orioles rotation that featured four 20-game winners in the same season? Doubt that will ever happen again. As noted, yes. And Cuellar had a decent stretch of very strong seasons w/the O's, with whom he didn't hook up with until an age when many pitchers today are begin to wobble. Hell, he even had some "nice" years with the Astros, back when they were a pitiful excuse for a team. Not saying that he's necessarily HOF material, but he was way too good to be relegated to oblivion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Weren't the four: Jim Palmer Dave McNally Mike Cuellar Pat Dobson I seem to also remember in the WS that year three 20 games winners pitched for the O's in one game, which never happened before or since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 We should probably wait til this year is done before talking about 2007 and beyond, but here are the upcoming first-time candidates, courtesy of Jayson Stark (my expected first-year electees in italics): 2007 Harold Baines, Derek Bell, Dante Bichette, Bobby Bonilla, Jeff Brantley, Jay Buhner, Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, Eric Davis, Tony Fernandez, Tony Gwynn, Darryl Hamilton, Pete Harnisch, Charlie Hayes, Glenallen Hill, Ken Hill, Stan Javier, Wally Joyner, Ramon Martinez, Mark McGwire, Paul O'Neill, Gregg Olson, Cal Ripken Jr., Bret Saberhagen, Jeff Shaw, Kevin Tapani, Devon White, Bobby Witt 2008 Shawon Dunston, Travis Fryman, David Justice, Mike Morgan, Tim Raines, Randy Velarde 2009 Mark Grace, Rickey Henderson, Dean Palmer, Dan Plesac, Matt Williams 2010 Andres Galarraga, Edgar Martinez, Robin Ventura Stark notes in his column that Rice has only three more shots after this year. I know that the number of votes he needs is still fairly high, but at this point I'd be happy he cracks 70% this year, because historically, virtually everyone who reaches that level has eventually made it, and after Gwynn and Cal go in a year from now, Rice will still have two more chances, and only Rickey Henderson is a first-year inductee in the group for 2008-09. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Even Joe DiMaggio got less than half the vote his first year, 1953, and failed again the next year before getting in. WOW, now that is amazing since DiMaggio was voted Greatest Living Player in 1969 when baseball was celebrating the 100th anniversary of baseball The Bill James book Whatever Happened To The Hall Of Fame or (also titled) The Politics Of Glory is kind of sloppy but it goes into detail about the changes in the rules for induction over the years. Aside from the history there are sections on predictive measures and also good old fashioned debates about players, such as comparing Catfish vs. Tiant, and the controversial picks of Rizzuto and Drysdale. He also sizes up the case for players not in along with players who were active in '95. He didn't forsee the steroid tater era that has changed the way people view career power numbers so in places you have to take that into account, especially when he's looking at career total numbers that voters are impressed by and such. In the back of his book are his predictions made in '94 for who he thought the writers would induct. Again, they're predictions on who he thought would get voted in, not necessarily who he feels deserves it. Kind of amusing now. 1995 - Schmidt, Rice 1996 - Sutton, Rose - Whoops! 1997 - Garvey, P. Niekro - I'm thrilled he was wrong about Garvey. 1998 - Gary Carter, Al Oliver - Oliver has been forgotten about 1999 - Ryan, Brett 2000 - Yount, Fisk 2001 - Dawson, Winfield - Shows you how important 3000 hits/500 HR can be. 2002 - Murray, Ozzie 2003 - Paker, Kaat - Way off here. 2004 - Eck, Simmons - As Fisk & Gary Carter had to wait, so does Simmons. Catchers don't get much respect. 2005 - Boggs, Ripken 2006 - Rickey, Molitor - He didn't see Rickey playing so long. 2007 - Gwynn, Clemens - Obviously he didn't think Clemens would be pitching in 2005. Oddly enough he thought 2010 would be: 2010 - Raines, Sandberg - He notes 2nd basemen have a hard time getting in, hence the later date. My favorite "missed it by that much" prediction: 2017 - Frank Thomas, Ruben Sierra Ruben! Ruben! Ruben! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny E Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) I was always fond of the 73' Topps. Edited January 9, 2006 by Johnny E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BERIGAN Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 A column on who Jason Stark voted for, and why... http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stor...yson&id=2282992 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejp626 Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 I guess you never know, but I think Ripken will make it in his first year of eligibility. Any thoughts on McGwire? At one point, he would have been a shoe-in, but looking at how much the man has shriveled without being on the juice, I wonder if that will give voters a reason to hesitate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Any thoughts on McGwire? At one point, he would have been a shoe-in, but looking at how much the man has shriveled without being on the juice, I wonder if that will give voters a reason to hesitate. I recently read a story in Sports Illustrated that claimed McGwire wanted to talk about his steroid use before Congress last year but that the statute of limitations for acquiring them illegally is five years, so without immunity he was unwilling to talk. The writer suggested that McGwire may tell all sometime this year as 5 years will have passed. If this is true it adds another twist. So many of the baseball writers seem to be obsessed with stars of today and steroids, but there are stories of use in the late '80s as well. So if McGwire talks and says he had been using them since '88, what do you do? Throw out the whole career, or try to adjust the home run totals downward by 10 or 20%? Who knows? Would he score points for being honest about the past after that pitiful appearance before Congress? I haven't a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 I would see McGwire as very iffy at this point. His whole game was the homerun, the guy couldn't run that good, not a good fielder, and his BA sucks. Take away the dingers, what do you have? Let me put it this way, would you rather have McGwire off steriods on your team, or George Scott? I'd take Boomer any day of the week given that choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 I would see McGwire as very iffy at this point. His whole game was the homerun, the guy couldn't run that good, not a good fielder, and his BA sucks. Take away the dingers, what do you have? Let me put it this way, would you rather have McGwire off steriods on your team, or George Scott? I'd take Boomer any day of the week given that choice. I agree. McGuire was a shoe-in at one point, but if he cops to steroids after the statute of limitations expires, then he'll be finished. Admitting using them will be even worse than the way he handled the congressional hearing. I'll say right now that the chances are maybe 10% that McGuire makes it. Pretty sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 I guess you never know, but I think Ripken will make it in his first year of eligibility. Absolutely no doubt in my mind that Cal is in, right off the bat. If he isn't, send me an Orioles cap and I'll eat it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny E Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 I guess you never know, but I think Ripken will make it in his first year of eligibility. Any thoughts on McGwire? At one point, he would have been a shoe-in, but looking at how much the man has shriveled without being on the juice, I wonder if that will give voters a reason to hesitate. I know what you mean. take a look at these before and after pictures: McGuire in his playing days just a few years ago McGuire at a Card show just last November It's really a shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 I would see McGwire as very iffy at this point. His whole game was the homerun, the guy couldn't run that good, not a good fielder, and his BA sucks. Take away the dingers, what do you have? A juiced Dave Kingman? Almost... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 I think the main problem with the steroid issue is it's hard to tell how much the drug adds to the power totals. If McGwire wasn't juiced his rookie year when he hit 49 in a difficult hitter's park, he probably could have put up very big career power numbers without the 'roids. And if you look at his away batting average during his Oakland years he usually hit between .280 and .300. That park is hell on hitters with the big foul territory and because of it there has never been a batting champion from Oakland. Who knows, he might have been healthier and played longer and the totals may have washed in the end had he not used them. But it's kind of hard to judge the what might have beens. I agree getting into the Hall looks difficult for him, but there are whole mess of players who have/had talent, and the drugs didn't do it all on their own. It won't be easy deciding which users get in and which ones don't, especially as with many of them we'll never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 I think the main problem with the steroid issue is it's hard to tell how much the drug adds to the power totals. If McGwire wasn't juiced his rookie year when he hit 49 in a difficult hitter's park, he probably could have put up very big career power numbers without the 'roids. And if you look at his away batting average during his Oakland years he usually hit between .280 and .300. That park is hell on hitters with the big foul territory and because of it there has never been a batting champion from Oakland. Who knows, he might have been healthier and played longer and the totals may have washed in the end had he not used them. But it's kind of hard to judge the what might have beens. I agree getting into the Hall looks difficult for him, but there are whole mess of players who have/had talent, and the drugs didn't do it all on their own. It won't be easy deciding which users get in and which ones don't, especially as with many of them we'll never know. The one factor you don't mention is the likelihood that enough writers will make their own judgements that regardless of what he might have accomplished, unjuiced, they believe he juiced and they won't vote him in. Remember, while steroids may not have been explicitly banned by MLB at the time, they were a controlled substance and possession without a prescription violated federal law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 (edited) The one factor you don't mention is the likelihood that enough writers will make their own judgements that regardless of what he might have accomplished, unjuiced, they believe he juiced and they won't vote him in. Remember, while steroids may not have been explicitly banned by MLB at the time, they were a controlled substance and possession without a prescription violated federal law. I didn't mention it because I thought it was a given. So what of Bonds? I've heard people dismiss McGwire chances of induction if he ever used steroids, but say they'd vote for Bonds because he was a great player before he bulked up. I would be inclined to vote for Bonds too for the same reason as it's so hard to ignore his numbers. Last summer Reggie Jackson said while he probably wouldn't pick McGwire he would vote for Palmeiro because he couldn't ignore 3000/500. Never mind that steroids were some part of the total. I think there will be some interesting and inconsistent decisions made over Sosa, McGwire, Ivan Rodriguez and the other candidates who got bigger and more muscular at some stage of their career. Edited January 10, 2006 by Quincy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Only Sutter made it, which is how I looked at it this morning. Here are the votes: 2006 Hall of Fame voting results The complete vote (520 ballots, 390 to gain election, 26 to remain on ballot): Player Votes % Bruce Sutter 400 76.9% Jim Rice 337 64.8% Rich Gossage 336 64.6% Andre Dawson 317 61.0% Bert Blyleven 277 53.3% Lee Smith 234 45.0% Jack Morris 214 41.2% Tommy John 154 29.6% Steve Garvey 135 26.0% Alan Trammell 92 17.7% Dave Parker 75 14.4% Dave Concepcion 65 12.5% Don Mattingly 64 12.3% Orel Hershiser 58 11.2% Dale Murphy 56 10.8% Albert Belle 40 7.7% Will Clark 23 4.4% Dwight Gooden 17 3.3% Willie McGee 12 2.3% Ozzie Guillen 5 1.0% Hal Morris 5 1.0% Gary Gaetti 4 0.8% John Wetteland 4 0.8% Rick Aguilera 3 0.6% Gregg Jefferies 2 0.4% Doug Jones 2 0.4% Walt Weiss 1 0.2% Gary DiSarcina 0 0.0% Alex Fernandez 0 0.0% What's ridiculous is an idiot like Steve Phillips is now declaring that Rice, Gossage and Dawson now have no chance at ever getting elected, all because next year is reserved for Gwynn and Ripken. As if these players are dropped from the ballot now. Yeah, 2007 won't be an easy ballot to crack, but the fact remains that from 2008-2010, the only bona fide new candidate is Rickey Henderson. Now I'll admit I'm a bit disappointed that Rice didn't break 70% this time, but I also note that there are three candidates now resting in the 60% range, and I'll go on record right now: By 2010, all three, Rice, Gossage and Dawson will be in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 And one more thing: I'd really like to know who voted for people like Walt Weiss, Gary Gaetti, Gregg Jeffries, hell, anyone who voted for any candidate from Dwight Gooden down. These people have no business casting ballots, they should be banned from any future balloting. They obviously have no clue what it means to be a hall of famer, so I would be curious to see who else they voted for. I wonder what would happen if you eliminated the ballots of fools who think Weiss or Gaetti or Gooden belong, and recalculated the results. I wouldn't be surprised if these are the same fools who refuse to vote for Rice, Gossage, et. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonm Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Looks like the only guy going in this year is Bruce Sutter. Saw the guy pitch a zillion times for the Cardinals....happy for him!!!! m~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.