Dan Gould Posted January 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 On the bright side it looks like Goose might get in. Maybe Hawk too. But it looks like Blyleven will get screwed again. I think they should force the writers to pass some sort of test. That might cull the herd by 60% or so. And give TV & radio baseball announcers of a certain number of years a vote too. Completely agree. TV and radio announcers probably spend more time watching the candidates than a lot of the print journalists do. I think Goose has a groundswell behind him and may sneak in this time. Hawk was probably too far behind to make the jump but will see a big jump nonetheless. We'll know in a minute or two. As far as O'Neill goes, one more thing: I said that hard core Yankee fans almost certainly don't believe he belongs, but those same folks watched and respected Rice and believe he should be there, just as I watched and respected Goose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Ripken and Gwynn alone, with Ripken closest to unanimous ever. Gossage made a big jump but still fell short. He's guaranteed next year. What is outrageous is that Rice and Dawson fell back a little bit. On a ballot with known juicers, they fell back? WTFH? (that's F*cking Hell) McGuire at 23%. He's toast, in all likelihood. Still trying to find out where Paul O'Neill landed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Of the 17 first-timers on the ballot, only McGwire and Harold Baines received enough votes to carry them over. There it is. Some asshole wasted a vote on O'Neill and refused to vote for Rice. He deserves a Nolan Ryan fastball drilled up his ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 dan how many more years does rice have for the HOF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) dan how many more years does rice have for the HOF? Two. Next year are a bunch of nobodies coming on for the first time, so all of the attention will be on Gossage, Rice, Dawson and hopefully Blyleven. All of them belong and its outrageous that they are still on the outside looking in. Year after Rickey Henderson is on the ballot, unless someone will save us from the most self-centered speech in history and put him on the roster for a day or two. For being an absolute egotistical asshole and 1 1/2 dimensional player, I'd like to see Rickey wait a year. I really thought Rice, on the ballot with McGuire, would stand out and get up around 70% but it didn't happen. Would be interesting if he goes to his 15th and final chance because then virtually 100% of the attention/debate will be on him. Would be a crying shame if he joins Hodges as the second to reach 64% but not make it the rest of the way. Edited January 9, 2007 by Dan Gould Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I remember this guy hitting BOMBS when I was a kid. Scary plate presence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) I remember watching Gwynn play a pretty mean point guard at San Diego State. He was chunky even then but had a very nice cross-over move off his left hand dribble. Outside shot was hopeless though. PS: The Goose not getting in is sick! WTF were these sportswriters watching anyway, Ron Guidry?? Edited January 9, 2007 by Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) Jim Rice Stats rice had 2 good 4/5 year runs looks like he missed over 360 games, not including rook season he missed 100 in his last season Edited January 9, 2007 by Soulstation1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Jim Rice Stats rice had 2 good 4/5 year runs looks like he missed over 360 games, not including rook season he missed 100 in his last season No, he had a 12 year run of total dominance. 1975-1986: Batted .300, hit 350 home runs (every player who has accomplished those feats in a 12 year period is in the Hall other than Jim Ed) 8 seasons with 100 RBIs 3 Home Run titles 4 200 hit seasons 6 top-5 finishes in MVP ballots (1 award) Over those 12 seasons, he LED all American Leaguers in games, at-bats, runs, hits, home runs, RBIs, slugging percentage, total bases and outfield assists. ONLY PLAYER IN HISTORY to have three straight 35 homer, 200 hit seasons Overall, Rice is among only 10 retired players with 382 or more homers and a .298 or higher lifetime BA. They are Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams — all Hall of Famers, except Rice. The only place Rice comes up short is in the sudden, precipitous decline, but just because his knees and elbow turned him into a singles hitter doesn't do anything to the 12 years of domination that came before. Its totally unfair to be penalized for not padding his statistics. No, he didn't reach 400 homers or 1500 RBIs. But anyone can see that for a period of a dozen years, he was the premier hitter in his league. If that doesn't merit inclusion, I don't know what does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Think Rice is very much hampered by his relations with the media, which Rice felt always treated him unfairly. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Albert Belle when his name comes up. One last thought on Rice: his stats don't that great compared with what's going on now but in context, those were big-time numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Think Rice is very much hampered by his relations with the media, which Rice felt always treated him unfairly. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Albert Belle when his name comes up. One last thought on Rice: his stats don't that great compared with what's going on now but in context, those were big-time numbers. As far as Belle goes, Matthew, he came and went. He was on the ballot this year, got 19 votes (3.5%) and is now gone forever since he didn't break 5%. Its interesting because he was definitely a world class asshole, had his career cut short by injury, and put up similar numbers to Rice. I guess it proves that he was a bigger asshole than Rice by several orders of magnitude to not even get 5% the first time around. I was thinking about the issue of Rice being a jerk and not only do I think its not a reason to deny a man his rightful spot but is only being spiteful, but also I am kinda doubting how many voters that even applies to. Rice has been out of the game for 13 years. Any member of the Baseball Writer's Association with ten years service gets a ballot. That means that a declining number of writers actually dealt with Rice and got the surly treatment while younger writers never saw him or got the brush-off. Maybe its these younger writers who can't wrap themselves around the idea that those numbers were, as you say, big-time before the steroid era. In fact, some of the numbers are big time regardless of era (the homer titles, the 100 RBI seasons, the 35 homer-200 hit seasons). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 ripken jr. should have been 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 ripken jr. should have been 100% Not even Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron was 100%. Based on that, there are writers with some fucked up sense of self-righteousness who will leave Ripken (or for that matter, Clemens or Maddux) off the ballot to ensure that no one is unanimous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris olivarez Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Some of the most holier than thou guardians of the game can be found among the Baseball Writers of America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Some of the most holier than thou guardians of the game can be found among the Baseball Writers of America. No doubt. Like the ass who writes for some suburban Chicago rag who submitted the blank ballot, and then wrote an explanation about how he can't, at this time, make judgements about the steroid era (how does this stop you for voting for Rice or Gossage or Blyleven, no one knows) and then says that if Ruth wasn't unanimous, who can say that Ripken or Gwynn possibly should be. He'll fade back into well-deserved anonymity until next year when he'll do some other attention grabbing holier-than-thou stunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 (edited) ripken jr. should have been 100% Not even Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron was 100%. Based on that, there are writers with some fucked up sense of self-righteousness who will leave Ripken (or for that matter, Clemens or Maddux) off the ballot to ensure that no one is unanimous. There was some clown who turned in a blank ballot. Ooooo, big protest there hotshot. Oh I guess I still care about the baseball hall of fame (oops, forgot to capitalize it though), but there's just been so much crap going regarding the voting & changes that it's hard to care as much as I used to. Failure to vote in Buck O'Neil was a big flag as far as how stupid things have gotten. The percentage of votes for many of the guys who didn't make it don't make me feel any better about the institution. I guess the one thing I can be optimistic about is that whenever we get a new commish (I mean, it will happen someday won't it?) that perhaps changes will be made yet again that will be more positive. It does look like though that guys like Rice, Blyleven, almost anybody who doesn't hit the magic numbers of 3000, 500, 300 etc. will have to be voted in by the Vet Committee far off into the future. If that's the case they wouldn't necessarily be in bad company. Edited January 10, 2007 by Quincy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted January 10, 2007 Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Failure to vote in Buck O'Neil was a big flag as far as how stupid things have gotten. That was the biggest piece of chicken-shit I've ever seen. My regard and respect for the HOF sunk after that vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 I guess the one thing I can be optimistic about is that whenever we get a new commish (I mean, it will happen someday won't it?) that perhaps changes will be made yet again that will be more positive. It does look like though that guys like Rice, Blyleven, almost anybody who doesn't hit the magic numbers of 3000, 500, 300 etc. will have to be voted in by the Vet Committee far off into the future. If that's the case they wouldn't necessarily be in bad company. My brother and I were talking about the upcoming Veteran's Committee vote - he thinks that as long as that sanctimonious ass Joe Morgan is involved, there'll never be a Veteran elected, unless its a teammate. I guess that's good for Davey Concepcion, not so good for everyone else. Totally agree that changes have to be made to who gets a writer's ballot as well as how the Veteran's committee operates (unless it gets its act straight this year by electing Ron Santo). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 More on the Barry Bonds front: NEW YORK -- Barry Bonds failed a test for amphetamines last season and originally blamed it on a teammate, the Daily News reported Thursday. Barry Bonds Bonds is still under investigation as to whether he perjured himself when he testified in 2003 that he never knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs. When first informed of the positive test, Bonds attributed it to a substance he had taken from teammate Mark Sweeney's locker, the New York City newspaper said, citing several unnamed sources. "I have no comment on that," Bonds' agent Jeff Borris told the Daily News on Wednesday night. "Mark was made aware of the fact that his name had been brought up," Sweeney's agent Barry Axelrod told the Daily News. "But he did not give Barry Bonds anything, and there was nothing he could have given Barry Bonds." Bonds, who has always maintained he never has tested positive for illegal drug use, is already under investigation for lying about steroid use. A federal grand jury is investigating whether the 42-year-old Bonds perjured himself when he testified in 2003 in the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative steroid distribution case that he never knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs. The San Francisco Giants slugger told a 2003 federal grand jury that he believed his trainer Greg Anderson had provided him flaxseed oil and arthritic balm, not steroids. Under baseball's amphetamines policy, which went into effect last season, players are not publicly identified for a first positive test. A second positive test for amphetamines results in a 25-game suspension. The first failed steroids test costs a player 50 games. Bonds did not appeal the positive test, which made him subject to six drug tests by MLB over the next six months, according to the Daily News. "We're not in a position to confirm or deny, obviously," MLB spokesman Rich Levin told the Daily News. According to the newspaper, Sweeney learned of the Bonds' positive test from Gene Orza, chief operating officer of the Major League Baseball Players Association. Orza told Sweeney, the paper said, that he should remove any troublesome substances from his locker and should not share said substances. Sweeney said there was nothing of concern in his locker, according to the Daily News' sources. An AP message for Sweeney was not immediately returned late Wednesday. The Giants are still working to finalize complicated language in the slugger's $16 million, one-year contract for next season -- a process that has lasted almost a month since he agreed to the deal Dec. 7 on the last day of baseball's winter meetings. The language still being negotiated concerns the left fielder's compliance with team rules, as well as what would happen if he were to be indicted or have other legal troubles. Borris has declined to comment on the negotiations. He didn't immediately return a message from the AP on Wednesday night. The 42-year-old Bonds is set to begin his 15th season with the Giants only 22 home runs shy of surpassing Hank Aaron's career record of 755. Bonds, considered healthy again following offseason surgery on his troublesome left elbow, has spent 14 of his 21 big-league seasons with San Francisco and helped the Giants draw 3 million fans in all seven seasons at their waterfront ballpark. After missing all but 14 games in 2005 following three operations on his right knee, Bonds batted .270 with 26 homers and 77 RBIs in 367 at-bats in 2006. He passed Babe Ruth to move into second place on the career home run list May 28. Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press I know BB is a ahole to the nth degree but I just get sad about his life. "I didn't know what kind of pill I was putting in my mouth." What is up with that? I always pop pills in my mouth that I have no idea what they are -- hey, it's fun! Jeesh, what an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 I think that's much ado about nothing - the fact is that a single positive amphetamine test carries no penalty except more rigorous future testing. What I think is interesting on the Bonds front is the fact that the Giants appear to be sticking to their guns in putting language in the contract that would eliminate the infamous Bonds entourage from the clubhouse/field, and also putting in language that will give them greater protection should Bonds miss games due to "court appearances". That's why the contract still isn't signed. The Giants may not stand up to him on salary, but they're hanging tough on all the other stuff! One last thought about the voters for HoF. I'd really like to be able to correlate those who voted for people like Hershiser and whether they voted for people like Blyleven at the same time. If you voted for Hershiser but not Blyleven, that is devastating proof that you are unworthy of the ballot, if you can't tell the difference between a decent pitcher and a Hall of Famer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 (edited) barry's test results are suppose to remain private...... Edited January 11, 2007 by Soulstation1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalupa Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 I can't imagine how popular Bonds will be w/ his teammates after throwing Mark Sweeney under a bus. What an ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 What does he care? I don't think he was ever popular to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 (edited) I can't imagine how popular Bonds will be w/ his teammates after throwing Mark Sweeney under a bus. What an ass. Raffy was run out of baseball, to a large part because he threw Tejada under the bus. If you voted for Hershiser but not Blyleven, that is devastating proof that you are unworthy of the ballot, if you can't tell the difference between a decent pitcher and a Hall of Famer. Hershiser got the pub, playing in L.A., beating a famous Met team, while the only thing a fan ever heard about Blyleven was how many homers he gave up. Heck, at the top of his game Randy Jones was equal to Hershiser but no one claims Jones for the HOF, and for heavens sake, I saw Jones pitch so often in his prime at the 'Murph, it's not funny, even was there when he hurt his arm. No one noticed he was hurt because Mike Ivie was kicked out of the game on the same play. Ivie, now there was wasted talent, he was compared to Johnny Bench for crying out loud. What a nut case! Sorry for going down Padre memory lane -- I wasted a lot of my youth watching them at the 'Murph. Edited January 11, 2007 by Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 Yeah, but I'm not talking about fans, I'm talking about professional writers entrusted with deciding who gets in and who doesn't. 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.