These 10 deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, : says Seattle Times baseball writer Larry Stone. An interesting look at one voter's ballot and rationale. [s'mores inside]
Of those: Definites: Molitor, Blyleven, Sandberg, Gossage Probables: Eckersley, Sutter Doubtful: Dawson, Smith Nope: Rice
posted by grum@work at 06:38 PM on January 08, 2004
Yea, it seems as if they could have admitted more players... Here's a nice article that puts it well
posted by fanaroo at 12:10 AM on January 09, 2004
I would completely echo grum's analysis. If only Rice could have been productive a few more years! He was as feared a hitter as there was in all of baseball for a stretch.
posted by vito90 at 11:31 AM on January 09, 2004
Rose finally came clean because he wants to be reinstated and once again be a part of the game he loves. Of course, he could have confessed in a two-paragraph press release instead of a 288 page memoir – available now in hardcover at amazon.com. But the latter is far more profitable.
posted by ebest at 07:24 PM on January 09, 2004
Eckersley is a "probable"? His record as a starter alone is as good as some other guys who got on the ballot (I'm looking at you Danny Darwin-- you're only on there because you look like Jake the Snake's skinny brother). Then you have his HoF career as a closer. How's he probable?
posted by yerfatma at 09:42 AM on January 10, 2004
I didn't notice that ESPN's Jayson Stark did a similar list explaining who he voted for and why, or I would have included it in the FPP. He voted for seven of the 10 that Stone voted for, and added Dale Murphy.
posted by jeffmshaw at 10:18 AM on January 10, 2004
I listed Eckersley as a probable because his resume as a reliever is from the LaRussa 1-inning-3-run-lead era. Sure he had a couple of dominant seasons, but when you look at the numbers that Gossage and Sutter put up as multi-inning relievers, it diminishes the work that Eckersley did. In my world, Eckersley DOES get in the HOF (hence probable), but not because of his starting resume or his relieving resume, but because he was one of the best to do both for a long period of time. He wouldn't be a lock if there were more deserving candidates on the ballot (check out the weak 2006 list vs the strong 2007 list!). In hindsight, I'd like to move Blyleven into the Probables list as well. I've been swept up in the arguments in favour of him getting in recently, and overevaluated his position on the list. And put Morris (since I missed him) on the "Nope" list. He may have had the most wins in the 80s, but I'm not sure he was the best pitcher (Stieb was better but on bad teams in the early 80s, and Clemens was almost untouchable in the late 80s). Morris gets FAR too much hype for his 10-inning World Series appearance, much like Carter getting too much hype about his World Series winnning home run. As for yahoos like Darwin and Eisenreich being on the ballot, it doesn't take too much to be eligible: 3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
posted by grum@work at 11:17 AM on January 10, 2004
I wouldn't be quite so generous as Stone, who voted for Dennis Eckersley and Paul Molitor (who got in) as well as Andre Dawson, Jack Morris, Ryne Sandberg, Bert Blyleven, Jim Rice, and relievers Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter and Lee Smith (who didn't). I think I'd vote for seven of these. You?
I was just kidding about the s'mores.
posted by jeffmshaw at 05:45 PM on January 08, 2004