January 09, 2007

Wow, Gossage was right there man. I was hoping Blyleven would have moved up more.

posted by chris2sy at 01:58 PM on January 09, 2007

For McGwire to even be on over 23% of the ballots is a surprise to me. I sure hope Harold Baines gets in at some point.

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 02:10 PM on January 09, 2007

Devon White 0 0.0 Given who actually got at least one vote on the list, this was, to me, the biggest surprise and the closest thing to a travesty, although Albert Belle's not making the cut is close. Not that I'm a big fan of Belle's, but just look at those numbers. You put a different name at the top of that page, and he makes the cut easily. Unless that name is Jose Canseco.

posted by BullpenPro at 02:26 PM on January 09, 2007

I can"t believe Alann TRammel didn,t get any votes. He sure didn't, but the similarly named Alan Trammell got 73 votes (13.4% of the total votes).

posted by holden at 02:38 PM on January 09, 2007

Dude's not winning any popularity or personality contests, but I think he should be voted in for his peak. I agree, I didn't before but I think I do now (how is that for wishy-washy). Plus I want to see a fight between him and Ty Cobb when duplicating people from their remains is perfected.

posted by chris2sy at 03:27 PM on January 09, 2007

Not that I'm a big fan of Belle's, but just look at those numbers. You put a different name at the top of that page, and he makes the cut easily. Unless that name is Jose Canseco. I thought for SURE that Belle would make the 5% cutoff. I can understand some negative reaction for his attitude. I can understand some people not liking his counting totals (although those aren't too bad), and docking him points for "retiring" so early But as it was said before, his peak put him as maybe the best power hitter in the AL for a couple of years. He deserved more respect than that. Prediction for 2008 vote: Goose makes it in (along with first-year-man Tim Raines) and McGwire jumps up to 60% of the vote. 2008 is a very empty ballot: one +300HR hitter (David Justice, 305), one +200 game winner (Chuck Finley, 200 exactly), one +300 save pitcher (Rob Nenn, 314) and zero .300AVG or .400OBP or .500SLG players (other than Justice, .500 exactly). And Raines NEEDS to get in for 2008 because Rickey Henderson comes up in 2009 and he would dwarf him on the ballot.

posted by grum@work at 04:02 PM on January 09, 2007

The biggest problem with Albert Belle's candidacy is that he was utterly dominant for only 3 or 4 years. He was a force to be reckoned with for another 5 or 6, but just could not prove his staying power. No one ever gets into the Hall of Fame unless he dominates for a long period of time. Sincerely, Sandy Koufax

posted by Cameron Frye at 05:15 PM on January 09, 2007

I've never understood the "hitting home runs when they don't count, or padding numbers in meaningless games" arguement. Aren't these guys paid to try to hit the ball no matter what the situation? I've heard this complaint about A-rod so many times it turns my stomach. Should they just close their eyes and swing if the game is out of reach? Keep it on their shoulder and take 3 strikes in order to not pad their stats? I'm a life-long Reds fan and believe me, that's not been real easy for a long time now. If I pay 200 bucks to take the family to a Red's game, I usually know that there's a decent chance their gonna lose...but I damn well expect to see Griffey give me his best at-bat no matter what. Was Bell to blame that nobody was on base if he hit a late inning homerun? Sounds like you should have been a little harder on the 1,2,and 3 hitters, not the guy still playing till it's over.

posted by louisville_slugger at 05:32 PM on January 09, 2007

C'mon, Dave Concepcion belongs in the Hall. His stats are as good as, if not better than HOF members Ozzie Smith, Luis Aparicio, PeeWee Reese, Phil Rizzuto, and Bill Mazeroski. He was an integral part of the Big Red Machine and dammit, he's my childhood idol.

posted by carolinared at 05:53 PM on January 09, 2007

I've heard this complaint about A-rod so many times it turns my stomach. A-Rod hit 35 home runs in 2006. Of those, 13 were in the seventh inning or later (more than 1/3 in less than 1/3 of the game time, given that his team didn't bat in the ninth inning of most games they won at home). 1 was a walk-off in the 12th inning with the team down a run. 0 were with the score tied 0 were with his team behind, giving them the lead (except for the walk-off) 0 were with his team behind to draw the score even In 66 at bats in games that were "late and close," he had one home run (the walk-off), hit .242, and had a .333 slugging percentage. In 97 at bats in which the scoring margin was more than 4 runs either way (winning or losing), he hit 7 homers, hit .351, and had a .619 slugging percentage. You think it turns your stomach? You don't have to watch him on your team every day. I don't have a problem with hitting a home run late in a blow out -- he can do that every time if he wants. Pad your stats all you want. But you've got to come up with more than 1 meaningful one in between all those fluffy ones. (To leave on an up-note, I freakin' love baseball-reference.com more and more every day.)

posted by BullpenPro at 06:23 PM on January 09, 2007

Fine. I'm sure the Reds would gladly give you Edwin Encarnacion for your underachieving A-Rod. Heaven forbid he hit 35 "useless" homeruns for the Reds.

posted by carolinared at 06:29 PM on January 09, 2007

If you are not the best, and clearly the best, at some aspect of the game at your position for a large part of your career, you don't belong in the Hall. Belle was ONE of the best power hitters for three or four years. Very good player, but it's not the Hall of Very Good. It's for the best of the best. I would argue that there are more in the Hall that don't really deserve it, than out who do. And, by the way, who the Hell were the 8 assholes who did not vote for Cal Ripken Jr.? Tony Gwynn? If you don't think those two guys belong in the Hall Of Fame, you should have your vote stripped.

posted by gradioc at 06:40 PM on January 09, 2007

A quick summary...Goose got goosed (again), Jose? No way! Albert is an interesting call...good numbers, but not a real "crowd" pleaser, and WHO does the voting? I'm most upset about the Jim Kaat snuff, AGAIN. 283 wins, and he unselfishly plays Whitey's role for some 120 games as a reliever, "for the team". Every so often, pretty boy and glamour NEED to step aside, letting REAL talent in! Just an opinion...

posted by wolfdad at 07:56 PM on January 09, 2007

A-Rod hit 35 home runs in 2006. Of those, 13 were in the seventh inning or later (more than 1/3 in less than 1/3 of the game time, given that his team didn't bat in the ninth inning of most games they won at home). So he hit 22 in the first 6 innings when the game was "meaningful". 13 more in the last 3 innings. I'll take that on the reds...let me know who you want in return.

posted by louisville_slugger at 08:58 PM on January 09, 2007

As long as I can remember, the HOF voting results creates numerous opinions on who gets in and who should get in. BCS?? What really will be interesting is the voting results and comments for Barry Bonds when he is eligible.

posted by oldsport at 09:10 PM on January 09, 2007

Slugger, what in the world are you going on about? I called out A-Rod's performance in the last three innings because they are the MOST critical, particularly in close games. I didn't say they didn't mean anything. And there has been a lot twisting and misunderstanding about "hitting home runs when they don't count," which I agree is an expression that doesn't make much sense at all. The criticism about A-Rod isn't that he sometimes hits home runs in games that already have a fairly concretely decided outcome. The criticism you are hearing, and apparently not understanding, is that A-Rod ONLY hits home runs in games that already have a fairly concretely decided outcome. And I would guess that was the sense wdminott and his brother had about Belle on the White Sox. You're a Reds fan. Isn't it awesome that when Griffey comes up in a "close and late" situation he hits a home run once every nine at bats? That he hit .281 with a .656 slugging percentage batting in that very critical three-hole in your lineup last year? Wasn't it great when he hit 8 home runs -- EIGHT -- to give your team the lead after the sixth inning, five of them when your team was losing? No, A-Rod is not a permanent vacant lot in the three-hole of the Yankees order. But when you watch the guy time and again in situations when even a single would be huge, and all you get is a lame strikeout, weak groundball to short... it wears on you having to watch it. And it's not the "Yankee fan has to win all the time" syndrome. I don't care what team you root for, if you can walk into a game without feeling hopeful your team will win, or walk away from a loss without some degree of frustration, well... I'm not interested in putting a measure on anybody's fandom or telling anyone how to root, but it seems to me that these are fundamental to attaching yourself to a team. Even Cubs fans want to get rid of pieces that they associate with losing. I associate A-Rod with losing a lot more than winning. The numbers, particularly last year, seem to back me up reasonably well, but I get that feeling more from watching him day to day -- not the boos, not the media, just the watching him and feeling that sinking feeling every time he doesn't get the job done. I'm sure A-Rod would turn around and be a full-time monster in Cincy, but he doesn't give any indication that he's going to do that in New York. To bring this back on topic, there's a guy who got no votes today who I would much rather see at third base on this Yankees team than the guy we've got. And there's a guy who got a lot of votes whose numbers were better in late and close situations than at any other time. Now that guy was good. (Grum... you just had to go there, didn't you. You dog.)

posted by BullpenPro at 11:02 PM on January 09, 2007

I'm sure A-Rod would turn around and be a full-time monster in Cincy, but he doesn't give any indication that he's going to do that in New York. Except for 2005, right? .321/.421/.610 is a "full-time monster" in every sense of the word, and he did win the MVP award. If that's not good enough for Yankee fans, nothing could possibly satisfy them at this point.

posted by grum@work at 11:29 PM on January 09, 2007

As an avid NYY fan living overseas and only getting to watch 1-2 Yankee Games per week, it may be that the games I don't see are the ones where A-Rod doesn't raise the hopes of the Fans at the Stadium and watching on TV. I will take his stats anyday. He showed me that he wanted to play for us when he moved from Short to 3rd to allow Jeter to remain with the Yanks and do what he does best. Belle should not make it to the Hall of Fame unless it is a HOF for Crybabies, Tantrum Throwers and all round Bad-Eggs. He was a one tool player as far as I am concerned. Hopefully Kaut and Raines will make it next year. I also would love to see McGwire make it. I still remember the tension and excitement when he and Sosa were battling it out to beat the Home Run record. That is what makes the games and brings in the Fans. Without that you have a bunch of Guys wearing long pants in summer and chasing a ball!!!!!

posted by jadzia1970 at 05:25 AM on January 10, 2007

"There's Belle rounding second looking for a white woman to sodomize". Needless to say, I fell out of my seat onto the floor. I wish more was needless to say.

posted by yerfatma at 06:24 AM on January 10, 2007

Grum, is there a good version of Nefi Perez?

posted by hawkguy at 08:46 AM on January 10, 2007

what a crock of crap! Mark retired BEFORE the rules changed! How can they keep him off the ballot if THE WRITERS follow the rules too? These same idiot baseball writing hacks,(who KNEW that Mark and Sammy were on steroids) were HAPPY to glorify these guys for saving the game back in the late 90's, but now are condemning them for not playing the game pure? Gimme a break! If you want to get all moral about it, most of the guys in the HOFame, are guilty of all kinds of crap from adultery to wife-beating to gambling to playing dirty(ty cobb) yet there they are in the Hall of Shame! It reeks of hypocrisy. Writers should be consistent and apply the same rule of law to players as we do in public life. Mark played the game PURE for 10 solid years, putting up good numbers and probably would of gotten in had he never done steroids, and maybe played a few more seasons as the training and extra weight he carried wore out his knees. But to be such hypocrites as these writers are and to keep out McGwire is a shame in itself greater than the steroid era.

posted by bluekarma at 10:33 AM on January 10, 2007

I am having a hard time understanding why some feel it appropriate to induct someone to the Hall of Fame who used steroids. And I say that as a one-time "Big Mac" fan. When my oldest son turned 12 I treated he and his brother to a Cardinals home game as a birthday present. We weren't there to see the Cards. We were there to see McGwire chase the record and he obliged by tying it. It was an incredible experience for the three of us. I continued to hold out hope that McGwire hadn't used steroids when he appeared before congress. Taking his own personalized version of the fifth amendment heaped even more suspiscion on his character. I want positive role models for my kids. McGwire is not one of them. Were he to tell the truth and sincerely apologize by confessing his wrongdoing then, I believe, most of his critics, including me, would change their tune. And, in my opinion, he'd be a good role model. Why? Because of the obvious fact we all know--all of us mess up. Being a man means owning up to our "sins," accepting responsibility, and trying to be a part of the solution to the problem we once helped create. Can you imagine the good McGwire could do if he admitting his actions were wrong and spoke to college kids about the physical dangers and the moral aspects of steroid use? There is still time and hopefully McGwire will find peace from his demons and add back to America's Pastime which once gave him so much.

posted by ChiefsSuperFan at 12:16 PM on January 10, 2007

"....docking him points for "retiring"...." "He was a force to be reckoned with for another 5 or 6, but just could not prove his staying power" Do any of you guys that made the comments above know exactly why Albert Belle left the game early? Belle had what was called a degenerative hip that Mickey Mantle also suffered from which in turn, made him leave the game earlier than what he may have wanted to. With the stats Belle left the game with, he deserves a little more than a quick once over. He may not have been an all-around good guy towards the media and sports writers (the very same people who actually decide who gets voted into Cooperstown) so that may have to do with him being overlooked. As far as A-Rod is concerned, why is it that he's always the one guy that's blamed for the Yankees losses? Isn't baseball a team sport? Does A-Rod pitch, catch, play outfield or manages the club? There are 9 guys on that field and no one gets more heat than A-Rod. Is it the fact that he's the official $200 million dollar man? Who cares how much he's getting paid? To me, A-Rod is (as soon as he retires) a first ballot Hall of Famer, maybe the greatest player to ever play the game and also worth every red cent that he's getting paid. Barry Bonds may get the Home Run title this year (deservingly so) but if A-Rod keeps posting the same stats that he has been for the past 13 years (Career Average: .305 BA- 43 HR- 125 RBI), we'll be seeing the title of Home Run King passed on to Mr. $200 Million himself.

posted by BornIcon at 12:49 PM on January 10, 2007

BullpenPro wrote: To bring this back on topic, there's a guy who got no votes today who I would much rather see at third base on this Yankees team than the guy we've got. I assume you're referring to Brosius. Plugging in Brosius to last year's Yankees in place of all of A-Rod's at bats (using Brosius' career averages of .323 OBP and .422 SLG), you get a difference in offensive runs created (using the Bill James RC formula) of about 39 (about 117 for A-Rod using his line last year of .392 OBP and .523 SLG and about 78 for Brosius -- in each case in the 572 ABs that A-Rod had in 2006). This differential of 39 runs drops the Yankees to 891 runs scored last year (from the 930 they actually scored) against 767 runs allowed (which doesn't change). Using a simple pythagorean projection for team records based on those runs scored and runs allowed, I get a .574 winning percentage for the Yankees, which equal about 93 wins, compared to the 97 the Yankees won last year with A-Rod as the 3B. So basically, A-Rod is good for four additional victories over Brosius based on last year's stats. Last year, this would not have kept the Yankees from making the playoffs (but would have affected their seeding). Assuming A-Rod's production next year is more in line with his career averages, I would think that the difference between Brosius and A-Rod will be even more stark. In a very competitive AL East, those additional wins can make a very good difference. Perhaps you would prefer to see Brosius because he is a better team player, a character guy, a good clutch hitter, and was a part of the most recent Yankees dynasty, but from an objective standpoint of who gives the Yankees the best chance to win, it doesn't add up. (Note/Disclaimer -- this analysis oversimplifies in that it doesn't take into account more advanced runs created or pythagorean formulas and doesn't account for defense, but it's a pretty good quick and dirty comparison.)

posted by holden at 01:36 PM on January 10, 2007

this analysis oversimplifies in that it doesn't take into account more advanced runs created or pythagorean formulas and doesn't account for defense... or the fact that Brosius wouldn't be put into the middle of the order, meaning a different player altogether would have the opportunity to drive in the critical runs that A-Rod doesn't. The change would effect every single player in the lineup, not just Brosius and A-Rod. Plus, the Boo Factor. Using Jim Williams' Boo Factor formula, which calculates the demoralizing aspect of being chided by your own home crowd, A-Rod's Boo Factor last year was -3.14156 wins. Brosius' average Boo Factor during his career with the Yankees was +1.85844. That's a total difference of about five wins. So, obviously, the Yankees are a better team with Brosius.

posted by BullpenPro at 02:01 PM on January 10, 2007

The fact that Alan Trammell hasn't yet been elected to the HOF proves that it's a bunch of crap. There is (or should be anyway) more then raw statistics to show who belongs in the hall. Trammell was the heart of the Tigers for years in the way Ernie Banks was of the Cubs. The Hall needs to recognize that. posted by commander cody at 1:47 PM CST on January 10 "Heart" is a statistic now? What about "Smells Nice" and "Best Beard" and "Makes a Mean Spaghetti Sauce"

posted by jerseygirl at 02:24 PM on January 10, 2007

Okay, let me ask you a question: who would you rather have as your left fielder, Manny Ramirez or Carl Yastrzemski? Well, Manny did win a championship, so by what appears to be your logic... BPP - I appreciate your A-Rod hate-on, God knows purple lips just make me want to punch a child, but he's one of the best ever. He just is. I'm with grum on this one (and truth be told, most of the others). My ballot would include Rice, McGwire, Gossage, Dawson, Gwynn and Ripken - for what it's worth.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:36 PM on January 10, 2007

Chicobangs, my perspective on McGwire would be very different had he been forthright about his use of steroids, apologetic for his apparent antipathy to the whole issue, and try to add something of value to the game disgraced by the steroids era. Was Andro illegal when he took it? If not, then why wouldn't he have been more forthcoming about what he did or didn't do? An innocent man fights for his reputation when his name is being dragged through the mud. Plus, a lot of young athletes have done and will do steroids, some may not however if a guy of McGwire's stature would stand up and say "Enough already. I was wrong. Here's why." I don't think he cares either--which is probably part of the problem.

posted by ChiefsSuperFan at 03:08 PM on January 10, 2007

who would you rather have as your left fielder, Manny Ramirez or Carl Yastrzemski? I honestly don't know. I only got to see Yaz when he was old and broken. Plus they played in different eras. Thankfully, we have statistics to rely on for those sort of comparisons, but even that isn't so helpful. Manny has the higher career OPS+, but Yaz has the highest one-year OPS+ and his career stats are clearly affected by him playing for so long. He also has 30% more runs created over his career. Take Yaz by a nose for defense if I can get each of them at their peak. If you're trying to get me to pick Yaz for "cluthiness", it's a poor comparison as Manny is no . . . A-Rod.

posted by yerfatma at 03:21 PM on January 10, 2007

Yeah.. can someone explain to me how you can complain about "the rules changed" when steroids were a controlled substance (and thus illegal to use without physician supervision) long before the steroid era in baseball? If voters are punishing McGwire because he might have used a controlled substance (and other than heresay from a couple of felons, I've seen no other real evidence (and "he's so big!", "look at his numbers!" don't count)), then I wonder if they applied the same logic when Paul Molitor came up for HOF election a couple of years ago. I mean, everyone does remember that Paul Molitor admitted to using cocaine. Right? So if Molitor's "controlled substance" usage was sloughed off by writers, how come McGwire wouldn't get the same pass? Was Andro illegal when he took it? If not, then why wouldn't he have been more forthcoming about what he did or didn't do? An innocent man fights for his reputation when his name is being dragged through the mud. I'm guessing you don't remember 9 years ago when it happened, but they found the bottle in his locker, out in the open. He wasn't hiding it. He wasn't denying it. He admitted to using it, and since it was a legal supplement at the time, nothing more was made of it. Plus, a lot of young athletes have done and will do steroids, some may not however if a guy of McGwire's stature would stand up and say "Enough already. I was wrong. Here's why." Is that the same logic that says if an athlete makes a PSA about the evils of drug use, it actually convinces teens not to use drugs?

posted by grum@work at 04:50 PM on January 10, 2007

Six different people gave me Driven for Christmas, and I have to say it smells better than Moises Alou's cologne.

posted by BullpenPro at 05:26 PM on January 10, 2007

Grum, sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that Andro was illegal. Why would Mac not be more forthcoming if all he took was Andro?

posted by ChiefsSuperFan at 05:39 PM on January 10, 2007

I don't care if McGwire is in the HoF or not. My question was regarding the argument in his defense, "It wasn't against the rules at the time." I could see how that argument would apply if say, corking bats was allowed and then disallowed it. My questions is, why should any sport have to have a rule against illegal activity?

posted by apoch at 06:08 PM on January 10, 2007

Six different people gave me Driven for Christmas Maybe that was their subtle way of letting you know that you smell.

posted by jerseygirl at 09:05 PM on January 10, 2007

Why would Mac not be more forthcoming if all he took was Andro? I'll disagree with grum on this one and say "because he took more than Andro and didn't want to lie". This has nothing to do with my opinions on steroids (I'd vote for bonds) or if I think mcgwire should be in the hall. I didn't forget his entire testimony and taken as a whole was just as unconvincing as the simple statement "I'm not here to talk about the past" (which he repeated more than once). At one point he was asked if he played "with honesty and integrity". He responded with "I'm not going to go into the past or talk about my past. I'm here to make a positive influence on this". Proof? No. But voting for the hall isn't the court system. If someone was gung-ho on not allowing steroid users into the hall (which I disagree with) I can certainly see why they think mcgwire took them. It's certainly not that hard to bellieve. I feel the same way.

posted by justgary at 01:10 AM on January 11, 2007

Why would Mac not be more forthcoming if all he took was Andro? Because maybe, just maybe, he thinks it's none of our fucking business. Not mine, not yours, not Congress', not anybody's. I like McGwire, always have, always will. I don't like Barry Bonds. I did at one point, but I don't now, and probably never will again. However, until somebody can prove that either one of them took steroids (more than the "clear and cream" that Bonds has admitted to unknowingly using), all we have is their word. Take it or leave it, but don't act like you know what's what when you don't.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:30 AM on January 11, 2007

I thought McGwire's Statement to Congress was very well spoken. He was reading from a prepared statement with a trembling voice. When asked other questions he went back to his prepared statement. You can believe him, and think there's nothign wrong with that, but it certainly wasn't well spoken.

posted by justgary at 09:49 AM on January 11, 2007

To add to mjkredliner's above post, most of us who cheered wildly for Big Mac and showed up two hours early to just watch him take batting practice are hoping against all hope that he will take the same course as Molitar. If you didn't cheat with steroids tell us. If you did, then be a man, admit it, say, "I'm sorry" and tell kids "It's wrong."

posted by ChiefsSuperFan at 12:30 PM on January 11, 2007

With only 181 more games played than Raines, Molitor amassed 817 more hits, scored 211 more runs, hit 64 more HR's, hit 8 points higher, and beat Raines in every statistical category but OBP (.385 vs .369) and SB's (808 vs 504) so, much more than that will come into play, holden

posted by mjkredliner at 01:02 PM on January 11, 2007

I am not privy to the exact details of his use, but I don't think it was meant to be, nor do I think it can it be said, that cocaine provides an unfair advantage in regard to playing baseball. It should be pointed out that my response was to someone indicating that steroids were a controlled substance and against the law, which was their defence for "steroids weren't against the rules when he took them". I'm not suggesting that cocaine = steroids for performance-enhancing, but that wasn't the point I was making. With only 181 more games played than Raines, Molitor amassed 817 more hits, scored 211 more runs, hit 64 more HR's, hit 8 points higher, and beat Raines in every statistical category but OBP (.385 vs .369) and SB's (808 vs 504) so, much more than that will come into play, holden However, not only did he steal more bases, but he stole them at a level that was well above average. In fact, many consider him to be the best basestealer in the game. It should also be pointed out that Molitor played almost 10x as many games as a DH than Raines did, and fielded his position much better than Molitor did (when he was out there). I'm not suggesting that Raines is a better HOF candidate than Molitor, but it's MUCH closer than you think. If you didn't cheat with steroids tell us. If you did, then be a man, admit it, say, "I'm sorry" and tell kids "It's wrong." McGwire: I did not use steroids. Predisposed public opinion: Liar! What exactly is gained? That's the best part of the writers' attack against McGwire about his testimony in front of Congress; if you assume he doesn't use the "talk about the past" defence, the only other results are: - If he isn't called to testify, they have no platform to attack him. - If he "lies" and says he never used steroids, they would either believe him (therefore rewarding his lack of morals by lying in front of Congress) or they wouldn't believe him and they'd be in the same situation. - If he "tells the truth", his reputation is shattered and the writers would not vote him in because they know he "cheated".

posted by grum@work at 01:27 PM on January 11, 2007

it's MUCH closer than you think. No, not at all, I think that Molitor's chief advantages were in crossing the magical 3000 hit barrier, winning a ring, and, his off the field contrition for his sins, if one cares to call it that. And, Molitor was no slouch as a basestealer himself. I think it will be a close call with Raines on whether or not he is enshrined, his admission to carrying and using cocaine during games can not help his case, but there is no doubt he was one of the best leadoff hitters of his time.

posted by mjkredliner at 02:21 PM on January 11, 2007

I obviously did not remember Raines playing on those Championship teams, but another factor working against him (unfortunately) may well be the fact that he labored in Montreal for many of his best years, and did not get the same amount of press he would have had he spent those years in the states. (Holden, you have convinced me that he belongs, but I did not hold the cocaine thing against him, we can only hope the BBWAA doesn't either.)

posted by mjkredliner at 02:40 PM on January 11, 2007

I meant to convey that I did not think that they were as far apart as Grum thought I thought they were. I think.

posted by mjkredliner at 03:11 PM on January 11, 2007

Davey Lopes for the Hall? Did I read that post right? If so, then I repeat my vote for Fred Patek and Cookie Rojas!!!

posted by ChiefsSuperFan at 08:58 AM on January 12, 2007

Baldelli could end up to be a very good player. I think he'll have to get away from the Devil Rays to become a star though.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:06 PM on January 12, 2007