12/21/24
February 27, 2007
Veterans Committee picks no one for Hall: NEW YORK - No one was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame by the Veterans Committee. Ron Santo, Jim Kaat and all the other candidates were left out Tuesday when the Veterans Committee admitted no new members for the third straight election.
posted by irunfromclones to baseball at 03:49 PM - 33 comments
/lutherspeak on I agree with luther70 that the veterans committee made a mistake by not voting for anyone I also think that miller and santos should be in the hall of fame I bet the owners would not want to see miller in the hall because he has cost them millions of dollars that is only fair since they were ripping off players for a much longer period of time what goes around comes around ha ha ha /lutherspeak off
posted by grum@work at 04:33 PM on February 27, 2007
Marvin Miller had more of an impact on baseball than half of those guys on the veterans committee. I could understand them not wanting to vote somebody into the HOF if there were no good candidates. But Miller, Santos, Kaat...come on committee, get off your egos and get these guys in.
posted by roberts at 04:47 PM on February 27, 2007
I think the Hall of Fame gets it pretty much right. It is an exclusive club and should remain so. They shouldn't have to vote anyone in that doesn't meet a high standard! Even though it seems to work, I don't even agree with the Veterans Committee being necessary - if your eligibility is up, that should be it.
posted by americanleague at 05:05 PM on February 27, 2007
Wow. A few reactions: 1. Ron Santo is very, very far from being the best player not in the Hall of Fame. I wouldn't put him in my top 10 in that category. Nice guy. Very solid player. Sympathic option. Not a Hall of Fame player. Sorry. His vote totals are proof that there are still issues of campaigning and cronyism that upset the integrity of the process, but his failure to actually get the 75% means that the issue has been watered sufficiently. 2. Time to revamp the system again, and this time take all players off the ballot. We're caught up now. The line has been set -- they're not going to elect any more modern era players, and I think we've got the crop of 19th Century and Negro Leagues players. Time to turn the whole player issue over to the writers. If the writers know there's no more safety net under them, maybe they'll stop jerking around with their "message" non-votes and make sure they get it right every year. 3. I am not surprised that no player got in via the Veterans ballot, but I am stunned... STUNNED, that nobody got in for any of the other categories. That's a problem. Where is the line on managers being drawn if guys like Whitey Herzog and Billy Martin aren't getting in? 4. Executives I can sort of understand -- one guy in a decade should go in as an exec. I hate Walter O'Malley for what he did to Brooklyn, but in truth what he did for the game is probably deserving. That said, I think more GM's should be given consideration -- a vast majority of owners are just good at being millionaires. 5. They never should have started recognizing umpires with regular plaques, because now they are stuck. They can't pull umpire plaques out of the gallery, but really what should be going on is a separate award for umpires where periodically (probably not every year) a group of writers and retired/veteran umpires selects from a pool of retired umps to receive Hall of Fame recognition that is parallel to the awards for broadcasters and sports writers. The thing is it's hard to get a regular vote for them. Not many umps are going to get voted in by players (I would think) and I doubt most writers are qualified to judge them. Again, this system is flat out not working if Doug Harvey can't get in. 6. The vets panel was revamped after charges of cronyism when it elected Bill Mazeroski in 2001. This notion is totally unfair to Maz. Cronyism was around for a long time and the Hall struggled with ways to fix it. Maz is not the least deserving member of the Hall of Fame and he is not the worst player ever chosen by the Veterans Committee. I hate that he has become the poster boy for the old-school cronyism -- he deserves better. 7. Jane Clark is awesome. I hope she lives forever, because the Hall would have a really hard time finding as benevolent a caretaker.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 05:20 PM on February 27, 2007
Good analysis Crafty. But what about Buck O'Neil?
posted by vito90 at 10:24 PM on February 27, 2007
I hate Walter O'Malley for what he did to Brooklyn But didn't Robert Moses forbid O'Malley to build a new stadium in Brooklyn and insist that he move to a city-built, city-owned stadium in Flushing Meadows? (That's what I've read in a few sources, and it sounds consistent with Moses' M.O.) Essentially, the Dodgers were forced to choose between staying in the crumbling Ebbets Field and moving out of the borough. The fact that the Giants moved around the same time seems to corroborate the idea that NYC was not a friendly environment for baseball owners who needed new stadiums in the mid-50s.
posted by Venicemenace at 08:53 AM on February 28, 2007
1. Ron Santo is very, very far from being the best player not in the Hall of Fame. I wouldn't put him in my top 10 in that category. Nice guy. Very solid player. Sympathic option. Not a Hall of Fame player. Sorry. His vote totals are proof that there are still issues of campaigning and cronyism that upset the integrity of the process, but his failure to actually get the 75% means that the issue has been watered sufficiently. CSP (I think you need a three letter abbreviation to replace the former B to the double P, so there you go) -- I would be curious to see your list of 10 better than Santo. I think if you look at the third base position (which I believe is one of the most underrepresented in Cooperstown), Santo is clearly a Hall of Famer. I would say I largely agree with the analysis here when it comes to Santo, and would say that his increasing vote totals are proof that the voters are starting to get it. Just to add a little more fuel to the fire, I think Santo is way more deserving than Mazeroski.
posted by holden at 02:06 PM on February 28, 2007
CSP (I think you need a three letter abbreviation to replace the former B to the double P, so there you go) On second thought, perhaps TCS is more logical.
posted by holden at 02:24 PM on February 28, 2007
from 1965- 1970 Ron Santo lead the whole NL in rbi's total this is in the pitcher's era end of story
posted by luther70 at 02:32 PM on February 28, 2007
Postscript: RBIs don't mean shit.
posted by yerfatma at 02:56 PM on February 28, 2007
no they don't mean shit hey how does your team win games with no ribbies just bases on balllllsssss
posted by luther70 at 03:21 PM on February 28, 2007
I am with Holden. I want to see those 10 players better than Santo. He doesn't get enough an stat adjustment for the run environment of the era, usually. Oddly enough, luther, the base on balls is a huge point in Santo's favor, as he was one of the better OBP guys of the time.
posted by stevis at 03:41 PM on February 28, 2007
Santo's one of those guys who keeps getting better and better the farther we get from his actual playing days. I'm not so big on the whole "since he played third he measures up offensively against other third basemen" - so what? Position only matters in a few instances: Shortstop, second base, catcher, pitcher and centre field, as far as I'm concerned. Third base is the place where mediocre shortstops go (and no - I'm not starting the Jeter/A-Rod thingy). Santo has to get in on the strength of his hitting - or he better be Brooks Robinson. Bottom line is - if you're one of your eras greats, you deserve consideration. I really don't find Santo to be a victim of a staggering case of the overlooks. He seems like a consistent OBP guy who could drive in runs and stayed healthy. He had a great year in 1964 and was a seven-time all-star. I think his Hof Monitor at Baseball Reference has it about right - he's just below what they're looking for. Just because worse players have made it in doesn't mean such a trend should continue.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 04:25 PM on February 28, 2007
Good analysis Crafty. But what about Buck O'Neil? My argument bears repeating: I think Buck O'Neil was a tremendous pioneer and ambassador for the game of baseball and is due all the accolades that have been and likely will be bestowed upon him. And by most accounts he was a pretty good ballplayer. If a sizeable panel of experts on the Negro Leagues, voting in the wake of an intensive five-year analysis of black baseball during the segregation era, and after specifically considering the candidacy of Buck O'Neil, decline to say that he is a Hall of Famer, then I believe he is not a Hall of Famer. I didn't see him play, and even after the study raw statistics aren't very meaningful for a variety of reasons. Love Buck. Hall of Fame gentleman. Not a Hall of Fame ballplayer, apparently. But didn't Robert Moses forbid O'Malley to build a new stadium in Brooklyn and insist that he move to a city-built, city-owned stadium in Flushing Meadows? Yes. But O'Malley is the one that did the packing and moving. It may not be entirely fair -- I am well aware of the extenuating circumstances, and frankly the end result was very, very much in the best interest of baseball -- but O'Malley did still pull the trigger on perhaps the most loyal fan base in the history of baseball, maybe in the history of sport. Hard to let him off the hook altogether. I would be curious to see your list of 10 better than Santo. I was writing off the top of my head. I haven't sat down to do a list, but I'm confident I probably could. To make my case in short though, I will pick the guy who got the fewest votes on this ballot among those who I think are at least as good as Santo. Santo: 162 game average: 82 runs, 163 hits, 26 2B, 25 HR, 96 RBIs, .277/.362/.464 15 seasons: 9 All-Star selections; 5 Gold Gloves; 1.23 MVP shares (0 wins); no post-season appearances My guy: 162 game average: 79 runs, 177 hits, 26 2B, 13 HR, 80 RBIs, .292/.346/.410 11 seasons: 7 All-Star selections; 3 Gold Gloves; 1.5 MVP shares (1 win); Rookie of the Year; in 30 post-season games: 19 runs, 9 2B, 3 HR, 22 RBIs, .357/.378/.496, 2 rings (Note: before the argument is presented that it wasn't Santo's fault that he didn't play in the post-season, let me say this: post-season performance goes both ways, I think -- if you are great in the post-season it helps your case, but if you are awful in the post-season it can hurt you, so while Santo never got a chance to plus his candidacy, he never got a chance to damage it either.) Santo played at the HOF's most scarce fielding position, my guy played at the second most scarce, and the most physically taxing. Santo got 57 votes. My guy got 6. I'm not being a homer here, and I'm not suggesting that Thurman Munson belongs in the Hall of Fame. I do think Munson is a better candidate than Santo, though. I also think Jim Sundberg and Ted Simmons are better candidates. And Vern Stephens. And Dom DiMaggio. And Gil Hodges. And Joe Gordon. And Dick Allen. I'm almost there... from 1965- 1970 Ron Santo lead the whole NL in rbi's total this is in the pitcher's era end of story That it was a "pitcher's era" contributes nothing to your argument, since every "era" you could possibly make up is going to have at least one person who "leads the whole NL in RBIs" in that era. That you chose a window as small as six years tells me something about Santo's Hall of Fame worthiness, though it is something of an impressive accomplishment given that he never led the league in the category. To sum: I like Ron Santo. I wish no ill upon the man, and I feel badly for those that he has endured. He was a very, very good baseball player. But, like Buck O'Neil, he is not a Hall of Famer, and in my opinion quite a few guys are ahead of him in line. I think Santo is way more deserving than Mazeroski. Like Weedy said, no player in the Hall of Fame becomes the meter stick by which you can measure the worthiness of other players. I'm not sure if I agree with the statement, but I do think Mazeroski is more deserving than some. Reggie Jackson, for example.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 08:04 PM on February 28, 2007
weedy said: Just because worse players have made it in doesn't mean such a trend should continue. I think probably only about half of the dozen or so third basemen in the HoF are clearly better than Santo (Brett, Schmidt, Boggs, Matthews, maybe Robinson, maybe Molitor if you count him as a 3B). That makes for a much different situation than saying he is better than the worst guy on the list. Santo had the misfortune of playing on a crappy team in a crappy hitting era, not putting up any milestone counting stats, and (apparently) rubbing some people the wrong way. weedy said: I'm not so big on the whole "since he played third he measures up offensively against other third basemen" - so what? Position only matters in a few instances: Shortstop, second base, catcher, pitcher and centre field, as far as I'm concerned. Third base is the place where mediocre shortstops go (and no - I'm not starting the Jeter/A-Rod thingy). Santo has to get in on the strength of his hitting - or he better be Brooks Robinson. There's a reasonable argument to be made that HoF voting is or should be different than MVP voting in that position matters less in determining whether whether player A is of HoF caliber (some mythical measure of "greatness") than player B, whereas MVP voting should (theoretically, although it certainly doesn't always follow this approach, as the 2006 AL MVP voting shows) account for position in assessing the somewhat less amorphous (but still highly subjective) "valuableness" of a player. As was discussed ad nauseum in the 2006 AL MVP thread, Jeter was, by most measures that even try to be moderately sophisticated, much more valuable than Morneau because his performance at SS was head and shoulders above other AL shortstops. The difference in what amount of Morneau's performance could have been replaced from the bench, the waiver wire or by plugging in a AAAA player at 1B and what amount of Jeter's (or Joe Mauer's, for that matter) performance could be replaced by doing the same thing with a replacement SS (or C), would show the scales tilted heavily in favor of Jeter in terms of what player was less replaceable. I tend to think HoF voting should take a similar (but not necessarily the same) comparative approach of assessing how good a player is at his position in relation to his peers at the same position. I suppose you could just say that 3B should get lumped in with RF, LF and 1B and be judged in relation to those players. If that's the approach, I suspect the HoF ranks will tilt even more drastically away from 3B and towards those others positions than they already have, because it's a lot easier to hide a "bat that can play anywhere" at one of those other positions than at 3B. I guess that means that I also tend to disagree that you can lump all of those other positions together -- to me, 3B is more of a skill position and important defensive position than either outfield corner of 1B. TCS said: I'm not sure if I agree with the statement, but I do think Mazeroski is more deserving than some. Reggie Jackson, for example. I was just chiding a bit re Mazeroski. By all accounts he is a great guy and he statistically was an outstanding defensive 2B. I just think he probably benefited (in terms of his HoF candidacy) the most from a single post-season hit than any other player in the HoF. Until the highly unlikely scenario of Kirk Gibson or Joe Carter making it in comes to pass, I think there can be little debate as to that.
posted by holden at 08:59 PM on February 28, 2007
I think probably only about half of the dozen or so third basemen in the HoF are clearly better than Santo (Brett, Schmidt, Boggs, Matthews, maybe Robinson, maybe Molitor if you count him as a 3B). First of all, when you said "maybe" before Robinson, I swallowed my gum. Once we've digested that, let's look at who you left off your list of "better than Santo." Dandridge, Johnson and Wilson. All Negro Leaguers. Just going on reputation, I would feel pretty confident picking any of them over Santo, but again we never saw any Negro League players doing their thing and the stats, for what they are, are still misleading. For those reasons, they really can't fairly be considered in a ranking of players. So that leaves us with Baker, Collins, Kell, Lindstrom and Traynor. You can battle me on this if you wish, but I think the omission of Traynor from your list was an oversight. The other four were all elected by the Veterans Committee. Collins is generally regarded as the best defensive third baseman the game had seen until Robinson, with the possible exception of Traynor. Kell recently mastered the hit and run, but he is probably a stretch to be in the Hall. Baker was part of the $100,000 Infield under Connie Mack and hit those two game-winners against Marquard and Mathewson. He is so firmly embedded in the mythology of the game that it is impossible to know for certain how good he really was. Lindstrom is, no doubt about it, a huge, huge mistake. I can't think of a single reason Lindstrom should be in the Hall of Fame. That we generally consider Santo below the players who were elected by the writers, but among (at best) the players brought in by the Vet Com is telling. Santo had his ride on the writers' ballot, and the fact they didn't vote him in is good enough for me. I see no evidence of outrageous oversight here -- I think Albert Belle was better, and he dropped off the ballot in the first year. It's time to leave players in the exclusive hands of the writers' ballot -- if they don't put you in over 15 years, there's a good chance you're not a Hall of Famer.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 11:37 PM on February 28, 2007
First of all, when you said "maybe" before Robinson, I swallowed my gum. Well, I suppose it comes down to how much you value defense. Santo was an above average defensive 3B, while Robinson was otherworldly. Santo was, however, a superior offensive threat. I don't pretend to have the math skills or head for advanced statistics that some have, but Jay Jaffe's Hall of Fame formula accounts for offensive and seems to largely track with who I believe should be in the Hall, and that formula puts Santo just behind Molitor and slightly ahead of Robinson (subscription req'd.). You can battle me on this if you wish, but I think the omission of Traynor from your list was an oversight. As for Pie Traynor, I will admit he's not a figure I am greatly familiar with, but according to their respective Baseball Reference pages, Santo's offensive production, when adjusted for context, was far superior to Traynor's (125 OPS+ for Santo v. 107 OPS+ for Traynor). I understand Traynor was largely considered the best defensive 3B until Brooks Robinson came along, so certainly he has that going for him. In this respect, it's largely the same issue as with Santo and Robinson -- how much are you going to credit the superior defense of the one against the superior offense of the other? Tough question. I don't even know why I'm bothering to defend Santo; I hate the Cubs. I just think he hasn't gotten a fair shake. (Although I suppose the counter argument to that is that if the writers and vets voting for you for the past 30 years is not a fair shake, then what is?) I think this is one of those things where we'll just have to agree to disagree.
posted by holden at 08:10 AM on March 01, 2007
Santo: 162 game average: 82 runs, 163 hits, 26 2B, 25 HR, 96 RBIs, .277/.362/.464 15 seasons: 9 All-Star selections; 5 Gold Gloves; 1.23 MVP shares (0 wins); no post-season appearances My guy: 162 game average: 79 runs, 177 hits, 26 2B, 13 HR, 80 RBIs, .292/.346/.410 11 seasons: 7 All-Star selections; 3 Gold Gloves; 1.5 MVP shares (1 win); Rookie of the Year; in 30 post-season games: 19 runs, 9 2B, 3 HR, 22 RBIs, .357/.378/.496, 2 rings This totally fails to account for offensive context. Santo's peak in the 60s, a horrible offensive era. Munson's was the 70s, an easier time to hit. And Santo still put up better obp/slugging numbers. Santo's OPS+ (on base + slugging, as a % of league average) was 125, Munson's 116. And Munson, through no fault of his own, had no decline phase to bring down the numbers. Santo's was quick and brutal, thanks to the diabetes. You can give Munson some credit for playing a more taxing and imporant position, but 3b is not dh or 1b--it takes talent--and you'd have a tough time making up that offensive difference just by positional defense, when Santo has 5 Gold Gloves of his own.
posted by stevis at 09:54 AM on March 01, 2007
Welcome, new member who does my work for me.
posted by yerfatma at 10:20 AM on March 01, 2007
Holden, you are not going to convince me to start drinking the Jaffe juice. My no-sub access to that article gave me enough to know I'm not forking over cash to read the rest of it. The no-winners result hasn't quite been the PR disaster it could have been, but that's not to say it's been a win, as both writers and players have used the shutout as a rather annoying exercise in self-congratulation. It's only annoying if you think they're wrong (which I do not). I think Jaffe is annoying. I love how the Don Malcolm article Jaffe linked to starts by calling Murray Chass "sanctimonious" then concludes by telling me what the Hall of Fame is supposed to be. His argument is ridiculous. And the Jay Jaffe Hall of Fame formula is perfect for enshrinement into the Jay Jaffe Hall of Fame in Jay Jaffe City, capital of the country of Jay Jaffe on the planet of Forgotten Toys. This totally fails to account for offensive context. Check Santo's career home/road splits. Wrigley Field makes for a nice counter-balance to "horrible offensive eras." Meanwhile, Munson was punching into Death Valley when it was still Death Valley in left-center field.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 10:21 AM on March 01, 2007
And the Jay Jaffe Hall of Fame formula is perfect for enshrinement into the Jay Jaffe Hall of Fame in Jay Jaffe City, capital of the country of Jay Jaffe on the planet of Forgotten Toys. I love stats. I'd bathe in them, drink them and make sweet, sweet love to them all night long if I could. But even I think "JAWS" is a cooked up stat. Individual WARP3 seasons? I can handle. Career WARP3? Still okay. Peak WARP3 (top 7 consecutive seasons)? Sliding away a bit from useful. Taking the average of the PEAK and the career value? Huh? Stats should make sense, and just jamming together two numbers and coming out with a third composite number (especially when the two primary numbers are complex computations themselves) just doesn't cut it for me. It might be useful as a quick "here is a list of players worth considering" tool, but as a method of ranking them? Pass.
posted by grum@work at 11:34 AM on March 01, 2007
I love stats. I'd bathe in them, drink them and make sweet, sweet love to them all night long if I could. That's painting a clear picture!
posted by dyams at 12:38 PM on March 01, 2007
Check Santo's career home/road splits. Wrigley Field makes for a nice counter-balance to "horrible offensive eras." Meanwhile, Munson was punching into Death Valley when it was still Death Valley in left-center field. Uf! Nyet! No way, no how.
posted by yerfatma at 01:07 PM on March 01, 2007
Can't argue with that. Good point.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 01:29 PM on March 01, 2007
But even I think "JAWS" is a cooked up stat. Individual WARP3 seasons? I can handle. Career WARP3? Still okay. Peak WARP3 (top 7 consecutive seasons)? Sliding away a bit from useful. Taking the average of the PEAK and the career value? Huh? Stats should make sense, and just jamming together two numbers and coming out with a third composite number (especially when the two primary numbers are complex computations themselves) just doesn't cut it for me. I agree to a point on the JAWS metric, that it seems a bit arbitrary in terms of what measures are chosen, how they're measured, etc. I was using that as an example of the types of stat that might be helpful in assessing HoF candidacies. I also agree that the system is not particularly useful for ranking players, especially for players who are close together. It does seem to track popular conceptions in terms of who are the best ever and, largely, what players are in the Hall but probably shouldn't be. It also largely matches up with a number of other statistical analyses (the methodology of which I'm uncertain), such as Bill James', which ranks Santo as the 6th best 3B ever (leaving aside the Negro Leaguers) -- behind Schmidt, Brett, Boggs, Baker and Matthews. Putting the methodology aside, I think it is most useful to me in identifying those players that don't jump out as a surefire Hall of Famer but who have a very strong case, and allowing me to look deeper into those individual's stats and backgrounds to make an assessment for myself. This is the case with Santo, who I think should be in for reasons other than "JAWS says he should be in" and for someone like Tim Raines, who actually played his entire career in my lifetime but who I hadn't really recognized as a Hall of Fame-type player until, after seeing JAWS and other statistical analyses rate him highly, I started digging around more on him and realized just how good he was. I don't think I would ever take the position that a particular player belongs in the Hall because statistical formula/system X, Y or Z says so, but such a formula/system does have some legitimate uses.
posted by holden at 03:22 PM on March 01, 2007
Can't argue with that. Good point. There's no arguing with logic. The subtext of my comment (I thought it so obvious/ I was hoping stevis would fill it in) is there's a host of statistics that do equalize offensive production across eras. There may be no park adjustment built into OPS+, but you could find a home/road split or just look at road OPS+ (if such splits are readily available to the consumer) to get an idea of performance. Suggesting the little bandbox in the Windy City is perfect counterbalance to Ten Years After in the Bronx discounts things like wind gusts. And you know Munson wouldn't want you doing that. </cheapshot>
posted by yerfatma at 04:15 PM on March 01, 2007
Santo's home/road splits are available here. I didn't see if they had his OPS+. I'm not even really sure what OPS+ is. But here are Santo's road numbers next to the league average (AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS): Santo (career, road): .257/.342/.406/.748 League avg. through his career: .268/.334/.399/.733 Those are pretty unremarkable numbers. He's no Dante Bichette, but he's closer to Bichette than he is to Stan Musial (who had exactly the same number of hits at home and on the road). Holden, you have had to defend yourself way more than you should have to, and I apologize for pushing that. Jaffe jabs my buttons because I really hate the concept of creating a mathematical formula for Hall of Fame worthiness (with Brooksie falling so low, I wonder how Jaffe rates, say, Ozzie Smith). But I can understand using the formula as a means to discovery so long as it doesn't factor into your final analysis of a player's worth too much. I was starting to follow baseball toward the end of Santo's career, and while I certainly got that he was respected, I never got the buzz about Santo, the "you gotta see this guy," anywhere close to what you got at that time with Robinson, or soon after with Schmidt and Brett. I definitely got a Sal-Bando-Darrell-Evans-Graig-Nettles feel (undoubtedly somewhat media driven) about him. Solid. All-Star. Not a Hall of Famer. As you said, we can agree to disagree.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 11:35 PM on March 01, 2007
I suppose it's a little unfair to use just road numbers as home field has some unquantified positive effect on players' stats, but even giving him a 5% boost he's not much more than league average over the course of his career. On the other hand, '63-'69 was a really good run, where his park-adjusted OPS was almost 150% of league average.
posted by yerfatma at 06:16 AM on March 02, 2007
You know I love this people fighting over stats not laughing I've been collecting basbeball cards since I was 11 I'm 38 now just to let my opinion known now! Santo measures up with the best of them THE HOF members I Mean
posted by luther70 at 03:54 PM on March 02, 2007
how do you like your blue-eyed boy now
posted by yerfatma at 04:29 PM on March 02, 2007
Thirty eight years and you still haven't discovered the wonderful little dot we like to call the period.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:30 PM on March 02, 2007
The Baseball Hall of Fame membership should be decided by the outcome of an alternating best-of-seven format conducted using Stratomatic and Earl Weaver Baseball for the Tandy 1000 with Home Field Advantage determined by 2 headed coin toss.
posted by 2 time mvp of the shittiest team ever at 10:41 AM on March 03, 2007
This is a travesty I know I'm a cubs fan and santo deserves to be in the hall but nobody voted from the veterans committee something is seriously wrong do we happen to have some hall of famers that have to big of an ego Hell I don't know 3 straight times soundz like it by the way Jim Kaat deserves it too so does gil hodges