And your 2007 MLB HOF candidates are ...

Bold indicates who I think will get voted in. Italicized indicates who I think will get enough votes to appear on the ballot again. Underlined indicates who I think SHOULD get in, but won't, on this ballot. Complete list:Harold BainesAlbert BelleDante BichetteBert BlylevenBobby BonillaScott BrosiusJay BuhnerKen CaminitiJose CansecoDave ConcepcionEric DavisAndre DawsonTony FernandezSteve GarveyRich "Goose" GossageTony GwynnOrel HershiserTommy JohnWally JoynerDon MattinglyMark McGwireJack MorrisDale MurphyPaul O'NeillDave ParkerJim RiceCal Ripken JrBret SaberhagenLee SmithAlan TrammellDevon WhiteBobby Witt I debated about Lee Smith. I don't know if he deserves to be in the HOF, but I know he'll get the votes and might get in during a lull in the candidates.

posted by grum@work at 04:32 PM - reply - flag:

Does Ripken have a chance to be the first named on every ballot? Gwynn is in, but I am not so sure how the writers are gonna judge Mac, should be interesting. Blyleven should already be in, IMHO.

posted by mjkredliner at 04:37 PM - reply - flag:

i believe this is Garvey's last year on the ballot if he doesn't get in.

posted by goddam at 04:43 PM - reply - flag:

Does Ripken have a chance to be the first named on every ballot? No. Someone is going to be a real asshole about this and leave him off. Not that I think Nolan Ryan is ANYWHERE as good as Ripken, but his popularity and near-mythical status as a pitcher should have been good enough for a 100% vote, and he didn't get it.

posted by grum@work at 04:44 PM - reply - flag:

i believe this is Garvey's last year on the ballot if he doesn't get in. Really? Then he'll get the votes to qualify for another ballot, and then he'll get dropped. Also, I should probably list Albert Belle in the "gets enough votes", but I'm not sure there are enough voters who will look at his stats and realize he was one HELL of a hitter. Most will go "Whatta jerk!" and just not vote for him.

posted by grum@work at 04:46 PM - reply - flag:

McGwire isn't going to get enough votes this year. Next year, yeah, but the BBWAA is as vindictive and petty a bunch as has ever learned to read, and enough of them will smack him down just out of spite to hold him off one year. (They've done it for way lesser players over far less drama.) I'd bet the house on Gwynn and Ripken getting in with ease, though grum is right about neither getting 100%, just because. I'd bet no one else gets in this year, though I'd love to have Blyleven, Brosius or Gossage prove me wrong. Did I say Brosius? I meant Jack Morris.

posted by chicobangs at 05:14 PM - reply - flag:

So grum you think McGwire will still make it even with all the steroid issues?

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:17 PM - reply - flag:

Please for the love of God, someone vote Jim Rice in, already. I also don't think McGwire's getting in this year. I'm sort of iffy on him getting in at all, depending on what transpires before future voting opportunities.

posted by jerseygirl at 05:52 PM - reply - flag:

Dante Bichette!

posted by jerseygirl at 05:52 PM - reply - flag:

God, so many bits are going to be wasted discussing McGwire, steroids, and the Hall. Can we discuss it in this thread, get it over with now, and declare a permanent moratorium afterwards? Pretty please? With steroids icing on top?

posted by tieguy at 06:03 PM - reply - flag:

I don't think mcgwire gets in this year either. Not that I think Nolan Ryan is ANYWHERE as good as Ripken, but his popularity and near-mythical status as a pitcher should have been good enough for a 100% vote, and he didn't get it. Point taken, but I think you made a mistake in picking your example. There were plenty of angles to ryan's career to allow someone not to have voted yes.

posted by justgary at 06:15 PM - reply - flag:

Not that I think Nolan Ryan is ANYWHERE as good as Ripken, but his popularity and near-mythical status as a pitcher should have been good enough for a 100% vote, and he didn't get it. Nolan Ryan didn't have a single Cy Young Award. He had one ring, from 1969, but he was not an integral member of that pitching staff. I vote for him hands down, but he's not without holes in his resume. Other players who didn't get 100% of the vote: Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Sandy Koufax, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, Bob Gibson, Bob Feller... oh, and Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Walter Johnson, and Christy Mathewson. Nobody has ever been on 100% of the ballots. I regard this less as a statistical shame, more a nod to the early Hall of Fame classes -- which certainly included players who should have been on every ballot, but who were certainly kept from it by virtue of the ballot process, one that was not closed as it is today, but one in which every player who had played up to that time were eligible. Reasons why Ripken will appear on every ballot: 2 MVP Awards; a World Series ring; a great offensive force at a position of offensive scarcity; .336 career post-season average; Rookie of the Year; saved baseball from the depths of the 1994-95 strike; broke the unbreakable and inexplicably revered consecutive games record; perceived as a great all-around guy, beloved by the media; and he kept his streak intact even though Kevin Costner slept with his wife. Reasons why Ripken will NOT appear on every ballot: .276 career batting average; despite being perceived as a home run/RBI guy he only cracked 30 homers once and 100 RBIs four times; never had a .400 OBP (high of .374); only cracked .500 in SLG four times, once in a season in which he only played in 86 games; only received two Gold Glove Awards; despite his lengthy consecutive games streak, he only led the league in games played in a season nine times; his Streak was considered by some to be selfish and damaging to his productivity to the team, especially in the later part of his career; he was frequently in the top 10 in the league in grounding into double plays; and he apparently didn't actually beat the stuffing out of Kevin Costner. I'm inclined to go with the latter, because it's remotely defensible. He has the best shot since 1999, though. Gwynn won't get it because of the type of hitter he was, and McGwire, well... I think Mac gets in. A while back I thought the Mac vote would end up being a referendum on steroids, but I'm not so sure now. Without concrete evidence or a confession of any sort, I see McGwire slipping past the 75%. My hope is that the writers see how they have contributed to the issue themselves, and they stop punishing those who have not been convicted outside of public opinion. But I also hope for world peace and the end of homelessness and starvation everywhere, and I continue to be disappointed there, too.

posted by BullpenPro at 06:42 PM - reply - flag:

Point taken, but I think you made a mistake in picking your example. There were plenty of angles to ryan's career to allow someone not to have voted yes. Agreed. The reason I choose Ryan as the example is because, well, he still holds the record for highest voting percentage on the first ballot (and most votes). As well, he holds some records that baseball writers wet themselves over (ho-hitters, strikeouts (season and career)) and he hit the 300 wins plateau.

posted by grum@work at 07:07 PM - reply - flag:

I think Mac gets in. A while back I thought the Mac vote would end up being a referendum on steroids, I agree with the second part of your statement. I the writers will make this vote into an example of why you don't want to be associated with steroids in any way, shape, or form. It's one thing to not confess to something, it's another thing to not deny it. A sin of omission or comission, but still a sin. (sorry Conseco, Caminiti etc...) Gwynn and Ripken are no brainers. I hope Bert and Wally make it in. (go Angels!) Albert Belle would be a lock except for the fact that he has destroyed any chance at having positive public opinion. Orel was my favorite player as a kid and I also hope to see him make it (eventually).

posted by yay-yo at 07:14 PM - reply - flag:

I hope Bert and Wally make it in. Wally? As in Joyner? I think there is a very good race to watch between Joyner, Brosius, Witt and Bichette as to who will get the LEAST votes this year. I fully respect his career as a major leaguer, but he's not even close to deserving of a HOF vote (if the voters stick to the idea that every vote should count). So grum you think McGwire will still make it even with all the steroid issues? If he gets in this year, it'll be by the thinnest of margins. I'm wondering if the paucity of true "legends" in this vote might be enough for an "accidental" success for McGwire. By the way, nothing bothers me more than two things: 1) writers who throw a "pity" vote at a player they like, even though they know they aren't HOF players (Joyner, Witt, etc) 2) writers who don't vote for a player one year, but decide to vote for him later, and do so only because there aren't enough "real" candidates for them to choose from Unless you've got a good reason why you need to change your vote (more evidence against a person being in the HOF (bet on sport), or learning to understand statistics better), changing your vote for a player is just ridiculous. His performance hasn't changed, so why should the vote?

posted by grum@work at 07:49 PM - reply - flag:

...and he kept his streak intact even though Kevin Costner slept with his wife... ...didn't actually beat the stuffing out of Kevin Costner... There's a reason for that. Do you think its "just" a coincidence that Costner hasn't starred in a critically acclaimed movie since the "alleged incident"? I don't. Do you know why? I have 2 words for you my friend. Greg Maddux.

posted by lilnemo at 08:11 PM - reply - flag:

An AP poll currently has McGwire falling short of the number of votes needed.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:11 PM - reply - flag:

An AP poll currently has McGwire falling short of the number of votes needed. Grum's Super-Duper Crazy-Conspiracy Theory: The writers will not vote McGwire in until his last year of eligibility. Why? His remaining on the ballot and out of the HOF guarantees that they'll have an easy (and almost recyclable) article to produce every year that he's not in the HOF.

posted by grum@work at 09:11 PM - reply - flag:

I ALWAYS wait to see if jerseygirl kicks in before I speak... Sorry babe, but in his own words, "It ain't happenin', man, it ain't happenin'..."

posted by wolfdad at 11:08 PM - reply - flag:

I don't think Big Mac makes it in. Nor do I think he should. And Albert Belle was one badass mutha back in the day. His approach at the plate was incredibly intimidating. Not sure if he's HOF material but I certainly did enjoy watching him beat the hell out of that ball.

posted by fenriq at 11:12 PM - reply - flag:

Not sure if [Albert Belle]'s HOF material but I certainly did enjoy watching him beat the hell out of that ball. He was definitely on his way to the HOF, if his hip didn't give out on him. Even factoring in a normal regression due to age, he was putting up amazing numbers that definitely would have got him on more than half the ballots at least.

posted by grum@work at 11:27 PM - reply - flag:

The steroids thing is a load of crud. When Sosa and Mac were having their longball contest, baseball was in a tremendous slump and besides, people pay to see homeruns. No one would have said squat about steroids if Canseco's book had come out in that season. That homer derby revitalized baseball, And besides, Mac hit 49 dingers as a rookie. He deserves to be in.

posted by cheftad at 11:46 PM - reply - flag:

Why is Andre Dawson not in the HOF?he deserves it.so does Jim Rice.I think writers have too much power in deciding players" fates.if Rice was "Mr.Interview he would be in.Dawson has the stats.i know there are players who don't measure up to him who are in.exactly what is the criterea?numbers?popularity? attitude?tell me something somebody.

posted by mars1 at 11:49 PM - reply - flag:

tell me something somebody. There are spaces in between sentences. That qualify as something?

posted by jerseygirl at 12:51 AM - reply - flag:

I ALWAYS wait to see if jerseygirl kicks in before I speak... Oh? Sorry babe, but in his own words, "It ain't happenin', man, it ain't happenin'..." Comment icon posted by wolfdad at 11:08 PM CST on November 27 Dante Bichette said that? Cool!

posted by jerseygirl at 12:53 AM - reply - flag:

Here's my 10 cent opinion. Ripkin (without 100%) and Gwynn get in this year, McGwire is way short (like 25% instead of the required 75%). Lee Smith, Jim Rice, and Albert Belle will lead the also-rans and may get in down the road. You have to remember how the voters operate. Rule #1 If they don't like you (Belle and recently McGwire) they don't vote for you Rule #2 There are at least a few writers who simple will not vote for you on the first ballot (sorry Ripken). Rule #3 Writers hate Closers (even though I think Smith and Gossage are no-brainers). Remember Eckersley had 197 career wins and a No-hitter as a starter Rule #4 Writers like to send messages to emphasize their collective wisdom, genious and self importance (like Albert you shouldn't have been so obnoxious. or Mark how could you treat us this way?)

posted by kyrilmitch_76 at 06:12 AM - reply - flag:

I have to add one more and respectfully disagree with Grum. Rule #5 Writers don't care what you would have accomplished if you hadn't have hurt your hip.

posted by kyrilmitch_76 at 06:19 AM - reply - flag:

I'm with grum on this one. McGwire doesn't get in as some kind of colluded "message" - that so happens to give everyone some more things to write about, in addition to propogated the illusion that character matters. And it gives them the opportunity to think that they, the BBWAA, has "done something" about steriods. Self-importance and fodder for columns? How can they lose? Eventually McGwire gets in. Sosa? Probably not. (Oooo - then we can talk about racism in MLB) Belle would have been a shoo-in statistically, if he didn't break down. He may end up being the best forgotten hitter of his generation. That guy raked. Jim Rice - should be in. Blyleven - in (I used to think otherwise) Gwynn and Ripken - 85-95%. Their tickets are punched.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:59 AM - reply - flag:

This article by Jack O'Connell gives a brief history of the election process. It has some interesting info, including a reminder that the Veterans Committee, which narrowly failed to elect Gil Hodges and Ron Santo two years ago, will vote again this year. Also interesting is that O'Connell, who is a BBWAA officer, suggests that McGwire may fail to get into the Hall simply on his record alone, steroids notwithstanding. And there's something comical in the fact that the BBWAA voted to include Lou Gehrig into the Hall without a vote. I wonder if the vote not to have a vote was unanimous. Rule #5 Writers don't care what you would have accomplished if you hadn't have hurt your hip. But they do care what you would have accomplished if you hadn't hurt your eye. Another interesting note is that Bill James' "HOF Monitor," which measures the likelihood of a player's election to the Hall rather than the player's merit, has Albert Belle off the charts -- the 94th highest rating of all players, including those already in the Hall. No brainer territory, but I don't see Belle getting in. Juan Gonzalez is practically the same player statistically (and the HOF Monitor also has him in easily), but I just can't see Juan Gone or Joey in the Hall anytime soon. I have to think they're behind Rice and Dawson.

posted by BullpenPro at 08:06 AM - reply - flag:

The reason I choose Ryan as the example is because, well, he still holds the record for highest voting percentage on the first ballot (and most votes). Ryan does hold the record for most votes, but Tom Seaver still holds the mark for highest percentage (98.84). Ryan had 98.79. /splitting hairs I meant to say much earlier that I think Grum's list is very good. I think the only quibbles you can have with it are at the bottom of the list. I would guess that Saberhagen and Canseco don't move on, and that Concepcion and Jack Morris do (Morris was on 41% of the ballots last year -- that's a steep drop). And, Grum, you make a great case for McGwire not making it (beyond O'Connoll's stance, which may be simply protecting the integrity of the process and removing the spite angle). I think you're right on that. My ballot (if I had one) would read: Ripken, Gwynn, Gossage, Dawson, Morris, Trammell and Rice. Tomorrow my ballot may have Blyleven, but today it doesn't. Today I am focusing on that 3.90 ERA, no Cy Young, never led the league in wins or ERA. I also waffle on Hershiser -- three post-season MVPs and that consecutive scoreless inning string.

posted by BullpenPro at 08:51 AM - reply - flag:

A sad state of affairs, what steroids have done to the game we all love so much, when we are debating the HOF worthiness of players with titanic career numbers and monumental highlights on their resume`. Of course, I speak of Raffy, Sammy, and Mac, and eventually, Bonds. It really pisses me off, if the truth be known, that these players did not care about the integrity of the game or the numbers that will be forever linked to their names. Or that they have forced the BBWAA members to basically become a kangaroo court regarding their use of PED's. It is let 'em all in or keep 'em all out, the way I see it. My meaningless vote is for the latter.

posted by mjkredliner at 09:11 AM - reply - flag:

Ryan does hold the record for most votes, but Tom Seaver still holds the mark for highest percentage (98.84). Ryan had 98.79. D'oh! That will teach me for not double checking my numbers. I knew Ryan had more votes, but my math-fu failed me at basic division as my handwritten note came out as 98.8 for Seaver and 98.9 for Ryan. Also interesting is that O'Connell, who is a BBWAA officer, suggests that McGwire may fail to get into the Hall simply on his record alone, steroids notwithstanding. The 583 HR is pretty hard to ignore. Breaking Maris' record is also worth points for hall consideration. Being among the top 15 in history for SLG, OPS and OPS+ is really hard forget. Twelve All-Star game appearances puts him among the elite. He even has a Gold Glove. I'm pretty sure it's a weak cover-up. If they want to use the "character" clause as a reason to keep McGwire out, then they have all the right in the world to do so. However, they better be honest about what they find deplorable and be willing to apply the same criteria to every other player with "power numbers" that comes up in the next 20 years. I would guess that Saberhagen and Canseco don't move on, and that Concepcion and Jack Morris do (Morris was on 41% of the ballots last year -- that's a steep drop). If it only takes 5% of the vote to make it to the next one, then I think Canseco and Saberhagen get by, but barely. It was a complete oversight that I left Morris of my italicized list. Concepcion might drop from a lot of ballots this year because of the quality of players. But then again, 5% isn't that high... My ballot (if I had one) would read: Ripken, Gwynn, Gossage, Dawson, Morris, Trammell and Rice. My ballot would be: Ripken, Gwynn, Gossage, Dawson, Trammell, Blyleven, Baines. If Stieb can't go in the HOF, then Morris isn't going in either.

posted by grum@work at 11:23 AM - reply - flag:

I think Mac gets in. A while back I thought the Mac vote would end up being a referendum on steroids, but I'm not so sure now. Without concrete evidence or a confession of any sort, I see McGwire slipping past the 75%. posted by BullpenPro I hope the writers who vote Mac in do so because one of several legitimate reasons to do so (it was the steroid era, pitchers were also on steroids, steroids doesn't hit the ball for you...etc.) and not some BS "there is no proof". Watching him repeat "I'm not here to talk about the past" over and over when questioned about steroids was a pitiful display and a confession in any logical court room.

posted by justgary at 02:25 PM - reply - flag:

Is there a requirement that a player be off the ballot for a number of years before he can be voted on by the Veterans Committee? I'd like to see Lou Whitaker get a shot.

posted by holden at 02:54 PM - reply - flag:

Good to see some love for Jack "winningest pitcher of the 80s" Morris although unsubstantiated rumor has it that his media (I'm making this one up) savvylessness will keep him out. My only hope is that on a ballot that includes perennial drug-free nice guys like Ken Caminiti and Jose Canseco, that JM can up his vote total.

posted by gradys_kitchen at 03:32 PM - reply - flag:

Oh yeah ... Mac stays out for at least a turn to promote a Just Say No attitude to the kiddies.

posted by gradys_kitchen at 03:37 PM - reply - flag:

Bullpen Pro the only slight difference is that the standard for power hitters has always been 400 HR. And in the "steriod era" many people are thinking maybe you have to look even higher (450 HR maybe?) and Belle didn't hit 400 HR and he didn't hit .300. Puckett on the other hand was (as a guy who hit for primarily for average) a 10 time All-Star, 6 Gold Gloves, .318 hitter, who also threw in 200 HR and a 1,000 RBI. By the way, Belle was a cheater who is literally listed in wickipedia's definition of corked bat. Puckett was missing the 3,000 hit mark which is usually almost a requirement for a BA guy so while I don't think Puckett got a free pass he may have gotten a reduced fare because of his illness.

posted by kyrilmitch_76 at 04:18 PM - reply - flag:

For the record, I found no mention of McGwire in the definition for Anabolic Steriods

posted by kyrilmitch_76 at 04:21 PM - reply - flag:

Bullpen Pro the only slight difference is that the standard for power hitters has always been 400 HR. And in the "steriod era" many people are thinking maybe you have to look even higher (450 HR maybe?) and Belle didn't hit 400 HR and he didn't hit .300. Well, the usual benchmark for the HOF for pitchers is 300 wins, and this guy didn't come anywhere CLOSE to the mark, but no one would believe that he's a bad choice for the HOF. I'm not saying that Belle = Koufax, but there is a reason why hard and fast milestone numbers aren't used for determining HOF credentials. I'd be more likely to support a HOF nomination for a player who puts together 10 seasons of superstar-level play than I am for a player who puts together 15-20 seasons of pretty-good play (and racks up more "counting" stats than the superstar player). For Belle's ten full seasons (1991-2000), he put up (in my opinion) Hall of Fame numbers. If he doesn't suffer the degenerative hip problem, and finishes off his career with, say, 5 seasons of decreasing value (90%-65% his historic value), his counting numbers would have definitely carried him into the HOF. But he didn't, and he won't and I have no problem if voters want to look at his numbers and say "Not Good Enough". I do, however, think he's a much better candidate for the HOF than many of the other people on the ballot with him this year. Another player who will probably fall short of any major milestone is Ichiro, but if he gets the necessary 10 years (and doesn't fall off a cliff statistically), then I think he'll be very deserving of the HOF.

posted by grum@work at 04:37 PM - reply - flag:

If it only takes 5% of the vote to make it to the next one, then I think Canseco and Saberhagen get by, but barely. I would think that the writers would be too embarassed if anyone found out that they voted for Canseco, I would be.

posted by yay-yo at 04:43 PM - reply - flag:

Hey, I am from STL. I am not hating on Mac but his career in the majors does not warrant HOF. He is in essence being put in on the one season of 70 HRs that he pretty much eluded to using roids that season so, I would not vote him in any sooner than I would voteRick Ankiel in.

posted by carter3105 at 06:19 PM - reply - flag:

He is in essence being put in on the one season of 70 HRs that he pretty much eluded to using roids that season so, I would not vote him in any sooner than I would voteRick Ankiel in. He did hit 513 other home runs, including leading the league 3 other seasons (and one where he led all of MLB, but neither the NL or AL). He does hold the AL rookie HR record (20 years later). He was a 12-time all-star. He has one of the highest career SLG in MLB history. But if you want to be narrow-minded and silly about his career numbers, I guess I can't stop you, but it doesn't mean everyone else has to be like that.

posted by grum@work at 06:38 PM - reply - flag:

I am starting a petition for HOF for Jose Oquendo, the greatest utility man in the history of baseball played every position even pitched! he is much more deserving of HOF than Mr. I'm not here to talk about the past.

posted by carter3105 at 06:41 PM - reply - flag:

His approach at the plate was incredibly intimidating. As was his approach to trick-or-treaters and ex-girlfriends. He is in essence being put in on the one season of 70 HRs...I would not vote him in any sooner than I would voteRick Ankiel in. So much for the tired old adage that St. Louis fans are somehow more cognizant of baseball history than other, less gritty fans.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:42 PM - reply - flag:

Grum: You've put up a pretty convincing argument in favor of McGwire's credentials, but he isn't on your ballot. Are you sufficiently convinced of his illegal PED use to keep him off on character? For my part, I don't put him on because of the five tools used to measure players, he was strong in exactly one of them. And he wasn't the single best player at that one tool for a sufficiently long time to warrant HOF consideration, in my opinion. And he lacked many other "intangible" or "tangential" arguments, like routine clutchiness or strong post-season performance. That said, I have a problem with writers not putting him in if they think he has the resume, but they want to hang him for his Congressional transcript. I think most writers believe his numbers warrant election, and for that reason I would like to see him get in. Not to say character doesn't count for anything, but I want to see something concrete -- a dirty needle, a betting slip, a signed confession, a failed test. Keep Palmeiro out, fine. Big Mac fumbled, yes, but until I see some evidence more credible than a witless Congressional strategy and words in somebody's best-selling tell-all book, I'm throwing down the good old benefit of the doubt. I was reading an article in USA Today this evening (I unfortunately couldn't find a duplicate online). It was similar to YYM's link above, but at the end it quoted a writer who said he turned in his BBWAA card because he didn't want to be put in the position of casting another vote for a cheater. I think that is incredibly lame -- it's like refusing to participate in a political election because you might vote for a liar. And here I'll run out the now-hackneyed line that if we cleared the cheaters out of the Hall of Fame, it could go back to being that little one-room brick structure in which it was physically born in 1939. For my part, frankly, Devon White and Eric Davis are, of the first ballot candidates, the closest thing to legit five-category players in the lot. And neither is likely to be on next year's ballot. I'd like to see Lou Whitaker get a shot. Holden, man, I am with you. I would love to see Lou and Alan go in together -- they were, to me, the quintessential middle infield combo... maybe of all time. They are the closest thing to Tinker and Evers since Tinker and Evers. If somebody had the good sense to write a song about them, they would be in already. Seriously, other than Van Lingle Mungo, who has a song written about them that isn't in the Hall? kyrilmitch, I wasn't arguing with you. Believe me, I have no issue with Puckett being in the Hall, and I am perfectly happy with Belle being kept away. I am mad at you, though, for inspiring someone to put Belle and Sandy Koufax in the same sentence. He could have at least used Ralph Kiner for a more parallel (and less offensive, so to speak) comparison. *grins

posted by BullpenPro at 08:31 PM - reply - flag:

Grum: You've put up a pretty convincing argument in favor of McGwire's credentials, but he isn't on your ballot. Are you sufficiently convinced of his illegal PED use to keep him off on character? Oh dear Lord. I can't believe I left McGwire off my (proposed) ballot! I was so busy making sure I got Baines, Blyleven, Trammell, Dawson and Gossage on there that I forgot about Mr. Controversy himself. Well, let's just assume I'm one of those idiotic voters who can't explain his Pierzynski-esque ballot, so I guess I'll trot out a "not on a first ballot" malarkey to cover for my foolishness. In all honesty though...yes, I'd put McGwire on my ballot. I am mad at you, though, for inspiring someone to put Belle and Sandy Koufax in the same sentence. Kiner would have been a better choice, but I liked the contrast of Belle and Koufax.

posted by grum@work at 08:59 PM - reply - flag:

My final thought on the subject (for today at least I can promise that) is that I love the subject and the debate. And I am somebody who was a McGwire fan pretty much throughout his career. I think it hurts more to have someone sort of fall off a pedestal than someone like a Belle who I never really liked in the first place. HOF or not, a lot of these guys are the guys I grew up cheering for (jim rice, the hawk, gwynn and smith) and against (mattingly and o'niell of course) what a great era, just before the steroids I mean ;)

posted by kyrilmitch_76 at 09:17 PM - reply - flag:

This just in: Saberhagen would refuse induction into Hall of Fame unless they let Pete Rose in as well. This just in: In a measure of equal importance, I'm not going to accept a Pulitzer Prize for my comments on SportsFilter until Bill James wins one first.

posted by grum@work at 09:30 PM - reply - flag:

Speakin' of idle threats... uh, meaning Saberhagen, of course.

posted by mjkredliner at 10:07 PM - reply - flag:

I thought I saw that Saberhagen thing on PTI tonight, but I figured it was a hallucination derived from bad scotch. SF: So, Bret, are we to understand that you wouldn't accept your election to the Hall of Fame, even if every voter was simultaneously stunned by a strong electric current during an acid trip, and forgot that you have an uncanny statistical resemblance to John Candelaria, and voted you in? BS: That's right. It's against my religion. SF: And what religion is that. BS: I'm a Born-Again-Rositian. It's sorta like rosacea, since it's, like, all Reds. SF: Uh huh. BS: I'd have to decline. I wouldn't accept it unless the Hall decides to put Pete Rose in, which is where he belongs. You're talking about the all-time hits leader. It's never been proven that he bet on baseball while he played. SF: Uh... have you read the Dowd Report? BS: The, uh... is that the thing about the Kennedy thing. SF: No, it's... um... you know Rose signed a confession, right? BS: Yes. He confessed to being the ALL-TIME HITS LEADER! HELL YEAH! GIVE IT UP, HIGH FIVE! SF: Uh... yeah... you know he wrote a book in which he confessed to betting on baseball, right? BS: Dude, you should spend less time reading, and spend more time with the MAN!! I have. Like, almost constantly. It's not like we have each other's phone number or anything. He has my address, though, because it's on the restraining order. It's nothing, though. We're totally cool. SF: Did he give you any of the balls he signed... you know, the ones on which he apologized for gambling on baseball. BS: You, man. You are totally stomping on my buzz. MARION FEDERAL BASEBALL RULES!! SF: Thank you, Mr. Saberhagen, for clearing your position up for us. BS: I also will not accept a Purple Heart until they drop Prohibition. SF: Yeah. Okay.

posted by BullpenPro at 10:09 PM - reply - flag:

Re: idiotic voters who can't explain his Pierzynski-esque ballot I give Cowley credit for at least trying to explain.

posted by mjkredliner at 08:40 AM - reply - flag:

cognizant Man, I hate that word. Sounds like a dead dot-com bubble consulting firm. Whatever happened to "knowledgeable"? It's out of fashion? Sorry about the derail

posted by qbert72 at 02:39 PM - reply - flag:

Monday, November 27, 2006

Comments