HI EVERYBODY!
I know I have not posted on here in awhile. And I really should put up a new quiz, but I honestly ran out of material. I suck. Anyways, it's 11:51 a.m. and I am still awake after working a midnight shift at Hell. So, I figured I would discuss some Hall of Fame stuff that I heard on Mike and Mike in the Morning.
Tony Dungy
The debate is whether or not he should make the HOF. I think this one is a no-brainer. He won a Super Bowl. He rebuilt the Bucs, and the year after he left they won a Super Bowl. He came to a budding powerhouse and finally won with them. Any argument you make against him seems pretty flimsy to me.
Donovan McNabb
Obviously, I hate the Eagles. However, I can respect McNabb. On today's show, they were saying how he is quietly becoming a HOFer. They tossed at a bunch of numbers, which I did not pay attention to, well except that his TD-INT ratio is really good, in fact it is much better than plenty of the HOF QBs. I say he should be in. Even if he never wins a Super Bowl.
Ricky Henderson
Okay, Ricky ended up receiving the highest percentage of votes all time or some shit like that. The big question was, "why would anyone not vote for him?" He has the SB record and the all-time Runs scored. He may have been the pre-Manny with his negative attitude, but he was absolutely amazing on that one baseball game for my Game Gear...yes, that is how I base my imaginary vote.
Bert Blyleven
Obviously I did not really see him play too much, but in his era he was a dominant pitcher. How can you not have a guy with over 3000 Ks, a career ERA of 3.31, and 60 career shut-outs in the HOF? Plenty of writers point to his W-L, but that is retarded because how can that be his fault? He played for some crappy teams and left the game with a lead, and then watched it drift away...This argument has been made all over the internet among the stat blogs, so I will not delve into it. He did have some fun stuff to say on the show this morning, mostly about how it is ridiculous that he keeps getting snubbed.
Jim Rice
I really have no pros or cons for him getting in. I just want to point out something that Mike Golic says all the time. "How can you not be a HOFer one year and then be one the next?" Rice went 14 years without getting in, but then all of a sudden his numbers looked better? Whatever, that is one of the things that annoys me about the HOF.
The 'Roid Era
Did you know that there were guys who did not vote for Cal Ripken Jr. No shit, there was some moron who said he refused to vote for anyone from the steroid era. Granted, if Ripken were on roids all those years, he most likely would have sustained a few injuries. Am I right Kern? Also, what about Clemens and Bonds? Should they get in? I say yes.
First Time Ballots
This is the one that bothers me. There are some writers who will not vote for someone if it is their first time on the ballot. How utterly ridiculous. Did you know that Hank Aaron and Willie Mays did not get 100% votes? Well obviously, since there has never been a unanimous entry.
The show then went on to ask the question, if the current system is flawed, how do we fix it? No one had a good answer, although one guy sent in an email, which I believe was intended to be funny, but was actually not too bad. He recommended a BCS type system. One-third writers, one-third computers, one-third baseball personalities.
Obviously the writers is pretty self explanatory. The morons who vote now. The computers could be a few different systems from the many different sabermetric groups out there, mainly Bill James. Allow them to come up with a few different ways to evaluate players and then rank them. The next group could be a committee of players (current/retired), announcers (Lanny! Vin Scully), and sports talk folk (Bob Costas, STEPHEN A. SMITH (just kidding))
You then take a composite of those three votes/rankings...it could work. Let me know what your thoughts are any of this...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I agree as long as the computer system is sophisticated enough to find ample merit in voting John Wehner into the HOF. He redefined the word "intangables", and probably holds multiple records for most times cut by a team, most times resigned by a team, most worthless comments as a broadcaster, etc. etc. In short, besides Jackie Robinson and Roberto Clemente(maybe), no one has influenced the sport of baseball more than Wehner. I hope and pray that they will one day name the MVP trophy after him, the highly coveted "Wehner".
i dont' know about adapting a BCS computer system for the hall of fame, but i do know it needs changed around a little bit. I don't like the idea of the hall of fame being decided by a pencil necks that probably haven't played the game since they were 9 years old and decide they understand the game better than anyone because they have a degree in journalism and ever 1968 Topps baseball card. I'm not sure if they already do this, but i think that everyone who has been inducted into the hall of fame should have a vote as well, kind of like the heisman trophy ceremony. No one has earned a vote more than the people who have paved their way into a permanent enshrinement of bronze luster.
It kind of goes with the past Mike schmidt cander of getting pete rose into the hall of fame. A fat commissioner should not have authority over the legends of the greatest game in America. Baseball Commissioners are nothing more than MBA's pushing around their Major League Equity for the benefit of-first and foremost- themselves and then secondly their owners. Have you guys ever seen the commercial where they try to tell you not everything is at sounds and they go around the business room saying good job to all their employees: Bob (keeps bobbing his head up and down), Joy (breaks out in a fit of laughter, Eileen (is leaning on joy), and then she goes to the old fat guy sitting next to her with three chins and says "thanks mr. turkeyneck"? Well that's how i see every owner of any sports team, with the exception of maybe mark cuban and Dan rooney.
As for not voting for any player involved in the "steroids era", such as Cal Ripken Jr., i think is probably one of the most prepostrous, hypocritical statements i've heard mustered since George W. whispered he understands the economy. First and foremost you are correct in saying that Cal Ripken would in no way came close to being the Iron Man of baseball if he was steroids. It is a known fact steroids wear away at tendons and cartilage and increase body weight when used with exercise, which in turn puts more pressure on muscles and joints. Steroids also lead to depression and undisclosed illnesses i.e. Jose Canseco and Jason Giambi respectively. Cal Ripken could not have made 200 consecutive games, let alone more than 2,000, so as to not vote for him, I think that is utterly ridiculous from any writer's point of view.
Not voting for anyone from a certain era, again, i believe to be total hypocricy. The whole point of being enshrined into the hall of fame is a permanent proof of you being a dominant, historical player in your given era of the game. So despite how much every respected writer and cover boy of the sport agrees that the "steroids era" is a black mark on the game of baseball, it is still none-the-less, an era of the game. A player who has been able to establish themselves as a dominant figure and ball player in this historical time line of the game of baseball should be dipped in broze and put on display, in my humble opinion. The likes of Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa are all players who made a significant impact on the game and are alleged steroid users. Every single one of them should be in the hall of fame before the year 2015 and if they are not I shake my head in disgust at all who do not vote in their favor. If you go along with not voting for anyone participating in the steroid era, then you have to leave out cal ripken jr., tony gwynn, eddie murray, rickey henderson, randy johnson, gregg maddux, tom glavine, john smoltz, manny ramirez, my personal favorite ken griffey jr., alex rodriguez, pedro martinez, pudge rodriguez, trevor hoffman, mike mussina, frank thomas, ichiro suzuki, the list goes on and on. Anyone affiliated with any part of the steroid era from the very beginning to what seems it's sudden finish with the mitchell report will leave many well deserving ball players a little less lustrous than they deserve. Who are writers to decide who are cheats, or what even is the definition of the substance of cheating. If it comes to the morality of the game, pull out all the racists, adulterers and gamblers that have been immortalized in baseballs most coveted achievement. I guarantee the number dwindles by atleast a quarter of the entrants. Unless every writer in america's past time is being nominated for sainthood, shut your hole, look at the players achievements, what he has done for the game and his community, and how much he dominated during his era, decade, what have you no matter what the stipulations may be and vote unbiased. If you take all of the arbitrary BS America's writing society is shoveling, I think we have a better system, a better hall of fame, and a better past time.
All the players listed above get my vote.
Why don't you tell us how you really feel?
One of my problems with inducting McGwire and Sosa, is that had they not been on steroids, wouldn't the players that weren't ever doing them have been more dominant? Players such as Chipper Jones, Jeff Bagwell, Larry Walker, Jeff Kent Matt Williams, etc. (assuming they weren't on roids either, I have my doubts about Williams), don't you think they would have been bigger stars of the era? These guys will all be on the fence because of the stigma associated with the era. Especially Chipper. I think sans steroids, he goes down as the best player of the late 90's, early 00's, IMO. Anyway, I think there are other guys that tainted the era such as Helton, Giles, and Luis Gonzalez, who never had the same power numbers after all the shit hit the fan. Maybe even Kevin Young if Giles brought them into the clubhouse...who knows. I'm just glad it's over for the most part and we don't have to worry about it.
Wow Kern, I agree with some of that rambling sentiment. I still think McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro do not get in based on lackluster numbers.
Saying you are over 500 HRs should not put you in the HOF automatically, just like not being at 300 Wins should keep a pitcher out. Stats are stats, but they only mean something in context.
Anyways, I wrestle with the issue of the 'roid guys. Clemens and Bonds, it's hard for me to say no, but at the same time, if you say yes, then who else do you have to say yes to? At what point do we have Canseco in the HOF?
Offord, I see where you're coming from with the if these players didnt take steroids, your listed players would be more dominant. But, you also have to look at the guys you listed. Are all those players perennial all-stars, yes. Were the guys I listed the same sort, yes. Did they more than likely have help from an alleged substance, more than likely. But, what i always say is though steroids may have helped their power numbers, steroids themselves cannot help in the actual gift of being able to hit a ball wherever you want. Palmeiro had that talent in his early years, bonds was able to do it when they put that shift on him, gwynn was the best of all time at putting the ball where he wanted. The players you named I think deserve to be in the hall of fame. Bagwell will get in, chipper will definitely get in as the most consistent 3rd basemen of his generation in my opinion, kent will go in as arguably the greatest offensive force ever to be at the second base position. I say never to matt williams and larry walker. Williams just had gotten hurt too often to see if his great 3 years were a fluke or a taste of what was to come, and Walkers numbers didn't start coming until he started playing in the thin air of colorado. Walker, along with williams for a matter of fact, starting showing signs of steroid usage with their consistent time off with joint and ligament injuries off what seemed like routine every day play. But, to say that bagwell et al. weren't bigger stars of the game and didn't get their fair share of the lime light is a bit over stated.
Ngewo, I agree with if you start saying yes to these people who can you say no to argument. But, there is no way in hell Canseco ever comes close to the hall of fame while openly admitting he believed steroids made him a better ball player. He was one of those paul bunyon swingers: close your eyes, take a huge cut and hope for the best. He was in essence a pitcher with quads and hamstrings for arms. The only thing I give him credit for is being the first 40/40 man inthe history of the game, otherwise his entire career was a joke. As for the 500 homers automatically putting you in to the hall, I agree HOF induction should merit a little more than just a benchmark of long flies. Palmeiro, however not only has the 500 homers, but also has the 3000 hits has a great career average, had great numbers all across the board, has an mvp and had an awesome, consistent career in longevity which is something that is not associated with steroids use. I know there was the whole tainted b-12 supplement usage, but I have to look at what he's done for the game at a consistent level and the usage of steroids for those types of statitistics just don't add up. I think if they are going to look at certain numbers to get into the hall of fame, players should also have to win 5 gold gloves, average 190 hits, 90 RBI's, 95 runs, .310 average, 32 HR's, 18 SB's, .390 OBP, 10 HBP, and 4 charged mounds per season.
For pitchers it's all about final career numbers, sorry, i don't care what you average. Unless you had 4-5 no hitters/perfect game, won 2 cy youngs and got injured and had to retire before your 32nd birthday.
Oh but the main part I was curious about my earlier ranting, was is there a vote by the past HOF'ers? If so, nevermind, if not, why the hell not?! I think that would solve the problem, and it would make it a helluva lot harder to throw in sycophantic steroid users. You think players of that era don't know who the users were? They do. They know who belongs and who doesn't.
Only members of the Baseball Writers Association get a vote. Once you are part of that clique, then you keep your vote for life.
Joe Morgan is a member of BWA and a member of the HOF. He is a moron. Go to firejoemorgan.com, find the label for joechats. Read some of them from a year or two ago. ESPN started to wise up and probably had someone else write answers for Morgan. Anyways, he is the Emmy Award winning baseball analyst, and when people would ask him questions about peoples play, he would respond "well I have not seen much of him, so I cannot be sure." He only watches the games he covers. That is insane.
Now, Jaws, he should be allowed to vote for the NFL HOF. Ever hear him on the radio go on about how he watches film of every game each week? Someone with that kind of dedication to it, should have a vote. Someone like Morgan, who only knows the big stars from the big market teams, should not be allowed to vote.
I agree. The writers are the ones who cover sports religiously so they are definitely competent voters.
The question is, who would be better on steroids, Canseco or Richie Sexton? If Sexton was on enhancers I think he could possibly hit a ball 850 ft. And by ft I mean football fields.
if sexson were on 'roids, i don't think he would be able to reach the ball. It's bad enough that he's 18 feet tall. If you make his arms balloon like, he wouldn't be able to reach down to make contact.
And since i would take sexson any day of the week over the already roided out canseco, i would say sexon is better already even without 'roids.
Now excuse me I need to find a fresh bottle, tourniquet and a syringe and then scream at bill russell at an octave higher than he's used to.
sexson on roids would still only bat .203...his 37 hits would all be HRs...
Henderson didn't have the highest percentage. He was actually 13th (behind: Tom Seaver, Nolan Ryan, Ripken, Ty Cobb, George Brett, Hank Aaron, Tony Gwynn, Mike Schmidt, Johnny Bench, Steve Carlton, Babe Ruth, and Honus Wagner). I find it weird that Tom Seaver has the highest percentage of all time. When I think of the best player ever, he doesn't come immediately to mind. Though with douches like the dude who wouldn't vote for Ripken gumming up the works, I can see the potential.
I don't think computers should be used for decisions like this. They're too easy to blame when stuff goes "wrong". We could have defined formulae used to figure this stuff out, as long as humans are utilizing them in order to interject that "intangible" variable into the mix.
Bonds and Clemens should definitely be HOFers. Palmeiro and Sosa I could argue. McGwire might be a tougher sell. I wonder how Jeter will do when it comes for his time. His career stats look pretty good in certain areas, but his fantasy production blows. Now that I think about it, fantasy potential should definitely be in the HOF formula.
Gideon...obviously i was overstating about Henderson. I decided not to do research or look up stats because when I do that everyone gets angry and decides not to read what I have to say.
When I said a computer system, I really meant some kind of formula made up by someone like Bill James...
Sadly, the intangible mix you talked about would probably Eckstein in the HOF...
I would say that Jeter gets in.
Jeter will be a first ballot HOFer BECAUSE computer's don't decide who gets in. He has won like 4? world series, captained arguably the greatest franchise in history for what will be close to 20 years probably, and will have close to 3400 hits, putting in I think in the top 5 all-time. No doubt he will be first ballot, probably will be as close to unanimous as the others you've listed.
I still don't know about Bonds. If you project his numbers with the Pirates over time, which is an average of about 28-30 HRs a year, and he plays until he's 40 relatively without injury, he hits about 600 HRs and is a definite in the HOF. But it's tough with no championship, no respect from anyone, tainted records and career, media disaster, etc.
Clemens I think is more dominant than Bonds as a whole, and while he probably used steroids later in his career to prolong his time in the majors, he was an amazing pitcher who should be in.
I refuse to accept "I thinks" when it comes to stats. DO YOUR RESEARCH, GRRRRRRRRRR. At exactly 3400 hits a player would be in 9th all time. 3420 hits would bump them up to 6th.
Besides the hits though, his stats aren't really HOF worthy. Captain ain't nothin' but a title. A bunch of other people were on all those championship teams, but I don't really see any of them getting in, except for maybe Paul O'Neill - and that's just because the voters will be scared of the wrath that will ensue should he not make it.
Perhaps I'm just hatin' because I'm pissed we're still paying him all this money. He's like the 4th highest paid player in the league. I think...
True, he does make over $20 mil a year, or in pennies, over 2 Billion a year.
But that was a show of faith when he signed the contract earlier in his career. It's a reward for his dedication to the team. (HA) And I DID look up the stats yesterday because I was curious about records, but I have a terrible memory. Either way, 6-9th all-time in ANYTHING is amazing, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Fun (depressing, perplexing, downright confounding) fact of the day: Jack "Flash" Wilson makes more money a year than Michael "I'm actually a good shortstop who is a perennial all-star and all-around decent guy" Young. Go Buccos!
I like Gideon pulling out his ebonics slang: "captain ain't nuthin but a title".
Offord, this is the last year jack wilson will be making more money than young because young's extension kicks in this year and he'll be averaging roughly 14 mil or so for the next 4-5 years. Also, he may be a good all around guy, except he's not a team player if you've been reading any updates on his refusal to change positions making that kind of bank.
Now that i think of it. Why don't the pirates trade jack for michael young. PNC is sort of set up for his kind of opposite field, gap-to-gap style hitting. He'd be a perfect middle of the order type hitter. OK. Maybe not perfect, but he could be a really good number 2 or 5-6 hitter. The rangers would no doubt pick up a majority of his contract for a few years and we could afford to trade a few of our overrated prospects. I know that financially it could get messy for the pirates and it doesn't fit into the main management mentality of building within and cheaply buying out players remaining years of arbitration. But, since when did the pirates organization follow those rules to begin with? We've been "building within" for 16 years. Give a good offensive short stop with a gold glove to his name over anyone with a cool "flash" nickname. Whadya guys think?
I think people need to stop criticizing my just-for-fun arguments so much. I'm not exactly being serious here...
Of course I've been reading about how Young won't switch to 3B. I hit refresh on MLB.com, ESPN MLB, Yahoo MLB, and Pirate blogs about every 5 minutes every day. It is quite sad that I got excited when I saw Bartolo Colon signed with the White Sox, just because something was happening...
That aside, yes I think the Pirates should overspend on Michael Young. It will never ever ever ever happen, though. I just read a blog from the Royals organization that shows 50 million of their meager payroll over the last 3 years was spent on worthless veteran free agents. It's actually worse than the Pirates if you can believe it. Anyway, the problem I would have with signing Young is that he is a prototypical #2 hitter, which we already have like 5 of. BUT, he has hit #3, and I think he could hit enough doubles to justify it.
Any reason to get rid of Jack Wilson is a good reason.
If we did get Michael Young for Wilson, that would be awesome. But to get rid of Wilson for anything is ridiculous. Have you guys seen the stats for how bad the Pirates defense was when Wilson was out of the lineup? Obviously Rivas and Gomez, or Bixler, were not the answer.
I am sorry, but as Pirates fans, we not have to give NH and FC time to build the team. DL left the team bereft of any talent. Going out and signing one or two big name players will not help this team out.
From ESPN: "All-Star shortstop Michael Young will accept the Texas Rangers' decision to move him to third base and doesn't expect to be traded."
I guess that ends that.
I saw that on ESPN like 5 minutes after I read Kern's comment about him not willing to move positions...
Post a Comment