2009 HOF BBWAA Voting

by jhon on Dec 30, 2008 1:39 PM EST Comment 112 comments

The Veterans committee has already selected Joe Gordon, and on Jan. 12th the BBWAA will get to vote for the rest of the class.

Wikipedia has a nice summary of the summary of the candidates.

My imaginary ballot would include Alan Trammell, Tim Raines, Rik "Bert" Blyleven, and Ricky, of course.

Jim Rice got awfully close in last years election, coming up 2.8% short of the required 75% inclusion threshold. This is his 15th and final year on the ballot. Does he get in? Who would you vote in?

0 recs | Comment 112 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This is his 15th and final year on the ballot. Does he get in?

Probably, since he was so close last year, and this is his last year on the BBWAA ballot.

by Ryan on Dec 30, 2008 2:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Jim Rice and Rickey.

by mjschaefer on Dec 30, 2008 2:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Good lord I don’t want Jim Rice in the HOF.

Rickey and Bert. I think that’s my whole ballot. Maybe Rock.

by afh4 on Dec 30, 2008 2:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Also, I would vote for David Cone to be funny.

by afh4 on Dec 30, 2008 2:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

And Greg Vaughn.

by afh4 on Dec 30, 2008 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My votes are for Blyleven and Trammell.

Jay will be casting a vote for Nagy.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Dec 30, 2008 2:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

No Rickey?!?

by afh4 on Dec 30, 2008 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you going to talk me into it? I’m not against him. I’m just not for him.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Dec 30, 2008 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

23rd highest OBP since integration in basically twice as many games as nearly everyone else in the top 25.

by afh4 on Dec 30, 2008 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you really not for Rickey? Really?? The greatest leadoff hitter in baseball history?!?

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 30, 2008 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I just went and looked at his numbers. I guess I’d forgotten some things. I need to revise my “ballot” to Blyleven, Trammell and Rickey. And I could be swayed for Dawson.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Dec 31, 2008 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The case against Dawson is pretty strong, if you aren’t inclined to excuse injuries, and if you value OBP.

Still, I don’t think the stats guys would be all that upset if he snuck in, much less so than if it’s Rice who gets in first.

I think Dawson’ll get in eventually, but that he might have to wait on the vet committee. It’s kinda screwy the way this works, isn’t it?

by jhon on Dec 31, 2008 10:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Totally. It’s very murky now.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Dec 31, 2008 10:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think most of the stats guys also think Tim Raines should get in.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 31, 2008 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There’s a great piece in one of Bill James’ books on Rickey. It breaks up his career into the first decade and the last decade, and he concludes that he’s a HOFer for either one of them, let alone both.

I take it you had never heard of him before this?

by Jay on Dec 31, 2008 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ricky and Bert are my two picks just off the top of my head without doing any research. Love to see Matt Williams because I always liked him, but no.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 30, 2008 2:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I’ve read enough articles about Jim Rice’s HOF candidacy that I’m tired of hearing about him. From everything I’ve read, there are about 4 or 5 players from his era, starting with Dave Parker, Fred Lynn, and Alan Trammell, who are more worthy of the HOF than he is. Unfortunately, it looks like he’s going to make it this year. That’s what having the support of the Boston writers does for you.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 30, 2008 3:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I’d vote for McGwire in addition to Jhon’s list.

by ClarkM on Dec 30, 2008 5:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Part of me wants to, but I’d like it if they waited until all the other well known juicers become eligible in a year when no ‘clean’ players are hall bound, so they can be voted in as one group.

by jhon on Dec 30, 2008 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If we’re going to include Trammell, should we just go ahead and count Whittaker too?

by jhon on Dec 30, 2008 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Only Ricky. Yeah, I’m that guy.

by Brick. on Dec 30, 2008 5:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

In order, I’d vote for …

1. Rickey
2. Lee Smith
3. Blyleven
10. (just a nod) Jesse Orosco – no he doesn’t deserve the HOF.

Anybody review the list of eligible players who didn’t make the ballot? Some fun guys on there:

Steve Avery, Jason Bere, Mike Bordick, John Burkett, Omar Daal, Joe Girardi, Mark Guthrie, Joey Hamilton, Bill Haselman, Darren Holmes, Trenidad Hubbard, Todd Hundley, Brian L. Hunter, Félix José, Chad Kreuter, Graeme Lloyd, Keith Lockhart, Albie Lopez, Pat Mahomes, Al Martin, Orlando Merced, Charles Nagy, Denny Neagle, Troy O’Leary, Lance Painter, Dean Palmer, Craig Paquette, Tom Prince, Jeff Reboulet, Rick Reed, Rich Rodriguez, Terry Shumpert, Luis Sojo, Dave Veres, Matt Walbeck, Mike Williams and Kevin Young.

Our old friend Albie, and one of the Brian Hunters …. If I had to guess, I had about half of those guys on my fantasy squad at one time or another, mainly as backups or injury replacements.

And Rice derves to get in when Belle gets in, which will be never. Although I think Belle deserves a spot, he was even more dominant in his prime than Rice ever was.

by talonk on Dec 30, 2008 6:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Graeme Lloyd is a first ballot Aussie Baseball HOFer, for sure.

by jhon on Dec 30, 2008 6:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Belle’s argument is a lot better than Rice’s. He was far better, and Rice’s career wasn’t that much longer. Belle’s career comes out looking very similar to Kirby Puckett and probably better.

by Jay on Dec 31, 2008 12:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I totally agree with you Jay … too bad the BBWA didn’t think this way.

by talonk on Dec 31, 2008 3:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe I’m not understanding something, but how could Rice’s AIR numbers at bb-ref be lower than Belle’s?

by 7foot3 on Dec 31, 2008 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you’re the only one who’s expressed support for Lee Smith. Because I watched him primarily through Tribe games, it’s possible that I underrate him. The first image that comes to my mind is the whiplash motion he’d make in order to watch a deep Tribe homer take flight. Why is it you consider him ahead of Bly?

by jhon on Jan 2, 2009 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I consider Smith one of the trailblazers in the closing world, you know when they actually pitched more than as inning to close out a game. I equate him to Gossage and Fingers. Only I thought Smith had better stuff than Fingers. Could just be my my memories though.

Let’s consult B-Ref then:

Gossage – 22 years, finished 681 of 1002 games pitched (had 37 starts, 16 CG) with 310 saves; 1809.3 IP, career WHIP of 1.232, ERA+ of 126, 7.47 K/9, 2.05 K/BB

Smith – 18 years, finished 802 of 1022 games pitched (6 GS, no CG) with 478 saves; 1289.3 IP, career WHIP of 1.256, ERA+ of 131, 8.73 K/9, 2.57 K/BB.

I don’t know, don’t those stats look a little better than Goose?

by talonk on Jan 2, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One significant difference: Goose pitched six peak seasons for the Yankees, while Smith pitched eight peak seasons for the Cubs.

by odradek on Jan 2, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True, but the Yankee mystique didn’t get Bruce Sutter in, and I think Smith’s numbers are comparable (but slightly below) to his as well.

Sutter – 12 years, finished 512 of 661 games pitched (no GS, no CG) with 300 saves; 1042.3 IP, career WHIP of 1.140, ERA+ of 136, 7.43 K/9, 2.79 K/BB.

by talonk on Jan 2, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But Sutter never pitched for the Yanks. I think of him as either a Cub or a Cardinal.

by odradek on Jan 2, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, you’ve confused me again.

First you state that Smith isn’t getting the benefit of the Yankee mystique like Gossage did (which I agree helped his cause).

Then you state Sutter is a Cub/Cardinal, which obciously is not a Yankee. But Smith is known primarily as a Cub/Cardinal.

So which is it?

by talonk on Jan 2, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Naw, I was the one confused. You’re right—Sutter didn’t need any Yankee mojo. I agree that if Goose is in so should Smith, but it’s no surprise Gossage went in before Smith because of where he pitched.

by odradek on Jan 2, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sutter has to be one of the weakest HOFers around, but his admission opens the floodgates for guys like Smith, who are certainly comparable.

Does this mean that a dozen or so closers from the last 20 years should also qualify?

by jhon on Jan 2, 2009 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, I believe that the closers like Gossage, Sutter, Smith, Sutter are the limit. I don’t have any others from that era that I believe should be in.

by talonk on Jan 2, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What you don’t think that Eckersley should be in the HoF? Don’t let Juday hear you say that – he can hurt you with his prose!

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 2, 2009 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I put Eckersley in the era right after those four, and yes he deserves to be a HOFer

by talonk on Jan 2, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I haven’t looked them up, but Al Hrabosky, Dan Quisenberry, Kent Tekulve?

by odradek on Jan 2, 2009 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All of those guys are 80s relievers, I consider Eck more of a 90s guy.

I wouldn’t vote for any of those 4.

by talonk on Jan 2, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What about the modern era? Should every John Wetteland and Robb Nen get in?

by jhon on Jan 2, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, you take the cream of the current crop, just like in every era. The Hoffmans, Riveras, not the Nens

by talonk on Jan 2, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, they don’t look better to me. The difference in the amount of innings pitched is big. Gossage had more great seasons. According to BPro’s WARP3, Gossage’s five best seasons totaled 44. Smith’s totaled 37.1. For their career, Gossage was only slightly more valuable, 90.5 to 85.5.

The difference for me isn’t large enough to have one guy in and one guy out, but I wasn’t really that thrilled with Gossage getting in and even less so about Sutter.

by ClarkM on Jan 2, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My thoughts exactly. Am I supposed to say “This.”?

by jhon on Jan 2, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gossage had more 1+ inning saves, no doubt. but he also had 4 more seasons than Smith to accumulate some of those IP totals. I give the nod to Gossage in IP, longeivity. But Smith did have 150 more saves and a better K/9 and a better K/BB ratio.

by talonk on Jan 2, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The biggest problem I have with Lee Smith is that he was only uber dominant for the one season, whereas Sutter had at least three, including his ‘77 which was obscenely good. Gossage had like 7.5 comparably awesome seasons. Smith somehow has the better career ERA+. That’s Gossage’s penalty for being so-so as a starter and for hanging on long enough for mediocrity to kick in.
Goose is a hare, and Smith’s the turtle. Excuse, me, tortoise.

by jhon on Jan 2, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think the 36 starts Gossage got really affect his numbers. If you look into the B-Ref splits, you will see that Gossage has better High leverage numbers compared to Smith, but Smith pitched a higher percentage of his stats in high leverage situations (60% to 40%), compared to Gossage.

In the save situation splits, Gossage has a better WHIP and better HR%, but Smith is better in K/9, K/BB, and 150 more saves. I think Gossage was actually a better pitcher, by a hair, not a hare.

by talonk on Jan 2, 2009 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The first image that comes to my mind is the whiplash motion he’d make in order to watch a deep Tribe homer take flight.

Interesting, since he gave up 1 career home run to the Tribe. Granted it was Albert Belle in 1995.

by talonk on Jan 2, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I must have watched the commemorative VHS of that a few season too many times.

by jhon on Jan 2, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No excuse for voting for Rice or against Blyleven.

by Jay on Dec 30, 2008 9:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I’d vote against Blyleven just to piss Posnanski off.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 1, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Put your dukes up.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jan 1, 2009 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

McGwire
Rickey
Trammel
Blyleven
Raines

And Dick Allen on the Veteran’s ballot. I think the arguments against McGwire are a sham – his numbers are clearly deserving, and the people blackballing him are just making up standards as they go along. They’re not keeping out a whole generation of deserving players like Bonds, Sosa, Giambi, Clemens, Sheffield, and Palmeiro. McGwire just had the misfortune of being the first one to show up on the ballot. He’s getting the protest vote.

by maledicta on Dec 31, 2008 7:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

There’s no room for nuance here is there? McGwire was taking Androstendione back when it was sold over-the-counter at GNC. Bonds, Sosa etal were taking other anabolic steroids that, I’m pretty sure, were not sold to tens of thousands of others OTC. I see a difference. Hopefully the BBWA will too, but I doubt it.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 1, 2009 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

bonds was one of the best players of all time before he ever took steroids

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Jan 1, 2009 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the presumption is that Mac didn’t stop at andro. He loaded up just like Sammy.

by odradek on Jan 1, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You know what happens when you presume? You make an… er, hold on.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jan 1, 2009 9:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

No one knows who was taking what, how much, or when, so it all just gets filed under the banner of “steroids” and labeled cheating as if it’s all equal. Most of what I’ve read simply goes, “McGwire is alleged to have taken steroids. I don’t really know what’s going on, therefore I’m voting against him.” It’s just laziness on the part of the writers.

by maledicta on Jan 1, 2009 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It could be considered prudence on the part of the writers.

by odradek on Jan 1, 2009 9:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And it could be considered stupidity. I’ll go with stupidity.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 1, 2009 9:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In a battle between laziness, prudence and stupidity, prudence will always finish last.

But why do you think Mac took only andro? To me that seems like wishful thinking or blind optimism. As was indicated in the presumed-innocent Mesa thread, wouldn’t Mac be a likely suspect to inject steroids?

by odradek on Jan 1, 2009 9:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If you’ll note I came down on the side of “innocent until proven guilty”.

I think that Mac was doing what just about every other muscle head on the planet was doing back then. Lifting heavy, doing creatine and vitamins and trying just about every OTC testoterone precursor available. But all of that – all of that – was legal by federal and state law and completely inside of the ML guidelines. But to punish him for violaing league policies retro-actively is both wrong and immoral.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 1, 2009 9:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, I also came down on the side of underage girls, bar girls, young women on welfare, golddigers, strippers and women with maturity issues. Man, those were some of the best times of my life!!!

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 1, 2009 9:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lucky for me that I don’t have to watch out for Golddigers, since I haven’t any gold.

by jhon on Jan 1, 2009 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I know you’re on the right side of the presumption of innocence. All I’m saying is that McGwire’s admitted use of legal enhancers suggests he is more likely to have taken illegal ones than someone who has no record of taking anything.

I don’t know anything about the steroid stuff. But was Raffy Palmeiro breaking the law? I thought there were no rules against steroids in MLB at the time. Did Andy Pettitte break any state or federal laws? Did Giambi? I don’t know.

I’d let them all in, but I wouldn’t vote for Sosa or Clemens just because.

by odradek on Jan 1, 2009 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s the short course. You’ll note that most anabolic steroids were legal up until the 2004 amendment to the Controlled Substance Act. Mark McGuire’s last appearance in a major league uniform was October 7, 2001.

You’ll also note that “The Clear” is a “Schedule I” drug while cocaine – cocaine for godsakes – is a “Schedule II” drug, meaning the punishment for using “The Clear” is more severe than using coke. Whatta world!

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 1, 2009 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You may be right chuck, you just may be. But I ’ll have to side with the PEDs on McGwire for this one. He spent his early years with ….. now who was that guy ….. um, Jose Canseco perhaps (sarc)?

If anything, he was juicing up from the get go with a known steroid user in Canseco. I believe that over 50, if not 75 of the players in the 80s and 90s were juiced (JMO). I just don’t think McGwire deserves it because he was a totally one dimensional player (in my eyes anyways). He was not a plus fielder, he could hit moon shots, but was not necessarly an OBP either. [this is without looking up the numbers of course].

Bonds, the PED king himself, deserves the HOF for all he accomplished before he juiced up. Even juiced up, he was the most dominant juiced player in the league (save Clemens perhaps).

by talonk on Jan 1, 2009 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I used to think he was kinda overrated too, but his offensive numbers are just staggering.
He’s 12th all-time in OPS+, 8th in HR, and had a career OBP of .394 (seven seasons of better than .400, although some of those were injury-shortened). B-Ref says that of 18 first baseman in the HOF, he’d be tied for 8th in OBP – middle of the pack – and 3rd in OPS+. If you think of being one of the best offensive players in the history of the game as one-dimensional, then yeah, he is. Pretty f’ing sweet dimension, though.

by maledicta on Jan 1, 2009 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s the thing- if “juicing up” was legal and against no baseball rules during his career, who cares?

by DaytonDogg on Jan 9, 2009 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

me. and millions of other fans.

by Brick. on Jan 9, 2009 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe its not the time or place to get into it, but why?? Is it some moral standard you are applying to baseball players? Is it that they were taking something that would make them better? That it could have long term health effects?

by DaytonDogg on Jan 9, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

if you really don’t see why people might care, let’s just skip to the agree to disagree phase.

by Brick. on Jan 9, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is so bad I can’t even tell if you’re just mocking other people. McGwire was a classic take-and-rake guy, led the league in OBP twice and is 77th on the all-time list. He also won a Gold Glove at first base, not that that’s all that relevant here.

You know who was one-dimensional? Ted Williams. As a power hitter alone, McGwire is a slam-dunk HOFer.

by Jay on Jan 9, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jason Giambi is deserving of HOF?

by odradek on Jan 1, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As of right now, I would give him strong consideration. He had a pretty great peak. From ’99-03, he finished first in the league in OPS+ twice and never finished lower than fourth.

by ClarkM on Jan 1, 2009 6:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He had an awesome 2001. In some ways, Belle’s numbers are comparable.

by odradek on Jan 1, 2009 7:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily saying he is (I’d have to look at the numbers), but there’s a lot more reason to exclude him on steroid-related grounds than there is McGwire.

by maledicta on Jan 1, 2009 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think all the other guys you mention—Bonds, Sosa, Giambi, Clemens, Sheffield and Palmeiro—will be punished by the BBWA when their times come. Not saying they won’t get in, though they might not, but their first ballots will be a slap.

by odradek on Jan 1, 2009 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And Belle get punished for what? not being nice? The whole thing is a farce.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 1, 2009 9:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Albert should be in the HOF.

by odradek on Jan 1, 2009 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s up to the living HOF members who constitute the Veterans Committee to decide that now. Are HOF Managers, Umpires, Broadcasters on the committee, or only players? In any case, Fernando Viña will not have a vote.

by jhon on Jan 1, 2009 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No one has brought up Pete Rose or Joe Jackson, but I guess those are “dead topics”. Not here, just in general.

by jhon on Jan 1, 2009 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Which is another thing I totally don’t get. Mark McGwire cheated, so you’re going to vote against him a couple of times, and then cave in? There’s three reasons to vote against him re: steroids: 1) His numbers were artificially inflated by taking PEDs, and he wouldn’t be a HOFer without them, 2) He took PEDs, so he’s a bad guy, and should be punished, 3) He cheated, so he’s procedurally ineligible for the HOF. I don’t think any of those are defensible, and none of them are going to have changed in the next few years. The writers are just passing the buck until they figure out what they want to do. Make a decision now, and stick with it.

The HOF becomes functionally irrelevant if they exclude 5-6 clearly deserving players from the same era based on a nebulous concept of “cheating” that no one seems much interested in applying consistently. I just can’t see them doing it. Palmeiro maybe, but not the rest. Then again, I can’t see how Jack Morris gets the support that he does year after year, so who knows. McGwire’s just taking the fall for the whole thing because he came up on the ballot first, and looked bad in front of Congress.

by maledicta on Jan 1, 2009 11:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

See, that’s my point: exactly when and how did Mark McGuire cheat? Yep he took PEDs – drugs that “enhanaced” his performance. But creatine will “enhance” your performance too. So will T-Bone steaks, and lifting weights and running long distances. Now McGuire admits he took andro, and why not, it was legal both in a statutory sense and by Major League rules at the time he used it. Now if we’re gonna retro-actively ban guys from the HoF for using “illegal” methods to gain a competitive advantage, then what do we do with Big Ed Walsh, a HoFer and 40 game winner(!) in 1908? Big Ed was the undisputed master of the spitball, a pitch outlawed in 1920, three years after Big Ed retired – kinda like our boy Mark here.

Now if you can prove that Mark used a drug that was either outlawed by the government or ML Baseball, I’m with you. Otherwise I don’t see how you can exclude him for using a perfectly legal hormone while he was playing.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 1, 2009 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Yeah, we’re on the same page. If MLB doesn’t want McGwire in the HOF, then either ban him or request that his name be taken off the ballot (both of which would be insane). Otherwise he’s no different than anyone else.

by maledicta on Jan 1, 2009 11:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also, how many pitchers who pitched to McGwire were also on some sort of PED?

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 2, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep he took PEDs – drugs that "enhanaced" his performance. But creatine will "enhance" your performance too. So will T-Bone steaks, and lifting weights and running long distances.

When we do eventually get to sit down and chat, I suspect this topic will dominate most of our chat. Not that we disagree, if anything we’re completely on the same side. It’s always fascinated me how blurry the line is between acceptable and non-acceptable forms of improving one’s performance, and how difficult it can be for someone to articulate what standards can be applied in a general manner.

by supermarioelia on Jan 2, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention Tommy John surgery and MCL reconstruction and a whole host of other medical procedures unavailable to the players back in the day. I’m waiting for genetic engineering to enter the fray. Eight foot tall basketball players, 454 lb O linemen, guys running 8.2 sec 100s – things will really be screwed up then.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 2, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Genetic engineering will throw everything into chaos, since we don’t even have a read on things right now.

Here’s one for you. We already see that Tommy John surgery often performances post-surgery that were beyond anything a given pitcher was capable of pre-surgery. Well what if we get to the point that the surgery can be performed on healthy pitchers, and with a 1-1.5 year rehab, the pitcher is virtually guaranteed of a huge improvement in velocity?

by supermarioelia on Jan 2, 2009 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So what service are you on? Must be Psych, since you got all this time to plan on the Interwebs.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 2, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha family medicine. Psych’s next. Then the dreaded surgery for 12 weeks.

by supermarioelia on Jan 2, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah yes surgery – I did my rotation on Dr. Zollinger’s service. You heard of the Zollinger-Ellison syndrome – that’s the guy. You talk about Old School – Z did his residency at Harvard under Harvey Cushing – the Cushing Syndrome guy. To hear Z tell it, he hadda get up at 0400, go down to the surgery suites and sterilize the instruments and lay them out before rounds. Then they’d round from 0600 to 0800, off to surgery for 8-10 hours and round again. Get off at 1000 to 1200, and admit every third day. That’s when the men were made of steel and the ships were made of wood.

I had it comparitively easy, we had the techs take care of the instruments and could sleep in to 0530 before rounds kicked off.

BTW, stay outta thoracic – what with all the sub-q cardiac procedures, the reduction in smoking and concurrent corinary heart disease and the elimination of rhuematic heart disease, their work is disappearing. My goomba at Wash U tells me he had an ap from a board certified TS trying to get into the Internal Medicine Residency program, cuz he couldn’t find suitable work as a TS.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 2, 2009 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I’ll probably end up in Internal. Really enjoyed it.

by supermarioelia on Jan 2, 2009 6:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Then you better be nice to me – I can put the good word in for you at Washington U IM program. And, oh yeah, you’re gonna need to do a fellowship in one of the sub-specialties. IMs are the new GPs – boring as hell.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jan 2, 2009 8:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Joel Garreau, in a book called The New Human, predicts there will be two athletic leagues in the near future: enhanced and natural. Guess which one everybody will watch.

by odradek on Jan 2, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Correction: book is called Radical Evolution.

by odradek on Jan 2, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My point is that we haven’t even really agreed on what enhanced and natural mean.

by supermarioelia on Jan 2, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

WBNA?

by Jay on Jan 2, 2009 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just realized the typo. Meant to post:

WNBA?

by Jay on Jan 4, 2009 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Still funny.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jan 4, 2009 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You blew it, boy, you really blew it.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Jan 5, 2009 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe there will be enhanced vs. natural gladiatorial mutilations on Spike TV by then, too.

by jhon on Jan 2, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jay/Ryan, can we please save this topic as “dead” item for next January? That way we can discuss only the new guys on the ballot and not rehash this whole thing yet again.

by talonk on Jan 2, 2009 12:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Henderson
Blyleven
McGwire

by Voltaire on Jan 3, 2009 7:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Bert and Rickey but if I’m feeling ornery I’d leave off the self-promoting Henderson…I guess I see how Albert didn’t win the MVP in ’95 even though Mo fanned sometimes before he even got to the plate.

by Let'sPlay2 on Jan 7, 2009 3:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Living in Boston I’m getting full exposure to the Jim Rice issue. I could care less whether or not Rice gets in. I tend to go back and forth between the HOF being really exclusive (only the elite of the elite) or simply a celebration of great ballplayers and more inclusive. But the rationale of people here in Boston (basically – “if Rice doesn’t get in it is a travesty which will mark my life and my kids life forever”) is nauseating.

by APV on Jan 9, 2009 10:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

i throw up a little bit every time i hear the name ron santo for this same reason.

by Brick. on Jan 9, 2009 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you hear the same arguments for Dwight Evans, Jack Clark, and Fred Lynn? Each of those guys were just as good, if not better.

If Rice gets in, fine, but it’d better open the door for a number of memorable players (eg. Albert Belle). A more inclusive version of the Hall would seemingly dilute the Yankee representation, so that’d be good.

by jhon on Jan 9, 2009 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Belle has already dropped off the list, hasn’t he?

by APV on Jan 9, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Veteran’s committee eligible.

by jhon on Jan 9, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What a doucher.

Summary: “I screwed up by not voting for Rickey. It was a mistake and I would have voted for him. Even though when I handed it in my editor asked if I realized I hadn’t voted for him and I said yeah, whatever, I’ll do it next year. I should be stripped of my voting rights.”

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jan 9, 2009 4:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs