Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: SB Nation interviews Jerome Bettis

He trots out some unbelievably flawed logic to support his not voting for Robbie Alomar as a first ballot HOFer. The highlight: Even Mark Shapiro agrees he was a jerk and traded him as his first order of business as GM, ushering into Cleveland the "character guy" era.

9 months ago Cavemen-unfrozen-lawyer-web_tiny Ockus_NYC 111 comments 0 recs  | 

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

You know what? I don’t really have a problem with this.

I’m not a fan of voters drawing distinctions between “first-ballot guys” and other HOFers. Having said that, a lack of effort in an elimination game is not the worst reason to deny a player your vote.

by Jay on Dec 2, 2009 8:19 PM EST reply actions  

Agreed especially given the extraordinarily low bar that Livingston has set for himself.

by stuart dean on Dec 2, 2009 9:07 PM EST up reply actions  

have to concur. this is not one of those situations where the media is holding a guy accountable for being rude or personally unlikeable by not voting for him (e.g. albert belle and the ‘95 MVP award). that is just plain petty and infuriating. livy is actually taking issue with things alomar did as a player—he’s basically saying that his attitude took away from his actual on-field contribution on one of the biggest stages of his career, and objectively there doesn’t seem to be much dispute that this actually occurred. if the writers are explicitly allowed to consider character, this is one of the times when i would say it is relevant to the guy’s candidacy.

If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 2, 2009 11:09 PM EST up reply actions  

But look at what he achieved despite this! He still has a slam-dunk case. If Alomar had the stats and position of a borderline guy, Jim Rice-type career, only then could I see this being important enough to swing a vote.

by Voltaire on Dec 3, 2009 1:13 AM EST up reply actions  

Well, first, it’s not really swinging his vote, it’s only swinging his first-year vote. Livingston doesn’t claim this should keep him out of the Hall altogether.

I’m not saying I would vote this way for this reason, I’m just saying, I don’t think it’s a dumb reason. Failure to give full effort at a critical moment is a fatal weakness in a player’s game. What good are any career numbers if a player dogs it in the playoffs?

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:40 AM EST up reply actions  

I guess I just think the whole idea misses the point. Just as I would if all things were the same and he wrote a column saying he would vote him in on the first ballot based on the fact that he hit a couple of big postseason homers in 92 and 96.

Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.

by Ockus_NYC on Dec 3, 2009 10:54 AM EST up reply actions  

a lack of effort in an elimination game is not the worst reason to deny a player your vote.

The part that bugs me is that next year, lack of effort in an elimination game will make Robbie a Hall of Famer and for rest of his years in Livingston’s eyes.

He is or isn’t, I think.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 2, 2009 11:19 PM EST up reply actions  

to be fair. . . much of the baseball community sees “first ballot HOFer” as a (at least marginally) higher honor than plain old “HOF’er.” otherwise, you wouldn’t hear the phrase bandied about so much. regardless of whether it’s what the folks at cooperstown intended when they set up the voting process, making it on your first ballot is a de facto distinction, and if bill sees it that way and structures his voting accordingly i’d say it’s reasonable.

If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 2, 2009 11:34 PM EST up reply actions  

I suppose that in the spirit of full disclosure i should mention that Bill Livingston could save my life and I’d find fault with how he did it. I’m not a fan. But this particular column really rubbed me the wrong way. He didn’t like him. That’s basically it. He concedes he’s a hall of famer, but he’s gonna make him wait because he didn’t like the guy. Because of that, he’s able to base his vote, essentially (at least this year), on one game that particularly ground his gears. If you look at it from the other side, should a guy get in on the STRENGTH of a particularly impressive game? He’s a Hall of Famer or he’s not. At some point, we started putting emphasis on this first ballot/non first ballot business and it seems like such petty, hair-splitting minutiae. This is less about Alomar, I guess, than it is about the logic, the rationale behind it. And it’s not just Livingston. We trust Hall of Fame voting to a bunch of obtuse gas bags who wore dark socks in gym class. It’s one thing if its done behind closed doors, but when they announce it to the world it just exposes the flaws of the HOF election system.

Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.

by Ockus_NYC on Dec 2, 2009 11:46 PM EST up reply actions  

The first ballot stuff has been going on for years—it’s not a recent invention. It’s a nuance I have no problem with.

I’m not a fan or defender of Livingston, but I agree with him about Robbie. It’s not just one game. It’s how that one game revealed something about Alomar’s character, something we all had seen over the course of his seasons with the Tribe.

I still can’t figure out why Robbie was so pissed off in that Seattle game. It’s almost like he was angry that Moyers was throwing junk.

And who should vote for HOF if not the dark-sock guys? Scientists?

by odradek on Dec 3, 2009 12:34 AM EST up reply actions  

on a semi-related note. . . at what age does it become desirable, from the wearer’s perspective, to constantly rock dark crew socks, regardless of the accompanying footwear and/or whether you’re wearing shorts (or worse, jorts)? i’ve noticed this disturbing trend in men who are reaching late middle age. it appears that somewhere between 55-60, those dark socks really start appealing to you, and wearing them with loafers, tennis shoes, boat shoes, and even sandals becomes socially acceptable.

If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 3, 2009 1:26 AM EST up reply actions  

I think it’s at the point when you realize that the hair underneath your socks isn’t ever growing back.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:48 AM EST up reply actions  

You know, whoever it is, there really ought to be some sort of mandatory statistical training and possibly an aptitude test. Anybody can spin a horsecrap story and rationale for something. For something which is for all voters heavily based on the use of statistical data, some basic competency with the handling of that data would really help.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:50 AM EST up reply actions  

The quality of award selections this year offers hope for future HOF balloting, and as for those already permanently enshrined, the real damage was done many years ago, with all those players from the ’30s.

Livingston doesn’t claim it’s all about that one game. His argument, I think, is that that one game illustrates a fatal flaw in Alomar’s candidacy.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:47 AM EST up reply actions  

I wonder where this will leave Manny when he retires. He’ll certainly have attained all of the magic numbers (the kind that please both saberheads and batting average folks, alike), but his latter day sins have revealed much about his character, as well.

Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.

by Ockus_NYC on Dec 3, 2009 1:54 AM EST up reply actions  

One reason why I still think Robbie’s getting short shrift about this is that he was seen as caustic, Manny as endearing, though both “dogged” it during games.

by Voltaire on Dec 3, 2009 2:40 AM EST up reply actions  

Manny has gotten on my nerves way more then Robbie ever have or could have, and I would vote for Manny in the blink of an eye. Then again, I’d vote for Robbie just about as quickly.

Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...

by USSChoo on Dec 3, 2009 3:27 AM EST up reply actions  

Bill Livingston could save my life and I’d find fault with how he did it. I’m not a fan.

Well put.

he’s gonna make him wait because he didn’t like the guy.

That may underpin the whole thing but he goes on to make a reasonably compelling argument.

by stuart dean on Dec 3, 2009 8:22 AM EST up reply actions  

to be fair. . . much of the baseball community sees "first ballot HOFer" as a (at least marginally) higher honor than plain old "HOF’er.

Which is why the entire HOF system is in desperate need of an overhaul.

by fwembt on Dec 3, 2009 12:36 AM EST up reply actions  

That actually is not even one of the main reasons.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:47 AM EST up reply actions  

It’s endemic of the general malaise.

by fwembt on Dec 3, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions  

I don’t know if it’s “much of the baseball community” or just “some number of the voters, many of whom are kind of idiots.”

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:41 AM EST up reply actions  

well. . . the voters are obviously writers, and so i suppose they’re the ones propagating the idea. but i would guess that if you gave the average baseball player the choice, all other things being equal, of being inducted in the HOF on his first ballot or later, he would want to come in on the first ballot. i mean, the idea has filtered down through the baseball community to a large extent, and since the HOF derives any legitimacy it had from the community consensus on which players were the most deserving, i don’t see the distinction between first ballot and non-first ballot as meaningless (not any less so than the HOF itself anyways).

If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 3, 2009 2:08 AM EST up reply actions  

Well of course. Who wouldn’t want to be elected on the first ballot? To anything?

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 2:36 AM EST up reply actions  

There’s nothing that changes between 2009 and 2010 that makes a player who retired in 2004 more or less worthy of a HOF vote. This first-ballot distinction is stupid.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2009 10:31 AM EST up reply actions  

I think I said this in the very first comment.

Regardless of that opinion which many of us apparently share, it remains the case that Livingston is not disqualifying Alomar permanently from HOF enshrinement. He’s saying only that he should be kept out for the first year.

I am only trying to give some refinement to Livingston’s position on Alomar. I am not defending the “first-ballot” voting distinction.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 10:36 AM EST up reply actions  

You did, I just want to stress it.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2009 12:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Damn the no politics rule…

"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 3, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I do remember that game, and the lack of effort was obvious. An unfortunate end to his last productive season. To this day, I don’t know what bothered him so much.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 2, 2009 9:18 PM EST reply actions  

With a couple minutes until first pitch, Alomar rushed into the clubhouse. He reached into his locker, grabbed a bottle of cologne and liberally sprayed himself. “Do you always wear cologne when you play a game?” I asked. “To play good, you must feel good,” Alomar replied. “And to feel good, you must smell good.”

Looks like he ran out of Drakkar that night.

by lenred on Dec 3, 2009 10:24 AM EST up reply actions  

In 2007, when Ripken and Gwynn were elected, there were some voters that didn’t vote for them because they didn’t want to have either of them be the first unanimous inductee.

Is there anyone playing today – or recently retired – that could possibly be a unanimous inductee? The only possibility I can see now is Pujols.

Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux might be close too.

by lenred on Dec 3, 2009 10:53 AM EST reply actions  

well with Livingston’s logic, Randy Johnson should have to wait a couple years. He was a jerk and a difficult teammate. And he might be too tall.

Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.

by Ockus_NYC on Dec 3, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions  

some writers might balk at the mullet, too.

Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.

by Ockus_NYC on Dec 3, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions  

i think you’re still missing livingston’s point

it’s not just that alomar was a jerk. it’s that his attitude actually affected his performance in a big playoff series.

If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 3, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions  

was kinda just joking about randy.

i understand his point. I just think it’s a douchey point, typical of most American sportswriters in the post-Sports Reporters era.

Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.

by Ockus_NYC on Dec 3, 2009 11:15 AM EST up reply actions  

Clemens, Bonds and A-Rod all would have been good candidates for this.

I could see Maddux getting it. But there’s always some douche who will find a reason.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 11:03 AM EST up reply actions  

Great players don’t wear glasses. Sign of weakness.

by afh4 on Dec 3, 2009 11:47 AM EST up reply actions  


You talkin’ to me?

(Muncie was not “great”, although he did rush for 19 TDs in 1981. But man I love those specs.)

Wait 'til next millennium!

by emd2k3 on Dec 3, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions  

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and his goggles are ready to post you up and sky-hook over your sorry puniness.

"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay

by woodsmeister on Dec 3, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, Paul Reuschel ruined it for all eye-glass wearers forever.

by kennesawmountainwahoo on Dec 3, 2009 8:39 PM EST up reply actions  

they didn’t want to have either of them be the first unanimous inductee.

That’s even worse than the first-ballot distinction. Both things suck. Either someone is or is not a HoFer. Don’t make someone twist in the wind just becuase you can.

by JulioBernazard on Dec 3, 2009 11:34 AM EST up reply actions  

Pujols should be unanimous.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 3, 2009 11:39 AM EST up reply actions  

as a sports writer from that time, i don’t believe any player from the steroid era should be a unanimous inductee. there was just too much doubt and no way we can know who was clean and who wasn’t.

see how easy it is…

by Brick. on Dec 3, 2009 11:55 AM EST up reply actions  

Pujols hasn’t started off any better than Frank Thomas did. Thomas won’t be unanimous, and only time will tell what Pujols’ thirties look like.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions  

That’s an interesting comparison, fun to look up. Pujols is entering his age 30 season, and that’s where Thomas dropped off a bit. After being a consistent MVP candidate through age 29, like Pujols, Thomas only put up one MVP quality year over the 5. I think the move to DH (starting around age 30) hurt him. It’s somewhat remarkable that Thomas was only an All-Star 5 times.

I still think Albert ranks ahead of where Thomas was at this age in the mind of the voters: better counting stats, postseason play (and a title), a gold glove. Those aren’t necessarily fair factors, of course.

by dgcambridge on Dec 3, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions  

He’s also considered a top defensive first baseman.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 3, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, but I’m trying to remember Thomas’ reputation there. Better than Mo, at least.

by dgcambridge on Dec 3, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Also better than Vaughn at 1b:

by gte619n on Dec 6, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I can promise you that Thomas was as revered at that point as Pujols is now. The Gold Glove is a cute little bauble.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions  

As revered as Frank Thomas was at that time, I think Pujols is even higher now. Just look at their MVP finishes through age 29 season:

Thomas — 3, 8, 1, 1, 8, 8, 3
Pujols — 4, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 9, 1, 1

So Pujols won 3 MVP’s compared to Thomas’ 2 and he finished second 3 more times while Thomas never finished second once. Not that MVP voting means everything, of course, but I think it shows what the media and many fans think of a player, and Pujols is in Bonds level right now (minus the steriods and bad attitude, of course).

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 3, 2009 5:18 PM EST up reply actions  

I totally reject this analysis. If we ignore RBI around here, why should we pay attention to MVP, which is even more subject to opportunity?

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 5:42 PM EST up reply actions  

i think he means this shows where he stands with many of the same cats who will be voting on his HOF creds, as compared with Frank Thomas. At least how I took it. But I’m only reading while trying to look like I’m working. So I’m not all there…

Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.

by Ockus_NYC on Dec 3, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions  

You’re correct, the discussion is how they were regarded by the people who vote.

by dgcambridge on Dec 3, 2009 6:02 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah, “revered” is the key here, i think. he’s using it as evidence of what people think, not who’s actually better…

by Brick. on Dec 3, 2009 6:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, if we’re talking who is more revered then we should look at what the fans and media and thought at the time, which is why MVP voting is appropriate.

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 3, 2009 6:26 PM EST up reply actions  

I was going to go with this MVP comparison before thinking that it’s much too subjective for the purposes of debate. But I just realized that MVP voting actually is a valid measure here. Both Pujols and Thomas are / were loved by the media.

However, if you check out their OPS+, Thomas is way ahead. He had a season with an OPS+ of 201. That’s just unreal.

by lenred on Dec 3, 2009 7:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Actually, according to BB-Ref, Thomas’ best OPS+ was 211. But Pujols has three seasons better than Thomas’ second-best season by OPS+ so I don’t think you can say that Thomas is “way ahead” of Pujols.

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 3, 2009 8:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Thomas’ lowest OPS+ was 174. Pujols has topped 174 only 3 times. In fact, he’s topped 165 in 6 of 9 seasons, with 3 years of OPS+ at 151 or 157.

Thomas had set a bar consistently higher than Pujols when only looking at OPS+.

Keep in mind, I still think Pujols could be a unanimous selection and we’re just splitting hairs here. But I think Thomas’s first 9 years were better if you use OPS+. If you use HR, it’s not close. 257 for Thomas vs. 366 for Pujols. MVP voting also shows Pujols ahead.

by lenred on Dec 4, 2009 1:07 PM EST up reply actions  

If Ripken and Gwynn, two guys who played the game “the right way” for decades with the same club, weren’t unanimous, I honestly don’t know who will be.

by JulioBernazard on Dec 4, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions  

If “the right way” includes putting a meaningless attendance record over the good of the team.

by SuddenSam on Dec 5, 2009 2:51 PM EST up reply actions  

we’re just splitting hairs here

No question. I think everyone would agree that they were (have been) both dominant hitters in their 20s. MVP voting would never be a very reliable measure of anything, but the main thing is that it’s way, way too blunt of an instrument for discerning the difference between these two guys, who are so very close to begin with.

by Jay on Dec 4, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed. I think there could be a 200+ post thread just debating which of them is better and I don’t know that you’d have a consensus for one or the other.

by lenred on Dec 4, 2009 8:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Let’s do it. For god sakes this off season is boring.

by gte619n on Dec 6, 2009 6:43 PM EST up reply actions  

I totally reject this analysis.

Think you missed the point, as others below pointed out.

"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 3, 2009 10:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t think I missed the point.

MVP results do reflect a player’s prevailing reputation, that much is true. But they are still largely driven by opportunity. Pujols himself would have won another one or two of them by now, except that this other guy Barry Bonds happened to exist. Bonds’ existence did not, however, diminish Pujols’ reputation.

MVP results — and first-place votes in particular — are also heavily dependent on each player’s team’s place in the standings that year. Thomas’ club went to the playoffs only once in his first ten seasons. That undeniably deflated his MVP results, but it did not mean that he was less highly regarded as a player.

In a similar vein, over a dozen BBWAA voters admitted that they thought Johan Santana was a better pitcher than Bartolo Colon in 2005, but they voted for Colon for Cy Young anyway. The point — my point, anyway — is that award votes are not only poorly reflective of actual value, they are not even that good of a gauge of a player’s actual reputation.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 11:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, I can’t argue with any of that. Definitely a good point about team success reflecting on MVP votes. Don’t know why, but that didn’t occur to me.

"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 4, 2009 8:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Ah, but opportunity and team success very much carry over into a player’s reputation, even for the hall.

by dgcambridge on Dec 4, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions  

Pujols’ comps are sick. If you start off being compared to Joe DiMaggio, you’re doing ok.

I still think that Pujols is a better player than Thomas was at the same. time. I grew up a huge fan of Thomas – he was my favorite player – but I’m in Pujols’ corner. I’m actually really surprised that Thomas doesn’t show up as a comp in that link, as you could make a case that Thomas is the most accurate comp.

by lenred on Dec 3, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions  

DiMaggio? Feh. What is he, the seventh-best CF all-time?

Pujols sailed past him offensively a year ago. Flag for unnecessary Yankee reference.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions  

I accept this flag and beg for forgiveness.

by lenred on Dec 3, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions  

If DiMaggio had played in St. Louis and Stan Musial played in NY, we’d never hear of Joe.

by odradek on Dec 3, 2009 8:00 PM EST up reply actions  

DiMaggio only looked graceful because he didn’t like to get his uniform dirty. Notice how despite his allegedly prodigious speed, he was a total non-factor on the bases.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 8:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Don’t like the DiMaggio comp? Ok, Foxx, Gerhig, Mantle, Robinson, Griffey. They’re all his most similar comps through age 29.

Still an incredible group to be compared to.

by lenred on Dec 4, 2009 1:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Unanimous or not, I love that Pujols isn’t 30, and yet if he retired today, he’d be a HOFer.

by Matt in LA on Dec 3, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions  

He actually is not eligible for the HOF, because he hasn’t played in 10 different seasons. He needs to play one more game.

by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 5:52 PM EST up reply actions  

It’s scary that if Pujols never played another game, David Segui could get more HOF votes than Pujols.

by lenred on Dec 3, 2009 7:58 PM EST up reply actions  

If he never played again (unless he was arrested for an ax murder), they’d clemente him in. Also! Maybe some people have forgotten how truly awesome a player Frank Thomas was before he started having foot problems.

by odradek on Dec 3, 2009 8:02 PM EST up reply actions  

they’d clemente him in

Clemente played 18 seasons. What are you referring to here?

I think Addie Joss would be the better reference.

by JulioBernazard on Dec 3, 2009 10:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Without bother to actually look it up, I think for Clemente they waived the five year post-career waiting period, not the the length of career requirement.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 3, 2009 10:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Correct. They put him in the year after his crash.

Who are the 31 d-cks who couldn’t vote him in on the first ballot?

by JulioBernazard on Dec 3, 2009 10:46 PM EST up reply actions  

I was referring to the waiving of the waiting period.

Who are the 31 d-cks who couldn’t vote him in on the first ballot?

I bet they weren’t Puerto Rican sportswriters for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

by odradek on Dec 3, 2009 10:56 PM EST up reply actions  

There’s no way — if Pujols retired today — they’d let him in EARLY, if at all.

by JulioBernazard on Dec 4, 2009 7:29 AM EST up reply actions  

You’re probably right. But that’s because he plays in St. Louis.

by odradek on Dec 4, 2009 10:45 AM EST up reply actions  

Addie Joss was a hack.

by fwembt on Dec 4, 2009 12:02 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I think an exception might well be made for Pujols, who has played nine rather full seasons at a ridiculously high level, but it would be tough to set that precedent.

It’s obvious that people don’t really remember how feared Thomas was. In the late 90s, he was one of the only people that you could see adding to the Indians lineup that would actually improve it.

by Jay on Dec 4, 2009 12:02 AM EST up reply actions  

Ever since Jim Rice, I just can’t take the word “feared” seriously.

by Voltaire on Dec 4, 2009 2:03 AM EST up reply actions  

But Thomas had the 1100 OPS, too.

by Jay on Dec 4, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions  

My best friend and I collected cards like crazy at the time, and I always traded him any Ken Griffey Juniors I had for any Frank Thomas cards. that’s how highly regarded he was.

"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 4, 2009 9:03 AM EST up reply actions  

I thought this may be where you were headed, that this is an undersell of Thomas. I remember, he was one of the most feared hitters in the game at that point, a sure fire hall of famer, possibly one of the best right handed hitters ever.

Even with all that, my point would be that you might be underestimating the national media’s view of Pujols. They think the guy walks on water.

by dgcambridge on Dec 4, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions  

He did run on that tarp.

I think my least favorite thing ever is when the media heaps on a guy for being a good first basemen. I find it very irritating.

by afh4 on Dec 4, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions  

better than heaping on a guy for being a slap-hitting right fielder with a decent glove

"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 4, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Gotta side with Turk on this one.

by Jay on Dec 4, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions  

I hope this is not intended to disrespect Tony Gwynn.

by odradek on Dec 4, 2009 2:42 PM EST up reply actions  

But, but… look how COOL this guy’s facial hair is! look at the precision!

by gte619n on Dec 6, 2009 6:46 PM EST up reply actions  

I think we need to admit that this is a competitive entry in the douchebag competition.

by Voltaire on Dec 6, 2009 7:12 PM EST up reply actions  

My first thought as well. What a tool.

by fwembt on Dec 6, 2009 10:30 PM EST up reply actions  

only if he has multiple popped collars under that jacket.

by lenred on Dec 7, 2009 12:04 AM EST up reply actions  

No, the product, the ear stud, the glasses on top of the head, and the facial hair all negate the need for any popped collars. He’s a douche.

by fwembt on Dec 8, 2009 12:58 PM EST up reply actions  

He’s rocking the i-wanna-f-you eyes, too.

Wait 'til next millennium!

by emd2k3 on Dec 7, 2009 4:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Probably because compared to some of his peers he appears to at this point. It’s kind of hard to come out looking bad when compared to A-Rod or Barry Bonds.

by The Grimace on Dec 5, 2009 2:02 AM EST up reply actions  

And to a lesser degree, Chris Gimenez.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 5, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I think Maddux will poll up there with Seaver and Ryan. Griffey should, too, though there will be writers who somehow think he didn’t do enough. But blank ballots will prevent unanimity.

There actually was a unanimous HOF selection: Lou Gehrig, in a special election.

by SuddenSam on Dec 4, 2009 9:37 AM EST up reply actions  

My hatred for the Yankees is infinite. As is my admiration for Lou Gehrig.

Wait 'til next millennium!

by emd2k3 on Dec 4, 2009 11:57 AM EST up reply actions  

And to a lesser degree, Chris Gimenez.

by SuddenSam on Dec 5, 2009 4:39 PM EST up reply actions  

What if 90% of voters all voted against Tony Gwynn because they had in mind that they did not want him to be the first ever unanimous first ballot inductee while also thinking that every other writer is probably voting for him?

In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).

by V-Mart Shopper on Dec 5, 2009 3:10 PM EST reply actions  

That’s known as Roy Jones-ing a guy, right? You bring up a good point — how do they decide which voters will stiff a deserving guy?

by JulioBernazard on Dec 8, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Constantly updated Indians news, lots of in-depth analysis, live in-game discussions — and more fanatical and thoughtful Indians fans than every other web site combined.
Start posting about the Indians »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Thoughts from Keys-Indians game, 9/3
Royconrad_fullthrottle_small
25 for 25: Indians
Photo_319_small
Graduating from Prospectdom
Colevatar_small
Thank You, Indians Fans
964_small
2011 Tribe Patches
Profile_small
Draft position and the Hall of Fame
Snyder_small
Revisiting 2010 Pecota Projections
Draft_lens6670022module54040272photo_1251768414louissockalexisicon4b_small
Fun with Sabermetrics! Or, WARrior in Woolworths
Colevatar_small
Question for Indians fans
Pryor_small
LGT Fantasy Football

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Featured Poll

Poll
Is the SBN Cleveland "fan confidence poll" totally stupid?
Yes
104 votes
No
21 votes
Stupid, but not totally stupid
94 votes

219 votes | Poll has closed

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Victor Martinez' agent: two-year deal isn't what we want
10-inning no-hitter for Kinston
Five prospects selected for AFL
BPro acknowledges that PECOTA systematically overrates "sabermetric" teams (subscriber content)
Came across this completely randomly - pretty cool to see like this.
Always condescend ...
Lofton HOF Poll & Discussion
Official September Callups
"I have to be an example because most of (the younger players) have never...
Corey Kluber to Columbus

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SBNation.com Recent Stories

Toronto Blue Jays' Jose Bautista, left, Detroit Tigers catcher Alex Avila, center, and home plate umpire Jerry Crawford watch Bautista's solo home run during fourth inning of a  baseball game in Toronto Friday, Aug. 27, 2010. Bautista's home run was his league-leading 42nd of the season. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Darren Calabrese)

Five Numbers: Jose Bautista's Other League-Leading Statistic, Oakland's Magnificent Infield Defense, And More

DENVER - SEPTEMBER 09:  Chris Nelson #10 of the Colorado Rockies is welcomed back to the dugout after stealing home to score the game winning run against pitcher Nick Masset of the Cincinnati Reds in the eighth inning at Coors Field on September 9 2010 in Denver Colorado. The Rockies defeated the Reds 6-5.  (Photo by Doug Pensinger/Getty Images) +1 updates

Chris Nelson Steals Home, Rockies Rally Past Reds In Dramatic Fashion

San Francisco Giants starter Matt Cain pitches to the Los Angeles Dodgers in the first inning of a National League baseball game in Los Angeles Saturday, Sept. 4, 2010.  (AP Photo/Reed Saxon) link

In Progress: Padres, Giants Begin Four-Game Battle For First Place In NL West

More from SBNation.com >


Managers

427px-nap_lajoie_1913_small Ryan

Dosequisman_small Jay

Editors

3444ant_black_small APV

47b8dd28b3127cceb64839d9746800000026102bauwjrq3za_small afh4