It's a new year so we need a new MLB thread. I'm also going to turn over a new leaf myself, call it a New Years resolution if you will, I'm going to let of go of the steroids era. Why? Because I saw the stories on the HoF ballots today and saw what Ken Gurnick did and I don't want to be that guy anymore. Gurnick, who has been a respected baseball guy for years, decided to not vote for Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine for the HoF simply because they played in the steroid era. This kept these two amazing players from having unanimous ballots, which Maddux clearly deserved and Glavine most likely did as well. It hit a little too close to home for me. I've railed against the steroid era and have said everyone was, and always will be a suspect, but I wasn't thinking about guys like this who had no whiff of steroid suspicion among them getting hurt by this kind of attitude. Bottom line, I just wasn't thinking. I'm not a black and white type of guy in anything else and why I decided to have this hardline stance in baseball I don't know, I guess I allowed myself to be influenced by bitter sports talk hosts and writers, but like anything else there should be shades of gray and Glavine and Maddux clearly fall there. Gurnick was wrong, and I was wrong. You can't throw out 30 years of baseball because of the actions of some, even though it could be many. It's wrongheaded and Gurnick is an asshole. I guess I was one too. I'm not going to hate baseball and distrust everyone because of a rigid belief system anymore. Sorry y'all had to listen to my rantings.

Now, pitchers and catchers report in 36 days! Can't wait until we can all yell Play Ball!

Raise the Jolly Roger!!!! Let's Go Bucs!!! Let's Go Bucs!!!!

Tequila Cowboy wrote:It's a new year so we need a new MLB thread. I'm also going to turn over a new leaf myself, call it a New Years resolution if you will, I'm going to let of go of the steroids era. Why? Because I saw the stories on the HoF ballots today and saw what Ken Gurnick did and I don't want to be that guy anymore. Gurnick, who has been a respected baseball guy for years, decided to not vote for Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine for the HoF simply because they played in the steroid era. This kept these two amazing players from having unanimous ballots, which Maddux clearly deserved and Glavine most likely did as well. It hit a little too close to home for me. I've railed against the steroid era and have said everyone was, and always will be a suspect, but I wasn't thinking about guys like this who had no whiff of steroid suspicion among them getting hurt by this kind of attitude. Bottom line, I just wasn't thinking. I'm not a black and white type of guy in anything else and why I decided to have this hardline stance in baseball I don't know, I guess I allowed myself to be influenced by bitter sports talk hosts and writers, but like anything else there should be shades of gray and Glavine and Maddux clearly fall there. Gurnick was wrong, and I was wrong. You can't throw out 30 years of baseball because of the actions of some, even though it could be many. It's wrongheaded and Gurnick is an asshole. I guess I was one too. I'm not going to hate baseball and distrust everyone because of a rigid belief system anymore. Sorry y'all had to listen to my rantings.

good stuff man. glad to hear it.

that gurnick bullshit pissed me the hell off this morning. maddux was my favorite player growing up, and even though i knew the asshole voters would never allow a unanimous vote, i really thought maddux might be the guy to break that idiotic tradition. he had it all, from the numbers to the intangibles, and he was fucking great. not voting for one of the dominant pitchers of all time should require a damn good explanation, and not having one should absolutely be grounds to lose your vote. i love many of baseballs traditions, but stuff like this is turning the game into a joke.

Tequila Cowboy wrote:It's a new year so we need a new MLB thread. I'm also going to turn over a new leaf myself, call it a New Years resolution if you will, I'm going to let of go of the steroids era. Why? Because I saw the stories on the HoF ballots today and saw what Ken Gurnick did and I don't want to be that guy anymore. Gurnick, who has been a respected baseball guy for years, decided to not vote for Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine for the HoF simply because they played in the steroid era. This kept these two amazing players from having unanimous ballots, which Maddux clearly deserved and Glavine most likely did as well. It hit a little too close to home for me. I've railed against the steroid era and have said everyone was, and always will be a suspect, but I wasn't thinking about guys like this who had no whiff of steroid suspicion among them getting hurt by this kind of attitude. Bottom line, I just wasn't thinking. I'm not a black and white type of guy in anything else and why I decided to have this hardline stance in baseball I don't know, I guess I allowed myself to be influenced by bitter sports talk hosts and writers, but like anything else there should be shades of gray and Glavine and Maddux clearly fall there. Gurnick was wrong, and I was wrong. You can't throw out 30 years of baseball because of the actions of some, even though it could be many. It's wrongheaded and Gurnick is an asshole. I guess I was one too. I'm not going to hate baseball and distrust everyone because of a rigid belief system anymore. Sorry y'all had to listen to my rantings.

Now, pitchers and catchers report in 36 days! Can't wait until we can all yell Play Ball!

Great post TC, it's all very gray. And, HGH and PED's are not going away anytime soon. But, if I was one of those angry Hall of Fame voters, my first choices would be Greg Maddox and Tom Glavine. I'm making the assumption that neither did steriods, but both were control pitchers that worked the zone and kept hitters off balance by changing speeds. If anything, they deserve more credit for winning over 300 games each in the steriod era being the style of pitchers they were. They both relied on guile and cunning, not power. Both had fastballs which topped out at about 85 mph. It would be nice if sportwriters could do a better job of exploring the steriod issue, as they all pass judgement without exporing the issue, hell I can do that, I do it all the time, but they get paid for being idiots, I don't.

Wait. Do I have this right? I've never heard of this guy Gurnick but i gather he has a HOF vote and didn't vote for Maddux and Glavine because they PLAYED during the steroid era? Not that they did or allegedly did steroids? Is that really what he said? I'd say the guy has the IQ of a mushroom, but that would be insulting to fungi everywhere.

Good for you, TC. You'll enjoy life just that little bit more.

Jayson Stark's column on his votes for this year's HoF class. Very thoughtful.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10253 ... ame-ballot

I refuse to acknowledge baseball while the temp remains under 15 degrees.

Clams wrote:I refuse to acknowledge baseball while the temp remains under 15 degrees.

Yes, but when you think about pitchers and catchers reporting it becomes summer in your mind. I made it through many a Chicago winter that way.

Clams wrote:I refuse to acknowledge baseball while the temp remains under 15 degrees.

But when that thermometer hits 20, boy oh boy, your first thought is let's play 2!

Yeah, TC, "pitchers and catchers" is a unique magic, warming, optimistic phrase.

maddux
glavine
thomas

theres your class

obviously not a bad one by any means, but 2.8% of voters did not vote for greg maddux. that is insane.

biggio came excruciatingly close. 74.8%

it was snowing at PNC Park last year for opening day for the Pirates vs. Cubs game

As a lifelong Braves fan I'm happy to see two of our boys go in this year. What is dissapointing to me is the logic that no one gets in because some of the players did drugs. One look at Maddux when he was playing could tell you the guy wasn't abusing any PEDs, hell it was a rare night w/ a strong wind blowing in from center when his fastball passed the mid 80's! Last I checked 'roids didn't improve your control on a two seamer. It's like when the elementary school teacher took away recess from my buddies daughter's entire class because one jack ass kid can't behave himself in a second grade classroom. Punish the majority for the crimes of the minority. I cenrtainly hope they strip that Dodger loving ass clown of his vote from here on.

BTW here in Atlanta it started in the teens and by lunch had warmed up to the 40's, yes spring is in the air.

Shakespeare wrote:maddux
glavine
thomas

theres your class

obviously not a bad one by any means, but 2.8% of voters did not vote for greg maddux. that is insane.

biggio came excruciatingly close. 74.8%

This was a good class. Biggio will get in next year for sure.

agreed. the idea of saving a candidate because hes not first/second/whatever year worthy is ridiculous but its the bbwaa so yeah.

so next year we can pretty much book it as pedro, randy, biggio, and id hope smoltz is a lock for kicking ass as a starter and a reliever, but its a crowded pool so who knows. another damn fine class either way. maybe piazza inches closer but i dont think he'll get in just yet. again, ridiculous but what can you do

So that's it for Jack Morris, eh? Unfortunate imho.

A good class, but too small given the quality of the candidates. Even if you eliminate bonds, clemens, mcgwire, sosa and palmiero, ok even bagwell and piazza too, there are still a number of worthy candidates. This whole process seems broken, in part because of the steroids mess, but apparently for other reasons as well. I hope the Hall will take steps to revise its processes or qualifications or voters or something.

id personally like to see the voting system completely overhauled. the writers will never go away so maybe let players, managers and fans have a vote too and weigh them all certain percentages or something. unfortunately its always gonna be a flawed system, but it doesnt have to be this flawed

i also think its bullshit that once you get a vote its essentially yours until you give it up. youve got some guys voting for players whose entire careers happened after they stopped professionally covering baseball, and younger guys voting certain ways to continue trends (no unanimous votes, limited first time elections, hesitance to have a class bigger than 3/4 players, etc) started by the generation before them. then you have shit like that gasbag murray chass (who had pledged to vote for morris and only morris until he was off the ballot) openly stating that hes gonna keep his vote now just to piss people off. how is that ok?

They got it right with Jack Morris

Leaving aside literal dementia/senility, it ought to be a good thing for the old-timers to keep their votes: They're the ones who have the historical perspective, institutional memory and ability to compare players across eras. But that's just theory. If you were an asshole when you were younger, chances are you're going to be an asshole when you're older and too many of these guys, young and old, abuse the privilege they've been granted. It's become a platform from which to make grand moral statements and to take holier than thou positions most of which are neither, grand, moral or holy. Like the man said, power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When i was 12 or 13 I used to think the "no first year admittees" thing was kinda cool. But then I got to be 14. What a load of shit. And the "no unanimous votes" thing is even worse. Just a bunch of overgrown kids at recess w/out adult supervision.

Time for some other way w/ at least some other people.

Zip City wrote:They got it right with Jack Morris

I knew that was coming.

All I'll say is that if the powers that be wanted the criteria for admission to be purely statistical they could have structured admission that way. They didn't. For good reasons. I don't know if you were there, but I was and there's no doubt in my mind that Jack Morris was one of the great pitchers of his generation. Jayson Stark's comments on the subject in the article i linked above are on point.

beantownbubba wrote:Leaving aside literal dementia/senility, it ought to be a good thing for the old-timers to keep their votes: They're the ones who have the historical perspective, institutional memory and ability to compare players across eras. But that's just theory. If you were an asshole when you were younger, chances are you're going to be an asshole when you're older and too many of these guys, young and old, abuse the privilege they've been granted. It's become a platform from which to make grand moral statements and to take holier than thou positions most of which are neither, grand, moral or holy. Like the man said, power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When i was 12 or 13 I used to think the "no first year admittees" thing was kinda cool. But then I got to be 14. What a load of shit. And the "no unanimous votes" thing is even worse. Just a bunch of overgrown kids at recess w/out adult supervision.

Time for some other way w/ at least some other people.

The problem with all of this is that guys hold grudges. Writers, players you name it. Ron Santo didn't get in when he was alive because he was a jackass as a player (among other reasons including but not limited to too many 1969 Cubs in the HoF) and even when he became a lovable, fuzzy Cub in his dotage it didn't change his image with some of those guys (the veterans committee by that point). His numbers said he should be in. There should be a some of sort of metric that weighs potential inductees numbers, adjusts them by era and compares them to other players in the Hall. That number should be part of a weighted system along with the voting from the writers and HoF members. It won't solve everything but it should help. There are guys that should be in but aren't but, IMHO, there are an awful lot of guys who are in that have no business being there. It's the Hall of Fame, not the hall of the very good. I would rather a guy that should be in there stay out than a guy that shouldn't get in, if that makes sense. Still there has to be a better way.

The problem with Jack Morris is that too many people focus solely on his 10 in ing complete game 7.

I'm not saying he was a bad pitcher. He was a very good pitcher. But one of the best of all time?

Zip City wrote:The problem with Jack Morris is that too many people focus solely on his 10 in ing complete game 7.

I'm not saying he was a bad pitcher. He was a very good pitcher. But one of the best of all time?

Absolutely not. Morris does not belong in the HoF. It's not the hall of the very good.

BTW, they should instantly revoke voting privileges of whoever threw a vote at Armando Benitez, Kenny Rogers, Jacque Jones and Eric Gagne

Tequila Cowboy wrote:Morris does not belong in the HoF. It's not the hall of the very good.

I understand what the Hall is, or should be. My view is that Morris was a great pitcher, not a very good one. He wouldn't be my Game 1 starter but he'd be on my staff for the inter-galactic series to determine the fate of Earth against the aliens. To the extent that there's a distinction between first ballot HOFers and other "mere" HOFers, I understand and agree that Greg Maddux is in the former category and Maddux in the latter. But head to head, I'd like my chances w/ Morris just fine.

Zip City wrote: But one of the best of all time?

One of the best of his generation, which is more or less the standard for being one of the best of all time, since it's otherwise pretty hard to measure. Some voters or commentators may focus too much on that game 7, but I don't see how that invalidates the conclusion by others w/ a broader view that he's Hall worthy.

Hey, it's a moot point and there's also no point in re-arguing the case that's been argued to death on both sides by more capable spokespeople than any of us. Besides, it's even more of a no win argument than most because my case basically comes down to "trust me" and I understand the weaknesses of that approach. For current purposes I'm just expressing my own personal disappointment that he's been denied and to a lesser extent saying that Morris is a good example of the need to keep the Hall open on other than a purely statistical basis.

Zip City wrote:BTW, they should instantly revoke voting privileges of whoever threw a vote at Armando Benitez, Kenny Rogers, Jacque Jones and Eric Gagne

Relax. There's a long and mostly proud history of voting for a less than compelling candidate for personal reasons or to acknowledge a substantial but not starring career in their first year of eligibiity. If the voters in question didn't vote for 10 candidates anyway, this is a non-issue. If they did vote for 10 so that they may well have sacrificed a legit candidate for their personal vanity, that's a different story.

The voting process is broken. Maddux should've been unanimous. Morris was very good to great, he is borderline. Potential steroids usage aside, I don't think Biggio or Bagwell are HOF caliber players either. Yes, they were among the best players of their generation; but I feel the criteria should be slightly more slanted towards were they among the greatest players ever (which they were not). The Hall would become very crowded if they let that caliber of player in (and that would diminish it's austerity to me).

Slipkid42 wrote:The voting process is broken. Maddux should've been unanimous. Morris was very good to great, he is borderline. Potential steroids usage aside, I don't think Biggio or Bagwell are HOF caliber players either. Yes, they were among the best players of their generation; but I feel the criteria should be slightly more slanted towards were they among the greatest players ever (which they were not). The Hall would become very crowded if they let that caliber of player in (and that would diminish it's austerity to me).

Slip! We agree on something almost completely! Ain't life grand?

Tequila Cowboy wrote:

Slipkid42 wrote:The voting process is broken. Maddux should've been unanimous. Morris was very good to great, he is borderline. Potential steroids usage aside, I don't think Biggio or Bagwell are HOF caliber players either. Yes, they were among the best players of their generation; but I feel the criteria should be slightly more slanted towards were they among the greatest players ever (which they were not). The Hall would become very crowded if they let that caliber of player in (and that would diminish it's austerity to me).

Slip! We agree on something almost completely! Ain't life grand?

Yeah! Maybe we should stick to baseball debates (now that you got that new resolution & all).

beantownbubba wrote: My view is that Morris was a great pitcher, not a very good one. He wouldn't be my Game 1 starter but he'd be on my staff for the inter-galactic series to determine the fate of Earth against the aliens.

...at some point you have to follow the WS Titles & the wins involved....Tigers, Twins, Jays....hired gun yes...HOF, maybe not, more deserving than Bert Blyleven...that's where the stats & pr machine can get it way wrong...only my opinion