FanGraphs Baseball

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Dave, safe to assume you accidentally missed Larkin on your ballot if you had one?

    Comment by Brandon — January 9, 2012 @ 12:11 pm

  2. If we had a tiered system, we’d just be arguing about whether or not guys deserved to be in tier one or two or three. No matter where you put the line in the sand, there are going to be borderline cases for the fans and media to disagree upon.

    In my opinion, the great flaw in HOF voting isn’t what the standard is, but rather that the standard has changed so much over time.

    Comment by Eminor3rd — January 9, 2012 @ 12:19 pm

  3. Respect your opinion Dave. But I’m a small hall guy myself. I’d rather just go and see the best of the best of the best at the hall. Just my personal preference.

    Comment by Brian — January 9, 2012 @ 12:20 pm

  4. Just what ARE the standards the BBWAA abides by?? That is the question. Their voting paterns are all over the map. Saying their standards should be lowered a bit in order insure a “bigger Hall,” is one thing, but how much lower can they get by allowing in the Rices and Sutters, but disallowing the Raineses and Bagwells??

    Comment by Grand Admiral Braun — January 9, 2012 @ 12:21 pm

  5. I love the idea of separating the Hall into different tiers or categories in someway. The great peak, short career room would be very cool (Albert Belle would have an entire corner to himself). Why aren’t the powers-that-be more open to enhancements like this? Is it a case of putting too much weight on “tradition” or simple inertia?

    Comment by DJG — January 9, 2012 @ 12:21 pm

  6. Either you missed it, or he’s edited it to include Larkin since you’ve posted.

    By Martinez, does he mean Dennis “El Presidente”?

    If he does, the only thing I can add to his ballot is “ditto.”

    But I do wonder why he specifically excluded Lee Smith given his attitude on the hall. (Let alone McGwire).

    Comment by JT — January 9, 2012 @ 12:22 pm

  7. Larkin is on his ballot.

    Comment by AJ — January 9, 2012 @ 12:24 pm

  8. Four reasons I’d vote against Whitaker (from BB-R, of course): Black Ink, Grey Ink, Hall of Fame Monitor, Hall of Fame Standards. Also, while MVP voting is far from a perfect measuring stick, he was in the Top 10 just once (eighth in 1983). Hall of Very Good.

    And it’s not a shame for some very good players not to make it. I grew up adoring Dwight Evans. I’m perfectly fine with him not being in the Hall of Fame.

    Comment by lester bangs — January 9, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

  9. I’d love for someone who holds this position to actually answer Dave’s question. WHY is it your preference? In what way would adding a Trammell or Raines make your experience less enjoyable?

    Comment by Bill@TPA — January 9, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

  10. well, the fact that BASEBALL has changed so much over time might be a factor. Deadball era, Liveball era, Steroid era, high pitching mound, low pitching mound, pitchcount era, saves being an irrelevant stat era, DH era, ….

    Comment by Cidron — January 9, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

  11. I wonder how much a factor the “These guys arent even historically relevant, as they arent yet much of history”. I mean, the writers, have very recent memories of seeing these players play, they wrote up the flaws etc of a given player. Whereas, while Babe Ruth was … not quite anybody’s ideal gentleman, nor was Ty Cobb.. they got in.. but, maybe with time, the “bad” qualities have either faded, or merely part of the legend. The newer players, its still NEWS, or recently was still.. Not yet History. And the HoF is a historical archive. Maybe some voters just dont see the recent players as historically relevant.

    Comment by Cidron — January 9, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

  12. EDGAR Martinez, not Dennis.

    Comment by tom — January 9, 2012 @ 12:39 pm

  13. I’m not sure that changing what we argue about every year is a bad thing. I, for one, would love to never have to talk about Jack Morris again.

    But, my larger point was that a tiered system would allow the HOF to be more inclusive without “cheapening” the honor that we’ve given to the very best of all time. Which is, as far as I can tell, really the only argument in favor of a small hall.

    Comment by Dave Cameron — January 9, 2012 @ 12:40 pm

  14. You can do this. You can go to Cooperstown and see the best of the best of the best. That’s possible right now.

    Comment by Dave Cameron — January 9, 2012 @ 12:41 pm

  15. The problem is that the Hall of Fame is already a “Big Hall,” it is just that the players enshrined fit the vogue of the time and the personal biases of the voters. But if you’re going to include George Kelly and Lou Brock and Jim Rice how can you not include Tim Raines and Jeff Bagwell and Alan Trammell, not to mention Jim Edmonds, Dwight Evans, Lou Whitaker, etc?

    In other words, I don’t see any other way of defining who gets in other than to ask “Is he as good or better than at least a few already enshrined Hall of Famers?” With an emphasis on recent players played at the same position, so HoF outfielders should be at least as good as Rice and Dawson, for instance (which would include Dwight Evans, Tim Raines, and probably Larry Walker).

    Comment by Angelsjunky — January 9, 2012 @ 12:49 pm

  16. I like the HoF reboot over at Tango’s blog.

    The problem is that the HoF has gone through so many ebbs and flows (as outline by Poz in SI) and marked by such extreme errors (too soft, too rigid) that it’s become sort of a big mess.

    For me, the issue with lower limit is that you get such a larger number of players of varying impacts in the same small WAR range, such as 60-70 WAR that differentiating among them is too murky. We’d be trying to say “yes” or “no” to a 63 WAR player, and then do the same thing with a 62 WAR player, then a 61 WAR player. There will always be “if him, why not him” type of things, but when the limit is lowered, it drastically increases the number of players in the pool.

    If the HoF were set at 75 WAR, then were having far fewer discussions about whether a 75.5 WAR play is in, but what about that 74 WAR player. When the value being discussed in the 60-63 WAR range, it’s no longer possible with consistency (IMHO).

    Using metrics like wWAR also seem to really provide some “space” between those that were truly dominant in their era, versus those that were more consistent or played longer. With wWAR, larkin, Trammel, and Edgar are all likely in.

    http://darowski.com/wwar/
    Darowski’s Weighted War

    There is currently not a standard … so there is no consistency.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — January 9, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

  17. Bill James’ Hall of Fame monitoring stats describe who will likely get in, not who should get it. It’s pretty silly to use them to make your HoF argument. They also don’t take defense into account, and Whitaker was a terrific defensive player. Compare Lou’s numbers with other 2B in the hall (Alomar and Sandburg are good comps) and then explain to me why he doesn’t belong.

    I still say the biggest Hall of Fame snub is Dick Allen, and this is coming from a lifelong Tigers fan.

    Comment by Rich — January 9, 2012 @ 1:05 pm

  18. Ok, and I won’t make a monetary reason because I’ll admit that there isn’t one. Just because Jim Rice is near the Babe doesn’t mean I won’t want to visit the hall.

    That doesn’t mean I don’t like it one bit. Jim Rice is simply not a hall of fame quality player. I appreciate that the Hall of Fame does not just compare players based on skill, “integrity” and the like are also to be considered. But even making that argument I don’t think he merits Hall-ness.

    So why does it bother me? It offends my sensibilities as a passionate and thinking fan. Greatness should be cherished and celebrated at the hall. and we don’t do this when we include mere goodness. The Vatican is a great place to visit, and I want to visit it, but it would be less fun to visit if they had settled for artists less talented than the Ninja-Turtles’ name sakes to do the interior decorating.

    If Tim Raines doesn’t feel rite, and to many he doesn’t, then walking past his part of the hall will be a sad moment. You’ll still go, but the experience will be cheaper and less pure. Don’t cheapen hallowed ground with the unholy.

    Comment by El Chico — January 9, 2012 @ 1:15 pm

  19. Dick Allen is the reason I don’t care about the Hall of Fame.

    On a rate basis, guess who is the 15th best hitter of all time.

    Comment by Yirmiyahu — January 9, 2012 @ 1:26 pm

  20. If all they have to be is as good as Dawson or Rice, then we’re talking about Edmonds, Sheffield, Lofton, Sosa, Bobby Bonds, Abeau, Beltran, Guerrero, Berkman, Luis Gonzalez, and on and on.

    Jim Rice: 56 WAR in 16 seasons.
    Brian Giles: 59 WAR in 15 seasons.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — January 9, 2012 @ 1:33 pm

  21. If you take a look at the list of inductees and their percentage of votes received, not a single player has been unanimously inducted by the BBWAA. It’s hard to understand how any writer could NOT put guys like Cal Ripken, the Babe, Hank Aaron, Nolan Ryan, just to name a few, on their ballots. I’m not necessariliy in favor of a big hall, but their voting guidelines or format definitely needs to be revised. If you’ve got the legitimate clear best of the best players left off some voters’ ballots, there’s some sort of problem there. 94.68% of the votes for Willie Mays? I mean, come on now.

    Comment by Pic — January 9, 2012 @ 1:34 pm

  22. The Hall of Fame is a museum. Just like any other museum I have visited there are exhibits of no interest to me, but I will not forgo a visit to the Met when I’m in NYC just because I’d have to walk past a Renaissance depiction of Christ to get to the Post-Impressionists. Likewise having to walk past Jim Rice’s plaque to get to Ruth or Williams or Mays would not offend me. If it doesn’t interest me I won’t spend my time on it. And it won’t affect my enjoyment in the least.

    Comment by b jones — January 9, 2012 @ 1:37 pm

  23. Brandon, safe to assume you accidentally missed Larkin on Dave’s ballot if Dave had one?

    Comment by JDanger — January 9, 2012 @ 1:37 pm

  24. Woah, thats the first I’ve ever heard anyone make a case for Dennis Martinez in the HoF.

    Total woah.

    Comment by JDanger — January 9, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

  25. I’m more than surprised that this site doesn’t have people endorsing a statistical analysis based system?? You could set the highest mark as one “TBRF”
    (Total Babe Ruth factor) and compare Everyone to him. A total TBRF is worth let’s say 100 points and the calculation is where everyone else compares, with the commonly accepted legends (Mays, Williams. Hornsby etc.) as markers.
    Example, Mays is an 85 on the TBRF scale, making him an elite player.
    Short careers could be adjusted by some factor, and character problems (PED’s) could be subtracted as appropriate to keep the human element in the process. (just random thoughts)

    Comment by Hurtlockertwo — January 9, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

  26. Bill James had a sinilar concept, so this is not a new idea of course.

    Comment by Hurtlockertwo — January 9, 2012 @ 1:49 pm

  27. Not sure I like that method, but I agree that its a mistake to use WAR to evaluate HoF candidates. Why are we comparing a player to replacement level? With WAR, a guy who is league average for 20 years is the same as a guy who is has 5 MVP-caliber seasons and then suffers a career-ending injury.

    The other thing is that it ignores guys who should get in for non-statistical reasons: their uniqueness, cultural impact, place in history, etc. Babe Ruth, Nolan Ryan, Phil Niekro, Ichiro Suzuki, Sandy Koufax, Lou Gehrig, Jackie Robinson, Cal Ripken, Pete Rose, Satchel Paige.

    Comment by Yirmiyahu — January 9, 2012 @ 1:50 pm

  28. I agree with Dave wholeheartedly. To me, I think it’s worthwhile to ask, “Can I tell the story of this era of baseball without this player?” If you answer that you can’t, that player deserves a long and hard look for inclusion.

    Jim Rice, I think baseball of the 70s and 80s could easily be told without him. He played in two postseasons and didn’t make much of a dent in either. Plus he was surrounded by much better players. He wasn’t ever really even the leader of the Sox.

    Andre Dawson’s got a little more history to back him up.

    Bernie Williams. Tons of history, but not a whole lot of seminal moments for him.

    Comment by noseeum — January 9, 2012 @ 1:51 pm

  29. Joe Posnanski has a funny read on which players should be in the hall of fame http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/01/06/the-willie-mays-hall-of-fame/

    Comment by Jay — January 9, 2012 @ 1:57 pm

  30. I don;t know, in what way do I enjoy chocolate more than vanilla? Why do my preferences have to have some deep reason?

    Comment by Brian — January 9, 2012 @ 2:00 pm

  31. Right dave that’s true. But I don’t want those lesser guys to be there.

    Comment by Brian — January 9, 2012 @ 2:01 pm

  32. This.

    I admit, I’m a small-ish hall guy but believe there should be expansion from the pre-94 era. Allen is exactly the type of player I’d like to see revisited. If, as DC suggests, HOF voters were too stingy during certain periods, let’s use advanced metrics to bring to the fore guys like Raines and Sweet Lou and help their candidacies.

    To answer the earlier question of “small hall” preference–I think it’s best seen through the concept of error. In attempting to limit false positive entries (people who elicit forehead smacks a decade later) I’m comfortable in denying a few qualified individuals (or reviewing their candidacy over a few years).

    Comment by jcxy — January 9, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

  33. The debate is part of the fun, and gets into part of learning the history of the sport and how it’s changed over the years and decades, which is also part of the fun. The Veteran’s Committee is a nice counterbalance to the BBWAA being stingy.

    It’s imperfect, but it works… kinda like life in general. Sorry, I know that’s hokey, but it’s a lot of the appeal of baseball to me; life in microcosm.

    Comment by Chris from Bothell — January 9, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

  34. I’m not a true small hall guy, but I definitely lean in that direction and can tell you why.

    The hall of fame isn’t something I’m ever likely to visit. This is the norm rather than the exception, not many people are willing to waste valuable vacation time on New York (aside from NYC).

    So for me, it is a standard, not a location. As a standard, its best purpose (to me) is to identify those players from the past whom any baseball fan should know about. Any self respecting baseball fan has to know about Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle. They don’t need to know a thing about Jim Rice.

    When you offer a big hall approach, you increase the amount of noise in the hall of fame, which makes it hard to distinguish how and why certain people got there. Basically, the Hall of Fame is a starting point to me. If someone wants a more granular glimpse into history, there is an overload of information available out there.

    That’s why I lean towards a small hall. I voted for Larkin, Bagwell, Trammell, and McGwire this year fwiw, so I don’t favor that small of a hall.

    Comment by Brad Johnson — January 9, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

  35. Brian, easy fix. Just don’t look at the plaques of the players you don’t like.

    Comment by Yirmiyahu — January 9, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

  36. That wouldn’t fix anything Y. It’s not that I don’t want to just not see them. I don’t want them to be part of the exhibit. It’s an ontological preference, not merely a visual one.

    Comment by Brian — January 9, 2012 @ 2:14 pm

  37. Lou Gehrig was probably unanimously inducted, although there were special circumstances around his vote and we don’t actually know the numbers.

    Here’s my take on the non-unanimity thing. Babe Ruth was elected in the very first Hall of Fame election ever, which as you might imagine was a pretty loaded ballot. I mean, hell, Cy Young himself couldn’t make it in on that ballot. So it makes sense that, on a ballot where 39 (!) future Hall of Famers received votes, even the Babe was left off a few.

    The problem is, once the very greatest players in the history of the game were elected non-unanimously, the writers didn’t want to elect anyone unanimously. If Babe Ruth (the greatest player ever), Honus Wagner (the greatest shortstop ever by a wide margin) and Walter Johnson (arguably the greatest pitcher of all time) couldn’t get in unanimously, how could someone like Nolan Ryan or Cal Ripken or even Willie Mays have any shot? It didn’t help, either, that Willie Mays and Hank Aaron probably lost a few votes to straight-up racism.

    Comment by Ian R. — January 9, 2012 @ 2:28 pm

  38. You’ve made a compelling argument. Brian Giles has my vote.

    Comment by Preston — January 9, 2012 @ 2:40 pm

  39. It’s odd to say Rose has non-statistical reasons to get into the hall when those reasons are actually being banned from from the hall. The main non-statistical thing Pete Rose has going for him is that he’s banned from baseball for gambling on it while being involved in the games, and being a bit of a self-promoting slimeball. If Pete Rose isn’t banned from baseball and is voted into the hall after five years, I have no idea if he would be remembered much more than his contemporaries (like Rod Carew, for instance).

    Comment by test — January 9, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

  40. Can we tell the story of the 90’s (especially the American League) without Al Belle, Juan Gonzalez, Mo Vaughn. It sounds like many voters will also leave out Delgado and M. Ramirez. That would basically leave only Griffey and Thomas representing the 90’s in the American League offensively. It’s so hard to compare players that played even 20 years apart because the game changes significantly over time periods, my own personal ballot tends to pick the to 17-23 players debuting each decade and tends to fall in line with quantities the writes and Veteran’s end up electing and pretty much picking up the guys that would normally have the right credentials. My 80’s personal hall would be at 23 players. My 90’s debut players will probably be at the higher end 23-25 players, but would also include some of the more recent bubble guys like Helton, Giambi, Delgado and a couple still to be determined that might typically be voted in by the Veterans years later. I feel the 70’s is a little short on representation (only 15 inducted thus far). Overall I think the numbers voted into the hall thus far is about right, and many of today’s bubble candidates could be voted in and still maintain the normal path we’ve seen with induction numbers. My wish is that it wouldn’t take so long to get some of these guys enshrined. Lot’s of them have practically dropped from people’s memories by the time they are enshrined.

    Comment by Brian — January 9, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

  41. He played a crazy ton of baseball for a crazy ton of years. Most hits ever. Was basically a deadball hitter playing in the wrong era. Synonymous with the The Big Red Machine. Sprinted to first base on BB’s. Played hard and dirty even during exhibitions. The last player-manager. And, yes, infamous for getting banned from baseball.

    I’m just saying that stuff other than a dry conversation about who is the best or most valuable needs to come into play. I mean, it’s called the Hall of Fame. I don’t think we should ignore people like Ichiro or Koufax because they had low WAR totals, and I don’t think we should ignore guys like Bonds or Shoeless Joe because they may have committed crimes. I think the Hall of Fame is there to tell the story of baseball and its history.

    Comment by Yirmiyahu — January 9, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

  42. I understand the “let’s not elect him unanimously because no one has ever been elected unanimously thing. But I still don’t understand how it started. Are you saying that Babe Ruth lost votes simply because there were so many good names on the ballot that voters forgot to check his off?

    Comment by Yirmiyahu — January 9, 2012 @ 3:21 pm

  43. Presumably, everyone has a point at which the hall would feel cheapened. What if they inducted every all star in history? Every member of a championship team? Every major leaguer?

    Obviously these are ridiculous scenarios, but just saying that you can “walk past the ones you don’t like” doesn’t really hold up – the idea that you’re only enshrining the best is important for the institution to have meaning, whatever “the best” means to an individual person. We all agree that Willie Mays is in and a guy that tops out at low-A isn’t, but whether you feel the line is Willie Stargell or Larry Walker or Brian Giles, everyone has a threshold. I don’t see how anyone can claim anything but personal preference on the issue.

    Incidentally, I don’t think Dave’s ballot is very “Big Hall” – Larkin’s in, Raines/Bagwell probably end up there, and Trammell/Edgar have a lot of guys beating the drum for them (even if they don’t ultimately hit 75). At the very least, it doesn’t seem like a “Dramatically Bigger Hall” ballot.

    Comment by Head Bee Guy — January 9, 2012 @ 3:23 pm

  44. I don’t think the Hall should be primarily to tell some kind of historical story at all. I think it should be simply to honor the greatest players of all time, whoever that turns out to be.

    Comment by Brian — January 9, 2012 @ 3:29 pm

  45. I look at the Hall more as an honorarium than as a museum frankly, even if it’s “technically” both.

    Comment by Brian — January 9, 2012 @ 3:30 pm

  46. Wanted to post the results for all to see:
    http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/1/9/2694612/2012-hall-of-fame-voting-results-complete-table
    Only Larkin makes it.

    I can’t believe after all the debate, that Jack Morris will make it into the HoF next year. And that Tim Raines, Jeff Bagwell, and Alan Trammell won’t.

    Comment by Larry — January 9, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

  47. Its so weird that you quote the Schoenfield article that was so mercilessly ripped apart by his own readers. Schoenfield totally missed the boat on that one. There was ZERO support for his big hall argument and it was kind of funny to see his lack of support so thoroughly crushed. He showed that the trustees wanted the veterans to be able to put in guys that might have slipped through the cracks or been underappreciated by the writers. That’s it. The amendments to the way the veteran’s committee does business shows only that the trustees wanted to amend the way the veteran’s committee does business. Similarly, if they wanted to amend the way the writers voted people in, they could do that. All indications are that they like the writers methods just find since they haven’t changed them at all.

    Comment by stan — January 9, 2012 @ 3:44 pm

  48. ‘Small hall’ and ‘big hall’ are empty catch phrases. Just elect the guys who deserve it and keep out the ones that don’t. It isn’t rocket science.

    Comment by Crap Shoot — January 9, 2012 @ 3:45 pm

  49. Hey, nobody knows why Babe Ruth wasn’t voted in unanimously. Apparently when they were counting the ballots, Ruth was named on all of the first 100 ballots. When they saw the first ballot that didn’t mention Ruth, the counters actually stopped to consider how somebody could possibly leave him off.

    Back then, though, the eligibility rules were really, well, non-existent. Plenty of active players received votes on those first few ballots, and write-in votes were allowed. Remember, too, that the Babe himself had only been retired for one year. It’s possible that some writers really wanted to honor long-retired players like Young, Cobb (who ended up getting the most votes), Wagner and Speaker. It’s also possible that some writers wanted to write in hometown players who they thought deserved some recognition, similar to the one- and two-vote wonders we see today.

    With all that said, it still boggles my mind that Babe Ruth was left off eleven ballots, especially given that back then voters were instructed to vote for the full ten candidates, You’d think that he’d easily be in everybody’s top ten. But it does make a little more sense in the context of 1936.

    Comment by Ian R. — January 9, 2012 @ 3:49 pm

  50. Well, not entirely. You can make a legitimate argument that Joe Jackson is one of the 20 best players of all time.

    Comment by JimNYC — January 9, 2012 @ 3:49 pm

  51. Its also misleading to point out that only 111 of the 206 players were put there by the writers too. How many of those 206 were negro leaguers who weren’t even on the ballot? I think the number is 30: one per year from 1971-1980, one per year from 1995-2001, and 12 more in 2006. (I’m including Sol White who was a player/ manager/ executive).

    Comment by stan — January 9, 2012 @ 3:53 pm

  52. But the question being asked here is: where is the line between deserving and not deserving?

    Two people can agree 100% on a ranked list of the best players of all time, but they may still disagree as to who deserves to be in the Hall. One guy thinks the top 50 guys “deserve” to be in, while the second guy thinks that the top 500 guys “deserve” to be in.

    Comment by Yirmiyahu — January 9, 2012 @ 3:54 pm

  53. The more I think about it, the more I think Ruth was just a victim (insofar as you can call a first-ballot Hall of Famer a “victim”) of timing. He retired in 1935, and the first Hall election was held the very next year. Every other player elected that year had been retired for at least eight seasons, and it’s possible that a handful of voters thought that even Ruth, as great as he was, needed to wait his turn.

    Comment by Ian R. — January 9, 2012 @ 3:54 pm

  54. I use him as an example all the time. Al Belle is another guy for the next generation. I find it amazing that these hall debates always involve comparisons to guys who just barely got in, yet no one wants to talk about guys who didn’t come close yet are better than the player on the ballot.

    Is there any way you would choose Edgar Martinez over Dick Allen in their primes? I say no.

    Comment by stan — January 9, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

  55. How is it that the standard has changed over time? Beyond that, why should it not? Extraordinarily good arguments can be made (and are almost surely correct) that players of today, top to bottom, are overall better than the group from 20, 50, 75, 100 years ago (we learn, we improve technique, sports training and medicine, &c.), which is precisely one reason why it’s nigh impossible any more to, say, hit .400. Shouldn’t the standards for the HoF change as The Game itself changes?

    Comment by HuskerDru — January 9, 2012 @ 4:00 pm

  56. Joe Jackson is not eligible…he broke the one rule you can’t break in baseball and still get in the HoF.

    Comment by HuskerDru — January 9, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

  57. This is what strikes me. The game has changed a lot over the years, and the standards for induction haven’t evolved with it.

    What if periodically – say every 10 years or so – the Hall looked back and identified eras in the context of the current perception. Then, the hall could be built around the eras that were defined. The players in the Hall should be emblematic of the era in which they played, and they should stand alongside their peers, not those of another generation. With the steroids era approaching, isn’t this the perfect time to consider such a radical change?

    Comment by badenjr — January 9, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

  58. Though Brian’s preference is slightly different from my own, I will die for his right to have it. He doesn’t have to have reasons, it’s just what he wants.
    Chances are that you who are criticizing him don’t really have rational reasons for your preference either; you have just made them up to justify your own preferred flavor.
    I would like the Hall to be restricted to the truly great (100 or so?) plus all my favorites.

    Comment by Baltar — January 9, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

  59. What! The greatest Nicaraguan player ever is not in the Hall?

    Comment by Baltar — January 9, 2012 @ 4:07 pm

  60. While Angelsjunky has a point, Circle has pointed out the flaw in it.
    Perhaps there should be a procedure for voting guys out of the Hall.

    Comment by Baltar — January 9, 2012 @ 4:13 pm

  61. HuskerDru, what rule? No illiteracy?

    Comment by Yirmiyahu — January 9, 2012 @ 4:17 pm

  62. test, if self-promoting slimeballs are excluded, the Hall will be a small one indeed. How about Ruth and Cobb for starters?

    Comment by Baltar — January 9, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

  63. There would be more arguments over the method adopted than there are now over who should make it.

    Comment by Baltar — January 9, 2012 @ 4:27 pm

  64. It’s funny how you can make a subjective standard (“should know about”) sound like an objective one.
    I think baseball fans should know about JImmy Piersall.

    Comment by Baltar — January 9, 2012 @ 4:32 pm

  65. Crap, your comment is very funny if it was meant as irony. Otherwise . . .

    Comment by Baltar — January 9, 2012 @ 4:34 pm

  66. I’m pretty sure the best thing for the Hall of Fame as an institution is to maintain relevance, and that the best way to achieve that is to maximize the number of heated debates over candidates — especially when these involve the mainstream press (free advertising!). In that sense, a Hall with many “bubble” candidates is attractive. A tiering system would be a clever way to increase the debates, but it may dilute the brand overall (I’m not certain we’d get great debates about Ben Chapman vs. Al Oliver vs. Toby Harrah for Tier 1).

    Overall I think the writers’ small hall is a good thing. The veteran’s committee provides a useful second tier that could add interest, but does not as currently constructed. If you want to make it more interesting, create a three-step veteran’s committee election process: (a) popularity, as determined by fan votes, (b) on-field performance, as determined by a panel of qualified experts (e.g., Dave, et al), and (c) impact on the game, as determined by the old dudes who comprise the current committee. You could build up to this and generate more publicity/interest in the HOF and its players. Just a thought.

    Comment by Jason — January 9, 2012 @ 4:48 pm

  67. I was sold on him as soon as they mentioned him in an episode of The West Wing… the rings don’t hurt either.

    Comment by JamesDaBear — January 9, 2012 @ 4:50 pm

  68. At least we arent talking another HoF, the rock and roll one.. where such luminaries such as ABBA, Run DMC, Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson are in, and KISS, Rush, Iron Maiden, Motley Crue, and many more arent in..

    Or, Ultimatly, The HoF will put in who they want. Might not be the prettiest, or the best, but, when they want someone in (or someone not in) thats what will happen. There will always be snubs (Trammel, is a good example) and those that leave us scratching our heads (Rice), and some that are to questionable in stuff other than stats (steroid era stars) to touch.

    Comment by Cidron — January 9, 2012 @ 4:58 pm

  69. Alternately, it was voters gaming the system. Let’s say I think there are 11 guys who should be in the Hall of Fame. If I were unscrupulous, I might leave Ruth off in favor of the other 10 players, knowing that he’s a shoe-in with or without my vote. That way, my votes potentially go toward borderline players, where they may have more impact.

    Comment by Mike — January 9, 2012 @ 5:00 pm

  70. large vs small… to get a larger contingent, maybe the writers who are limited to a max of 10, should have a minimum of 4 (or some other number) as well.. (this is assuming that they dont have a minimum).

    Yes, One a year does create even more of a special event for the electee, but, the system is backlogged, and looking ahead, its really going to be painful to see who is lost for eternity (unless resurrected via veterans) given the plethora of candidates to chose from.

    Comment by Cidron — January 9, 2012 @ 5:02 pm

  71. “But for now, I’d settle for the BBWAA just lowering their standards a bit.”

    Kirstie Alley’s lifelong dream of getting laid with Murray Chass will finally come true.

    Comment by Stan — January 9, 2012 @ 5:12 pm

  72. How about the idea that there is a set number of HOF’ers (say 300) and
    once that number is reached…in order to induct one member you’d have to take out the lowest rated one.

    Not only would this force the hall of fame members to seriously look at
    number, on/off field impact (domestic and around the globe) it would
    give the meaning to the clubs name itself…a little merit.
    You could also say something like “if you’re on the list for 100 years you can’t ever be taken off of it. Then every 100 years you could add 25 or so.

    ..just random thinking here..

    Comment by OddThoughts — January 9, 2012 @ 5:16 pm

  73. I agree, the writers haven’t looked forward enough to see in the next three years there are about 12 sure fire candidates and another three bubble candidates. Add that to the 3 sure fire and 6 bubble candidates that are already on the ballot and you’ve got the likelihood of either some huge classes or some guys getting pushed out much farther than they should.

    Comment by Brian — January 9, 2012 @ 5:18 pm

  74. Wha? Prince, Madonna, and MJ are first-ballot no-questions-asked Hall of Famers.

    Comment by Yirmiyahu — January 9, 2012 @ 5:25 pm

  75. Saying you’re a “big hall” guy and suggesting that the BBWA are too stingy with their voting are not mutually exclusive opinions. I think there should NEVER be a year where there are no new inductees in the HoF. I think that in any given year there are at least two guys on the ballot who deserve to be there (without the help of the veteran’s committee). I simply don’t accept that coming up with a system that ensures at three players get in every year in any way damages the sanctity of the HoF in any way. God bless Barry Larkin. He belongs there. But so do Bagwell, Raines, and Morris…

    Comment by Gregarious — January 9, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

  76. With only 3 pitchers getting votes, my question is are we properly & proportionately honoring the “other HALF” of the game?

    Comment by tj — January 9, 2012 @ 5:58 pm

  77. I’m amused by your illustrating a Hall of Fame that supposedly doesn’t work (the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame) by listing a group of mainstream artists you think are crap that are in and then listing another group of mainstream artists that many other people think are crap that aren’t in.

    I guess that’s as good an unintentional comment as any on how subjective Halls of Fame are, yet how objective many on-lookers believe “greatness” is.

    Comment by Minstrel — January 9, 2012 @ 6:02 pm

  78. Pitching isn’t half the game. Run prevention as a whole is half the game and that’s both pitching and fielding. Pitching, of course, is the largest part of run prevention, but not remotely 100% of it.

    Position players make up (essentially) 100% of the run scoring (pitchers batting is an insignificant part) and almost all of the fielding element of run prevention. They should be represented in greater proportion than pitchers. How much greater is certainly worth debating.

    Comment by Minstrel — January 9, 2012 @ 6:07 pm

  79. Personally I’d like to see the ballot reduced to just one or two years per player. It is ridiculous that someone stays on the ballot for more than a decade. If they weren;t good enough at the start they aren;t good enough at the end. I know sometimes this is because the writers in their infinite wisdom feel that some players don’t deserve to be first balloters, but deserve to be in the hall. Maybe this is a product of them wanting to distinguish between the elite and the merely great? However, I just wish they’d have one ballot per player because if someone deserves to be in the hall they should be in the hall. They shouldn’t have to wait a decade.

    Comment by Jimmy — January 9, 2012 @ 6:12 pm

  80. Can I just ask: Why do the BBWA decide the Hall of Famers and not the current members or current GMs/Mangers/Players etc…? Is there any reason such as impartiality or was this just a decision that has always been and never challenged? I’m intrigued to know…

    Comment by Jimmy — January 9, 2012 @ 6:27 pm

  81. If they limited the ballot to just one or two players, there wouldn’t be ANYBODY getting into the HoF. The baseball writers would find some reason to not vote for whoever it was. I agree that a worthy player shouldn’t have to wait a decade to get in. That it took Byleven and Dawson as long as it did (or Santo, for that matter, RIP) is shameful. It is, in my opinion, the foundation of a good argument for taking the decision away from the BBWA. In 2014 you’re going to have Maddux, Glavine, and Frank Thomas on the ballot. Are those guys legit first-ballot inductees?

    Comment by Gregarious — January 9, 2012 @ 6:31 pm

  82. I’m not convinced that Jack Morris will make it in next year. He got a big boost in this year’s voting, I think, because he was far and away the best pitcher on the ballot. He’ll run smack into a wall of superior pitchers in his final two years.

    Comment by Ian R. — January 9, 2012 @ 6:59 pm

  83. Because it makes the Hall more special/exclusive. I understand the perspective of folks who want it more inclusive…. but do we give every little leaguer a trophy? Some think this is a good thing, some don’t.

    If it meant the Hall did more work on existing players in it to talk about their greatness of the players there, I think it might add value/enjoyment. However I suspect it would just mean less work and have minimal impact. There are also a lot of current HOF’rs who fly under the radar and people don’t understand just how good they were….as the Hall grows in size when you hear HOF’r it meas a little less.

    Would electing Bernie William make the experience less enjoyable? No. Would electing Jose RIjo? No. I’m not sure I understand the strawman argument of would it make your experience less enjoyable. If the HOF criteria is “enjoyment” why not add another 200 players?

    Comment by Joe — January 9, 2012 @ 7:01 pm

  84. I see your point, but I think that the standards have changed even relative to era. I should note that all of my knowledge about the HOF process across eras comes from Bill James Hallf of Fame book. If you’re interested, I would recommend it.

    Comment by Eminor3rd — January 9, 2012 @ 7:12 pm

  85. I think the procedure for guys like Rice or Sutter should be:
    “Ok we made a mistake, let’s not compound it by making them the new threshold”.

    And this is one of the problem with an even bigger Hall… as you move further down the pyramid there will be an even greater and greater of guys on (or in Rice’s case, below) the bubble… which will lead to more of the “well X,Y, Z got in, why not my guy?” arguments.

    Or we can flip the script and look at people who haven’t gotten in and ask: “Is this guy better than players X,Y,Z who aren’t in the Hall?”

    Comment by Joe — January 9, 2012 @ 7:17 pm

  86. This would be awesome!

    Or maybe set the max based on number of years of baseball existence, (or say the current level) and then add a fixed # of spots per year (maybe 2 per year?). You want to put 3 guys in this year…. take 1 out!

    I know the argument will be what happens when 8 guys get elected one year… if 8 guys are getting elected in one year are we getting the best of the best? You could also put the guys removed back on the active voting list for say 5 years in case of a 1 or 2 year glut. Or you could cap the max # of players at say 4 or 5… with a 15 year period the right guys will make it in. The other approach may be to due the house cleaning every 5 or 10 years (to take away the issue of ebbs and flows in the # that get inducted every year).

    The major problem is that while this may weed out the Jim Rices of the world, the unintended consequence may be the prisoner of the moment thinking where some deserving old timers may get removed simply because the writers don’t know them and favor the flavor of the day. I suspect no matter what rule you set on permanency there will likely always be a bias toward more recent guys over older ones.

    Comment by Joe — January 9, 2012 @ 8:09 pm

  87. The Hall of Fame should contain four people: Babe Ruth, Nolan Ryan, Ted Williams and Craig Counsell.

    Comment by Fan of home team — January 9, 2012 @ 8:29 pm

  88. An interesting study would be to analyze how many players each season made the Hall of Fame by the BBWAA eventually and what percenatge that was of the players from the league that year, (e.g. 1941 had 12 eventually elected by the BBWAA which of 500 players was 2.4% of the league, 1974 had 18 eventually Hall of Famers of 700 players which was 2.57%) to see if their has been a shift in percentage of players that make the Hall over the course of time for the better or worse. Also interesting would be to compare that % to that of the NFL, NBA and NHL. This would show if the BBWAA discriminates more so or less than for induction to the other sports Hall’s. Not sure if that data is available but would be interesting to see.

    Comment by Nick — January 9, 2012 @ 8:44 pm

  89. No, we are just realizing the ramifications of having the (possibly) three best starting pitchers in the late 80s(Dwight Gooden, Orel Hershiser, and Bret Saberhagen) end up not having Hall of Fame careers. To this day, I still can’t believe one of them didn’t end up a Hall of Famer(and I’m not suggesting any of the three HAD a Hall of Fame career).

    Comment by bstar — January 9, 2012 @ 9:16 pm

  90. Eh. While it’s true that there are pretty much always deserving candidates on any given ballot, I think it’s a mistake to create a minimum requirement to let X number of players in. It gives an unfair advantage to players who are on weak ballots, rather than judging players on their individual merits

    What if, in 2007, the Hall of Fame decided to induct the top 3 players in the voting, whether they hit the 75% threshold or not? That first ballot, we’d see Goose Gossage get in alongside Gwynn and Ripken. OK so far. On the 2008 ballot, with Goose out of the way, Rice, Dawson and Blyleven would all get in. Still haven’t changed the present-day Hall at all. 2009, though, would see Rickey Henderson get in alongside Lee Smith and Jack Morris – remember, Rice, Dawson and Blyleven are already in. 2010 would see a trio of first ballot Hall of Famers with Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin and Edgar Martinez making up the top three, and while I wouldn’t take issue with any of the three being in the Hall, it sort of cheapens the value of “first ballot.” 2011? We’d see Jeff Bagwell (first ballot), Alan Trammell and Larry Walker (first ballot). Yes, Larry Walker would be a first ballot Hall of Famer with just 20 percent of the vote. And this year? With 8 of the actual top 10 already in the Hall, we’d see Fred McGriff, Mark McGwire and Don Mattingly inducted, all with less than a quarter of the vote.

    So… yeah, creating a system that would make sure at least three players got in every year would lower the Hall’s standards, and quickly.

    Comment by Ian R. — January 9, 2012 @ 9:22 pm

  91. Bill Simmons absolutely must steal this idea.

    Comment by jpg — January 10, 2012 @ 12:32 am

  92. I think hitting .400 is possible, since it was possible to hit 73 HR a few years back.

    Comment by Brad — January 10, 2012 @ 12:41 am

  93. Exactly. A lot of them don’t have a friggin’ clue.

    Comment by Brad — January 10, 2012 @ 12:44 am

  94. Why not?

    Comment by Brad — January 10, 2012 @ 12:52 am

  95. Because the writers that vote don’t understand, sadly.

    Comment by Brad — January 10, 2012 @ 12:57 am

  96. GMs/Mangers(sic)/Players probably would be even worse.

    Comment by Brad — January 10, 2012 @ 1:02 am

  97. In reading about small hall/big hall, I’m reminded of one of my favorite Bill James quotes which is roughly that just because things are individually small doesn’t mean they can’t collectively be large.

    Adding Jim Rice doesn’t cheapen the Hall. Adding Andre Dawson or Bruce Sutter or Jack Morris doesn’t cheapen the Hall. Nor would adding Jim Edmonds or Kenny Lofton or Bobby Abreu. But if you added 10-20 outfielders who are better than Rice/Dawson and 50-100 guys overall, then you have cheapened the Hall.* Likewise if you add one or two marginal/non-deserving players each year, in 20 years you have 30 famous guys who weren’t really great in the Hall.

    Obviously being better than the worst player in the hall isn’t sufficient criteria for induction. But as you add more “very good” players to the Hall and lower the bar for outfielders from Winfield, Gwynn, Stargell to Rice/Dawson, it becomes hard to argue against Reggie Smith, Dwight Evans, Andruw Jones, and Larry Walker.

    * So that’s my opinion. Maybe you really believe there are 50 deserving players NOT in the Hall. I’m pretty confident if the Hall were 50 players smaller, most fans would feel a lot of deserving players were left out. If we had skipped over 20 guys or added 20 more guys, I don’t think anyone would find the Hall particularly better or worse. With 100 or 200 more players, I expect most fans would become disenchanted by the Hall of Very Good.

    Comment by Adam S — January 10, 2012 @ 1:18 am

  98. I am amazed at the the complete emphasis on performance. It’s not that it’s irrelevant, but this is a Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Greatness. As such, Ichiro ought to be a first-ballot guy, not so much because he’s collected 2500 hits (in 10 years) but because he was the first major Japanese star to succeed in MLB. The fact that he’s accomplished both is even better. I’d put Tommy John and Curt Flood in too, for the impact they had on the game, not entirely due to their on-field exploits. Or maybe not Tommy John, but perhaps his surgeon…

    Great performance on the field is obviously one way to fame. I don’t think it’s the only one. So I guess I’m a (different kind) of Big Hall guy.

    —–

    As far as unanimous ballots go, I’ll bet that a few of the writers don’t think that Randy Johnson should go in, too. Pretty hard to imagine that on any rational basis.

    Comment by Fish — January 10, 2012 @ 4:35 am

  99. 1. I don’t know why anyone cares who is in any Hall of Fame. It really doesn’t effect my enjoyment of the games that are played, it is hard for me to understand how it effects anyone else’s entertainment from baseball.

    2. I think there should be a museum of baseball history. I’ve been to the Football HoF (how many people actually go to these Halls?). The history parts were the best parts. Looking at plaques of the greats was not interesting to me at all. I don’t know why it would be interesting to others, but to each their own.

    3. If there is a special exhibit, or Hall, in that museum to recognize the game’s best players, fine. Whatever.

    4. But why anyone would want to make the museum of baseball history smaller and less interesting, is baffling to me.

    5. I also think it is super silly to hide these things in small, out of the way towns. The goal should be to increase the PR and love of the game, not keep it quaint. The best museums are where people can see the stuff, not where it is hidden.

    Comment by mike wants wins — January 10, 2012 @ 9:32 am

  100. Well the Baseball Hall of Fame is hidden in a small out-of-the-way town, because Cooperstown is where baseball was *believed* to have started [at the time].

    Likewise, the Football Hall of Fame is where it is for similar reasons; That is where the NFL started. Compared to Cooperstown, Canton is huge though, with 404k people in the metro area and not far from Akron and Cleveland.

    Amazingly enough, the basketball HoF is also located near where it was founded.

    Comment by Eric R — January 10, 2012 @ 10:05 am

  101. I agree with most of the sabermetric HoF cases, but I depart on Whitaker. His peak was really not that high.

    http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?players=860,1013846,1011411

    You say there’s no difference between him and Alomar/Sandberg, but there’s a big difference. His top 6 seasons were not nearly as great. From baseball reference, he was only one of the top 10 AL position players 3 times (4th, 6th, 9th). He was a solid player for a remarkably long time (15 seasons of 3+ WAR!), but when selecting the great players, I think they should have peak and career value. It’s hard to say that Whitaker was truly elite for even a short time.

    Comment by todmod — January 10, 2012 @ 10:19 am

  102. Well, what if they did 2x?

    I started in 1990, assumed that any cases with 3+ winners, the extras would make it on the next ballot and that the change wouldn’t effect the ranking of the players voted in.

    With 23 years of votes, I see the following as ‘extra HoFers':

    1998 Steve Garvey
    2006 Lee Smith
    2008 Jack Morris and Tommy John
    2009 Tim Raines
    2011 Jeff Bagwell and Edgar Martinez
    2012 Alan Trammell and Fred McGriff

    That is nine extra guys in 23 years and I think most people would agree that about 3-5 of them are guys that should be in the HoF already anyways [and whose chances with the BBWAA get slimmer not stronger with the strong ballots coming up].

    the BBWAA elects two extra players who ultimately got in by the veterans committee [Cepeda and Santo]

    Comment by Eric R — January 10, 2012 @ 11:23 am

  103. I agree with you on all that. Though Tommy John is a borderline Hall of Famer even without the historical importance.

    Comment by Yirmiyahu — January 10, 2012 @ 11:35 am

  104. I went back another tens years. The list of additions only adds Tony Oliva. Bunning and Nellie Fox also get added by the BBWAA rather than the veterans.

    So, now with 33 years, the extra HoFers are Oliva, Garvey, LSmith, Morris, John, Raines, Bagwell, E-Mart, Trammell and McGriff.

    Lets compare this list with the players that the Vet’s have inducted [who weren’t picked up by this system] in the same time span [presumably the two HoFers per years takes out the need for the vet committee outside of special cases like negro leagues, old-timers, etc]. With that last clause in mind, this list is players who debuted after 1940:

    Richie Ashburn, Larry Doby [easy argument for him being one of those special cases anyways], George Kell, Bill Maz, Phil Rizzuto and Red Schoendienst

    You know what– I like the new list of extras over this one.

    Comment by Eric R — January 10, 2012 @ 11:42 am

  105. I take the position that it’s called the Hall of Fame not because it’s meant to honor players who were famous but because it bestows fame on the players it honors. It’s a way of making sure that future baseball fans will remember the greatest players in the history of the game. Guys like Tommy John and Curt Flood who had a big impact on the game’s history should be featured in the museum, as should guys like Roger Maris, Don Larsen and Kirk Gibson who had great individual moments or seasons. But induction? That’s for the guys with the best careers, and those historically significant players should be evaluated based on their careers.

    Comment by Ian R. — January 10, 2012 @ 11:43 am

  106. Fortunately, the basketball HoF is in an actual city, although one could find much better places to put it than Springfield, Massachusetts.

    Comment by Ian R. — January 10, 2012 @ 11:44 am

  107. That doesn’t make it a good idea. If the goal is to, you know, share the game and its history with the masses, keeping it where few people actually go because of tradtion is silly.

    Comment by mike wants wins — January 10, 2012 @ 11:45 am

  108. Likewise… sticking the baseball HoF in NYC, LA or whatever, it probably ends up being a quick run through since there are so many things to do in those bigger cities, rather than a place to spend a whole day taking the place in.

    I’m not saying it is necessarily better in Cooperstown, Canton and Springfield, than NYC, Washington DC and Los Angeles, but I think the ‘birthplace’ of the event is a solid choice.

    The Baseball Hall Of Fame draws 350k people per year and they’ve operated at the location of over 70 years, so I assume enough people are going that [including donations] they are staying in business. Maybe in a major metro area, they could draw 4-5x the people* [while presumably ditching the Hall of Fame Classic, or not having it on-site like they do now].

    In the middle of NYC, they probably go from a place you visit for the whole day [and still only see a fraction of the exhibits] to the place you visit for an hour until your lunch reservation…

    *Here are the highest visited US Museums, unless you think they break into the top 10 in the US, that 4-5x is about the cap
    1) Museum of Natural History 5.8M
    2) National Air and Space Museum 5.0M
    3) National Gallery of Art 4.7M
    4) The Met 4.5M
    5) American Museum of Natural History 4.0M
    6) National Museum of American History 2.4M
    7) Museum of Modern Art 2.2M
    8) Field Museum of Natural History 2.1M
    9) Museum of Science-Boston 2.0M
    10) Ellis Island Immigration Museum 1.7M

    Comment by Eric R — January 10, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

  109. – I actually expected a much bigger gap. That the Baseball HoF draws 10-20% of any museum not in the top 5 in the US while being in the middle of nowhere [and those others being in NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, plus 11th onward adding SF, LA, Philly, Houston…] seems like quite a feat in itself…

    Comment by Eric R — January 10, 2012 @ 12:40 pm

  110. I too would have expected a bigger gap……I understand why people would want to keep it where it is. I just don’t think it serves the purpose it could by having it there. It is unlikely most people (any?) on this board would agree with me on that, though.

    Comment by mike wants wins — January 10, 2012 @ 1:59 pm

  111. Don’t forget the inclusion of non-white players.

    Comment by Bip — January 10, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

  112. “ABBA, Run DMC, Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson” one of those names is far, far superior to the other and well deserving of the Hall

    Comment by jim — January 10, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

  113. The Hall of Merit has a similar system and their standards are higher than the Hall. Although they have basically the same amount of members, the worst players in the HoM are better than the worst players in the HoF.

    Comment by Erik — January 10, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

  114. It’s true that taking a mandatory 2 players every year would generally result in defensible choices, but the way those players would be inducted doesn’t sit well with me. Take the “extra” induction of Steve Garvey in 1998, for instance. He’d be a Hall of Famer despite getting only 41 percent of those vote. Well under half the electorate thought he was a Hall of Famer, and yet there he’d be.

    I’m all for reforming the voting process, but the 75 percent rule has been consistently applied in every Hall election ever. If you start letting in players who received less that that, let alone less than half the votes, that’s fundamentally changing what it means to be in the Hall of Fame.

    Comment by Ian R. — January 10, 2012 @ 4:23 pm

  115. My view is the hall should take the top 1% at each position.

    Comment by kick me in the GO NATS — January 10, 2012 @ 5:47 pm

  116. Music, perhaps.. But, Rock and Roll?

    Comment by Cidron — January 11, 2012 @ 12:24 am

  117. I do think it is funny that the MVP vote comes down to the word “valuable”, but the Hall of Fame vote never comes down to the word “fame”.

    Comment by Nick44 — January 13, 2012 @ 1:13 am

  118. Brian Giles
    black ink: 2
    grey ink: 57
    HOF monitor: 53

    Jim Rice
    black ink: 33
    grey ink: 176
    HOF monitor: 146

    Comment by bro2baseball — July 17, 2012 @ 6:12 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


 

Close this window.

3.566 Powered by WordPress