My 2009 Hall of Fame ballot
Let's begin with a confession: I am a Hall of Fame voting flip-flopper.
I learned last year what this means. 2008 marked my second year as a voter, and I changed my mind on some people, and boy, did I hear it from people. Which is, of course, what makes voting for the Hall such a privilege. Because people care that much.
So let me try once more to explain why this, my third ballot, is different than my second ballot, which differed from my first:
Because I _ like most of us, I'd think _ am trying to get better at life every year.
I tried to be a better father in 2008 than I was in 2007. A better husband. A better friend.
I stopped buying black-and-white cookies in the middle of the day. My wife just purchased me a Fruit of the Month Club membership for Hanukkah.
And the same goes for my job. I'd like to think I tried my darndest on my 2008 ballot. But I nearly gagged when I read this passage:
Jack Morris: His numbers might not stand out among the all-time greats, and this is a vote on which I could change in the future. Right now, I view him as the best of his time period (1977-94). The last starting pitcher to get voted in on the BBWAA ballot, interestingly, was Nolan Ryan in 1999. Morris deserves it, in my mind, because his innings pitched (3,824) back up his reputation as a workhorse; because his 254 wins reflect the fact that he hung around games for so many decisions; and because of his postseason excellence. Yes.
If I could get my hands on a DeLorean and some plutonium, I would go back to Dec. 20, 2007 and smack '07 Davidoff upside the head, like 2015 Biff did to 1955 Biff in "Back to the Future Part II." Citing pitchers' wins and a postseason record which is not as good as advertised? Oy vey.
A year ago, I'm not even sure I fully understood OPS+ and ERA+. Now, they are staples of my analytical diet. Perhaps I will be using more sophisticated tools a year from now.
My point being, to lock in on a Hall of Fame decision and stick to it is to rule out future, deeper levels of understanding - that we're all trying to attain, at everything we do.
On a related note, I'm convinced more than ever that actually seeing these candidates play can be as much a hindrance as a benefit. When I think of these Hall of Fame candidates, I initially think of individual moments. For Morris, indeed, it's this game. For Andre Dawson, it's this game, because I attended it and it was part of his 1987 season that won him NL MVP honors. For Jim Rice, it's the entire 1978 season.
But Hall of Fame candidates shouldn't be judged on snapshots, IMHO. They should be evaluated on entire albums of information. The statistics stand the test of time. Our memories are not as reliable.
I'm going to keep working at this voting thing, for as long as it's still the BBWAA's responsibility. And to me, to keep working at it means to keep processing new information. Even if it results in some flip-flops.
Now, the ballot, please:
Harold Baines: For a DH, he just didn't do enough. No.
Jay Bell: I laughed when, looking over his baseball-reference.com page, I was reminded that he concluded his career with the awful 2003 Mets. What typifies that team better than the fact that they have three candidates on this list? In Bell, David Cone and Mo Vaughn, they had three excellent players at their respective bitter ends. No.
Bert Blyleven: No flip-flopping on this guy: Three ballots, three Yeses. The high number of losses should be ignored, as should all the homers he allowed. The guy could deal. He passed the 200-innings pitched mark 16 times. He struck out 3,701 batters. He's in.
David Cone: One of my all-time favorite people whom I covered, and man, he had some terrific years. Not enough, however. When you compare his innings pitched (2,899) with starting pitchers already in the Hall and even Cone's competitors on this very ballot, the affable right-hander falls short. No.
Andre Dawson: A yes in my first two years, but that career .323 on-base percentage really, really bothers me. In that MVP year in '87, he tallied a .328 OBP. Yeesh. Yes, he was highly respected for the way he played the game, but I'm no longer comfortable including him among the elite. No.
Ron Gant: First words that came to my head when I saw his name on the ballot: "Motorcycle accident" (mentioned here). No.
Mark Grace: A very nice career, but not one that merits serious consideration for induction. No.
Rickey Henderson: I look forward to reading the explanation from any voter who doesn't put first-year candidate Rickey on his ballot. Need I even waste time and space elaborating on my Yes vote?
My favorite personal Rickey story came in spring training 2002, when Henderson _ with the Red Sox at this point _ styled after hitting a homer off Orlando Hernandez. El Duque, always on edge, started yelling at Rickey, who shouted back. Afterward, while speaking to the media, Rickey repeatedly referred to Hernandez as "The Duque."
Tommy John: A medical pioneer of sorts, and a darn good pitcher, before and after his surgery. Never quite dominant, however. No.
Don Mattingly: Here's a guy whose career I know about as well as anyone's, and yet the annual look at his b-r page always jolts me. Good Lord, was he phenomenal from 1984 through 1987, and then still excellent in 1988 and 1989, and then he turned into Mark Grace. Please, don't give me the "His numbers were similar to Kirby Puckett's!" line. Puckett played in the middle of the diamond. No.
Mark McGwire: We surely are going to elect some players who used illegal performance-enhancing drugs, and who got away with it. But does that mean we should not punish those for whom we have accumulated evidence? To the contrary, I think that we should use these discoveries to our advantage.
I'm comfortable with what has been gathered on McGwire. Keep in mind that his infamous "I'm not here to talk about the past" proclamation came about a month after he categorically denied using illegal PEDs to "60 Minutes." Once he was under oath, in other words, his tune changed.
When you throw in the fact that McGwire offered to admit steroid usage in return for immunity at that 2005 Congressional hearing _ a fact first divulged by Congressman Tom Davis, and which I have confirmed through an independent source _ then my burden of proof has been satisfied. No. And he would be a Yes for me based solely on his career.
Jack Morris: I absolutely was leaning on my childhood and adolesecent impressions when I voted yes on him the prior two years. A fresh look at the numbers convinces me that he's just not there. A 105 ERA+? A 3.90 ERA? 2,478 strikeouts in 3,824 innings pitched? No.
Dale Murphy: His career reminds me a litte bit of Mattingly's: A handful of elite years surrounded by some decent seasons. No.
Jesse Orosco: Talk about snapshots. But No, of course.
Dave Parker: One of my favorite players when I was a kid, and when I watched the 1979 World Series on DVD, last year, I was struck again how Parker was far and away the best player on the field. Nevertheless, I switched to No last year, and I'm going to stick with that. His length of career makes him an interesting candidate, but the .339 on-base percentage and the fact that he had just one elite season (1985) after 1979 deterred me from supporting him.
Dan Plesac: A great guy and great quote, as you'll see when he appears on the MLB Network as an analyst. That said, No.
Tim Raines: Here's an instance in which I think first-hand observation does impact my decision. Because I got to see what kind of teammate Raines was. He was great with Joe Torre's Yankees from 1996 through 1998, keeping everyone loose with his sense of humor and talking hitting with the younger players on the team.
Now, that written, I think Raines is a Yes, anyway. His personality just strengthens the argument. Raines played long enough that he produced what felt like two distinct careers _ the first (1981-95) as an underappreciated leadoff hitter, the latter (1996-2002) as a very productive part-time player.
Such longevity produced 390 win shares, a statistic created by Bill James in which 400 win shares merits "absolute enshrinement" into the Hall, as this linked story states. Raines' .385 on-base percentage and extremely high stolen-base percentage (808 stolen bases in 954 attempts, an 85 percent success rate) boost his candidacy, as does his .435 OBP with runners in scoring position.
As for his cocaine habit, that's not a disqualifying factor to me. He wasn't cheating; to the contrary, using coke very likely hurt his game. And while I respect Bob Tufts' opinion, always, I disagree with his assertion that we can make an easy link between cocaine usage and association with gamblers. That's too slippery a slope for my liking. As I've said to Bob, couldn't you say that a player's messy divorce and subsequent alimony payments make him more vulnerable to gamblers?
Jim Rice: Ah, Mr. Rice, the most controversial call of all. My first two years, he was a slam-dunk yes, no questions asked.
But to go back to my original premise of why I flip-flop, I'm not blind to what's out there. I've read the many arguments in favor of and against Mr. Rice's induction. And many of them have stuck with me.
The home-road splits are remarkable. Then I re-read Howard Bryant's superb book about the Red Sox's history of racism, "Shut Out," and thought, "True, Rice benefited from playing at Fenway Park. But it was no gift to be playing in Boston in his time period." I e-mailed this thought to Howard, and he admitted he had never regarded Rice's HOF candidacy through that prism.
The offensive totals fall short, and his .8539 career OPS ties him for 147th all-time. He trails his era mates Reggie Smith (.855) and Jack Clark (.8543).
At the end, having it pounded into my head that Rice was "feared," I looked at some of his offensive splits (you also can see the home-away disparity here):
Runners in Scoring Position: .371 OBP/.501 SLG//872 OPS. A better OBP than overall, one tick lower in slugging.
2 outs, runners in scoring position: .358/.414/.773. Better OBP by a little, and much worse SLG.
Late and close: .337/.453/.791. So when the "chips were down," as they say, he was 53 points of OPS worse than overall.
When you throw in his poor defense, I went with No. I'm sure he'll get in anyway, in his final year of eligibility, and I won't lose a wink of sleep over it.
Lee Smith: For some reason, I voted him on my first ballot two years ago, and now, I find him an easy No. What strikes me most is his 1.256 WHIP - so much worse than modern closers like Mariano Rivera (1.020) and Trevor Hoffman (1.049).
Alan Trammell: A no in '07, a yes last year and now a Yes again. He had seven seasons of a 120 OPS+ or better - great for a shortstop (Cal Ripken, Jr. also had seven such campaigns, and Ozzie Smith zero). His defense was excellent.
Greg Vaughn: No.
Mo Vaughn: I was blown away when I saw the career 132 OPS+. But he was done at age 35. And he didn't quite remind Mets fans (or Red Sox fans, or Angels fans) of Keith Hernandez with the leather. No.
Matt Williams: No, because of both this and this.
Sorry for the delay in getting this out. Been busy here in Motown. Attended this game tonight. The Pistons do an amazing job of catering to young fans. I'm curious to see how much New York's new ballparks, football stadium and arenas do that.
Thanks to this site, this site and this site for the photos.
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (84)
Ken, I appreciate the fact that you put so much effort into this. And I respect your reasoning for the flip flopping. And I really like that you're willing to change a yes to a no, and not just a no to a yes. That said, I am not flip-flopping on my opinion of your flip flopping. But at least I understand.
Also, I dont know if you meant to put links on Matt Williams but it didn't work. Or were you just saying he was done at 35??
A few questions. Would McGwire be a yes without steroids? Are you going to vote in guys like Bonds and Clemens who would be sure yesses even if they never used steroids?
Here's why I could see someone saying no to Rickey Henderson. He obviously didn't respect the game. Obviously. He was one of the greatest jakers of all time. His career three-baggers is ATROCIOUS for someone with his speed and hits. And if the 4th greatest hustler of all-time cant even get on the ballot (Pete Rose...behind Stearns, Hudler, Andy Fox) than I in good concious probably cant vote for Rickey. Now I'm not saying I'd vote no to Rickey. I'd probably begrudgingly vote yes. He's an obvious HOFer. But its guys like him that make this sport suck sometimes. I missed the Larsen game but wanted to watch it to see if players hustled or not.
BTW, baseball is the only sport where players dont try their hardest. Sad. And Rickey being Rickey and Manny being Manny are prime reasons why guys like Burrell and Rocco will turn doubles into singles in Game 5 of the World Series. Rickey was the greatest leadoff hitter of all time, and he was bad for the game. And please...I know he was great and helped his team win. But he could have been greater and helped his team win more if he only tried. Which he didn't always do.
Richie, for once, you and I are on the same wavelength! ;) As you were writing your comment, I was reading my post and fixing many of the questions you asked (McGwire, Matt Williams). Re: Rose, please keep in mind that his not being on the ballot is not a BBWAA decision, but a commissioner's decision.
Ken, you are a giant among small puny sportswriting men and women.
Blyleven
Henderson
Trammell
Raines
Thank you thank you thank you. What a great treat upon my return from a night on the town.
If only the other members of the BBWAA were so willing to look at new/better ways of evaluating players. Reaffirmed my faith in Newsday with this single post.
Bravo. Keep the great work coming.
Ken, of course I know about Rose and his ridiculous ban. His ban is ridiculous because of Steve Howe, all the confirmed steroid cheaters, Gary Sheffield (even if he didn't really throw a ballgame, he said he did), and so on and so forth. Whether Pete Rose should be on the ballot doesn't really interest me, but he should be allowed back in baseball.
What a truly wacky sport this is. If only Rose had beat the living crap out of his wife, spit on an umpires face, played the game as if he didn't care, refused to slide bc he had crack/cocaine in his pocket. He'd be welcomed back with open arms.
Sorry, fired up this morning. Nothing to do with your blog or James K. stats.
Ken:
I think you did a credible job here. It's difficult to argue with your choice. All of them seem quite worthy. I especially like Blyleven who tends to be overlooked in this era of 6 inning starters that are backed up by middle relief, set-up men and closers. The guy was a horse and he won for teams that were slightly better than mediocre a good part of his career.
With regard to your experience in family sports experience in Detroit, my son and I drove to Chapel Hill last week to catch the Tar Heels vs Rutgers in Basketball. What an experience! The people at UNC cater to families and the atmosphere seems to reflect a modern day "Hoosiers". The arena staff were polite and accomodating, and more than willing to help make the experience memorable in every way. In spite of 20 hours of driving in 2 days, this was a memorable trip for my 14 year old in every possible way.
Happy New Year. I look forward to reading your blog and in print in 2009.
Dear Mr. Davidoff:
Those of us who tend to get much of our info through online and statistical sources get deserved heat for our tendency to heap derision on those who differ from our views. Count me as one who thinks we ought to provide more praise to those who look at these issues with an open mind. Your effort to understand the qualifications of the candidates and make a reasoned choice is much appreciated by this fan.
Ken - Concerning Tim Raines, here's what you wrote:
"As for his cocaine habit, that's not a disqualifying factor to me. He wasn't cheating; to the contrary, using coke very likely hurt his game. And while I respect Bob Tufts' opinion, always, I disagree with his assertion that we can make an easy link between cocaine usage and association with gamblers. That's too slippery a slope for my liking. As I've said to Bob, couldn't you say that a player's messy divorce and subsequent alimony payments make him more vulnerable to gamblers?"
Evidently I failed, miserably, to make my point, to wit:
Cocaine is illegal. A person cannot possess it, sell it or use it legally. It is a felony. In order for Tim Raines to obtain it, he had to deal with a criminal, when he bought and used it, he became a criminal. The fact he wasn't charged and found guilty is meaningless because he admitted to it. It cannot be equated with divorce, alimony (or drinking/DWI as others have tried to do), because those things happen out in the open, not behind close doors. The purchase of alcohol is legal. A DWI arrest/conviction is a matter of public record.
A player that obtains and uses illegal drugs is at the mercy of those who have aided him and know about it. Don't you see this as a potential invitation for unsavory characters to exercise undue influence on him? How can such a person be put into the HOF?
Rose was a manager. Rose bet on baseball. There are signs in every clubhouse and in every ballpark that betting is against the rules. Every ballplayers knows they cannot gamble on baseball. Rose lied about his conduct for many, many years. Baseball knew he was lying because his fingerprints were on the betting slips that baseball had obtained. Rose disgraced himself and disgraced the game. Rose does not belong in the HOF.
Normally, I would agree that it was wrong to take Rose's HOF eligibility out of the hands of the electors. But, we have seen certain individuals (and will soon see others) elected to the HOF that have no business being in Cooperstown. Thus, it seems plausible that these same people would have eventually elected Rose, too. That would have been a travesty.
Rose played the game hard. Rose isn't a nice guy. Rose's conduct has clearly disqualified him from ever being a member of the HOF.
Richie: Rose broke baseball rules, not federal laws, so they can do whatever they please with him. Banning him for gambling for life is understood by every player.
Ken, Bill Conlan won't vote for Rickey because he's a first-timer and on principle (from back when he didn't vote for Tom Seaver) he doesn't vote for first-timers. And imagine how great Rickey would have been if he actually had a good attitude.
An OPS which is tied for 147th all-time stinks? Out of how many players? Maybe that's being a bit hard on Rice.
Overall a decent job and at least you take your responsibility seriously and don't throw away votes on guys clearly not qualified.
Mr. Davidoff congrats on your ballot. Here's what I wrote on Baseballthinkfactory.com:
This is the most enlightened sports writer I've seen in a long time (does not include those who have always known like Pos). He realized he didn't understand statistics and actually decided to learn instead of just arguing that what he knew from 20 years ago was correct regardless of the facts. He then applied that learning to the players on the ballot and changed his mind for rational reasons not emotional ones. This is just outstanding and those who write about Raines, Trammell, and Blyleven should continue their efforts. The flat world society might be changing slowly but surely.
Say hi to Mark La Monica in the newsroom, when you get a chance.
Blastmaster: Say hello to Al Gore for me at the next meeting of the Global Warming Society.
Just so you know, there was a person that post a comment earlier that had the same name that I do and that was not me who posted that comment. So I wanted everybody to know so that nobody gets confuse.
Ken, on your 2009 HOF ballot you voted Yes to Henderson, Blyleven, Raines and Trammell. And you voted No on Rice, Dawson, Morris and McGwire because of being accuse of using illegal PEDs. Do you think Rice and Dawson are being hurt in the ballot by the inflame stats players are putting up in the steroids era?
When Rose was ban from baseball in’89, he was not yet eligible to be voted in the writer’s ballot. So the writers were not allow to vote for Rose because he was put on the ineligible list before he was eligible. Rose put himself in this situation because if not for betting on baseball, he would be in the HOF already. I remember when Lawrence Taylor was eligible for the Pro Football HOF for the first time and voters were concern about his behavior and his past used of drugs but he got voted in on the first ballot. Granted, the Pro Football HOF voting is much different than the Baseball HOF voting is.
Jack if I hear that stupid argument about a dumb sign I'm going to scream!! It also says no pepper games but I've seen coaches and players playing pepper. I'm quite certain it is illegal to take steroids now, yet players that take steroids routinely are allowed to play ball. A spit ball, corked bat are illegal yet Niekro and Sosa aren't banned.
Like I said, if only Rose would have murdered, raped, littered, spat on an ump, he'd be welcome back with open arms by the powers that be.
Manny Ramirez struck out on purpose vs. Mariano Rivera this year. He intentionally tried to make his team lose. Gary Sheffield admitted to making errors on purpose. These are the people that MLB should ban. If Selig only had some guts. Which he doesn't.
I'm not a big Pete Rose supporter. But he deserves to be allowed back in the game in full capacity. I find it unbelievable that rapists, murderers, wife-beaters, steroid abusers, drug addicts, cheaters, and players who lose intentionally are not even suspended, yet the guy who played the game with as much passion as anyone, cant be given a second chance.
"Bill Conlan won't vote for Rickey because he's a first-timer and on principle (from back when he didn't vote for Tom Seaver) he doesn't vote for first-timers."
Bill Conlin has already voted for Rickey Henderson.
"And that well-intended but seriously misguided "statement" was foremost in my thoughts yesterday morning when I checked Rickey Henderson on a ballot that included holdovers Jim Rice (last chance), Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven."
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/20081230_Bill_Conlin__Rickey_Henderson__Hall_of_a_player.html
OK, Richie. Let me pose this question to you: Should Joe Jackson's ban be lifted and should he be elected to the HOF? After all, he was an illiterate, who played very well in the 1919 WS.
I completely disagree with you on Rose. He bet on baseball. He bet on games involving his own team. He is also a convicted felon who served time in a federal prison. He lied through his teeth for years and years and years. I have listened to him many times and walked away believing that he doesn't think he did anything wrong, only that he got caught.
Pete Rose wasn't just a player failing to make a catch. He was the manager of a team of 25 players who controlled the line-up, the pitching staff, who played, who batted where, who pitched and when. There is a big difference. Rose is a disgrace.
I am going to try this one more time:
Pete Rose didn't go to OTB to place a bet on baseball. He went to a criminal. When an act occurs in the shadows and not in the open the person committing it is open to blackmail, etc. Read "Eight Men Out," Eliot Asinof's book on the Black Sox Scandal and you will see that even when Lefty Williams wanted out of the plot, the gamblers made it clear what would happen if he didn't throw the game.
To equate a corked bat with placing bets with the underworld is ridiculous. Gambling is against baseball's rules because of the very real possibility of a player being owned by the Mob. This isn't fantasy. It has happened. Take a look at recent NBA history. Look at NCAA history.
You're wrong about Dawson, who impacted games in every way possible. And you better pray Rice doesn't miss by a single vote.
That sounds like a threat, Dan. You should be aware that frequent commenter Dennis works for the CIA and has made quite a few people disappear. Legend has it the people end up trapped in a room with Murray Chass discussing "value" over stats. Beware!
Dennis, I agree with everything you have written over the past two years.
Jack, what is the danger of betting on baseball? Is the danger making your team lose because you're in debt?
Then what is the difference between him and Manny Ramirez and Gary Sheffield, who both tried to make their team lose? They are disgraces as well.
There has never been any proof or even speculation, that Pete Rose tried to make his team lose. Yes I know he may manage a game differently if he has money on it. But we have two real cases of players intentionally trying to make his team lose. What about Derek Bell when he said he was going on Operation Shutdown? That is intentionally trying to make his team lose.
What about drug addicts who cant stay on the field because of their habit? That would make their team lose.
Of course what Rose did was horribly wrong. But he paid a price that no other man besides Joe Jackson (unless I'm missing someone) has had to pay. I think if you're going to ban Rose for life, fine. I'm ok with that. But lets ban Manny, Sheffield and a lot of others. They compromised the game.
As for him lying. So what?? There is no rule against lying. Its not a good trait, but I'd rather shake a liars hand than a murderers or rapist. And that Mets pitcher that murdered someone (not sure if he's convicted) was not even fined or suspended! Nor will he be. So I dont see what is wrong with lying, comparitavely speaking.
Pete Rose couldn't bet legally, so he went to criminals to bet. This is how they come to own a person. They knew if they exposed him he would be ruined. He knew that, too. The monetary loss/debt is another factor. Did Pete Rose hold back a pitcher one day? We don't know and we shouldn't even have to ask the question.
Pete Rose should have admitted what he did. If he made a full confession, he probably would have been suspended for several years and then readmitted. When he kept up the angry and bitter denials, while baseball knew without any doubt that he was guilty as sin, he doomed himself. He is an egotiscal loser in the sense that he lost his profession due to a lack of humility.
When you want those in power to look kindly on you and forgive your transgressions it would behoove you to tell the truth, both privately and publicly.
I was friends with a HOF sportswriter who looked at the original evidence. He said it was overwhelming. He was completely opposed to Rose being elected to the HOF. This is a guy who counted the HOF ballots for two decades.
Since I am failing to make any traction here, maybe Bob Tufts will come along and lend a hand.
Jack, what does Bub Tufts have to do with this?!?!?
And its not that you're not making traction. But please answer this.
What is the danger of Pete Rose betting on baseball? Is the danger him intentionally losing games?
Manny and Sheffield intentionally threw games. Do you think they should be suspended for life or even at all?
And yes, Pete Rose is egotistical and of course he should have come clean. But when did honesty become a rule in baseball? Why is that important? Why is honesty more important than treating women with respect and not murdering people??
If Pete Rose is banned for life for gambling fine. But him being honest about it should have no bearing on whether he's allowed back or not.
Bob is trained in the law, was active with the MLBPA and the retired player's assn. and is quite learned, IMHO - plus his reputation is impeccable.
Can Pete Rose place a legal bet on baseball? The danger is that he can become "owned" by those who know what he is going, he can fall into debt, etc.
If Manny and Sheffield threw games and it can be proved, yes of course they should be suspended. Rose violated baseball's cardinal rule, which has been in effect for more than 80 years and which every player since 1919 knew all too well.
When an inmate comes before the parole board they have to admit what they did or they don't get paroled. Rose knew baseball had the goods on him but he couldn't admit it publicly because of his ego. He lied to us, the fans. He is not worthy of your defense of him.
Most of us try to lead honest lives. The tales associated with Rose's conduct are incredible. I read detailed accounts of what he was up to. This wasn't someone placing a couple of dollars on a game. Please investigate this a little bit. What he was into is incredible. It was easy to see how he could easily become a desperate person. His gambling was all-consuming.
Jack, you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from. I have no problem with Rose being banned for life. He broke a cardinal sin. But so did Manny and Sheffield. Sheffield admitted his crime. There is enough proof for me that Manny intentionally tried to lose as well. He wasn't just not hustling, he was basically walking to first base and then didn't swing at three straight strikes. He is not worthy of your defense as well.
My point isn't that Rose deserves a second chance. its that all those other players deserve to be permanantly banned as well. If you intentionally throw a game, what greater sin is there in baseball?? Sheff admitted it, and Manny was way too obvious about it.
This is Sheffield's quote. The Brewers brought out the hate in me. I was a crazy man... I hated everything about the place. If the official scorer gave me an error, I didn't think was an error, I’d say, 'OK, here’s a real error,' and I'd throw the next ball into the stands on purpose.'"
He later recanted it, but sorry, of course he's going to recant his statement.
So its hard for me to see the best hustler of all time who played the game the right way not be able to be part of the game, when two known game throwers are not even punished.
Now that's a ballot!
Now this is just a guess, but I think those of us regulars who favor Trammell and Raines are younger than those who don't. I'm glad to see Ken hit the point that despite what our memories might tell us some players were much better than they looked to our eyes (Trammell), and others while seemingly feared (Rice) and/or graceful complete athletes (Dawson, Parker) really didn't affect the game the way it seemed. Here in Atlanta amongst Brave fans it's called the Jeff Francoeur syndrome.
Jack you're one tough son-of-a-gun. I think the fact Raines overcame his early career addiction and proved himself a great player is a wonderful story. So while I can see your point in a vacuum, we don't live in vacuums, and I'm glad second chances are available in life. Though I do agree about Rose. As great a player as he was, his ban is well deserved.
whynot: I like Tim Raines and applaud his career and what he did with his "second chance." I just don't think he should be in the HOF. I never said he should have been banned from baseball. There are shooting wars being fought in South America over cocaine. Murder, kidnapping, bribery, etc., are the norm. This isn't the "clear" or the "cream" or even pot. This is bad stuff. I have nothing against Raines personally. I like Raines.
Guys - check with the Dowd Report regarding Rose. He bet on his own team during two seasons that he was player/manager. He was constantly upset in September that Riverfront was not updating footballl scores quickly enough, and dispatched players like John Franco to watch TV and report to him, according to my sources He bet on some of his pitchers, and did not bet on the Reds when others pitched. So in effect he was signalizing to the gambling community he was not of the opinion that he could win that day. And on the days he bet, did he use his bullpen more often in order to win at the expense of having a ready arm (and therefore "throw the game" )the next day when he may need it? He sued MLB in court in Hamilton County, lied for money in one book and only told the the truth for money in another book that was released the day before the HOF announcements one year in a poor PR ploy.
Great player, filthy human being...who hung around people who were bookies and invloved in drugs.
--
As for cocaine....it is personal with me as some of you know. My name cane up in the KC part of the scandal, according to a federal judge that I know. The feds wiretapped phones of players in order to ensnare the guilty. These bastards who used were besmirching the game of baseball and their teammates by their actions. THIS IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF SOMEONE YOU SHOULD HONOR IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
I will not let any statement regarding cocaine usage go unchallenged - sorry! In 1985, it cost me a job at Morgan Stanley, as it came up in the interview and in some background checks. I will not accept being collateral damage to people who ruined my career, reflected poorly on themselves and the game and violated federal laws.
--
As for other personal issues, would Kirby Puckett be in the HOF if his wife-beating and harrassment problems were known? Would MLB and the HOF risk a backlash by his induction?
Bob I am sorry for what happened to you. It is unfair. And again, I am not defending Pete Rose. Personally, I could care less if he is allowed back or not. My beef is with singling him out.
Whenever someone wants to keep Rose's ban for life, they bring up two things.
1) That stupid sign.
2) His betting affected the way he managed.
Very fair points. So dont allow him back. But Rose never threw any games. If he didn't bet on the Reds, he still wanted to win. Its not like he tried to lose to make the next days odds better in his favor. He just didn't try as hard to win. There is a major difference. Its still terribly wrong, but not as bad as intentionally striking out or making errors.
If a player in the NHL intentionally scored goals for the other team, he would be suspended. If a player routinely shot baskets in for the opposition, he would be suspended. If an NFL player scored a TD for the other team (or a safety) he would be suspended. But because Buddy is so weak, the player isn't even admonished!!
Also, my opinion is if you are going to not vote for a player who used steroids, you souldn't vote for a player who used cocaine. Because at least steroids helped the team. By saying cocaine hurt the team, then why not penalize that player?
Having morals is good. But it shouldn't be selective. That's not fair or right.
Richie, we bring up the sign to make the point that it is front and center and no one can claim they didn't know it was banned. It is the First Commandment of baseball.
We will never know if the Reds lost a game because of Rose. As has been written, Rose held pitchers out on certain days. Did this cost his team games? A manager makes many decisions over the course of a game, series and the season. Rose wasn't betting a few bucks. Huge sums were involved. He was compromised by his actions. That's why baseball is firmly set against gambling by those involved in the game.
Jack, wwe are in agreement that Rose needed to be suspended.
But what about the other people that intentionally tried to lose? Shouldn't they be banned for life as well? And what more proof do you need than an admission by a player. And in that admission, I never saw the words, I'm sorry and I wont do it again.
RG:
The sign is on the door on the way to the field in every pro ballpark from rookie league on to the majors. Rose saw it a million times - did he think it did not apply to him? (Rule 21 was a result of the Black Sox scandal) It's a rule of the game and cannot be ignored.
Players like Tris Speaker and Cobb were supposed to have been involved in gambling in the early years of baseball, but thye were not pursued. It was only the potential destruction of the World Series that made inaction impossible due to the press attention.
What's the difference between "not trying hard enough to win" and "throwing the game"? I do not understand the difference. Rose was always playing to win - but it invovled money more than on field play at numerous times.
Ken - before I meander far down the road - good job on your ballot and logic in its presentation. I wish that all writers would be as unbiased and challenge their intellect.
Bob/Jack, fair point on the sign. And I'm not a Rose supporter.
But what Sheffield did isn't the same as not trying hard. Its trying hard to lose. Same as Manny.
As you all know, I dispise how these major leaguers play the game. I wish they all played with the same passion as Rose, Stearns, Hudler, Andy Fox. But I know that will never happen.
Heck, they stood out way back then which means that most players didn't play with their passion back then. But this is different. This is intentionally throwing a game.
And Ken, very good job with the way you thought it out and presneted your opinions. I actually think it should be mandatory.
Ken -
BEST.
HALL OF FAME BALLOT EXPLANATION BY A VOTER.
EVER.
I stand corrected on Bill Conlin, glad to see he has changed his views over the years, even if he was lambasted for it.
There are known cheaters in the HOF--Gaylord Perry cheated, Whitey Ford cheated, some of the guys who threw spitballs back in the old days after it was banned cheated. There are guys in the HOF who didn't live up to ethical standards: Babe Ruth (according to rumors), Ty Cobb was a racist, there are other bigots who played against Jackie Robinson. There are guys in the HOF who gambled. BUT NO PERSON WHO GAMBLED ON BASEBALL HAS EVER MADE IT. Pete Rose will never get in, they banned him and his presence from all baseball related activities. It's their game, it's their law. He's unrepentant and has cost himself all chance of redemption from baseball. It's not even something thats arguable. As far as Sheffield for all we know he was all talk. If he truly did what he said he did and they could prove he did it on purpose with documented proof of instances I bet they would have thrown his butt out. But Sheffield is a lot of talk, and a lot of people understand not to take a lot of what he says seriously. You need specifics to do it, and they had specifics on the Black Sox and Rose, not Sheffield. As far as Manny taking that strike out vs. Yankees last season, try and prove he did it on purpose. You can't. We "know" he did it, but where's the actual proof? He can't be touched.
Ken - now you can get a head start on the 2010 class and the DH debate regarding Edgar Martinez...
2010: Roberto Alomar, Kevin Appier, Andy Ashby, Ellis Burks, Dave Burba, Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, Ray Lankford, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mark McLemore, Shane Reynolds, David Segui, Robin Ventura, Fernando Vina, Todd Zeile
Sandy, if you look at his game log that season, there is a quite a few games where Sheffield made multiple errors. Why would he lie about it? Why dont you believe Sheffield that he did it, but dont believe Sosa that he didn't take steiroids?? Do you believe Sheffield that he didn't take steroids?? I mean if someone admits to the crime, I sorta tend to believe them.
As for Manny, I wish I saw the atbats but from what I heard, he walked to first on a few occassions. It seemed even his teamates thought he wasn't trying, so its not just me. I just dont like how there are one set of rules for some people but others not so much.
And if you wont banish Manny or Sheffield than what about Sheffield's Little League teammate Derek Bell who said he was goin on Operation Shutdown?? This is his quote. ""If it ain't settled with me out there, then they can trade me," Bell said. "I ain't going out there to hurt myself in spring training battling for a job. If it is (open competition), then I'm going into Operation Shutdown."
How can this guy not be banned for life?? It doesn't matter if he would't be able to get a job anyways, he still should be suspended for life.
I say this because the reason gambling is the Cardinal Sin in baseball is to protect the intergrity of the game. Its to ensure that players/managers gambling wont affect the outcome of a single game. Here are two clear examples of people doing just that, and another example of someone purposely not playing.
I just dont see how this can be so selective. The rules absolutely need to be changed to disallow people from losing on purpose.
The 2010 ballot is only 12 months away! Let the discussion begin.
My ballot next year would include:
Blyleven (who prob won't get elected this year)
Trammell (who definitely won't get elected this year)
Raines (ditto)
Roberto Alomar
Wait a second ... you mean to tell me that you realized you didn't know everything you needed to know about these guys already, so you did some research and discovered that some of your perceptions were inaccurate? Are you SURE you're a member of the BBWAA?
Check out the top 4 on the fan vote at Joe Posnanski's blog:
Henderson
Blyleven
Raines
Trammell
Looks like Ken and Joe Pos aren't the only well-informed ones out there...
Bob I asked Ken about Edgar Martinez last week on the blog and if he would consider voting for him, since he is the greatest DH of all-time and he said sure he would consider him. Now he didn't say he would vote for him, but he is a consideration.
Galarraga and McGriff are NOs and nobody else is worth considering.
Richie unless you have definitive, positive unquestionable proof that someone is guilty and did something wrong, you can't ban him. You can't ban him for running his mouth either. If you ban him, you better be sure because he's gonna sue. And, if you are wrong it's going to cost you big-time. Maybe for running his mouth Derek Bell wasn't banned for life, technically, but what happened to his career? He basically buries himself, no?
Richie I may be a bit off on this but the only three instances in baseball where people were banned had to do with consortation with criminals. The Black Sox gambling =Banned for life. Pete Rose gambling=banned for life. Leo Durocher banned in 1947 for having associations with gamblers and gangsters. I may be missing someone who was also suspended for something like a Gaylord Perry for cheating (and I'm not including Steinbrenner.)
There is no one in the 2010 ballot that you can say that will get in automatically in the 1st year. Out of the group only Roberto Alomar might have a chance to get in on his 1st year on the ballot. Edgar Martinez is a debatable player for the HOF because he was a DH his whole career and he’s the best DH ever. Dawson, Trammell, Blyleven, Morris and Raines might get a shot to get into the HOF in 2010. And Jim Rice will no longer be eligible if he doesn’t get in this year. The last time the BBWAA didn’t vote anyone into the HOF was in 1996 when nobody got to the 75% threshold.
One item, Ken, I think you may have moved your "watched them play" bias from Morris to Trammell.
One suspension of note - Judge Landis suspended Babe Ruth 39 games for barnstorming in the off-season. (Ican't be sure, but Ruth may have been playing vs. some non-white players, which was an affront to Landis)
and...in 1979, Willie Mays suspended from working in baseball by Bowie Kuhn for wanting to work in PR at a casino (reversed in 1985 by Ueberroth)
.
More than 20 players were banned in the 1940's for five year periods after they defied the commissioner and jumped to a new Mexican League. Among the players, I only recognize a few names, although Rogers Hornsby jumped to manage. At least 11 players sued to regain their eligibility, including someone named Danny Gardella, who filed a suit in federal court on anti-trust/reserve clause grounds. After he won a 2-1 appellate court decision in NY that set the stage for what appeared would be a successful suit against MLB and the overturning of the reserve clause, the owners folded, readmitted Gardella and other players and settled with him for $60K - a pretty good sum of money back then.
B--ie K suspended Denny McLain for three months in 1970 after his extensive bookmaking activities were detailed in national magazines.
Sports Illustrated even ran a story that said McLain had his foot injured late in 1967 when a mobster stomped on it for failing to pay off a losing bet.
Gambling brought down Denny McLain and brought him into contact with mobsters. Read about McLain's last 40 years and you will see how gambling can ruin a player's career and life.
Ken,
Hey bud, it's Dave from NY Sports Dog. Nice writeup as always.
I think Rice belongs, and I take your criticism of his stats with the same amount of thought as you did in your piece here.
I'd only ask that you look at the same home and away stats for Ryne Sandberg, Carl Yastrzemski, and Ernie Banks.
Ryne:
H: .300 .361 .491 .853
A: .269 .326 .412 .738
Yaz:
H: .306 .402 .503 .891
A: .264 .357 .422 .692
Ernie:
H: .287 .345 .532 .877
A: .258 .312 .463 .775
As you can see, these three great players, and really, they are all slam dunk HoF'ers IMO, all suffered from the same "Home and Away" issue that is currently the rage in denigrating Rice.
We can also look at more players ad nauseum to see where they faltered....for example, Yaz, in his entire career, had a .466 Slg % with RISP, Rice was .508.
In any event, as a stats-guy myself, I think it's important that we don't pick and choose "too much" when evaluating players. I don't disagree with your 4 choices, I just disagree with your take on Jim Rice.
He belongs.
Thanks for all of the feedback. Very much appreciated.
OK, catching up:
I changed that first "Dennis" to "Different Dennis." This blog has space for only one "Dennis," thank goodness ;)
Dennis, I can speak only for myself: I compare players among their own eras. I compared Dawson and Rice to Reggie Jackson and Rickey Henderson, not Sammy Sosa.
Sandy, I never wrote that Rice's OPS "stunk." I wrote it wasn't elite.
Dave, fair points on the home/road splits for Sandberg, Yaz and Banks. Yet I would counter that Sandberg played in the middle of the diamond, and Yaz and Banks both crushed Rice on the longevity front.
Now, the two big ones:
1) Richie: To echo Sandy, surely you appreciate the value of evidence. There is a mountain of evidence that Pete Rose bet on baseball. The implications of his actions are staggering, as artfully explained by Jack and Bob Tufts. There is nothing more damaging you can do than gamble on baseball.
What is your evidence on Sheffield? Only his words. Tom Verducci, while doing a Sports Illustrated story on Sheffield in 2004, conducted painstaking research to see if Sheff actually did throw balls into the stands on purpose. Tom found nothing. Sheff is certifiable. If a crazy person said, "I murdered someone," and it turned out that person absolutely DID NOT murder anyone, would you try the person for murder, anyway?
I witnessed Manny's at-bat against Rivera. It was fishy as hell. But again, we're talking about "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." What if the super-attorney hired by Scott Boras argued, "Mariano Rivera's cut fastball is the most devastating pitch in baseball history. Manny misread all three of them"? Unless David Ortiz flipped and said, "Manny told me he purposely did that," there would be no case.
So for you to say that there is a different standard for Rose, to me, is to ignore the actual facts of each case.
2) Jack and Bob T. Bob, you know that I am horribly sorry for your association with the Royals' cocaine scandal in the '80s. I can't really win in a debate with you here, since you have a very personal story connected to this.
But I do think that to say Raines was connected with "unsavory characters," to use Jim's wording, is a leap I'm not willing to make. Raines easily could have been 10 degrees removed from such a character. The character might have had no idea that his stuff was making its way to Tim Raines.
Cocaine was readily available in the 1980s, in particular. I certainly remember fellow college students using it at parties.
I don't think an off-the-field felony should disqualify a player from HOF consideration.
When Rickey Henderson fails to get 100% of votes, we'll have people like this guy to thank:
http://www.gvnews.com/articles/2008/12/10/sports/sports03.txt
He didn't vote for Rickey, but DID vote for:
- Matt Williams
- Don Mattingly
- Andre Dawson
- Tommy John
- Alan Trammell
- Tim Raines
- Jim Rice
- Bert Blyleven
Dave,
A couple things - Yaz's road OPS was .779 not .692. Just a typo probably.
Sandberg is a marginal HOF'er. But he was a strong defensive player at a premium position. The same cannot be said about corner OF/DH Jim Rice.
Banks played SS for half his career and was a great fielder - also at a premium position.
Yaz was an above average fielder as well, and had a much longer career and a better peak than Rice. Rice was a poor fielder at an easy position.
Rice career WARP3: 80.2
Yaz career WARP3: 131.7
Banks career WARP3: 119.9
Sandberg career WARP3: 108.7
WARP3 takes defense and position into account. Not a perfect stat but it's better than a lot out there. Your point about home/road splits is not lost on me, but these 3 you listed are better candidates than Rice as all around players (defense, position adjustment).
Yaz vs Rice:
H: .306 .402 .503 .904
A: .264 .357 .422 .779
H: .320 .374 .546 .920
A: .277 .330 .459 .789
Against:
RH: .299 .398 .492 .891
LH: .244 .321 .371 .692
RH: .293 .340 .495 .836
LH: .313 .382 .521 .903
RISP:
.289 .405 .466 .871
.308 .371 .501 .872
Men On:
.290 .389 .469 .858
.305 .359 .509 .868
2 Outs/RISP
.256 .423 .406 .829
.270 .358 .414 .773
Late and Close:
.279 .375 .454 .830
.274 .337 .453 .791
Now I love Yaz...a slam-dunk, no-brainer HoF'er.
But these stats clearly illustrate how you can take stat sets to paint any picture you want.
Yaz was mediocre away from Fenway, and he was a liability against LH pitching....BUT, he is clearly a HoF'er.
At the end of the day, it's the career that matters.
Rice did enough.
I'm not sure... at this point... what goes through some of the writer's heads on this subject but Andre Dawson has the following credentials :
8 Time All-Star
8 Time Gold Glove
MVP 1987
Rookie of the Year 1977
36th in HR
34th in RBI
25th in Total Bases
23rd in Extra Base Hits
Those sure look like HOF numbers to me.
As far as McGuire.. 12 time All-Star and the most
Home Runs per/at bat in history.. by a lot. More than
Bonds Ruth Aaron...by alot. He deserves it ...by a lot !!!
Bob Tufts said
One suspension of note - Judge Landis suspended Babe Ruth 39 games for barnstorming in the off-season. (I can't be sure, but Ruth may have been playing vs. some non-white players, which was an affront to Landis)
________________________________
Having just finished Leigh Montville's Ruth biography, I can say that the suspension for barnstorming had nothing to do with non-white players. Not only did many players participate in games against non-white teams but baseball had on its books a rule which stated that players from the World Series could not barnstorm, due to a fear that they might "tarnish" the legitimacy of the World Series result by re-playing the games afterwards. Baseball wanted a clear winner and no rematches allowed. The fact that Ruth's barnstorming had nothing to do with any "rematch" didn't save him from Landis' wrath.
I do not think it is a writer's place to judge HoF worthiness based on anything beyond the numbers, PED-inflated or not. Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro - all should be in. They are all products of their era, shameful as it is.
Dave, I totally agree that people are very selective on what stats they use. I think the home vs. away stats are only fair if you're using Colorado. Its not like every batter is automatically a superstar bc they play in Fenway or Wrigley. Though the one thing I disagree with you on, is I dont think Sandberg is an automatic HOFer. Ken, would you have voted for him?
As for Rose, guys...he bet on baseball. I never denied that. And I also think he should have been punished. But so should have Sheffield. Even if he didn't do what he said he did, he should have been punished for his words. Saying you're intentionally trying to lose doesn't fly in my book. A message NEEDED to be sent and it wasn't. I dont see how no one sees what he says is totally wrong.
And if you dont think words should get you suspended, why did John Rocker get suspended??? Which btw is totally ridiculous, but thats another story. Its the one time I would have rooted for the Players Association had they argued that.
I dont have a HOF vote so I obviously haven't done the research that Ken does. But I think my stance would be, if I'm going to punish the steroid users, I'd have to punish the cocaine users. Yes the steroids helped, but was it cheating back then? Were there any rules against it? I dont think so, so I dont think its fair to punish them, if you're not going to punish them for cocaine.
Great job, Ken. That's the perfect ballot, or about as close to perfect as I've ever seen. I applaud you for taking the responsibility seriously, and for doing your best to educate yourself about the candidates. Flip-flopping gets a bad rap--it might not work for presidents, but it's often a good idea for the rest of us. No shame in changing your mind if it results in the best decision.
Ken, we obviously see illegal drug use differently. People involved in selling drugs are criminals. Taken as a whole, they are a ruthless group, responsible for the murder of civilians, soldiers, police and public officials across the globe. The have controlled entire nations in Central/Latin America. If Raines was given coke by his parish priest for free, it doesn't make it any less terrible. The priest would then be a criminal, too. I wonder what people would say if it was divulged that a drug addict player was forced to throw a game, etc? We might be hearing a different tune sung today.
I just want to be clear on this one and your point: If a player was convicted of murdering someone on Monday there wouldn't be a thing wrong with inducting him into the Hall of Fame on Tuesday? Character and behavior shouldn't matter one bit? As long as they could hit homeruns or get batters out, players could go on crime sprees away from the park and still expect to one day receive baseball’s ultimate honor? Doesn’t that sound ridiculous?
I fear for the world we live in and our society. I don't mean this as an attack on anyone who reads this or who has written here, but you really have to wonder how long a society like this can go on without disintegrating.
In case anyone is interested...my latest HOF ballot totals from Primer.
% on 56 Full HOF Ballots
98.2 - Rickey Henderson
80.3 - Jim Rice
76.7 - Bert Blyleven
----------------------------------------
67.2 - Andre Dawson
50.0 - Jack Morris
28.6 - Lee Smith
23.2 - Mark McGwire
23.2 - Tim Raines
21.4 - Tommy John
21.4 - Alan Trammell
Dan - thanks for the note and facts re: Leigh's book. Is it a good read?
I'd love to get Bob Feller talking about his barnstorming vs. Satchel Paige and take notes.
Montville's book is a good read, IMHO.
Murray Chass wrote in his column today that he voted for Henderson, Rice and Jack Morris for the HOF. He voted for Rice because he doesn't want to be responsible if the guy falls one vote short. He enthusiastically supports Morris. Chass couldn't vote for many years because as a 39-year employee of the NY Times, he was barred by the company. Chass also believes the BBWAA should not be voting on HOF members.
The sun must be in its 9th orbital turn, because me and James K. agree on something. That writer is one of the major reasons the BBWWA should be stripped of this responsibility.
If you dont vote for Rickey Henderson, I want the reason. If the reason is because he didn't care for the game, rarely tried hard, was a complete and utter embarressment despite his immense talent, than fine. I can absolutely live with that. But thats it. And he never even mentioned the reason.
Then he says he wont vote for McGwire bc of possible illegal steroids, and then he votes for Matt Williams!!! If you're not gonna do the research, then dont vote.
Richie, I'm sorry, but you want to discipline Sheffield for saying he did something he didn't do? Richie, pretend you're a prosecutor, or a police officer: How would you possibly have a case in this instance?
I had no problem with the Rocker suspension. His words were bigoted and hateful and really hurt people. As opposed to Sheffield's, which were just insane.
Jack, I view all of the HOF parameters _ including integrity, sportsmanship and character _ within the confines of the field. That's why illegal PEDs are a disqualifying factor for me. Yes, I would sleep well if a murderer was inducted (as long as the murder wasn't committed in the interests of helping one's team). We already have Ty Cobb in the Hall of Fame, and we seem to have survived that.
And the football HOF hasn't done anything to OJ either. Nor the Heisman Trophy committee.
Richie besides all of the other arguements why baseball wouldn't discipline Sheffield or Derek Bell or whoever for running their mouths, do you think if baseball even tried to do it without absolute and damaging proof the union would allow it?
Thanks for the info, Darren - how many ballots were mailed this year? Seems a little early to pop any corks but hopefully there are other writers taking the Chass approach and voting for Rice. Guys like Ken and Pos bother me because they tell us over and over again that Rice in the Hall wouldn't bother them a bit, but they won't vote for him. That may be the definition of marginal candidate but when people vote "no" I wish it were emphatic.
And yes, I am not one of those guys who believes in a "small Hall". :)
Bob, Montville is a great writer but he has a couple of writerly "ticks" that I found annoying. They bothered me but were hardly distracting enough to make me not endorse the book. Its a fine read.
Sandy, what about John Rocker? They disciplined him for running his mouth. Where was the Players Association then??
Ken, so I'm guessing you are not a fan of fining or suspending someone for saying they have a bomb in a school? Or yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre? Cops often arrest people for making false threats. Happens a lot. They wont go to jail for as long as if they truly had a bomb, but they will serve jail time.
Saying you made errors on purpose is not like saying there's no such thing as the moon. It affects the intergrity of the game. This isn't anti-players association either. This is someone claiming they've made errors on purpose. And to be honest, you have absolutely no proof he's never made an error on purpose in his life. He gave one example of how he made errors on purpose. There could have been others.
And yes, police often use someones admission as evidence. Happens all the time.
Rockers comments had no relevance to baseball and he got suspended. Sheffields comments had plenty of relevance and nothing. And at the time, no one had done research to see if he committed throwing errors or not.
And by you saying you're fine with Rocker being suspended because he said hurtful and bigoted remarks, then I'm sure you'd be fine with someone raping/murdering/beating their wife being suspended as well. Because that hurts too.
Truth is Rockers words didn't actually hurt anyone. Any Asian/Black/Freak really weren't affected by some dude they dont know. I'm Jewish. Do you think I or any other Jew really cares what Mel Gibson thinks of us?? We may not like him, may not see his movies, but I'm not going to cry because he hurted my feelings.
Now look at Sheffield. Even insinuating he made errors on purpose, he was telling his teammates he couldn't give a crap whether they won or not. Didn't that hurt his teammates? And then later on he made biggoted comments about Joe Torre. Didn't that hurt Joe Torre??
I have no problem with suspending Rocker based on his words. He should have been suspended. But so should Kevin Mitchell, Bobby Cox, Daryl Strawberry (for punching his wife), Dwight Gooden etc.
Well then, Ken, all I can do is shake my head at this one. You answered the question, which I now regret that I asked.
Your reference to Cobb coming after the reference to murder is not meant to the link the two, is it? SABR debunked the "Cobb committeed murder" tale years ago.
Hey, when I said Freak I didn't mean it as Asians or blacks!!
Rocker had said something like orange haired freaks. I personally am very friendly with some crazy haired people and have no problem with the "freaks." But it wasn't a racist remark.
Sorry.
Richie, I believe you wanted Sheffield and Bell BANNED not suspended for what they said. If you ban you better have the goods on the guy or he's suing your butt off and his union will take you to the highest court as well. Rocker being suspended is apt punishment for an idiot, look at Plaxico Burress. Maybe he will learn something for a change. Banned and suspended is definitely 2 different options.
Ken I forgot, I never said you said tied for 147th all-time sucks (I did), but you make it seem like a penalty. And if an OPS tied for 147th of all-time can't be considered elite--it has to be in the top 1 or 2 percent of all time I would imagine--what is?
When Rice is (sadly) inevitably voted into the HOF, I hope his plaque simply says "Most feared". Because those 2 words did more for his HOF case than any HR he ever hit.
Richie, of course the police arrest based on a confession. But what if the confessor has a reputation for insanity, and there is no other evidence that the person committed the crime? That's not going to procure a conviction.
Now you're saying that I can't prove that Sheffield DID NOT, ever, intentionally commit an error. You're absolutely right. Of course, I could say the same thing for everyone who has ever played major-league baseball.
John Rocker committed slander. Gary Sheffield did nothing but fabricate an offense. I'm going to keep hammering this point home: If you were a prosecutor with the Sheff case, the judge wouldn't even take your case. Admitting to an offense you didn't commit isn't an offense, at least not in the baseball world. You call Selig a wimp for not suspending Sheffield. I say, he has no case. Zero. As for stuff like murder, obviously, our judicial system would take care of that itself and ensure the player would never play again.
Jack, sorry, didn't mean to link Cobb and murder. My response was more to your assertion that you fear for our world and our society. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sweat Tim Raines' usage of cocaine.
Sandy, thats true I said BANNED. And I think someone intentionally losing should be. Let me ask you this. If proof was found out that Sheffield intentionally lost, or Manny intentionally struck out and walked to first base, do you think they should be suspended, banned, or face no punishment?
Because my whole point on this is, why is gambling banned? Because it may make you lose intentionally. So if someone just skips step A (gambling) and goes right to step B (losing on purpose) than shouldn't they be banned?
But I understand your proof point. Though my point is, try to find proof. There is evidence.
Richie, Selig investigated Manny. He tried to find proof. He sure couldn't with the numbers - Manny hit very well in his final month with the Red Sox.
To make clear, Richie, I would love it if David Ortiz flew to MIlwaukee and told Selig, "Manny told me he purposely looked at three strikes," and Manny was suspended for life. I'm absolutely not defending Manny. I'm defending the process.
Ken -
I could care a less about the HoF...that's in the past.
Is there something wrong with me...?
John Rocker ran his mouth to Sports Illustrated in January 2000 and got suspended for 28 games by Selig but then the Players Union appeal the suspension and it was reduced to 14 games. So while Rocker did get suspended, he still got his suspension reduce thank to a appeal on behalf of the Players Union.
If you want to ban someone from baseball for not trying, let's start with ownership in KC.
I think Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame. I think the reasons are not the ones you listed last year, but these:
a. He won 15 games in 12 different seasons. That is a hard measure of sustained excellence than is generally given credit (because things like winning 15 games or driving in 90 runs, which a lot of players do once, are very difficult to do over an entire career. While I appreciate SABRmetrics as much as the next fellow, there has to be a place in the analysis for why someone's actual performance belies the numbers.
b. He was the best pitcher on 3 different franchises that went to the World Series (Detroit, Toronto and Minnesota). That is not a case of a player having good timing.
Generally, I think that all those pitchers that are generally talked about as being "close but not quite" pitchers: Morris, Blyleven, John and Kaat (is Kaat already at the Veteran's Committee) ought to be in. Those sorts of careers tend to be scoffed at, but there aren't that many careers like those in all of baseball history.
I fear that Jack Morris is slowly becoming the new Jim Rice. A player whose HOF ballot will increase every year for no specific reason, until finally in his 15th year he'll be rewarded, even though the voters had it right originally by having him far from getting in. I saw Morris pitch his entire career. He was a solid pitcher and a workhorse, but I never viewed him as a great pitcher and I never heard him mentioned as a great pitcher, and for good reason. He wasn't.
Amen Mike D. People will have no specific reason to vote for Rice other than its the in thing to do. Its probably the main reason why the #'s go up. Though I dont necasarily agree that Rice and Morris aren't HOFers.
As a kid I thought Hernandez was a HOFer. Then I didn't but now I do again. In the end, baseball is about winning. And few people turned a franchise around quicker than Keith Hernandez. I think the only person that rivals Jack Morris is Curt Schilling. Neither I would make HOFers based solely on the reg season, but I wonder how many of the six World Series they won would their teams have won without them?
I'll try to end my thoughts like this.
1- If someone said they had a bomb they would be arrested. not for as long as if a bomb went off, but they would be arrested. Sheffield *may* have made a false threat. But the threat itself compromised the integrity of the game, way more than Rockers assinine comments. He deserved punishment.
2- Bobby Cuinard pointed a gun to his pregnants wife head. Brett Myers PUBLICLY put a good ol' fashioned beat down on his wife.
Ken you said you had no problem with Rockers suspension bc he hurt people. How do you think these two women felt? Were they hurt? Maybe a little more than some random Asian lady that never met John Rocker? If you suspend Rocker for his comments (which I think he SHOULD have been) then you HAVE to suspend others for morally worse crimes. And I think you would agree their actions were far worse.
3- You blow off Sheffield comments like he's Charles Barkley or Hank Steinbrenner. Sheff didn't mean it bc he's crazy. Well a lot of the reasons you say he's crazy, didn't occur at that point in time. So did you actually know/think he was crazy then? And if you blow off Sheff's remarks cause he's a loon, why doesn't Rocker get the same benefit of the doubt? A brain surgeon he is not.
4- Bob, I agree with you about owners that aren't trying. There should be a salary ceiling as well as cap in my world. And they'd be awful close.
5- Arliss Michaels. There was a great episode where this gay QB coudln't get a job. So Arliss framed him in a hot tub with underage girls. He was arrested. It became a public story. The show ended with him being signed. Their point would have been hilarious if it wasn't true. Being gay is a far greater sin than raping a girl. A far greater sin.
1) Richie, you're seriously going to include these two offenses in the same conversation:
a) A person shouts, "I have a bomb!" in a crowded building.
b) A baseball player says, "Twelve years ago, I intentionally committed errors in a game."
Seriously? Both of those constitute "threats" in your mind? You don't see the difference there?
Sheff has been crazy as long as he's been in the major leagues. Find me the law, either in baseball or in our country, that would allow Bud Selig to suspend Gary Sheffield for what he said, and I'll be happy to sign onto your opinion.
2) Process, process, process. Myers' wife never pressed charges - end of that story. Bud Selig can't do anything in that instance if the law doesn't do anything. From cursory research, it appears that Chouinard never pitched again after that incident. I can't find what happened to him re: those charges.
Rocker committed slander. That's not something that the law deals with. That's something that a workplace deals with.
John Rocker called his teammate, Randall Simons, a native of Curacao, a "fat monkey." I can probably get Simon's phone number for you. Would you like to call him and inform him that he should laugh that off?
I know you're not a homophobe, so I can't quite understand why you're not offended by Rocker's mention of "some queer with AIDS."
Jack Morris: 105 career ERA+, 3.80 postseason ERA in 92 IP
Curt Schilling: 127 career ERA+, 2.21 postseason ERA in 133 IP
Comparing these 2 is laughable - Schilling was much better.
OK laughable might be too harsh a word, but if not for his borderline meaningless W-L record (which isn't even all THAT impressive), Morris would've been off the ballot years ago.
If elected, he and Catfish Hunter would be the worst pitcher selections.
Ken, as for #1. You are the one that brought the police analogy in. I certainly didn't. You cant be in a discussion and are allowed to use any police analogy but I cant? Thats not being fair. Of course what Sheffield did isn't as bad as murdering someone.
And as for Simon, well thats the one person that should take offense since Rocker knew him. As a Jew, do you think I care what Mel Gibson or some white supremacist thinks of me??? I dont respect them, I dont like them, but I'm not sad or mad that they are prejudiced.
Bobby Chuinard definitely pitched again. I wrote an article and spoke to the Rockies GM who signed him and he said he fully supports Chuinard.
And I dont want to put words in your mouth so let me get this straight. Lets pretend Michael Vick was in baseball. You're saying he doesn't deserve to be suspended one game, yet if another player says a teammate of him is a fat monkey they deserve a suspension? What about DWI offenders? Do they deserve a suspension? Or do you feel no actions outside of the field every deserve a suspension, but ALL words are subject to? And I still dont understand why you take Rocker seriously if you dont take Sheffield.
Also, not once have I defended what Rocker said. If I was Commish, he'd be suspended for putting MLB in a bad light. Just like Sheffield did.
And I'd be happy to write an article if you got me Simon's # and see how that comment affected Simon.
Richie, we are not connecting with each other. It's like the good old days.
1. When you use the word "deserve," I think - and please, tell me if I'm inferring incorrectly - you mean morally. Did Bobby Chouinard "deserve" to be suspended from a moral basis? Of course he did.
When I use the word "deserve," I mean legally. Did Sheffield deserve to be suspended for his comments, based on the legal merits of the case? Of course not. There are no legal merits to the case. It's an insane person saying an insane thing that cannot be proven true.
Fair?
2. I interviewed Randall Simon the day John Rocker returned to the Braves' clubhouse in spring training 2000, after his suspension. Simon appeared deeply hurt by Rocker's words.
Rocker's words were slanderous and reflected very poorly on MLB. They were hateful.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion that Sheff's words were worse than Rocker's. But I've given you my legal argument for why Rocker deserved a suspension. It was slander. What is your legal argument - legal, not moral - for why Sheffield deserved a suspension?
3. I'm honestly not sure what Michael Vick's legal rights would have been if he played baseball rather than football. So I can't answer your question knowledgeably, because I'm talking about the legality of it, not the morality of it.