On the Yankees beat

F Leyritz. If there is a hell, he will be there

Back to the Hall of Fame debate.
I'm obviously biased towards Jim Rice... but he WAS the best right handed bat in the AL for 11 years and was a consistent MVP candidate. Not talking a top 20 finisher but constantly in the top 5.

Rice also faced superior starting pitching (Jim Palmer, Vida Blue, Guidry, Flanagan, Kaat, Gossage, Dennis Leonard, Nolan Ryan, Scott McGregor, Jack Morris, Dave Steib, Frank Viola, Bret Saberhagen and Mark Langston were all in their prime during Jim Rice's prime) and he hit for average and power

The best protest vote against the 'roiders is a vote for players like Rice, Dawson and Dave Parker who did it for a long time PRE roids.

I know a lot of people disagree with me, but I like Jack Morris in the hall for being a #1 for so long. I know his ERA is high, but he logged in lots of innings, won a ton of games and flourished in the spotlight.

For some people, Morris is in the Valenzuela, Dave Stewart, Orel Hershiser, Ron Guidry, Bret Saberhagen, Curt Schilling nexus. A great pitcher and a great #1 starter who won big games in October but doesn't have the career stats for Cooperstown.

Give me Morris 100 times in a big game before Don Sutton.

Gossage belongs in obviously. It is mind numbing that he isn't already. Any discussion of best closer of all time has only 5 names in it:

Rollie Fingers
Mariano Rivera
Dennis Eckersley
Bruce Sutter
Rich Gossage.

Anyone who brings up Lee Smith or Trevor Hoffman should be laughed out of the room faster than you can say Steve Garvey or Scott Brosius.

Tim Raines is an intriguing case and I'd say yes because he was the best leadoff man in the NL for years and years and hung on for some solid career numbers and was a key role in 2 title teams for the Yankees.

My Ballot:

Andre Dawson
Rich Gossage
Jack Morris
Dave Parker
Tim Raines
Jim Rice

What I THINK will happen:

Rich Gossage
Jim Rice

Kat,
I couldn't agree more with your last thought on the Leyritz situation. Some people actually tried to make this a baseball story when it really is just a human tragedy that didn't have to happen. I'm sure Jim Leyritz is a nice person, but when he got behind the wheel of his truck while drunk, he became a murderer and a family lost a mom, wife, sister, daughter etc. This is very sad, but all too common these days.

The man made over $10 million in salary as a part time player. He had enough money for a cab.

He didn't because of his arrogance and did the equivalent of firing a gun randomly down the street.

This story makes me sick.
Let's talk about the Hall of Fame or trades

Sully,
I think you echoed everything I said earlier in the HOF discussion, but provided more Rice facts or knowledge. I just know that when I was a kid, he was the guy we Yankees fans feared.

However, I don't know if Rice is getting in the HOF this year, I thought he only got something like 61% of the vote last year and it was actually down from the year before. The good news is maybe a lot of the writers who are around my age will have been members of the BBWA for 10 years and can actually vote and they are the ones who grew up watching him play.

If Rice got above 66% last year, maybe he will make it, I hope so because I believe he deserves it.

So, which players who are still active are locks for the HOF if their careers ended today, I'll start the list but I'm sure you folks will come up with more:

Clemens (his numbers before 'roids get him in, maybe on the second or third try just to spite him).
A-Rod
Randy Johnson
Jeter
Mariano Rivera
Manny
Ken Griffey Jr.
Bonds*
Piazza
Pudge Rodriguez
John Smoltz
Greg Maddux

Here are guys I think are question marks, open to debate:

Pedro Martinez-I guess it depends on how his career goes from now on.
Jeff Kent- Among the top 2b of all time in offensive categories.
Gary Sheffield- 'Roid questions
Chipper Jones- Are his numbers good enough to get in as a 3B?
Tom Glavine- Sort of in the Blyleven category.
David Ortiz- Has he been doing it long enough? His postseason track record would probably get him in.

Jim A...

I could write about 4,500 words on this subject but instead I'm going to link you to a posting I did last April.

Oddly, this posting made me a semi regular on a sports talk show in Toledo Ohio who dug the posting and got me on as a panelist a few times (go figure)

So even though I risk the wrath of Realist by providing a link to my blog... here is one.

It's about current players and their Hall of Fame status

Enjoy

Click on my name for the link

Sully,
I never knew you had your own blog so you haven't been pushing it that much as I usually read just about all the posts on here.
I think our lists were very similar except I forgot about Frank Thomas and didn't give Glavine as much credit as you did. He has never been a guy I think teams feared very much.

I can't even get into the other lists of players who could get in if there careers keep heading in the direction they are going now, that's a long road with a lot of bumps.

I also have to disagree on Pujols, six seasons just isn't enough if you ask me. If he died, maybe but if he just comes back to earth for the next four or five years, he's no lock.

I didn't even mention Hoffman because I think he's a joke.

Jim A...

I didn't say 6 years were enough for Pujols. I put him in the "Don't flame out, you are almost there" category. Right now he's in the Fred Lynn, Don Mattingly, Nomar Garciaparra part of his career.

He needs to keep this up for 4 or 5 more years then he is a lock

As for Glavine, I think he had enough Cy Young calliber seasons, piled up enough numbers and has a World Series MVP to boot.

My bad Sully, I thought you had Pujols as going in. I agree with your assessment then.

In response to the situation of Lyeritz and the manslaughter charge. Charges have a way of gettig watered down by the BS thrown by many a high price criminal attorney. But hopefully the judge will have blinders on when he 's sentenced and he should be sentenced for his actions. How many times do we hear of professionally athletes using their position or former position in life to come out smelling like roses. I just hope the the police did the job the right way and the 3 hour delay in drawing the blood does not impede the case. I know he 's innocent until proven guilty but lets be rational here.

Sully: Jim Rice always had big hit attached to every AB that I watched the Yanks and Red Sox's go at it. Maybe you could add or dispell this notion that I had of him. Was he a little aloof?

Happy New Year, Kat, Sully the Seamonster, Jim A and anyone else I may have missed.
I agree with Sully about Dawson, Rice, Morris and Goose. All of these guys were dominant players over a long periuod of time (at least 8 yrs, or over half the career of a good major leaguer). Parker - not as much, and Raines - maybe.
Dawson was amazing in that he did a lot of this with 2 bad knees - because of that crappy artificial turf in Montreal and was pitched around often. Rice was the dominant righty power bat in the AL during his playing time and was often pitched around by the elite pitchers in that league too (I remember him very well - better overall hitter than Reggie, except in the playoffs). Morris and Goose were dominant pitchers throughout their careers.
I just hope some of you "non-athletic" sports reporters use your brains and vote these 4 guys in, with no hesitation.

Yeah Jim Rice was aloof...
And if you were a black guy in Boston during the 1970s and 1980s working for the Yawkeys, chances are you'd be surly too.

Keep in mind, this was an organization that LOST a racial discrimination case in 1985!

Plus they always kept making sure Rice was one of the only (if not THE only) non white guy on the team.

So yeah, he was a smidge surly.

He's become more cute and cuddly since becoming part of the TV team and since the a--hole Yawkeys are no longer in charge

an unexpected result of the mitchell report is that it may just give rice the few cotes he needs to get in. he has been on the ballot during a time in the game where .300 40 homers and 120 RBI had become common-place - now we have part of an answer as to why that is. while he should have always been judged against the players of his generation it is had not to let all the numbers being put up accross baseball affect your decisions about future hal of famers.

now after all this talk about performance enhancing drugs makes his number look that much better because they were accumulated cleanly. it may just be enough to get him and dawson over the hump.

Chris,
The Mitchell report is not the only factor, or shouldn't be a deciding factor when talking about guys like Rice and Dawson (whom I agree should get in the HOF as well).
Keep in mind that those guys played in an era with 4 starting pitchers (hence BETTER pitchers) and bigger ballparks then the ones that have been added over the past 15 years or so.

Mike from Jersey: Happy New Year to you as well my friend.
I agree with your point about the BB writers needing a wakeup call. Just as players play in different eras, you can say that writers from different generations probably arrive at their votes in different ways. I'm sure the "old school" writers don't live and die by the numbers like writers who are in their late 20's and 30's do.
I tend to try to look more at the whole picture than just the stats, as sometimes there is more to the story. I believe that is the case with guys like Dawson, who as you said, played on crappy knees, fields and teams and still excelled.

it certainly isnt the only factor and shouldnt be what pushes rice over the top. certainly he should have been elected aleady, but i think a major reason why he wasnt put in was the gaudy numbers put up in the 90s made his look less impressive than they were. certainly more than steroids played a role in that 0 smaller parks ands watered down pitching, but those somethimes get over looked when you have 10 guys beak the 500 homer plateu - the itchel report ant be moved asisde or fogotten about - it is right in everyone's face. couple that with the decreased homers since testing began and it shows that steroids played a big role in those numbers that made rice's look less impressiv

Sorry, but some players (like Rice) have ballpark numbers. Check his splits at home and away from home. He will not make it. I agree, he was a good hitter...but not hof hitter. Plus, he was not that good of a out fielder. I think one has to look at more than one aspect of a players' game. No on Rice.

Hope everyone had a safe and happy New Year.

The saddest part of drunk driving is that usually it is the drunken fool who gets to walk away from the accident unharmed.

Did anyone else see that Alex Rodriguez was basically co-hosting one of the NYE shows?

So, I promised myself that I wouldn't discuss Santana trades until they actually happen, but I do have a question. If the Yankees now include Melky in a deal (which it seems is a no brainer) who do the Yankees stick in CF for next season?

Are we in favor of:

1. Damon every day
2. Promoting Jax or Gardner
3. Signing Mike Cameron, using Damon for the first 25 games and then shifting him to LF when Cameron comes back from suspension

Chip: you bring up a valid point. Do we strengthen the team with Johan playing every 5th day or do we weaken the team everyday with the loss of Melky not just in CF but in LF. Offensively,we loss a switch hitter and become vulnerable against the lefty pitcher with Matsui and Damon playing full time. Bringing up Gardner could eliminate some of the Melky issue defensively but OFF. We now have two leadoff hitters with Derek in the 2 spot.

Sometimes the trade you don't make is the better one. To make my point clearer, we may be hurting ourselves but with a little patience may realize some benefits of our patience.

Chip,
I'd take option 3. Cameron would solve two issues: RH pop in the lineup and a fine defensive CF. I know he strikes out a lot but his defense and power are worth it.
Sign him to a one year deal, bring Ajax up in September and see how he looks.

People are still overestimating Melky a great deal. This guy was always projected to be exactly what he is so far, a mediocre hitter, not much power and a decent OF. If he weren't a Yankee, we'd all be saying "Melky who?".

kenxe - Thanks for the confirmation on Rice's home/away numbers, which I remember reading somewhere would detract from his HOF chances.

Sully, Jim A., Mike from Jersey, Chris 23, I respect your views and I certainly admit that I can be looking at the significance of Rice's home/away stats all wrong. Here's a brief view:

Home - AB 4075/ Runs 681/ Hits 1304/ HR 208/ BA 3.20/ SLG 546/ OBP 373/ OPS 920

Away - AB 4150/ Runs 568/ Hits 1148/ HR 171/ RBI 649/ BA 2.70
SLG 459/ OBP 330/ OPS 789

On the other hand, I was around for most of Rice's career and would wholeheartedly agree that I hated him coming to bat against the Yanks.

Chip - Good to see you back. I suspect that Jim A.'s choice is the best one (and the safest) though I'm intrigued by Brett Gardner and enthusiastic about Ajax.

Viper,

You mentioned obsessing about Albert Puljos.

Did you know his wife led "Christian Family Day" at the new Busch Stadium last summer.

I think you would have loved that day. You could have prayed AND showed off your tattoo!

Sully, nice post on Jim Rice. Didn't he belly ache about how Fred Lynn was deemed as better because of his race. (Most people are long since sick of the coersion and violence and insanity of political correctness). Rice was a good hitter. The only hitter Gossage feared, so he says. Fred Lynn was a far better all around player, his defense was amazing. He was also a DB at USC. And married that hot babe on Petticoat Junction. He was my hero growing up.

Now you, Anonymous and Viper are my heroes!!!!!

I am not sure all of those pitchers were in their prime at the same time. Vida Blue was in his prime when Fank Viola was wearing a diaper on his head. Maybe he was in 5th grade or something.

Chip (Pack Leader)

To you and the rest of my fellow blogophiles...

Happy New Year!!

Yes I did catch A-Rod's co-hosting with Carson Daly on New Years Eve.

I'm not sure how others felt but I felt somewhat uncomfortable.

It was just weird. Maybe I'm being unfair because it's A-Rod but as much as I love the guy I always find him to be tough to take seriously in that kind of situation. His media persona comes off like that of politician and I feel he's hitting "Talking Points."

I don't know it was okay but with his Yankee hat on and all?

"Cynthia and I"

"The magic of putting on pinstripes"

I'd rather have seen him somewhat drunk with a goofy 2008 tee shirt If that makes any sense.

Sully,

I'm on the fence about Piazza as an absolute given. Close call. As far as Glavine, he is an absolute given - in my opinion. Probably a first balloter. Along with what you already mentioned, he has a .619 winning percentage, won 20 games more than twice as much as Maddux, but the kicker is the 300 wins. Not too many lefties have won 300 games. If Blyleven had 300 wins, would he already be in? Probably. If Dave Kingman hit 500 homeruns, would he be in?

I completely agree with you about Rice.

Happy New Year Everyone!

Just came back form a long vacation on the beach where there's not a sign of technology for miles. Had a great time there with family and friends beacuse literally almost all of the city goes there and there's lots of parties.

Sad to see there's not much going on right now, but I guess it's logical because of the time of the year.

Hope everyone has a great year and at the end were celebrating another championship! (not you Sully, lol)

Sully, Mike from Jersey, Chris 23, I see that you haven’t commented on Blyleven’s HOF chances. I guess you don’t think too much of them! I’m not obsessing about the guy (I’m not related or anything like that!), but I think he’s an interesting, if marginal, candidate and I’d like to have your thoughts.

Yesterday, I posted a Sutton/Blyleven comparison and I just thought I’d add Nolan Ryan into the mix. Yes, I know that I will be hit with a barrage of exploding shells, but here goes anyway!

Sutton: 23 yrs/ 324 – 256 (559Pct.)/ 1343 BB – 3574 SO/ 3.26 ERA/ 58 Shutouts/ 178 Complete games

Blyleven: 22 yrs/ 287 – 250 (534 Pct.)/ 1322 BB – 3701 SO/ 3.31 ERA/ 60 Shutouts/ 242 Complete Games

Ryan: 27 yrs/ 324-292 (526 Pct.)/ 2795 BB – 5714 SO/ 3.19 ERA/ 61 Shutouts/ 222 Complete Games

Obviously Ryan got into the HOF on the strength of his all time SO totals and his 324 wins, and certainly not his winning percentage. In other words, in comparison to Blyleven, only an extra 37 wins over another five years (or an average of about 7 extra wins per year.) Ryan has a lower winning percentage, only one more shutout and 20 fewer complete games than Blyleven over the additional five years. Indeed, Blyleven was an absolute workhorse in terms of CG. Blyleven (and Sutton) both have a far better walk to strikeout ratio. In fact Blyleven struck out nearly THREE times as many batters as he walked. He’s the only member of the 3000 strike out club not in the Hall, and actually ranks as the 5th All time strike out leader. Really, I think one can make a case for him, especially when one sees the ‘fragility’ of pitchers today who go only 6/7 innings and can then save themselves for further heroics in their next start.

OK, I’m off my soap box for good on this one!

Have a good day, all!

Secret, never before revealed dialouge at Yankee Stadium circa 1971 ...

Frank Viola: "Vida Blue ... Oh MyGod! Um, uh, uh, can I have your autograph?"

Vida Blue: "Sure kid. I'm in my prime, and you're what, in the first grade?"

Frank Viola: "No, no, say it ain't so True Blue, cause we're in our prime at the SAME Time!"

Ant,
Sully didn't say Viola and Blue were in THEIR primes at the same time, he said Rice faced them when he was in his prime and they were in theirs.
Rice played from 1974-1989
Blue from '69-86
Viola from '82-'96

If you look at those dates it is conceivable that Rice faced each of them when they were in their primes.

Anthony,

I think it's laughable that you of all people continue to throw down your self-righteous card on this board.

First off, learn to read. I never said anything about you obsessing over Albert Pujols. The mere mention of Pujols had to do with you continuously throwing out random players whom the Yankees should trade for no matter if said players are available or not (ie: Kazmir).

Secondly, I couldn’t care less about Pujols or his wife’s religious views. It's not important. Again, this is a Yankee Baseball discussion board and you refuse to refrain from inappropriate topics after you’ve been asked on numerous occasions to stop. Call that behavior what you wish, but I see it as immaturity.

Thirdly, uh, yeah - I have a tattoo. Does that make me (and millions of others) a scumbag or morally inferior in your eyes, oh righteous one?

I’m sure many others on this board have tattoos as well. Save your moral superiority lectures for people who want to hear that gibberish.

And finally, don’t bother addressing me on this board ever again. Everyone thinks your nuts and nobody respects you. I don’t want to continue this stupid bickering back and forth because it takes away from the Yankee discussion.

Comparing current HOF's to wannabe's carries only so much weight. Some believe the HOF is diluted and was cheapened long ago. Some subscribe to a criteria of only those that dominate are deserving. Some believe anyone that put up above average numbers should be elected. Some have plateau's such as 500 HR's and 300 wins as automatic election thresholds. If you adhere to the dominant theory only around 100 players and a few executive types are deserving. Guys like Aaron, Mays, Ruth, Gibson, Seaver make it because they were the best of the best. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the HOF, I don't know how many players are in the HOF and I don't profess to have the motivation or knowledge to make an informed opinion but I wanted to give one anyway as food for thought when you make your own decision and also to say that hearing the differing opinions on criteria, if I were so inclined to chose, I would chose the dominant criteria. I just seems most logical although very idealistic. It's all very subjective which is probably why I'm not personally that interested. I would offer that when thinking of Bert Blyleven I think 'great curveball', maybe the best ever, probably the best I ever saw, but not HOF. I'd also submit that if he played for the Yanks he's likely elected first ballot. Therein lies a fundamental problem, if you deviate from only the superior, it becomes more of a popularity contest and less based on skill. Someone brought up Don Sutton and he was a fine pitcher but I would compare him to Mike Mussina. Mussina has 250 wins and has an outside shot at 300. No way does he seem like a HOFer. If he gets 300 wins he's assured of being elected and he'll be elected because he was lucky he played for good teams. Here lies another fundamental problem, if you're good & lucky enough, you're in. Thankfully Ryan was so darn great he made it.... because his teams didn't help him much. Food for thought.

SANTANA REPORT

Best deal on the table?
Report: Steinbrenner says Yanks' offer for Santana is tops
By Bryan Hoch / MLB.com

Returning from their holiday recess, the Yankees still have what senior vice president Hank Steinbrenner believes is the best offer to finalize a deal for Twins ace Johan Santana.

Steinbrenner told the New York Daily News in Thursday's editions that the Yankees will work on a final decision regarding their potential trade for the two-time American League Cy Young Award winner, perhaps drawing the months-old process to conclusion.

"I think the Twins realize our offer is the best one," Steinbrenner told the newspaper. "I feel confident they're not going to trade him before checking with us one last time, and I think they think we've already made the best offer."

Discussions with Minnesota have largely revolved around the inclusion of right-hander Phil Hughes and outfielder Melky Cabrera, though the Yankees balked when the Twins pressed to add right-hander Ian Kennedy to the package.

New York has deemed Joba Chamberlain -- on his way to the starting rotation after a stunning debut as a setup man -- to be untouchable, though it is believed that pitching prospect Jeff Marquez could go to the Twins in a potential Santana trade.

"It's still the best one," Steinbrenner said. "And let's face it, we're the best able to handle the kind of contract [extension] Santana will be after."

The allure of acquiring Santana is easy to figure on the Yankees' behalf, especially with the rival Red Sox still involved in the discussions.

"At the same time, we won't be in it to keep him from them," Steinbrenner said. "Each team is in it for what they can handle. We have great young pitching, that's the main plan. Do we want to put Santana in there, who's 29 [in March], to be an ace for a few years? I know a majority of fans don't want to lose Hughes."

Santana was 15-13 with a 3.29 ERA in 32 starts for the Twins in 2007, walking 49 and striking out 235 in 219 innings, including a 17-strikeout performance on Aug. 19 against the Rangers.

Santana led the AL in strikeouts for three consecutive years from 2004-06, including winning the ERA title twice. He owns a full no-trade clause and would need to approve any deal to a potential suitor, which would also likely require a contract extension that could fetch as much as six years and $120 million.

Hot Stove

Steinbrenner said that the dialogue between the Yankees and Twins -- mostly on hold since the Yankees' self-imposed a deadline during the Winter Meetings in Nashville, Tenn., early in December -- is expected to increase.

"We're not desperate, so we're not going to chase anything," Steinbrenner said. "In the next two weeks, we're going to have to get everything done. I either have to do [a Santana deal] or don't do it, same thing for the Red Sox, I guess.

"I think the Twins would like to keep him, so I don't think there's any hurry on anyone's part. It all depends on what he asks for in an extension. You obviously have to be very careful with pitchers, for obvious reasons."

Steinbrenner said that even if the Yankees stand pat and do not acquire Santana, their chances for the 2008 season should be strong.

"We're going to have the best pitching by far in baseball in two or three years, and we'll be tough this year," Steinbrenner said. "We obviously already have position players."

Pete,
I don't think popularity or playing on big market teams has much to do with HOF elections. I use Don Mattingly as my argument because if popularity of big market players counted, Mattingly would have been elected on his first try but I certainly understand your issues w/ the HOF voting process.
Sometimes the writers elect someone just to elect them. Who can explain the HOF voting process and the motivation behind them? It's ridiculous, I mean just look at these notes:
8 Sportswriters did NOT vote for Cal Ripken Jr.
three of them DID vote for Dante' Bichette
Bobby Bonilla received a handful of votes

Makes you wonder if someone is paying people to vote.

So Clemens is using the old B12 injection story...that worked really well for Palmeiro and Tejada didn't it?

Can someone seriously put a cork in Hank's yapper??? Why does he always have to put the Yanks business out in the open? Someone quick go buy him "The Art of War" and force him to read it and let him know he's not allowed out until he does!!!

Good point, Jim A. Any moronic sportswriter who votes for Dante Bichette or Bobby Bonilla for the HOF should be fired on the spot and beaten severely about the head and face. These mongrels are reason enough to take the voting out of their hands and place it in the hands of Hall of Famer ballplayers, Hall of Fame sportswriters and Hall of Fame Managers only. No hacks allowed.
This would make the majority of the votes actually mean something. You could probably include the top 5-10 baseball writers for that year - as voted on by their peers. That would get the pot boiling real nice indeed!
Keep the amateurs outta here!

Well said, Viper.
Happy New Year to you! Looking forward to more of your logic. Usually right on the money.

Thanks for spanking Ant colon for all of us in here. What a kook!

Go Yankees!!! (That is what this is about!)

Peter Lacock and Jim A. thanks for your comments on the HOF voting. I think you both make great points. Peter, I know this may sound strange, if not actually ludicrous (!), but I have wondered myself if the Hall shouldn't be divided into two rooms. One for the 'immortals' (such as mentioned) and one for the 'greats.'

We'd still have plenty of debates about both 'levels,' but at least there would be a real distintion between the very good and the all time greats who certainly deserve to be on a higher pedestal. Would it not help to solve this dilemma we have about guys like Bly, Sutton, Mussina etc?

And of course we know that at least a few of the old timers who got in didn't really merit being elected. But once in, there's no current way of un-electing a player! Finally, outside of pitching, the weight of voting is heavily skewed towards offense because defensive excellence is so much harder to define.

The B-12 excuse by Clemens is jaw droppingly hilarious.
If that's all it was, why did it take a month of conferring with lawyers to tell people that?

So silly.

According to the Time, McNamee is considering a libel suit against Clemens. I wonder if Indiputable Facts will advise him he's not allowed to do that.

We all know Clemens and Pettite did it... let's move on and just have stronger testing and be more worried about the future instead of the past!

Oh wait... that's too sensible

No two categories of Hall of Famers!
You are a Hall of Famer or you aren't!

I can't even stand the "He's not a First Ballot Hall of Famer" mentality.

Why not? Why have the guy wait?
Did Bruce Sutter pile up more saves while waiting all of those years?

Sully,

Clemens has to fight all of this, his Hall of Fame position depends on him proving he didn't use steroids.

I also agree with you on Hall of Fame players. The test should be that if you can argue a player shouldn't be in there, then he shouldn't be in there. I also don't understand why you get multiple chances to get in. If you weren't a hall of fame player 5 years after you retired, then likely you have done nothing in subsiquent years of retirement to increase your credentials. Doing it the way they currently do it is not taking the best players, it is taking the best player compared to the other options.

Pete Rose...should he be in or out of the HOF?

Should he be judged for his on the field accomplishments or the whole (crazy) package?

I say he should get in....posthumously. He doesn't deserve to get in while he's alive to see it, but his career was too great to ignore and the banishment should be mentioned on his plaque.

Chip/Sully,
That's what's so crazy about the Veterans Committee, which is basically just a good ol' boy network. I mean you can look at Phil Rizzuto, whom I loved by the way, but it took his having enough friends on the veterans committee to get him in.

However, there is another side to the argument. We can't really judge an era until we're in the next one. I think now that we're in the steroid era and we see the inflated numbers, it makes us appreciate what guys like Jim Rice and Andre Dawson did so they get a better look years after they've become eligible for the Hall.

Also, you can't discount the baseball writers votes. Let's take a guy like Jeff Kent for instance. Let's say the writers who cover him really hate him because he's an a-hole so they will never vote for him and then you get writers who didn't see him play every day who will say "well, his teams beat writer didn't vote for him, so I won't either". Now, years down the road, those memories fade or those writers move on and the next generation of writers just looks at the numbers and his vote totals start going up.

As long as human beings are conducting the voting, you can't just say that a player will never get in if he doesn't get in on the first try.

I just think the idea that there are writers who say "He's a Hall of Famer... I just won't vote for him on the first ballot" is a pretty decent definition of insanity

Jim A, you are dead on about the posthumous Pete Rose induction.

This isn't a personal thing. I loved Pete Rose as a kid and he was very cool and affable when I met him on the Dennis Miller set the other week. And OBVIOUSLY he has the playing resume.

But he violated a big big BIG rule as manager... not exactly an obscure rule... and the rules need to apply to everyone, even the all time hits leader.

He bet on his team as manager.
And it doesn't matter if he bet on them to win or to lose... he bet on them.

And spare me the "if he bet on them to win, then what's the harm" BS.

Here's the harm:
He evidently was dropping sometimes TENS of thousands of dollars on a game... and was in debt.

So let's say he throws down $15,000 on the Reds to win on Friday. What's the problem? He's going to try extra hard to win, right?

Fine... but what does that do to Thursday? Or Saturday? Does he rest his pitcher on Thursday? Does he bring in Saturday's starter on Friday because he REALLY needs that game?

Essentially by betting to win one game, you put two other games on the back burner.

And what happened those years he was betting on the Reds?
The Reds had more talent than any other team in the NL West... the always came out strong... and they all faded down the stretch to teams LOADED with holes (1986 Astros, 1987 Giants, 1988 Dodgers).

Essentially the period of time he was betting, three different pennant races have a giant question mark next to them.

Worthy of a lifetime ban.

What happened after he was fired and replaced by Sweet Lou?
They went wire to wire and won the World Series.

It's sad... but the lifetime ban is appropriate

Happy New Year everyone! The parties went off better than expected! Now to baseball.

Yanks61, I think Bly deserves to get in. The guy was a workhorse SP who numbers will be appreciated more as time goes by. I do believe that he is in the same cat as Sutton, so If he's in, Bly should be as well.

You guys bring up a great point though on who should and shouldnt be elected. Do you reward a guy that was the best in the league for a 5 year period, ( Donnie, Big Al right now if his career ended ) or do you reward a guy that is very good over a long period of time ( Moose, Edgar Martinez ). My personal preference is to have the players with the dominant spurts than the players that just accumulated stats over a long period of time. 300 Wins, 500 HR, 3000 hits. The wins were skewed in the past due to big parks, unjuiced balls, 4 man rotations, and players going the distance more. The HR's are skewed these days with bandbox stadiums and juiced up players. I dont think you can just say someone is a Hall Of Farmer because they hit that mark. I really wish they were more selective in the past. Now players have the argument of "well if he's in, look at my numbers, they are similar". The Hall should have been reserved for the all time greats. Maybe 20 or so in each generation.

That's not how it is though, so players that werent considered dominate, or the best at their position, do deserve to get in like Bly if the numbers match. Thats just the way the hall is constructed.. By the way, I dont care what he did, Rose should be in. I do understand that they need to make an example of him though.

What else....

PLEASE NO MIKE CAMERON!!! Its not just that he strikes out 160+ times a season ( would lead our team in that cat ), he also hits around .240 ( would be last on our team in that cat ). I could care less about his 18-20 Hr's if he's only getting on base at a .328 clip ( would be last on our team in that cat ). Even the year he hit 30 Hr's, he hit .231 with a .319 OBP. He'll be 35 this season and I can see him improving. For those type of AVG and OBP #’s I would rather give Gardner a shot.

I would also like to point out again that Melk is only 22 years old guys. Players don’t really hit their stride until 25-27 There are tons of examples of players that his happened to, I gave Bernie as an example last time. Edgar Martinez is another example, he didn’t get a full time gig in the majors until he was 27. He didn’t hit over 20 Hr’s until the age of 32, then went on a tear for the rest of his career. The fact that Melk was able to hit .280 with a .360 OBP, with a 56/59 BB/K rate as a 21 year old is HUGE! I don’t think people really understand how good that is for his age. It would not surprise me that Melk’s career follows the same path as Bernie’s. That means in 5 more years Melk will be closing in on 20/20 with a .300 Avg and a .400 OBP. Im not just making these numbers up, his #’s project to be this over time. Does anyone really think the numbers he is currently putting up is his ceiling? No progress at all guys? There has to be SOME improvement. Maybe he only gets to 15/15, .290 .380…he’s almost at that now. Those are Garry Mathews Jr numbers with a better Avg and OBP. Sure we wouldnt know who Melk was if he was on the Mariners, but we do know and have seen a guy like this before in Bernie.

What else...

Im not defending Clemens at all since I think he's guilty, but people do get B12 shots. When I was wrestling in HS my friends father was a Dr. since we were always cutting weight our energy levels were extremely low. We would get B-12 shots the days of the matches to pump us up a little. Just saying, they are common with athletes.

Well I think that covers the main topics since New Years Eve.

CANT WAIT FOR PITCHERS AND CATCHERS!!!!!

PTI CORRECTIONS

I know there are more, but these two stand out.

Dr. since = Dr. Since
be 35 this season and I can = I can't

I really need to proof read BEFORE I submit...lol

Jim A and Sully:

I agree, Rose should get in when he dies. He accepted a LIFETIME ban from baseball. When he dies, the ban should conclude.

The Boston Witch Trials, McCarthyism, US Senators, George Mitchell and his one-sided prejudicial report that is destroying lives – Does all this sound familiar, like there’s some connection? The original Yankee witch hunt has now turned into a public trial of Roger Clemens where he’s already been convicted mostly by the Yankee hating public. This is based on allegations of a suspended police officer, drug dealer, snitch, rapist (who left his victim to die in a pool) who has changed his story at least once. This is not to say Roger is not guilty. The real problem is that he is one of among thousands of players who are suspected of abusing PED’s but he is being treated like he’s the one and only. All attention is on him only as though the rest of MLB is innocent. You must prosecute them all or prosecute none. Anything in between is a sham.

Everyone assumes that athletes before the 90’s took no enhancing drugs, that their achievements were purely totally natural. There is no basis for an assumption either way. Body enhancing substances have been around since the beginning of time so there’s no telling what an early 20th Century athlete might have taken to improve performance. Drugs could have improved over time thereby improving performance but there’s no telling that some sort of PED’s weren’t used prior to the 90’s. Possibly some numbers would have been much lower if not for enhancement. To assume PED’s were invented in the mid to late 90’s (just at the time the Yankees started their dynasty years – oh, how convenient is that?) is beyond naïve. Wake up, people, and see this sham for what it really is: A modern day McCarthyistic-type Boston witch hunt.

Poor Diaper,

He gets all pissy when someone stands up to him. People like him have to attack over the Internet, cause they know they'd see their blood in person if they dared be so nasty face to face.

What a baby! (No hard feelings ... you got a tattoo cause you follow ... you are a FOLLOWER, not a leader. Any one can follow. Anyone can attack a stranger instead of addressing their points. Kind of sad ...)

Sully,

I was just joking about Vida Blue and Frank Viola. You made a nice post!

Happy New Year ...

There are people who prefer to live life by their own rules. We've all known them and maybe some of us ARE them. Living by your own rules doesn't make you a bad person and there are a few whom it has even made saintly. But it does disqualify you from receiving the prizes that have rules you don't go by.

If the rewards of living by your own rules don't make up for that, you made the wrong pick, no one else did it for you. And if they DO, then naturally you won't be complaining, will you? You'll be smiling.

KAT,

I AM TRYING AGAIN TO SEND THIS AFTER GETTING THE 'TOO FREQUENT POSTING' RESPONSE, WHEN I HAVE NOT COMMENTED SINCE WEDNESDAY.

I AM VERY CLOSE TO GIVING UP ON THIS BLOG, AS IT APPEARS THAT OTHERS ALREADY HAVE DONE. THE SITUATION WITHOUT THE SECURITY CODES MAY HAVE BEEN LESS CONVENIENT FOR YOUR TECHIES, BUT IT WAS A LOT MORE CONVENIENT FOR YOUR READERS. WHO IS BEING HELPED HERE? AT WHOSE EXPENSE?

IT IS HIGH TIME THAT YOU DID SOMETHING TO CORRECT THIS. NO MORE SOOTHING SYRUP ABOUT 'LET'S WAIT AND SEE'. I'VE WAITED, AND I'VE SEEN.

AND YES, I'VE USED ALL THE WORK-AROUNDS THAT JIM SUGGESTS.

EIGHTH TRY COMING UP.

P.S. Hey DRU, if you kids want to say we should keep Melky because he's 'good FOR HIS AGE', should we accept the same argument from the geezers that we ought to keep older players because they're 'good FOR THEIR AGE'? I don't think so. Good enough to play for the Yankees is another category, having nothing to do with age. IMO.

Sorry, gang, to make this so long, but if I ever get a chance to post I want to get everything in, because I can't go through this nonsense too often.

Hey Ant,

Not to get into it with you, since we seem to be cool with each other, but Im a tattooed Darwinist. Evolution and ink, what a combo!!!!

Love Always,

DRU
xoxoxoxoxo

Hi Diane, the ying to my yang. Im usually with you on your points, but you were a big "WIFFA" on that one.

You are saying that there is no difference between:

Keeping a 21 year old that hits .280 because, that is good for a 21 year old in the majors when a player is usually at AA?

AND

Keeping a 41 year old that hits .280 because, that is good for a 41 year old in the majors when a player is usually on the couch?

HOOOOLD on there lil'lady.

Age has MUCH to do with it. I GUARANTEE, and I wont even look back at the individual players because I am SO CERTAIN, that any hitter who was in the majors before the age of 25, had better numbers after 25 than they did before 25. ( Baring any injury ). I am so sure that this is true for 99% of all the players who ever played the game, given a large enough career of say 10 years playing.

So if we went back in time and judged a players career on what they did in the majors at the age of 21-22, pegging them as a "tweener" or "4th OF" or "a dime a dozen"...we would be left with a very short list of HOF or All Star players...maybe none. Nobody knows where Melks path will take him. The same was true for Bernie Williams up to the age of 25, before that he looked like a "tweener" or "4th OF" or "a dime a dozen". How can anyone tell the difference between Bernie and Ricky Ledee at this point? Nobody. The way Melk has started, Id bet more on the side of Bernie on this one, the stats favor that end....what is that based on? One thing....his age. Very important measurment at this time. Melk hasn’t hit his stride physically as of yet, in 5 years he will be ENTERING his prime. What will the numbers look like then? You can bet they will be better than at age 21.

Diane...damn, did I use a lot of CAPS and ""'s....sorry about that. I dont want to come off the wrong way. Im not yelling or bashing, just stating.

; )

History of Anabolic Steroids in Sports. When were anabolic steroids discovered?

While the modern history of steroids is still relatively young, the complete history of steroids can be traced back to ancient Greece. This part of the history of steroids is when Olympic athletes were thought to have used plant derivatives, all meat diets and animal testicles as performance enhancers.

The more modern history of steroids begins in the 1930's. This part of the history of steroids is when anabolic steroids were born, but they didn't really take off as a phenomenon yet. In the 1950's at a World Weightlifting Competition, people noticed the Soviet team taking pills and this is the part of the history of steroids where people started taking notice of the drugs' true abilities. Apparently, the Soviet's ruled the competition and the United States team and trainer came home wanting to be able to be competitive with them.

The current history of anabolic steroids as abusable drugs
began in 1954 among Olympic weightlifters. In 1956, Dianabol (Methandrostenolone) was first marketed in the United States, clearing the way for the use of anabolics by U. S. athletes. At first, only world-class athletes in high-strength sports such as weight lifting abused anabolics. Among Olympic athletes, anabolic steroids were a problem as long ago as 1964. As their reputation grew, anabolic abuse spread to other sports. Today, the only Olympic sports in which anabolic steroids have not been detected are women's field hockey and figure skating.

Steroid abuse spread beyond the Olympics throughout the 1970's and 1980's. In 1983, nineteen athletes were disqualified from the Olympics for steroid abuse. By 1984, 20% of college athletes were using steroids. Surveys in 1989 estimate that there are 500,000 adolescent steroid abusers nationwide, and as many as 1 million steroid abusers of all ages in the United States. In November 1990, U. S. Federal Law reclassified all anabolic steroids as Controlled Dangerous Substances.

Quoted from http://www.ianabolicsteroids.com/history-of-steroids.htm
http://www.anabolicsmall.com/roida3a.htm