Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
phan52

Baseball HOF

Recommended Posts

A committee known as the Expansion Era Committee has voted unanimously to elect Joe Torre, Tony LaRussa and Bobby Cox to the HOF.

The 16-member Expansion Era electorate consisted of Hall of Famers Rod Carew, Carlton Fisk, Whitey Herzog, Tommy Lasorda, Paul Molitor, Joe Morgan, Phil Niekro, and Frank Robinson; Major League executives Paul Beeston of the Blue Jays, Dave Montgomery of the Phillies, Jerry Reinsdorf of the White Sox and Andy MacPhail, formerly of the Twins, Cubs and Orioles. They were joined by historians Steve Hirdt of Elias Sports Bureau, Bruce Jenkins of the San Francisco Chronicle, Jack O'Connell, secretary-treasurer of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, and Jim Reeves, recently retired from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Still no on Marvin Miller. It is impossible for baseball executives to be objective about him. Love him or hate him, that is egregious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

The BBWAA have elected Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas to the baseball HOF.

Craig Biggio got 74.8% of the vote, needing 75%. They round up batting averages. We round up handicaps. Can't they round that up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBWAA have elected Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas to the baseball HOF.

Craig Biggio got 74.8% of the vote, needing 75%. They round up batting averages. We round up handicaps. Can't they round that up?

Good to see Maddux and Glavine going in together. Two pieces of one of the best (if not the best) pitching rotations the game has ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The BBWAA have elected Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas to the baseball HOF.

Craig Biggio got 74.8% of the vote, needing 75%. They round up batting averages. We round up handicaps. Can't they round that up?

Seriously.  He missed by two votes, and when you consider that there are voters out there who flat out will not vote for players from the steroid era , that has to be pretty frustrating.  I'm sure he'll get in eventually, perhaps even next year, but I also wish he got in this year.  Looks like there were 3 others who got over 50% ... Mike Piazza (62), Jack Morris (61), and Jeff Bagwell (54).

Here's the whole list: http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2014.shtml

Armando Benitez, Kenny Rogers, and Jacque Jones all got a vote!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by phan52

The BBWAA have elected Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas to the baseball HOF.

Craig Biggio got 74.8% of the vote, needing 75%. They round up batting averages. We round up handicaps. Can't they round that up?

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Seriously.  He missed by two votes, and when you consider that there are voters out there who flat out will not vote for players from the steroid era**, that has to be pretty frustrating.  I'm sure he'll get in eventually, perhaps even next year, but I also wish he got in this year.  Looks like there were 3 others who got over 50% ... Mike Piazza (62), Jack Morris (61), and Jeff Bagwell (54).

**  This guy didn't even vote for Maddux because he played in the steroid era:

Here's the whole list: http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2014.shtml

Armando Benitez, Kenny Rogers, and Jacque Jones all got a vote!!!

Jack Morris is done. This was his 15th year on the ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

Jack Morris is done. This was his 15th year on the ballot.

Yeah, but the good news for Jack Morris is that he'll be on the Veterans Committee ballot in 2017, and will likely get in then.  Because, per this article , ...

Quote:

Every player not still on the ballot who received 50 percent of the vote from the BBWAA has eventually been elected to the Hall, either by the BBWAA or the Veterans Committee, with the exception of Gil Hodges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Seriously.  He missed by two votes, and when you consider that there are voters out there who flat out will not vote for players from the steroid era**, that has to be pretty frustrating.  I'm sure he'll get in eventually, perhaps even next year, but I also wish he got in this year.  Looks like there were 3 others who got over 50% ... Mike Piazza (62), Jack Morris (61), and Jeff Bagwell (54).

**  This guy didn't even vote for Maddux because he played in the steroid era:

Here's the whole list: http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2014.shtml

Armando Benitez, Kenny Rogers, and Jacque Jones all got a vote!!!


The big problem with trying to define "the steroid era" is that nobody knows when it started and when (or if) it stopped. People were taking Dianabol when I was in high school (and that was late 60s to early 70s).

Even if there was a date to define such an "era" there are players with no suspicion whatsoever against them whose careers overlapped into that supposed "era".

Nobody could seriously think PEDs helped Maddux throw those 80 mph changeups on the outside corner that nobody could hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you guys haven't seen it, there's a great website that graphs the trajectories of everyone who has been on baseball HOF ballots. http://cscheid.net/static/mlb-hall-of-fame-voting/ FWIW, I'm in the "vote everyone in" camp when it comes to PEDs. I don't think you can say when the "Steroid Era" began, and it's never going to really end. IMO, the worst thing you can do it try to parse which players of the 90s/00s did or didn't do steroids, absent a failed test or a Mitchell Report-type situation. Barry Bonds is one of the most spectacularly talented humans to ever hit a baseball, and that's good enough for me. But I try not to get too worked up about it, otherwise the fact that some people left Greg Maddux off their ballots would drive me insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The big problem with trying to define "the steroid era" is that nobody knows when it started and when (or if) it stopped. People were taking Dianabol when I was in high school (and that was late 60s to early 70s).

Even if there was a date to define such an "era" there are players with no suspicion whatsoever against them whose careers overlapped into that supposed "era".

Nobody could seriously think PEDs helped Maddux throw those 80 mph changeups on the outside corner that nobody could hit.

I totally agree.  Is Dianabol the same thing as "greenies?"  (Nope, just googled it and the stuff you're talking about is a type of steroid and the stuff I'm talking about is basically speed)  They always talk about that stuff having been prevalent in baseball all throughout the 70's and 80's (and maybe 60's) yet nobody had a problem with that.  And nevermind the relative performance-enhancement caused by not allowing black players in the league for several decades.  These guys pretend like this little window of time was the only time people tried to gain an edge.

And for the record, I would assume that the "steroid era," as arbitrarily defined by these writers, is going to be circa 1998 through circa 2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I totally agree.  Is Dianabol the same thing as "greenies?"  (Nope, just googled it and the stuff you're talking about is a type of steroid and the stuff I'm talking about is basically speed)  They always talk about that stuff having been prevalent in baseball all throughout the 70's and 80's (and maybe 60's) yet nobody had a problem with that.  And nevermind the relative performance-enhancement caused by not allowing black players in the league for several decades.  These guys pretend like this little window of time was the only time people tried to gain an edge.

And for the record, I would assume that the "steroid era," as arbitrarily defined by these writers, is going to be circa 1998 through circa 2003.


Yeah. I shake my head when somebody mentions "before the steroid era". I also shook my head this morning when a reporter said Mike Piazza was undoubtedly the best hitting catcher of all time. Anytime "the best hitting catcher of all time" is mentioned Josh Gibson at least deserves to be in the conversation. It's a shame those guys didn't get to play in the Major Leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I shake my head when somebody mentions "before the steroid era". I also shook my head this morning when a reporter said Mike Piazza was undoubtedly the best hitting catcher of all time. Anytime "the best hitting catcher of all time" is mentioned Josh Gibson at least deserves to be in the conversation. It's a shame those guys didn't get to play in the Major Leagues.

Honourable mention to Gary Carter. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Two votes shy is two votes shy.

An 89.8% shouldn't round to an A (on the lame grading scale where 90 = A). You didn't get 90%. You fell short.

If your ball stops one dimple away from going in, it isn't the same as in. Tap it in for a two, but you don't get to "round up" to a hole in one. Unless you're that one guy here who claims to have made a hole in one with his second ball from the tee… :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Two votes shy is two votes shy.

An 89.8% shouldn't round to an A (on the lame grading scale where 90 = A). You didn't get 90%. You fell short.

If your ball stops one dimple away from going in, it isn't the same as in. Tap it in for a two, but you don't get to "round up" to a hole in one. Unless you're that one guy here who claims to have made a hole in one with his second ball from the tee… :P

While I don't disagree (I was just saying that it's too bad he didn't make it) ... I don't really think it's a fair comparison.  Any test where you get 89.8% correct is almost certainly going to be a collection of questions with objective answers.  And sports have very specific rules.  But Hall of Fame voting isn't a sport, and his 74.2% is compiled from a collection of completely arbitrary and subjective opinions.  An essay in English class is going to be graded with letters, or at least round numbers, unless you have the weirdest English teacher on the planet.  But if you got 89.8% on your physics test, then its because you flat-out got X number of questions wrong.  In this case, where you have dumbshits voting for Armando frickin Benitez, I think it's pretty fair to say that there is nothing objective about it, and, therefore, tenths of a percent are pretty arbitrary and are debatable.

Again, dont disagree ... but basically I'm saying the same thing we were saying to geauxforbroke the other day in the Tiger thread regarding your comparisons.  Apples and oranges.

P.S.  I totally agree that any grading scale where you had to get 90% to get an A is lame. :-P I would have preferred it be something closer to 75%=A.  (Then I would have had a "stellar" college GPA!!!) :beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

It's not apples and oranges at all. The line is drawn at 75%. Anything short should not be rounded up or else you create an ambiguous grey area. If you want to set it at 74%, just set it at 74%. For all you know, line should be at 80% and so they allow "rounding up" from 75%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

It's not apples and oranges at all. The line is drawn at 75%. Anything short should not be rounded up or else you create an ambiguous grey area.

If you want to set it at 74%, just set it at 74%. For all you know, line should be at 80% and so they allow "rounding up" from 75%.

OK fine.  Then it's ...

Stick that in your head for awhile!!!!  (I love this song) :beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The BBWAA have elected Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas to the baseball HOF.

Craig Biggio got 74.8% of the vote, needing 75%. They round up batting averages. We round up handicaps. Can't they round that up?

Really, he was that close. I never found him to be that impressive. He isn't even close to a .300 hitter. Though he does have 3000 hits. It just seem that impressive to me. He never stood out as someone who would be HOF worthy.

The big problem with trying to define "the steroid era" is that nobody knows when it started and when (or if) it stopped. People were taking Dianabol when I was in high school (and that was late 60s to early 70s).

Even if there was a date to define such an "era" there are players with no suspicion whatsoever against them whose careers overlapped into that supposed "era".

Nobody could seriously think PEDs helped Maddux throw those 80 mph changeups on the outside corner that nobody could hit.

But it could gave him an extra 5+ years of viable playing time. That is what most people don't get. Steroids doesn't have to be for hitting home runs or throwing faster baseballs. It can be used to diminish wear and tear.

I am not saying Maddux took steroids, but longevity has been a crucial part for getting into the HOF. If steroids gives you an extra 5 years, that could be the difference in breaking the 500 HR mark or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Really, he was that close. I never found him to be that impressive. He isn't even close to a .300 hitter. Though he does have 3000 hits. It just seem that impressive to me. He never stood out as someone who would be HOF worthy.

In looking at the whole list of voting, it seems like they might just pay a lot of attention to the "magic" numbers.  In Biggio's case, 3000 hits.  In Frank Thomas' case, 500 homers.  Maddux and Glavine both reached the magic 300 win number, whereas Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, and Mike Mussina did not.

The reason I say that is because Thomas got in on his first try with 84% (that's right, I rounded up! ;)) of the vote (478 votes), whereas Luis Gonzalez got 5 votes.  Luis Gonzalez' numbers are, for the most part, lower than Thomas', although he does have more hits, but they don't seem enough different to justify only 5 votes if Thomas is getting 478.

Similarly, I'm surprised that Jeff Kent only got 15% vs. Biggios 74%, since he is one of the best hitting (power hitting at least) second basemen of all time.

However, I do not recall if perhaps Luis Gonzalez was a steroid guy ... and maybe that's why he got so little love?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

However, I do not recall if perhaps Luis Gonzalez was a steroid guy ... and maybe that's why he got so little love?

I think he was always suspected in the same way Bagwell was. Gonzalez had 57 homers in 2001 (and IIRC was on pace with Bonds through the All Star break), but that was his only season above 31. He gets my vote for the 2001 World Series though. :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2017 TST Partners

    Talamore Golf Resort
    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Mission Belt
    Snell Golf
    Frogger Golf
    PitchFix USA
  • Posts

    • As a disclaimer I wont bother with techinal terms for this.    Exessive stretching puts the muscle in an elongated or "full rom" state. Basically its as long as the muscle can get without tearing. More rom sounds pretty good eh? What could go wrong? The problem is that when the muscle is stretched to this point it doesnt have the same ability to stretch anymore. So that tightness people are so keen to get rid of is actually the muscles inherent stretch reflex that protects the muscle, tendons and ligaments from tearing. The muscle is designed to stretch first to protect everything else. If you live a sedentery lifestyle and that stretch reflex isnt used it can tighten up too much but even then youre best off doing dynamic stretching because thats how the muscle is supposed to work in the first place. This principle is why it isnt recommended to do static stretching before a workout. So really you shouldnt attempt to increase the static rom as much as the dynamic rom.  
    • It is and it isnt. For the most part Id say it isnt. At the end of the day it really is as simple as calories in and calories out BUT because that piece of cake is not particularly nutritious nor does it take very long to digest you tend to need to eat more cake to say full which tends to promote overeating. You pretty much have to decide to stay hungry for a while to compensate.  
    • When did I ever say I was talking about them using to RUN FASTER. Never. If the ball flies further guess what. The club was moving faster. THEY GOT FASTER. Yes steroids have a multitude of benefits for an athlete but for the sake of this discussion I didint think it was relevant to list every one of them. For sure they benefitted from the faster recovery aswell as the increased performance.   Dont tell me about my logic when its obvious you havent even read what Ive said. To quote myself: "Also keep in mind were not talking about going from Bubba to Arnold here. Theres a healthy middle point for optimal performance. Tour players just do not look like athletes(on average)." "Youre always going to find exceptions" You are uninformed to put it nicely. 450*10 does not happen all the time outside of powerlifting gyms. Especially not for a guy weighing 165. His estimated max is around 600-640 lb. Please dont get started on the way estimations work. The american record is like 700 for the 165. Either way he is very strong both in relative and absolute terms and its a very impressive lift. Ofcourse there comes a point where if he bulks up too much it wont help thats exactly what Ive said. At no point have is said tour players should look like bodybuilders. Infact to quote myself again: "Strength = speed potential. Speed athletes are not inherently going for size its just a byproduct of getting stronger and faster. If it was we would have meat balls like IFBB pros breaking records at everything speed related. The whole bulking up too much is pretty much a myth for natural athletes anyways."
    • Yes Daniel Im is a CP-ish player with kind of an inline downswing, he likes the way "swinging left" with his body feels. He does hit up a little with the driver. CP is not optimal for clubs over a 6 iron....typically. It's just a much easier pattern, easier way to swing and hit all the trajectories, especially with today's equipment. Hogan didn't have the left arm as far out as Mac wants it and Snead hit pull draws. Like I just said CP isn't good for the longer clubs, Mac never played a tournament going CP, he went with CF fades.  It's also a complicated pattern, lots of sequencing and movements have to be in order and most importantly you need a lot of speed to do it functionally. I could make the case Hogan had more CF pieces than CP pieces. Anyway, I agree with what @iacas has been posting. Mac's info isn't the answer to the golf swing, it's an attempt in the right direction but there is better and more functional information out there.
    • Oh, gosh, on the range tonight, I discovered that my address position was too far away from ball, and I had lowered my hands at address. I was setup for failure. Made  a few minor changes, and was hitting fairways high again. Now I can determine whether the shafts fit on some new Tour Edge woods - I fear the regular is too soft. Another winter project - shafts. I want to be done with clubs.
  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. hockeyref18
      hockeyref18
      (18 years old)
    2. Mike86
      Mike86
      (31 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon

×

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.