Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
phan52

Baseball HOF

114 posts in this topic

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

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?

0

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.

0

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!!!

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.
0

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.

0

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.

0

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. :-)

0

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

0

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:

0

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%.
0

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:

0

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.

0

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?

0

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

0

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  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • This is a fundamental that is that ruins so many golf swings before they start. Let's look at why. Bending at the waist is physically easier - it takes less work from your legs to bend over and your body naturally avoids work.  The big problem is that you are out of balance by the time you reach the top of your backswing and worse... Your upper body weight is not over your legs which means a ground up swing is dead. Through your transition your weight needs to be firmly planted over your loaded legs so 1) you can linger in your transition in balance until your forward weight shift happens and 2) So that your lower legs are in a position of leverage to get your weight moving and to have enough spring to keep pushing until your weight has made it all the way to your left foot.  So, if you don't love your swing check for this setup flaw. So, many people who swing over the top don't realize they had no chance way back from their setup. 
    • Good topic. I voted breaking 80 is harder. Obviously the two are connected but if push came to shove I think more golfers could learn how to avoid making doubles than be taught or acquire the skills to break 80. Breaking 80 for many golfers would mean significantly raising the level of their games, while not making a double is more about avoiding the big miss and game planning/course management. More specific to the OP's question relating to a golfers that shoots in the low 80's and is trying to break through, it could be one or other, most likely a combo of both. For myself, like @The Recreational Golfer I've had more rounds in the 70's than double bogey free rounds so could you say it's "easier" for me to shoot in the 70's than avoid making a double? Yes and no, depends on how you look at it. Even though I messed up on one or two individual holes I had to play fairly solid golf the other 16/17 holes to break 80, IMO that's more difficult than avoiding making a double. Even on a round where I didn't make a double I had to perform at a consistent level for 18 holes to break 80. If you told me I had to play 10 rounds where I had to break 80 and 10 rounds where I couldn't make a double, I think the latter would be easier for me. 
    • Good to hear. An observation for you... When you start getting your lower body into it guess what?  You start doing work!  And that takes fitness.  Some people have an illusion of an effortless golf swing. But in reality, it's effortless for your wrists but more work for your legs and core.  So, keep is mind as you go from hitter to swinger your fitness, core, and lower body strength demands go up. 
    • I'll answer your question with another question: If you drop the 3H, what would you hit for a 215 yard shot, or even a 210 or 205 yard shot? Are you comfortable gripping down on your 4-wood to cut distance off of it by that much? I personally don't see much issue with keeping the 3H in the bag since it isn't actually hurting anything. You say the other alternative is to drop the 4-wood, but why do you feel that you must drop anything at all? It's okay to have a 10 yard gap. If it really concerns you, though, I would think that the best way to go would be to swap from a 4-wood to a 3-wood. This would increase the gap between your 3H and the next longer club without affecting the gap between the 3 and 4 hybrid, which seems to be a number you like better for a gap. I'm just a little confused why you'd drop down to 13 clubs if the hybrid isn't costing you strokes. I know I find hybrids easier to hit than a wood that I'm trying to hit shorter than usual. I absolutely hate to hit a 3/4 3-wood to cover the cap between a full 3-wood and my 3-iron, but the number for a 3/4 3-wood is such a rare distance that I'd much rather have consistent gaps up through a 3-iron than a big jump from a 4i to a 3H. In my case a 3H would hurt my game, but it doesn't seem like yours is doing you any harm and could be protecting you from an awkward 4 wood shot.
    • This might not be the most helpful for balls and gloves (though I do see golf ball deals pop up at least once a week), but golfwrx's classified section is a great place to get deals on a lot of stuff. I got my AD-DI shaft there for $130, along with my KBS shafts from 3-LW for another $150 for the set. The AD-DI was used for a week (didn't have a mark) and the KBS shafts clearly only ever had a grip installed on the 7-iron. Good deals there, at least from what I've found, but mostly on clubs and shafts (though they do have golf balls in their classifieds every so often).  The nice part about that is they also have a WTB forum, where you post what you want and people come to you. That's actually what I did for the iron shafts. I posted about what I wanted and I had about 7 responses to choose from within 24 hours, so it's pretty active. For golf balls other than ProV1's that would be your best bet for finding them.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

  • Blog Entries