This is it – my final tally. I’ve reached 120 ballots between published ones I found (with help from many folks, including the Tango and the indefatigable Repoz) and ones I gathered myself by talking to voters. That should push us up to around 20% of the total voting pool.
Without knowing whether or not there’s a skew to this sample, I’ll stick with what it tells us for predictions:
1. Goose Gossage will be elected to the Hall of Fame this year. He will be the only candidate elected.
2. If there are two players elected, the second one will be Jim Rice. However, it’s more likely that he will be elected in 2009 as he gains sympathy votes for his final year on the ballot.
3. Of the other players on this ballot, Blyleven, Dawson, and Raines will all eventually earn induction, but no one else will.
Also, my disclaimer: In response to a concern voiced in the comments by a Hall of Fame voter, let me emphasize that the totals below are a tally of published ballots and of ballots I have received from individual voters. It is not an official count.
As of 4:20 pm, Monday, 1/7:
| TOTAL | 120 | Pct |
| Gossage | 108 | 90% |
| Rice | 82 | 68% |
| Blyleven | 79 | 66% |
| Dawson | 79 | 66% |
| Morris | 58 | 48% |
| Smith | 44 | 37% |
| Raines | 42 | 35% |
| McGwire | 29 | 24% |
| Trammell | 29 | 24% |
| John | 22 | 18% |
| Concepcion | 16 | 13% |
| Murphy | 13 | 11% |
| Parker | 11 | 9% |
| Mattingly | 6 | 5% |
| Baines | 4 | 3% |
| Rose (write-in) | 2 | 2% |
Keith-
I’m interested in your thoughts of Raines at 42% (not your thoughts his HOF candidacy–we know them).
For the sake of this inquiry, let’s say that the initial sample you’ve taken does truly represent all the ballots as a whole, and Raines does ultimately appear on roughly 42% of the ballots. Is this a number you are comfortable with as a first ballot number?
In other words, is 42% a decent enough number on the first ballot that it is reasonable to think he’ll eventually get in (as he obviously deserves to) at somepoint in the next X number of years? To me, it seems like 42% is a almost a little higher than I expected from the BBWAA members with a vote. Is it a stretch for me to feel at least a little bit encouraged that voters’ perceptions may be changing at least a little bit for the better?
Keith, I just read you most recent chat, and am now pondering your thoughts on Lou Whitaker. Is there anyway Selig or other higher-ups could demand an investigation into voters who said yes to white second basemen with stats inferior to “Sweet Lou” but somehow withheld support for Lou? And if racism is proven, 1) What recourse would Whitaker have? 2)Could these voters have their membership revoked? Thanks.
If I remember correctly, Ryne Sandberg had just 49% of the vote during his first year.
I’d guess that’s a pretty good base for him to eventually gain election. He’s got 14 years to convince another 33% of the voters that he deserves to be elected, and a good portion of that 33% is simply withholding their votes because they don’t think Raines is a “first ballot” Hall of Famer.
Plus within another 14 years, you’d think the BBWAA would add more sophisticated voters who would more properly appreciate Raines than the current membership does.
My guess is that 42% would be a positive sign for him.
I know most of Keith’s readership doesn’t believe Dawson is a Hall of Famer, but from my biased Cubs fan perspective, I really like that he appears to be getting solid support.
I’d love it if he finished with 70% in this balloting.
Blyleven started out under 20%, so there’s precedent for players starting low to jump up close to election. And I think Raines will get a bump next year as a non-first-timer.
IIRC, Gary Carter started lower than 40% and eventually made it in.
If Gwynn and especially Brock are “obvious” first ballot Hall of Famers, I don’t see how you keep Raines out. The arguments against Raines seem to be:
– didn’t reach 3000 hits (this is because he could draw a walk – he actually has more ToB than either Gwynn or Brock, and the second most of anyone eligible and not in the Hall)
– had a career BA of “only” .294 (same thing – .040 higher career OBP than Brock, .003 lower than Gwynn)
Certainly not suggesting that African-American candidates like Whitaker don’t suffer from a measure of racial bias . . . there may also be some 2B bias. Bobby Grich is another classic example.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2007/12/30/2007-12-30_scott_boras_ego_has_yet_to_recover_from_.html?page=2
This is a link to a column by the NY Daily News’s John Harper. His votes are: Goose Gossage, Jim Rice, Jack Morris, Bert Blyleven, and Dave Concepcion. Don’t know if you’d seen this one. Love the blog!
Bogus arguments?!? Shocker……
Keith, this is enjoyable work by you, canvassing the ballots announced in print — but if your results are accurate enough, the Hall may promptly (in Hall terms — like, another five years) start requiring voters to embargo their ballots prior to the official press release, because if this IS accurate, you’re stealing Jane’s thunder and she won’t like that.
Bummy, perhaps 2b has been a position that has been unfairly ignored. But my question remains: If you can detect some inconsistencies amongst the voters, what sort of recourse would these players have, and to what sort of penalties would the writers face? If players like Rose and Jackson can be penalized for actions which ” stained” the game, surely you could (should) expect that writers encounter some degree of scrunity, right?
Keith…I also sent this over to Chris Jaffe. It was my 2005 early HOF ballot count. 94 were gathered.
Last year there was well over 100, but that included a mess of partials with voters giving their McGwire take and not completing the rest of the ballot.
Baseball Primer % on left/player/actual HOF % on right
75.5% – Sutter (76.9%)
72.3% – Gossage (64.6%)
62.7% – Dawson (61.0%)
59.5% – Rice (64.8%)
50.5% – Blyleven (53.3%)
44.6% – L. Smith (45.0%)
41.4% – J. Morris (41.2%)
22.3% – T. John (29.6%)
17.0% – Trammell (17.7%)
15.9% – Garvey (26.0%)
Repoz – thanks. Were all of these ballots published by the writers? Mine is a mix, probably 50/50, of published and emailed.
I don’t see any absolute gap greater than John’s 7.3; my current tally (92 ballots) doesn’t have anyone within 8 points of 75% in either direction.
As a voter, I am curious where these so-called “early returns” are coming from. I’m assuming this is an inexact canvas, since I’m certain no one has seen the actual ballots other than the BBWAA recording secretary. I do think it is somewhat misleading for people to think these numbers are “official” and would be interested in hearing an explanation. Thanks.
Jim: I’ve never referred to any of these tallies as “official” or “early returns” (scare quotes are particularly inappropriate, since I never used that phrase myself). More than half of the ballots included in this tally have been published by the voters themselves in their print or online columns. The remainder I received via email from the voters themselves.
“Were all of these ballots published by the writers? Mine is a mix, probably 50/50, of published and emailed.”
Keith, For the 2005 ballot above…I’d say just about all of them were “public ballots”.
Last year’s mess (I collected over 60 ballot articles that were mostly Pro/Con McGwire bits) included a few emailed into me from voters. I’m still combing through them (damn off-season moving!), but I had over 100 total last year.
Let me put it this way. Of non-active players who would you want as your closer? Of active players only Rivera surpasses him. The second best closer of all time doesn’t belong in the hall? Of course he does. If Fingers and Sutter, two very good but clearly lesser players, get in then Goose has gotta go in!
But Rice? C’mon, the guy was a terrible fielder, hit into more double plays than any other player in baseball over his career, and his teams won nothing. Compare him with Reggie Jackson and he falls far short. Compare him with Roy White….. White was a gold glover, had excellent speed, hit .290 with 90 RBI’s for those terrible Yank teams of ’69–75. Yes Rice was a great slugger, but he was more an Albert Belle than a Reggie Jackson. Does Belle belong in the hall? Nope, neither does Rice. Think about that.
Something of note, based on career stats:
Player A: .298/.352/.502 – OPS+ 128
Player B: .307/.358/.471 – OPS+ 127
Player A: 1 MVP 0 Gold Gloves
Player B: 1 MVP 9 Gold Gloves
Player A: Jim Rice
Player B: Don Mattingly
Now before you accuse me of being a blind Yankee fan/Don Mattingly lover (which of course I am), I just want to say that I do NOT think Donnie Baseball belongs in the Hall. I just find it odd that one guy is gonna get voted in on about 65% of ballots, while another would be lucky to be on 10%.
Had to step in and defend Rice. First of all Mat you can put any numbers together you want(Rice backers are also good at it) but you can not compare Donnie Baseball to Rice in the manner in which you attempted. First of all by the time Don was just starting out Jim had already had his monster seasons. Therefore while they might of played against each other for a few seasons They are from different eras. By the time 87 came along A crazy long ball season Rice was all but done. I think players a (ton of them) such as Dale Suevm hit 30 or more HR. It was a joke. Take a look at league leaders from 76,77,78,79 Hardly anyone hit 30 if some one did it usually was Rice. Who cares about GG at 1b Palmero one one while not even playing there. K. hernandez,W.Montanez,M.Grace great defensive 1B with little power for the position.= no hof support. You can not hit 220 HR for a career and get in to the hall as a firstbaseman. There is only one way to play first base and that is swing that bat and Don did not do it well enough for long enough.
The Raines vs Rice logic is also stupid. Lets starting comparing players that played in the same era. I also read somewhere that M. alou was Rices equal.I dont care what the juiced ball/player stats say they can not be compared. Alou would hit about 18 hr if he played in the 70’s and Rice would hit about 45 if he played today.
In response to the Reggie comparison. Rice was a much better hitter. Reggie was a .260 hitter.Rice was also not a great fielder but worked hard to make himself an adequate fielder. I believe top 3 in all of baseball is assist over a 16 year period. Sure the g. Monster helped but you can not take it away from him. He did make those throws. Saying that Rice was a terrible fielder is not accurate. The double play stat is also crazy. It is what happens when you hit the ball hard often with men on base. Yaz is also high on the dp list but somehow gets no grief. Reggie on the other hand hit air more often than not and struk out almost 2,600 times. That being said Reggie is a deserving HOF player. he was money when it counted. Rice should be a HOF as well. Rice vs Roy White is so silly it does not even merit a response.
Matt, just for the heck of it, I’ll add in that Bill James also ranked Mattingly as the 12th greatest first baseman in MLB history in his Historical Baseball Abstract, ahead of a number of HOFers. I don’t think he’s a HOFer either, but I always throw his name into the discussion once I start hearing other marginal players mentioned.
cmorgan, I had the opportunity to see both Rice and Reggie play, and Reggie was the feared hitter because he was the more dangerous.
If Reggie had played his entire career in Fenway, and Rice had played his career in Oakland and New York, who would have had the higher BA? Rice was a lifetime .277 hitter away from Fenway, while Reggie was a lifetime .268 hitter on the road. Edge to Rice, but not as much as you’d think, and it ends there. Reggie is a much in all other areas.
Rice’s greatness was a product of Fenway. Reggie hit everywhere. Of his 563 career HRs, 280 were hit at home, 283 on the road. Playing in Oakland and NY for the bulk of his career depressed his career statistics by quite a bit beyond the HRs. During his five years in NY, he hit 66 HRs at Yankee Stadium, and 78 HRs on the road. His batting average was higher on the road, all of his key stats were higher away from the Stadium. And for his career, he hit 33% more doubles on the road than in his home park, because once again, NY and Oakland are not good hitters’ parks.
Now, imagine if Reggie didn’t play in parks that hurt his hitting, or even if he was lucky enough to play in a neutral park, but take that one step further and imagine if he played in a great hitter’s park, like Fenway, which increases offensive production by 20-25%. His numbers would be off the charts.
That’s the problem with Rice’s candidacy. He DID play her career at Fenway, and his final stats just aren’t that great. I don’t hold it against Rice that he had great stats at Fenway, because that should be expected, but if he was truly a great hitter, he wouldn’t be a .277/.330/.459 hitter on the road, compared to .320/.374/.546 at home. That’s a difference of 131 points in OPS (920 vs. 789).
Reggie’s four best seasons are better than Rice’s baased on OPS+.
Reggie:
189 (1969)
172 (1980)
166 (1974)
161 (1973)
Rice:
157 (1978)
154 (1979)
147 (1977)
141 (1983)
It’s even worse for Rice is if you expand their best seasons out to 140 OPS+ Reggie had ten such seasons, Rice had those four, and as we see, Reggie’s four best easily eclipse Rice’s. Reggie also produced those over a thirteen year period, showing dominance over a period of time, where Rice pretty confined it to six years, and really just three years, his peak.
The problem with these discussions is I find myself picking on the merits of good hitters, which Rice certainly was. Yet he wasn’t as good as many think, while Reggie was actually BETTER than most realize. As much as Rice was helped by where he played, Reggie was hurt.
There is no comparison. Reggie was a much better, and much more dangerous hitter than Rice.
I also saw both of them play and we will have to agree to disagree. Let me state again that I think Reggie is a deserving HOF member. Fenway does not increase offensive production by 25% come on! 15 % at best in some categories. But if you did see Rice you know that he did not hit cheap HRs. over the G. Monster. His power was to all fields and Fenway is very deep to center and right. (Except for right down the line in Rt.) If anything I would argue that the Monster robbed Rice more often. He hit many rockets off that wall that were singles or doubles that would of been HR elsewhere.
I can not blame a player for the ballpark in which he played. Rice was drafted by and played his entire career with the Red Sox. He was no mercenary.He was also many times the only African American on the Sox roster and faced the challenges of playing in Boston. Read Howard Bryants book Shut Out and you will get a sense of what he faced.
Reggie did play in NY with a very very short porch in right.Also in 21 seasons on many world champion and league championship teams Reggie had just 6 100 RBI seasons. Rice did it 8 times in 16 years. Reggie also struck out more than 100 times 13 seasons in a row and if it was not for the strike in 81 it would have been 19 in a row. Dont tell me that the batters hitting background for picking up the ball was poor where Reggie played because that streak included his stops in OAK, Balt,Ny and Cal. Reggie was one hell of a player and an even better Self Promoter. I think it was Catfish that said that the Reggie candy bar is the only one that tells you how good it is when you open the wrapper.Rice never had the Pr skill. Rice was the Frank Thomas of his time combining power and avg. Reggie was a winner. In my mind they are both deserving
“Rice was the Frank Thomas of his time combining power and avg”
I trust you are talking about the white Frank Thomas…because his numbers are a lot closer to Jim Rice’s than Rice’s are to the other Frank Thomas.
OPS+
107 – Frank Thomas (.266/.320/.454 – 774)
128 – Jim Rice (.298/.352/.502 – 854)
157 – Frank Thomas (active) (.303/.421/.561 – 982)
Rice was the Frank Thomas (active) of his Time.During Rice’s era he was like Thomas a power /avg guy.You HAVE to compare players to the players of Their time. Of course the Big hurts numbers wil dwarf Rice’s because of the contex of era.If you were to take 5 years of jims era and compare them to five of the Hurts it is shocking. From 1975 thru 1979 there were ecactly 0 70 hr seasons(by any player)0 60 Hr seasons 1 50 hr season and 6 40 HR seasons 47 30 hr seasons.In the years 98 through 2002 by comparison there were 2 70 hr seasons 4 60 seasons 5 fifty and 53 40 hr seasons and 130 times a player hit 30. A 40 or more hr seaon was accomplished 7 times compared to 64 times. It was a much different time!
During his time over a 12 year period Rice led ALL AL players in 12 different offensice categories including HR RBI Total Bases Slugging % Runs and Hits. When a player leads his league in just about every offensive category for a dozen years that is domination. If you include NL players (which makes no sence to me because Rice only played against them in All star games)Rice still leads in 5 categories and finishes second in eight others. In contex of his era he is a HOF player.
Numbers can be worked in many ways to prove an arguement but in no way can you compare the big hurt or Frank thomas of the 50’s and 60’s( Fine player but Never led his league in anything) to rice. They played in different eras under different conditions and the numbers do not translate. Does anyone think that Yaz had no power because he only hit 30 or more hr 3 times. Or that he was not a good hitter because he won a batting title hitting .301 in 68. Different time different numbers. It is about time for the stars of the late 70s early 80s to get some respect.
Frank Thomas, the real one, is a monster because of his super-high OBP. Walks is part of the “Hidden Game” that people gloss over, much too often. Making no mention of his walk total is ignoring an enormous benefit.
Batting average should never have been invented.
Thanks for accumulating this data, Keith. Since this post has moved off the home page, it may not be a bad idea to bump the thread up a bit.
Keep in mind that this is Rice’s penultimate year on the ballot. I suspect that he will come up short this year (as the data indicates), but will make it next year as some voters will feel pity as it would be his last chance. That, of course, is an absurd reason to vote for someone. That being said, unless you are a voter that advocates a very large Hall, the fact that anyone votes for Rice now is absurd.
Tangotiger
You missed my point. Frank Thomas (Big Hurt) is a first ballot no doubt about it hall of famer. But he and Rice played in different eras. I brought him into the discussion to point out that Rice wsa no Dave Kingman, Greg Nettles, Gorman Thomas,etc (typical 70s hr/rbi league leader that did not hit for avg.)He was a frank thomas type player of his era. Also the importance of a walk can be debated. Sometimes having a big lumbering slugger walk and than requires 3 base hits to score has litle value.In todays game where the 6 through 9 hiters can all hit the ball out of the park of course it is important but in Rices day those hitters were usually not .300 hitters with power like you see today.It was the middle of the order slugger who the offense looked to. (by the way the other frank thomas was a very good ball player and was in fact very real)
Phil D. I am wondering where are all of these players are going to come from in your theroy of a very large hall. Many of the 80’s stars have been ignored and the 90’s players have the steroid taint to their name,. See big mac. Anyone who refuses to vote in rice after comparing him to the players of his era is absurd.
#30:
I am not advocating a large Hall personally. Like most, I feel a player should have to be as good as the average HOFer (or so) to qualify.
That being said, if one were to argue in favor of a (reasonably) lower standard, I can respect that argument. Only under such a lower standard can Rice qualify. Of course, if you vote for Rice as part of a large Hall argument, you are compelled to also support Gossage, Dawson, Trammell, Murphy and John at a minimum. Everyone should support Blyleven and Raines, no matter what standard you advocate.
Jim Rice and the current player Frank Thomas are both African-American. Similarities end there.
Thomas’ career OBP to date is .421. Rice’s was .359. That is not a difference in eras. It is a difference in abilities.
c morgan, do you understand that OPS+ adjusts for eras? Comparing the Mattingly “era” to the Rice “era” as you have is meaningless.
Ronaldo
See above list of rice domination of alost every offensive stat during his playing time.I find that anything but meaningless. That is over a 12 year period. Don was great. But did not come close to dominating over 8 not to mention 12 seasons. That is the reason that Jim will probably get 70% of the vote and don will be in the 10% range. Don would have had a better showing if had not hurt his back and Rice would be in if he played one more year. Rice dominated his Era and Don was on a pace to and got hurt.
C Morgan, just wondering who you think is the better all-round player, Dawson or Rice?
Phil
Whose job is it to determine what an avg hofer is.There are hof players such as Kirby P. Tony Perez, Bruce Sutter, Gary Carter, Orlando Cepeda, you could go on and on that many believe can be compared to Gossage, Rice, Dawson, Blyleven,etc. I feel that way about those players. Why should one group get in when the other struggles to. They could get in without lowering any standards. Not everyone can be Babe Ruth or Hank Arron. The best players from each era should get in. Some players are blessed with long careers and compile stats Blyleven,Gossage,Yastrzemski,Brooks Robinson,Craig Biggio,Edie murray,Dave Winfield etc Whie others have shortened periods due to injury such as Sutter,Kirby Puckett,Sandy Koufax Ralph Kiner, Jim Rice,etc. Who is to say what group is more deserving? Anyone have any thoughts on Bobby Grich? he shuld have gotten more support . I also feel that luis tiant and catfish hunter were equals and thus both deserving.
Bob
I think that Dawson was a better all- round player but Rice was a better hitter. Dawson had the advantage of having a long career to pad his offensive stats. I believe that Dawson won 1 mvp and finished in the top 5 2 other times. Rice one one mvp and finished in the top 5 five other times.In my mind they are both HOF players. Dawson has many more years on the ballot and will gain momentum in coming years and certainly when Rice either gets in or runs out of time. Just like Gossage will now that suter is out of the way. Carlos beltran and Grady sizemore are better all-round players than Manny Ramirez and Albert Pujos but that does not mean that Manny and Albert are not Hof Players. Ralph Kiner is in the HOF and so is Ozzie Smith. I Know that many do not share my opinion of Rice and Dawson but they were 2 of the best during their time and should get in. Time is almost out for Rice. I will leave one more Rice fact to try to sway his doubters(just kidding. I know that is not going to happen) Among all major league retired players eligible for the hall only 9 have compiled as high a career Batting avg.(.298) and hit as many HR as Rice (that number will sky rocket with today’s juiced player) the nine are ruth, williams,aaron,foxx,gehrig,mantle,mays,and musial. You can harp about Fenway park all you want but he did it and it should not be diminished. thousands of players have played in Fenway,Wrigley,pologrounds shibe park(insert any park thought of as a band box you want)but only 10 palyers have done it and the other 9 are in.Rice certanly is the odd man in the group and is not of the caliber of those other 9 but who is?
I remember growing up watching Danny Tartabull, and he could really hit! He never hit a cheap home run, and was only grounding into double plays because he hit the ball so hard.
It’s easy to make claims that a player ‘looked great’ or ‘was a great hitter’, but you need to look at the real stats to understand if this was just spin doctoring or the truth. I do think the general opinion of a player should be considered when deciding who to induct in the HoF. The overriding factor should be a players performance as measured by stats, but I do think the perception of a player (i.e. their fame) should be considered on some level. To me, the HoF should basically be a history of the game, which factors in both the statistical nature of the game as well as the personality/’fame’ side. The problem is that by including this, the decision becomes completely subjective. Of course, it already is, so maybe its not a big change after all.
On a side note, Tartabull actually had a better career OPS+ than Rice (133 vs 128).
Chris
The baseball Hof is subjective. And I do agree that it should reflect baseball history to a degree that is why I believe Roger Maris should be in and while I am adding yankees Billy Martin great player and famous if not great manager.But you can not honestly compare Tartabull to Rice. Come on I dont care what the OPS+ is. Tartabull led the league in one category one time slg% in 91.And appeared in one all star game.
c morgan,
Those “dominant” stats are helped by Fenway park.
Look at Rice’s home/road splits, and explain them. Explain how someone so pedestrian on the road can deserve a spot in the Hall of Fame.
Keith, I just noticed Jim Henneman’s odd note. I say odd because you were quite clear on how these votes were being assembled. Makes me wonder if you have received any complaints from members of the BBWAA for trying to compile votes? Have you heard of any pressure/direction from the BBWAA to its members to not provide information to you? Obviously, any reporter who publishes his or her ballot in a news outlet can’t be stopped, but I’m curious if the BBWAA frowns on its members providing their indivudual votes to others.
It should be interesting to see how close your ballot count is to the final. I still have this feeling that there’s probably some like-voting segment you may not be tapping here that may cause Gossage’s, Blyleven’s and Raines’ percentage to decrease slightly, while Rice’s to increase slightly. We’ll see soon enough.
Ronaldo
As I stated earlier rice was the dominate player of his time. I dont care if rice played on the moon. His stats led the league over a 12 year period in almost every single offensive category! Last time I checked Fenway Park does qualify as a major league park. His accomplishments should not be taken away because of where he played. If so why dont we pull mel ott out of the hall. Take a look at those home/road splits. Or why dont we put every player who had to play in the astrodome into the hall. I am sure jose cruz, Terry puhl and bob watson would appreciate it. Rice bashers will never get it. We will have to agree to disagree.
C Morgan, thanks for opening up my mind. I can’t wait to push hard for Larry Walker, Dante Bichette, Andres Galarraga, and the rest of the 90’s Rockies. Should be good times. Good arguments.
“When a player leads his league in just about every offensive category for a dozen years that is domination.”
But in the age of free agency, when a player spends 12 years of his prime in the same league and we limit ourselves only to that stretch, he’s going to have a lot less competition for cumulative stat leaderboards. This is both because of players switching leagues and players whose careers don’t overlap perfectly (ie. Player A is a much better player than Rice, but is 3 years younger and only plays 9 of the chosen 12 years).
Alas, Dante Bichette was on the ballot last year and didn’t quite make it. Vinny Castilla and Ellis Burks are still up for consideration in the future. :p
Anyways, it’s discouraging to see Raines and Blyleven fall. I think Blyleven needs to finish with at least 60% if he has a shot of getting elected.
“I dont care if rice played on the moon. His stats led the league over a 12 year period in almost every single offensive category!”
Clearly you don’t understand the difference between being the dominate player of his time and having the dominate counting stats of his time.
You have contextualize these things. If I did play on the moon, that would not make me Hank Aaron. Rice should not get credit for being gifted with a very generous home environment. It doesn’t make him better as a player, it just inflates his numbers.
ESPN has posted their 15 ballots.
Gossage 100%, Rice 93% and Dawson 80%, were the only
three on 75% or more.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof08/news/story?id=3177278
Keith, I just saw your colleague Jayson Stark’s ballot and it has several laughable features. He votes for 8 players, and still doesn’t vote for Trammell. That is ridiculous. His support for Rice features no statistical analysis.
The sentence that got me the most worked up however, was when he stated that Morris was the No. 1 pitcher on every team he played for. There is no basis in fact for a comment like that. In 1991, Erickson and Tapani were better, 1992 Guzman, Cone, Key were better, in 1993 he was the worst Jays starter, in 1994, his last year, he was the worst Indians starter. On the Tigers, there were also years they had better starters.
Keith, next time you see or speak to with Jayson, ask him about this comment. I thought he was above most of these lame brain arguments.
2 idiots still vote for Rose. Grow up. That argument is long over.
Revoke their ballot.
Interesting…McGwire’s pct. about same as last year.
I personally think winning an MVP and finishing in the top 5 Five other times makes him a dominate player. I guess all of the mvp voters were wrong. They could see the dominance. eventhough they hated Rice they voted for him anyway. If hitting at Fenway is so easy why did no other hitter or Rices era put up similar stats.