Baseball Hall of Fame, 2014

[JasonEvans]

Ballots are due today. Results will be announced in a week. Here is a good article (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/tracy-ringolsby-tom-glavine-greg-maddux-clear-cut-choices-on-2014-hall-of-fame-ballot?ymd=20131230&content_id=66237750&vkey=news_mlb&partnerId=ed-7823514-638170933) talking about this year's best candidates. It suggests Maddux and Glavine are the most likely to make it.

I have to agree with those two fro sure. The article makes a great point about the stuff Glavine did away from the field which is quite impressive. I am not sure who else my ballot this year would also include but Biggio and Bagwell sure make sense. I'd probably vote for some of the steroid cheats, especially Bonds who was a HOFer before he started juicing. McGwire and Sosa would not get my vote. Clements probably would. I'd have trouble keeping my ballot to only 10 names, that's for sure.

-Jason "amazing year for the HOF ballot -- probably the best ever" Evans

[Blue in the Face]

Frank Thomas will get in also (not sure how he doesn't even rate a mention in that article). Biggio, Bagwell and Piazza will be close, and will go in either this year or next year. Tim Raines will continue to be deeply underappreciated.

[weezie]

Pretty sure Tram and Morris won't get it, just because neither is a sexy pick, meaning they aren't favs of the writers.

[Olympic Fan]

I read a pretty informed article (sorry I can't remember the link) that suggested that Maddox would be the only player elected this year.

That's pretty ridiculous, if he's right.

Agree that Glavine and Frank Thomas should be locks among the first timers. Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza and Jack Morris would get my vote from the holdovers, along with Tim Raines, who has become the most underrated player in baseball history.

I would not vote for any of the cheaters. Jason, you suggest that Bonds was a HOF quality player before he cheated ... yeah, and so were Joe Jackson before he took money to throw the World Series and Pete Rose before he bet on baseball. A cheater is a cheater is a cheater.

Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGuire, Palmerio and (eventually) A-Roid and Ortiz can wait forever IMHO (in this case, the H stands for harsh, not humble).

PS: I know there are PED suspicions about Bagwell and Piazza, but I've never seen any convincing evidence with either. I hate that careers have been smeared because those cheats have sold the fiction that "everybody did it" (the best evidence is that only 15 percent of ML players were doping at the height of the PED era). I even read a commentator suggest that Thomas must have cheated because he was so big and strong -- when Thomas was a crusader for testing because he hated competing against the guys who did cheat.

[dball]

I would not vote for any of the cheaters. Jason, you suggest that Bonds was a HOF quality player before he cheated ... yeah, and so were Joe Jackson before he took money to throw the World Series and Pete Rose before he bet on baseball. A cheater is a cheater is a cheater.
.

Poor ole Joe. Not sure he should be included in the above. There seems to be some doubt as to his guilt. If he did take money to throw the series, he did a terrible job at it: series record 12 hits, .375 average (tops for both squads), no errors and threw out a guy at the plate.

[Olympic Fan]

Poor ole Joe. Not sure he should be included in the above. There seems to be some doubt as to his guilt. If he did take money to throw the series, he did a terrible job at it: series record 12 hits, .375 average (tops for both squads), no errors and threw out a guy at the plate.

While there have always been deniers who have tried to whitewash Jackson's involvement in the fix, the weight of the evidence in strongly against him.

It's about as certain as a fact can be that Jackson accepted $5,000 from the gamblers to throw the series ... he was actually supposed to get $20,000, but the gamblers shortchanged him and the other six players in on the fix (the eighth player banned for the fix was Buck Weaver, who knew about the fix and refused to participate ... but was banned for not reporting it).

Jackson signed a confession, admitting to receiving the money. He later repudiated the confession (saying he was conned by his lawyer) then still later changed his story and admitted he got the money, but tried to give it back. Testimony from the other players confirmed that he got the money from first baseman Chick Gandil.

The evidence is overwhelming that Jackson took money to throw the world series.

Did he do anything to earn that money? On this point, the evidence is much less clear.

On one hand, he did post those gaudy batting numbers that you cite -- although his ups and downs in the series curiously coincided with the games the Black Sox were trying to throw and the games they were trying to win (because the news of the fix was so widespread, the cheaters couldn't lay money on the Reds and the White Sox had to try and win certain games to balance the odds. That's how Dickie Kerr became a hero .. he happened to pitch and win two games the fixers were trying to win).

Still, it's possible Jackson played it straight and only screwed the bookies who paid him.

On the other hand, Hugh Fullerton, the Chicago journalist who eventually exposed the fix, went until the series looking for suspicious play. He sat beside Christy Mathewson, the HOF pitcher, who had quit as manager of the Reds when management refused to get rid of Hal Chase, the most blatant fixer who ever played the game. Chase moved on soon after (to the Giants) and amazingly the Reds won a pennant. The Giants slumped with him, but immediately after dumping Chase they won three straight pennants.

As I said, Fullerton and Mathewson charted suspicious plays. They cited three Jackson plays in the outfield -- including a play in the first inning of the first game. Rath was on third (after being hit by Cicotte -- a signal that the fix was on) and when Heinie Groh lofted a fly to left, Jackson didn't even try and cut off the run at the plate -- Eddie Collins, who was not in on the fix, was furious at Jackson for not throwing to the plate.

I can't remember the other questionable plays, except remember the line in field of dreams when Costner says "his glove was the place where triples go to die" ... well, the Reds hit seven triples in the series -- five of them to left field, the hardest place to hit a triple. At least one was a ground rule triple into the overflow crowd, but Dutch Reuther's triple in the fourth inning of Game One -- the hit that broke the game open -- was to left and was another play Fullerton and Mathewson questioned.

I know that Cicotte, one of two pitchers in on the fix, later complained that the other players who concerned with protecting their batting averages and forced he and Horse Williams to throw the games with little help. Gandil, who was at the center of everything, drove in the tying run in Game One. Does that mean he was innocent too?

Finally, in 2002, Commissioner Bud Selig commissioned Chicago sports writer Jerome Holtzman to investigate the Jackson case and write a report arguing for or against Jackson's reinstatement. Holtzman was widely known to be a Jackson advocate and most of his colleagues expected a report exonerating the tarnished star. But Holtzman was an honest man and once he really looked at the evidence, he had to write a report that did NOT suggest his reinstatement.

I know that Jackson will always have his defenders (just as Bonds, Clemens and the modern cheaters do), but I believe the evidence is conclusive that he took money to throw the series ... and convincing that he acted to earn that money -- despite his batting average.

[jjasper0729]

While there have always been deniers who have tried to whitewash Jackson's involvement in the fix, the weight of the evidence in strongly against him.

It's about as certain as a fact can be that Jackson accepted $5,000 from the gamblers to throw the series ... he was actually supposed to get $20,000, but the gamblers shortchanged him and the other six players in on the fix (the eighth player banned for the fix was Buck Weaver, who knew about the fix and refused to participate ... but was banned for not reporting it).

Jackson signed a confession, admitting to receiving the money. He later repudiated the confession (saying he was conned by his lawyer) then still later changed his story and admitted he got the money, but tried to give it back. Testimony from the other players confirmed that he got the money from first baseman Chick Gandil.

The evidence is overwhelming that Jackson took money to throw the world series.

Did he do anything to earn that money? On this point, the evidence is much less clear.

On one hand, he did post those gaudy batting numbers that you cite -- although his ups and downs in the series curiously coincided with the games the Black Sox were trying to throw and the games they were trying to win (because the news of the fix was so widespread, the cheaters couldn't lay money on the Reds and the White Sox had to try and win certain games to balance the odds. That's how Dickie Kerr became a hero .. he happened to pitch and win two games the fixers were trying to win).

Still, it's possible Jackson played it straight and only screwed the bookies who paid him.

On the other hand, Hugh Fullerton, the Chicago journalist who eventually exposed the fix, went until the series looking for suspicious play. He sat beside Christy Mathewson, the HOF pitcher, who had quit as manager of the Reds when management refused to get rid of Hal Chase, the most blatant fixer who ever played the game. Chase moved on soon after (to the Giants) and amazingly the Reds won a pennant. The Giants slumped with him, but immediately after dumping Chase they won three straight pennants.

As I said, Fullerton and Mathewson charted suspicious plays. They cited three Jackson plays in the outfield -- including a play in the first inning of the first game. Rath was on third (after being hit by Cicotte -- a signal that the fix was on) and when Heinie Groh lofted a fly to left, Jackson didn't even try and cut off the run at the plate -- Eddie Collins, who was not in on the fix, was furious at Jackson for not throwing to the plate.

I can't remember the other questionable plays, except remember the line in field of dreams when Costner says "his glove was the place where triples go to die" ... well, the Reds hit seven triples in the series -- five of them to left field, the hardest place to hit a triple. At least one was a ground rule triple into the overflow crowd, but Dutch Reuther's triple in the fourth inning of Game One -- the hit that broke the game open -- was to left and was another play Fullerton and Mathewson questioned.

I know that Cicotte, one of two pitchers in on the fix, later complained that the other players who concerned with protecting their batting averages and forced he and Horse Williams to throw the games with little help. Gandil, who was at the center of everything, drove in the tying run in Game One. Does that mean he was innocent too?

Finally, in 2002, Commissioner Bud Selig commissioned Chicago sports writer Jerome Holtzman to investigate the Jackson case and write a report arguing for or against Jackson's reinstatement. Holtzman was widely known to be a Jackson advocate and most of his colleagues expected a report exonerating the tarnished star. But Holtzman was an honest man and once he really looked at the evidence, he had to write a report that did NOT suggest his reinstatement.

I know that Jackson will always have his defenders (just as Bonds, Clemens and the modern cheaters do), but I believe the evidence is conclusive that he took money to throw the series ... and convincing that he acted to earn that money -- despite his batting average.

Just to follow up on this. It's also been argued that the hits Jackson got during the series (including the home run) were at points in the games when the outcome was more or less decided so he could hit normally because it wouldn't affect the outcome.

[dball]

While there have always been deniers who have tried to whitewash Jackson's involvement in the fix, the weight of the evidence in strongly against him.

It's about as certain as a fact can be that Jackson accepted $5,000 from the gamblers to throw the series ... he was actually supposed to get $20,000, but the gamblers shortchanged him and the other six players in on the fix (the eighth player banned for the fix was Buck Weaver, who knew about the fix and refused to participate ... but was banned for not reporting it).

Jackson signed a confession, admitting to receiving the money. He later repudiated the confession (saying he was conned by his lawyer) then still later changed his story and admitted he got the money, but tried to give it back. Testimony from the other players confirmed that he got the money from first baseman Chick Gandil.

Well, Jackson got the $5000. He told the Grand Jury that. http://www.blackbetsy.com/jjtestimony1920.pdf

What he doesn't do is admit to throwing the series. For the illiterate Jackson, I think that made a difference. His family was threatened and his roommate, Lefty Williams, threw the cash on the floor of the room (not Gandil). There is some indication Jackson had refused money on at least two other occasions.

There is also some evidence to suggest he received poor legal advice. His teammates admitted Jackson never met with them on any of the confabs held to plan the fix. Lefty Williams said Jackson's name was thrown in to show the gamblers the other guys were serious about throwing the series.




As I said, Fullerton and Mathewson charted suspicious plays. They cited three Jackson plays in the outfield -- including a play in the first inning of the first game. Rath was on third (after being hit by Cicotte -- a signal that the fix was on) and when Heinie Groh lofted a fly to left, Jackson didn't even try and cut off the run at the plate -- Eddie Collins, who was not in on the fix, was furious at Jackson for not throwing to the plate.

Without questioning this account (though some do question the "didn't even try" portion), you might mention that Jackson scored the tying run the very next inning.



I can't remember the other questionable plays, except remember the line in field of dreams when Costner says "his glove was the place where triples go to die" ... well, the Reds hit seven triples in the series -- five of them to left field, the hardest place to hit a triple. At least one was a ground rule triple into the overflow crowd, but Dutch Reuther's triple in the fourth inning of Game One -- the hit that broke the game open -- was to left and was another play Fullerton and Mathewson questioned.

As far as I know, the "five triples to left field" is myth. Six of the triples were hit by left-handed batters; the seventh by the switch hitting Kopf who would have been batting right against Lefty Williams. I don't know of any contemporary accounts that list this myth; it actually appears all the triples were to right field.



I know that Jackson will always have his defenders (just as Bonds, Clemens and the modern cheaters do), but I believe the evidence is conclusive that he took money to throw the series ... and convincing that he acted to earn that money -- despite his batting average.

It doesn't appear conclusive to me. Though I don't think of myself as a defender of Joe, I do think there are few indicators he was trying to throw the series. He seems more a rube to me and as such doesn't belong in the grouping with those who cheated.




Just to follow up on this. It's also been argued that the hits Jackson got during the series (including the home run) were at points in the games when the outcome was more or less decided so he could hit normally because it wouldn't affect the outcome.

This is silly. Jackson was 3 for 4 in the 4-2 second game loss, got a double in the second of the 2-0 fourth game loss and scored the tying run (at the time) in what became the first game blowout. The homer was in the third inning of the eighth game. He also doubled and had a long out at the wall that nearly produced 3 more rbi. He didn't do anything offensively in the 5-0 fifth game loss so you can't contribute any of this hits here to after the fact.

[sagegrouse]

The Hall of Fame still requires, I believe, the votes of 75 percent of those voting. Yet the number of voters has soared immensely, making it more difficult to arrive at such a consensus. Now we have a logjam of candidates, including those with many, many records but links to steroids. Yet voters are still limited to voting for ten candidates; maybe nobody ever gets in again! All of this suggest that the voting formulas should be changed. Quite frankly, the NFL approach of selecting five players every year bears consideration, although there is no reason baseball shuld pick the same number.

I confess to having an "attitude problem" WRT the HOF: It lauds the accomplishments of Bowie Kuhn, whose unremarkable career was even further tarnished when he fled to Florida to protect his assets against a bankruptcy judgment. Then it denies admission to Kuhn's adversary and negotiating partner, Marvin Miller, the union leader who reshaped the game of baseball.

[greybeard]

Carl Furillo, should have been in decades ago.

In his 15-year career, Furillo batted .299 with 192 home runs, 1910 hits, 1058 RBI, 895 runs, 324 doubles, 56 triples, 48 stolen bases, a .458 slugging average and 514 walks for a .355 on base percentage. As an outfielder, he had 3322 putouts, 151 assists, 34 double plays and 74 errors for 3547 total chances and a .979 fielding percentage. If he had one more hit in his career, he would statistically had a .300 batting average

Furillo was a terrific clutch hitter, was said to have been the best of his time at his position, right field (not considering Clemente of "his time" although there was overlap), and had a legendary arm.

Furillo's release from the Dodgers at the beginning of the 1960 season and inability to catch on with another team is steeped in controversy. Furillo successfully sued the Dodgers for having released him to avoid a pension bump that would have come had he played a 15th season. His claim that he had been blackballed when no team picked him up went nowhere with Commissioner Ford Fricke. No Marvin Miller back then. We was robbed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Furillo.

[Olympic Fan]

Carl Furillo, should have been in decades ago.

In his 15-year career, Furillo batted .299 with 192 home runs, 1910 hits, 1058 RBI, 895 runs, 324 doubles, 56 triples, 48 stolen bases, a .458 slugging average and 514 walks for a .355 on base percentage. As an outfielder, he had 3322 putouts, 151 assists, 34 double plays and 74 errors for 3547 total chances and a .979 fielding percentage. If he had one more hit in his career, he would statistically had a .300 batting average

Furillo was a terrific clutch hitter, was said to have been the best of his time at his position, right field (not considering Clemente of "his time" although there was overlap), and had a legendary arm.

Furillo's release from the Dodgers at the beginning of the 1960 season and inability to catch on with another team is steeped in controversy. Furillo successfully sued the Dodgers for having released him to avoid a pension bump that would have come had he played a 15th season. His claim that he had been blackballed when no team picked him up went nowhere with Commissioner Ford Fricke. No Marvin Miller back then. We was robbed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Furillo.

greybeard ... haven't we debated this before?

I know you love the guy, but HOF is ridiculous. This is an outfielder with never once finished in the top 5 of the MVP vote (he had a sixth place finish which was the only top 10 finish). He played in two all-star games and never started. You list his career numbers, which are solid, but none of them is HOF worthy -- less than 2,000 hits? Less than 200 HRs? A .299 BA?

To use advanced metrics, his OPS-plus is a very mediocre (for a right fielder) 112. His career WAR is 35.0 -- which is 620th in baseball history. It's less than Curtis Granderson, Lonnie Smith, Andy Van Slyke or Carl Crawford.

When you say he was the best of his time at his position, are you sure you don't mean the "best defensively" -- which he might have been? But if he were the best RFer of his time, you think he might have started an all-star game? He overlapped most of his career (and almost all of his best years) with a NL rightfielder named Hank Aaron. Guys like Enos Slaughter, Hank Sauer and Del Ennis started All-star Games ahead of him.

While there may have been controversy about his release in 1960, it's not like he was robbed a significant portion of his career. He was 38 years old -- the 10th oldest player in baseball when the season started.

Furillo was a nice player -- a great defensive outfielder with a so-so bat -- on a very popular team (but one that won just one world champion ship in his era). But Furillo was at best the sixth best player on that team (after Jackie and Campy, Snider and Pee Wee and Hodges). There's a reason that he never got more than 2 percent of the vote when he was on the HOF ballot.

[brevity]

greybeard ... haven't we debated this before?

Good memory. More than once: June 2007 (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?2157) and January 2008 (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?5996). greybeard has also brought up Furillo on May 2007 (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?1892#post19753), January 2010 (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?18880#post353085), and June 2012 (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?28717#post583065).

I have no opinion on this, other than to say that I can't remember what I said 6 days ago, much less 6 years ago.*

*Oh wait, I can. It was something like, "Why are all those 300-pound Texas A&M linemen listening to that 14-year-old boy throw a hissy fit?"

[JasonEvans]

Well, any chance of Greg Maddux being the first ever unanimous HOF member has died. Some genius at MLB.com has revealed his ballot (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24401339/greg-maddux-will-not-be-the-first-unanimous-hall-of-fame-inductee)and it does not include Maddux. In fact, Ken Gurnick has voted for only one player (http://deadspin.com/greg-maddux-will-not-be-a-unanimous-hall-of-famer-1496300490?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_facebo ok&utm_source=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow) from the 2014 HOF class, Jack Morris. Grunick says he refuses to vote for anyone who played in the "steroid era."

Well, that makes a ton of sense. Lots of guys were cheating so lets penalize everyone, even the guys who did not cheat. I have never heard anyone accuse Maddux of steroid use and there is nothing in his career that would indicate he took any performance enhancing drugs. He was never a power-pitcher, always relying on location, movement, and change of speeds to get batters out. He was a brilliant fielder of his position too.

The idea that a voter would ignore everyone from a 10-15 year stretch of baseball is ludicrous and insulting to the Hall voting process. What's more, as the linked article above indicates, if you think the "steroid era" did not begin until the mid-90s (which most everyone would agree upon) then Maddux was already HOF worthy from his pitching in the late 80s until the mid-90s. By 1995 he had 4 Cy Young awards, 6 golden gloves, and a slew of other HOF-worthy stats. Ridiculous!

Look, I don't know if Maddux is the greatest pitcher of all time and worthy of being the first unanimous player, but at least come up with a reasonable reason not to vote for him. I think I would be happier with the old-school lunatics who merely say they refuse to vote for any first-timer on the ballot out of some misguided tradition than I would with Gurnick's idiotic "I'm not voting for anyone who played from 1996-2008" (or whatever timespan you think the "steroid era" consists of).

-Jason "Twitter is ripping Gurnick a new one... I'm going to join the fun!" Evans

[throatybeard]

I read a pretty informed article (sorry I can't remember the link) that suggested that Maddox would be the only player elected this year.

I'm far more interested to see what happens with Maddux.

Here's a nice appreciation of Maddux and Glavine by Tim Kurkjian.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10227380/put-greg-maddux-tom-glavine-hall-fame-together

[JasonEvans]

I'm far more interested to see what happens with Maddux.

Here's a nice appreciation of Maddux and Glavine by Tim Kurkjian.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10227380/put-greg-maddux-tom-glavine-hall-fame-together

What a great, great article. Really lets you appreciate the effort and professionalism that went into their craft.

Best line--
Maddux and Glavine were so perceptive, they knew their pitch counts as the game wore on.

"Maddux came in after the sixth inning once and said, 'Leo, where am I on the [pitch] counter? 66 pitches, right?'" Mazzone said. "I said, '64.' And he said, 'Well, you missed two.'"

-Jason "Tommy better make it this year so he can go in with Greg. I predict Maddux will get about 98% of the vote and Tommy will be around 85%" Evans

[Mal]

That is, indeed, ridiculous, JE. Grunick (along with plenty of others) should have his vote taken away. I've railed about this ad nauseum in the past, but my pet theory is that there should be some sort of metric that enforces a higher level of homogeneity in the voting. Because with so many voters these days, the idiosyncracies are way out of hand. If x players are inducted over a 5 year period, and you voted for less than .6x or more than 2x, for instance, you're stripped of your vote. Unintended consequence could be that they all just vote for no one, but I'd imagine some conformity would start to take hold and these idiots with their imagined brave self-martyring protest stands would stop trying to put the spotlight on themselves instead of the players.

It always comes back to the basic problem of baseball's HOF: its members are chosen exclusively by sportswriters (other than the makeup call outlet of the Veteran's Committee). Terrible idea on many levels. [Apologies to Kurkjian, Neyer, Posnanski and others, of course, who through their well-reasoned, thoughtful, analytical contributions consistently show what a bunch of morons a lot of their competitors are]

[Matches]

Well, that makes a ton of sense. Lots of guys were cheating so lets penalize everyone, even the guys who did not cheat. I have never heard anyone accuse Maddux of steroid use and there is nothing in his career that would indicate he took any performance enhancing drugs. He was never a power-pitcher, always relying on location, movement, and change of speeds to get batters out. He was a brilliant fielder of his position too.



Maddux practically played the game while wearing a sweater-vest. If there was ever a guy you could look at and say "nope, that guy's not doping", it was Greg Maddux. Utterly insane to leave him off the ballot (as it would be to leave Glavine off).

Some folks' sense of self-righteousness over PEDs is just amazing. I wonder if these guys nod along to historical accounts of the Salem Witch Trials.

[Chicago 1995]

Well, any chance of Greg Maddux being the first ever unanimous HOF member has died. Some genius at MLB.com has revealed his ballot (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24401339/greg-maddux-will-not-be-the-first-unanimous-hall-of-fame-inductee)and it does not include Maddux. In fact, Ken Gurnick has voted for only one player (http://deadspin.com/greg-maddux-will-not-be-a-unanimous-hall-of-famer-1496300490?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_facebo ok&utm_source=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow) from the 2014 HOF class, Jack Morris. Grunick says he refuses to vote for anyone who played in the "steroid era."

Well, that makes a ton of sense. Lots of guys were cheating so lets penalize everyone, even the guys who did not cheat. I have never heard anyone accuse Maddux of steroid use and there is nothing in his career that would indicate he took any performance enhancing drugs. He was never a power-pitcher, always relying on location, movement, and change of speeds to get batters out. He was a brilliant fielder of his position too.

The idea that a voter would ignore everyone from a 10-15 year stretch of baseball is ludicrous and insulting to the Hall voting process. What's more, as the linked article above indicates, if you think the "steroid era" did not begin until the mid-90s (which most everyone would agree upon) then Maddux was already HOF worthy from his pitching in the late 80s until the mid-90s. By 1995 he had 4 Cy Young awards, 6 golden gloves, and a slew of other HOF-worthy stats. Ridiculous!

Look, I don't know if Maddux is the greatest pitcher of all time and worthy of being the first unanimous player, but at least come up with a reasonable reason not to vote for him. I think I would be happier with the old-school lunatics who merely say they refuse to vote for any first-timer on the ballot out of some misguided tradition than I would with Gurnick's idiotic "I'm not voting for anyone who played from 1996-2008" (or whatever timespan you think the "steroid era" consists of).

-Jason "Twitter is ripping Gurnick a new one... I'm going to join the fun!" Evans

Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. among others, think it's very kind of you, Jason, that you think the steroid era started in the mid 90s and not before. Your interpretation has to be what Gurnick means though -- otherwise, Morris pitched in the steroid era too and a bad argument becomes even more ludicrous. If you are going to take the stand that Gurnick is taking -- I'd think you'd need to leave your ballot blank going forward. Guys are still getting caught.

[Dev11]

Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. among others, think it's very kind of you, Jason, that you think the steroid era started in the mid 90s and not before. Your interpretation has to be what Gurnick means though -- otherwise, Morris pitched in the steroid era too and a bad argument becomes even more ludicrous. If you are going to take the stand that Gurnick is taking -- I'd think you'd need to leave your ballot blank going forward. Guys are still getting caught.

The "Steroid Era" is really just one section of the "Performance-Enhancing Drugs Era," which dates back many more decades and includes a lot of other stars.

I hope that enough rabble is raised that the BBWAA/HoF overhauls the voting process soon.

[JasonEvans]

ESPN has posted the ballots (http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10231471/craig-biggio-tom-glavine-greg-maddux-frank-thomas-elected-espn-2014-baseball-hall-fame-ballot) of their 17 writers who get to vote. 17 is not an insignificant number of votes to determine if these guys are going to make the Hall.


Maddux , Thomas - 100% (17 out of 17)
Glavine - 94% (16 of 17)
Biggio - 76.5% (13 of 17)
Piazza - 70.6% (12 of 17)
Morris, Raines - 64.7% (11 of 17)
Bagwell - 58.8% (10 of 17)
Bonds, Clements - 52.9% (9 of 17)

As we all know, only the guys above 75% get into the Hall.

Contrast this with MLB.com, which also has 17 voters and published the results...


Maddux, Glavine - 94% (16)
Biggio, Morris - 76.5% (13)
Thomas - 64.7% (11)
Bagwell - 52.9% (9)
Piazza - 47.1% (7)

If we combine these together, we get a 34 vote sampling, which is a pretty significant number. I bet the final totals, due to be announced in about 30 minutes, come darn close to matching these results. Here they are--


Greg Maddux 97.06%
Tom Glavine 94.12%
Frank Thomas 82.35%
Craig Biggio 76.47%
Jack Morris 70.59%
Mike Piazza 58.82%
Jeff Bagwell 55.88%
Tim Raines 47.06%
Barry Bonds 44.12%
Roger Clemens 44.12%
Alan Trammell 32.35%
Lee Smith 26.47%
Curt Schilling 26.47%
Mike Mussina 23.53%
Jeff Kent 17.65%
Fred McGriff 14.71%
Edgar Martinez 11.76%
Rafael Palmeiro 8.82%
Don Mattingly 5.88%
Larry Walker 5.88%


-Jason "30 mins to go -- pleasantly surprised Glavine is doing as well on these ballots as he is" Evans

[Dev11]

Congrats to Maddux, Glavine, and the Big Hurt for their Hall of Fame elections! Biggio missed by two votes, so hopefully he gets in next year. So long to Jack Morris.

Some of my earliest baseball memories happened during the primes of these players' careers. I can confidently state that 8-year old Dev11 thought Frank Thomas and Greg Maddux were superheroes.

[JasonEvans]

Maddux came up short of Seaver. He got 97.2% of the votes. Seaver was over 98%.
Glavine got 91.9%
Thomas 83.7%
Biggio came up 2 votes short with 74.8%
Jack Morris wasn't all that close with 61.5%, even less than the 67% he got last year.

-Jason "gonna be a Bravestastic day in Cooperstown!" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Name... votes (percentage)
Greg Maddux 555 (97.2%)
Tom Glavine 525 (91.9)
Frank Thomas 478 (83.7)
Craig Biggio 427 (74.8)
Mike Piazza 355 (62.2)
Jack Morris 351 (61.5)
Jeff Bagwell 310 (54.3)
Tim Raines 263 (46.1)
Roger Clemens 202 (35.4)
Barry Bonds 198 (34.7)
Lee Smith 171 (29.9)
Curt Schilling 167 (29.2)
Edgar Martinez 144 (25.2)
Alan Trammell 119 (20.8)
Mike Mussina 116 (20.3)
Jeff Kent 87 (15.2)
Fred McGriff 67 (11.7)
Mark McGwire 63 (11.0)

[Olympic Fan]

I was just watching the announcement on the MLB network, followed by the interviews with the three inductees.

At one point they had Maddux, Glavine on with Smoltz -- who was on the MLB Network [panel. Great to hear the banter -- they were talking about their relative batting prowess (Glavine the best hitter, but Smoltz had the most power). Smoltz claimed to be aggravated about a Nike commercial that talked about Glavine and Maddux's hitting but left him out (I think it was during the period when he was a reliever). Maddux came up with the line of the day: "Hey, Smoltzie, the chicks dig the long ball, not a bald spot!"

Very glad to see the two Brave pitchers go in with such strong vote totals. It bodes well for Smoltz's chances next year ... but that's going to be a loaded ballot too with Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez eligible.

Very happy to see Frank Thomas get in -- I love that he's one of the most vocal critics of the cheaters.

BTW: Loved seeing that Bonds and Clemens vote totals both dropped ... the cheaters ain't getting in anytime soon.

Biggest disappointment was that Morris missed in his final year ... I was disappointed that Biggio missed by two votes, but he'll get in next year.

[rasputin]

I was just watching the announcement on the MLB network, followed by the interviews with the three inductees.

At one point they had Maddux, Glavine on with Smoltz -- who was on the MLB Network [panel. Great to hear the banter -- they were talking about their relative batting prowess (Glavine the best hitter, but Smoltz had the most power). Smoltz claimed to be aggravated about a Nike commercial that talked about Glavine and Maddux's hitting but left him out (I think it was during the period when he was a reliever). Maddux came up with the line of the day: "Hey, Smoltzie, the chicks dig the long ball, not a bald spot!"

Very glad to see the two Brave pitchers go in with such strong vote totals. It bodes well for Smoltz's chances next year ... but that's going to be a loaded ballot too with Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez eligible.

Very happy to see Frank Thomas get in -- I love that he's one of the most vocal critics of the cheaters.

BTW: Loved seeing that Bonds and Clemens vote totals both dropped ... the cheaters ain't getting in anytime soon.

Biggest disappointment was that Morris missed in his final year ... I was disappointed that Biggio missed by two votes, but he'll get in next year.

I agree with almost all of this. To me it's as big a disappointment that Tim Raines still isn't close. I don't understand a system that gets Jim Rice in and not Raines.

[Dev11]

I was just watching the announcement on the MLB network, followed by the interviews with the three inductees.

At one point they had Maddux, Glavine on with Smoltz -- who was on the MLB Network [panel. Great to hear the banter -- they were talking about their relative batting prowess (Glavine the best hitter, but Smoltz had the most power). Smoltz claimed to be aggravated about a Nike commercial that talked about Glavine and Maddux's hitting but left him out (I think it was during the period when he was a reliever). Maddux came up with the line of the day: "Hey, Smoltzie, the chicks dig the long ball, not a bald spot!"

Very glad to see the two Brave pitchers go in with such strong vote totals. It bodes well for Smoltz's chances next year ... but that's going to be a loaded ballot too with Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez eligible.

Very happy to see Frank Thomas get in -- I love that he's one of the most vocal critics of the cheaters.

BTW: Loved seeing that Bonds and Clemens vote totals both dropped ... the cheaters ain't getting in anytime soon.

Biggest disappointment was that Morris missed in his final year ... I was disappointed that Biggio missed by two votes, but he'll get in next year.

I suppose my early guess for next year, then, is Biggio, Smoltz, Pedro, and Johnson. If enough writers can figure out that it's ok to vote for a lot of guys, maybe Mussina or Raines get enough support, but I doubt it, given their totals from this year. It looks like Bonds and Clemens won't ever make it.

Another side show in this whole process: Deadspin succeeded in crowd-sourcing a ballot and getting a writer to turn it in. Dan LeBatard let them fill out his ballot without taking any compensation for it. It will be interesting to see the fallout.

[Blue in the Face]

If enough writers can figure out that it's ok to vote for a lot of guys, maybe Mussina or Raines get enough support, but I doubt it, given their totals from this year.
The question with Moose and Raines isn't whether they'll get in next year (they won't come close), but whether they'll go up or down in the voting. Raines went down for the first time this year, and that often continues (though Rice and Dawson both dipped down before rebounding on their long road to inception). I'd guess Moose will go up at least a little, but with more big names coming onto the ballot, maybe not. I really hope Piazza gets in soon - I know Murray Chass is hung up on his bacne, but I think that's a pretty unfair reason to keep a deserving player out.

[Mal]

If enough writers can figure out that it's ok to vote for a lot of guys, maybe Mussina or Raines get enough support, but I doubt it, given their totals from this year.

I think that's the key right now. It's a combination of backlog buildup due to the PED questions, and the voters' general disinclination to use all 10 of their votes (maybe it makes it feel like they're making it too easy to get into the Hall of Fame?), that's draining support from worthy candidates and making this all hard to predict these days. I was sure at least 5 guys would make it this year. Prior to today, there were only 7 inductees the last 5 years, so the ballot's gotten jammed with guys who would, under normal circumstances, be getting in. Not getting Biggio and Piazza off the ballot today only hurts Bagwell, Raines and Mussina next year, when two more surefire first-balloters show up. Jr.'s up the year after that, so there's limited ability to clear the backlog unless more writers take the approach of guys like Jason Stark and Joe Posnanski and use all 10 of their votes every year until they don't feel there are 10 deserving candidates anymore.

I'd guess that Pedro, Unit, Biggio and Piazza go next year, and voters need a year or two to figure out how to evaluate Smoltz, who doesn't fit a particular pigeonhole. In another two and especially in three years (when there's no one that will get in on their first try, so I'd predict everyone gets backburnered), there will finally be enough free bandwidth to get the Raines case made and shame people into voting for him before his eligibility runs out, and we'll be far enough removed from BALCO and the Mitchell Report to have enough voters give Bagwell his shot. But they're going to have to wait. Apparently Mussina will, too. I figured he'd get at least 1/3, and not even Schilling got that much.

On a separate note, I will not miss having to discuss Jack Morris every year now. Maybe the Veteran's Committee puts him in eventually, but there's not an annual DBR thread about that process. ;)

[OldPhiKap]

Maddux came up short of Seaver. He got 97.2% of the votes. Seaver was over 98%.
Glavine got 91.9%
Thomas 83.7%
Biggio came up 2 votes short with 74.8%
Jack Morris wasn't all that close with 61.5%, even less than the 67% he got last year.

-Jason "gonna be a Bravestastic day in Cooperstown!" Evans

Anyone who did not vote for Maddox on the first ballot should have their voting rights revoked.

Get over yourselves.

[throatybeard]

Anyone who did not vote for Maddox on the first ballot should have their voting rights revoked.

Unless there were some odd write-ins, I'm pretty sure 0% of them voted for Maddox.

(I'm eagerly awaiting to find out how "Sheldon Williams" did).

[Olympic Fan]

I've been reading and watching the reaction to the HOF vote most of the day and evening and what really gets my goat is the defense of the cheaters:

"It was the era ... everybody did it" (the same lame defense we hear from the cheaters in Chapel Hill).

They've tainted almost everybody. There was the one MLV voter who said he wasn't voting for anybody from the steroid era (although he voted for Jack Morris, who pitched most of his career in the steroid era). I saw a statement from another voter who said he left off Craig Biggio because he suspected steroid abuse (the first time I've heard that suggested).

Certainly Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell missed because of persistent suspicions that both used PEDs. Suspicion, but no evidence.

The trouble is that it's impossible to disprove ... neither denials nor testing results are convincing -- Lance Armstrong never failed a test and was adamant that he never doped until the day he admitted it.

But I would argue that when you look at the career of Piazza or Bagwell, it's hard to see the evidence that they doped. Piazza had his peak years between 26 and 28 years old, maintained a very high level through age 32, then slowly declined until he was a fairly average player from age 35 on. Bagwell had his peak year at age 26, then maintained a fairly high level through age 32, when he began a slow, but consistent decline until he was done at age 37.

Those are very normal career tracks -- players peak in their mid-to-late 20s, maintain a high level until about age 32-35, then decline steadily.

Contrast that with Barry Bonds, who had his four best years between the ages of 36 and 39. Or Roger Clemens, whose career seemed to be winding down in his early 30s (he was 40-39 between the ages of 30 and 33), who bounced back to have his second best season at age 34 ... and his best at age 42. Mark McGwire had his two best years at age 34 and 35.

I hate what the cheaters have done to the game. They have tainted an era, even though the best evidence I've seen is that just 15 percent of major leaguers used PEDs at the peak of the era. I'm not sure of Piazza or Bagwell are clean or dirty -- I would give them the benefit of the doubt (but, then, I long gave Armstrong the benefit of the doubt).

[weezie]

On a separate note, I will not miss having to discuss Jack Morris every year now. Maybe the Veteran's Committee puts him in eventually, but there's not an annual DBR thread about that process. ;)

Now, you knew I was going to have to zero in on this, didn't you Mal? :cool:

Boo-hissssss :p

[hurleyfor3]

I've been reading and watching the reaction to the HOF vote most of the day and evening and what really gets my goat is the defense of the cheaters:

"It was the era ... everybody did it" (the same lame defense we hear from the cheaters in Chapel Hill).

Everybody DID do it.

Except "everybody" was sportswriters, managers, general managers, owners, the MLB front office and fans. And "it" was encouraging behavior -- explicitly legal in many cases -- that a few self-anointed moral guardians now want to punish.

The smarter voters are very well aware of this conundrum -- they're deciding who gets to be in the Hall, but also what they (the writers and voters) themselves want their reputation to be.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10261642/mlb-hall-fame-voting-steroid-era

[Matches]

But I would argue that when you look at the career of Piazza or Bagwell, it's hard to see the evidence that they doped. Piazza had his peak years between 26 and 28 years old, maintained a very high level through age 32, then slowly declined until he was a fairly average player from age 35 on. Bagwell had his peak year at age 26, then maintained a fairly high level through age 32, when he began a slow, but consistent decline until he was done at age 37.


The problem (well one of them) is that some of these sportswriters know lots of things that they don't print, because the media can't print it without getting sued. There's a LOT of chatter out there about Bagwell and there was during his career as well, but none of it got in print. Doesn't mean people close to the situation don't know the truth. (It doesn't help that Bagwell's supposedly a skinny dude now.)

Of course that doesn't help you or me, because we have no way to evaluate the veracity of information we don't have, possessed by people whose credibility we really cannot judge. Thus the whole thing takes on this witch hunt quality where we're judging all these guys in a weird kangaroo court. The voters are terrified of voting someone in and then having that person linked to PEDs, because then the whole house of cards falls apart.

[Olympic Fan]

The problem (well one of them) is that some of these sportswriters know lots of things that they don't print, because the media can't print it without getting sued. There's a LOT of chatter out there about Bagwell and there was during his career as well, but none of it got in print. Doesn't mean people close to the situation don't know the truth. (It doesn't help that Bagwell's supposedly a skinny dude now.)

Of course that doesn't help you or me, because we have no way to evaluate the veracity of information we don't have, possessed by people whose credibility we really cannot judge. Thus the whole thing takes on this witch hunt quality where we're judging all these guys in a weird kangaroo court. The voters are terrified of voting someone in and then having that person linked to PEDs, because then the whole house of cards falls apart.

Fair enough ... I understand what you are saying, but again we're talking rumors.

Your comments about Bagwell remind me of Carl Mays, a star pitcher for the Red Sox and Yankees in the teens and '20s who by all rights should be in the HOF. For years, the fiction has been that he was passed over because he threw the pitch that killed Ray Chapman. But in truth, he was banned because Yankee manager Miller Huggins was convinced that Mays threw two games in the 1921 World Series. He passed the story around, but it never got in print because the news of another fix so soon after the 1919 Black Sox would have devastated baseball and the writers and baseball big-wigs conspired to protect the game.

I do see strong parallels between the gambling crisis in 1919 and the PED crisis a decade ago. Both issues were widely known and ignored as baseball tried to sweep the problem under the rug -- believe me, the 1919 Black Sox were not the first baseball fixers -- not by a long shot. There is evidence (not sure if it is enough to convict) that the Cubs fixed the 1917 World Series. The Red Sox and Giants fixed at least one game in the 1912 Series. Hal Chase fixed dozens of games. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker -- two of the great players ever -- conspired to fix a meaningless late-season game. Baseball ignored it and fought like hell to keep the Black Sox story quiet until it blew up ... and they had to do something -- and they responded by going the other way and making gambling on baseball the ultimate crime.

The same has happened with PEDs ... baseball fought to ignore and cover it up for years until it blew up and they finally had to go the other way, making it a huge deal.

But, hurley, I strongly disagree that "everybody" was involved. There were always voices crying in the wilderness. That's one of the reasons I love Frank Thomas -- when everybody else was denying the problem or ignoring it, he was demanding testing. Goose Gossage was another player voice. There were dozens of writers during the era who raised the issue and many fans.

I would agree that the baseball establishment was complicit -- but the idea that everybody went along with it is patently false.

[hurleyfor3]

But, hurley, I strongly disagree that "everybody" was involved. There were always voices crying in the wilderness. That's one of the reasons I love Frank Thomas -- when everybody else was denying the problem or ignoring it, he was demanding testing. Goose Gossage was another player voice. There were dozens of writers during the era who raised the issue and many fans.

I would agree that the baseball establishment was complicit -- but the idea that everybody went along with it is patently false.

As a mod I try not to wade too deeply into DBR holy wars, with a couple exceptions such as slapping down Tiger Woods fanboys. But anyway, if a BBWAA writer is on the record, before 2001 or so when it was clear how widespread the problem was, for refusing to vote in anyone with a positive test, they're off the hook. Which means they better not be voting for David Ortiz. That said, I don't recall anyone withholding MVP votes in protest when Bonds was winning four straight.

I'll buy that not everybody juiced. But if the argument is that only X percent juiced or whatever, I strongly suspect that was only because people were focusing on the top (X + some small number)% of players. And seriously scrutinizing only about four or five of them.

[throatybeard]

Oops.

3787

At least they didn't label either of them as "Maddox."

[Olympic Fan]

For a really good look at the gradual media awareness about this issue, check out:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10261642/mlb-hall-fame-voting-steroid-era

The first PED article was by the great Tom Boswell in 1988 -- specifically naming Jose Canseco as a steroid user. The story was dismissed and disputed. Other writers, who heard the gossip about the users couldn't get the story past their editors -- newspapers used to have standards of proof that no longer exist in this internet age. There wasn't another major steroid splash until Bob Nightingale in 1995 wrote an article about widespread steroid use, but he got over the legal hurdle by not naming names.

I contend there were writers during the era that were busting their butts to expose the issue, but were stonewalled by the establishment and by their own papers, which were afraid of lawsuits.

I specifically remember a Sports Illustrated story during the Bonds HR year, when he responded to questions about PED use by saying that he wished they would test players ... Rick Reilly (I believe that's the writer) then showed up in the Giants' locker room with an SI offer to test Bonds at their expense and clear his name. Not surprisingly, Bonds refused.

[hurleyfor3]

Someone else linked that five posts above yours, just sayin'.

I consider that to strengthen my argument that a community that knew that was going on, and getting worse, since at least the mid-90s -- as the article points out, sportswriters talk to each other, always have -- shouldn't be locking the barn after the horse got out and acting like there was no horse there to begin with.

Isn't journalism supposed to be about revealing unpleasant facts and standing by your story in the face of others who want you to look the other way?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

[Mal]

Now, you knew I was going to have to zero in on this, didn't you Mal? :cool:

Boo-hissssss :p

Sorry, hadn't been intending to open wounds or anything! I do note that I didn't actually reveal my stance on his candidacy (at least not in this thread). The primary point was that I was tired of debating him year after year after year, when in reality I really didn't care too much one way or the other. At least not after Blyleven was inducted.

[Olympic Fan]

Isn't journalism supposed to be about revealing unpleasant facts and standing by your story in the face of others who want you to look the other way?


Ideally .. yes, but in the real world, a large percentage of the media types are fan-boys who would rather suck up to the people they cover than expose unpleasant truths. Haven't we seen that in regard to the North Carolina media and the academic scandal at UNC? One writer from the N&O is on the story (Dan Kane), but that's it. No other in-state paper ... no other television station ... no radio guy (not Dave Glenn, who is supposed to be the expert on ACC sports) has done any original research on the issue. The Wolffies at Packpride have done more investigative work than every reporter in the state not named Dan Kane put together.

I'm sure that a large percentage of baseball writers and broadcasters in the '90s and the early part of this decade knew what was going on with PEDs and closed their eyes.

But there were voices crying in the wilderness. Some of them were blocked by their own papers (afraid of lawsuits). Some of them just didn't have the platforms to make their concerns widely heard.

But, let me ask you, does it somehow exonerate the cheaters that so many media types (and organizational types) turned a blind eye to their cheating?

I say that instead of finding excuses for the cheaters that we celebrate those who had the cojones to speak before it was fashionable -- Boswell and Nightingale in the media, players such as Frank Thomas, Goose Gossage and Tony Gwynn

[greybeard]

greybeard ... haven't we debated this before?

I know you love the guy, but HOF is ridiculous. This is an outfielder with never once finished in the top 5 of the MVP vote (he had a sixth place finish which was the only top 10 finish). He played in two all-star games and never started. You list his career numbers, which are solid, but none of them is HOF worthy -- less than 2,000 hits? Less than 200 HRs? A .299 BA?

To use advanced metrics, his OPS-plus is a very mediocre (for a right fielder) 112. His career WAR is 35.0 -- which is 620th in baseball history. It's less than Curtis Granderson, Lonnie Smith, Andy Van Slyke or Carl Crawford.

When you say he was the best of his time at his position, are you sure you don't mean the "best defensively" -- which he might have been? But if he were the best RFer of his time, you think he might have started an all-star game? He overlapped most of his career (and almost all of his best years) with a NL rightfielder named Hank Aaron. Guys like Enos Slaughter, Hank Sauer and Del Ennis started All-star Games ahead of him.

While there may have been controversy about his release in 1960, it's not like he was robbed a significant portion of his career. He was 38 years old -- the 10th oldest player in baseball when the season started.

Furillo was a nice player -- a great defensive outfielder with a so-so bat -- on a very popular team (but one that won just one world champion ship in his era). But Furillo was at best the sixth best player on that team (after Jackie and Campy, Snider and Pee Wee and Hodges). There's a reason that he never got more than 2 percent of the vote when he was on the HOF ballot.

Blacklisted; paved the way for Kurt Flood. Also, 300 is not a HOF number? Batting Championship? Did Robinson have better numbers? I don't know. Pee Wee, please. Hodges did not make it. The Dodgers were in the series during the time Forillo was in his prime more than any team but the Yankees. I believe that he had numbers comparable to other players of his era who made it, who were not the fielders he was, not by a long shot. There was a guy who put together a largely pictorial tomb, with brief bios, of Famous People from Brooklyn. He made it his mission and urged others to do the same to push for Forillo to get his rightful place in the HOF, even though there likely was no chance--the Dodger-fan way.

The Dodgers often had at lest four players in the All star game, the outfielders of Furillo's era in the National League included Snider, Mays, Musial, Aaron, Clemente was an overlap, I believe, Robin Roberts (not better than Forillo but on a team that produced very few All Stars)/ As for numbers, let's leave out after the season was significantly extended, the asterisk for Maris.

Not saying he was a lock. But he had been blackballed, wanted to be traded but instead was cut, had to sue for his pension bump, and then could not catch on after he had had a very, very respectable season two seasons before he was dumped, after then missing most of the intervening year due to injury (he did knock in the winning run in the Series, and scored the winning run in the playoff). He never got a look for the Hall, after batting 3000 over 15 seasons, and the best outfielder arm in the game. he also was an ironman until his last season, and was a great fielder, and a clutch hitter.

[Dev11]

Ideally .. yes, but in the real world, a large percentage of the media types are fan-boys who would rather suck up to the people they cover than expose unpleasant truths. Haven't we seen that in regard to the North Carolina media and the academic scandal at UNC? One writer from the N&O is on the story (Dan Kane), but that's it. No other in-state paper ... no other television station ... no radio guy (not Dave Glenn, who is supposed to be the expert on ACC sports) has done any original research on the issue. The Wolffies at Packpride have done more investigative work than every reporter in the state not named Dan Kane put together.

I'm sure that a large percentage of baseball writers and broadcasters in the '90s and the early part of this decade knew what was going on with PEDs and closed their eyes.

But there were voices crying in the wilderness. Some of them were blocked by their own papers (afraid of lawsuits). Some of them just didn't have the platforms to make their concerns widely heard.

But, let me ask you, does it somehow exonerate the cheaters that so many media types (and organizational types) turned a blind eye to their cheating?

I say that instead of finding excuses for the cheaters that we celebrate those who had the cojones to speak before it was fashionable -- Boswell and Nightingale in the media, players such as Frank Thomas, Goose Gossage and Tony Gwynn

So now that the writers who were silent in the 90s have the opportunity to speak out by denying those players whom they fawned over Hall of Fame enshrinement, that's their big takedown of PEDs?

I don't think it exonerates the 'cheaters,' but the spineless writers shouldn't be the ones handing down punishments. Call it hypocritical.

[Blue in the Face]

Ballots of those writers who chose to make their votes public - http://bbwaa.com/14-hof-ballots/

[hurleyfor3]

But, let me ask you, does it somehow exonerate the cheaters that so many media types (and organizational types) turned a blind eye to their cheating?

Does it somehow exonerate media members, and everyone else who was complicit, that they can behave one way before 2005 or so and a completely different way after it? Most free societies have prohibitions against retroactive laws.

It's not just about passing judgement on presumed steroid users, anyway. It's about acknowledging no one has a complete list of who juiced, when and how much, and that no one is above suspicion. I don't get the whole "I believe what ballplayer X says but not what ballplayer Y says" thing. And everyone on both sides of the argument believes Jose Canseco!

You keep using the word "cheated" -- you know the 1951 Giants cheated (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB980896446829227925.html). Two Hall of Famers were on that team. One was Willie Mays.


I say that instead of finding excuses for the cheaters that we celebrate those who had the cojones to speak before it was fashionable -- Boswell and Nightingale in the media, players such as Frank Thomas, Goose Gossage and Tony Gwynn

Here's Nightengale's ballot:


Newcomers: Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Craig Biggio.

Holdovers: Jack Morris, Fred McGriff, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2014/01/07/mlb-hall-of-fame-voting-greg-maddux-tom-glavine-frank-thomas-craig-biggio/4361597/

[Mal]

Blacklisted; paved the way for Kurt Flood. Also, 300 is not a HOF number? Batting Championship? Irrelevant; no, it's not; and so what? There are plenty of guys who hit .300 with one or more batting titles who are not Hall of Famers, or even close.


Did Robinson have better numbers? I don't know. Seriously, dude? Look it up. These are not hard things to find out for yourself before you make yourself look silly. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/furilca01.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hodgegi01.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/robinja02.shtml


I believe that he had numbers comparable to other players of his era who made it, who were not the fielders he was, not by a long shot. This is not religion. Go look it up and you'll see how false this assertion is.


There was a guy who put together a largely pictorial tomb, with brief bios, of Famous People from Brooklyn. He made it his mission and urged others to do the same to push for Forillo to get his rightful place in the HOF, even though there likely was no chance--the Dodger-fan way. The point being what? That Furillo's a stronger candidate because some Dodger fans really like him?


But he had been blackballed, wanted to be traded but instead was cut, had to sue for his pension bump, and then could not catch on after he had had a very, very respectable season two seasons before he was dumped, after then missing most of the intervening year due to injury (he did knock in the winning run in the Series, and scored the winning run in the playoff). He never got a look for the Hall, after batting 3000 over 15 seasons, and the best outfielder arm in the game. he also was an ironman until his last season, and was a great fielder, and a clutch hitter. None of this is relevant to a HOF candidacy. The numbers are what they are. It's not he was derailed in his prime - he was 37 years old before he stopped playing 120+ games a year, so it's not like he was run out of the league with plenty of stats left to compile. I'm sorry, but Carl Furillo, while a nice player, had and has no business sniffing the Hall of Fame.

[greybeard]

Irrelevant; no, it's not; and so what? There are plenty of guys who hit .300 with one or more batting titles who are not Hall of Famers, or even close.

Seriously, dude? Look it up. These are not hard things to find out for yourself before you make yourself look silly. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/furilca01.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hodgegi01.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/robinja02.shtml

This is not religion. Go look it up and you'll see how false this assertion is.

The point being what? That Furillo's a stronger candidate because some Dodger fans really like him?

None of this is relevant to a HOF candidacy. The numbers are what they are. It's not he was derailed in his prime - he was 37 years old before he stopped playing 120+ games a year, so it's not like he was run out of the league with plenty of stats left to compile. I'm sorry, but Carl Furillo, while a nice player, had and has no business sniffing the Hall of Fame.

Furillo had reasonable comparable batting stats to Mr. Robinson:

BA RBI Hits HR 2B 3B walks OBP SLP
Furillo (15 yr) .299* 1058 1910 192 26 56 514 .355 .458 * 1 hit short of 300

Robinson (10 yr) 311 731 1518 137 273 54 .409 .474

Furillo's defensive stats were nothing short of astounding (I think, I am not a baseball wonk)

3222 out outs (base point), 151 assists, 34 double plays, fielding percentage .979, an probably untold number of players who did not try to take an extra base

Other Era Outfielders Voted Into the Hall (I am not a baseball wonk)

Ritche Ashburn .308 561 2574 29 317 109 1198 .396 .382

Ashburn played until he was 35, Furillo until he was 37, Furillo's last 2 years, he played 50 and 8 games, respectively. Ashburn played 2082 more games, I found no defensive statistics anywhere about him, and he had no reputation of having had a "rifle arm

Blackball and Not Getting In, In Fact Never Seriously Considered

Not unreasonable to draw a nexus

The Stuff About the Guy from Brooklyn and the Campaign

Other Dodgers whom many thought should have been in, Hodges, whom you mention, among them, there was no campaign for. The guy was particularly detaioled about the Dodger's having dumped him, it was also over a salary dispute, I believe Furillo was offered $8,000, and demanded to be traded and was promptly let go, and I said it rather tongue in check, "We was Robbed." Not we, Furillo; he was never given a chance.

[tommy]

Furillo had reasonable comparable batting stats to Mr. Robinson:

BA RBI Hits HR 2B 3B walks OBP SLP
Furillo (15 yr) .299* 1058 1910 192 26 56 514 .355 .458 * 1 hit short of 300

Robinson (10 yr) 311 731 1518 137 273 54 .409 .474


Wait a minute. You think Jackie Robinson -- Jackie Robinson! -- was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his stats?? My seven year-old knows enough about baseball, and about history, to know how absurd that assertion is.

And it's utterly insulting to Mr. Robinson and his legacy as one of the absolute bravest of cultural trailblazers in this nation's history.

[Blue in the Face]

A discussion of Carl Furillo's hall of fame worthiness is certainly not something I ever really expected to stumble upon...



Furillo had reasonable comparable batting stats to Mr. Robinson:

.....................BA....RBI...Hits..HR..2B..3B. .BB..OBP..SLP
Furillo (15 yr) .299* 1058 1910 192 26 56 514 .355 .458 * 1 hit short of 300

Robinson (10 yr) 311 731 1518 137 273 54 740 .409 .474


I wouldn't consider those reasonably comparable. Reaching base is an extremely important aspect of batting, and that's a pretty dramatic gap between the two of them. That's a much higher rate of making outs for Furillo. The additional power isn't dramatic, but it's not nothing either.

And hitting isn't all there is to offense. Robinson was a tremendous base-runner, while Furillo was... not. Robinson led the league in steals twice and was top 10 all but 1 year of his career. He was also efficient in his base-stealing, leading the league in % at least once, and being top 5 at least three other times (baseball-reference doesn't have stats for caught stealing prior to 1950, so he very well may have been at the top of the league in his earlier years as well). Furillo not only wasn't much of a base-stealing threat, when he chose to run, he did so poorly. After 1950, he attempted 43 steals, and was caught 26 times. Spread over 10 years it's not exactly a big deal, but if you steal bases that poorly, it's just hurting your team to try. (Though again, he may have been more successful in his earlier years, before BR has stats on getting caught. On the other hand, he stole more bases in his early years, so if he was similarly unsuccessful, he was hurting his offense even more often than he did later). And there's also more to base-running than steals. There may not be stats to capture it, but I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption that Robinson added meaningfully more value on the basepaths stretching hits and advancing on batted balls than Furillo did.

Defensively, this is all before my time so I never saw him play and it's difficult to judge. His gross stats are certainly good and from what I've read he was a very very good fielder. I don't really think of corner outfielders making the hall of fame on defense, even excellent defense, and his offense falls very well short, so...

[Olympic Fan]

I got to believe greybeard is extending this with his tongue firmly in cheek ... the Furillo argument is so silly ...

But I did want to comment about Ashburn and Furillo defensively ...

Actually, Furillo had a legitimately great arm -- one of the best, if not THE best of his generation (at least until Clemente came along near the end of his career). It's hard to measure arm strength statistically because once a player demonstrates the strength of his arm, opponents stop testing it. But other than that, he was not a great right fielder -- his career range factor is below average for a RFer ... his fielding percentage is almost precisely the league average.

Ashburn, on the other hand, was a centerfielder with incredible range -- indeed, Ashburn consistently put up a significantly better range factors that Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Duke Snider or Joe DiMaggio. He led the NL CFers in range nine times, was second once and third once. Bill James said the numbers suggest Ashburn covered more ground than any CF in history. His fielding percentage was well above average. His arm? Well, he had more outfield assists than Furillo -- whether that means that his arm was better or it was worse and they ran on him more, I don't know.

Plus, of course, Ashburn was one of the great leadoff men of all time -- a career .396 OBP. He won two batting titles and four times led the NL in OBP (seven times in the top 5 and 9 times into the top 10).

[rasputin]

Furillo had reasonable comparable batting stats to Mr. Robinson:

BA RBI Hits HR 2B 3B walks OBP SLP
Furillo (15 yr) .299* 1058 1910 192 26 56 514 .355 .458 * 1 hit short of 300

Robinson (10 yr) 311 731 1518 137 273 54 .409 .474

Furillo's defensive stats were nothing short of astounding (I think, I am not a baseball wonk)

3222 out outs (base point), 151 assists, 34 double plays, fielding percentage .979, an probably untold number of players who did not try to take an extra base

Other Era Outfielders Voted Into the Hall (I am not a baseball wonk)

Ritche Ashburn .308 561 2574 29 317 109 1198 .396 .382

Ashburn played until he was 35, Furillo until he was 37, Furillo's last 2 years, he played 50 and 8 games, respectively. Ashburn played 2082 more games, I found no defensive statistics anywhere about him, and he had no reputation of having had a "rifle arm

Blackball and Not Getting In, In Fact Never Seriously Considered

Not unreasonable to draw a nexus

The Stuff About the Guy from Brooklyn and the Campaign

Other Dodgers whom many thought should have been in, Hodges, whom you mention, among them, there was no campaign for. The guy was particularly detaioled about the Dodger's having dumped him, it was also over a salary dispute, I believe Furillo was offered $8,000, and demanded to be traded and was promptly let go, and I said it rather tongue in check, "We was Robbed." Not we, Furillo; he was never given a chance.

Robinson's on-base percentage is about 50 points higher than Furillo's, and his slugging percentage is higher than Furillo's. Add in their respective places in baseball history. And add in the fact that Robinson played most of his career at second base as opposed to right field. They are not comparable.

As to Ashburn, in fact he did not have a great arm, certainly not comparable to the Reading Rifle. But Ashburn is generally regarded as having had astounding range defensively. If you look up the figures for most putouts in a season by a center fielder, you will find that the list is peppered by seasons by Richie Ashburn.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

I got to believe greybeard is extending this with his tongue firmly in cheek ... the Furillo argument is so silly ...

But I did want to comment about Ashburn and Furillo defensively ...

Actually, Furillo had a legitimately great arm -- one of the best, if not THE best of his generation (at least until Clemente came along near the end of his career). It's hard to measure arm strength statistically because once a player demonstrates the strength of his arm, opponents stop testing it. But other than that, he was not a great right fielder -- his career range factor is below average for a RFer ... his fielding percentage is almost precisely the league average.

Ashburn, on the other hand, was a centerfielder with incredible range -- indeed, Ashburn consistently put up a significantly better range factors that Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Duke Snider or Joe DiMaggio. He led the NL CFers in range nine times, was second once and third once. Bill James said the numbers suggest Ashburn covered more ground than any CF in history. His fielding percentage was well above average. His arm? Well, he had more outfield assists than Furillo -- whether that means that his arm was better or it was worse and they ran on him more, I don't know.

Plus, of course, Ashburn was one of the great leadoff men of all time -- a career .396 OBP. He won two batting titles and four times led the NL in OBP (seven times in the top 5 and 9 times into the top 10).


I grew up with, and still have, a Richie Ashburn signature baseball glove.
However, I was, and still am, a bad to indifferent outfielder

Clearly he was overrated ;)

[rasputin]

I grew up with, and still have, a Richie Ashburn signature baseball glove.
However, I was, and still am, a bad to indifferent outfielder

Clearly he was overrated ;)

My first glove that wasn't a hand-me-down from my older brothers was a Roberto Clemente model that my sister bought for me when I was about eight (1965). I was already a big fan of his at the time.

I later owned a Dave Kingman model glove. There's a symmetry, I suppose, to going from one of the great defensive players in baseball history to one of the worst.

[throatybeard]

Blacklisted; paved the way for Kurt Flood.

Kurt Flood. I bet he was friends with "Maddox."

[greybeard]

To begin with, if you didn't grow up in Brooklyn, arguing who was the best center fielder in the city, Mantle, Mays, of Snider (Dave Anderson wrote that it probably was my guy), you don't get the "argument" I have made for the second time in all the years I have been posting here, at least I think it was only the second, as compared to what has to have been the many hundreds I had made about the center fielders, and that the 1955 Dodgers were, in fact, better than the 1961 Yankees.

That said, let's take a look at a few numbers:

Enos Slaughter played 19 years, 5 more than Furillo, if you don't count his last two seasons, 50 and 8 games, respectively, had lifetime numbers pretty spot on to Furillo's: both batted 300, Slaughter had 1304 RBIs to Furillo's 1050, and 16 9HRs to Furillo's 192. Why Slaughter made 10 All Star teams and Furillo 1, you tell me. It certainly wasn't because he was a better fielder. When he was with the Yanks, I loved Slaughter as a player, which is saying something because I was for the other guys.

Hank Sauer had more home runs, 288, but he batted only 266, and had only 866 RBIs. Sauer's All Star years were 1950, BA 274, RBI 123, HR 32 and 1952, BA 270, RBI 121, HR 37. I do not know the year of Furillo's single All Star appearance. His two best statistical years were 1953, when he won the battling title, BA 344, RBI 92, HR21 or either 1948, BA 322, HR 18, RBI 95 or 1955, BA 314, RBI 95. and HR 26. Sauer had the same fielding percentage as Furillo. He made the All Star team twice. I don't know how many of his teammates made the All Star team in 1950; 7 of Furillo's did.

Del Ennis was a power hitter, with significantly more HRs, 288, and RBIs 1284, than Furillo, and not nearly as significantly a lower batting average, 284.

As for Robinson, I did not say that he made the Hall on his numbers alone: I might not be a baseball guy, but an idiot I'm not; I only asked how their offensive stats matched, because "I do not know.

Ashburn: lifetime stats, BA, 308, RBIs, 586, HRs 29. Ashburn played 1982 games and had 8365 ABs; Furillo, 1806 games, 7022 at bats. Ashburn, .990 fielding percentage, Furillo, .979. Furillo played a right field that was treacherous, that 40 foot high wall with a ridiculous angle where it met the regular wall in right center, and then had to play in regular ball parks.

I don't know why Slaughter, Sauer, and Ennis didn't get in. I only know, We wus robbed. ;)

[tommy]

To begin with, if you didn't grow up in Brooklyn, arguing who was the best center fielder in the city, Mantle, Mays, of Snider (Dave Anderson wrote that it probably was my guy), you don't get the "argument" I have made for the second time in all the years I have been posting here, at least I think it was only the second, as compared to what has to have been the many hundreds I had made about the center fielders, and that the 1955 Dodgers were, in fact, better than the 1961 Yankees.

That said, let's take a look at a few numbers:

Enos Slaughter played 19 years, 5 more than Furillo, if you don't count his last two seasons, 50 and 8 games, respectively, had lifetime numbers pretty spot on to Furillo's: both batted 300, Slaughter had 1304 RBIs to Furillo's 1050, and 16 9HRs to Furillo's 192. Why Slaughter made 10 All Star teams and Furillo 1, you tell me. It certainly wasn't because he was a better fielder. When he was with the Yanks, I loved Slaughter as a player, which is saying something because I was for the other guys.

Hank Sauer had more home runs, 288, but he batted only 266, and had only 866 RBIs. Sauer's All Star years were 1950, BA 274, RBI 123, HR 32 and 1952, BA 270, RBI 121, HR 37. I do not know the year of Furillo's single All Star appearance. His two best statistical years were 1953, when he won the battling title, BA 344, RBI 92, HR21 or either 1948, BA 322, HR 18, RBI 95 or 1955, BA 314, RBI 95. and HR 26. Sauer had the same fielding percentage as Furillo. He made the All Star team twice. I don't know how many of his teammates made the All Star team in 1950; 7 of Furillo's did.

Del Ennis was a power hitter, with significantly more HRs, 288, and RBIs 1284, than Furillo, and not nearly as significantly a lower batting average, 284.

As for Robinson, I did not say that he made the Hall on his numbers alone: I might not be a baseball guy, but an idiot I'm not; I only asked how their offensive stats matched, because "I do not know.

Ashburn: lifetime stats, BA, 308, RBIs, 586, HRs 29. Ashburn played 1982 games and had 8365 ABs; Furillo, 1806 games, 7022 at bats. Ashburn, .990 fielding percentage, Furillo, .979. Furillo played a right field that was treacherous, that 40 foot high wall with a ridiculous angle where it met the regular wall in right center, and then had to play in regular ball parks.

I don't know why Slaughter, Sauer, and Ennis didn't get in. I only know, We wus robbed. ;)

Slaughter is in. He shouldn't be, but he is. The reason Slaughter, Sauer, Ennis, and Furillo don't belong is that they were all good players, not great ones. The Hall of Fame is supposed to be reserved for the greats of the game, not the goods of the game.

[greybeard]

Slaughter is in. He shouldn't be, but he is. The reason Slaughter, Sauer, Ennis, and Furillo don't belong is that they were all good players, not great ones. The Hall of Fame is supposed to be reserved for the greats of the game, not the goods of the game.

Ashburn-Furillo, batting average, Ashburn by .008; HR, Furillo by over 140, RBI, Furillo by over 500. You can point to other things that Ashburn did better, base running, but is there really a difference, except for a preference. Furillo was never considered seriously. Something stinks. As you note, Slaughter is in and there is not a hair's difference, except in the field where Furillo was better. I am certain that there were others from that era who were not more deserving than Furillo. He had been blacklisted at a time that sports knew nothing about speaking out, wanting to be traded, suing a team; in addition, it did not help that 5 other members of those Brooklyn teams were voted in, 4 before Furillo was kicked out of the game.

Calling him just a "good" player just doesn't cut it.

[Olympic Fan]

Ashburn-Furillo, batting average, Ashburn by .008; HR, Furillo by over 140, RBI, Furillo by over 500. You can point to other things that Ashburn did better, base running, but is there really a difference, except for a preference. Furillo was never considered seriously. Something stinks. As you note, Slaughter is in and there is not a hair's difference, except in the field where Furillo was better. I am certain that there were others from that era who were not more deserving than Furillo. He had been blacklisted at a time that sports knew nothing about speaking out, wanting to be traded, suing a team; in addition, it did not help that 5 other members of those Brooklyn teams were voted in, 4 before Furillo was kicked out of the game.

Calling him just a "good" player just doesn't cut it.

greybeard, you consistently spot select stats to bolster your arguments for a guy who has never sniffed the HOF (nor should he).

For instance, Ashburn did have less RBIs -- you think that might be because he was a leadoff man? He also scored almost 500 more runs than Furillo ... the main thing is that his OBP was 41 points higher than Furillo. Although I'll grant that Furrillo's arm was better (although Ashburn had more assists), the numbers show that Ashburn was a fair superior defensive outfielder -- the best defensive centerfielder in an era that included Mays, Mantle and Snider.

Both Ashburn and Slaughter drew more MVP support during their playing days and both drew significantly more support when they were eligible for the HOF vote ... Furrollo never got two percent of the vote ... Slaighter never got less than 30 percent of the vote.

As for all-star games, Furrilo was selected for two games and never started ... Ashburn started two and played in six ... Slaughter started five and was selected for 10.

I agree that both Ashburn and Slaughter are marginal HOFers -- trying to compare Furillo to two marginal HOFers who are clearly better than your guy hardly helps your case.

And as for the "blacklist" that you keep bringing up. Here's SABR's take on that situation:

Persistent pains in his legs caused the Dodgers to place Furillo on the inactive list on May 12, 1960. On May 17 they gave him his unconditional release. If Furillo had finished the season, he would have received a monthly pension of $285 starting at the age of fifty, instead of the $255 he would now receive. He also was slated to receive $33,000 for the season, but had been paid only $12,000 of it at the time of his release. He sued the Dodgers on the grounds that he was released while injured.

In August the Dodgers announced that Furillo had been hired to be an instructor at the Dodgertown Summer Camp in Vero Beach. However, Carl continued the suit. It was settled In May 1961, with Furillo being awarded the $21,000 remaining from his 1960 salary. Despite repeated entreaties to every major-league club, Furillo received no job offers as either a coach or scout.


The whole thing was about money. He was finished as a player ... the debate was whether the Dodgers could release him while he was injured. The "blacklist" was as a coach or a scout -- there was never any suggestion that Furillo could still play. And the fact that the Dodgers hired him as an instructor during time he was blacklisted suggests something else was going on

[greybeard]

greybeard, you consistently spot select stats to bolster your arguments for a guy who has never sniffed the HOF (nor should he).

For instance, Ashburn did have less RBIs -- you think that might be because he was a leadoff man? He also scored almost 500 more runs than Furillo ... the main thing is that his OBP was 41 points higher than Furillo. Although I'll grant that Furrillo's arm was better (although Ashburn had more assists), the numbers show that Ashburn was a fair superior defensive outfielder -- the best defensive centerfielder in an era that included Mays, Mantle and Snider.

Both Ashburn and Slaughter drew more MVP support during their playing days and both drew significantly more support when they were eligible for the HOF vote ... Furrollo never got two percent of the vote ... Slaighter never got less than 30 percent of the vote.

As for all-star games, Furrilo was selected for two games and never started ... Ashburn started two and played in six ... Slaughter started five and was selected for 10.

I agree that both Ashburn and Slaughter are marginal HOFers -- trying to compare Furillo to two marginal HOFers who are clearly better than your guy hardly helps your case.

And as for the "blacklist" that you keep bringing up. Here's SABR's take on that situation:

Persistent pains in his legs caused the Dodgers to place Furillo on the inactive list on May 12, 1960. On May 17 they gave him his unconditional release. If Furillo had finished the season, he would have received a monthly pension of $285 starting at the age of fifty, instead of the $255 he would now receive. He also was slated to receive $33,000 for the season, but had been paid only $12,000 of it at the time of his release. He sued the Dodgers on the grounds that he was released while injured.

In August the Dodgers announced that Furillo had been hired to be an instructor at the Dodgertown Summer Camp in Vero Beach. However, Carl continued the suit. It was settled In May 1961, with Furillo being awarded the $21,000 remaining from his 1960 salary. Despite repeated entreaties to every major-league club, Furillo received no job offers as either a coach or scout.


The whole thing was about money. He was finished as a player ... the debate was whether the Dodgers could release him while he was injured. The "blacklist" was as a coach or a scout -- there was never any suggestion that Furillo could still play. And the fact that the Dodgers hired him as an instructor during time he was blacklisted suggests something else was going on

Furillo batted 6th behind Reese, Robinson, Snider, Hodges, and Campanella, 4 Hall of Famers, and 5 RBI men. There were no RBI men behind him, nor any particularly special hitters to say the least. Ashburn had Ennis behind him. You think that Furillo would have many more hits if he had batted in say, Snider's spot, and Hodges was kicked back to 6th? Or even in Campy's spot? More home runs? More runs scored? So, Ashburn scored 500 more times than Furillo? Furillo had 500 more RBIs and 159 more HRs, and that, as I said, after murder's row got finished.

Finished? In 1957, BA .290, RBIs 66, HRs 17 and, in 1958, BA .290, RBIs 83 and HRs 18. In 1959, in an injury plagued season, only 50 games and 103 at bats, he again batted .290, but had only 25 RBIs and no HRs. This was not "finished."

And, just so we are clear, according to WiKi:

The Dodgers released Furillo in May 1960 while he was injured with a torn calf muscle; he sued the team, claiming they released him [B]to avoid both the higher pension due a 15-year player and medical expenses, eventually collecting $21,000. He would later maintain that he was blackballed as a result and was unable to find a job within the sport – a charge denied by Commissioner Ford Frick

Finally, this is how fair the sports writers were in selecting All Stars. I just picked 1955, the year that the Dodgers won it all, and just looked at the outfielders, of which there were 6: Mays, Aaron, Snider, Ennis, Don Mueller and Frank Thomas. The first three, given; of the others, Ennis probably gets it. The other two, Furillo, right, except there were 4 other Dodgers on that team, the same number as the Yanks.

Furillo: BA .314, RBI 95, HR 26
Ennis: BA .296 RBI 120, HR 29
Mueller: BA .306 RBI 83 HR 8
Thomas BA .286 RBI 72 HR 25

More than a decent case that We wus robbed.

[throatybeard]

Furillo batted 6th behind Reese, Robinson, Snider, Hodges, and Campanella, 4 Hall of Famers, and 5 RBI men. There were no RBI men behind him, nor any particularly special hitters to say the least. Ashburn had Ennis behind him. You think that Furillo would have many more hits if he had batted in say, Snider's spot, and Hodges was kicked back to 6th? Or even in Campy's spot? More home runs? More runs scored? So, Ashburn scored 500 more times than Furillo? Furillo had 500 more RBIs and 159 more HRs, and that, as I said, after murder's row got finished.

Finished? In 1957, BA .290, RBIs 66, HRs 17 and, in 1958, BA .290, RBIs 83 and HRs 18. In 1959, in an injury plagued season, only 50 games and 103 at bats, he again batted .290, but had only 25 RBIs and no HRs. This was not "finished."

And, just so we are clear, according to WiKi:

The Dodgers released Furillo in May 1960 while he was injured with a torn calf muscle; he sued the team, claiming they released him [B]to avoid both the higher pension due a 15-year player and medical expenses, eventually collecting $21,000. He would later maintain that he was blackballed as a result and was unable to find a job within the sport – a charge denied by Commissioner Ford Frick

Finally, this is how fair the sports writers were in selecting All Stars. I just picked 1955, the year that the Dodgers won it all, and just looked at the outfielders, of which there were 6: Mays, Aaron, Snider, Ennis, Don Mueller and Frank Thomas. The first three, given; of the others, Ennis probably gets it. The other two, Furillo, right, except there were 4 other Dodgers on that team, the same number as the Yanks.

Furillo: BA .314, RBI 95, HR 26
Ennis: BA .296 RBI 120, HR 29
Mueller: BA .306 RBI 83 HR 8
Thomas BA .286 RBI 72 HR 25

More than a decent case that We wus robbed.

Your case is at least as good as OF's ability to spell Greg Maddux's surname.

[weezie]

Kinda woe is me after today's game....can sum-body give me the date for Pitchers and Catchers reporting? :(

[kmspeaks]

Kinda woe is me after today's game....can sum-body give me the date for Pitchers and Catchers reporting? :(

Me too :( The earliest report date is Feb 6th for the Diamondbacks, a mere 25 days away.

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

[greybeard]

Your case is at least as good as OF's ability to spell Greg Maddux's surname.

I don't know what you mean, you never saw the game played them, never saw a single one of those guys play in their prime, Furillo had way better numbers than Ashburn in two of the three offensive stats that anybody ever kept, and batted .09 points less. Sorry, that is a case, except for an
English teacher, I suppose. How many guys from one team make the Hall. The Yanks might have had more from the 50s, not counting, but very, very few. The Dodgers were in the series the vast majority of years, '47-59. the Furillo years along with Robinson, Duke, Campy, Snider, Newcombe (8 homers in the Spr9ing of like 56), Hodges, all of whom batted in front of Furillo, and thus detracted from his numbers.

Dismissiveness is in the face of such comparisons, I hope that they are due to a personal bias. You remind me of Yankee and Giants fans when I was a kid insisting that Mays and Mantle were far superior than the Duke. Read the Duke's obit by David Anderson, where he opinions that the Duke was probably better than both of them. Make's horse races. When you're strident and wrong is it not a good combination. You young guys still probably think that LeBron is the best basketball player ever and the best physical specimen. Never watched the Wilt.

Furillo should have gotten real consideration. He didn't for the reasons stated. Had he gotten a fair shake, he had a decent shot at it. we was robbed, and so were you.

You refuse to recognize it, focusing instead on the issue of steroids instead of the far more scandalous issue, the callous disregard for injury in the sport of baseball. Greenies, pain killers by the boat load did not enhance performance significantly, and you know that how? The juiced ball, how much is that responsible for the HR derby, the dilution of talented pitchers, the absence of double headers, the greatly increased seasons permitting more rest and still more ABs, the private jets and first class meals and training, year round play and training, while 1950s guys sold cars, bio-mechanic machines and super training, high tech and very sophisticated, these are not performance enhancers paid for by teams, but steroids are? You grew up in the era of all those things and think you appreciate the way the game was played more than 50 years ago and yet make fun of my statistic based opinions, based upon formulations that nobody knew or cared about. Non illegal steroids, pain killers, anti inflammatory drugs, protein and legal strength enhancers, you ignore.

The integrity of your statistics, the games statistics, have long since lost their relevance; the real stories of the game are missed. so, it has been with Carl's. Done.

[YmoBeThere]

When you're strident and wrong is it not a good combination.

QFE!

[Mal]

The integrity of your statistics, the games statistics, have long since lost their relevance; the real stories of the game are missed. so, it has been with Carl's. Done.

Well, I think we've boiled it down now. We peppered you with quantitative arguments against your chosen player, you attempted to use quantitative indicators yourself and those have been shot down, so now we're back to the "stories." There is a qualitative part to the Hall of Fame, some weight given to being on the right team in the right era, to having a couple of big games on the biggest stages, to leaving a mark on the game or being the first to accomplish something that's later seen as banal. That's the "Fame" part of it, I guess. But it doesn't override the quantitative. If it did, everyone's favorite rightfielder from their childhood heroes would be enshrined. Barry Zito had the most dazzling curveball anyone had seen since Bert Blyleven's heyday, but he's not gonna get any Hall of Fame consideration. Just as many kids grew up trying to gun down tagging runners from rightfield imagining themselves to be Dave Parker or Dwight Evans as Furillo, and one of them was for two years the best hitter in the National League. And yet neither of them ever even got 30% of the votes. Carl Furillo is the '50's equivalent of Jesse Barfield, only on a better team. If you want to make the argument that the Hall of Fame should be there to pay tribute to everyone's greatest childhood memories and so should cast a vastly wider net, please do so, and then we can start talking about how Carl Furillo should have garnered consideration for said fictional Hall of Fame.

But as the Hall is currently constituted, it's seen fit to allow about two dozen rightfielders into its ranks. Of those, you're down to about a dozen who finished their playing careers after WWII ended, and the closest of those to Furillo in the JAWS rankings is 26th (compared to Furillo's 67th), is generally seen as one of the poster children for guys who shouldn't be in the Hall, needed the Veteran's Committee of his Yankee and Cards buddies to get in, and is still a better player than Furillo was. The next two postwar players up the list are Dave Winfield and Tony Gwynn. Here's but a small selection of the other better modern rightfielders than Furillo who never got or won't get a sniff: Bobby Bonds, Felipe Alou, Daryl Strawberry, Tim Salmon, David Justice, Kirk Gibson, Magglio Ordonez, Tony Oliva, Rusty Staub, Rocky Colavito. That is nice company to be in, and no shame. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

[greybeard]

Well, I think we've boiled it down now. We peppered you with quantitative arguments against your chosen player, you attempted to use quantitative indicators yourself and those have been shot down, so now we're back to the "stories." There is a qualitative part to the Hall of Fame, some weight given to being on the right team in the right era, to having a couple of big games on the biggest stages, to leaving a mark on the game or being the first to accomplish something that's later seen as banal. That's the "Fame" part of it, I guess. But it doesn't override the quantitative. If it did, everyone's favorite rightfielder from their childhood heroes would be enshrined. Barry Zito had the most dazzling curveball anyone had seen since Bert Blyleven's heyday, but he's not gonna get any Hall of Fame consideration. Just as many kids grew up trying to gun down tagging runners from rightfield imagining themselves to be Dave Parker or Dwight Evans as Furillo, and one of them was for two years the best hitter in the National League. And yet neither of them ever even got 30% of the votes. Carl Furillo is the '50's equivalent of Jesse Barfield, only on a better team. If you want to make the argument that the Hall of Fame should be there to pay tribute to everyone's greatest childhood memories and so should cast a vastly wider net, please do so, and then we can start talking about how Carl Furillo should have garnered consideration for said fictional Hall of Fame.

But as the Hall is currently constituted, it's seen fit to allow about two dozen rightfielders into its ranks. Of those, you're down to about a dozen who finished their playing careers after WWII ended, and the closest of those to Furillo in the JAWS rankings is 26th (compared to Furillo's 67th), is generally seen as one of the poster children for guys who shouldn't be in the Hall, needed the Veteran's Committee of his Yankee and Cards buddies to get in, and is still a better player than Furillo was. The next two postwar players up the list are Dave Winfield and Tony Gwynn. Here's but a small selection of the other better modern rightfielders than Furillo who never got or won't get a sniff: Bobby Bonds, Felipe Alou, Daryl Strawberry, Tim Salmon, David Justice, Kirk Gibson, Magglio Ordonez, Tony Oliva, Rusty Staub, Rocky Colavito. That is nice company to be in, and no shame. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

I don't get what you think you shot down. I don't know JAWS, except for the movie, and I doubt very, very seriously that any of the newspaper guys gave any thought to the computations that go into them. Here is what I looked at:

Ashburn had significantly more hits, 675, walks, 684, and runs scored, 427, but Furillo was for practical purposes even with Ashburn with respect to what in my mind at least has always been regarded as the most significant batting statistic, that would be Batting Average, .308 to .300. Furillo had significantly more RBIs, and home runs, 132 fewer home runs.

These numbers are terribly skewed, and make my guy's performance sufficiently comparable to Ashburn's to support my argument, that [B]we wus robbed.-- that Furillo had earned a serious look, which he never got, and might well have gotten in, had he been given one.

You cannot look at numbers without taking into account that Ashburn had [B]2714 more Plate Appearances than Furillo (9736 to 7022); that's a whole lot of Plate Appearances. How many more hits, runs, RBIs, homers, and walks do the numbers suggest that Furillo would have gotten had he played another 2714 games. For me it is enough to image. You can do the math if you want.

As for the hit and walk disparity, let's not forget that Ashburn's job was to get on base and that the meat of the Phillies lineup was behind him.
Furillo batted 6th, behind 4 Hall of Famers, 3 of whom formed a murderers' row of five, Robinson, Duke, Hodges (BA .273, RBIs 1274, HRs 370), and Campy. Behind him there was nobody except when Newcomb was playing, because that guy could hit. The case can be made that both Hodges and Newcombe would have been in the Hall had it not been for the other 4, not to mention Kofax and Drysdale who began their careers 3 and 2 years before the Dodgers left Brooklyn and were shoe ins for the Hall by the early 60s, See http://www.examiner.com/article/absent-from-cooperstown-don-newcombe-made-a-us-president-s-hall-of-fame.

Furillo had one job to do and that was to hit, and one must presume that he could not be choosey. He was up there to swing; in addition to his 192 home runs, Furillo had 324 triple, 7 more than the other guy, that would be Richie. As for the other guys, we are talking 162 game seasons, no second jobs, no double headers, no all night train rides, no dilution of talent, much better training, and greenies, cortisone, and all kinds of pain killers, instead of coffee and booze. Oranges, not apples.

Now, aside from all this, there might be a case based upon the numbers alone, had it not been for the fact that Furillo got no consideration, because, in his era, baseball players were meat who did not dare to shake the halls of the game, or the game would be closed to them, as well as the Hall of it. There really can be no other explanation, except for the fact that there were all those other Dodgers who got into the Hall, but even that would not explain why Furillo never got a look. By the way, how many Hall of Famers did Richie play with?

Lastly, sure I am biased, which was the point, but your point that that places Furillo on an even footing with childhood heroes (he wasn't mine, the Duke, sorry Carl) from other teams misses the mark. The Dodgers dominated the National League in the 1947-1958, when they left Brooklyn, played the Yankees 6 times in the Series during that era, won in '55, and lost 2 or 3 others by a single run. They also lost to the Giants to the shot heard round the world. Furillo was eclipsed by this wave of greatness, and was stomped down because he dared to stand up. That makes his story different.

So, yes, I shared my story because we all have them about the baseball teams of our youth, and I hope I evoked some of yours. That's why I write. Stories are important, they add texture to the games that we play, and watch, to the lives we live. The fact remains, baseball should have done better by Carl Furillo; he earned a fair shot. So what else is new, $750,000,000 is scandalous, blackmail of those retirees who are going to die because of what football did to them, much more painfully and ruinously to their families unless the insulting number offered was accepted. Hey, who do you think is going to win this . . . . Just the way it goes.

[Blue in the Face]

what in my mind at least has always been regarded as the most significant batting statistic, that would be Batting Average...

Well, there's one of your problems.

[greybeard]

Well, there's one of your problems.

The first two are deserved. Wrong as rain insisting wrong is right.

[tommy]

You cannot look at numbers without taking into account that Ashburn had 2714 more Plate Appearances than Furillo (9736 to 7022); that's a whole lot of Plate Appearances. How many more hits, runs, RBIs, homers, and walks do the numbers suggest that Furillo would have gotten had he played another 2714 games. For me it is enough to image. You can do the math if you want.

It was 2714 more plate appearances, not games. Big difference. But still, in addition to his being a leadoff hitter, Ashburn was more durable than was Furillo, which is one main reason he got so many more plate appearances. Durability is something that counts in a player's favor in HOF consideration, I would think. Keeping in mind that it was a 154 game season, Ashburn's games played, beginning with his second year in the league, went like this: 154-151-154-154-156-153-140-154-156-152-153-151. His last two years, at ages 34 and 35, he only played 109 and 135 games. But still, from age 22 through 33, he barely missed a game, other then a handful in 1955. Amazing durability.

Furillo, who got to the bigs at age 24 (due to his having served in the military), had games played numbers like this: 117-124-108-142-153-158-134-132-150-140-149-119-122-50-8. Those last two years, he was 37 and 38 years old. So while Ashburn didn't play until as advanced an age as did Furillo, and I'm not saying Furillo was brittle or anything as he played in a solid number of games each year, he was nowhere near as durable during his prime years as was Ashburn.


As for the hit and walk disparity, let's not forget that Ashburn's job was to get on base and that the meat of the Phillies lineup was behind him.
Furillo batted 6th, behind 4 Hall of Famers, 3 of whom formed a murderers' row of five, Robinson, Duke, Hodges (BA .273, RBIs 1274, HRs 370), and Campy. Behind him there was nobody except when Newcomb was playing, because that guy could hit.

I think this cuts against your argument. Furillo, who usually batted seventh or sixth in the lineup, always had guys on base to drive in. Ducks were always on the pond. Lots of RBI opportunities. And as far as guys behind him, if I'm not mistaken, third baseman Billy Cox was usually the eighth hitter in the lineup. While not a powerhouse by any means, he was a .260-ish hitter, very respectable at the plate, especially for an eighth place hitter. Not an easy or automatic out by any means.

Ashburn hit atop a weak lineup for most of his career. With the exception of Del Ennis, the Phillies of those years didn't have much in the way of hitting. In 1949, Ennis, at .302, was the only guy to hit .300. In 1950, it was just Ashburn and Ennis. In 1951, it was just Ashburn, at .344. In 1952, none. In 1953, none but Ashburn, who hit .330. In 1954 it was just Ashburn, at .313. And so on. So the idea that it was easier for Richie Ashburn for some reason, because he had a parade of great hitters behind him, is factually inaccurate. Ashburn was the best hitter in the lineup, and despite the opponent probably focussing on him much of the time, he still put up solid, solid numbers.


As for the other guys, we are talking 162 game seasons, no second jobs, no double headers, no all night train rides, no dilution of talent, much better training, and greenies, cortisone, and all kinds of pain killers, instead of coffee and booze. Oranges, not apples.

Also, no prying media, no internet, no 24 hour news cycle digging up every minor transgression the old timers committed, because their teammates, management, the police, and most importantly the media, would cover for them.

And most importantly, almost no players from the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Venezuela, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Columbia, or any of the other countries that now have players -- lots of players -- on major league rosters, and major league all-star teams. You can't talk "dilution of talent" without recognizing the other side of the coin.

[greybeard]

It was 2714 more plate appearances, not games. Big difference. But still, in addition to his being a leadoff hitter, Ashburn was more durable than was Furillo, which is one main reason he got so many more plate appearances. Durability is something that counts in a player's favor in HOF consideration, I would think. Keeping in mind that it was a 154 game season, Ashburn's games played, beginning with his second year in the league, went like this: 154-151-154-154-156-153-140-154-156-152-153-151. His last two years, at ages 34 and 35, he only played 109 and 135 games. But still, from age 22 through 33, he barely missed a game, other then a handful in 1955. Amazing durability.

Furillo, who got to the bigs at age 24 (due to his having served in the military), had games played numbers like this: 117-124-108-142-153-158-134-132-150-140-149-119-122-50-8. Those last two years, he was 37 and 38 years old. So while Ashburn didn't play until as advanced an age as did Furillo, and I'm not saying Furillo was brittle or anything as he played in a solid number of games each year, he was nowhere near as durable during his prime years as was Ashburn.



I think this cuts against your argument. Furillo, who usually batted seventh or sixth in the lineup, always had guys on base to drive in. Ducks were always on the pond. Lots of RBI opportunities. And as far as guys behind him, if I'm not mistaken, third baseman Billy Cox was usually the eighth hitter in the lineup. While not a powerhouse by any means, he was a .260-ish hitter, very respectable at the plate, especially for an eighth place hitter. Not an easy or automatic out by any means.

Ashburn hit atop a weak lineup for most of his career. With the exception of Del Ennis, the Phillies of those years didn't have much in the way of hitting. In 1949, Ennis, at .302, was the only guy to hit .300. In 1950, it was just Ashburn and Ennis. In 1951, it was just Ashburn, at .344. In 1952, none. In 1953, none but Ashburn, who hit .330. In 1954 it was just Ashburn, at .313. And so on. So the idea that it was easier for Richie Ashburn for some reason, because he had a parade of great hitters behind him, is factually inaccurate. Ashburn was the best hitter in the lineup, and despite the opponent probably focussing on him much of the time, he still put up solid, solid numbers.



Also, no prying media, no internet, no 24 hour news cycle digging up every minor transgression the old timers committed, because their teammates, management, the police, and most importantly the media, would cover for them.

And most importantly, almost no players from the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Venezuela, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Columbia, or any of the other countries that now have players -- lots of players -- on major league rosters, and major league all-star teams. You can't talk "dilution of talent" without recognizing the other side of the coin.

Tom, I thought I had said that I your statistical analysis alone might had refuted my argument: not that Furillo was Asburn's equal, but that he deserved a shot for the additional arguments I presented. We might have overlapped, or I might have been too obtuse, in conceding that you had proved your point and that I had been wrong as rain for continuing to press mine. .

You did a mastferful job with the stats several times, and that, while I some points to make, they did not overcome what you had had to say. I got that Ashburn did some exceptional things to make a non-slugger, and Furillo was not the highest end on that, aka guys who make the Hall, he did not have the exceptional things that you had pointed out that Richie had, on base percentage, walks, hits, legs (tealing).

Your last piece met me in my own terms, was wonderfully presented substantively and tonally and I liked being corrected in that fashion. While I can quibble around the edges of what that last piece said, perhaps as to the durability issue, that is that Carl could be rested because at least during my years the Dodgers were loaded, (Gilliam and Zimmerman and Amoros come to mind} which led Alston, a Hall coach, to give them time based upon who the Dodgers were playing and where things stood in pennant races, bottom line there is no quibbling, you be an iron horse for as many years as Asburn, it puts you in another league, period, a point you also made quite smoothly and effectively.

Really terrific job throughout. Who knows, maybe my pressing you beyond good sense, gave you the stage you deserve to show your stuff. I hope it's all good, not that I wasn't trying (the not good, "bad" is so judgmental, kind).

[greybeard]

The first part of my last post is better stated: My point throughout was not that Furillo was Ashburn's equal, but that a comparison showed that he deserved a shot but only because of what I saw as strong reason to think he was denied it, was blacklisted, because he had challenged Baseball and also because 4 Dodgers he had played with throughout the 50s had gotten in, two others probably should have also, and two others with whom he had overlapped were shoe-ins before Furillo became eligible. In the end, we might have overlapped, but I conceded that I deserved the rather stern criticism for not seeing that that argument had been refuted by you and others, that I had been wrong as rain.

[tommy]

Tom, I thought I had said that I your statistical analysis alone might had refuted my argument: not that Furillo was Asburn's equal, but that he deserved a shot for the additional arguments I presented. We might have overlapped, or I might have been too obtuse, in conceding that you had proved your point and that I had been wrong as rain for continuing to press mine. .

You did a mastferful job with the stats several times, and that, while I some points to make, they did not overcome what you had had to say. I got that Ashburn did some exceptional things to make a non-slugger, and Furillo was not the highest end on that, aka guys who make the Hall, he did not have the exceptional things that you had pointed out that Richie had, on base percentage, walks, hits, legs (tealing).

Your last piece met me in my own terms, was wonderfully presented substantively and tonally and I liked being corrected in that fashion. While I can quibble around the edges of what that last piece said, perhaps as to the durability issue, that is that Carl could be rested because at least during my years the Dodgers were loaded, (Gilliam and Zimmerman and Amoros come to mind} which led Alston, a Hall coach, to give them time based upon who the Dodgers were playing and where things stood in pennant races, bottom line there is no quibbling, you be an iron horse for as many years as Asburn, it puts you in another league, period, a point you also made quite smoothly and effectively.

Really terrific job throughout. Who knows, maybe my pressing you beyond good sense, gave you the stage you deserve to show your stuff. I hope it's all good, not that I wasn't trying (the not good, "bad" is so judgmental, kind).

It's all good, Greybeard. (At one point I thought I knew your name. Was it Bob?) Thanks for your post. I am always interested in vigorous, mutually respectful debate and never mean to squelch anyone's opinions.

I certainly prefer to debate on the facts, and to make reasonable inferences from those facts and form my opinions based on what I (or others) determine to be the facts, but there will always be differences as to which inferences are reasonable and which are not. But I do like to stick to the facts. Sometimes the facts are demonstrable by statistics, sometimes via other means. Sometimes it takes some work to determine what the facts are, such as by reviewing records or reviewing/re-watching games or portions of them.

My respectful suggestion to you is, to the extent you can, to try a little harder to separate out fact from opinion in your posts, rather than stating just about everything as a fact, and sometimes doing so in a rather strident manner. If you review the games a little more, review the stats and the records and the history a little more before stating things as facts, I'm sure the reception to your posts will improve on these boards, and all of us, including you, would benefit from that.

[rasputin]

It's all good, Greybeard. (At one point I thought I knew your name. Was it Bob?) Thanks for your post. I am always interested in vigorous, mutually respectful debate and never mean to squelch anyone's opinions.

I certainly prefer to debate on the facts, and to make reasonable inferences from those facts and form my opinions based on what I (or others) determine to be the facts, but there will always be differences as to which inferences are reasonable and which are not. But I do like to stick to the facts. Sometimes the facts are demonstrable by statistics, sometimes via other means. Sometimes it takes some work to determine what the facts are, such as by reviewing records or reviewing/re-watching games or portions of them.

My respectful suggestion to you is, to the extent you can, to try a little harder to separate out fact from opinion in your posts, rather than stating just about everything as a fact, and sometimes doing so in a rather strident manner. If you review the games a little more, review the stats and the records and the history a little more before stating things as facts, I'm sure the reception to your posts will improve on these boards, and all of us, including you, would benefit from that.

Greybeard, and I say this with all respect, you might also re-think your view about the value of batting average. There are lots of better metrics out there, starting with OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging). If you wanna get fancier, there are ways to adjust for the era and for the ballpark that the player is in.

[greybeard]

Greybeard, and I say this with all respect, you might also re-think your view about the value of batting average. There are lots of better metrics out there, starting with OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging). If you wanna get fancier, there are ways to adjust for the era and for the ballpark that the player is in.

Furillo, .813; Ashburn, .778. OPS? Furillo, 112, Asburn, 111. OPS plus?

My friend Kauf, we've been tight since College and the guy LOVES baseball, I told him on Wednesday about the debate I had going here about Furillo and the Hall. "Again with Furillo? An outfielder needs to be a slugger to get into the Hall: Furillo wasn't."

That is why I conceded that Furillo didn't have a shot, because of my man Kauf, even though he is a diehard Yankee fan and to this day insists that the Mick was better than the Duke, even though Dave Anderson himself said that that just wasn't the case.

As for throwing in the bag entirely, in for a dime, in for a dollar. Ashburn had some special things that Furillo didn't, played a very high number of games each season, had a very high OBP, and had speed reflected in his stolen bases. So, there was no point in saying that Ashburn didn't belong, he always caught my eye when I watched the game until I moved from Brooklyn, the year the Dodgers did, and he got in, deservingly so as far as I could see, even though I thought that BA was by far the most important stat in the game when I was a kid, except, of course, for home runs, Willie, Mickey, da Duke.

You and Tommy, you would have loved to be a kid in the City in those days--I can assure you that your perspective on which of the three was best would have had nothing whatever to do with stats.

Stats are playing an ever increasing role in how basketball teams are deployed, to an extent and ways that I do not appreciate. However, vastly more about the game cannot be broken down into any function or arithmetic formulation. It is that zone that has captured my from the day I first picked one up, it was a pink one about the size of a tennis ball, they were called Spaldeens. You punched it, in my case at least half dozen ways, all of them very effective. What can I say, other than that I mean no harm.

[greybeard]

It's all good, Greybeard. (At one point I thought I knew your name. Was it Bob?) Thanks for your post. I am always interested in vigorous, mutually respectful debate and never mean to squelch anyone's opinions.

I certainly prefer to debate on the facts, and to make reasonable inferences from those facts and form my opinions based on what I (or others) determine to be the facts, but there will always be differences as to which inferences are reasonable and which are not. But I do like to stick to the facts. Sometimes the facts are demonstrable by statistics, sometimes via other means. Sometimes it takes some work to determine what the facts are, such as by reviewing records or reviewing/re-watching games or portions of them.

My respectful suggestion to you is, to the extent you can, to try a little harder to separate out fact from opinion in your posts, rather than stating just about everything as a fact, and sometimes doing so in a rather strident manner. If you review the games a little more, review the stats and the records and the history a little more before stating things as facts, I'm sure the reception to your posts will improve on these boards, and all of us, including you, would benefit from that.

Well taken, but I think more than a step too far. Most of what the game is about is not reducible to what you call "facts," which really amount to stats that I have pointed out time and again belie what the actual facts are.

Let's begin with this: ask yourself, is there an interval between the thought arises, "I will lift my right arm up towards the ceiling" and the beginning of the act of lifting? How long is the interval, if there is one, and what constitutes beginning. What does this have to do with the price of tomatoes? It defines one's ability to understand and manipulate momentum. The sooner I see the "tells" emerge. my defender is meat. Once he thinks up his action begins, and once it begins, he must change momentum and come to down before he can move. You better you see this, you see the beginning of up, you can beat your defender in anyway you want and there is not a G-d damn thing he can do about it.

And, the answer to that question tells everything about perception, what one looks at, senses and feels, which defines the place where the thing mislabeled, "Basketball Smarts" derives. Furthermore, the thought and the action are of one piece, the broader and more sensitive your gaze, if your "intelligence is brought to such matters," the closer you are to picking up "tells." Multiply that exponentially as tells show up in a game played by 12 or is it 13 human beings, on a court with a bunch of meaningful boundary lines, only one ball, a couple of baskets, in an ever changing environment, and voila, pictures, sensation, feel, historical knowledge gained through experience, manifests the arena that Basketball Smarts must confront.

Later

[greybeard]

Well taken, but I think more than a step too far. Most of what the game is about is not reducible to what you call "facts," which really amount to stats that I have pointed out time and again belie what the actual facts are.

Let's begin with this: ask yourself, is there an interval between the thought arises, "I will lift my right arm up towards the ceiling" and the beginning of the act of lifting? How long is the interval, if there is one, and what constitutes beginning. What does this have to do with the price of tomatoes? It defines one's ability to understand and manipulate momentum. The sooner I see the "tells" emerge. my defender is meat. Once he thinks up his action begins, and once it begins, he must change momentum and come to down before he can move. You better you see this, you see the beginning of up, you can beat your defender in anyway you want and there is not a G-d damn thing he can do about it.

And, the answer to that question tells everything about perception, what one looks at, senses and feels, which defines the place where the thing mislabeled, "Basketball Smarts" derives. Furthermore, the thought and the action are of one piece, the broader and more sensitive your gaze, if your "intelligence is brought to such matters," the closer you are to picking up "tells." Multiply that exponentially as tells show up in a game played by 12 or is it 13 human beings, on a court with a bunch of meaningful boundary lines, only one ball, a couple of baskets, in an ever changing environment, and voila, pictures, sensation, feel, historical knowledge gained through experience, manifests the arena that Basketball Smarts must confront.

Later

Please disregard, except for the well taken. Thoughtful too.

[throatybeard]

Wait, this is still going on?

I'm going to Cooperstown for Maddux and Glavine this July. I'll holler if I meet anyone named Furillo.

[greybeard]

Wait, this is still going on?

I'm going to Cooperstown for Maddux and Glavine this July. I'll holler if I meet anyone named Furillo.

If his name is Carl and he played for the Dodgers, we'll remember you well and you will say hi to St. Peter for us. I got my signed pictures of him, Hodges and of the course the Duke framed in Dodger blue on desk in my home office. Entire '55 team should be enshrined. :rolleyes:

[77devil]

Well taken, but I think more than a step too far. Most of what the game is about is not reducible to what you call "facts," which really amount to stats that I have pointed out time and again belie what the actual facts are.

Let's begin with this: ask yourself, is there an interval between the thought arises, "I will lift my right arm up towards the ceiling" and the beginning of the act of lifting? How long is the interval, if there is one, and what constitutes beginning. What does this have to do with the price of tomatoes? It defines one's ability to understand and manipulate momentum. The sooner I see the "tells" emerge. my defender is meat. Once he thinks up his action begins, and once it begins, he must change momentum and come to down before he can move. You better you see this, you see the beginning of up, you can beat your defender in anyway you want and there is not a G-d damn thing he can do about it.

And, the answer to that question tells everything about perception, what one looks at, senses and feels, which defines the place where the thing mislabeled, "Basketball Smarts" derives. Furthermore, the thought and the action are of one piece, the broader and more sensitive your gaze, if your "intelligence is brought to such matters," the closer you are to picking up "tells." Multiply that exponentially as tells show up in a game played by 12 or is it 13 human beings, on a court with a bunch of meaningful boundary lines, only one ball, a couple of baskets, in an ever changing environment, and voila, pictures, sensation, feel, historical knowledge gained through experience, manifests the arena that Basketball Smarts must confront.

Later

3814

[pfrduke]

Man, it had been too long since someone pulled out a pancake bunny around here. Well done.

[JasonEvans]

Oolong!!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oolong_%28rabbit%29)

-JE

[Blue in the Face]

I can sort of understand this I guess, he did play a very large portion of his career in Chicago, and was a legitimate star by the time he left (though obviously not the supernova he became in Atlanta), but this still seems weird.


The cap on Greg Maddux's Hall of Fame plaque won't have a logo on it when Maddux is inducted in July, and the part-time member of the Texas Rangers' coaching staff says he's "good with it."

Maddux said he just "couldn't pick" between a Chicago Cubs or Atlanta Braves logo. Maddux said he felt good about the decision because he spent so much time in Chicago and Atlanta. "I spent half my career in Chicago and half my career in Atlanta,” Maddux said Thursday after working with some of the Rangers’ prospects at a winter camp. “I came up a Cub. I played there for six years (and) went back for six more. I was in Atlanta for 11 years. So it comes out to about the same amount of time in both cities. I love both places.

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/texas-rangers/post/_/id/4907983/no-logo-on-greg-madduxs-hall-plaque-cap

[Olympic Fan]

Maddux in Chicago -- 10 seasons 133-112, 3.61 ERA ... one Cy Young, two all-star games

Maddux in Atlanta -- 11 seasons 194-112, 2.63 ERA ... three Cy Youngs, seven all-star games

Maddux also had a 28-27 record in his last three years with the Dodgers and Padres with a much higher ERA.

I'm disappointed that he's not going in with a Braves' hat.

[JasonEvans]

Maddux in Chicago -- 10 seasons 133-112, 3.61 ERA ... one Cy Young, two all-star games

Maddux in Atlanta -- 11 seasons 194-112, 2.63 ERA ... three Cy Youngs, seven all-star games

Maddux also had a 28-27 record in his last three years with the Dodgers and Padres with a much higher ERA.

I'm disappointed that he's not going in with a Braves' hat.

I am too. It is worth noting that he appeared in exactly one playoff series for Chicago (they lost and he pitched terrible) while appearing in 18 playoff series for the Braves. Part of his legacy is his impact on a team that was consistently at the top of the standings and challenging to win the World Series. That happened darn near every single season in Atlanta... and pretty much never in Chicago.

-Jason "at a bare minimum, I wish they would do a split hat that had half an A and half a C on it" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

Interesting piece on ESPN about the Maddux hat issue.

Writer David Schoenfield points out that this isn't the first hat debate.

Dave Winfield went in with the Padres, even though he played more games with the Yankees (a slap at Stioenbrenner?). Catfish Hunter, who played longest and best with the A's, went in with no logo (a slap at Charlie Finley?). Reggie Jackson also elected to pass on the A's and go in wearing a Yankees' hat. Carlton Fisk went in with a Red Sox hat, even though he spent the majority of his career with the White Sox.

The biggest controversy was Hank Aaron. Hammerin' Hank played 12 seasons with the Milwaukee Braves and just nine seasons with the Atlanta Braves ... plus two seasons in Milwaukee with the Brewers. Yet, he elected to go in with at Atlanta hat.

Well, I guess the biggest controversy was Wade Boggs ... who offered to wear a Tampa Bay hat on his plaque in return for a monetary return. I thought after that happened, the Hall took the choice out of the hands of the players ... but I guess not.

PS ESPN has a poll up asking what hat Maddux should wear in the Hall -- the current talley (when I looked) was 68 percent for the Braves, 8 percent for the Cubs and 13 percent for no logo.

[Blue in the Face]

Well, I guess the biggest controversy was Wade Boggs ... who offered to wear a Tampa Bay hat on his plaque in return for a monetary return. I thought after that happened, the Hall took the choice out of the hands of the players ... but I guess not.

They did, but only to the extent the player wants something they consider unreasonable. If Maddux had wanted a Padres hat, I'm sure they would have said no.

[duke74]

Interesting piece on ESPN about the Maddux hat issue.

Writer David Schoenfield points out that this isn't the first hat debate.

Dave Winfield went in with the Padres, even though he played more games with the Yankees (a slap at Stioenbrenner?). Catfish Hunter, who played longest and best with the A's, went in with no logo (a slap at Charlie Finley?). Reggie Jackson also elected to pass on the A's and go in wearing a Yankees' hat. Carlton Fisk went in with a Red Sox hat, even though he spent the majority of his career with the White Sox.

The biggest controversy was Hank Aaron. Hammerin' Hank played 12 seasons with the Milwaukee Braves and just nine seasons with the Atlanta Braves ... plus two seasons in Milwaukee with the Brewers. Yet, he elected to go in with at Atlanta hat.

Well, I guess the biggest controversy was Wade Boggs ... who offered to wear a Tampa Bay hat on his plaque in return for a monetary return. I thought after that happened, the Hall took the choice out of the hands of the players ... but I guess not.

PS ESPN has a poll up asking what hat Maddux should wear in the Hall -- the current talley (when I looked) was 68 percent for the Braves, 8 percent for the Cubs and 13 percent for no logo.

Think Glavine will ask for his Mets cap? :)

[throatybeard]

Same deal is happening over here--TLR is going in blank-hatted.

(A wise-cracking caller to WXOS* this afternoon opined that TLR should go in with a picture of Dave Duncan on his cap, because he wouldn't have been TLR without his pitching coach. I don't know whether it's funny because it's funny, or whether it's funny because it's half true. If it's half true, Cox needs a passport photo of Leo Mazzone on his noggin).

DeWitt has publicly expressed disappointment. I could see it either way. TLR did win a WS in Oakland.

If I were me in 2000, I'd be hoppin mad that Maddux won't have an A on his forehead. But I'm me now. And what's important to me now is that Madd[b]u[/x] and Glavine go in together. Cox, TLR, and Torre make a nice set too. Collect all three, like Peanuts McD glasses in 1982. Just wish Biggio were there to pair up with Frank Thomas.

I love Smoltz, but when I head to Cooperstown this July, realistically, I have to think it's my only trip ever. I've seen Maddux with an A on his head and TLR with an StL on his head often enough to see them that way in my mind's eye.


* Yes, we do have W--- call letters here. East Saint Louis IL isn't far from here, and they have some room to put radio towers.

[YmoBeThere]

* Yes, we do have W--- call letters here. East Saint Louis IL isn't far from here, and they have some room to put radio towers.

The assignment of call letters has a fairly confused history with many exceptions to the rules. We have WOAI here in San Antonio. Waco, TX has the more interesting WACO.