Reply With Quote
Jim Rice? No way. Not good enough, long enough.
Trammell not getting in amazes me. There is no doubt in my mind that if he had played in Boston or New York that he'd be in already.
And I think Goose is the only one getting the nod this year.
We'll know in an hour who (if anyone) gets into the Hall of Fame in 2008. From what I've read this morning, it would certainly appear that Goose Gossage is a lock. It seems that there is growing support for Jim Rice, though Rob Neyer does a really good job today, I think, of taking apart the argument for Rice and making one wonder if Rice would even be a consideration if he had played for the Twins or Padres in the late 70's and early 80's instead of for the Red Sox.
I guess this thread is asking for predictions about what will happen today -- Does Rice have enough support for election? What about Andre Dawson? Is this the year that Bert Blyleven's big-time totals overcome his less-impressive ratios? If so, what to do about Lee Smith, who was once the All-Time Saves leader? What happens with McGwire? Do the stalwarts of the Tigers' le teams (Morris and Trammell) have any chance? Did Tim Raines lose perception points by having a great career that played out primarily in Montreal?
Jim Rice? No way. Not good enough, long enough.
Trammell not getting in amazes me. There is no doubt in my mind that if he had played in Boston or New York that he'd be in already.
And I think Goose is the only one getting the nod this year.
I think Dawson definitely deserves in.
The guy was the best all-around RF in baseball for almost a decade (with apologies to dwight evans). Anybody who was the best at their position for that long deserves in - regardless of their stats. But even his stats should have been good enough before the steroids/juiced ball boom of the mid-90s. His compiling stats are solid, and his percentage stats would have been much better if he had not had 3 years of just 'hanging on' at the end (which shouldn't be a penalty).
Props to the Goose...
McGwire is quickly moving closer to Killebrew, at least in terms of waiting for Hall of Fame enshrinement. McGwire wasn't even close again this year.
I'm sure Capt. Mike will be here shortly to take me to task for not expressly saying that I think Mark McGwire will eventually be in the Hall of Fame when I note that I'm not surprised that voters are delaying his induction because he was a limited player.
And, absolutely, good for Goose Gossage. When I was a kid, Goose was the prototypical feared reliever. He lost that a little bit when George Brett took him out to the upper deck at Yankee Stadium in the 1980 ALCS. When you look at the numbers, though, you realize that Goose was much more than just a feared guy. He pitched on a number of very successful teams and he relied on a lot of multi-inning saves to put up a total. That's a tough route to take to get those numbers.
Goose as an exclusively 3-out pitcher is a scary thought.
Mark McGwire is a special special person - he's the only one who can invoke the 5th amendment to protect others - not himself.
I LOVE how ya'll manufacture ideas; either that or you have poor reading skills. Most likely both.
Please search thru all the Mitc /steriod/Cards posts and find one where I have said that McGwire DESERVES to be in the HOF.
Amateurs.
Yep, just making stuff up......OR someone else.
Still waiting.
Its so funny how you fixate on that line for so long, not even realizing it was said in direct jest to a comment dg made. I guess when you need material bad, you make stuff up... like in this thread.
Just lends even more weight to the fact some of ya'll have a reading comprehension problem.
Let's see. . . .
You posted this: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...3&postcount=67
Which lead me to post that I thought making McGwire wait was understandable, which lead you to post that McGwire was a first ballot guy because he saved baseball but that the hypocritical media was keeping him out despite knowing about andro. That lead to K-State's statements that McGwire's testimony before Congress (or his invocation of the 5th Amendment) was enticing writers to not vote for him -- a statement that you tried to refute. As part of another discussion with K-State and violentkitten, I said that McGwire never deserved to the game's highest honor, which I said was induction into the HOF on the first ballot, but that cheaters absolutely don't deserve that honor. At that point, you began your crusade to willfully misconstrue my argument and took me to task for suggesting, in your words, that McGwire didn't belong in the Hall of Fame.
Assuming for one second that you correctly stated my argument (you didn't) your posts were quite clearly arguing that McGwire, cheater or not, should be enshrined in the Hall of Fame, even if only because other cheaters have gotten there. I give you credit, though, you never used the word "deserved" in your posts.
Sure it was. Because that post in that thread - made in jest of course - was absolutely hilarious.
You think I actually wrote that piece in the quotes? Ok, I may have some smarts, but I'm not THAT cranial. Hence the quotes.
I did indeed say McGwire would have been a 1st ballot guy, which I still believe that he would of. However if you look at my explaination I even allude to the fact I do not believe he deserved it: "Numbers alone do not get him in, I have no doubt"
After that is where I brought to you attention your word-waffling.
Never did I place my opinion that he belonged, only that I thought the vote would have gone his way.
I really should write in shorter sentences to ensure you'll understand my thoughts.
I understand completely. You mistakenly saw my arguements as me saying he belongs, when I was simply saying he would have been. If you read back farther, the honus of the arguement was the fact I was being the devil's advocate saying no where in the Mitc report did it say McGwire did anything wrong or illegal and the fact he took the 5th doesn't change that fact. I guess that's the difference, is that I was stating facts you thought were my opinion and you were stating what you believe to be facts that were actually derrived from your opinions.
I guess should really just rely upon you to tell me what my arguments actually are.
At least you are making progress.
No; I'm mostly thinking of the benefit to you -- it certainly would make it much easier for you to knock over whatever strawmen you choose to create from my arguments.
Actually, it sure would have saved you hanging your ass out once again if you would have not made a weak, yet incorrect flame attempt.
So you don't think Mark McGwire deserves to be a Hall of Famer?
My personal opinion aside, I think he would have been voted in, without a doubt.
I'm asking for your personal opinion: does Mark McGwire deserve to be a Hall of Famer.
I'm not sure why you're so intent on dodging that question.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 01-09-2008 at 04:34 PM. Reason: correcting grammar
I honestly don't know. My 1st inclination is to say yes, however I realize I am a homer in this situation.
I'm surprised to read that. I think McGwire will be (and should be) in the Hall of Fame at some point -- frankly, I was surprised that he got so few votes this year, since I figured the point last year was to deny him first ballot election and that, having done that, the media would give him his seemingly inevitable place in Cooperstown in 2008. I don't know that it's homeristic for a Cardinals' fan to believe that McGwire should be enshrined in the Hall of Fame; there's no homerism in thinking that a man who put up huge HR numbers is a Hall of Famer when putting up those sorts of numbers tends to get players into the Hall of Fame.
overrated.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
