The W
Views: 99156856
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.9.14 0534
The W - Baseball - Hall of Fame Time Again (Page 2)
This thread has 49 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.44
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
(838 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (66 total)
Abmulabmu
Cotto








Since: 10.12.01

Since last post: 115 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.42
    Originally posted by BigVitoMark
    3,000 hits still gets you in IMO, so I would vote for Boggs. Dawson was pretty good, but didn't really even come close to 500 HRs, only had one MVP award, never won a championship...that's pretty good, but not great.

    I've never been a fan of letting guys in the the second, third, fourth, etc. time around. You are either in or you're out. If an argument has to be made for you, you're not in. The Hall of Fame should be reserved for only the absolute best, and the absolute best are obvious choices.


Yes, God forbid things ever change and people never grow wiser!

(edited by Abmulabmu on 23.12.04 1504)


Helen Keller was largely useless, and look how we remember her.
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2811 days
Last activity: 2539 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.83
    Originally posted by Abmulabmu
      Originally posted by BigVitoMark
      3,000 hits still gets you in IMO, so I would vote for Boggs. Dawson was pretty good, but didn't really even come close to 500 HRs, only had one MVP award, never won a championship...that's pretty good, but not great.

      I've never been a fan of letting guys in the the second, third, fourth, etc. time around. You are either in or you're out. If an argument has to be made for you, you're not in. The Hall of Fame should be reserved for only the absolute best, and the absolute best are obvious choices.


    Yes, God forbid things ever change and people never grow wiser!

    (edited by Abmulabmu on 23.12.04 1504)


I don't presume to speak for BVM, but I believe that the point he was trying to make the case for a smaller, more elite Hall of Fame. That is, if there is any serious debate about whether or not a a candidate merits inclusion, then he probably doesn't belong in the Hall.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. I think the writers tend to elect two to three guys a year, and if there is a weaker crop of names on the ballot, there tends to be some weaker inductions.
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese








Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1168 days
Last activity: 701 days
#23 Posted on
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    To me, and so far everyone else, Boggs is a lock for the HOF. 3,00 is, at least right now, one of those magic numbers that will make someone all but a lock to get in, but I think in the years to come, that number, as well as 500 Home Runs, will lose a lot of its significance.


What causes you to believe that 3000 hits is on its way to becoming as "common" as 500 homeruns will soon/has become?

    Originally posted by estragand
    I'm in the minority by making a case for Parker, but he was THE best player in the game around 1976 to 1979. That was a period when offensive numbers weren't at their current Nintendo standards, but the Cobra was arguably the best at the plate then, even winning the MVP in 1978. His arm was incredible, too. He ran into trouble around 1982, but made a small turnaround and was a Brewers All-Star in 1990. He wasn't a big favorite of the press, so that will hurt him. I'd put Parker in before Jim Rice.... but I'm wearing black and gold pin-striped tinted glasses.


I'll give you Dave Parker if you give me Will "The Thrill" Clark, who was the best player in the National League in 1989 and 1991, and had a brilliant stretch from 87-92 (in Candlestick, a spectacularly difficult stadium for hitters). Of course, my tinted glasses are orange and black, so whateva.
BigVitoMark
Lap cheong








Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada

Since last post: 3347 days
Last activity: 3257 days
ICQ:  
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.09
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    I don't presume to speak for BVM, but I believe that the point he was trying to make the case for a smaller, more elite Hall of Fame. That is, if there is any serious debate about whether or not a a candidate merits inclusion, then he probably doesn't belong in the Hall.

    I tend to agree with this sentiment. I think the writers tend to elect two to three guys a year, and if there is a weaker crop of names on the ballot, there tends to be some weaker inductions.


Exactly. I have no problem with four or five guys getting in each year IF each of those guys deserves induction on his own merit. To get in on relative strength against a weaker class, though, just cheapens the Hall. I'm not so much concerned about the number of guys in there as maintaining the quality of player it takes to get in.

To address Abmulabmu, these guys are retired. Ryne Sandberg still has the same career stats now that he did a year ago. If a guy was not good enough to get in last year he's not suddenly better now. The measure for comparison hasn't changed either; the 80s and early 90s are now what they will forever be. Nothing will ever change Sandberg's status as a player, either unto himself or compared to the other players of his era. He is not a Hall of Famer, and unless he comes back tomorrow and puts up a couple of 40 home run seasons that isn't going to change.

And for Downtown Bookie, no player between 1937 and 1961 got in on their first year of eligibility. That's not a slight at DiMaggio, who is an obvious selection in my opinion, but rather an indication of how things were done differently in the past. Guys get in on the first ballot all the time now. Time should not be the difference between who gets in and who does not.



Screw Ricky
BOSsportsfan34
Pepperoni








Since: 2.1.03
From: MA

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 12 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.60
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    I'm curious to know why you skip past Rice.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/riceji01.shtml

    Thoughts?

    Is he out because he never got to a magic number on any of his stats?

    Also, how did he play 163 games in '78 without getting traded?

    (edited by Guru Zim on 23.12.04 0027)


I think what hurt Rice was that as a power hitter he peaked earlier in his career (only 1 season after 79 with 30+ homers). He was a consistent .300 and 100 RBI though for pretty much the rest of his career. If he got to either 400 HR's or 3000 hits he'd probably have been voted in by now. Another thing that hurt him was that he had a pretty bad reputation amongst the members of the press.





Remember, Republicans are eeevilll!!!

BigVitoMark
Lap cheong








Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada

Since last post: 3347 days
Last activity: 3257 days
ICQ:  
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.09
Sorry, but for a power hitter Jim Rice just does not have Hall of Fame numbers. His career home run stats have him keeping company with marginal stars like Joe Carter, Albert Belle, and Harold Baines on the all time list, and not a one of those guys is HoF material. A very solid career, but not one of the best to ever play.



Screw Ricky
pieman
As young as
he feels








Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 15 hours
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.71

    Originally posted by ScottChrist
    I would really love to see the logic behind Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame ahead of Blyleven or John.


    ERA WHIP W K K/9 ERA+
    Morris 3.90 1.30 254 2478 5.83 105
    Blyleven 3.31 1.20 287 3701 6.70 118
    John 3.34 1.28 288 2245 4.29 111


    It's worth noting that Jack Morris never once posted a sub-3 ERA. Morris was a very good pitcher for a number of years, but a Hall of Famer? I just can't see it, especially not if you're saying you'd take him over two guys who were clearly superior pitchers, particularly Blyleven, who I think I've made up my mind deserves to be in the Hall of Fame yesterday. Indeed I will stick with that now.


I love you more every day, man. Blyleven not being included in the HOF is a shame. Morris being talked up is an even bigger shame. Over on ESPN, they had their little roundtable discussion and Jerry Crasnick says absolutely no to Blyleven in one blurb and then a page later, he's touting Jack Morris as an easy HOF pick. How do these buffoons get votes anyway?

For what it's worth, my ballot would include Bert Blylven, Goose Gossage, Wade Boggs and Ryne Sandberg.






Gabba gabba hey!
jfkfc
Liverwurst








Since: 9.2.02

Since last post: 68 days
Last activity: 5 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.47
(NOTE: I added the three players preceded with an "x" to ScottChrist's post, just for a comparison's sake, and to not have to reformat it and come up messed up, my apologies...)
    Originally posted by pieman
      Originally posted by ScottChrist
      I would really love to see the logic behind Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame ahead of Blyleven or John.
                       ERA    WHIP    W     K    K/9   ERA+
      Morris 3.90 1.30 254 2478 5.83 105
      Blyleven 3.31 1.20 287 3701 6.70 118
      John 3.34 1.28 288 2245 4.29 111
      x Sutton 3.26 1.56 324 3574 6.09 108
      x Neikro 3.35 1.26 318 3342 5.57 115
      x Jenkins 3.34 1.14 284 3192 6.38 115

      It's worth noting that Jack Morris never once posted a sub-3 ERA. Morris was a very good pitcher for a number of years, but a Hall of Famer? I just can't see it, especially not if you're saying you'd take him over two guys who were clearly superior pitchers, particularly Blyleven, who I think I've made up my mind deserves to be in the Hall of Fame yesterday. Indeed I will stick with that now.

    I love you more every day, man. Blyleven not being included in the HOF is a shame. Morris being talked up is an even bigger shame. Over on ESPN, they had their little roundtable discussion and Jerry Crasnick says absolutely no to Blyleven in one blurb and then a page later, he's touting Jack Morris as an easy HOF pick. How do these buffoons get votes anyway?
    For what it's worth, my ballot would include Bert Blylven, Goose Gossage, Wade Boggs and Ryne Sandberg.
Is the arguement for Blyleven being in the HOF simply based on the fact that you (and/or others) feel that he is one of the great pitchers to ever play the game of baseball, or just that since pitchers like Sutton, Niekro, and Jenkins are in, then at least Bert and Tommy John should be also? I think the writers, at least in the case of Sutton and Niekro, just felt that 300 wins was such a magical number that they HAD to enshrine them. In my opinion, none of the six are all-time greats. To use Scott's phrase, they are all just very good pitchers for a number of years, with Morris being the least of the 6, and the numbers at least imply that all of them were close, statistically.

I see two avenues to go with Blyleven: 1. Bert is as good, if not better, statistically, than Fergie Jenkins, so if Fergie is in, how can Bert not be? 2. If Fergie getting into the HOF was a fluke or mistake, do we use his numbers as any sort of barometer for other pitchers, and compare them to make a case for their enshrinement as well? I would be shocked if anyone ever came out and said that they erred in voting for Jenkins, but I just can't fathom how THAT many writers figure him as one of the greatest.



A lot of people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch of unconnected incidents and things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice of coincidence that lays on top of everything. Give you an example, show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2811 days
Last activity: 2539 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.83
    Originally posted by Joseph Ryder
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To me, and so far everyone else, Boggs is a lock for the HOF. 3,00 is, at least right now, one of those magic numbers that will make someone all but a lock to get in, but I think in the years to come, that number, as well as 500 Home Runs, will lose a lot of its significance.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    What causes you to believe that 3000 hits is on its way to becoming as "common" as 500 homeruns will soon/has become?


I don't think that it will necessarily become as common as 500 Home Runs seems to be becoming, but just among active players, Palmerio, Bonds, Alomar, and Biggio all have 2600+ hits. IMO, at least three of the four will make it to 3,000.

As far as the Fergie/Blyleven/Morris debate goes, I think that when you're making a case for guys to be in the HOF by comparing them to guys already in the HOF, then you shouldn't compare them to the bottom 25% of people in the Hall. I think it's a mistake to guy by the "If A, then B" arguement that would allow anyone better than the worst player already in the Hall of Fame to be inducted. Each candidate should be held to their own merits.
BigVitoMark
Lap cheong








Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada

Since last post: 3347 days
Last activity: 3257 days
ICQ:  
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.09
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    I don't think that it will necessarily become as common as 500 Home Runs seems to be becoming, but just among active players, Palmerio, Bonds, Alomar, and Biggio all have 2600+ hits. IMO, at least three of the four will make it to 3,000.


Perhaps, but you're talking about three guys who, at a glance, you could make a case for being Hall of Famers. There's not a Fred McGriff on that list, a guy desperately chasing a milestone in a reach for that possibly automatic bid. Four guys in baseball closing in on 3,000 hits isn't bad when you consider who they are. Remember, it was only about ten years ago when George Brett, Robin Yount, and Dave Winfield were simultaneously closing in on 3,000...would you argue that was a lot, or that any of those guys were an indication that the feat was becoming less significant?



Screw Ricky
jfkfc
Liverwurst








Since: 9.2.02

Since last post: 68 days
Last activity: 5 days
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.47
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    As far as the Fergie/Blyleven/Morris debate goes, I think that when you're making a case for guys to be in the HOF by comparing them to guys already in the HOF, then you shouldn't compare them to the bottom 25% of people in the Hall. I think it's a mistake to guy by the "If A, then B" argument that would allow anyone better than the worst player already in the Hall of Fame to be inducted. Each candidate should be held to their own merits.
To me, its about the lame standard they set with Jenkins/Sutton/Niekro in the HOF. When you say "the worst player already in the Hall of Fame," you are speaking about a player that was voted, by a healthy majority of the writers (not counting anyone voted in by the V/C), as being one of the greatest players of his generation and one of the all time greats. By getting voted in, a player is officially recognized as such. That said, each player in the HOF is INDEED a yardstick for non-HOF players to measure themselves against. You don't think Fred McGriff is eying Hank Aaron, do you? I don't. I think he is looking at guys like Tony Perez or Orlando Cepeda, guys who aren't exactly the premiere guys, and wanting to be measured against what those guys did. I think that every writer that voted Fergie Jenkins, Don Sutton, and Phil Niekro in and NOT Bert Blyleven in should have to explain why those three are deserving and not Bert. If the standard is 300 wins, tell us that the standard is 300 wins, and then lets see how many guys in the future reach that milestone. Jenkins didn't. Jenkins was a really good pitcher....like Bert Blyleven. I just can't figure out the logic they are using, is all, with the "why those guys and not these guys" thing.



A lot of people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch of unconnected incidents and things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice of coincidence that lays on top of everything. Give you an example, show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2811 days
Last activity: 2539 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.83
    Originally posted by BigVitoMark
    Perhaps, but you're talking about three guys who, at a glance, you could make a case for being Hall of Famers. There's not a Fred McGriff on that list, a guy desperately chasing a milestone in a reach for that possibly automatic bid. Four guys in baseball closing in on 3,000 hits isn't bad when you consider who they are. Remember, it was only about ten years ago when George Brett, Robin Yount, and Dave Winfield were simultaneously closing in on 3,000...would you argue that was a lot, or that any of those guys were an indication that the feat was becoming less significant?


I don't think that any of the guys that are about to reach the 3,000 hit plateau are unworthy Hall of Famers, though it will be interesting to see what happen with Robby Alomar and Craig Biggio. My point is that nine of the twenty-five guys to get to 3,000 hits did so later than 1990. Now there are three or four set to do it in the next two to two and a half years, with presumably more to come after that. The rate is increasing, no doubt. Is that an anomaly or is it evidence that the goal is easier to reach today? I'm not sure. We'll see.

    Originally posted by jfkfc
    To me, its about the lame standard they set with Jenkins/Sutton/Niekro in the HOF. When you say "the worst player already in the Hall of Fame," you are speaking about a player that was voted, by a healthy majority of the writers (not counting anyone voted in by the V/C), as being one of the greatest players of his generation and one of the all time greats. By getting voted in, a player is officially recognized as such. That said, each player in the HOF is INDEED a yardstick for non-HOF players to measure themselves against. You don't think Fred McGriff is eying Hank Aaron, do you? I don't. I think he is looking at guys like Tony Perez or Orlando Cepeda, guys who aren't exactly the premiere guys, and wanting to be measured against what those guys did. I think that every writer that voted Fergie Jenkins, Don Sutton, and Phil Niekro in and NOT Bert Blyleven in should have to explain why those three are deserving and not Bert. If the standard is 300 wins, tell us that the standard is 300 wins, and then lets see how many guys in the future reach that milestone. Jenkins didn't. Jenkins was a really good pitcher....like Bert Blyleven. I just can't figure out the logic they are using, is all, with the "why those guys and not these guys" thing.


That's a good point. But I would say that, if you don't think that certain guys (i.e. Sutton and Jenkins) should be in the Hall, then they shouldn't be used as measuring sticks for future candidates. I just don't subscribe to the theory that everyone better than the worse HOFer should be in the Hall, themselves. And there have been mistakes in the past. Lots of them. If anyone is really interested in the topic of the HOF, I can suggest few books better than Bill James' Politics of Glory, which is a great look at the Hall of Fame and a lot of the marginal Hall of Famers (Sutton, Drysdale, Rizzuto, Jenkins, etc.). I don't know if anyone here has read any of Bill James' books, but he's one of my favorite baseball authors, and that book taught me a lot about the Hall.
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 37 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.04
Boggs and Sandberg are the only two inducted this year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1958895

The Breakdown:

Hall of Fame voting
Name Votes Percentage
Wade Boggs 474 91.86
Ryne Sandberg 393 76.2
Bruce Sutter 344 66.7
Jim Rice 307 59.5
Rich Gossage 285 55.2
Andre Dawson 270 52.3




messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 515 days
Last activity: 382 days
AIM:  
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.85
Thank God Sandberg is finally in. One of the best defensive second baseman ever, quite good with the bat, and participater in countless All Star games, there should never have been a question of him getting in.



Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
The full list.

Name            Votes   Percentage
Wade Boggs 474 91.86
Ryne Sandberg 393 76.2
Bruce Sutter 344 66.7
Jim Rice 307 59.5
Rich Gossage 285 55.2
Andre Dawson 270 52.3
Bert Blyleven 211 40.9
Lee Smith 200 38.8
Jack Morris 172 33.3
Tommy John 123 23.8
Steve Garvey 106 20.5
Alan Trammell 87 16.9
Dave Parker 65 12.6
Don Mattingly 59 11.4
Dave Concepcion 55 10.7
Dale Murphy 54 10.5
Willie McGee 26 5.0
x-Jim Abbott 13 2.5
x-D. Strawberry 6 1.2
x-Jack McDowell 4 0.8
x-Chili Davis 3 0.6
x-Tom Candiotti 2 0.4
x-J. Montgomery 2 0.4
x-Tony Phillips 1 0.2
x-Terry Steinbach1 0.2
x-Mark Langston 0 0.0
x-Otis Nixon 0 0.0


X - players who recieved less than 5% and will be off the ballot

Who voted for Terry Steibach? Willie McGee is a hold over?

As has been noted many times, there are no likely HoF-ers next year. It wouldn't be a surprise to see none of 2006 guys stick around for 2007. Sutter, Rice and Gossage are going to get a lot of looks and reconsideration.

(The possible exception is Pete Rose; 2006 would be his last year on the writers ballot, if he's made eligible.)

The Vet Committee announces it's selection on 03/02. I hoped for a dual Ryno/Santo induction - last time. Now, it'd just be nice.



thecubsfan.com - CMLLBlog
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 37 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.04
Rose had 9 write in votes this year, an all time low. If he's reinstated next year, I doubt he'd get in. He's going to have to wait for the VC in nine years.



BWT
Boerewors








Since: 27.1.04
From: Philly

Since last post: 3161 days
Last activity: 2765 days
AIM:  
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.31
Over at ESPN.com they had who each writer voted for and I noticed Peter Gammons wasn't listed. Does he still have a vote? And if not why doesn't he?

edoug
Summer sausage








Since: 13.2.04
From: Maine

Since last post: 63 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#38 Posted on
According to http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm.

Electors Only active and honorary members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, who have been active baseball writers for at least ten (10) years, shall be eligible to vote. They must have been active as baseball writers and members of the Association for a period beginning at least ten (10) years prior to the date of election in which they are voting.

BigVitoMark
Lap cheong








Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada

Since last post: 3347 days
Last activity: 3257 days
ICQ:  
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.81
    Originally posted by thecubsfan
    As has been noted many times, there are no likely HoF-ers next year. It wouldn't be a surprise to see none of 2006 guys stick around for 2007. Sutter, Rice and Gossage are going to get a lot of looks and reconsideration.


Exactly what I hate. Just because nobody great retired in 2001 should not make the difference between whether Goose Gossage is a Hall of Fame guy or not.

I'd be very interested to know the criteria that earned Tony Phillips a vote.



Screw Ricky
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 37 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.04
There are plenty reasons why the Goose should be a Hall of Famer. Voters are going to have to decide what gets a closer/reliever in there, because there's an entire wave of people that play the position that are going to be coming up for induction soon, and there's going to have to be some sort of criteria for them. To have Eckersly in, but next-to-none of the guys that paved the way for him to get inducted is silly. Yes he was a decent starter, but he wasn't great until TLR started using him in the ninth inning of games. The same thing goes for DH's. Harold Baines is coming up in a year or two, and Edgar Martinez will be eligible in five.

(First Ballot HOF inductees)

Babe Ruth, of-p, 1936
Ty Cobb, of, 1936
Honus Wagner, ss, 1936
Walter Johnson, p, 1936
Christy Mathewson, p, 1936
Jackie Robinson, if, 1962
Bob Feller, p, 1962
Ted Williams, of, 1966
Stan Musial, of-1b, 1969
Sandy Koufax, p, 1971
Warren Spahn, p, 1973
Mickey Mantle, of-1b, 1974
Ernie Banks, ss-1b, 1977
Willie Mays, of, 1979
Al Kaline, of, 1980
Bob Gibson, p, 1981
Hank Aaron, of, 1982
Frank Robinson, of-dh, 1982
Brooks Robinson, 3b, 1983
Lou Brock, of, 1985
Willie McCovey, 1b, 1986
Willie Stargell, of-1b, 1988
Carl Yastrzemski, of-1b, 1989
Johnny Bench, c, 1989
Joe Morgan, 2b, 1990
Jim Palmer, p, 1990
Rod Carew, 2b-1b, 1991
Tom Seaver, p, 1992
Reggie Jackson, of, 1993
Steve Carlton, p, 1994
Mike Schmidt, 3b, 1995
Nolan Ryan, p, 1999
George Brett, 3b, 1999
Robin Yount, if-of, 1999
Dave Winfield, of, 2001
Kirby Puckett, of, 2001
Ozzie Smith, ss, 2002
Eddie Murray, 1b, 2003
Paul Molitor, inf-dh, 2004
Dennis Eckersley, p, 2004
Wade Boggs, 3b. 2005

(edited by Whitebacon on 4.1.05 1337)


Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Thread rated: 5.44
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Thread ahead: Randy Johnson to WCBS photog: "Get out of my face, or you'll see what I'm like!"
Next thread: Red Sox want ball back
Previous thread: Boggs, Sandberg in the Hall of Fame
(838 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3992-2004Oct27.html From the same article, McFarlane paid $3.2 million for McGwire's 70th HR and Bonds's 73rd went for $450,000. bomasterj does not appear to be in the Yahoo!
The W - Baseball - Hall of Fame Time Again (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.149 seconds.