The W
Views: 99940652
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
@300 .beats
The W - Baseball - Hall of Fame Time Again (Page 4)
This thread has 49 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.44
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4
(844 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (66 total)
pieman
As young as
he feels








Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#61 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.74

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    McGuire gets in first time, no questions asked, besides being a slugger of historic proportions, he was a generally well liked guy, and walked away when he could have easily went to the AL, been a DH and be sitting at 800 homers right now.


That is absolutely absurd.

Click Here (baseball-reference.com)

McGwire ended with 583 homeruns. So you're saying that he would have more than 200 more homeruns had he continued playing. Look at last year of his. He hit .187. He had more homers than singles that year. He was hurt and done. He didn't walk away, his career was over.

Still a HOFer though.




Gabba gabba hey!
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#62 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.41
    Originally posted by jfkfc
      Originally posted by spf
      You link to the answer you are looking for.
    No, my questions wasn't about eligibility, I am wondering who gets on the list of nominees. Why were Steinbach and Nixon on the ballot, and not Tony Fossas? Fossas played over 10 years with his last season being 1999, which made him eligible this year. Was he good? Eh, he was ok (being generous), but while he wasn't as good of a pitcher as Steinbach was a catcher, its quite obvious that Fossas would have the same shot as Steinbach to make the HOF...zero

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. For anyone wondering though, the answer was in the next part of the HOF rules

    Originally posted by HOF
    BBWAA Screening Committee A Screening Committee consisting of baseball writers will be appointed by the BBWAA. This Screening Committee shall consist of six members, with two members to be elected at each Annual Meeting for a three-year term. The duty of the Screening Committee shall be to prepare a ballot listing in alphabetical order eligible candidates who (1) received a vote on a minimum of five percent (5%) of the ballots cast in the preceding election or (2) are eligible for the first time and are nominated by any two of the six members of the BBWAA Screening Committee.

So I guess this year 2 people decided to say "sure, let's throw Jack McDowell on the list."



BigVitoMark
Lap cheong








Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada

Since last post: 3377 days
Last activity: 3287 days
ICQ:  
#63 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.80
Sure, why not let Jack McDowell on the ballot? He had a few good seasons, won twenty games a couple of times. Is he a HOFer? No, definitely not, but it never hurts to let a guy get on the ballot and get denied. Look at it as a recognition of a decent career, perhaps. Or if you don't buy that, at least it brings completeness to the process.

StaggerLee: Pieman is right. As much as I loved Mac, it was time to retire. You could make the argument that if he hadn't been injured all those years in Oakland he might have hit 800, but he didn't so it's really a moot point. It would have been nice if he could have kept going, but it really was time to hang 'em up.



Screw Ricky
SC
Potato korv








Since: 11.12.01
From: Valparaiso, IN

Since last post: 1327 days
Last activity: 661 days
AIM:  
#64 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.80
    Originally posted by Freeway420
    Looking ahead, there's no overwhelming contenders for 2006. 2007 has one shoo-in (Cal Ripken Jr.) and a few guys who'll be contenders in Tony Gwynn, Jose Canseco & Mark McGwire. Only question will be about how much Canseco's behavior and McGwire's questionable chemical-enhancement status will play into the voting. 2009 has Mark Grace & Rickey Henderson.


Comparing Gwynn and McGwire with Canseco and Grace with Rickey Henderson is outlandish.



| .com | oriole blue | tcf.com |
jfkfc
Liverwurst








Since: 9.2.02

Since last post: 98 days
Last activity: 1 day
#65 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.09
    Originally posted by ScottChrist
    Comparing Gwynn and McGwire with Canseco and Grace with Rickey Henderson is outlandish.
I think Canseco will get some discussion, but I can imagine him having a chance at all of getting in. He was definitely one of the games greats for a few years, but

-the career BA of .266
-after '91, he played more than 119 games only once,
-hit over .300 three times, including his first year

makes the case for him shaky. In his last good season for Toronto, with 46 HR and 29 SB, he only hit .237. He'll be on the ballot with no chance of getting in. Mark Grace - 3 all stars, 4 gold gloves, under 200 career HR, .303 BA, 2445 hits. Very good player, but can anyone really make a case for him being HOF-worthy?

As BVM said, put 'em on the ballot to recognize the good careers, let them get their votes, maybe stay on the ballot for a year or three, and so be it. I would be shocked if Henderson, McGwire, and Gwynn aren't in on the first ballot.



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.
SC
Potato korv








Since: 11.12.01
From: Valparaiso, IN

Since last post: 1327 days
Last activity: 661 days
AIM:  
#66 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.80
    Originally posted by jfkfc
    I think Canseco will get some discussion


Canseco is a Strawberry with gaudier numbers. Canseco has no chance, and certainly does not belong in the same sentence as Gwynn and McGwire, unless the sentence reads, "Gwynn and McGwire are Hall of Fame locks, and Jose Canseco doesn't belong in the same sentence as them."


    In his last good season for Toronto, with 46 HR and 29 SB, he only hit .237.


That was not his last good season. He was much better the year after that. The mistake people make with Canseco, in my opinion, is thinking that over half of his career he was anything more than a generic slugger filled with hype. Canseco was an idiot on and off the field.

Canseco played 17 seasons in the majors and reached 400 at-bats in nine of them. There is not really one statistic in Canseco's favor. He had about two or so great full seasons and a handful of seasons where he was going quite well and then got hurt.


    As BVM said, put 'em on the ballot to recognize the good careers, let them get their votes, maybe stay on the ballot for a year or three, and so be it. I would be shocked if Henderson, McGwire, and Gwynn aren't in on the first ballot.


I didn't say they shouldn't be on the ballot, I said to compare Mark Grace and Jose Canseco with three sure-fire Hall of Famers -- who were all equal to or better than Ripken, too -- is silly. Henderson, McGwire and Gwynn are non-questions. The other two aren't even questions.



| .com | oriole blue | tcf.com |
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4
Thread rated: 5.44
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4
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
(844 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
No doubt, get well soon Pete...we need those Red Sox updates. But seriously, hope he gets well soon, my girlfriend's grandmother passed away soon after suffering an aneurysm a few years ago, so I hope everything is ok.
The W - Baseball - Hall of Fame Time Again (Page 4)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.088 seconds.