nymr83

welcome back, i'd be onboard for such a project.

Edgy DC wrote: I worked really hard on that post. yeah but you are so obviously right that i didn't feel it neccessary to add anything. I can only hope that any dinosaur who considers Wins an important pitching stat is kept far, far away from any decision-making for the Mets.

Centerfield wrote: The News has a big headline on its backpage that says "NEVER SAY NO WAY, JOSE" implying that the Mets would include him in a deal for Santana. When you read the article, however, that's precisely what the Mets are saying, stating that Reyes, Wright, and Beltran are going nowhere. The Post says "NO WAY JOSE- Mets won't give up Reyes" in a small picture on the front and on the back a full page picture of Reyes and Omar that says "Can't touch this" making clear what the article says- the Mets will not deal Jose Reyes.

i like the current Pirates logo better than this one. The old Padres logo is great, it just needs to be modernized/computerized (sharper colors etc) a little. I like the old Reds' logo with what looks like Mr. Met's cousin

there'd be worse things than a 1-year deal to jeff weaver. as long as its only 1 year the mets could cut bait at any time.

i'm personally not inclined to look at "milestones" at all. i prefer to look at rate stats and then decide if the guy had enough PAs at that level to be worth inducting (given his defense and what position he plays etc)

guys- i really dont want to debate individual players on my list because i'd never expect everyone to agree with all of them, but if you think that say more than 10 of them are wrong list those ten and i'll give an argument for any names that more than one person raises

please billy, don't say "he battled." also please tell us who "didn't show up every day." it would be fun to hear.

Seeing as how answering your question will help me procrastinate for another half hour so, sure. heres a bunch of guys as good or better than Tony Perez who are not in the hall of fame (but are or were once eligible): Hitters: Dick Allen, Harold Baines, Albert Belle, Bobby Bonds, Brett Butler, Jose Canseco, Norm Cash, Ron Cey, Jack Clark, Will Clark, Rocky Collavito. Cecil Cooper, Andre Dawson, Brian Downing, Dwight Evans,George Foster Kirk Gibson, Pedro Guerrero,Keith Hernandez, Gil Hodges, Frank Howard. David Justice, Dave Kingman, Fred Lynn,Roger Maris, Don Mattingly,Mark McGwire, Kevin Mitchell, Dale Murphy, Graig Nettles, Tony Oliva, Paul O'Neil. Dave Parker, Lance Parrish, Boog Powell, Tim Raines, Jim Rice, Ron Santo, Ted Simmons, Ken Singleton, Reggie Smith, Rusty Staub, Daryl Strawberry. Joe Torre, Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, Jimmy Wynn thats 47 guys right there and i havent even gone into pitchers. I don't expect anyone to agree with the whole list and I'm sure upon careful study there'd be a handful that I'd be willing to get rid of but I think I've made my point.

G-Fafif wrote: Fifty, Gracie? Contemporary or all-time? there are 50 players not in the hall (and already retired of course) equal to or better than him. that, to me, means he shouldnt be in the hall by any stretch of the imagination.

i'll reserve judgment until i see who replaces him, he wasn't terrible but neither was he good.

i think its stupidity to put a guy when there are literally 50 un-inducted players as good or better than him.

i'd be inclined to take Whitaker over Sandberg as well.

looking at Whitaker i think i'd have put him in, but i think he's at the very very bottom of what i'd put in. I like Trammell, but i think if you put Trammell in you need to put in Barry Larkin as well, are we ready to do that? I am.

]You want numbers? Morris has numbers. During his prime (1979-1992 -- throw out his 45 IP in 78, and his end-of-career years in 93-94), he won 233 games... 41 MORE than any other pitcher. first of all wins are a team stat more than an individual one. second you are cherrypicking his prime, which is unlikely to have coincided exactly with other good pitchers primes, i would expect that if you took a list of good (but not great) pitchers and made a list starting and ending with their primes they'd rank pretty well, its like saying someone had the best AVG in the 90's, its an artificial time period. and 3rd he has 162 losses in that timeframe, i doubt many people had more though i'm not about to look since i already said i think the entire frame for the argument is wrong. ] He completed 169 games... 62 MORE than any other pitcher. i admit that 169 complete games are impressive, but again with the artificial time frame. how does this rank all time? how does it compare to other good pitchers? if another guy's career ran 1970-1985 instead of 1979-1994 he shouldnt have what he did between 70 and 79 thrown out while's morris' 85-94 counts ]Even past his prime, in 1993, he went 21-6 for a championship Blue Jays team. Plus the rings, plus Game 7 in 1991, plus the AS games, plus thirteen straight Opening Day starts, plus the no-hitter, . again with wins and losses, they arent that good a measure. neither are the rings. i already said he had the same # of AS games as finley...it tells me that you were good not great. opening day starts make you a hall of famer? at most it tells us the manager's opinion of you.

Kid Carsey wrote: I guess the same things can happen depending on how obscure the topics become. For example, I don't care how well a song about the ball rolling through Buckner's legs is written -- it would draw a large yawn from me. I also like the idea of having a more concrete schedule, I work better with deadlines. i dont think the topics should get anywhere near as definite as the ball going between buckner's legs, broad topics will allow for more creativity. things like "60's mets" "met relievers" "mets (non-sports) news" "going to shea" or anything else we can come up with.

seawolf17 wrote: I'm not going all Paul O'Neill here. I'm talking about Jack Morris. He won the 1984 and 1991 Serieses practically by himself: 5 starts, 4-0, 3 CGs, including this. Dude was dominant. Finley was never dominant. his name is morris not o'neil so he's a hall of famer? got it. 5 postseason starts makes you a hall of famer? i'll get Beckett's plack ready. how bout arguing numbers instead of claiming "he's jack friggin morris" or "he was dominant"

="seawolf17"]="Nymr83"]if Chuck Finley is "1 & done" i don't see how Morris gets in, they had pretty similiar careers with Finley having a 10 point advantage in ERA+ and Morris having 800 more innings. neither really ever had a great peak. Blyleven had 1000 innings more than Morris (1800 on Finley) and 13 pts of ERA+ (3 on Finley) and HE is borderline (but i'd put him in) Finley and Morris are only similar in that they're pitchers who have six letters in their last name. Finley only got Cy Young votes ONCE in his career: one point, in 1990. Finley's not even close. Morris has three WS rings, five AS games (including two starts), seven years appearing on Cy ballots, five years appearing on MVP ballots. WS rings say zero about the player so i won't bother with that one. Finley has the same 5 all-star appearences. Morris was just never great, he topped a 130 ERA+ just once in his career. Finley did so on 4 occassions. it's not Finley's fault that the idiots who vote for awards look at team stats like Wins more than they look at park-adjusted individual stats.

the "big red machine" already has the undeserving Tony Perez in the hall. lets not add to the stupidity by inducting a no-bat speed guy with a .322 OBP

rather then drawing the "in/out" line, would anyone like to rank the eligible players (all the holdovers and first-timers) in terms of how deserving you feel they are (even if you feel all or none are deserving)?

if Chuck Finley is "1 & done" i don't see how Morris gets in, they had pretty similiar careers with Finley having a 10 point advantage in ERA+ and Morris having 800 more innings. neither really ever had a great peak. Blyleven had 1000 innings more than Morris (1800 on Finley) and 13 pts of ERA+ (3 on Finley) and HE is borderline (but i'd put him in)

let everyone just start listing topics. individual players should not be topics, imo, because we do them every year. limit it to 10 topics per person to start so we don't have a mile long list from SJR

I'd vote for Raines alone out of the new candidates. Of the old ones I'd vote for Blyleven, Trammell, and maybe Rice. i don't think there is a "backlog" just a bunch of mediocre (in the HOF-sense, they were obviously all good playrs) guys who dont deserve the ultimate honor. if there is a "backlog" though this would be the year to clear it because there are probably not going to be ANY inductions out of the new players leaving plenty of room for the older guys to get in. it may be illogical but i have the feeling that a good number of voters dont want to name too many guys in one year. lowering the % would be really stupid, this should be an honor for great players and the more you lower it the more you make it a place for the good but not great. gil hodges? please. if he's a hall of famer then you'd better get ready for jack clark, george foster, fred lynn, don mattingly, keith hernandez, cecil cooper, wally joyner, will clark, and my favorite player john olerud.

i think i'll give it a shot if we do this topics thing instead of a random list of former-met scrubs for each contestant

i'm out, i'll be retiring at 0-1.