stevejrogers

That is what the Emmys are for!

I'd put Rice in. Not sure about Murph.

="metsguyinmichigan":26v1powi]Maybe Mex thinks that if Vada goes in, so does he.[/quote:26v1powi] Could be! Speaking of that, heard Boomer Esaison do a football talk show with Chris Russo when Jim Kelly went into the Hall. Russo was against Kelly going in, Boomer was for it, and Russo was giving Boomer Kelly's stats and said that they were comparable to Boomer's. Russo then asked if Kelly belonged, did that mean Boomer should go in, and Boomer actually said "probably." metsguyinmichigan Sep 21 2008 01:14 PM So do you advocate for Jim Rice and Dale Murphy, who had sustained periods of glory but didn't hit the milestones? I do. seawolf17 Sep 21 2008 01:15 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":7tzzcw9x]So do you advocate for Jim Rice and Dale Murphy, who had sustained periods of glory but didn't hit the milestones? I do.[/quote:7tzzcw9x] Absofuckinglutely. If you'd told me in 1984 that neither of those guys would be in yet, I'd have thought you were some sort of weird space traveler from the future. SteveJRogers Sep 21 2008 01:17 PM I'd put Rice in. Not sure about Murph. SteveJRogers Sep 21 2008 01:25 PM ="SteveJRogers":2jozdo8p]Shocked to hear Rice get overlooked yesterday morning when a radio show host rattled off Red Sox Left Fielders and only mentioned the no doubt HOFers in Teddy Ballgame, Yaz and ManRam. Rice, while won't go down historically with those three, should be listed among those three. Then again, the host is a bit of a moron.[/quote:2jozdo8p] Missed one Wolfie seawolf17 Sep 21 2008 01:27 PM Sorry. Tried to split it back out and merge it, but deleted it by mistake. Thanks for reposting it here anyway. TheOldMole Sep 21 2008 01:50 PM Hodges yes. Frayed Knot Sep 21 2008 01:53 PM Santo seawolf17 Sep 21 2008 01:59 PM I say Hodges/Santo/Torre. Soft spots for my birthday buddy Dick Allen and the ageless Jim Kaat, but I don't think the rest make the cut. metsguyinmichigan Sep 21 2008 02:59 PM I would vote for Santo, Hodges and Allen. Met Hunter Sep 21 2008 03:41 PM I predict that not one member of this year's bullpen gets in. Not even with paid admission. Valadius Sep 21 2008 04:48 PM I'm with MGIM. Vic Sage Sep 22 2008 09:41 AM It would neither shock my conscience nor surprise me if no one got in. That being said: Ron Santo - Santo wasn't an accumulator, didn't lead the league in anything important, and didn't win any championships; he does meet the "5-year/10-year" test (at least 5 years great, and at least 10 years very good), but just barely. But from 63-67, he won GGs and was as good a hitter as their was in the league. I'd say he's borderline for a reason, but it wouldn't bother me to see him go in. YES. Dick Allen - a better case than Santo; a ROY and MVP, top 10 in OPS+ for 10 years (1st = 3x), and top 10 in RC for 8 of those years (1st = 3x). But as a bad glove at 1b, and bad rep with press, he's been kept out. Again, borderline, but I'd say YES. Gil Hodges - As a manager, his career was too brief to achieve HOF credentials. As a player, he was Norm Cash, playing in a bandbox. NO. Jim Kaat - the ultimate accumulator. NO. Tony Oliva - at the other end of the spectrum, Oliva was great for 5-6 years, but couldn't sustain it. NO. Al Oliver - a very good player, but not great; but how many guys have their career years at age 35? but NO. Vada Pinson - like Santo, just barely makes the 5-y/10-y threshold, but hung around for another decade. I don't think so. NO. Luis Tiant - had a few great years, but mostly just good. NO. Joe Torre - great year in 71, and a few other excellent seasons, but not enough. As a manager, he sucked until he managed to stay out of the way of some great teams. I can't possibly go along with his enshrinement. NO. Maury Wills - 1 great year, a few other good ones. Um, NO. Benjamin Grimm Sep 22 2008 09:45 AM Vic didn't mention Dale Murphy, but I'd call him a NO. Vic Sage Sep 22 2008 09:53 AM Murphy wasn't on the list in this thread, But, if you want to include him: DALE MURPHY - he was a guy with a very high peak, whose career completely fell off the table at a relatively young age. I presume it was injuries. But he won 2 MVPs and, in 6 of 8 seasons from 1980-1987, he was a GG-calibre CFer and as good a hitter as their was in the NL. But after that, at age 32, it was like his switch got turned off. So, unfortunately, I'd have to say NO. Frayed Knot Dec 08 2008 12:37 PM Joe Gordon and no one else. If I had to choose one off of the vet's ballot I don't think I would have gone with him. Valadius Dec 08 2008 12:41 PM Oy gevalt. Another undeserving Yankee. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 08 2008 12:53 PM Gordon's MVP in 42 should have gone to Ted Williams. But he had a pretty strong career overall. Vic Sage Dec 08 2008 01:16 PM he lost 2 of his prime years to WWII, preventing him from accumulating more impressive numbers. But what was there was "cherce." sharpie Dec 08 2008 01:44 PM Baseball reference has him being traded by the Indians to the Tigers in 1960 for Jimmie Dykes. Gordon retired in 1950, Dykes in 1939. Overall, a better trade for the Indians as Dykes was over 60 at the time. http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gordojo01.shtml Valadius Dec 08 2008 01:50 PM They traded managers. sharpie Dec 08 2008 01:56 PM Yes of course. Actually turned out slightly better for the Tigers than the Indians. Edgy DC Dec 08 2008 05:15 PM The larger veterans committee made up of living members tasked to review careers that started after World War II turned in no names for the fourth straight time. "It's not our job to vote someone in," Hall of Fame manager Dick Williams said by phone from Las Vegas, where the results were announced at baseball's Winter Meetings. "It's our job to consider the candidates." That's pretty cool considering how long Williams was on the outside.

="seawolf17":3aijxkaw]Vada Pinson is not a Hall of Famer and should not be. A nice player, but no. Had a really solid run from 59-64, but then kinda fell off the table and just hung around for ten years.[/quote:3aijxkaw] Who was advocating? Mex? And what was the context? Delgado's 2,000th? metsguyinmichigan Sep 21 2008 01:03 PM Maybe Mex thinks that if Vada goes in, so does he. seawolf17 Sep 21 2008 01:11 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":23flo0qg]What did he finish with, 2,700 hits? That's impressive. I know he's on the new vets' ballot. So is Santo, who should have been in years ago.[/quote:23flo0qg] The "compilers" bore me. He was really pedestrian for most of his career. Sure, he got a lot of hits, but he only made the All-Star game twice (in his first two full seasons, and never thereafter), only made the postseason once (and sucked), drove in 100 only twice (career high 106 -- although I don't know where he batted in the lineup), and his career OPS is .769, which means he's Yunel Escobar in 2008 (110 OPS+, however). ="SteveJRogers":23flo0qg]Who was advocating? Mex? And what was the context? Delgado's 2,000th?[/quote:23flo0qg] Don't remember. I came into the room on a discussion of the vets' ballot, and they were saying something about "280-plus wins." Kaat, maybe? Then the discussion turned to Pinson. Must have been Mex, I'd think. seawolf17 Sep 21 2008 01:12 PM Oh, and yes, Santo should be in, and you have to figure he'll drum up enough vet support. Frayed Knot Sep 21 2008 01:14 PM Gary brought up Pinson. I believe he called him "intriguing" without neccessarily saying he belonged. SteveJRogers Sep 21 2008 01:14 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":26v1powi]Maybe Mex thinks that if Vada goes in, so does he.[/quote:26v1powi] Could be! Speaking of that, heard Boomer Esaison do a football talk show with Chris Russo when Jim Kelly went into the Hall. Russo was against Kelly going in, Boomer was for it, and Russo was giving Boomer Kelly's stats and said that they were comparable to Boomer's. Russo then asked if Kelly belonged, did that mean Boomer should go in, and Boomer actually said "probably." metsguyinmichigan Sep 21 2008 01:14 PM So do you advocate for Jim Rice and Dale Murphy, who had sustained periods of glory but didn't hit the milestones? I do. seawolf17 Sep 21 2008 01:15 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":7tzzcw9x]So do you advocate for Jim Rice and Dale Murphy, who had sustained periods of glory but didn't hit the milestones? I do.[/quote:7tzzcw9x] Absofuckinglutely. If you'd told me in 1984 that neither of those guys would be in yet, I'd have thought you were some sort of weird space traveler from the future. SteveJRogers Sep 21 2008 01:17 PM I'd put Rice in. Not sure about Murph. SteveJRogers Sep 21 2008 01:25 PM ="SteveJRogers":2jozdo8p]Shocked to hear Rice get overlooked yesterday morning when a radio show host rattled off Red Sox Left Fielders and only mentioned the no doubt HOFers in Teddy Ballgame, Yaz and ManRam. Rice, while won't go down historically with those three, should be listed among those three. Then again, the host is a bit of a moron.[/quote:2jozdo8p] Missed one Wolfie seawolf17 Sep 21 2008 01:27 PM Sorry. Tried to split it back out and merge it, but deleted it by mistake. Thanks for reposting it here anyway. TheOldMole Sep 21 2008 01:50 PM Hodges yes. Frayed Knot Sep 21 2008 01:53 PM Santo seawolf17 Sep 21 2008 01:59 PM I say Hodges/Santo/Torre. Soft spots for my birthday buddy Dick Allen and the ageless Jim Kaat, but I don't think the rest make the cut. metsguyinmichigan Sep 21 2008 02:59 PM I would vote for Santo, Hodges and Allen. Met Hunter Sep 21 2008 03:41 PM I predict that not one member of this year's bullpen gets in. Not even with paid admission. Valadius Sep 21 2008 04:48 PM I'm with MGIM. Vic Sage Sep 22 2008 09:41 AM It would neither shock my conscience nor surprise me if no one got in. That being said: Ron Santo - Santo wasn't an accumulator, didn't lead the league in anything important, and didn't win any championships; he does meet the "5-year/10-year" test (at least 5 years great, and at least 10 years very good), but just barely. But from 63-67, he won GGs and was as good a hitter as their was in the league. I'd say he's borderline for a reason, but it wouldn't bother me to see him go in. YES. Dick Allen - a better case than Santo; a ROY and MVP, top 10 in OPS+ for 10 years (1st = 3x), and top 10 in RC for 8 of those years (1st = 3x). But as a bad glove at 1b, and bad rep with press, he's been kept out. Again, borderline, but I'd say YES. Gil Hodges - As a manager, his career was too brief to achieve HOF credentials. As a player, he was Norm Cash, playing in a bandbox. NO. Jim Kaat - the ultimate accumulator. NO. Tony Oliva - at the other end of the spectrum, Oliva was great for 5-6 years, but couldn't sustain it. NO. Al Oliver - a very good player, but not great; but how many guys have their career years at age 35? but NO. Vada Pinson - like Santo, just barely makes the 5-y/10-y threshold, but hung around for another decade. I don't think so. NO. Luis Tiant - had a few great years, but mostly just good. NO. Joe Torre - great year in 71, and a few other excellent seasons, but not enough. As a manager, he sucked until he managed to stay out of the way of some great teams. I can't possibly go along with his enshrinement. NO. Maury Wills - 1 great year, a few other good ones. Um, NO. Benjamin Grimm Sep 22 2008 09:45 AM Vic didn't mention Dale Murphy, but I'd call him a NO. Vic Sage Sep 22 2008 09:53 AM Murphy wasn't on the list in this thread, But, if you want to include him: DALE MURPHY - he was a guy with a very high peak, whose career completely fell off the table at a relatively young age. I presume it was injuries. But he won 2 MVPs and, in 6 of 8 seasons from 1980-1987, he was a GG-calibre CFer and as good a hitter as their was in the NL. But after that, at age 32, it was like his switch got turned off. So, unfortunately, I'd have to say NO. Frayed Knot Dec 08 2008 12:37 PM Joe Gordon and no one else. If I had to choose one off of the vet's ballot I don't think I would have gone with him. Valadius Dec 08 2008 12:41 PM Oy gevalt. Another undeserving Yankee. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 08 2008 12:53 PM Gordon's MVP in 42 should have gone to Ted Williams. But he had a pretty strong career overall. Vic Sage Dec 08 2008 01:16 PM he lost 2 of his prime years to WWII, preventing him from accumulating more impressive numbers. But what was there was "cherce." sharpie Dec 08 2008 01:44 PM Baseball reference has him being traded by the Indians to the Tigers in 1960 for Jimmie Dykes. Gordon retired in 1950, Dykes in 1939. Overall, a better trade for the Indians as Dykes was over 60 at the time. http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gordojo01.shtml Valadius Dec 08 2008 01:50 PM They traded managers. sharpie Dec 08 2008 01:56 PM Yes of course. Actually turned out slightly better for the Tigers than the Indians. Edgy DC Dec 08 2008 05:15 PM The larger veterans committee made up of living members tasked to review careers that started after World War II turned in no names for the fourth straight time. "It's not our job to vote someone in," Hall of Fame manager Dick Williams said by phone from Las Vegas, where the results were announced at baseball's Winter Meetings. "It's our job to consider the candidates." That's pretty cool considering how long Williams was on the outside.

Double Plays Induced I'm going to guess? OE: Hey, I'm a good fit! <---

I felt the need to trash Glavine in comparison to Pedro. I was saying that I'd know I'd get flogged for flogging a horse that died a year ago.

KC wrote: I don't know, and maybe I'm making too much of that, but to me if this team first mentality is where Pedro is right now I love him more than ever. Know what ya got and roll with it. I'm sure FK will yell at me for bringing up yet another dead horse to use as a predetermined premise to this post, but if only Glavine had done what Pedro is doing right now. True who the heck could the Mets have put in Glavine's spot in the rotation, and having Santana now gives the Mets more wiggle room rotation wise, but still; it is nice to see Pedro step up and acknowledge that he isn't quite helping the team every fifth day.

Oh THAT up top. Thought you meant in the thread.

I like Ron's idea of getting Parnell in the game.

Gary once again stating the myth that Beltran wouldn't be here if not for Pedro. Yeah, all that cash and years had NOTHING to do with it.

Kase, you didn't leave your email address in the OP.

Get back, get back to where you once belonged!

WE'RE BAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCKKKK!

AL East Tragic Number stands at 1 AL Wild Card Tragic Number stands at 2. Go O's and Sox tomorrow to make Sunday utterly, and completely meaningless.

Yeah, can't wait to hear Shea's last words to it's replacement. Is that post coming down pipe Greg?

Nope.

My guess would be Kranepool

Oh a shot from Left Field huh? Course you DO have to take into consideration the sparse crowds in Miami, heck how about the Rays not selling out the biggest series in their franchise's history? To say nothing about how the "new park spike" failed to take hold in Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cincy, and Philly. Lets not compare attendance at River Avenue & 161st on 9/30/73 and 9/21/08 and say simply that baseball is in better shape now than it was back in 1973.

="metsguyinmichigan"]="HahnSolo"]How dare SI show the Cathedral with all those empty seats!!! Good point! I didn't notice that until you pointed it out. And it's not batting practice or anything. Note that the article is written by Supreme Yankee Hack Tom Verducci. I can only imagine... Shows you what an event driven culture we are living in today. More to that point, check out these pics from the last actual game at YS I September 30th, 1973 Attendance was barely 30,000 that afternoon.

This will make me feel slightly better at this point AL East Wild Card

Ehem GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO! HEY CHICAGO! WHAT DO YOU SAY? CUBBIES GONNA WIN TODAY!

Whatever fucking works at this point!

Maybe tomorrow I'll accept that, but right now...not so much.

Awwwwwwwwww geeez, its going on the blog and I was going to make this nice, nifty post with pictures, maybe even some pretty chicks, at the end of the IGT at some point Thursday.

Heading to that SNY Viewing Party tomorrow night on the East Side at Back Page. I can only imagine what the reaction is going to be if the Mets do not win that one.