The Hot Stove League

[Lammycat]

Rice had 3 seasons where he could truly be considered a great player. He never topped 1.000 in OPS. I mean, was he feared in 1981 when he Slugged a Juan Encarnacion-esque .441?

 

Not deserving of the Hall. I'd put Albert in before him for sure.

 

Bill James calls him the most overrated player of the last 30 years.

He's definitely borderline. I don't think anyone can reasonably make a definitive call on him (yeah, maybe Bill James did...).

A case can be made for Rice to the Hall as well as against, depending how heavily one weighs particular stats (for example, Rice was dominant at Fenway, much weaker on the road).

 

As a fan of his who loved watching him slug at Fenway as a youth, I'd like to see him enshrined. Then again, I would not be surprised or feel he was slighted if he doesn't get in.

 

Belle barely registers on the voting scale. There's a reason for that which I don't think you can totally fault on his "personality."

[MrRain422]

I can't see any reason other than his personality for Belle to be that far off the voter's radar. At his peak, he was better than Jim Rice ever was. Not to say that Belle should have been a slam dunk for the Hall, but he's certainly close enough that I would have expected him to at least get enough votes to not get dropped from the ballot. There's maybe a bit of a steroid taint to him as well (not as much circumstancial evidence as McGwire, but he played at the right time, was a total beast with the bat, and his behavior may suggest 'roid rage to some). Looking purely at how well he played the game, Belle is probably a borderline guy. Definately good enough that he would have easily gotten over the 5% necessary to stay on the ballot if he wasn't such a jerk.

[Twisted Acres]

thought this was fascinating...

 

DiMaggio: 88.84% (less than Rod Carew)

Koufax: 86.87% (less than Carl Hubbell)

Bob Gibson: 84.04% (!!!!!!!) (less than Ted Lyons... who would you rather have in your rotation?)

Walter Johnson: 83.63% (what the FUCK... less than Hoyt Wilhelm)

Rogers Hornsby: 78.11% (made it by the skin of his teeth?!?!)

Cy Young... CY YOUNG: 76.12% (less than Early Wynn)

 

Them writers sure used to have stringent voting standards back in the day... even in the 70s! (Gibson)

[bobbob1313]

I stand corrected. If Bill James says it, it must be true.

 

For the record, Rice's career OPS was .854, Ripken's was .787. Not saying Ripken's not a hall of famer, but Rice definitely belongs too.

 

I'm just quoting one baseball expert who feels he isn't worthy. You can quote one who says he is worthy, since he's the greatest player of all time you shouldn't have trouble.

 

Ripken's best years were more valuable since he provided much more offense than the average shortstop, compared to Rice and the average Left fielder.

 

And I have a hard time believing he was the most feared slugger in the game for a decade. Which decade?

[Oil Can Boyd]

thought this was fascinating...

 

DiMaggio: 88.84% (less than Rod Carew)

 

Them writers sure used to have stringent voting standards back in the day... even in the 70s! (Gibson)

 

And DiMaggio wasn't elected until his third try ...

[Twisted Acres]

And DiMaggio wasn't elected until his third try ...

 

yeah... how incredible is that?!

[MattZ]

Walter Johnson: 83.63% (what the FUCK... less than Hoyt Wilhelm)

Rogers Hornsby: 78.11% (made it by the skin of his teeth?!?!)

Cy Young... CY YOUNG: 76.12% (less than Early Wynn)

 

Wasn't this because they were all on the first ballot and only so many guys could get in?

[Twisted Acres]

I could see that accounting for Johnson's 83% in 1936, but Cy Young's 76.12% got him in in 1937 with only Napoleon Lajoie (83.58%) and Tris Speaker (82.09%) ahead of him. Both are certainly fully deserving, but I can't imagine writers thinking less of Young than they did of Lajoie or Speaker.

 

What's also interesting is that there are more than a few HOFers who have gained induction thanks to the Veterans Committee who barely receive BBWAA support! Example: Eppa Rixey never garnered more than 13.99% of the vote between 1939 and 1958, suddenly jumps to 52% in 1960, then back to 30% in '61... and the Vets Committee inducts him in 1963. What did they see that his contemporaries didn't?? I know his 266 wins was a record for lefties until Spahn came along, but his winning pct was only .515. I don't know. I prefer to think of the BBWAA inductees and Vet Committee inductees on separate strata.

[MrRain422]

The Veterans Committee often looks at guys that they played with who they thought deserve more recognition than they've received. Often it's a reward for playing on a good team, even if they weren't great players themselves.

 

By the way, for those who are interested, Bill James's book What Happened to the Hall of Fame is a pretty excellent look at all of the different arguments that are often made for certain players, how standards for the Hall of Fame have changed over the years, etc.

[rareair]

The Veterans Committee often looks at guys that they played with who they thought deserve more recognition than they've received. Often it's a reward for playing on a good team, even if they weren't great players themselves.

 

i know nothing of his stats but believe ron santo of the cubs is still trying to get in via the veterans committee.

[MrRain422]

Report: Bonds Failed Amphetamine Test

By Associated Press

 

NEW YORK - Barry Bonds failed a test for amphetamines last season and originally blamed it on a teammate, the Daily News reported Thursday.

 

When first informed of the positive test, Bonds attributed it to a substance he had taken from teammate Mark Sweeney's locker, the New York City newspaper said, citing several unnamed sources.

 

"I have no comment on that," Bonds' agent Jeff Borris told the Daily News on Wednesday night.

 

"Mark was made aware of the fact that his name had been brought up," Sweeney's agent Barry Axelrod told the Daily News. "But he did not give Barry Bonds anything, and there was nothing he could have given Barry Bonds."

 

Bonds, who always has maintained he never has tested positive for illegal drug use, already is under investigation for lying about steroid use.

 

A federal grand jury is investigating whether the 42-year-old Bonds perjured himself when he testified in 2003 in the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative steroid distribution case that he never knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs. The San Francisco Giants slugger told a 2003 federal grand jury that he believed his trainer Greg Anderson had provided him flaxseed oil and arthritic balm, not steroids.

 

Under baseball's amphetamines policy, which went into effect last season, players are not publicly identified for a first positive test. A second positive test for amphetamines results in a 25-game suspension. The first failed steroids test costs a player 50 games.

 

Bonds did not appeal the positive test, according to the Daily News, which made him subject to six drug tests by MLB over the next six months.

 

"We're not in a position to confirm or deny, obviously," MLB spokesman Rich Levin told the Daily News.

 

According to the newspaper, Sweeney learned of the Bonds' positive test from Gene Orza, chief operating officer of the Major League Baseball Players Association. Orza told Sweeney, the paper said, that he should remove any troublesome substances from his locker and should not share said substances. Sweeney said there was nothing of concern in his locker, according to the Daily News' sources.

 

An AP message for Sweeney was not immediately returned late Wednesday.

 

The Giants still are working to finalize complicated language in Bonds' $16 million, one-year contract for next season _ a process that has lasted almost a month since he agreed to the deal Dec. 7 on the last day of baseball's winter meetings.

 

The language still being negotiated concerns the left fielder's compliance with team rules, as well as what would happen if he were to be indicted or have other legal troubles.

 

Borris has declined to comment on the negotiations. He didn't immediately return a message from the AP on Wednesday night.

 

Bonds is set to begin his 15th season with the Giants only 22 home runs shy of surpassing Hank Aaron's career record of 755.

 

Bonds, considered healthy again following offseason surgery on his troublesome left elbow, has spent 14 of his 21 big league seasons with San Francisco and helped the Giants draw 3 million fans in all seven seasons at their waterfront ballpark.

 

After missing all but 14 games in 2005 following three operations on his right knee, Bonds batted .270 with 26 homers and 77 RBIs in 367 at-bats in 2006. He passed Babe Ruth to move into second place on the career home run list May 28.

[bobbob1313]

Not going to help his cause, but it's not a big deal. Players have been using amphetamines since the beginning of the game. There are probably hundreds of players who used them in the HoF.

[MrRain422]

I didn't post that because of the Hall of Fame discussion here, just because it seemed like pretty big news for this point in the off-season where not much else is really happening. Everyone already knows that he did steroids anyway -- he admitted it in his grand jury testimony (although including the laughable claim that he didn't know that he was using steroids). It's sort of fun that this failed drug test was last season though, long after the steroid stuff had already blown up. And unlike the steroid use, this is after baseball had rules in place banning amphetimines.

 

No, it doesn't really change things, but piling on Barry Bonds is fun and this is really good fodder for that.

[rareair]

i am rethinking my belief that joey deserved less than 5% of the vote. it is odd how actually looking at the statistics can influence your thinking.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/co...F9?OpenDocument

[redeyedandblue]

Joey! That's great! I totally forgot about that.

 

Along those same lines, I think we should remove Roger McGuinn from the RRHOF for changing his name from Jim.

[burns3]

Dodgers to institute all-you-can-eat section

 

At first glance, the cheap seats at Dodger Stadium don't seem all that cheap anymore, as a ticket in the right-field pavilion will cost you $40 for the 2007 season. But if you're a big fan of ballpark concessions, that might be a decent deal. That's because the bleacher seat also comes with an endless supply of Dodger Dogs.According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, the Dodgers are converting the right-field pavilion into an all-you-can-eat section. So for the aforementioned $40 (just $35 if the ticket is purchased in advance), fans will be entitled to an endless supply of food and drinks, including hot dogs, peanuts and soda ... but not beer, which hasn't been sold in the pavilion for years.

 

The team reportedly tested the concept several times last season and found enough support to make it permanent for 2007.

 

"The fans really liked it," Dodgers spokeswoman Camille Johnston told the Times. "We know it's a good option for groups."

 

The report cited a major league executive who said fans spend an average of $12.30 on food and drink per game. Given that tickets in the left-field pavilion at Dodger Stadium will run $8 in 2007 (for advance purchase), you'd have to spend more than double that amount on average to make the difference in price for the all-you-can-eat section worth your while.

 

Not that it can't be done.

 

 

 

 

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6358636

[Lammycat]

Folks spend on average $12.50 because the prices are so steep, not because their stomaches tell them they're full.

 

I'm willing to bet, under decent circumstances and a healthy appetite, and if I kept my beer intake to a minimal/survivalist level, I could down the difference in food. I could nail 4-5 hotdogs over the course of a game easily, and they run $4-5. Minus the ticket price, I'm more than half way to gluttonous American harmony.

[darkstar]

Wow,

 

All you can eat at Dodger Stadium...

 

When is David Wells starting negotiations with the Dodgers?

[MrRain422]

i miss baseball

[Lammycat]

i miss baseball

I was thinking the exact same thing last night as I stood in my backyard and viewed all the snow and felt the bitter cold air blowing around me.

 

I envisioned having The Package hooked up with a Sox game on, the cool spring air, the smell of grass and flowers, etc.

 

Reality bites.

[parisisstale]

I'm just quoting one baseball expert who feels he isn't worthy. You can quote one who says he is worthy, since he's the greatest player of all time you shouldn't have trouble.

 

Ripken's best years were more valuable since he provided much more offense than the average shortstop, compared to Rice and the average Left fielder.

 

And I have a hard time believing he was the most feared slugger in the game for a decade. Which decade?

 

Not to harp on the Rice thing, but why not? From 1975-1986, he led the AL in home runs, rbi's, slugging pct, and total bases.

 

From Ripken yesterday: "I also think Jim Rice should be elected for the same reason as Goose. He was a dominant player and the guy I feared coming to bat against us more than anyone."

 

Why do I even care? I hate the Red Sox.

[darkstar]

I was thinking the exact same thing last night as I stood in my backyard and viewed all the snow and felt the bitter cold air blowing around me.

 

I envisioned having The Package hooked up with a Sox game on, the cool spring air, the smell of grass and flowers, etc.

 

Reality bites.

 

 

Well only about what...5-6 weeks 'till pitchers and catchers report?

 

Once the NFL is done it is a bleak time. I can't get into hoops (except at tourney time, and thats only for wagering opportunities), hockey is cool but not as much as football and baseball.

[bobbob1313]

Not to harp on the Rice thing, but why not? From 1975-1986, he led the AL in home runs, rbi's, slugging pct, and total bases.

 

From Ripken yesterday: "I also think Jim Rice should be elected for the same reason as Goose. He was a dominant player and the guy I feared coming to bat against us more than anyone."

 

Why do I even care? I hate the Red Sox.

 

He's not a terrible player, but he doesn't derserve the hall of fame.

 

If he gets in Albert Belle definetly should get in, and then you'd have to make a case for Luis Gonzalez and Andres Gallaragas, and Ellis Burks, and any number of guys who don't derserve the hall.

 

 

Also, does "Future Hall of Famer Lance Berkman" sound right to anyone? I'm looking at his stats, and I honestly didn't realize how good he is. Might be the most underrated player in the league. He keeps it up for 8 more years or so, and I can't see how he doesn't get in.

[MrRain422]

8 more years is a long time. You really can't count on anyone to keep up any level of play for 8 years. Sometimes they do, but most don't. If he did maintain this level for 8 more years though, he'd be borderline.

[parisisstale]

He's not a terrible player, but he doesn't derserve the hall of fame.

 

If he gets in Albert Belle definetly should get in, and then you'd have to make a case for Luis Gonzalez and Andres Gallaragas, and Ellis Burks, and any number of guys who don't derserve the hall.

Also, does "Future Hall of Famer Lance Berkman" sound right to anyone? I'm looking at his stats, and I honestly didn't realize how good he is. Might be the most underrated player in the league. He keeps it up for 8 more years or so, and I can't see how he doesn't get in.

 

You just cannot compare late 70s-early 80s stats to today (90-present). No juiced balls, no juiced bats, no juiced players, etc..etc..etc... It was a pitching dominated period, and Rice's numbers topped that period. It's just that simple.