http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:28:58 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-759764 Hello John, I agree with the "cut-offs." They seem so arbitrary. The knock against Dawson includes his low OBP. 759764@blogcritics.org Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:28:58 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-759748 Rice should definitely be in. I think Dawson should be in. The HOF shouldn't be about playing 20 plus years in order to statistical cut-offs like 3000 hits or 500 home runs. It should honor the best players of their generations. I think its a bit messed up that the best player on the Yankees in the mid-80s won't be in the hall but 2 lesser players will be. Granted back injuries shortened Mattingly's career but he still was the best player in baseball for about 5 years. No one will ever say that about craig biggio or rafeal palmiero. You can make the same case for Rice who was dominant for a span of 7 years or so. As for Dawson, I think that he was a gold glove center fielder and right fielder who hit and stole bases...there aren't too many like that. His resume did take a hit between 1984 and 1986 when he put up pretty pathetic numbers. 759748@blogcritics.org Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:00:58 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-750907 Dawson should be in the hall of fame because he was the best most consistent outfielder in the national league for over a decade.No one was as good for as long, not Stargell, Parker,even Dale Murphy. If Billy Williams is in, so is Dawson. 750907@blogcritics.org Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:09:06 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-688495 Evildoer believes character is an important component on who gets in. Fair enough. But here's the rub: there are already many a-holes in the Hall. Should it be a criteria? 688495@blogcritics.org Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:00:01 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-688493 Hawk should be in the hall as well as Robbie Alomar, and while Kirby got in with less then stellar numbers just remember his career, and life was cut short.. Kirby was also a really loved ambassador of the game, and even with his lack of Hall of Fame credentials he still was so loved that he was a clear choice to make it to the HALL. I can't say the same for Belle who had similar numbers but he insisted in being a "BADBOY" during his career, and became someone who both the media, and fans hated. Notice once his career ended prematurely that nobody wanted to talk about him again? Belle should NEVER be in the hall of fame. 688493@blogcritics.org Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:32:37 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-688189 I remember being at Fenway Park with my dad and watching Jim Rice smash three home runs in one game. The guy was larger than life at the time. I say put him in the hall. 688189@blogcritics.org Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:37:51 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-687447 In my opinion, Alomar is a shoe in. Belle I'm not so sure - he has solid numbers. Tough one. 687447@blogcritics.org Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:05:43 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-687443 The "Goose" should have been there sooner and the "Hawk" and Jim Rice should be there now. Here's a good one: Kirby Puckett,nice guy,darling of the game gets in.........Albert Bell - not so nice,doesn't even get a mention. Compare their stats!What do think is gonna happen when Bobby Alomar comes up? Remember the "incident"? Does he have the stats? or will that incident be indelibly stamped on his HOF resume? What's it all about Alessandro? 687443@blogcritics.org Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:47:23 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-687066 I agree with your assessment. Thanks. 687066@blogcritics.org Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:38:38 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-687056 Alessandro, it's just a guess, but I would say many years ago some of those 500+ baseball writer did hold a grudge against Rice (rightly or wrongly I don't know cuz I have no personal insight) for how he allegedly treated them in post-game interviews and elsewhere. I've heard that when reporters switched to subjects other than the game he just played, Rice got aggravated and had an attitude about it. [Whether his beef with reporters or their beef with him was legitimate shouldn't matter anyway. It was what it was.] The Bob Ryans and Dan Shaughnessys of the world could probably give you a better answer than me since they've been covering Boston sports forever, but I don't think his off-the-field behavior has had any effect on writers' recent voting tallies, with results climbing closer and closer to that 75% mark. In fact, I think Jim Rice got within 16 votes of being elected to the Hall this time around, which has to be the closest he's ever been. Those other 16 better get their act together and get this man in to the Hall next year, along with Dawson and Billy Williams, and perhaps Blylevin too. 687056@blogcritics.org Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:03:26 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-687036 Charlie and bleacherbummer, your comments combined remind me of a friend of mine who grew up watching baseball in the 70s. No doubt in his opinion, Rice,Dawson and Santo belong. Do you think Rice not being in has anything to do with him being tagged as a jerk? Charlie, amazing stat indeed! Heck, even Dawson beats him out! Despite this, I believe Winfield still belongs. BB, interesting take on Henderson. It is what it is I guess. 687036@blogcritics.org Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:36:20 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-687016 Great article, Alessandro. Love the Bill James stats. The fact that Jim Rice lead his league in stats 33 times - better than the HofF standard of 27 - to Dave Winfield's 4 times says it all. He should have been a no brainer Hall of Hamer. He was dominant and one of the most feared hitters of is era for at least 10 years. The only reason his numbers aren't as impressive as others is because he only played about 14 full seaons (that's just a guess). He didn't have enough mediocre years at the end of his career to get to what used to be the magic number of 400 HRs and get close to 3000 hits. Baseball writers who just look at his 382 HRs and don't vote for him don't get it and probably never will. How does guys like Tony Perez make the Hall and not Jim Rice? What a joke. 687016@blogcritics.org Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:44:07 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-686993 If stats alone were the criteria, then there would be no voting and no debate -- you'd either be in or out, no question. It's probably a good thing that there is subjective voting. But the system does seem to be flawed (although not as much as the veteran's committee). Why is it that so many players get more and more votes each year until they finally get in. How does the passage of time change the measure of their accomplishments? Next year Rickey Henderson will probably make it in 1st ballot. But his votes will hamper Dawson's & Rice's. It shouldn't make a difference, but it will. Players who deserve to be in (Ron Santo) don't make it while other players get in who don't have the resume. Oh well. 686993@blogcritics.org Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:53:54 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-686882 Aaron, those numbers are magical insofar they can't deny players entry but it's by no means the final judgment in my opinion. Good point notwithstanding neither Winfield or Williams meet the criteria and they are in. Dawson and Rice played less than those players to boot. 686882@blogcritics.org Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:57:27 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-686880 Its the "Hall of Fame" not the "Hall of the pretty good." Neither Dawson or Rice met those magical numbers, 3000 or 500. They also played a long time to get those numbers, so their averages per season aren't that great. Thats why they aren't in and never will be 686880@blogcritics.org Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:37:51 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-686877 Yeah, I always found such stats interesting. Former Edmonton Oiler Glen Anderson has 498 goals and 1099 points. What a nag. Mario Lemieux notched 199 points in one season. ONE MORE POINT and he becomes only the second player to reach 200 points behind guess who - 99. What a nag. 686877@blogcritics.org Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:26:24 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/10/182457.php#comment-686873 2 more triples. Would've given him a perfect 100. First ballot. No doubt. 686873@blogcritics.org Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:45:45 EST