I was going to begin this post by listing off all the things are as fun as tallying up Pozcars ballots, but … actually, I just did. There are more painful ways to punish yourself, I’m sure, than creating a fake award and then totaling by hand (or by spreadsheet) the 254 voters. For instance, here’s one way to make it more painful — you can forget to tell people to send in their ballots in ALPHABETICAL ORDER. That way people will send in a ballot that looks like this:
Alan Trammell
Harold Baines
Lee Smith
Dale Murphy
Pete Rose
Bert Blyleven
Tim Raines
Goose Gossage
Tommy John
That might not look like much to you. But to me, seeing the T followed by the B followed by the S followed by the M — you know that scene in falling down where Michael Douglas loses it in the fast food restaurant. Yeah. Like that. I want to thank those of you who, for whatever reason, sent in your ballot in alphabetical order. There is a place in organizational heaven reserved for you and you alone.
OK, a few Pozcars stats. There were 254 voters from at least 10 countries, and these include some ultra famous baseball writers, an TV actor, a comedian, a couple of best-selling authors, at least one trademark lawyer (who offered to help trademark The Pozcars™), a wise reader who bought up the www.pozcars.com domain name, another wise reader who apparently started a facebook Pozcars group and lots of shmoes like me. It’s clear to me that the Pozcars voters are the most qualified voters in all the world no matter what we happen to be voting on.
For those of you who wrote in late to ask for a Pozcars vote, I’m apologize, but my meager organizational skills forced me to lock you out on this vote. But I will open the registration process again for the next vote (assuming there is a next vote). And for those of you who boldly sent in your ballots without an invitation, I did try to include your vote. And for those of you whose votes were somehow lost in the system because of my own computer incompetence, I apologize. The good news for you is, I’m sure I miscounted the ones I already had, so I’m sure I would have missed your vote anyway.
With that, we will now unveil the Pozcars final vote totals in completely random order — to honor those people who made my life miserable. I know, it’s not your fault — I didn’t tell you to put them in order. I know. I can tell you that three players received the 75% necessary to be inducted as Pozcars Hall of Famers in 2007. They will be honored in some fashion that I have not yet come up with — maybe I’ll send them T-shirts assuming we ever have those made.
Who are those three Pozcars Pioneers? It’s all so exciting, isn’t it? I only wish that Alyssa Milano were here right now to play host (sadly, she is not one of the voters yet — got all these offers from you folks and not one friend of Alyssa Milano wrote in. Sheesh. You people).
* * *
Quote from Pozcars voter Bill James: “I’m reserving the right to be outrageously angry about the outcome no matter who is elected.”
* * *
Jim Rice received 31.89% of the vote.
I’m a little surprised his total is this low because I do believe a disproportionate number of readers of this blog are Red Sox fans. Then again, at least from a few of the comments I received, some Red Sox fans don’t believe he was a Hall of Fame either.
A request was put in to give Jim Rice the Morris treatment — that is, break down his famed 12-year prime from 1975-86 (when, overall, he led baseball in like 294 offensive categories) and see if he was actually among the best players in baseball year after year or if, like Morris, he just piled up his numbers by being an OK player consistently. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to really do this right — so I’m just going to use Win Shares. If you are one of those people who don’t like Win Shares, you should probably just skip to the next section.
I went into this believing that Rice’s case is significantly different. Morris was never, not even for a single year, a great pitcher in my opinion. Rice, I think, was a truly great hitter for a few of those 12 years. But let’s let see what the numbers say.
1975: Rice had 20 win shares, which tied him for 60th in baseball.
1976: Rice had 17 win shares, which tied for 92nd in baseball.
Yikes, 28 walks in 581 at-bats, Rice was a big-time hacker in those early years.
1977: Rice had 26 win shares, which tied him for 20th in baseball.
1978: Rice had 37 win shares, second in baseball.
You know I realize that Win Shares are not the end-all, and plenty of people might think they’re hopelessly flawed and worthless and all that. But it still amazes me that Jim Rice’s world-class 1978 season, a season that seemed impossibly dominant at the time, ranks SECOND in Win Shares to another guy on the Hall of Fame ballot. I don’t know — you be the judge. Who had the better season?
Jim Rice: .315/.370/.600, 25 doubles, 15 triples, 46 homers, 121 runs, 139 RBIs, 213 hits, 406 total bases, 157 OPS+.
Wow, pretty stout.
Dave Parker: .334/.394/.585, 32 doubles, 12 triples, 30 homers, 102 runs, 117 RBIs, 20 steals, 23 IBB, 166 OPS+.
Hmm. Consider defense too — you could probably call them co-best players in baseball that year.
1979: Rice has 28 win shares, tied for 11th.
1980: Rice had 16 win shares, tied for 111th.
1981: Rice had 15 win shares, tied for 44th.
1982: Rice had 21 win shares, tied for 51st.
1983: Rice had 24 win shares, tied for 21st.
1984: Rice had 19 win shares, tied for 92nd.
1985: Rice had 14 win shares, tied for 141st.
1986: Rice had 28 win shares, tied for 9th.
And there you go. It seems from this quick breakdown that in the 12-year period we are talking about Rice had one legendary season, two near-MVP-type seasons and three or four more good solid seasons. He had three or four mediocre to bad seasons too.
From 1977-79, he was a beast — but was that run legendary? Maybe not. He had a grand total of 90 win shares over those three years. Win Shares still places him third in baseball behind Dave Parker (101) and — this one will get you — Ken Singleton (96).
Ken Singleton?
Rice (1977-79): .320/.376/.596, 93 doubles, 36 triples, 124 homers, 342 runs, 383 RBIs, 153 OPS+.
Singleton (1977-79): .305/.417/.502, 73 doubles, 3 triples, 79 homers, 250 runs, 291 RBIs, 157 OPS+.
I’ll give the edge to Rice, but when you consider the huge gap in OBP and ballpark, it’s close. Over the entire 12 years, Rice tied for seventh in Win Shares (with Eddie Murray), which is pretty good, but there are a couple of non Hall of Famers ranked in front of him. One is Keith Hernandez, who I think should have his Hall of Fame case reopened, especially if Don Mattingly starts gaining traction. The other is an outfielder — Jose Cruz.
All in all, Rice had a much better peak than Jack Morris. Was it a Hall of Fame peak? Not for me to say. Exactly 68.25% of Pozcars voters say no.
* * *
Brady Anderson received 1.18% of the vote.
One of the three people who voted for Brady Anderson — former major league pitcher Al Fitzmorris. Why? “Because of Brady Anderson, I got to meet Ashley Judd.” Now THAT’S a Pozcars voter.
* * *
Dave Concepcion received 9.06% of the vote.
Just how good a fielder was Concepcion anyway? Was he Top 5 all-time? Was he as good as Aparicio, Rizutto and some of the other great defensive shortstops in the Hall? Better? I ask because offensively, for a shortstop in a low scoring era, Davey has his strong points. He was an above-average hitter (by OPS+) six times in his career, he stole 321 bases at a pretty high percentage, he hit 100 homers in his career along with almost 2,400 hits. Of course, that’s not a Hall of Fame career unless Concepcion was a truly legendary defensive shortstop, spoken in the same breath with Ozzie and Pee Wee. Well, was he? I don’t know. I’m working on this 1975 Reds book. I’ll try to find out.
* * *
Mark McGwire received 53.15% of the vote.
America remains split. Or Pozcars voters do anyway.
* * *
Chuck Knoblauch received 0.39% of the vote.
Hard to believe, but for a three-year period there — 1994-96 — the guy was every bit of a Hall of Famer.
* * *
Pete Rose received 46.85% of the vote.
Joe Jackson received 52.76% of the vote.
It did surprise me that quite a few Pozcars voters gave Jackson the vote but not Rose. I’m only guessing, but I suspect it came down to three things: The movie portrayals of Jackson as the innocent (or as the Michael Landonesque angel who saved James Earl Jones and brought Kevin Costner and his Dad together); the fact that Jackson’s been dead for more than a half century while Rose signs autographs in Vegas; the fact that Pete Rose lied.
There may be something else, something that I have obviously been thinking a lot about lately. I suspect there is now at least one, maybe two generations of baseball fans who really did not see Pete Rose in his prime, when he was unique, a force of nature, the most irresistible force in the room. Everyone here I suspect knows what a stats guy I am, and yet I think the further we get away from Rose’s prime, the more difficult I think it is to look at those big numbers and find the one-of-a-kind player Rose was — selfish, intense, ferocious, indestructible, generous, obsessive, money-hungry and absolutely more in love with the day-to-day life of baseball than anyone. I would say the biggest goal of the Red Machine book will be to get at the heart of THAT player — before the records, the gambling and everything else.
* * *
Todd Stottlemeyer received 0.39% of the vote.
Jose Rijo received 1.18% of the vote.
Neither one ever won more than 15 games in a season, but Rijo was a substantially better pitcher. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that pitching victories is the single most flawed mainstream statistic going. It may have made some sense once, back when pitchers threw complete games pretty much every time out, but those days are long gone.
This will lead some people to say, “But winning is really all that matters for a starting pitcher. You have to judge them by wins and losses.” OK, let’s say this is true. I would like to make an official recommendation that pitchers’ record from now on be the TEAM’S record on the days they pitch. That’s it. If we’re going to use a simple and flawed statistic like wins to judge pitchers based on their team’s performance, then let’s go all the way. No more no-decisions. No more five-inning minimum. Let’s just put it out there. You start a game, you are tagged with the win or loss no matter what.
Last year the Reds went 24-10 when Aaron Harang was on the mound.
The Red Sox went 21-9 when Josh Beckett was on the mound.
What does that mean? I’m not exactly sure, but what the hell? It means SOMETHING. It seems to me that if we are already placing wins and losses in a pitcher’s hands, we should just go all the way. Call it the the True Won-Loss Record. This would also mean that relievers would have no won/loss record, which I think would be great — win/loss records for relievers are even more pointless than they are for starters. We need to create a simple mainstream statistic just for them.
Incidentally, True Won-Loss Records are available on Baseball-Reference, but as far as I can see you have to go to the individual’s gamelog page to see them. We’ll have to see if Pozcars voter Sean Forman can help us spread the gospel.
* * *
Harold Baines received 5.51% of the vote.
He didn’t get many votes (14) but most of his voters were passionate. I’m curious — what if Harold Baines had put up exactly the same numbers but had also been an average-to-above average first baseman until the last, say, two or three years of his baseball life? A decent first baseman with 2,866 hits, 384 homers, 1628 RBIs (26th all-time) and everything else. He gets in eventually, right?
I don’t know. We’ll see how the voters treat Fred McGriff.
* * *
BERT BLYLEVEN RECEIVED 81.89% OF THE VOTE. HE’S IN.
Here’s our first Pozcars winner. Circle yourself Bert.
* * *
Rod Beck received 1.18% of the vote.
Shawon Dunston received 1.18% of the vote.
Rod deserved better than Shawon, if nothing else.
* * *
Jack Morris received 8.66% of the vote.
There has probably been enough said about Jack on this site.
* * *
Alan Trammell received 54.33% of the vote.
Lots of people suggested a Trammell-Whitaker double entry into the Hall. You know, in all seriousness, it would be kind of fun if the Hall of Fame could think a bit more out of the box. People would come to see the Whitaker/Trammell plaque. Maybe a Tinkers-Evers-Chance single plaque rather than giving all three of those guys a place in the Hall. Maybe a “Hall of Famers we regret” wing.
* * *
Dave Parker received 5.91% of the vote
Andre Dawson received 37.01% of the vote.
They both won one MVP award, they put up somewhat similar numbers (2700-2800 hits, 500-525 doubles, 75-100 triples, 119-121 OPS+, etc — Dawson had significantly more homers and stolen bases and played one full season more).
Was Dawson a better player than Dave Parker? Most people would say that. Pozcars voters DID say that. Dawson certainly was a steadier performer and a more a complete combination of power and speed. He also did not have the five-year drug-induced gap in the middle of his career, and this is no small thing. I would take Dawson’s career, certainly.
I would also say that Parker’s prime — 1975-79 — he was a better player than Dawson in his prime.
* * *
TIM RAINES RECEIVED 80.31% OF THE VOTE. HE’S IN.
No need to convince Pozcars voters of Tim Raines greatness. Wouldn’t this just be a better baseball world if batting average was eliminated and replaced by on-base percentage? If we could just say, “Tim Raines hit .385” so that people could just appreciate the man? Damn Henry Chadwick for ignoring walks. Damn him.
* * *
Tommy John received 21.65% of the vote.
I think a Tommy John-Dr. Frank Jobe pairing would be perfect in the Whitaker-Trammell wing of the Hall of Fame.
* * *
Chuck Finley received 1.97% of the vote.
Dave Justice received 1.97% of the vote.
Tawny Kitaen and Halle Berry received half of those votes.
* * *
Lee Smith received 20.08% of the vote.
I don’t think anyone quite how to measure relievers — me included. I suspect that now, after his saves record has been broken, Lee Arthur will draw diminishing support. I don’t know if that’s fair or not. It’s worth pointing out here that Lee Smith had a better-than-league average ERA for 17 consecutive seasons, and I don’t know how many other pitchers can say that.
* * *
Dale Murphy received 27.17% of the vote.
Murphy is a guy who, I think, would have been honored by the Old Time Veteran’s Committee (OTVC). He was a truly great player for five or six years, and he was a great guy who represented the game well. The veterans committee would have put him into the Hall of Fame, lots of people would have cheered because they loved Murph, lots of people would have complained about the diminishing standards in the world today, and lots of people would have used Murphy to present their cases for George Foster or Jack Clark or Ron Santo. Yes, I miss the old veteran’s committee.
I do have to say that I’m surprised that the veteran’s committee was never able to get Gil Hodges into the Hall. From what I can gather, he was sort of the Dale Murphy of his time (with the added bonus that he maned the 1969 Mets — I’m really going to push Hodges for a Buck O’Neil Lifetime Achievement Award. Murphy too, maybe).
* * *
Don Mattingly received 14.57% of the vote.
I can only imagine how many people have looked at Donnie Baseball’s career numbers and just wished they were better. Another OTVC choice for sure.
* * *
Travis Fryman received 1.57% of the vote.
Robb Nen received 1.57% of the vote.
I can’t think of anything to say about that.
* * *
GOOSE GOSSAGE RECEIVED 75.59% OF THE VOTE. THE GOOSE IS LOOSE!
Whew, that was close. He was swaying in the Pozcars breeze, but for some reason there was a late charge of Gossage voters, and he got in. I think he will get into that other Hall of Fame too this year.
* * *
OK, that’s it. Here are final results (out of 254 votes)
Bert Blyleven, 208 votes, 81.89%
Tim Raines, 204 votes, 80.31%
Goose Gossage, 192 votes, 75.59%
Alan Trammell, 138 votes, 54.33%
Mark McGwire, 135 votes, 53.15%
Joe Jackson, 134 votes, 52.76%
Pete Rose, 119 votes, 46.85%
Andre Dawson, 94 votes, 37.01%
Jim Rice, 81 votes, 31.89%
Dale Murphy, 69 votes, 27.17%
Tommy John, 55 votes, 21.65%
Lee Smith, 51 votes, 20.08%
Don Mattingly, 37 votes, 14.57%
Dave Concepcion, 23 votes, 9.06%
Jack Morris, 22 votes, 8.66%
Dave Parker, 15 votes, 5.91%
Harold Baines, 14 votes, 5.51%
Chuck Finley, 5 votes, 1.97%
David Justice, 5 votes, 1.97%
Travis Fryman, 4 votes, 1.57%
Robb Nen, 4 votes, 1.57%
Brady Anderson, 3 votes, 1.18%
Rod Beck, 3 votes, 1.18%
Shawon Dunston, 3 votes, 1.18%
Jose Rijo, 3 votes, 1.18%
Chuck Knoblauch, 1 vote, 0.39%
Todd Stottlemyre, 1 vote, .39%
Write-ins included: Buck O’Neil, Dwight Evans (2), Jim Kaat (2), Lou Whitaker (5), Frank White (3), Will Clark, Ron Santo (3), Albert Belle (3), Ted Simmons, Whitey Herzog, Cesar Cedeno, Marvin Miller, Mark Grace, Bill James and Frank Howard. We might put all of them on a new Pozcars ballot once I check out of balloting rehab.
Loading ...
77 Comments, Comment or Ping
Mills
Nice work Joe. Sad to see some of my guys not get in, and some others I held out (Bert and Timmy) get in. I’m competitive that way. All in all, I feel truly proud to be a part of such a prestigous group on individuals.
Don’t quit. Don’t even quit. - )For the Emmitt Smith-Announcer lovers out there).
Jan 2nd, 2008
Mills
Also, to be first was awesome! Hail to the lunch hour internet break!
Jan 2nd, 2008
robustyoungsoul
If Buck O’Neil actually gets on a Pozcars ballot, I predict a landslide.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Ryan
I’m sorry I didn’t list them alphabetically. My write in was Doug Mientkiewicz. After what Papelbon let his dog to do the World Series ball, not to mention, that Mientikewicz caught the out to end the Curse, he deserves a Pozcar (or at least a vote.)
Jan 2nd, 2008
Ryan
Oh, and I just joined the Pozcar Facebook group. I don’t know what the means, but I did it.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Keith K.
Pete Rose was always everybody’s favorite Red, even outside of Cincinnati. I liked to imitate Joe Morgan’s elbow waggle, and I could appreciate how good Bench was (even without the Baseball Bunch). I also wished I had a name like “Cesar Geronimo.” But every kid was a Pete Rose fan, even if he rooted against the Reds.
A generation of Little League coaches used Pete as the example for their players — “watch how he runs hard everywhere he goes, even after a walk!” And I always assumed Pete invented the headfirst slide — why else would every kid in America call it the “Pete Rose slide?”
Jan 2nd, 2008
Paul White
Thanks for mentioning team records for starters, Joe. Whenever that subject comes up, I make the comparison between two pitchers for the 2005 LA/Anaheim Angels:
Bartolo Colon: 22-11 team record, 3.48 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 157K/43 BB
John Lackey: 23-10 team record, 3.44 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, 199K/71 BB
Seems pretty even to me. The fact that Colon won the Cy Young that year while Lackey didn’t get even one third-place vote should tell you all you need to know about how misleading wins are for pitchers.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Jeff
Sorry about submitting non-alphabetical votes.
I’m a bit surprised the Goose had such a hard time getting in. If relievers belong in the Hall at all, he’s a must.
Perhaps next you could hold a “vote ‘em out” ballot listing the biggest mistakes in Cooperstown?
Jan 2nd, 2008
Brent
I didn’t vote…but I think your voters are pretty smart.
I think there are a couple of guys I’d like to see get in the Hall. I think the Hall stands as a symbol of greatness in the game…but I also think it would be great to have people in the Hall that kids 50 years from now should know who they are and their stories. I think Joe Jackson, Pete Rose and Tommy John all deserve in, because they changed the game in big ways. I think McGwire probably deserves that too. And Maris. I think your Trammel/Whitaker combo has a beef.
And Buck O’Neil not being in the Hall just baffles me — but particularly for that reason.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Mr. Leisure
Now that the Pozcars voters have spoken, I’m trembling in anticipation to see if Big Mac can outpoll The Hawk among BBWA voters on January 8.
McGwire tops Dawson by 16% among Pozcars voters, so that’s the standard the “real,” if you can even call it that, HOF voters have to live up to.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Thomas
Apologies for not knowing the alphabet.
I think you should write something about Shoeless Joe. You could illustrate that he was far from being the ringleader of the Black Sox — the guy couldn’t even read or write. People listen to you, Joe. Whether you like it or not.
Do you think enough people took it to heart that the famous “character” clause was not in effect for the Pozcars Hall vote? Rose and McGwire are first-ballot guys separate from their questionable character.
Jan 2nd, 2008
John McCann
Well now we know which subjects to avoid since they are just preaching to the choir.
I would say pitcher wins are misleading as you say, but I do like pitcher losses a lot. One thing I like to do is use a pitcher’s win shares like his wins total and use his real loss total. Then make his Fibonacci number from that. (From the “Whatever happened to the HOF” book).
P.S. Raines and the Hawk for HOF in 2009.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Brian
I too would like to live in a world where OBP is the new BA. Also, if our world used OBP, certainly our world would use SLG as well. But I always had a problem that SLG didn’t include walks either. Here we went and invented a statistic that combines OBP and SLG (OPS), and yet one of them doesn’t even include walks. What the frig?
What’s my point? I guess my point is that I’m tired of the White Sox having a crappy centerfielder.
Jan 2nd, 2008
MikeJ
I think your voting results confirmed what Rob Neyer wrote about two days ago on his blog. He was talking about how some voters don’t seem to have a ryhme or reason in their voting. They just vote for people who “feel” like hall-of-famers.
…That said, I suspect if you solicited ballots from five nonvoters (say: Rob Neyer, Joe Sheehan, Keith Law, Rich Lederer and David Pinto), you would find a great deal of uniformity. I suspect that we all would vote for Raines, Blyleven, Trammell and Gossage.
I think it’s funny and not at all coincidental that his sampling of blogger/sabr-enlightened types match your top four vote getters exactly. These writers are essentially preaching to the choir daily about the overlooked resumes of the above four, and a great deal of your readers/voters are in that choir. Then of course the guys these writers trash most (Morris, Rice, etc.) aren’t even close on your ballots. Too perfect.
I must also note that Neyer did mention that the variety among the voters is not necessarily a bad thing, so I don’t want to spin any of this negatively. I’m just pointing out the obvious with your vote totals.
On another note, I love your idea of the Whitaker/Trammel plaque. And the Tinkers/Evers/Chance combo would right some previous wrongs. (by wrongs I mean individual honors for all 3).
Jan 2nd, 2008
Franoscar
Thanks. I can’t believe I submitted my list in alphabetical order but I did. I think the lack of baseball-love for Pete Rose surprises me more than anything else. Probably you’re right, it is just that time passes and in a normal world Pete would have been a 1st-ballot HOFer & the revisionists would content themselves with arguing that he doesn’t belong in the Inner Circle. I hope your book succeeds in bringing that pre-scandal Pete back to life.
And yes to Thomas, clearly it is “character” that would keep McGwire, Jackson & Rose out.
Jan 2nd, 2008
G Young
Mike J, you have inspired me to post the preamble I included with my Pozcars vote. With the huge number of voters for the HOF, I think there should be people who vote based on feel. Why not?:
I’m not going to dive into a bunch of stats for comparative purposes. That’s a problem I have with a lot of the HOF discussion, people make their choices and then back them up with stats that a lot of people already know.
Once you’ve read up on all the stats, listened to all the arguments, you should have a good feeling of who you as a person thinks is worthy of enshrinement. The description of your vote, then, should be about that feeling.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Kevin
MikeJ - see Neyer’s post from today. Sheehan would not vote for Trammell. Just an FYI.
Jan 2nd, 2008
MikeJ
I saw his post about Trammell right after I put my comment here. But the point remains. His suspected top four = Pozcars top four (and even Trammell missed the Pozcars cut). And there was certainly some debate for Sheehan on Trammell, it doesn’t seem that he outright dismissed him (like he does Jack Morris for example).
And don’t get me wrong, I would lump myself among the “blog readers/sabr-enlightened” crowd. There’s only so many times you can read opinions from writers you respect and not start believing it. Did I think of Raines as a HOFer as I was watching him? Not necessarily. I thought he was freaking great and an extremely tough out, but I didn’t really appreciate his greatness until the last half-dozen years. Same goes for Blyleven. He was an AL guy, and I was an NL fan, so I didn’t see him much except for in my packs of Topps. And when I came across his card, I thought “good pitcher”. I didn’t think “HOFer.”
The voters that are more “feeling based” probably don’t have the time, or simply don’t care about what people are doing on the internet. Sad, but true. Many of them just go back and vote for who felt like HOFers. Like when I was 12 and felt Andre Dawson was the “no doubt about it” MVP in ‘87, and a sure-fire HOFer. Now, after further analysis I think he’s a marginal guy, though he’d still probably get my vote because I’m a Cubs fan and ‘87 is huge reason. But hey, that’s why there’s 600 voters across the country. To eliminate such biases.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Aaron
Looking at the write-in votes, I think a few of those have a case as well, but won’t ever get in. Mark Grace is the one that stands out most to me. A career .303 hitter w/ .383 OBP is pretty good. He suffers from a lack of power, but had 511 doubles and 173 HRs. With a 20 year career he could have had 3000 hits, but retired at 16 due to diminishing production.
It looks very similar to Wade Boggs’s career. .328 BA, .415 OBP, 578 2B, only 118 HR. Obviously the dividing line between HOF and not is the 3000 hits. Also, if Boggs were to have only played 16 seasons his last 210 hits would not be there, the difference then in hits becomes 355 over 16 years, or .9244 hits a week. So Boggs was essentially one hit better per week and that’s the difference.
Maybe Grace shouldn’t have a shot. I don’t know, but I do like to vote for players that I personally viewed as “famous” for being really good at baseball, and I think Grace fit that for a rather long period. Then again, his OPS+ over his career matches Mike Sweeney’s at 119, and BA (mike is 4 points lower), OBP (mike is 14 points lower), and Slug (mike’s slugging is 50 points higher) are all relatively close, what’s that say?
After a while it makes your head hurt thinking about all these borderline players.
I remember reading an article quite a while ago on a tiered HOF shaped like a pyramid. The greats go on top at the small part, and everyone else kind of fills in below. The upper echelon is reserved for legends like Mantle, Ruth, etc. The bottom is for borderline guys like Grace, Rice, etc, and the middle is filled with the rest. Then no one gets left out that may have been deserving.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Joe K.
Jackson - “movie portrayals… as innocent”? How about being a more or less innocent guy? He was illiterate, and taken advantage of by his greedy owner. He still hit better than anyone in the Series. I read once, long ago, that he even tried to inform the club of what had happened after the Series, but they turned a deaf ear to him. I don’t think that the idea of Jackson as an innocent person who made a mistake is revisionist.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Keith K.
Jack Morris would like to remind you that Grace had more hits in the 1990s than any other player. Vote him in!
Jan 2nd, 2008
Rep. Kucinich
Ladies and Gentleman,
Tomorrow is the big day in Iowa. In order to surge into a surprise victory I have announced that Rep. David Wu (D-OR) and a fellow Trekkie fan, will be my running mate. These remarks he made on the floor of the House resently demonstrate fully that he’s 100% to be my running mate. Onward to intergalatic victory!
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1795676/
P.S. Did anyone see the front page Wall St Journal piece today about me and my UFO? They are laughing now, but just wait till the precincts in Zelnorm and Vioxx come through with wins for me!
Jan 2nd, 2008
Carltonh
I’ve always been a Joe Jackson fan. Yes, he did hit extremely well in the “fixed” series. He also threw out 2 or 3 Reds. Now you tell me, if a player was really on the take (OR on the take but with 2nd thoughts) wouldn’t the easiest way to help the other team (and completely undetectable) be to NOT throw out opposing base runners? Comiskey was a slave driver…he KNEW (according to some sources) before the series about the fix and did nothing. Couple that with the fact that at contract time they drove to G-ville (SC) and intentionally separated Shoeless from his wife (Model T ride!)…so that they could induce him to sign a contract he could not read. (Mrs. Jackson could read!)
Also, check out Kenesaw Mountain Landis’ legal background.
Pete Rose? Hated him. Hated. Good player though.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Perry
Joe, if you’re using Excel, just paste the names in, from all 254 voters, then do a “text to columns” transformation to get first and last names in separate columns, then sort by last name. Presto, they’re alphabetized. Then Excel will even count them for you — use a Pivot Table.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Perry
Carltonh, not every 1919 Series game was fixed. Yeah, Jackson hit .375 or whatever in the Series. But he was lousy in the thrown games, hitting only .250 with one meaningless RBI.
Plus, I know he was illiterate, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t know it was wrong to throw games and to take money for same. He knew it was wrong, and he did it anyway. And he confessed it to the grand jury in oral testimony, not just in his signed confession. So the “illiteracy” excuse doesn’t wash.
Jan 2nd, 2008
Kevin B
Long time listener…first time caller
Interesting note about Harold Baines…could he have been the player most hurt by the 1981 and 1994 strikes? In ‘81 he played in 80 of the White Sox 106 games, projected out to 125 games played in a full season (he may have been injured, this is very unscientific just looking at his stats on baseball-reference.com). In the games he played, he got .97 hits per game, so he would’ve had 122 hits in 1981, or 42 more hits than he ended up with. Using the same idea for 1994 when he was with the Orioles, he would’ve ended up with 136 games played and 139 hits, or 43 more hits…with the additional hits, he is sitting at 2951 he when retires.
The only other player who may have been hurt more is Fred McGriff..he finished with 493 homers and would’ve easily had 7 more in 1994. Using the logic above, he would’ve hit 14 more home runs and could’ve retired after 2003 and still had 500 homers.
Of course the biggest casualties of the strikes appears to be the Montreal Expos and perhaps baseball’s integrity with the steroid scandal.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Josh
Re: Paul White’s post, in 2005, Santana’s true W/L was 24-9, and with the best ERA and WHIP among qualifiers he would now be holding three Cy Young awards. Maybe the Pozcars can go back and re-distribute these awards to their proper owners? Not that I think Santana will have a problem when his time comes, but hall of fame votes are often guided by these awards. Tim Raines, for example, would have no problem getting into the hall with a couple of the MVPs he deserved.
Joe, just wondering if anyone’s ballot predicted the true result (having all three guys in, and voting for no one else)? I was off by one, leaving Goose off of my ballot. I’m 27 so I never got to see him pitch. Seeing how relievers are used in today’s game, I can’t imagine ever finding one to be hall-worthy, though Mariano will be a tough call.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Josh
sorry, Kevin Millwood had the lowest ERA in 2005. This is still shocking.
Jan 3rd, 2008
John Pontoon
Holy shit, how could I have forgotten to write in Marvin Miller? And Bill James? They deserve it like a million times more than Bowie Fucking Kuhn!
Jan 3rd, 2008
s1c
Blyleven, Raines and Gossage - That is some smart voters! Now if the the real HOF follows your voters we can really see the Pozcars take off, they could become the golden globes of the baseball world. Just think, fame (well more fame), money and glory could all be yours!!!!
Jan 3rd, 2008
antoniomo
Apologies for not putting my vote in alphabetical order. It started out that way, but then I agonized over a couple of players and eventually put them in at the bottom of the list…..out of order!
Jan 3rd, 2008
ajnrules
Sorry about being one of the bold (or in my case stupid) people that submitted a ballot without making sure I was a registered voter, but I’m pretty sure I submitted my ballot in alphabetical order.
Jan 3rd, 2008
ajnrules
…not sure what happened to the rest of my reply, but I guess I’ll just have to double post. Anyways, thanks for spending most of bowl season tabulating the votes for us. I’ve done things like that before so I know just how hard it can be.
And it’s good to see Bert Blyleven getting the recognition here that he never did get with the BBWAA. He’s the one guy that I’ve backed from the beginning (when I started following the Hall of Fame), and I’ve stuck with him ever since. And it’s good to see Tim Raines get in. However, this brings up a question. Based on Keith Law’s tabulation of the Hall of Fame votes, it doesn’t seem like Bert or Raines would be going in this year, which means they’ll be on the 2009 ballot. What would this do to the 2009 Pozcars ballot?
Jan 3rd, 2008
Old Man Duggan
My votes were in order of those who deserved it most. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Bob R.
I think having Rose on the ballot always confuses the issue because there is little question that as a player he would have been elected. So the issue gets confused with the Hall’s decision not to enshrine anyone banned by baseball. If you agree that gambling players should be banned and in addition that banned players should not be in the Hall, then you cannot vote for Rose. If you think that the rule should be changed, then that is what you have to vote on, not whether Rose belongs in or not.
That said, had I voted I might have selected Joe Jackson and not Rose because while Pete was banished for breaking a rule he knew about, the banishment of Jackson was ex post facto. That is not to say that Jackson did not realize accepting money to throw a series was wrong, but that there was no precedence for a lifetime ban at the time and Landis’s decision was made after the court, justly or not, exonerated him.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Snowman
I’d be more inclined to vote for Jackson simply because A.) he’s dead and it’s a lifetime ban, and B.) I really don’t much blame the ‘19 Sox. With the way players were treated then (they were nothing more than indentured servants) and the way the owners lied to them and used them, I can’t blame them at all. Those 8 ChiSox plus Joe Gedeon and Hal Chase were far from the only players who ever threw games. They’re just the only ones who did it in a World Series (as far as we know).
Just like I don’t really blame Bonds for finally deciding to juice up after everyone else had been doing so for 10 years, just to level the playing field. His name will most certainly go on my ballot in a few years, if Joe is still doing this.
On the other hand, Rose has no such excuse. When he played, gambling on games was not a commonplace thing. Players were treated well for the most part. The rule was hung on the wall of every major league clubhouse for all to see.
He just had no excuse.
Maybe I’ll write him in after he kicks the bucket.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Rob
That voting was just pathetic—I can’t say anything more than that, MUCH like the BBWAA who vote, it appears even no one who doesn’t go “WAA” (apropos last 3 letters there) can pick a Hall of Famer if he slaps you upside the head. The Football HOF is HARDCORE when it comes to getting into–with actual verbal arguments in person, the baseball Hall of Fame needs this too. But I also have to remember, probably 75% of those who vote for the HOF now have never seen a game in the 70’s, the same as 90% of the Pozcars voters—oh well—it aint all about stats kids–wake up!!!
Jan 3rd, 2008
Snowman
Rob:
I would be curious to know exactly who was left off that led to your reaction.
Jan 3rd, 2008
John
re: Joe Jackson, here’s an article from Rob Neyer a few years back.
http://espn.go.com/classic/s/2001/0730/1232950.html
The juicy bits for those who don’t want to click through:
Let us assume for a moment that Jackson really did try his best. Even if that were true, he would still be culpable in two respects. One, he had guilty knowledge. And two, when he agreed to throw the Series, he almost certainly emboldened his teammates to do the same. After all, if you’re going to plan such a crime, who do you need? The starting pitchers, and the best players. And Joe Jackson was the best player on the team. Without Jackson’s participation, the fix might never have come off at all.
…In the first four games the conspirators wanted to lose, Jackson hit .250 with zero RBI. In the fifth fixed game, Jackson was hitless until the Reds were ahead 5-0, at which point he hit a solo home run. Later, with the Sox trailing the Reds 10-1, Jackson hit a meaningless two-run double.
In the field, Jackson’s play was questionable, too. Triples are rarely hit to left field … yet in the 1919 World Series, three of Cincinnati’s nine triples were hit to left field, where Jackson was stationed. And there were other things, too. White Sox pitcher Dickie Kerr, who won twice in the Series, later commented, “Our outfielders fielded base hits slow, allowing the Reds to take extra bases. And, there were times when the fielders played the Reds just opposite of what they were supposed to do. In that way they left gaps for the ball to fall safely.”
Jan 3rd, 2008
gogiggs
“It (Mark Grace’s career) looks very similar to Wade Boggs’s career. .328 BA, .415 OBP, 578 2B, only 118 HR. Obviously the dividing line between HOF and not is the 3000 hits. ”
I don’t think so and I find it hard to believe you think so. The dividing line between Boggs and Grace is the string of seasons where Boggs hit .361/.325/.368/.357/.363/.366/.330 with OPS+ of 150/125/151/156/173/166/142 and the entire career where Mark Grace hit .331 once and had a career single season high OPS+ of 141, which number Wade Boggs topped 6 out of his first 7 full seasons in the bigs.
Mark Grace was a fine player, but his career was in no way similar to Wade Boggs.
****
“I remember reading an article quite a while ago on a tiered HOF shaped like a pyramid. The greats go on top at the small part, and everyone else kind of fills in below. The upper echelon is reserved for legends like Mantle, Ruth, etc. The bottom is for borderline guys like Grace, Rice, etc, and the middle is filled with the rest. Then no one gets left out that may have been deserving.”
That was Bill Simmons over at ESPN. The article should still be available in the archives there. I tried to find the link, but it took more than two tries, so I blew it off.
****
I’m a bit disappointed at the level of support for Don Mattingly when the sublime Lou Whitaker was off the ballot in one year. I guess it pays to be the only white star on a bad team in the biggest market in the country. We should probably all just be grateful that the Tigers don’t play in New York. Sure, Trammel and Whitaker would be (deservedly) in, but we’d have to look forward to the Bobby Higginson for the HOF movement starting in 2010.
****
Sometimes a certain phrase can get into the media and suddenly become nearly ubiquitous. Among a certain group of sportswriters it now seems that Jim Rice has had his name legally changed to Jim Rice, the most feared hitter of his time. (this is of course, not the fault of Jim Rice, the actual human being). I was a huge, if young, baseball fan during the time of which these people speak and as I recall it the two most feared hitters of the time were Reggie Jackson and Mike Schmidt. The pitchers seemed to see it the same way as Schmidt had 201 career IBB, Jackson 164 and Rice 77. So, stop saying that, I guess is my point.
Jan 3rd, 2008
peterose14
Rose was caught gambling when he was a manager. Why is he ineligable to be voted in as a player? I have never understood this. He played in more winning games than anyone in history. Enough said.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Clayton
I’m ashamed to admit that I failed to write-in Curt Flood and Hawk Harrelson. No major leaguer at the post office, or bank, or wherever they cash those big-ass things, can or should ever forget Curt.
Hawk: Greatest announcer ever (duo site w/wimpy Paciorek would be ok, but conciliatory, probably unnecesssary; ok if the dumb clods need it and welcome in an aiery existential way)
Hawk at least deserves an entire wing (great writer/book/nine ball), cooler than Frank Howard or Boog/Kiner/Eddie Murray [who was cool], I mean let’s just admit it, the Hawk was way cooler than almost everyone!!!
(possible exemptions: Tug McGraw, Tom Seaver, Joe Lovitto, maybe someone else but I can’t remember who, I’ve heard all these things about Leon Wagner that throw me off, I don’t remember Leon Wagner)
Ok, sorry to distract from these numbers, a huge proportion of which meant damn near nothing at the time (now we’re only down 7-2!); maybe the reality is that some of us have seen really great players for a long time.
That being the case, I have to nominate Roberto Alomar. I lived in San Diego when Robby made his debut, and, just generally, redefined the defensive position of second base. I booed harder than hell when he was awarded errors on the foul line of deep right field, shortstop right of the position, etc. It turned out he could hit, too, a little bit.
My main question, ok, is why the hell it takes any beurocratic comotose embodiment five years to put Robby where he belonged since that very first moment?
Is there any dumb mutherfucker so lost that he wouldn’t immediately vote Willie Mays into the hall of fame, or Obama into the White House!???
CHeers, love, I’ll have a guinness,
Clayton
Jan 3rd, 2008
Pete Ridges
I haven’t seen anyone else answering the Lee Smith question: most consecutive years with an ERA+ above 100?
23 Roger Clemens (streak intact)
20 Walter Johnson
19 Greg Maddux (streak now concluded)
19 Pete Alexander
17 Lee Smith
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/8WeE (hand-sorted to get the consecutive seasons)
Jan 3rd, 2008
Paul White
Average Annual Innings During Those Consecutive ERA+ Seasons:
Roger Clemens - 208.0
Walter Johnson - 290.1
Greg Maddux - 233.0
Pete Alexander - 272.0
Lee Smith - 74.2
All together now, just like the Sesame Street gang….”One of these things is not like the others. One of these things does not belong…”
Jan 3rd, 2008
G Young
I like the Mark Grace vs. Wade Boggs comp, because it points out how two players can end up appearing to be equal in value when you look at their career stats.
Mark Grace was able to maintain his ability to hit around .300 through his 16 seasons. Wade Boggs, as most hitters chasing 3,000 hits do, fell off the cliff.
So, if you gather up their career totals, they appear to be similar players. That is a useful exercise, in that it points out the flaws of looking at career numbers in judging baseball players.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Mauichuck
Clayton, that Guiness you’re drinking must be powerful stuff.
Hawk - Hawk Harrelson - greatest announcer ever? You must be fallin’ down drunk! That moron couldn’t cover a one car funeral.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Clayton
My esteemed colleague and learned friend, Mauichuck,
As our perceptions might be seen as incongruent, and with all due respect to your own, I can only confirm: Hawk Harrelson is perhaps the only announcer worthy of covering a one car funeral.
Whereas Mr Gammons might tell a moving tale of a previous one car funeral in Boston, Mr Cossell might have offered a moving dissertation on the deceased, and Mr Morgan would no doubt be distracted by worthy considerations involving bat speed; only Mr Harrelson might challenge a bald tire, grimace at the hair-do of a mourner, or delight unlimitedly at the sight of an Illinois plate.
In fact while Mr Harrelson has, deservedly, attained something of a reputation as a “homer,” perhaps his greatest moment coming a decade or so back, covering the last preseason game from Vegas. About the 5th inning Hawk and Wimpy mentioned that they would have a few hours between the end of the game and their flight. They became nervous as the score remained tied in the 8th. By the tenth they were bitterly denouncing the attire of attendees in the audience. Shortly thereafter they began offering mournful paens to the roast beef in buffet lines, only blocks away. Finally, with the other team safely ahead in the 15th Shawn Hare of someone like that hit a double to tie the game, to a resounding chorus of “OH, NOOOOooooo!!!!!”
Priorities, Mauichuck, my friend, priorities. Exhibition baseball isn’t everything. The performance of Mr Harrelson on that afternoon was far greater than any single game performance by Jack Morris, in my book.
The above don’t necessarily reflect the views of Dr. Arthur Guinness, but I’m not sure they don’t.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Mauichuck
Now I get it Clayton - you’re nominating Hawk for his entertainment value.
Did I ever tell you I saw Hawk do his chicken immitation while warming up in right field at the ol’ Cleveland Municipal? Very entertaining. But that stiff still put up a OPS+ of 66 that year while collecting about 25% of the Tribe’s payroll.
Whatever his value to the club that year was, it, liike his announcing, had very little to do with baseball.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Josh in DC
Ah, crap. Someone else is posting under the name “Josh.” Not that I posted here all the time or anything, but that guy seems smarter than me. So I’ll switch, Other Josh.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Ray
Tell your wife I bought the book!
Jan 3rd, 2008
Melody
I feel it should be mentioned that no one imposed that lifetime ban on Pete Rose… he agreed to the ban in order to avoid a public trial and an official judgment against him by MLB. In effect, he plead guilty. By the terms of the agreement he is allowed to apply for reinstatement and he has done so. But if he had an argument against his lifetime ban (which he knew to be the punishment for betting on the game), perhaps he should have made that argument at the time.
I also believe that in the midst of drug allegations and other problems, people sometimes miss the reason why gambling on baseball is singled out for such severe punishment. It’s categorically different from using drugs or committing other crimes because it undermines the primary assumption on which athletic competition is based– everyone on the field is trying his/her hardest to win, and no one knows what the outcome will be. As you’ll see, even the use of steroids doesn’t conflict with this very basic assumption. Baseball must protect itself from even the appearance that some players/managers/teams aren’t trying to win or may even benefit from losing. At that point, we’re just a step away from professional wrestling.
I believe Rob Neyer once made the point that even if a player or manager is betting on his team to win, or even betting only on sports in which he/she has no involvement, problems may still arise. If I’m a baseball player or manager betting on horse races or basketball games, and I go on a losing streak and can’t pay what I owe, what do you think my bookie is going to demand from me?
Jan 3rd, 2008
Ryan
Hawk Harrelson is the worst announcer in baseball. His announcing alone should keep him banned from enshrinement in anything.
As one “Heave the Hawk” web site says, “One First Rate City. One First Rate Douche.”
Jan 3rd, 2008
Creston
While it doesn’t help you this time, the next time you get 254 Pozcars ballots that are not in alphabetical order, let a computer do the work for you.
For example, I’d have copied all ballots into Excel, highlighted the column, clicked on data-sort-Column A-Ascending.
That would have put all the players in alphabetical order, and have given you the added benefit of being easily able to count how many votes every one of them got. (ie, if Alan Trammell shows up on lines 1-17, that’s 17 votes.)
Perhaps not the most elegant way of doing it in Excel (I’m sure there’s an option that would have just let you paste everything in it and let it count for you), it’s still better than tallying everything by hand.
Seriously Joe. It’s 2008, computers are your friend! Don’t listen to Joe Morgan!
Jan 3rd, 2008
Creston
“The Football HOF is HARDCORE when it comes to getting into”
Troy Aikman does not agree with you. He’s still overjoyed he had such a great team carry him to 3 super bowl rings though.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Creston
“Hawk Harrelson is perhaps the only announcer worthy of covering a one car funeral.”
Well, that hackneyed “he gone!” crap that Harrelson keeps inflicting on the poor people forced to listen to him might actually be APPROPRIATE in a one car funeral.
Hawk Harrelson is a disaster for baseball as an announcer. Such blatant homerism might have been cool 50 years ago, when the only people listening to the broadcast would have been White Sox fans, but in the 21st century when we can watch (almost) every game from anywhere, having to listen to Hawk just mindlessly drone on and on about how great Darin Erstad is, all evidence be damned, while he’s bashing Pujols is just unforgiveable.
As long as Hawk remains their announcer, the White Sox deserve all the misery they’re getting.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Andrew KCMO
Im definitely a little, if not a lot, miffed that Rose didnt make it. Im tired of people keeping him out of everything just cause he bet on baseball. He didnt cheat or influence the game in any illegal way at all. If Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc get into the Hall, Rose (one of the most exciting players and best hitters of all time) should be right behind!
Jan 3rd, 2008
hearshot
“Im definitely a little, if not a lot, miffed that Rose didnt make it. Im tired of people keeping him out of everything just cause he bet on baseball. He didnt cheat or influence the game in any illegal way at all.”
Sorry, but Rose bet on games he was managing; he admits this. If you have a wager on the game you’re making the managerial decisions for, you pretty much by definition influenced the game in an illegal way.
Jan 3rd, 2008
Josh L.
Sorry Josh in DC! Sometimes I wish I had a more uncommon name … like Creston
Jan 3rd, 2008
Snowman
“Im definitely a little, if not a lot, miffed that Rose didnt make it. Im tired of people keeping him out of everything just cause he bet on baseball. He didnt cheat or influence the game in any illegal way at all.”
From the official rules of baseball:
Rule 21:
“Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.”
Steroids weren’t against the rules of the game until 2002. Gambling, OTOH, has been since 1921, and that rule has been posted on a large sign in every major league locker room since at least the 70s. Rose was the 30th player in baseball history to be banned, either for gambling or consorting with gamblers. Of those 30, only Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were reinstated (their offense was taking a job in a casino after their playing days were already over).
Jan 4th, 2008
Andrew KCMO
I understand that betting was illegal in baseball and he bet on his own games. However, steroids and HGH are illegal PERIOD. They werent illegal in baseball until lately, but they were illegal in this country and these players arent being punished corectly for their use. Rose is known for having bet on his own team as well, which would just mean hed try harder to win cause hed have more riding on it. I just dont get why Rose gets all this grief when players who broke the law of the land, not baseball, are getting free passes (Not that any of them are in the Hall yet, but shortly they will be up for consideration and if any of them make it in then Rose needs to be in.
Jan 4th, 2008
Travis Bedard
Andrew KCMO
So what do you do with the DUIs? Coke addicts? Is this the short cut to never again discussing Tim Raines and Dave Parkers candidacy? Is Tony LaRussa no longer eligible?
“these players arent being punished corectly for their use”
You’ll forgive me for having no idea what this means. They’re “getting a free pass”? Really? Do you consult any media in the same universe I do? Palmeiro? Sosa? Bonds? McGwire? Free pass? Sailing into Cooperstown?
Rose broke the One True Rule. It has nothing to do with anyone else.
Jan 4th, 2008
Josh
Well if you want to get technical… I believe Pete Rose placed all of his bets with bookies (not in Vegas or Atlantic City) which means he also broke the law.
Jan 4th, 2008
Blue
The perfect Rose solution:
Induct him AFTER he dies.
Jan 4th, 2008
Snowman
“The perfect Rose solution:
Induct him AFTER he dies.”
That’s pretty much my feeling on it as well. It’s a lifetime ban.
Jan 4th, 2008
Bob R.
The problem with all the support for Pete Rose is that it confuses baseball with real life and the decision about gambling with a moral statement.
Pete Rose is banned from baseball because that is the punishment for gambling. It is no more right or wrong than being called out for strike 3 or if your fly ball is caught. It was a rule in baseball, and he violated it.
If people want to change the rule, then argue that case. Given the history of the game, I think it would be wrong to alter that rule just as I would not like to see the bases moved from 90′, but that is a different issue. So long as that is the rule, Rose is out, and nobody can argue differently any more than you can argue that having taken the 3rd strike a batter should still be given another swing.
As for the Hall of Fame, the issue is similar. It is the Hall’s decision not to enshrine anyone banned from baseball. I am not so sure that is proper, but again, it is not a question of saying he should be in the Hall as of saying the Hall should change that rule.
There is no relationship between what Rose did and what players who used steroids did. It is not a question of which is worse or more immoral or even more illegal. It is not a question of right or wrong. It is simply a question of what baseball rules were violated and what the penalties were. If a player is detected with steroids now, there is a clear penalty-it is not lifetime banishment initially-and so that player will serve the punishment and move on. In Rose’s case, the penalty was also clear and known; he violated the rule and received the appropriate punishment.
Jan 4th, 2008
Larry I. in L.A.
Here’s what I wrote to Joe P. on my (late) Pozcars ballot:
I’ve flip-flopped quite a bit on Rose since he essentially drove Bart Giamatti to his grave, but I believe that I have finally settled on this: eligibility for working in a capacity that could influence the outcome of MLB games should no longer be inextricably bound with eligibility to be elected to Cooperstown.
Pete Rose bet on his own baseball team, even though he was fully aware that it was both wrong and warranted a severe penalty, and then lied about it for years. He is clearly unfit to be a major league manager or a coach on the field (including the dugout and bullpen). To all those who think it’s no big deal to wager on your own side to win, I say you’re not thinking things through. On a night that Rose had a bet down, he could have over-used his starting pitcher or top reliever to the detriment of the Reds’ interest over the long haul. A string of losing bets could have made him susceptible to perhaps throw a game in exchange for debt relief. Changing the amount of his bets (or not wagering at all on a particular game) could provide subtle inside information to unsavory interests.
While his actions clearly made major league baseball’s integrity vulnerable to serious damage, I contend that Rose was discovered and banned before the integrity of the game suffered any *actual* damage. (The p.r. hit, on the other hand, was substantial.) For breaking one of baseball’s cardinal clubhouse rules, a lifetime ban from managing or coaching is entirely appropriate. Regarding the ceremonial honor of HoF induction, however, let’s cut the man a little slack. Compulsive gambling may be a character flaw, but it’s also an addiction, and Rose’s transgressions don’t even approach what the Black Sox or players like Hal Chase did. Let the BBWAA judge Rose on his merits as a ballplayer, and let the commissioner’s office ensure that Rose’s access to major league stadiums is limited to the grandstand and press box.
Jan 4th, 2008
Erik
“Rose is known for having bet on his own team as well, which would just mean hed try harder to win cause hed have more riding on it.”
- How exactly can a manager try harder to win?
Jan 4th, 2008
El Lay Dave
“How exactly can a manager try harder to win?”
If you have money on the current game and none on tomorrow’s, which relievers do you go to with a five-run lead in the 8th? Sometimes, trying harder to win today can hurt your chances tomorrow.
Jan 5th, 2008
4256 won't be passed
Hey BOB R!
Don’t forget WHEN the hall changed their rule about banned “players” not being allowed in their little shrine. It was after Pete was banned. Don’t for a minute believe MLB didn’t have the say on that. OMG he killed Bart!
It’s funny, many of us now see similarity in how the Clemens supporters are so adamant about him being given the benefit of the doubt. As we were back when Pete chose to take Bart’s agreement. Yes, we were wrong to give Pete the benefit of the doubt. We should have ignored his hustle and love for the game and seen he was of horrible character and that kind of thing should not be rewarded. Well, time will tell when the rocket finally fesses up.
If Pete had not thought he was bigger than the game, and rather decided to admit right away his gambling problem, I doubt there would still be so many irate idiots saying ” One True Rule”. crap.
There is no HOF without Pete Rose!
Jan 5th, 2008
Clayton
Pete was never a horrible character, and he was never worthy of banishment. What are owners doing when they pay $7 million to some wanton middle relief mediocrity, if not gambling on their own team? The whole issue of gambling on one’s own team is too stupid to even talk about.
Pete Rose belongs in the Hall, if it’s to be meaningful, and if it’s not then I suggest that we immediately enshrine Hillary Clinton for wearing a baseball cap. And Rudy, he wore it well, right there in the blue collar seats behind the dugout.
Jan 5th, 2008
Paul White
“What are owners doing when they pay $7 million to some wanton middle relief mediocrity, if not gambling on their own team? ”
You’re missing a pretty key difference. With the exception of the lady who owned the Indians in “Major League”, I don’t know any owners who actually tried to throw games. (Well, except for the NBA as draft position is being determined, but that’s another story altogether.) You can argue that some owners lost games through mismanagement or by being a cheapskate, but that’s different. That’s not a purposeful intent to lose, it’s just sheer stupidity, and there’s no law against that.
On the other hand, when the manager of the team is a compulsive gambler and chooses not to bet on his team to win some nights, he’s essentially throwing games. He’s saying, “I don’t thnk we’re going to win tonight. Why use my best reliever, or a cleanup hitter who could use a night off in this game? I’ll save them for tomorrow, when I make a bet.” That may not be the textbook definition of throwing games, but it comes awfully close. And it’s absolutely a precursor to exposing himself to blackmail from bookies who tell him to start blatantly throwing games if he wants to avoid paying his losses, or being exposed in the media.
Jan 5th, 2008
Eric M. Van
“Pete was never a horrible character.”
Pete Rose is a sociopath. This is extremely clear from his pattern of behavior and especially from his statements about his behavior. He was genuinely puzzled that his autobiography didn’t fix his reputation: “I thought I was remorseful when I needed to be remorseful in here,” as if being remorseful is a verbal stance rather than an emotion you feel.
There is no more bogus set of records in all of professional sport than Rose’s career totals. He was just about the worst player in baseball for the last five years of his career, and the last three he was lucky to have the only manager in the history of MLB who would have played him: himself. Writing yourself into the lineup day after day to the detriment of your team and at a carer cost to younger players who needed the playing time: that’s probably less admirable than betting on your own team. It was an embarrassment to the game.
I am very proud to say I’ve hated the guy from Day 1. Contrary to Keith K.’s assertion, there were a lot of people who were able to identify his style of play as largely self-promotion (no, running to 1B on a BB is just bs, and there’s a reason why he’s the only guy who’s ever done it).
Jan 5th, 2008
Clayton
Paul, I love your stuff but I have to respectfully disagree. Betting on your own team is obviously not throwing games, and not betting on your own team is the accepted norm. So, if anything Pete Rose was, as usual, more gung-ho about his own team than anyone else, hardly a sin in my book.
Just from a common sense point of view, if you’re gonna bet-if you’re addicted or whatever-are you going to bet on your team when you’re playing against Johan Santana or Horacio Ramirez? Doesn’t mean you’re not going to go all out just the same.
The blackmail argument is better, but I think specious. Think anyone could have blackmailed Roger Clemens over steroids? Glenn Burke over being gay before he came out (it was him, wasn’t it?)? Chipper Jones for adultery? Steve Garvey with his political career waiting in the wings?
All kinds of people have all kinds of weaknesses and vulnerabilities, without our needing to create new ones through presumption. Assuming that Pete Rose would have been so unduly embarassed over his backing his own team that he would have just capitulated, or somehow lacked the resources to pay a debt–just doesn’t add up for me. It also suggests some lack of familiarity with the way illegal gambling works, as Bob Dylan says, “To live outside the law you must be honest.” Any bookie narking Pete Rose would have been closing down his own joint.
I’m a Mets fan, and I suspect that I wouldn’t like Pete Rose much if I met him. That all being the case, I believe that the way he’s been treated by baseball is more of a disgrace to the game than himself.
Jan 5th, 2008
Paul White
Clayton, we’ll just have to differ there. If the manager is a gambling addict, i.e. his need to win at gambling overpowers his common sense, then I have little doubt he would manage his team with his bets in mind instead of his team’s best interests. That means blowing out starters, or overusing his bullpen, or starting players who need a day off, etc. on days when he’s got money riding on the outcome, even if that means damaging his team’s long-term chances in future games he doesn’t have money riding on. Plus, he’s giving a clear signal on every game to illegal bookies on how they should bet themselves. “Hey, Pete’s got money on the Reds tonight. Let me go get some money down on this one, it looks like Pete will be pulling out all the stops”. Sorry, but I see all that as undermining the integrity of the game on top of being illegal. As such, I’m glad he was banned. He had it coming.
Jan 6th, 2008
Paul White
And if you’d like, replace “avoid paying his losses” with “avoid having his wife’s legs broken”, or “avoid having his house burned to the ground”, and then tell me he still wasn’t vulnerable to being blackmailed. To presume that a gambling addict, even a wealthy one, would be impervious to putting himself in a position where he can’t cover his debts is a touch naive. You’re right, the bookie wouldn’t go to the media. He’d do something ten times nastier if Rose he didn’t start throwing games at some point.
Jan 6th, 2008
gogiggs
“What are owners doing when they pay $7 million to some wanton middle relief mediocrity, if not gambling on their own team? ”
That’s just semantics. That’s gambling in the colloquial sense. It’s like saying that every time you drive a car, you’re gambling that you won’t be killed in an accident, or every time you make a new dish for dinner, you’re gambling that your family will like it.
It’s not at all the same thing as actually placing a bet on something.
Jan 6th, 2008
SEJ-3D
Um, anyway, I come here ever so often, but what the heck are the Pozcars? Enshrinement for players not in the Hall of Fame? Whatever the case, I apeciate the column and the intelligent comments. Discussion is good. I’m still a judge players against their peers (e.g. potential PED users vs. other PED users = Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, etc. are HOFers) and Pete Rose should get in when he dies or is very, very old, kind of guy.
Jan 7th, 2008
Reply to “The Pozcars Results!”