By In Baseball

A Statement … About What Again?

Well, there’s no real point in overly dissecting the Hall of Fame ballot of MLB.com’s Ken Gurnick. As you probably have heard by now, he authored the first public ballot to not have Greg Maddux on it. Well, look, he broke down his decision-making process and, sure, while he felt that Maddux’s peak of four consecutive Cy Young awards was strong, his decline phase was too … no, I’m just kidding.

He only voted for Jack Morris in some sort of protest against something or other.

Now, I”m not kidding. From the article:

“Morris has flaws — a 3.90 ERA, for example. But he gets my vote for more than a decade of ace performance that included three 20-win seasons, Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons and Most Valuable Players votes in five. As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won’t vote for any of them.”


As I say, there’s really no point in over-dissecting here. Ken is a fine baseball writer, and I feel sure that, even though we disagree, he’s honestly trying to do what he believes is right.

I really only have two questions.

One is: Why Morris? I mean if you are going to make a vague statement against, you know, an entire generation of baseball players for reasons that are not entirely clear to anyone, why wouldn’t you just send in a blank ballot and leave it at that. Why would you draw this bizarre “period of PED use” line in the sand? Does Gurnick really believe steroids were invented in 1994? He’s not the only person I ask this question of, by the way. Do some people believe that the players of Jack Morris’ period were bulking up on milk and Frank Capra movies?

And if you DO believe that, why not vote for Lee Smith (who, apparently, Gurnick did vote for two years ago)? Smith threw 126 innings after Morris retired? Were these the deadly innings for Smith’s Hall of Fame case?

This is the the problem of drawing lines. Roger Clemens, when Morris retired, was 172-93 with a 147 ERA+, three Cy Young Awards and an MVP. That’s essentially Sandy Koufax’s career, maybe even a little bit better. Greg Maddux had won three Cy Young Awards too. Barry Bonds had already won three MVP awards.

What is it about Jack Morris that inspires this sense of innocent wonder, this recollection to an innocent time when players were just … what? Hitting home runs for sick children in hospitals? Pitching to the score? Or is it those halcyon days of cocaine and amphetamines and excessive alcohol that we long for? It’s a shame because, as I’ve written many times, Morris was a very good pitcher and shouldn’t be at the center of a fight he wasn’t even in. But that’s just how the timing worked out.

But the second question is a baseball question: Does he really believe that a 3.90 ERA, three 20-win seasons, and those odd award qualifications are enough to go into the Hall of Fame? That’s it, that’s what we have here?

Because, if so, here are a few more nominees:

— Wes Ferrell … six 20-win seasons (Morris had three), runner up for the MVP award (Morris never finished Top 10), one of the best-hitting pitchers in baseball history (Morris batted five times and got zero hits).

— Dave Stewart … four 20-win seasons (Morris had three), top three in Cy Young three times (Morris had two) and a higher MVP finished (eighth) than Morris ever had.

— Wilbur Wood … four 20 win seasons (Morris had three), finished second in Cy Young (Morris never did), higher MVP finish (seventh) than Morris ever had.

— Mike Cuellar … four 20-win seasons (Morris had three), WON a Cy Young (Morris never did), higher MVP finish (eighth) than Morris ever had.

— Luis Tiant … four 20-win seasons (Morris had three), two ERA titles (Morris never had any) and a higher MVP finish (fifth) than Morris ever had.

— Dave McNally … four 20-win seasons (Morris had three), three Top 4 finished in Cy Young (same as Morris) and had a higher MVP finished (seventh) than Morris ever had.

— Johnny Sain … four 20-win seasons (Morris had three), was MVP runner up (Morris never was) and was part of the incredibly cool “Spahn and Sain and pray for rain” rhyme (the only cool words that rhyme with Morris are chorus, porous, thesaurus and brontosaurus).

— Paul Derringer … four 20-win seasons (Morris had three), was top five in the MVP race twice (Morris was never even once) and was picked for six All-Star Games (Morris was picked for five).

I guess I find it encouraging that even in a protest ballot we can still find some baseball analysis to argue about. That’s why we love this game.

Print Friendly

91 Responses to A Statement … About What Again?

  1. Chris says:

    What is it about Jack Morris that inspires this sense of innocent wonder, this recollection to an innocent time when players were just … what?

    Jack Morris is the last Baby Boomer with a legitimate chance of HOF election. I think that’s all that’s going on here.

    • schlom says:

      Not only that but his career was during the evolution of starting pitchers – from completing a majority of their starts to the increased reliance on bullpens. I think it’s as simple as that.

    • steve says:

      ive come to the conclusion its probably his ‘stache

  2. bl says:

    A new winner for the most reprinted paragraph in the history of the internet:

    “Morris has flaws — a 3.90 ERA, for example. But he gets my vote for more than a decade of ace performance that included three 20-win seasons, Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons and Most Valuable Players votes in five. As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won’t vote for any of them.”

  3. Chris C. says:

    Ken Gurnick just wanted people talking about Ken Gurnick. There are no other logical answers to the questions his ballot presents.

  4. Some guys have waive their arms and say LOOK AT ME to feel good about themselves. I won’t be surprised to hear of someone only voting for the Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Martinez, Sosa, and Piazza claiming NASCARs “if your not cheating your not trying” is the way to look at it.

  5. schlom says:

    Is there any other profession that glorifies so much in their ignorance than baseball HOF writers?

  6. Brian says:

    Someone else at the link Joe provided voted for Palmeiro but not Clemens or Bonds.

    I have to go lie down…my head hurts.

  7. Mark Coale says:

    When exactly does the Steroid Era in mlb start? With the Bash Brothers? Tom House said he thought there were steroidsin baseball in the 60s and 70s. We know steroids were around in bodybuilding in the 1950s, wrestling in the 1960s, the Olympics and NFL in the 1970s.

    • Dylan says:

      I remember being 6 years old during the 1989 world series, and asking my dad why our players weren’t as big as the bash brothers.

      It was that obvious to me, at 6 years old, that steroids were present in baseball.

      Now, I’m old enough to understand that steroids weren’t the reason we lost the series, that there were probably players on both teams that were already using some sort of primitive PED, and that we’ll never really know for sure how prevalent such use was. But anyone who says that steroids in baseball was some product of the late 90s is, as my pops would say, “a damn fool.”

      • We went to see McGwire and Canseco during batting practice in 1987. A lot of people were there for the show. A large group of fans started chanting STER-OIDS at Canseco….. I mean he was a blatant user. Nobody looked like him. So a lot of people had a pretty good idea what was going on in the late 80s, even if Selig and the national media had their heads up their rears.

        Oops, did I just disqualify Morris from being on Gurnick’s ballot?

    • kylelitke says:

      It started 30 seconds after Jack Morris threw his last pitch. Didn’t you know?

  8. Tim Lowell says:

    Let’s just close the Cooperstown Hall Of Fame, build a new building somewhere in England where baseball was actually invented, or Manhattan if it has to be in the US, and hire Nate Silver, five or ten retired MLB players, maybe some retired MLB executives, and ABSOLUTELY ZERO baseball beat writers, and re-stock the Hall with a new crop of players who actually deserve to be there. This is the “nuclear option”. I swear, this Gurnick guy is a complete idiot and he drove me to this. Criminy.

    • hardy callcott says:

      This is exactly right. Baseball needs a Hall of Fame. Right now there’s a regional museum in some random town in upstate New York with no connection to the history of baseball. But it doesn’t have the sport’s all-time hits leader, its all-time home run leader, its all-time multiple Cy Young award winner, or any of the last four players who had the single-season home record. In other words, there isn’t currently a national (or international) baseball Hall of Fame, and there ought to be one.

    • invitro says:

      You think retired players vote better than writers? You must think the VC has done better than the BBWAA, then. Are you a fan of the Frisch/Terry picks? And you really want to put it in England? Are you going for worst idea of the day?

  9. MCD says:

    I have seen other people in the media making the claim that Gurnick is voting for Morris as some sort of protest against PEDs. I didn’t read that in the excerpt at all. He said that is why is NOT voting for the others, but he made no such assertion as that IS why he is voting for Morris.

    Now I agree Gurnick’s ballot is as crazy, but I don’t think we should attribute statements to Gurnick that he didn’t make.

    • Karyn says:

      Then why not vote for any of the other eligible players who retired around the same time that Morris did?

      • MCD says:

        The only other eligible players on the ballot who “retired around the same time that Morris did” (i.e. less than 10 years after Morris) are Don Mattingly, Alan Trammell, and Lee Smith. While I think Trammell is more worthy, I don’t think that is sufficient proof that Gurnick only voted for Morris as some sort of protest.

        According to Gurnick himself, he voted for Morris “for more than a decade of ace performance that included three 20-win seasons, Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons and Most Valuable Players votes in five”. Not the most over-whelming case, but there is nothing that indicates the Morris vote was for any sort of protest.

        The NOT voting for Bonds, Clemens (and even the presumably clean Maddux) etc. was his act of defiance. His voting for Morris is not necessarily part of that protest.

  10. Joe says:

    Trammel is so much more deserving than Morris. If only the crusty old people at the BBWAA had chosen a worthy candidate for their crusade. At least when the SABRs took up a case in Blyleven they were smart enough to choose a player who actually had a case. These old baseball writers choosing to make Morris their pet project is as foolish as the case they make for putting an average pitcher in the HOF. Received a Cy Young vote? Someone voted for him for MVP with an 8th place vote a few times? Just the fact that your argument that a player deserves to be in the HOF because he got “Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons and Most Valuable Players votes in five” is proof that he is not worthy of making the HOF. That’s the thing with all these arguments, when you argue that a player should go into the hall because he had ONE GREAT GAME, you are basically arguing that he isn’t a HOF to me. No one says that a worthy HOF deserves to be in because of one game.

  11. Herb Smith says:

    Joe, I’ve always admired you evenhandedness when discussing an odd move or questionable decision by someone else. You’re a nice guy, and it shows up in your writing.

    However, at what point do you become Neville Chamberlain? I think Ken Gurnick has crossed the line where he no longer deserves coddling, or deserves fellow writers explaining away his asinine decision. He needs to be verbally spanked (actually, he needs to be pummeled savagely; verbally, of course).

    His imbecilic rant is an example of all that’s wrong in baseball writing. I beg of you: use forceful language and shine a brighter light on this sickening jackass is his wrongheaded “cause.”

    • 18thstreet says:

      That’s not who Joe is. I’ve never met the guy, but I’ve read him for years now. Joe looks for the best in people and doesn’t question motives. Doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t.

    • Evan says:

      I think Joe’s contempt for Gurnick is pretty clear. The fact that he refuses to attack the guy directly and then lets his analysis do the dirty work is part of the charm. Make no mistake, Joe just took this guy to pasture.

  12. Herb Smith says:

    Please delete the above post

    Joe, I’ve always admired you evenhandedness when discussing an odd move or questionable decision by someone else. You’re a nice guy, and it shows up in your writing.

    However, at what point do you become Neville Chamberlain? I think Ken Gurnick has crossed the line where he no longer deserves coddling, or deserves fellow writers explaining away his asinine decision. He needs to be verbally spanked (actually, he needs to be pummeled savagely; verbally, of course).

    His imbecilic rant is an example of all that’s wrong in baseball writing. I beg of you: use forceful language and shine a brighter light on this sickening jackass and his wrongheaded “cause.

    • Karyn says:

      Most often, Joe leaves that sort of thing to other writers. It’s not the column he wants to write, and it’s not the man he wants to be (I’m guessing).

      He has come out forcefully a few times, when he perceives a true injustice is being done. See: Buck O’Neil and the HoF, Stan Musial and flimsy accusations of racism.

  13. BIP says:

    Notwithstanding that Gurnick’s reference to the “period of PED use” invites the reply that such a period is merely the entire history of baseball, I assume Gurnick would want all the other voters to also exclude all the supposedly tainted players. What I don’t get about that is, he does know that, in such an event, the Veterans’ Committee would surely step in to rectify the situation, right? So what is the point?

    Also, the idea that award VOTES–not even wins–should count for something is pathetically stupid. Personally, I don’t even think award wins matter, as those are also decided by the BBWAA, which means when the voters invariably get it wrong with those, we’re at risk of double-dipping on the stupid.

    • Karyn says:

      I think award wins can be useful as a tie-breaker; they’re also useful in calling the horse race on whether a particular player will get in (as opposed to deserves to get in).

      But counting the years in which a guy got votes is inane. There’s often a few writers who will vote the top two-thirds of their ballot straight, and then throw a bone to the local guy, or a player the writer has always admired, or some such.

      • BIP says:

        Yeah, I don’t think it’s completely indefensible to factor in award wins (or simply mention them for the benefit of fans), as it can be a useful shorthand for dominant seasons. But for me, they would not be a factor–they’re not actual player performance, and I don’t like that the major ones are voted on by the same people who vote for the HoF. If a guy were to win some MVP awards because I voted for him, it seems intellectually dishonest for me to then use that as justification for a HoF vote.

    • kylelitke says:

      I can understand taking award wins into account (even though deserving guys don’t always win, but we’ll ignore that). I can even understand taking, say, top 3 finishes into account. It (theoretically) shows that they were among the top players in the league during their career if there are a lot of them. But to simply take one VOTE, no matter where it was, into account is idiotic.

  14. MCM says:

    For No. 65 of the best voting members of the BBWAA, I would put Ken Gurnick.

  15. Bonder says:

    Why is it so hard to teach the BBWAA anything? I mean they fight tooth and nail against using statistics in some way to define value, they play these silly headgames about who is and who is not a good enough person for the hall… It just confuses me. I feel they are so often just stubborn, set in their ways and refusing to even think about the other arguments put to them. It’s very disheartening to a fan of baseball. I’m young, grew up with SABR and to me, the BBWAA is archaic, counterproductive and pointless. And I think it’s their fault that I and many others see them that way. At least we have the Joe types.

  16. BobDD says:

    Gurnick: Here’s a man who misses the Dark Ages, thinks fire was the most dangerous invention ever, wants to ban the Horseless Carriage, and vote to banish that heretic Galileo.

    (thought balloon pointing to Gurnick’s pointy head) saying: “I believe in a small and pure HoF; let me vote for the sixty-third best player not yet in the Hall of Fame, and piss on the first 62. If that doesn’t get J-Lo’s attention, maybe I’ll go shoot Hinckley or Maddux.”

    • To me, it’s more that he doesn’t want to have to think and discern who may have used. So, rather than think and draw a line of some sort, he does the brain dead thing and excludes the entire generation…. But not really since the one guy he voted for crossed well into the steroids generation. BTW: his stand will mean that he won’t honestly be able to vote for anyone for another 20 years. What a fool

  17. jdennis says:

    I think he voted for Morris as opposed to the others because Morris is in his last year and close to the percentage. The others are way below and not in the last year.

  18. chuck says:

    Suggesting “Gurnick” could be a new JoeWord:
    gurnick (GRR-nik), verb, to leave someone never implicated with performance-enhancing drugs off the Hall of Fame ballot for having played during an era when such drugs were used.

  19. Also rhyming with Morris: Dolores and a part of the female anatomy

  20. tombando says:

    I’m pretty sure Morris would like to tell everyone using him as an excuse to push their agendas to sod off. How many Sanduskies above replacement was he again?

    • steve says:

      i was just thinking that, if i am jack morris and i go into the hall by one vote i now KNOW that that one vote was essentially a protest vote, i think it would really taint what should be a happy occassion for me, and i think its unfair for writers to use him lie that to further their agendas like you say.

  21. And I don’t know how the HoF could have honored Roger Angell when he wrote about the steroid era. I would have voted for Red Smith, or maybe Grantland Rice.

  22. And, speaking of cool names, I would have left Morris off and put Derringer, Smith, and Wes on.

  23. BWAAholes says:

    Maddux and Morris overlapped for nine seasons. NINE.

  24. Roberto says:

    The 17 BBWAA writers employed by MLB.com clearly demonstrate the truth behind the cliche “common sense isn’t common.” What an odd collection of misfits they are.

  25. chuck says:

    Alternate definition of “gurnick”

    2. gurnick (GRR-nik), verb, to vote for a Hall of Fame candidate and give standards for doing so, while not voting for candidates that exceed those standards.

    Example: The writer voted for Jack Morris due to Morris’ 5 seasons of receiving MVP votes and for having the bulk of his career before the writer’s self-defined (1992-93) start of the PED era; but he gernicked Alan Trammell, Don Mattingly, and Tim Raines, each of whom had 7 seasons of MVP votes and also the bulk of their careers before 1992-93.

  26. chuck says:

    oops. should read “gurnicked”

  27. Ross Holden says:

    Another gem from the link:

    MARTY NOBLE, national reporter
    Glavine, Maddux, Morris

    ” I don’t want 28 people entering the Hall at once, so I limited my checks on the ballot to three.”

    I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was exaggerating and really doesn’t want a whopping 4 people entering this year.

  28. Jon Kopplin says:

    There are about five guys there who ole would love to revoke their voting rights. I had to stop reading my head hurt.

  29. Blake says:

    Some voters are just stupid. That’s all it is. It’s true for pretty much any election you want to name. We just don’t look at most ballots in quite as much detail.

    They don’t give an IQ test for the BBWAA, right?

  30. David Buck says:

    Sadly, the Hall has become as irrelevant as the Gold Glove as a result of clowns such as this.

  31. invitro says:

    I am much more agitated over Schilling getting only 2 of 17 votes. Or over Raines getting only 5 of 17. I mean, let’s have a sanity check here: one vote will not affect anything. But their calls on Schilling and Raines actually will keep those two out of the HoF, if this sample accurately reflects the electorate.

    I’d rank the looniness by this group of seventeen voters as follows, worst at the top:
    1. Schilling getting only 2 of 17
    2. Walker getting only 1 of 17
    3. Mussina getting only 4 of 17
    4. Raines getting only 5 of 17
    5. Lee Smith getting (as much as) 7 of 17
    6. Edgar getting only 1 of 17
    7. Morris getting (as much as) 13 of 17
    8. This one guy not voting for Maddux, i.e. Maddux getting only 16 of 17.

  32. Drew K says:

    I love this one:

    “MARTY NOBLE, national reporter
    Glavine, Maddux, Morris

    The candidacies of Maddux and Glavine made this vote easy and enjoyable. No angst. They’re automatic; there was no need for research or investigation. Morris never has approached automatic status, but he clearly deserves the benefit of the doubt. I don’t want 28 people entering the Hall at once, so I limited my checks on the ballot to three. That ought to be enough to go along with the three managers. Angst returns next year.”

    Really? Glavine was a slam-dunk, but Thomas was “angsty”? Morris “deserves the benefit of the doubt” but Bagwell doesn’t? When can we finally admit that some of the writers WORKING FOR MLB have no idea which players were great or not.

    We’d never let someone teach physics if they didn’t know basic force equations; how can Major League Baseball hire writers who think Glavine had a greater impact on baseball as a player than Frank Thomas (insert other all-time-great hitter here) did? What is going on here?

    • invitro says:

      “how can Major League Baseball hire writers who think Glavine had a greater impact on baseball as a player than Frank Thomas”

      I hope you meant to write Morris instead of Glavine, because Glavine probably did have more of an impact than Thomas, a little more, and it’s certainly not strange to think so.

    • Ian R. says:

      How the heck does the term “benefit of the doubt” apply to Jack Morris? We know what he did. There’s no doubt.

      “Benefit of the doubt” applies to someone like Bagwell or Piazza who’s facing unfounded steroid accusations, not a generic underqualified candidate.

    • Ian R. says:

      Also, I’m sure Marty was exaggerating for effect, but with the 10-player limit, 28 inductees is impossible. A maximum of 13 candidates could make it in on the BBWAA ballot, and that’s if the writers colluded to perfectly spread their votes to induct that many.

  33. Herb Smith says:

    Weren’t those Twins teams from that era considered to be the first “steroid team?” I recall Bill James mentioning that some team from that era, other than the A’s, had had a clubhouse-wide discovery, and quickly vaulted from doormat to world champion.

    Does anyone else recall that? I’m pretty certain it was them, because Kirby was used as one example. That story seems especially interesting in light of Gurnick’s folly, considering that Morris’s main credential for the HOF is Game 7 of the 1991 Twin’s Series win.

  34. hazzard says:

    Gurnick says he will abstain from future voting in part because “he wouldn’t even have voted for Mariano Rivera because he played in the PED era”. Is he backhandedly saying that Mariano Rivera was a greater pitcher than Greg Maddux? Why is he content to ruin Maddux’s chance at unanimous induction but not Rivera’s?

  35. Frank Evans says:

    So Gurnick thinks all players of the Steroid Era should be presumed guilty? Would he like his readers to assume all beat writers of the Steroid Era were complicit in covering up the mess? If Gurnick thinks he can’t participate objectively, then he’s correct – he can’t. But why be a jerk and lay it all on Maddux on his way out?

    • worried secularist says:

      All the fuss about unanimous induction is absurd. Babe Ruth wasn’t unanimous. Willie Mays and hank Aaron weren’t. Williams was unanimous, but that was animus. Maddux got the huge percentage he warranted. Quite enough.

  36. Lawhamel says:

    Luis Tiant should be a Hall of Famer.

  37. Patrick Hogue says:

    Ken Gurnick is the Miley Cyrus of baseball writers. “Look at me! I’m untouchable because I can vote for life! I’m a fricken idiot! Watch me stick my tongue at you!”

  38. Rick R says:

    There’s actually something quite comforting knowing that Greg Maddux won’t be going into the Hall of Fame unanimously, just as Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Tom Seaver and so many other worthies didn’t get a unanimous vote. To know that stupidity is eternal provides at least one bedrock of stability in a rapidly changing world.

    The more disturbing thing is that this Gurnick guy isn’t going to vote for anyone for the next 20 years. The bar to get into the Hall of Fame is insanely high already—to get 75% of a large group of people to agree on anything is nearly impossible. To have one automatic No vote for every candidate just makes that bar a little higher. Last year the writers couldn’t agree on anyone for inclusion to the Hall. How many more empty induction ceremonies will there be because pinheads like Gurnick want to exclude an entire generation of ballplayers?

    • Chris M says:

      Pretty sure Gurnick said he was going to abstain from voting, which means he won’t turn in a ballot and won’t effect the percentages (except insofar as there will be one less ballot to tally the percentages against). This is different from turning in a blank ballot, which counts as a no vote for everyone.

      His ballot this year is insane, but if he follows through with that I will have a modicum of respect for him.

  39. jim says:

    joe pa-ter-no clap-clap clap-clap-clap joe pa-ter-no clap-clap clap-clap-clap joe pa-ter-no clap-clap clap-clap-clap

    #SportsWritersWhoThrowStones

  40. I am the one who drinks! says:

    He has been getting a tonne of criticism on Twitter (rightly so I might add). I wonder if his skills extend to performing a analysis of his @s, and through the considerable vitriol be able to find some arguments that explain reasonably why decision was poor.

    I mean, as several commentators have pointed, his protest itself lacks any logic.

    Also, I firmly disagree with the fact, that he has earned his vote. Seniority does not prove merit. How many of us, work with people who are older and think that automatically brings them wisdom? No, its does not. Sometimes it just means you have been applying the same flawed logic for longer.
    “Doing your time” is a flawed system for determining privilege and merit. Jonah Keri and Dave Cameron (as two popular examples) deserve votes now and yet they have many years to go.

    • Cubical Man says:

      “Seniority does not prove merit.” True. But our economy is based on seniority way more than defenders of free market capitalism wish to admit. I’ve never seen a first year associate immediately voted a partner in a law firm. Instead, associates move up lockstep. Same with, e.g., accountants, consultants, any number of very desirable jobs. In fact, I’d bet most jobs — maybe even yours — are primarily seniority-based. “Doing your time” might be flawed, but it’s the reality of our economy.

  41. Joe, at some point you and other sportswriters of good will have to ostracize guys like him.

  42. Caleb says:

    While I can admit I don’t know a whole lot about Gurnick, when looking at his short reasoning it reminded me of a great tweet from the fake Old Hoss Radbourn twitter account where he said “I am not going to vote for any player of the ‘Steroid Era!'” Translation: “I sure did not do my job well as a reporter in that era.”

  43. KHAZAD says:

    Gurnick should be fired. If he is not a baseball writer, he can’t muck up the works.

  44. Hit by Pitch says:

    I don’t understand why they don’t tinker with the system. Voting for Gold Glove Awards was actually worse than HOF voting but by incorporating the Sabr Defense Index into the process it’s less likely that the Jeter or Palmiero mistakes will happen in the future.

  45. Joe Madden says:

    Kirby Puckett and sterioids? The guy got fat not ripped as he got older – I don’t think so!

  46. GRANT says:

    I hope it’s not so, but it wouldn’t it be a greater irony if Morris got elected, and then gave a contrite speech about how he owed his longevity to steroids?

  47. Victor says:

    Why do wee keep saying that Gurnick is going to keep Maddux from getting the 100%? He’s a moron, no doubt about it, but Maddux won’t get the 100% because there are many others that wont vote for him.

  48. Mark Daniel says:

    Last month, a study reported that 1 in 200 women aged 15-30 claimed they got pregnant without ever having had sexual intercourse.
    Even in issues in which there is biologic and scientific certainty, we still can only get to 99.5% agreement.

    • Kris says:

      The ubiquitous toilet seat explanation…hey, at least it is remotely conceivably possible to get pregnant without intercourse. Artificial insemenation does happen you know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *