By In Stuff

Ballot 34: Arthur Rhodes

arthur_rhodes_all-star-game

Arthur Rhodes

Pitched 20 years for nine different teams. 87-70 record, 4.08 ERA, 33 saves, 15.0 WAR, 3.1 WAA

Pro argument: The man pitched forever.

Con argument: Lefty specialists are to be cherished but not enshrined

Deserves to be in Hall?: No

Will get elected this year?: No

Will ever get elected?: No

So we begin. The plan is — and yes, I hear you people in the back snickering about the Baseball 100 that (so far) has only gotten down to No. 32 — to feature someone on the Hall of Fame ballot every day until the Hall of Fame announcement in January of 2017. That means we have to get through 34 different players in about 34 days (we might have to double up at some point).

Can we do it? No, probably not. But what the heck, let’s give it a try.

We’ll do it in order, from the No. 34 ballplayer on the list all the way up to the No. 1 ballplayer on the list. Not to offer any spoilers but as I look at the ballot  it seems to me that there are 18 or 19 players on the ballot with VIABLE (though not necessarily persuasive) Hall of Fame arguments. And that leaves 15 or 16 wonderful players who, let’s best honest, are fun to write about but do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

So yeah, it will be a couple of weeks before we get to the meat of the order.

But I think everyone on the Hall of Fame ballot deserves his own day, and that begins with the marvelous Arthur Lee Rhodes. It is one of

It is one of baseball’s great bits of serendipity that Arthur Lee Rhodes of Waco, Texas and Lee Arthur Smith of Jamestown, Louisiana ran in from so many bullpens. They are mirrors of each other, Arthur Lee and Lee Arthur, both 220-pound relievers from the South, one left-handed, one right-handed, both throwing the best fastballs they could muster for as long as people would pay them. Combined, Arthur Lee and Lee Arthur pitched in 1,922 games.

And for fun, they were both second round picks out of high school and both were briefly tried as starting pitchers.

Rhodes actually had a reasonably lengthy tryout as a starter. He was a big-time prospect who dominated the minors as a 20-year old. Baltimore gave him 15 starts in 1992 and he pitched well, going 7-5 with a 3.63 ERA (3.22 FIP) and a 2-to-1 strikeout-to-walk ratio. That was enough to convince the Orioles to give him 17 starts in 1993; unfortunately in those he was impossibly bad, allowing the league to slug .509 against him. The Orioles gave him a few more chances to start, but by then it seemed like nobody’s heart was really in it.

The Orioles then put him in the bullpen, and in 1997 he had his first real success. He pitched 95 innings, struck out 102 (against only 26 walks), won 10 games and had a 1.059 WHIP. It was a good enough season that he got some MVP love — more MVP love, in fact, than his teammate Roberto Alomar who hit .333/.390/.500 in 112 games.

Then the Orioles decided in 1998 and 1999 to give him a chance to close. As Houdini famously said of growing up poor in Wisconsin, “The less said on the matter, the better.”

At that point, he began his glorious and quixotic “Have Left Arm, Will Travel” career. Let’s see if we can do this justice. He signed as a free agent with Seattle for the 2000 season and was pretty magnificent for the Mariners. In 2001, he went 8-0 with a 1.72 ERA in 68 innings. His 83-12 strikeout to walk ratio was fantastic. He more or less repeated that in 2002. Rhodes was one of the best setup men in baseball.

Then, let’s see, he signed with Oakland and wasn’t very good.

So after one year, the A’s traded him to Pittsburgh for Jason Kendall, who had become too expensive for the Pirates. Pittsburgh waited a few days before trading him to Cleveland for Matt Lawton, who had become too expensive for the Tribe.

Rhodes was terrific for Cleveland for one year and so the Tribe, in a cost-cutting move, dealt him to Philadelphia for Jason Michaels. He was mostly ineffective in Philadelphia so they let him go to free agency, and Rhodes went back to Seattle where he’d had his greatest success. And then in spring training he blew out his arm and had to have Tommy John surgery.

At this point, Rhodes was 38 years old with a few hundred thousand miles on his arm. It looked to be over. But this is where he found that last bit of sublime worth in that left arm. He pitched well for Seattle for three months 2008 and was traded at the deadline to Florida, where he pitched even better. Yes, he pitched only 13 innings for the Marlins, but he allowed only one run.

The next offseason, Cincinnati signed him and he pitched well enough (he made his one and only All-Star Team!) that that after a couple of good seasons, Texas signed him. At that point, sadly, the arm really was shot though after the Rangers released him, the Cardinals picked him up and allowed him to have one final run of glory. He pitched eight innings for the Cardinals during the season but then became manager Tony La Russa’s secret weapon in the postseason.

In Game 1 of the 2011 Division series against Philadelphia, he was brought in to face Ryan Howard. He got a weak groundout to second. Rhodes was pulled.

In Game 2, he was brought in to face Ryan Howard. He struck Howard out. Rhodes was pulled.

In Game 4, he was brought in to face Raul Ibanez. He struck out my old friend. And Rhodes was pulled.

So three games, three batters. Ten it was off to the National League Championship Series against Milwaukee.

In Game 2, he was brought in to face Prince Fielder. After an epic at-bat, he ended up walking Fielder. Pulled.000000

In Game 4, in something of an anomaly, he faced three batters, mainly because the batter he was brought in to face, George Kottaras, reached on an error. After a sacrifice bunt by the pitcher, Rhodes ended the inning by striking out Nyjer Morgan.

Then  it was to the World Series against Texas.

In Game 1, he was brought in to face Josh Hamilton, who hit a fly ball to center. Pulled.

In Game 2, he was brought in to face Josh Hamilton, who hit a fly ball to right (though this one was a sacrifice fly). Pulled.

In Game 7 he was brought in to face Endy Chavez, who was then nixed for pinch-hitter Yorvit Torrealba. Rhodes got him to fly out to center.Pulled.

And that was it. Eight appearances. Ten batters faced. Eight outs, one walk, one reach on an error. One World Series ring. And then Arthur Rhodes retired. It was bizarre and wonderful and sort of the perfect summation of Rhodes’ baseball career.

People argue about the purpose of the Baseball Hall of Fame — is it a museum meant to feature the best baseball players ever or is it the ultimate reward for players who are a credit to the game or is it some foggy combination of the two?

Then, there are those who talk about the Hall of Very Good, an imaginary (but vibrant) place for those players who are not QUITE good enough to be in the Hall but should be remembered nonetheless.

Then there should be a place for the Arthur Lee Rhodes’ of the world, not good enough for the Hall, not even quite good enough for the Hall of Very Good, but singular nonetheless. He never led

Rhodes never led the league in anything of note, was never an effective starter or closer, etc. But he just kept on going and going. Rhodes faced Jim Thome 26 times (he owned Thome, allowing just two hits) and A-Rod 22 times (A-Rod owned him, hitting .455 with a couple of homers). In all, he faced 1,006 different batters, from Abbott to Zupcic, from Jason Bay to Jon Jay to Ruben Gotay, from Bell to Reed to Sax, from Candy Maldonado to Darryl Strawberry, from Huff (Aubrey) and Huff (Mike) to Blowers (Man) Freeman (Freddie) Downing (Brian), from George Brett to Rickey Henderson to Albert Pujols, from Tony Gwynn to Tony Gwynn Jr.

He is second all-time to the redoubtable Mike Stanton with 254 holds in his career (Stanton had 266). Nobody really knows what exactly counts as a hold, so that’s a great statistic for Rhodes.

And he was just plain fun, especially those last few years when he was a worn down left-hander coming out of the bullpen like an old gunslinger with one bullet in his gun and all the guile and guts you pick up from 1,000 survived gunfights.

Print Friendly

54 Responses to Ballot 34: Arthur Rhodes

  1. Harley says:

    He does deserve to be enshrined in the nostril hall of fame though.

  2. Patrick says:

    Another pro argument, how many Hall of Famers can say they were ejected from a game for refusing to take off earrings?

  3. Owen says:

    For a hot minute I thought you were sneaking someone bizarre into your Baseball 100.

  4. BSG says:

    These are my favorite types of ball players. Thanks for the great write up!

  5. JB says:

    Taking a lesson from your Baseball Top 100, you’ll get to #16 or so and stop. Finish the Top 100 and don’t do this! Never mind. Do either one – I’ll read and enjoy.

  6. Tracy says:

    No disrespect to Lee Smith, but I doubt he saw 220 on the scale any time after age 25.

  7. GWO says:

    My favourite Arthur Rhodes moment, as a Mariners fan: during that 2001 season when Omar Vizquel complained that Rhodes diamond earrings were glittering so much that they were preventing him from hitting. Rhodes eventually obliged, and then threw one up-and-in on Vizquel, sparking a bench clearing brawl.

  8. ZipperNeck says:

    Great article. I’m looking foreword to the series.

    Is your proofreader/editor on holiday this week?

  9. SDG says:

    Why is it that the writers have such a deep philosophical problem electing DHs, because they weren’t around in Ty Cobb’s day or whatever, but have no philosophical problem with specialized relievers?

    • Rob Smith says:

      I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. Joe constantly puts relievers on a lower level than starters, noting how few innings they pitch. Also, the BB writers have only put 5 relievers in the HOF. Only one was a one inning closer, so far. Few writers extol the virtues of loogies. I think Joe was just being nice to Arthur.

      • SDG says:

        I’m not criticising Joe at all. I wasn’t even thinking of Joe when I wrote that, as Joe isn’t one of those anti-SABR, “everything new is bad” writers. It’s just, there has never been a pure DH voted in, because plenty of writers still think DHs are bad people for not fielding. And yet not only have there been several relief pitchers, but there will probably be more, including Mo Rivera, who will get in with above 99% on the first ballot. And that’s not counting the borderline cases. And it’s not like the relievers in there are slam dunks. I just think it’s odd that the same people who go on and on about tradition and think the win is a good stat, never had a problem with relievers. It’s odd.

        I don’t think Arthur will, or should get in. Hoffman might, Lee Smith is borderline. But Ortiz will go years before he gets in (most of that is the steroid rumors, fine) and when he’s on the ballot people are going to argue he didn’t field (much) and that should be held against him.

        • Darrel says:

          Hate to pick nits but the Ortiz love always kinda irks me. He failed exactly as many drug tests as A-Rod. I’m not trying to hi-jack the discussion I swear but this isn’t Piazza or Bagwell. Ortiz actually failed a drug test, that it was supposed to be anonymous matters not.

          • Nick S. says:

            What probably should matter is that we don’t know what Ortiz tested positive for.

            In fact, Ortiz doesn’t know what he tested positive for. MLB has never disclosed what *any* of the supposedly anonymous players tested positive for. To me, that’s the same as not having failed any drug tests. MLB is saying “Trust us, these guys tested positive.”

            Yeah, no.

        • PhilM says:

          I would hazard a guess that by the time Ortiz is eligible, he gets in on the first ballot. Too many homers and too much clutchiness to be ignored, no matter the stripes of the voters.

        • invitro says:

          “there has never been a pure DH voted in, because plenty of writers still think DHs are bad people for not fielding.” — (a) Which “pure” DH’s are you talking about? Why isn’t Frank Thomas “pure” enough for you? (b) You probably just made a typo, but being able to field a position is indeed a quite valuable skill, that helps to win baseball games, and the lack of this skill does indeed make a player more bad than his position-playing colleagues. I’m sure you knew this fact, but just temporarily forgot it in the throes of passion or bath salts or whatever.

          • SDG says:

            Plenty of great hitters who were useless in the outfield or 1B are inner-circle HoF selections and considered all-time greats. You know this. Why is it better to hit great and field badly, than to hit great and not field at all?

          • invitro says:

            “Why is it better to hit great and field badly, than to hit great and not field at all?” — I’m not sure that it is. But I know it’s better to field averagely, than to not field at all.

          • Marc Schneider says:

            “But I know it’s better to field averagely, than to not field at all.”

            Why is that true if, potentially, you could instead be replaced by someone that fields more than averagely? I certainly agree that fielding adds a layer of value to a player but only if it is adequate or better fielding. I don’t see much difference between a guy who doesn’t play the field at all-Ortiz-and a guy who plays the field badly-say, Ted Williams. (No, I’m not saying Ortiz was a good as Williams.) Both are less valuable than a player of equal offensive value who is also a good fielder, but I don’t think the fact that Williams was able to stand out in the field and catch routine fly balls gave him additional value vis a vis Ortiz.

    • Darrel says:

      Cuz Enter Sandamn is cool entrance music.

    • invitro says:

      “Why is it that the writers have such a deep philosophical problem electing DHs, because they weren’t around in Ty Cobb’s day or whatever” — You have yet again created something from pure fantasy. The argument against electing DH’s has absolutely nothing to do with whether Ty Cobb should’ve been one. And the writers didn’t have any problem electing Frank Thomas on his first try.

    • Darrel says:

      I do think the DH does fall somewhere into the gaping maw between the old and new school HoF voter. That is to say that the old school guy doesn’t like him because the DH should be banned dammit and if you can’t play the field then what kind of baseball player are you. The new school guy on the other hand might look at career WAR and say that the number for a full time DH is awfully low. With no D component added in and these guys generally not offering a lot of baserunning value either the total can look a little weak.

      • Knuckles says:

        Anybody that has a problem with electing a DH probably shouldn’t be electing AL pitchers since they dont hit. Which is retarded… so yeah let DH’s in.

    • Pat says:

      Totally non-snarky guess to SDG’s question: Blame it on the bossa nova, I mean the hypnotic power of the save. That’s a special stat that relievers but not starters can get, can pile up. Probably a lot of voters saw the saves categories and thought, nobody has these stats! not Joss or Young or Johnson. These guys are some different kind of player.

      In contrast, designated hitters can only accumulate the same stats that every hitter can. Probably a lot of the early voters saw DHs and saw “full-time pinch-hitters,” and it was easy for them to think, these guys aren’t complete players.

      I actually think the voters are getting better on this score. Rivera will go in the Hall (is there any counter-argument? maybe not on the first ballot so he and Jeter can share the stage the next year), but I doubt you’re going to see any more Eckersleys and Lee Smiths and Rollie Smiths from now on.

      • Darrel says:

        The counter argument on Rivera is pretty simple. No one inning closer has enough value to merit enshrinement. Rivera is obviously the best ever at that role but I think one could argue that the role is not worthy. Really pick any solid #2 or #3 starter who pitched for 10-15 years and they would have way more career value than a one inning closer. None of these guys are even getting a whiff of the HoF(right Mr. Vazquez).

        • Marc Schneider says:

          Darrel, you better be careful saying that or you might end up with cement overshoes from those Yankee fans in New Jersey. 🙂

  10. Anon says:

    Near as I can figure, the oldest player he faced was Brian Downing (DOB: 10/9/50) and the youngest Starlin Castro (DOB: 3/24/90). There were a couple younger guys in the league in 2011 (including MIke Trout) but Rhodes never faced any of them.

  11. Anon says:

    BTW, b-ref lists 36 guys on the ballot with Julio Lugo and Danys Baez coming in 35 and 36 behind Rhodes in career WAR:

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2017.shtml

    Next up then should be Freddy Sanchez. . . .

    • invitro says:

      The b-ref list is not the ballot, it’s a list of players who have 10 seasons, and a certain score on the HoF monitor. I guess it’s a credit to b-ref that it looks almost like the actual ballot :).

  12. invitro says:

    Quick trivia question: Who pitched more innings in their career: Trevor Hoffman, or Babe Ruth?

  13. Knuckles says:

    Smith and Rhodes were also both black… how did you miss that!!!

  14. Ajnrules says:

    Arthur Rhodes was a decent pitcher, but he was no Javier Vazquez. You should have done a post on the players that didn’t make the ballot even though they qualified, guys like Vazquez and Julio Lugo and Danys Baez

    • Knuckles says:

      I actually got an email alert that said 36. Danys Baez. But the link doesn’t work now. So IDK what happened.

    • invitro says:

      I was meaning to say something about Javier Vazquez and what’s up with his omission. Lugo and Baez don’t deserve posts, but Aaron Roward (the other guy on b-ref’s page that didn’t make the ballot) might, as he’s got more WAR than four guys that did make the ballot, and has I think two rings. But Vazquez… he’d certainly be in the list of 18 or 19 viable candidates that Joe mentions. I say this because he’d rank #17 on the list ranked by career WAR, and is a big 7.5 WAR ahead of who is probably Joe’s #20 guy, Magglio Ordonez.

      Vazquez has 46.0 WAR on b-ref, but 53.9 on fangraphs. For some reason I thought he was one of the poster guys for FIP, who had a much better FIP than ERA or whatever, which I may be misremembering, but if that 53.9 WAR was correct, he’d have more WAR than McGriff. That’s worth a post, right? Sadly, he pitched in only 4 postseason games (the only guy on the ballot with as few is Lee Smith, also with 4), and was hammered to a 10.34 ERA.

      Joe could also make Javier part of an Expos-HoF post. Don’t look now, but six other players on the ballot spent “significant” time on the Expos or Nationals. I don’t know if that’s a lot, but there are six Yankees on the ballot.

    • Rob Smith says:

      Not that Vazquez is HOF worthy, but he did get an AS game, was 4th in the CY voting his year with the Braves and won 165 games (averaging 13 wins/yr). That’s a heck of a lot better than a lot of guys who make the ballot. Joe might do an article on this snub. Is there anyone who had better credentials, in modern times, who was excluded from the ballot?

  15. steve says:

    I bet that every one of Joe’s readers who has (or had) a perfectly fine career as a teacher or a painter or a truck driver would love to have had a baseball career as good as Mr. Rhodes. The HOF ballot is a high five for a job well done.

    • Maz says:

      Hey, I’d take a career as good as Willie Bloomquist’s.

      When he pitched for Seattle, Arthur Rhodes was one of my favorite players, and I much admired his longevity, too. But Hall of Fame ballot? Nah. The ballot’s too crowded, and saying no to these guys puts voters in the mood or habit of saying no to everybody. Give him an actual high five and let it go.

    • invitro says:

      Sometimes I think the museum part of the HoF should have a small plaque for every player and manager who lasted at least ten seasons. Every one of them. I guesstimate it’d be about 2000 plaques. They don’t have to be as big as the HoF plaques. It’d be nice and inclusive.

    • SDG says:

      The ballot is ridiculously clogged already. There is a significant number of players who played in the 90s and 2000s who will have to wait for the VC (or whatever we’re calling it now) to get in as it is. We don’t have the space or time to give people high-fives.

      Besides, are we going to keep adding layers of honor? It’s already dumb that being elected on the first ballot, or being elected unanimously (it’s going to happen soon) already is supposed to be more special than getting in on the third or fourth attempt. Now it’s going to matter if you’re a one-and-done on the ballot?

  16. invitro says:

    It seems unlikely that Joe will be able to accomplish this task, but let’s hope he will. I’m a little concerned that he’ll burn himself out with guys like Rhodes (and this article is really one heck of an awesome summary of Rhodes’ career), and be too tired when a guy like J.D. Drew rolls around. Some guys I’m interested in reading Joe’s take on, or of seeing the voting results for:

    You guys probably know that Ivan Rodriguez is #3 all-time in JAWS among catchers. That would seem to make him a slam-dunk, 95% Hall of Famer. Is he a slam-dunk for first ballot? That OPS+ of 107 won’t look like a first balloter.

    I suppose Raines will finally make it in his last year of BBWAA eligibility. I’m sure Joe will pull out all the stops to campaign for him. I bet his article on Raines will be one of the most impassioned ones of the year.

    I would’ve guessed Posada would rank higher on the WAR-based career stats, but he’s only #16 in JAWS for catchers. I’m not even sure he’s in Joe’s list of 18-19 viable candidates. There are 15 guys returning from this year’s vote. Certainly Joe considers all of them viable, except maybe Wagner. The newcomers who are certainly viable are Manny, I-Rod, and Vlad. That’s 18… Posada is probably #19. (The next batch is Cameron, Drew, and Ordonez.)

    J.D. Drew had a better career than you think. He was great when he played. His WAR per PA is higher than Raines, I-Rod, and even Manny. I bet you didn’t know *that*. (It was a lot lower than Edgar’s, though.)

    I don’t know if I want to read even more about my favorite candidates, Schilling and Walker, as I know Walker is doomed, and I think Schilling probably is. So another post on them will just make me sad. Oh well.

    I think Vlad is massively overrated, but I don’t know if he had steroid controversy (I have a hard time remembering that stuff), and so he’ll probably make the top ten of the actual voting. I bet he doesn’t make Joe’s top ten, though.

    Finally, I’ll predict Raines and I-Rod are the guys that make it this ballot. If I had the energy, I’d see what the history is of guys who got the percents that Bagwell and Hoffman got last year.

    • SDG says:

      I-Rod makes it, but not on first ballot. Writers have this weird snobbery about “first-ballot” guys and no one thinks Pudge was a better catcher than Johnny Bench. Also, the BBWAA doesn’t like electing catchers. They’ve only done one on the first ballot (Bench). Yogi, with the 10 rings, had to wait a year. So did Fisk. Piazza took 4. Combine that with steroid rumors and a massively backlogged ballot and Pudge is waiting for awhile, although he gets in eventually. I think Raines sneaks in under the wire.

      I think Hoffman is going to be a victim of timing. He will be compared to Rivera and come up short. Just like Lou Brock probably wouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame if he played after Rickey did.

      • invitro says:

        I agree that the BBWAA has a problem with catchers, and so does Joe. I’m very interested to see where Joe ranks I-Rod. Joe didn’t put him in his Baseball 100. I don’t know if many people would rank him as the #3 catcher all-time.

        Two blurbs from his wikipedia article: Prior to the 2005 season, Jose Canseco, in his controversial book Juiced, claimed to have personally injected Rodríguez with anabolic steroids during their time as teammates on the Texas Rangers. Rodríguez denied the allegations and said he was “in shock” over Canseco’s claims. Asked by a reporter four years later whether his name is on the list of 104 players who tested positive for steroids during baseball’s 2003 survey testing, Rodríguez responded, “Only God knows.”

        Richard Justice of MLB.com has argued that he is “unquestionably” a Hall of Fame-caliber player, writing on mlb.com in 2012 that he batted better than .290 with more than 2,500 hits, 550 doubles, 300 home runs and 1,300 RBI, an accomplishment equaled only by four all-time greats: Hank Aaron, George Brett, Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds. (This statement was incorrect, as Stan Musial also met and far surpassed all of those numbers. Incidentally, in 2013, the year following Justice’s publication of this article, Todd Helton had met all five of these criteria as well, and among active players, Albert Pujols joined this club in 2015 upon hitting his 550th double.)

    • Darrel says:

      Im with you on Walker. He gets way overlooked because he played in Montreal who nobody paid attention to and then in Colorado where everybody discounts the numbers. Vlad will suffer from the same Expo bias. His best years, when he was a dynamic RF, were played in obscurity. All most people remember is the Angels and Rangers period when a lot of his D and baserunning skills had diminished somewhat. It’s an Expo-palooza this year and Raines should finally get in after having to wait way too long. Revisit the Gwynn comparisons if you are on the fence.

      I would expect Bagwell and Hoffman to get as well.

      Just for fun on I-Rod. Google images of him before and after steroid testing. It is the reverse Bonds. Looks like he spent the winter fasting in a monestary he lost so much weight. Quite remarkable.

    • SDG says:

      Schilling gets in eventually. What’s holding him back is low totals in the traditional stats (especially wins) and a great pitcher overall but nothing that really jumps out at you. You have to account that he pitched in a heavy hitters’ era in order to value him. Also, he’s not as good as Clemens. Not even close. Which normally wouldn’t be a problem, but he’s going to be stuck behind Clemens on the ballot until we figure out what we’re doing with the steroid guys. They won’t want Schilling to be in the Hall while a clearly superior player who played at basically the same time and is associated with the same team, is out. He’s a casualty of too many people from the current era not in yet.

  17. Michael C Lorah says:

    My most distinct memory of Arthur Rhodes is him giving up a game-losing homer to Adam LaRoche at Citizen’s Bank while I was in attendance. I did not remember he was traded for Pat Burrell’s pal J-Mike, though. Still, I always admired Rhodes’ perseverance. Dude stuck around a long time and was usually pretty good at what he did.

  18. Otistaylor89 says:

    Shouldn’t you finish “Greast 100 of All Time” before starting this?

  19. Byron says:

    If I was a baseball player, I would love to be an Arthur Rhodes type. He had personal success: an All-Star and he had team success: he won the World Series. He pitched a long time and played in some really interesting cities, made some money and probably saw more of this country than most folks his age.

    But most of all he got to list baseball player as his profession when he filled out his tax return.

    What a fantastic life.

  20. Mike says:

    OK, but you are doing a double-length poscast with Mike Schur on all the HOF nominees, right?

  21. mrh says:

    This morning I got up, put on an old Rochester Red Wings (AAA) t-shirt and went about my day. At lunch, while catching up on my internet, I read Joe’s piece on Rhodes.

    My t-shirt has the Red Wings logo on the front and on the back, under the heading of Rochester Red Wings 1993* Champions** the names and numbers of all the players on the team. There, along with Glenn Davis, Fernando Valenzuela (!), and Jamie Moyer, between Randy Ready and Chuck Ricci, is #18 Arthur Rhodes.

    *I said it was old.
    ** The Red Wings did not win the Governor’s Cup that year, they must have won their division. I guess they didn’t have room for that qualification and just went with “Champions.”

  22. Cuban X Senators says:

    Maybe the LOOGY Would Be the Times or Between Pettis and Bogusevic.

Leave a Reply

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