Master Index of Archived Threads


It's Dawson. Just Dawson

metsguyinmichigan Jan 06 2010 12:05 PM

So says AP in a newsroom scroll. Blyleven 74.2 percent, Alomar 73.3 percent

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 06 2010 12:10 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

wtf

TransMonk Jan 06 2010 12:12 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I'm not opposed to Dawson, but c'mon.

HahnSolo Jan 06 2010 12:15 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Did Hirschbeck have a vote?

metsguyinmichigan Jan 06 2010 12:21 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

One vote for each probably would have done it.

Edgy DC Jan 06 2010 12:22 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

How many years on the ballot is that for Blyleven? I guess an MVP takes you a long way.

metsguyinmichigan Jan 06 2010 12:26 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I think this was No. 13, and has two more. So Heyman can take pride in keeping him out with all those lame-assed excuses he made.

G-Fafif Jan 06 2010 12:27 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Who knew so many voters watched the 2002 and 2003 Mets so closely?

G-Fafif Jan 06 2010 12:30 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Re: other Mets not voted in:-- Seven votes for Robin, one for Segui, one for Appier, none for Zeile -- not even frequent flyer points.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 06 2010 12:33 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 06 2010 12:36 PM

One vote for each probably would have done it. Thank Jay Mariotti, a complete douchehandle, who remarked in a recent chat: Now, the baseball gods can strike me down, Reali (sic), but guess what? I didn’t vote for anybody in the baseball hall of fame this year. Ya know why? To me…the first ballot is sacred. I think Roberto Alomar is an eventual Hall of Famer, not the first time. Edgar Martinez, designated hitter, eventually, but not the first time. Same goes for maybe Fred McGriff. As far as Blyleven and Dawson…if they haven’t gotten in for years and years I cannot vote them in now. Ripken, Rickey Henderson and Gwynn. They are true first ballot Hall of Famers, but I didn’t vote for anybody, throw me out of the Baseball Writers. I don’t care. here's more on that irresponsible dickhead: [url]http://www.baseballink.com/archives/stories/mariotti-volunteers-to-be-thrown-out-of-the-bbwaa-4061053

Edgy DC Jan 06 2010 12:35 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Zeile's numbers would look a lot sweeter with ", c" after his name. It's Torre's revenge.

Centerfield Jan 06 2010 12:37 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

One vote for each probably would have done it. Thank Jay Mariotti, a complete douchehandle, who remarked in a recent chat: Now, the baseball gods can strike me down, Reali (sic), but guess what? I didn’t vote for anybody in the baseball hall of fame this year. Ya know why? To me…the first ballot is sacred. I think Roberto Alomar is an eventual Hall of Famer, not the first time. Edgar Martinez, designated hitter, eventually, but not the first time. Same goes for maybe Fred McGriff. As far as Blyleven and Dawson…if they haven’t gotten in for years and years I cannot vote them in now. Ripken, Rickey Henderson and Gwynn. They are true first ballot Hall of Famers, but I didn’t vote for anybody, throw me out of the Baseball Writers. I don’t care. here's more on that irresponsible dickhead: [url]http://www.baseballink.com/archives/stories/mariotti-volunteers-to-be-thrown-out-of-the-bbwaa-4061053 This is what I was talking about when I said certain guys should be stripped of their vote. I'm guessing he would care if they threw him out.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 06 2010 12:39 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Saying that the "first ballot is sacred" is stupid. I'm surprised Alomar didn't get in.

Edgy DC Jan 06 2010 12:48 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 06 2010 12:49 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Forget "first ballot" is sacred... in literally his next breath, he says that he won't vote for Blyleven and Dawson because they didn't get in earlier. Forget stripping him of his HOF voting privileges-- Mariotti should be stripped of his press credentials, period. He's a dishonorable, self-contradicting hack... and worst of all, he's boring. [My favorite writing about Mariotti, addressing his cowardly exit from the Sun-Times last year-- preach on, brother Roger!] I wonder who the old Arizona guy voted for. His reasoning can't be any more convoluted than Heyman's or Mariotti's.

Edgy DC Jan 06 2010 12:52 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

See, I'm less pissed at Mariotti than I am at ESPN, Yahoo, and whoever else who give gobshites like him a voice.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 06 2010 01:01 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

The announcement's over at the BBWAA site (which was recently updated from c. 1986-style to c. 1996-style-- bully!). 405 were needed for election. Blyleven got 400, Alomar 397. (They would have been one vote less short, had 5 writers not gone to the trouble of submitting blank ballots. Awesome!) Dropping off the ballot: Baines, Galarraga, Ventura, Burks, Karros, Appier, Hentgen, Segui, Jackson, Lankford, Reynolds, and Zeile. What I'm wondering is when the HOF-- a beautifully-designed little museum, with pretty terribly run entry protocols-- becomes the Academy Awards of baseball: something that's fun to look at, but not something any SERIOUS baseball scholar ever looks at as anything but an entertaining trifle?

Frayed Knot Jan 06 2010 01:07 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Count me among those who had no idea Mariotti was even a member of the BBWAA. I guess that means he actually covered the sport at one time but, to me, he's just an ESPN dickhead who only talks loudly on TV but rarely about baseball and when he does it's only to either knock it or tell us that you don't pay attention anymore. And if you want to turn in a blank ballot at least do so for non-dickhead reasons.

Chad Ochoseis Jan 06 2010 01:19 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Dropping off the ballot: Baines, Galarraga, Ventura, Burks, Karros, Appier, Hentgen, Segui, Jackson, Lankford, Reynolds, and Zeile. Baines stays on, actually (6.1% of the vote). The rest of the post, yeah, pretty much on the mark.

Frayed Knot Jan 06 2010 01:27 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

The winner plus those who live to fight another day. 539 votes cast, 405 needed for induction ---- VOTES Pct Andre Dawson 420 77.9% Bert Blyleven 400 74.2% Roberto Alomar 397 73.7% Jack Morris 282 52.3% Barry Larkin 278 51.6% Lee Smith 255 47.3% Edgar Martinez 195 36.2% Tim Raines 164 30.4% Mark McGwire 128 23.7% Alan Trammel 121 22.4% Fred McGriff 116 21.5% Don Mattingly 87 16.1% Dave Parker 82 15.2% Dale Murphy 63 11.7% Harold Baines 33 6.1%

RealityChuck Jan 06 2010 01:35 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Why anyone goes along with this "first ballot" crap is beyond me. If the person deserve to be in the HOF, then getting in on the first ballot is no different from getting in on the second. It's a hangover from the 40s when the hall was catching up on all the players who had been retired for years. Newly retired players had to wait, since the voters wanted to induct older players before they died. But it turned into the "Hank Greenberg didn't make it his first year, and you're no Hank Greenberg" fallacy.

Frayed Knot Jan 06 2010 01:43 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Older players used to not make it on their first try because they didn't have the 5-year rule way back when and so there was this 'we'll get around to you' mentality that existed while they tended to the older folks and made sure the younger ones actually stayed retired*. And, in a way, that era is still affecting this one as some take the attitude that since DiMaggio didn't make it in year one than nobody else deserves to either as that would represent some kind of insult to Joe D. I had hoped that attitude was dying out as the DiMag-era worshippers ... I mean writers did too, but apparently not. * In the NHL, Guy LaFleur came back as an active player after he was in the HoF in what struck a lot of people as strange if not embarrassing. Similarly, the NFL seems to want to wait on Parcells because you never know when and where he'll resurface (or quit) again.

Ashie62 Jan 06 2010 01:45 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

The announcement's over at the BBWAA site (which was recently updated from c. 1986-style to c. 1996-style-- bully!). 405 were needed for election. Blyleven got 400, Alomar 397. (They would have been one vote less short, had 5 writers not gone to the trouble of submitting blank ballots. Awesome!) Dropping off the ballot: Baines, Galarraga, Ventura, Burks, Karros, Appier, Hentgen, Segui, Jackson, Lankford, Reynolds, and Zeile. What I'm wondering is when the HOF-- a beautifully-designed little museum, with pretty terribly run entry protocols-- becomes the Academy Awards of baseball: something that's fun to look at, but not something any SERIOUS baseball scholar ever looks at as anything but an entertaining trifle? It already is...congrats Andre*

Benjamin Grimm Jan 06 2010 01:47 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Frayed Knot wrote: * In the NHL, Guy LaFleur came back as an active player after he was in the HoF in what struck a lot of people as strange if not embarrassing. I remember Jim Palmer made an attempted comeback after he was inducted. He actually went to spring training with the Orioles, I think. I remember rooting for him to make it, just to see the novelty of an active Hall of Famer.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 06 2010 01:52 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 06 2010 05:56 PM

Dropping off the ballot: Baines, Galarraga, Ventura, Burks, Karros, Appier, Hentgen, Segui, Jackson, Lankford, Reynolds, and Zeile. Baines stays on, actually (6.1% of the vote). The rest of the post, yeah, pretty much on the mark. I don't see the point of all your fussing over numbers. To me, Baines feels like he's dropped off the ballot, so I'll treat him as such. Why anyone goes along with this "first ballot" crap is beyond me. If the person deserve to be in the HOF, then getting in on the first ballot is no different from getting in on the second. It's a hangover from the 40s when the hall was catching up on all the players who had been retired for years. Newly retired players had to wait, since the voters wanted to induct older players before they died. But it turned into the "Hank Greenberg didn't make it his first year, and you're no Hank Greenberg" fallacy. I'd wager that a significant number of the younger first-ballot conservatives don't even know exactly WHY the custom took hold. When I hear a-holes like Mariotti or Shaughnessy, it feels like the management-class construct: the third generation of monkeys telling the fourth not to reach for the once-protected-by-electrified-plates bananas in the middle of the room. Why? Because we've always done it that way.

Edgy DC Jan 06 2010 02:03 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: * In the NHL, Guy LaFleur came back as an active player after he was in the HoF in what struck a lot of people as strange if not embarrassing. I remember Jim Palmer made an attempted comeback after he was inducted. He actually went to spring training with the Orioles, I think. I remember rooting for him to make it, just to see the novelty of an active Hall of Famer. By the way, I completely support this, and moreover, completely support changing the criteria to say "20 Years (or 25 or Whatever) from the Person's Debut in Professional Baseball." I think a few active Hall of Famer, with a sleeve patch and all, would be a trip. I certainly don't see the point in waiting until a manager appears to be five years out before inducting him. Five years out from managing for some of these long-time managing guys puts more than a few of them pretty close to the grave.

smg58 Jan 06 2010 02:10 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

G-Fafif wrote: Who knew so many voters watched the 2002 and 2003 Mets so closely? That's exactly what I was thinking. Either that or they're friends of the ump he spat on. Still, if he retired after 2001 would there even be debate? Fortunately, Blyleven's showing suggests that he's going to get in on one of his last two tries. He should have been in years ago, and I can't believe it's taking this long and we still have to debate this, but I do think he'll ultimately get where he belongs.

seawolf17 Jan 06 2010 02:19 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Lee Smith got more votes than Tim Raines. That's fucking insane.

Edgy DC Jan 06 2010 02:21 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Dwight Evans, whose career I'd take over Dawson's nine times out of ten. Year Election Votes Pct 1997 BBWAA 28 5.9% 1998 BBWAA 49 10.4% 1999 BBWAA 18 3.6% and Out Should have had a cooler nickname.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 06 2010 02:23 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Edgy DC wrote: Dwight Evans, whose career I'd take over Dawson's nine times out of ten. Year Election Votes Pct 1997 BBWAA 28 5.9% 1998 BBWAA 49 10.4% 1999 BBWAA 18 3.6% and Out Should have had a cooler nickname. How or why the hell ornery Boston fans rallied around Fenway Phantom Jim Rice and not Dewey, I'll never know.

Edgy DC Jan 06 2010 02:29 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Rice won an MVP. That stuff sticks with folks.

Nymr83 Jan 06 2010 02:32 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

UTTERLY ABSURD. Tim Raines (30% of the vote) was by far a better player. Baines is probably better. Alomar is much better. I won't bother comparing to pitchers but Blyleven was robbed as well. A .323 OBP for a corner outfielder should almost automatically EXCLUDE you, instead he's the only guy who gets in. the dinosaurs who vote for the HOF need to go.

G-Fafif Jan 06 2010 02:37 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 06 2010 02:43 PM

On the day Roberto Alomar didn't become a Hall of Famer in Cooperstown, I became Roberto Alomar on Crane Pool Forum. Ironic, sort of.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 06 2010 02:43 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Maybe I'm just moving on into another Kubler-Ross stage-of-righteous-indignance, but... well... FWiW, Dawson's a much better all-around player than Rice, and-- while a borderline guy, and not as deserving in most of our minds here as, say, Alomar or the Dutchman-- doesn't significantly lower the standards for HOF membership, the way that Mr. Fear did. He'll be a little easier to explain to little LeiterWagnerPisserPooper in 6-7 years than Rice, or Tinker/Evers/Chance, or Maranville. So, there's that.

Valadius Jan 06 2010 04:58 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I can't tell you how infuriated I was at work today when I heard the news. INFURIATED. Alomar got jobbed, Blyleven has to wait another year and occupy a spot on an already crowded ballot next year. This is why I want the voting percentage necessary for induction lowered, either to 70% or 65%. And this "first-ballot is only for Babe Ruths" crap is killing this process. Luckily we're going to have 2012 to clear some backlog, but come 2013, deserving names are going to fall off the ballot because of the "first ballot is sacred/hall purity/I refuse to vote for more than X players in a given year" crowd. And Jay Mariotti can go to hell. Filling out a blank ballot is worse than filling out no ballot at all. Utterly despicable.

Frayed Knot Jan 06 2010 05:02 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Lowering the standards will still leave some guys just missing. I have no problem with 75% as there's always as many guys I wouldn't put in who are as there are guys I want in but fall short. That's just about the way it should be. Turning in a blank ballot isn't stupid, turning one in for stupid reasons is - particularly if one of those reasons is; 'Hey, look at me and see how discriminating [read: curmudgeonly] I can be!'

MFS62 Jan 06 2010 05:04 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

What I'm wondering is when the HOF-- a beautifully-designed little museum, with pretty terribly run entry protocols-- becomes the Academy Awards of baseball: something that's fun to look at, but not something any SERIOUS baseball scholar ever looks at as anything but an entertaining trifle? Sort of like what the Sporting News has become in recent years. Uh, let me change that. Not even fun to look at any more. Later

SteveJRogers Jan 06 2010 05:23 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Dwight Evans, whose career I'd take over Dawson's nine times out of ten. Year Election Votes Pct 1997 BBWAA 28 5.9% 1998 BBWAA 49 10.4% 1999 BBWAA 18 3.6% and Out Should have had a cooler nickname. How or why the hell ornery Boston fans rallied around Fenway Phantom Jim Rice and not Dewey, I'll never know. Perhaps; 1) To keep some sort of grand lineage going with Williams and Yaz for LFers in Fenway. Greenwell breaks that chain, and I don't know who held the spot in between Greenwell and ManRam. Interestingly enough, Warner Wolf one morning on 1050ESPN radio was pontificating on the HOF caliber LFers in Red Sox history listed Williams, Yaz and ManRam, and completely left Rice off the checklist! Course now many will cite Mark McGwire and soon Roger Clemens as reasons why Manny Ramirez WON'T get into Cooperstown, and that kind of will elevates Rice in many eyes. I wouldn't be shocked if that's why both Rice and Dawson got in actually. and 2) To prove that they aren't as racist and/or hard on their star athletes as it seems they were portrayed as being for many years. You don't get too many of those stories in the last 10 or so years, but it was a big part of the perception of the Boston fanbase. So why not rally around Rice's bid for the Hall.

Edgy DC Jan 06 2010 06:39 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Frayed Knot wrote: Lowering the standards will still leave some guys just missing. I have no problem with 75% as there's always as many guys I wouldn't put in who are as there are guys I want in but fall short. That's just about the way it should be. Yes. Frayed Knot wrote: Turning in a blank ballot isn't stupid, turning one in for stupid reasons is Yes.

Frayed Knot Jan 06 2010 08:18 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: What I'm wondering is when the HOF-- a beautifully-designed little museum, with pretty terribly run entry protocols-- becomes the Academy Awards of baseball: something that's fun to look at, but not something any SERIOUS baseball scholar ever looks at as anything but an entertaining trifle? It's not perfect, but it never was and nothing based on subjective criteria ever will be. But so what, that's not a fatal flaw, and if a handful of ejits turn in stupid ballots each one is like 0.2% of the vote Hell, there's plenty of disagreement in our small group here which is enough to show that there's not one correct answer to each candidate. Plus I think the choices have probably gotten better over the years rather than worse; certainly the veteran process is better.

RealityChuck Jan 06 2010 08:31 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I don't see Dawson as that bad a choice -- his numbers fit snugly among HOF players, and he played on some pretty bad teams almost his entire career, which hurt him. The fact that Blyleven and Alomar didn't get in has nothing to do with whether Dawson was a good choice. You're following the same logical fallacy as the people who refuse to vote for someone in his first year of eligibility.

Nymr83 Jan 06 2010 08:39 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

RealityChuck wrote: I don't see Dawson as that bad a choice -- his numbers fit snugly among HOF players, and he played on some pretty bad teams almost his entire career, which hurt him. The fact that Blyleven and Alomar didn't get in has nothing to do with whether Dawson was a good choice. You're following the same logical fallacy as the people who refuse to vote for someone in his first year of eligibility. No, i'm not. Alomar (i'll use him and ignore trying to compare pitching/hitting at the moment) was better than Dawson, which does have something to do with whether Dawson was a good choice, because everyone who voted for Dawson but not Alomar made the rather indefensible decision to vote for a clearly worse player ahead of someone that they deemed not to be a good choice. You can draw the "line" of how good someone had to be to get into the HOF wherever you'd like, but when you say that Dawson is above that line and Alomar below it you've made a bad choice.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 06 2010 08:40 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Frayed Knot wrote: What I'm wondering is when the HOF-- a beautifully-designed little museum, with pretty terribly run entry protocols-- becomes the Academy Awards of baseball: something that's fun to look at, but not something any SERIOUS baseball scholar ever looks at as anything but an entertaining trifle? It's not perfect, but it never was and nothing based on subjective criteria ever will be. But so what, that's not a fatal flaw, and if a handful of ejits turn in stupid ballots each one is like 0.2% of the vote Hell, there's plenty of disagreement in our small group here which is enough to show that there's not one correct answer to each candidate. Plus I think the choices have probably gotten better over the years rather than worse; certainly the veteran process is better. Fair point. It is kind of weird, though, that these guys are voting on what's essentially a merit-award-cum-promotional-vehicle for that which they cover. You don't see war correspondents voting on who gets Silver Stars, or science journal writers voting on the chemistry Nobel. I think I misspoke earlier: it's more like the Golden Globes of baseball.

Frayed Knot Jan 06 2010 08:56 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Well, for better or worse, the writers assoc got the vote chores/honors back in the pre-TV days when they could legitimately claim to be the ones who saw the most games and therefore knew the best and supposedly were free of biases. And over the years they haven't been bad keepers of the flame even though there are some bad choices and others which are arguable. Their membership rules aren't lax and recently we've seen them open up to internet writers and others who hopefully bring an expanded way of thinking to the process but there'll always be disagreements. Plus, we saw what the smaller and more hand-picked panels did with the vets vote all those years. So I'll take the tyranny of a well-meaning majority (super majority actually) and live with their decisions. Most of them take it very seriously and I have faith that the good outnumber the stupid. In the meantime, pay attention to those who do good work and never stop mocking the Mariotti's of the world.

G-Fafif Jan 07 2010 05:21 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Marty Noble, in an mlb.com roundup of its writers' HOF choices, espouses the Single Spitter Theory: Marty Noble: Barry Larkin and Dave Parker Alomar will probably be elected, and based on performance through most of his 17 seasons, he ought to be. But he will go without my vote this year. I don't like to use the ballot in this manner, but the best second baseman since Joe Morgan -- and probably the best ever -- doesn't deserve my vote for at least one year because of two spitting instances. We're all aware of the one involving John Hirschbeck. I don't care that Hirschbeck forgave Alomar for spitting at him; I haven't. It was unacceptable behavior. And during his 222-game tour with the Mets, Alomar repeatedly spit in the face of the game by playing with conspicuous apathy. His father and brother didn't deserve that, nor did the game. Larkin was a gentleman, an MVP and a genuine offensive force who played the most important defensive position at a high level. He was an easy choice. Parker remains the the best player I ever have covered. He beat opponents every way possible, running over them, if necessary. And he was better at keeping a clubhouse loose than any player I've experienced. I hadn't voted for him until now because of his involvement in the 1985 cocaine mess in Pittsburgh. But I had supported the Hall candidacy of Keith Hernandez, the second-best player I ever covered, despite his involvement with cocaine. That inconsistency had to be rectified. I can forgive their flaws more readily than I can forgive Alomar's. Wait till next year. Rob Neyer, meanwhile, reads minds: If I may indulge in a bit of speculation ... Alomar is obviously one of history's greatest second basemen. A huge majority of ballots already made public included Alomar's name. I can only guess that a significant number of voters were simply too apathetic about baseball during Alomar's career to pay any real attention. I don't say that to explain why he didn't get elected this year. I say that to explain why he'll get elected next year, as a few dozen voters say to themselves, "Hey, this Alomar fellow was almost elected last year. I guess I should probably vote for him!"

Benjamin Grimm Jan 07 2010 05:25 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I don't understand "INFURIATED"

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 07 2010 05:27 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

The fact is Alomar was aloof even when he performed at a high level.

duan Jan 07 2010 05:33 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

i'm not sure about marty noble's logic about "for this year" thing. Either decide the fucker disgraced the game in a way that's unforgiveable or don't. Now, you can revise your opinion (and that IS fair), but to suggest (as Marty seems) that he's already decided to vote for him NEXT year is a bit off. The whole "not a first ballot" is bollocks full stop too.

Frayed Knot Jan 07 2010 07:19 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I don't agree with Noble citing Alomar for apathy - especially for a small portion of his career - as reason for a 'No' vote in the same breath as citing Parker as an example of an all-out player. Parker exemplified exactly what a lot of critics were afraid of in the still-new FA era and that's the athlete who got fat (literally and figuratively) as soon as his wallet did. Parker had HoF talent, IMO, but not enough HoF seasons to make an HoF career.

MFS62 Jan 07 2010 07:50 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Well, I guess if you're going to vote for a guy nicknamed "Hawk", Dawson is a better ballplayer than Hawk (not to be confused with ex-Mets catcher Sammy)Taylor and Hawk Harrelson. But none of them should be in the Hall, especially over some of the other candidates on this year's ballot. Later

Edgy DC Jan 07 2010 07:56 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

When Alomar was a top player, writers loved him. He was still aloof and distant and useless to them for quotes, but they'd wax on about what a pleasure his gamecraft was --- how he'd use batting practice to, among other things, practice bunting foul, because a foul bunt in the first inning could bring the third baseman in the rest of the game and might, just might, lead to a game-winning hit in the eighth. The sort of stuff reserved for Jeter. It seems the aloofness is a tolerable thing in an All-Star, but not in a strugglign vet. Eddie Murray was another guy whose commitment to his game had him tagged as a high-character guy when he was an MVP candidate, but got tagged as low-character due to his aloofness (which had always been there) when his game faded. Credit for consistency to Noble, anyhow. He apparently gives points for field- and clubhouse-leaders and is trying to apply that consistently. But deciding to vote for a guy despite factoring him lowly in this department, but not until next year --- debit him for that. Hey, Marty, not to sound too morbid, but next year may never come. Maybe not for Alomar, maybe not for you. Carpe deum, dude. (OE: Oops: "diem.")

TheOldMole Jan 07 2010 07:59 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Seize God?

Edgy DC Jan 07 2010 08:21 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Well, lower-case. Sieze a god. Not the God. Typed the last line and hit submit while a colleague was standing over me. It happens.

Ashie62 Jan 07 2010 08:22 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Alomar was a nasty prick and that translated into less votes

MFS62 Jan 07 2010 08:35 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Ashie62 wrote: Alomar was a nasty prick and that translated into less votes That must mean that Bonds will come up with a negative tally, even discounting the steroids. I hope so. Later

Willets Point Jan 07 2010 02:09 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Ashie62 wrote: Alomar was a nasty prick and that translated into less votes And Alomar allegedly did nasty things with his nasty prick.

smg58 Jan 07 2010 04:15 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Is now a good time to mention that Tim Raines had a higher career OPS than Dawson?

Nymr83 Jan 07 2010 05:05 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

smg58 wrote: Is now a good time to mention that Tim Raines had a higher career OPS than Dawson? Tim Raines had a better career than Andrew Dawson, I'm at least going to concede that Dawson had a better peak which may (legitimately) sway some voters. The gap in vote% between them is alarming.

Edgy DC Jan 07 2010 05:36 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

In his defense, I don't think it's fair to refer to Dawson as a "corner outfielder." He spent the first half of his career in center and was damn good there, winning six Gold Glove awards and maybe even deserving some of them.

MFS62 Jan 07 2010 05:46 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Baseball Prospectus' take on the HOF voting: At the end of my final Hall of Fame ballot breakdown of the season, published mere hours before the voting results were announced, I noted that I wouldn't be at all surprised if the JAWS-approved slate of seven candidates—Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Mark McGwire, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammell—were shut out, while Andre Dawson gained election. Well, that's exactly what happened. Dawson had received more than 65 percent of the vote on each of the previous two ballots, and surged to the forefront with 77.9 percent of the vote, enough to gain admission. Though Dawson falls fairly short on the JAWS scale, his election is not a travesty, or at least not a garment-rending travesty on the order of Jim Rice's election last year. He was far from a one-dimensional player in his prime, he piled up hardware and other honors, and despite his injuries, he played into his early forties. Still, his hackstastic ways—camouflaged a bit by a higher intentional walk total than I gave him credit for in my writeup—leave him with the lowest career OBP (.323) of any enshrined outfielder, 20 points lower than the previous low man, Lou Brock. He is not, as I incorrectly claimed on a pair of radio hits yesterday, the owner of the lowest OBP of any Hall of Famer: Player OBP Bill Mazeroski .299 Joe Tinker .308 Luis Aparicio .311 Monte Ward .314 Rabbit Maranville .318 Brooks Robinson .322 Andre Dawson .323 On the other hand, Dawson now holds the distinction of owning the worst strikeout-to-unintentional-walk ratio of any Hall hitter: Player PA OBP BB IBB K K/UBB Andre Dawson 10769 .323 589 143 1509 3.38 Willie Stargell 9026 .360 937 227 1936 2.73 Lou Brock 11235 .343 761 124 1730 2.72 Roberto Clemente 10212 .359 621 167 1230 2.71 Orlando Cepeda 8695 .350 588 154 1169 2.69 Kirby Puckett 7831 .360 450 85 965 2.64 Tony Perez 10861 .341 925 150 1867 2.41 Jim Rice 9058 .352 670 77 1423 2.40 Ernie Banks 10395 .330 763 198 1236 2.19 Reggie Jackson 11416 .356 1375 164 2597 2.14 Bill Mazeroski 8379 .299 447 110 706 2.09 Carlton Fisk 9853 .341 849 105 1386 1.86 So there's that. But my point really isn't to knock the Hawk, a player whose career I enjoyed to a great degree during its day ,and one whose candidacy wasn't surrounded by the type of intellectual dishonesty that poisoned the latter-day Rice debate. I'm sure the next time I visit Cooperstown, I'll stop and give his plaque a nod. Later

G-Fafif Jan 07 2010 06:21 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

When Andre Dawson would glare in at a Mets pitcher, his bat seconds from furiously swinging and lethally connecting, I felt no fear. Sure, I thought, he might hit a homer here, but at least he isn't very likely to walk. When Dawson went deep, I was relieved because his sorry-ass on-base percentage only went up as a result of his poor batting eye. We may have lost the battle, but we won the WAR. SC Score = 77.9

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 07 2010 07:45 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Sure did make a load of outs, though, didn't he? Speaking of subjective impressions, though... I remember as a little kid being really, really annoyed by Tim Raines because he always ended up getting a hit or something, and then he wouldn't stop stealing, in a uniform that looked like my friggin' pajamas. Dawson-- and Tim Wallach-- may have been kinda scary, but Raines cheesed off 7-year-old LWFS something fierce.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 08 2010 12:40 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Deadspin presents its Worst HOF Voter of the year. Mariotti makes second runner-up; his vote's even worse in the context of his previous ballots: ... look at his bizarre statement that if someone hasn't been elected yet, they're not good enough and aren't deserving of a vote. This is also acceptable, if it's a principled stand. Yet Mariotti voted for Jim Rice last year, on his 15th try. Want to know who else he found deserving last year? Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven. First R-U is a swing-and-miss. But your winner is a doozy: Philly Daily News' own Bill Conlin. In his own words: "I voted for Tim Raines his first year of eligibility. But when he failed to get 25 percent of the vote, he was moved to the back burner. Sorry, that's just the way it has to be. Maybe more eligible ballwriters should have measured the Rock's career numbers in all phases against those of analog basestealer and first-ballot inductee Lou Brock. Try it, you'll be amazed. Good news for Raines, however. Yesterday, in one of the most bizarre elections in a bizarre process, he collected 30 percent and is now back on my radar." So... he likes him for the HOF-- and, in fact, is "amazed" by his credentials-- but leaves him off because everyone else did.

Rockin' Doc Jan 08 2010 03:16 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

There is apparently no minimum IQ required to join the BBWAA.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 08 2010 03:22 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

This one's a doozy, too

Valadius Jan 08 2010 04:42 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I was watching MLB Network online in the hours leading up to the vote announcement, and something the analysts said made a lot of sense - that because of cutbacks and changes in the newspaper industry, fewer writers get to interact and watch the players in the same fashion as they once did. However, radio and TV broadcasters see more games than anybody. Therefore, the thinking goes, the voters should include the radio and TV broadcasters. What do you all think?

A Boy Named Seo Jan 08 2010 04:56 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Games also cannot be seen when heads are shoved stubbornly up asses. Guys and gals amongst the writers shouldn't have to see every out to know one dude's better and more deserving than another. I'm sure there'd be just as many good and shitty voters amongst the TV and radio folk.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 08 2010 06:55 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Valadius wrote: I was watching MLB Network online in the hours leading up to the vote announcement, and something the analysts said made a lot of sense - that because of cutbacks and changes in the newspaper industry, fewer writers get to interact and watch the players in the same fashion as they once did. However, radio and TV broadcasters see more games than anybody. Therefore, the thinking goes, the voters should include the radio and TV broadcasters. What do you all think? Even then, those voters are missing up to 15/16 of the games going on at any given time. Would that there were some kind of unbiased numerical way to track player performance-- numbers that could be treated to normalize the effects of park and era and league-- to allow for an even, relatively objective comparison.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 08 2010 11:12 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I never saw Walter Johnson pitch in person.

G-Fafif Jan 17 2010 11:13 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Marty Noble articulates HOF voting rationale here. Now people on the radio and television who never have been around the game on a daily basis are calling for a change in the voting because this year merely 73.7 percent of 539 ballots cast included checks for Alomar. The best second baseman I ever saw received 395 votes and came closer to election than any other first-time candidate who feel short. And the ripple effect of that vote ought to be that the system be overhauled? Now I will ask the question. Are you serious? So if eight others had voted for Alomar, the system would been deemed acceptable and allowed to remain in place to determine whether Blyleven, Tim Raines, Barry Bonds, Derek Jeter and Johan Santana are Hall of Fame worthy. Eight more votes would have made all of us look so much wiser? Are you serious?

Gwreck Jan 18 2010 01:23 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I had little problem with Marty's explanation re: Alomar (that he held off a first ballot vote because he felt Alomar's actions were a disgrace to the game) but he comes off a little too defensive at times "And those who have their noses pressed against their computer screens and think VORP is a valid means of measuring a player's performance ought to get a life and a credential that would allow them to see and hear the game up close."

metirish Jan 18 2010 06:05 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I hate when writers like Conlin above use the Sorry, that's just the way it has to be. line to explain why they leave guys off....

Nymr83 Jan 18 2010 09:37 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Marty should be fired for breaking out the tired (and untrue) old writer's argument that people who use their brains (look at stats newer than batting average) must not watch enough games.

Centerfield Jan 18 2010 10:36 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Marty should also be brought to task for creating sub-levels in the Hall of Fame that do not exist. I have no problem with him excluding Alomar from the Hall for spitting at an umpire. As Marty points out, the ballot instructs the voter to consider integrity and character. If he feels that the spitting incident, and his occasional lack of motivation, is enough to keep him out of the Hall, so be it. That is why they vote. It's a subjective determination. My problem is the following: I will vote for him next year, not because I've been persuaded by the harsh outcry of those without voting privileges (and some with), but because that has been my intention since I received the last ballot. Marty fails to see that he cannot have it both ways. Either he is a Hall of Famer or he isn't. There is no "not a first-ballot" criteria, even if it's based on character, instead of accomplishments. If the spitting is not enough to keep him out of the Hall, the vote should be yes. Noble is quick to point out the instructions on the ballot, but fails to explain this arbitrary line of thinking. So what terrible wrong has been perpetrated on him by the band of fools who chose not to ignore his transgressions? He has to wait a whole year? Joe DiMaggio waited, and all he did was kick the dirt near second base when Al Gionfriddo denied him an extra base hit in the '47 World Series. There is no terrible wrong. But the DiMaggio argument demonstrates that Noble is not following instructions. And we would hope that voters for the Hall could follow simple instructions. (Instructions that Noble is aware exist) Why should Alomar be treated as Joe Morgan, Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, and Ryan Sandberg were, as Derek Jeter will be, when he has fallen short of the standards they have established/maintained? Or should we create a special corridor within the Hall for players without rap sheets? If he feels he has fallen short, he should vote no, and stick to it. But Noble says in this article that Alomar is worthy of the Hall. So he is contradicting himself. It's funny that he asks his critics if a special corridor should be built, because that is exactly what Noble is attempting to do. The Hall does not ask whether a candidate is as good as every member in the Hall, simply whether they have reached a minimum level of excellence warranting induction. Which is not to say that you can never change your mind. I have no problem with people changing their minds from year to year. I think one of the great aspects of Hall voting is that it allows candidates to stay on the ballot, which allows for a review of the player as their place in history starts to form. Player A may not seem like a Hall of Famer 5 years after retirement, but looking back 15 years later, with a new perspective, it may be that he looks much better. But that is not what Noble is doing here. He is deliberately voting against a candidate that he admits is Hall-worthy based upon arbitrary, self-created criteria. Forty years around the game, you would hope he understood the criteria on which players are to be judged, and respected his privilege enough that he would follow instructions.

Edgy DC Jan 18 2010 10:51 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Centerfield wrote: Forty years around the game, you would hope he understood the criteria on which players are to be judged, and respected his privilege enough that he would follow instructions. I think it's more likely that his forty years in the game leads him to follow (and sadly, defend) the tradtions of voting that he inherited from his predecessors, which include resisting voting for any but the very best players in their first year of HOF eligibility, and resisting voting for pitchers in MVP competition. His position, while incorrect, is nonetheless the culturally conservative one. No shock that old guys defend it.

Centerfield Jan 18 2010 11:09 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Absolutely. And I understand the degree of difficulty in asking people to change how things that are done, especially in a "that's the way it's always been" arena like baseball. But it's a shame that intelligent writers out there like Noble fall into these traps.

G-Fafif Jan 18 2010 12:16 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Fundamentally, Marty is right about the act of voting. It's his vote. He checked off the players he thought deserved to go in this time and didn't check off the others. All are free to disagree with his choices and methodology, but what got me in the aftermath of the HOF announcement was the level of offense taken (not just with Marty but with others who didn't vote for the guys who came close). I listened to him on XM and saw him on MLB Network wherein he was asked "why, Marty?" He told them. And the responses were, essentially, "No, your opinion is wrong." So why'dya ask him if all you were going to do was tell him not going along with their decision was a terrible mistake? Shoot, just prescreen all voters to make sure they're going to go along with the preferred decision and give only approved voters ballots.

Centerfield Jan 18 2010 12:55 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

On what point is Marty right? I have no idea what the critics were complaining about, or how that discussion went, but if they were upset that Noble didn't vote for Alomar, they should be. Noble, himself, admits that Alomar is worthy of Hall induction. If that is the case, he should have voted for him. When Noble fails to vote for a candidate he feels is worthy, he has strayed from the Hall's instruction to the player's detriment. Alomar, or his fans, have a right to be angry. It's not as if he didn't feel Alomar didn't belong. I mean, if Marty really felt that Alomar felt short, that's his opinion. Neither Roberto nor Blyleven are in that "no-brainer" category. I think you can make a justifiable argument that he isn't good enough. But that isn't the case here. He voted no based on his own made-up criteria. As Edgy said, it's certainly understandable why he votes that way. But if he's challenged, I really wish he'd take a look at himself and realize what he was doing.

G-Fafif Jan 18 2010 01:42 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Marty is right that he gets a vote and he can use it as he sees fit. He considered the names on the ballot, he chose the names he thought were worthy in this election, he opted to forego the others. The reasoning for his votes may have sprung from contradictory beliefs -- Alomar was a great second baseman; Alomar's behavior was an affront to the game -- but he made a decision to which he's entitled and he shared his reasoning, no matter how sound or how addled it may have come off. Noble isn't doing himself (or the Hall) any favors by dismissing different ways to measure a baseball player's effectiveness. Those who promote different ways to measure a baseball player's effectiveness aren't doing themselves (or the Hall) any favors by dismissing the perspective of someone who doesn't automatically go along with their thinking or conclusions. All criteria beyond "played ten years, retired five years" and whatever else it says when they send out the ballots is made up. It's up to each of the voters to decide why someone's a Hall of Famer in a given election. Marty Noble saw a Hall of Famer in Barry Larkin. Somebody else who voted for Larkin may have done it for different reasons from Noble. Somebody who didn't vote for him may have applied the same standard as Noble but decided Larkin didn't meet it.

Frayed Knot Jan 18 2010 02:06 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Plus I think Noble's larger point is that just because you disagree with the outcome, or even with some elements of how the outcome was reached, that shouldn't necessarily send out a call to blow up the entire process - and, this year in particular, seems to have generated an awful lot of noise about doing just that.

Edgy DC Jan 18 2010 06:11 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I certainly agree with that. The funny thing is that --- Dawson aside --- for all the contempt expressed for individual members of the BBWAA --- as a body, they've more or less done the job well.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 18 2010 09:25 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Woody Paige votes for those who'll be nice to him and remember his name, as do a number of others. Mariotti does... what he does. And dozens of other writers retired from baseball may or may not follow, much less cover, baseball at all during the tenure of the players they vote up or down (which is, after all, the entire justification for their expertise in the matter, no?). The gub'ment takes away voting rights from felons. Why doesn't the BBWAA take away voting privileges from those who've proven themselves unfit to hold them... and publicly, pridefully announced it?

Edgy DC Jan 19 2010 08:49 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Voting aside, that's a heck of an indictment from Noble. His performance when the Mets played in his homeland of Puerto Rico early in '03 showed he hadn't lost his skills. Those four games in San Juan showed he still was a terrific second baseman. He showed little of his once-remarkable flair for the game in the games that followed and preceded his trade to the White Sox on July 1 that year. His manager with the Mets, Art Howe, was befuddled by the player he inherited. The staff was stunned by Alomar's effort. One coach contacted Alomar's father, Sandy, and urged him to have a talk with his son. Teammates wondered which Robbie would show up for a given game. Of course, I would've loved to have seen him pound out some features on this back in 2002-2003. Maybe he did and I misremember.

Centerfield Jan 19 2010 09:18 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

G-Fafif wrote: Marty is right that he gets a vote and he can use it as he sees fit. He considered the names on the ballot, he chose the names he thought were worthy in this election, he opted to forego the others. The reasoning for his votes may have sprung from contradictory beliefs -- Alomar was a great second baseman; Alomar's behavior was an affront to the game -- but he made a decision to which he's entitled and he shared his reasoning, no matter how sound or how addled it may have come off. Noble isn't doing himself (or the Hall) any favors by dismissing different ways to measure a baseball player's effectiveness. Those who promote different ways to measure a baseball player's effectiveness aren't doing themselves (or the Hall) any favors by dismissing the perspective of someone who doesn't automatically go along with their thinking or conclusions. All criteria beyond "played ten years, retired five years" and whatever else it says when they send out the ballots is made up. It's up to each of the voters to decide why someone's a Hall of Famer in a given election. Marty Noble saw a Hall of Famer in Barry Larkin. Somebody else who voted for Larkin may have done it for different reasons from Noble. Somebody who didn't vote for him may have applied the same standard as Noble but decided Larkin didn't meet it. We are going to have to agree to disagree here. I think there is a huge distinction to be made between declining to vote for someone because you don't think they are Hall-worthy (acceptable) and declining to vote for someone despite the fact that you acknowledge that they are Hall-worthy. All of this "he's not a first-ballot guy but I'll vote for him next year because he belongs" crap, whether based on accomplishments or character, is completely arbitrary. It is outside the instructions given by the Hall, and it is for that reason that I think people who complain about Noble's logic are justified. To illustrate this, think of a scenario where I, a baseball writer, instead of instituting Noble's criteria, decided I am not going to vote for players whose names start with "A" their first time around. Be it Alomar or Aaron, no "A" people get my vote that first year. Imagine further that I explained, when challenged, that I fully acknowledge that Alomar should get in the Hall, but his name starts with A, so he'll have to wait until next year. It would be maddening to Alomar supporters to hear such randomness. My logic would be no more justifiable than Noble's. Both Marty and I weighed the criteria set forth by the Hall (character, record, etc.) and determined Alomar was worthy. Both Marty and I declined to vote for him, despite this worthiness, based on criteria not delineated by the Hall (Letter A, not as classy as DiMaggio). Both Marty and I intend to vote for him next year, so we ask, "What's the harm?" Plenty I say. As to FK's point, I do think it's dumb to overreact and blow up the process. I'm with Marty on that. But I would like for him to realize that random criteria, like his, are one of the best arguments that can be given to support that argument.

Edgy DC Jan 27 2010 10:43 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

And Dawson will join Gary Carter as a Hall of Famer with a big curly M on his hat.

Fman99 Jan 27 2010 10:45 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I remember as a kid trying to figure out what the letters JL had to do with Montreal or Expos. Stupid logo.

Edgy DC Jan 27 2010 10:46 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I think it's great. I think Washington should occasionally take the field with old Montreal uniforms with the M inverted to become a W.

metirish Jan 27 2010 10:51 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I like it a lot , Dawson for what it's worth wanted to wear a Cubs cap. "The Hall clearly stated their major concern is the history of the game, and that's what really played into their decision," Dawson said. "I'm disappointed. I can probably say that, because Chicago was my preference. .

Edgy DC Jan 27 2010 10:54 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Carter felt the same way. Their post-career careers largely based on their associations with the still-extant franchises that they moved on to, and they prefer to see that association underscored whenever possible. There's comparatively not much money in the fanbase of a dead team.

metirish Jan 27 2010 10:58 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

yeah of course , Dawson should take a cue from Carter on how not to alienate your favored team .

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 27 2010 11:11 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Edgy DC wrote: And Dawson will join Gary Carter as a Hall of Famer with a big curly M on his hat. A nation of baseball purists pumps its fists. 3 million Montrealites shrug, and go back to their Galoises and crepes.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 27 2010 11:12 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Fman99 wrote: I remember as a kid trying to figure out what the letters JL had to do with Montreal or Expos. Stupid logo. That's funny. I always saw it as "elb"

Benjamin Grimm Jan 27 2010 11:14 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Edgy DC wrote: I think it's great. I think Washington should occasionally take the field with old Montreal uniforms with the M inverted to become a W. I like that idea. I remember thinking something similar back when we were waiting for the Nationals to unveil their uniforms for the 2005 season. I think that logo is too funny-looking to use every day, but it would make for a nice alternate.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 27 2010 11:30 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Fman99 wrote: I remember as a kid trying to figure out what the letters JL had to do with Montreal or Expos. Stupid logo. That's funny. I always saw it as "elb" Same here -- exactly. I had even decided to myself that the "elb" logo stood for Expos League de Baseball. That's French for Americans. I didn't figure out that the logo was an "M" until adulthood. That Expos logo was never explained to me when I was young -- not by the Mets announcers, The Sporting News, Baseball Digest or anything. If anybody ever did, I would've caught it because I devoured baseball as a kid.

Nymr83 Jan 27 2010 11:31 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Fman99 wrote: I remember as a kid trying to figure out what the letters JL had to do with Montreal or Expos. Stupid logo. i always thought it said "ELB" (try turning each color in the logo into its own letter). idiot canadians.

Edgy DC Jan 27 2010 11:36 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Well, I think it's excellent.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 27 2010 11:40 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I always hated that curly M thing, but now it looks kitchy-retro-iconic and I wouldn't mind seeing it again. If Montreal ever returns to the International League, they should revive that logo. (By the way, if they had consulted my six-year-old self back in 1969, I would have told them to name the Montreal franchise the "Royals" and to call the Kansas City team the "Monarchs.")

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 27 2010 11:44 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I like it, too. But it's VERY mid-70s Children's Television Workshop. (Count me among the "elb" crowd. I still have to remind myself that it's an "M.")

Edgy DC Jan 27 2010 11:56 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I always hated that curly M thing, but now it looks kitchy-retro-iconic and I wouldn't mind seeing it again. If Montreal ever returns to the International League, they should revive that logo. (By the way, if they had consulted my six-year-old self back in 1969, I would have told them to name the Montreal franchise the "Royals" and to call the Kansas City team the "Monarchs.") They wanted to --- in part to suck up to O'Malley, who was on the expansion committee and was instrumental in bringing the earlier Royals into being --- but the KC Royals beat them to the nickname.

Frayed Knot Jan 27 2010 11:58 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Fman99 wrote: I remember as a kid trying to figure out what the letters JL had to do with Montreal or Expos. Stupid logo. That's funny. I always saw it as "elb" Same here -- exactly. I had even decided to myself that the "elb" logo stood for Expos League de Baseball. That's French for Americans. I didn't figure out that the logo was an "M" until adulthood. That Expos logo was never explained to me when I was young -- not by the Mets announcers, The Sporting News, Baseball Digest or anything. If anybody ever did, I would've caught it because I devoured baseball as a kid. I'm in the ELB crowd too - but at one point I had heard that that wasn't really a coincidence, that the logo was designed to do double-duty as both an M and as an abbreviation for 'Expos League de Baseball' (or something similar) so as to work in the French culture of the city. I guess calling them the 'Les Expos de la Ile du Mont Real' took up too much room.

Edgy DC Jan 27 2010 12:28 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

It's definitely intentional, though intentionally standing for what isn't clear. One theory is that ejb stands for Elizabeth J. Bronfman, alleged daughter of 'Pos owner/chairman Charles Bronfman.

Valadius Jan 27 2010 09:25 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

According to the 1997 Expos Media Guide, the "e" stands for Expos and the "b" stands for baseball. It's unclear what the other part stands for.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 25 2010 11:52 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Along with Dawson, Whitey Herzog, and ump Doug Harvey, John Fogerty's "Centerfield" will go into the HOF this summer. The real surprise? This is apparently the first time any musician or song has been celebrated as a part of the festivities/officially inducted. Whither "Take Me Out To The Ballgame?" (Or "MtM?")

Centerfield May 25 2010 11:59 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: "Centerfield" will go into the HOF this summer Thank you. Thank you. No it's really no big deal, but thank you. By the way, my wife is planning a HOF party. That's right, same caterer as Gary Carter. Thank you.

seawolf17 May 25 2010 12:02 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Centerfield wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: "Centerfield" will go into the HOF this summer Thank you. Thank you. No it's really no big deal, but thank you. By the way, my wife is planning a HOF party. That's right, same caterer as Gary Carter. Thank you. Well, that's what happens when you let all the Latvian journalists into the BBWAA.

Benjamin Grimm May 25 2010 12:10 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

This reminds me of a doubly wrong trivia question that I used to hear a lot. (Both its question and answer are wrong.) Q: Who are the only non-players in the Baseball Hall of Fame? A. Abbott and Costello.

Gwreck May 25 2010 12:39 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: The real surprise? This is apparently the first time any musician or song has been celebrated as a part of the festivities/officially inducted. Whither "Take Me Out To The Ballgame?" (Or "MtM?") The real surprise is that they are honoring this song in the first place. I fully maintain that "Centerfield" is the worst rock and roll song of all time. I had the opportunity to see Fogerty at an otherwise very special series of concerts several years back and the experience was nearly ruined by him playing that godawful song on a ridiculous baseball-bat shaped guitar.

themetfairy May 25 2010 12:44 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Gwreck wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: The real surprise? This is apparently the first time any musician or song has been celebrated as a part of the festivities/officially inducted. Whither "Take Me Out To The Ballgame?" (Or "MtM?") The real surprise is that they are honoring this song in the first place. I fully maintain that "Centerfield" is the worst rock and roll song of all time. I had the opportunity to see Fogerty at an otherwise very special series of concerts several years back and the experience was nearly ruined by him playing that godawful song on a ridiculous baseball-bat shaped guitar. It's one of those songs that benefited from the music video era - those old clips are still fun to watch.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 25 2010 12:56 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

Gwreck wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: The real surprise? This is apparently the first time any musician or song has been celebrated as a part of the festivities/officially inducted. Whither "Take Me Out To The Ballgame?" (Or "MtM?") The real surprise is that they are honoring this song in the first place. I fully maintain that "Centerfield" is the worst rock and roll song of all time. I had the opportunity to see Fogerty at an otherwise very special series of concerts several years back and the experience was nearly ruined by him playing that godawful song on a ridiculous baseball-bat shaped guitar. Always seemed like harmless, medium-crappy pap to me, or at least, not anywhere near WorstSongEverVille. I held no ill will against it, until the baseball stadiums of the country forced it into my ears over and over (same with "Rock and Roll Part II," which I remember loving as a kid). So, yeah, I'm closer to your opinion than to theirs. But am I surprised it's going in? Dude, it's going in on the same day as Andre Dawson; I don't expect sober, clear-headed judgement out of this crowd.

Frayed Knot May 25 2010 01:26 PM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

It's one of those songs that benefited from the music video era The problem is that music didn't benefit from the music video era.

Willets Point May 26 2010 07:59 AM Re: It's Dawson. Just Dawson

I entered the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1997 myself. I entered it again in 2006.