Master Index of Archived Threads


Last chance to vote down Garvey

Edgy DC Nov 27 2006 11:34 AM

Players on the Hall of Fame Ballot (Years on Ballot) • Harold Baines (1) • Albert Belle (2) • Dante Bichette (1) • Bert Blyleven (10) • Bobby Bonilla (1)* • Scott Brosius (1) • Jay Buhner (1) • Ken Caminiti (1) • Jose Canseco (1) • Dave Concepcion (14) • Eric Davis (1) • Andre Dawson (6) • Tony Fernandez (1)* • Steve Garvey (15) • Rich Gossage (8) • Tony Gwynn (1) • Orel Hershiser (2)* • Tommy John (13) • Wally Joyner (1) • Don Mattingly (7) • Mark McGwire (1) • Jack Morris (8) • Dale Murphy (9) • Paul O'Neill (1) • Dave Parker (11) • Jim Rice (13) • Cal Ripken (1) • Bret Saberhagen (1)* • Lee Smith (5) • Alan Trammell (6) • Devon White (1) • Bobby Witt (1) * Former Met

metirish Nov 27 2006 11:35 AM

Mark McGwire will make for an interesting case.

Edgy DC Nov 27 2006 11:38 AM

There's got to be a dozen interesting cases there. McGwire's will be a pip. How many big-leaguers do you think are still juicing but are successfully screening? A vote for him pretty much tells them it's OK, doesn't it?

metirish Nov 27 2006 11:39 AM

Yes,and I htink some writers will look at this as the steroid era and vote for him.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 27 2006 11:42 AM

They really oughta elect Sadaharu Oh. As usual, I'm OK with Blyleven. Goose too, prolly. Rice and Belle are two surly guys who won't get in but deserve more serious consideration than just about anyone else on the list.

DocTee Nov 27 2006 11:50 AM

Blyleven for sure...though I don't really like his recent campaigning.

Edgy DC Nov 27 2006 11:52 AM

Negro Leagues aside, I think they're very particular about keeping the Hall of Fame a Major League thing. Japanese ball and chick ball and minor-league ball will get into exhibits, but not onto the plaques. Ripken and Gwynn will be dramatic and automatic. I've sort of come to hate the Commissioner's Award for Outstanding Performance in the Field of Excellence or whatever it is that they stop the All-Star Game for, and those two I think were the ones they debuted it for. I guess it's pretty much a knighting thing. If you get a CAfOPitFoE, you're a first-ballot guy.

metirish Nov 27 2006 11:53 AM

See is what I don't like about the voting process,Belle being a surly bollox should have nothing to do with it, plenty of worse types are in.

Edgy DC Nov 27 2006 11:56 AM

No doubt plenty of worse types are in, but the instructions explictly state, "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." That doesn't mean nebulous things like integrity and bolloxness should be automatic qualifieres and/or disqualifiers, but it's supposed to be part of the question.

TheOldMole Nov 27 2006 12:06 PM

This should be the year that Jim Rice gets his deserved enshrinement.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 27 2006 12:44 PM

I'll argue here that Japanese ball is a different thing than minor league ball and chick ball. Soon enough the Nomos (out) and Ichiros (in, probably) will force HOF voters to confront the whole Japanese question, and there's no question in my mind that Bobby V, Bud and MasterCard and other official MLB sponsors will globablize the whole magilla. And when they do, they'd be blind not to see Oh's credentials as Hallworthy.

metirish Nov 27 2006 12:46 PM

IIRC Seaver is a huge fan of Oh's ,that would help his cause I think.

Nymr83 Nov 27 2006 12:51 PM

TheOldMole wrote: This should be the year that Jim Rice gets his deserved enshrinement. i disagree, with Ripken and Gwynn shoe-ins, McGwire on the ballot, and Blyleven and Gossage all ready to get dissed again theres just too much going on for Rice. Rice (and Blyleven/Gossage) need a year with no 1st ballot guys because like it or not there are plenty of voters who feel the need to vote for somebody but also feel the need not to vote for too many guys at once,

Edgy DC Nov 27 2006 12:55 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I'll argue here that Japanese ball is a different thing than minor league ball and chick ball. And you're right, but the National Baseball Hall of Fame is different from some other sports in the level of control MLB has over the thing and I think they want to keep their label flying high. (The basketballl Hall of Fame, for instance, honors NBA players and coaches side-by-side with female players, college coaches, foreign players and Globetrotters who never played a minute in the NBA.) I'd love to see Oh go, but I think they have to wrestle with a few values first.

Vic Sage Nov 27 2006 01:10 PM

[u:c5f181622c]1st Ballot HOF:[/u:c5f181622c] • Cal Ripken (1) • Tony Gwynn (1) [u:c5f181622c]its about time:[/u:c5f181622c] • Rich Gossage (8) • Bert Blyleven (10) • Jim Rice (13) [u:c5f181622c]on the fence:[/u:c5f181622c] • Dave Parker (11) • Andre Dawson (6) • Mark McGwire (1) • Dale Murphy (9) • Alan Trammell (6) [u:c5f181622c]probably not:[/u:c5f181622c] • Steve Garvey (15) • Jack Morris (8) • Albert Belle (2) (Had a high peak, but lacked longevity. no defense and no intangibles on his side, either.) • Lee Smith (5) [u:c5f181622c]No, but keep them on the ballot:[/u:c5f181622c] - Harold Baines (1) • Jose Canseco (1) • Dave Concepcion (14) • Orel Hershiser (2)* • Tommy John (13) • Don Mattingly (7) [u:c5f181622c]one and done:[/u:c5f181622c] • Dante Bichette (1) • Bobby Bonilla (1)* • Scott Brosius (1) • Jay Buhner (1) • Ken Caminiti (1) • Eric Davis (1) • Tony Fernandez (1)* • Wally Joyner (1) • Paul O'Neill (1) • Bret Saberhagen (1)* • Devon White (1) • Bobby Witt (1)

Edgy DC Nov 27 2006 01:20 PM

of course, the only way to keep people on the ballot is to vote for them. That's one of the reasons why I don't go for the idea that a player's case is closed because "the writers had 15 chances to vote him in, and didn't." The implication is that 15 opportunities is pathetic, when it's in fact far better than the multitudes who fell off the ballot after a year. He got 15 chances because of support for his enshrinement.

Mr. Zero Nov 27 2006 01:39 PM

a case for OH (though not, I don't think, THE case for Oh). http://baseballguru.com/ctomarkin/analysisctomarkin07.html

Johnny Dickshot Nov 27 2006 01:58 PM

Frank Howard telling it like it is: ] “You can kiss my ass if he wouldn’t have hit 30 or 35 home runs a year and hit anywhere from .280 to .320 and drive in up to 120 runs a year.

Edgy DC Nov 27 2006 02:10 PM

Dykstra.

Vic Sage Nov 27 2006 02:35 PM

Are you free associating?

Edgy DC Nov 27 2006 02:39 PM

Dickshot just hit Dykstra level.

MFS62 Nov 27 2006 09:39 PM

I have this feeling (although I'm hoping I'm wrong) that Paul O'Neill will have longer staying power than "one and done". The voters will look at his over .300 Yankee career BA and forget those 3,500 or so NL at bats when he hit around .265. After all, he WAS a Yankee. I remember when Bill Veeck signed a teenager named Harold Baines, he dubbed him "Hall of Fame" Baines. He will be the first real test case of how much import the voters place on his being mainly a DH for his career. If he had played the field as a regular, his numbers were good enough to get him more than just a few votes. Later

metirish Nov 27 2006 09:41 PM

O'Neill has no hope at the HOF..maybe monument park....

Johnny Dickshot Nov 27 2006 09:47 PM

Baines went in the 1977 draft, Veeck had scouted him as a 14-year-old because he grew up in Easton, Md., not far from Veeck's home before he owned the Sox. Other 1977 drfatees: Wally Backman (1st round) and Mookie Wilson (2nd round).

Edgy DC Nov 27 2006 09:47 PM

I don't really care who lasts one year or who lasts four.

Frayed Knot Nov 27 2006 11:36 PM

- I'd be happy enough to see just Gwynn & Ripken get in this year - I once listened to an entire afternoon of phone calls to talk radio from Yanqui fans arguing that Barry Bonds (pre public steroid outings) shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Paul O'Neill; the whole clutch thing don't you know.

Gwreck Nov 28 2006 01:47 AM

I suspect the McGwire arguments will get pretty loud (and repetitive) soon but he's clearly a first-ballot hall-of-famer too. The steroids thing is just stupid at this point. Was he caught? No. If McGwire doesn't get in, I guess that means Gaylord Perry gets kicked out.

iramets Nov 28 2006 03:05 AM

TheOldMole wrote: This should be the year that Jim Rice gets his deserved enshrinement. "What comes out of a Chinaman's ass?" "Rice, Rice, Rice, Rice!" (old chant at UTexas/Rice football games).

cleonjones11 Nov 28 2006 07:09 AM

Gwynn, Ripken and Dawson Whoever doe these things Jim Kaat before Blyleven Rice=Parker nyet

metirish Nov 28 2006 10:55 AM

The real reason why Wally is a journalist.... ] Me vote for Big Mac? Hall, no! Now writers have power: Delete him November 28, 2006 At this stage of my life, the arrival of the mailman generally means bad news, but starting Friday, I will be waiting by the mailbox like a kid on his birthday. Any day after that, my Hall of Fame ballot will arrive in the mail, and this year, I wouldn't miss filling it out for the world. Or should I say not filling it out? Cal Ripken Jr. will get a vote, and so, I believe, will Tony Gwynn. I'll vote for Jim Rice, as I always do, and maybe Jack Morris. I might even break down and vote for Don Mattingly, even though he falls just a tad short of the generally accepted standards because of his chronically cranky back. But the real reason I am looking forward to this year's ballot is more for the name I will not be writing down than for those I will. Under no circumstances will the name "Mark McGwire" appear on my Hall of Fame ballot, and I'm hoping that at least 96 percent of my comrades in the Baseball Writers Association of America think the same way. That would mean that not only would McGwire not get to take his 583 tainted home runs to Cooperstown next year, but that his name would come off the ballot, never to reappear until some future Veterans Committee, probably made up of some of the guys he shared a chemist with, try to backdoor him into the Hall. At that point, it's out of my hands. But for now, and until Newsday follows the lead of The New York Times and some other papers in prohibiting its writers from voting for the Hall of Fame, it is my obligation to do the right thing for a sport that refuses to do right by itself or its history. A general rule of thumb in voting for a Hall of Fame is the sniff test. If it doesn't smell immediately like a Cooperstown-quality career, it probably isn't. McGwire's career smells like a lot of things, none of them good. It doesn't matter to me that he never failed a drug test, because in baseball's wink-wink drug policy, there was no test to fail. Nor does it matter that at the time McGwire "admitted" to using androstenedione, the substance was not on baseball's banned list. All I know is, the guy was Dave Kingman until 1998, King Kong afterward. Anything he did from 1998 on, I have to suspect, was aided, if not caused, by performance-enhancing drugs. That doesn't smell right to me. In fact, it stinks. At the time, a lot of us suspected McGwire, but shamefully, few wrote about it, out of naivete or worse, getting caught up in baseball's manufactured feel-good Summer of '98. Some guys even wrote books about it without once mentioning the word "steroids." Those of us who did were branded party-poopers, witch-hunters, mudslingers. It is not satisfaction enough to know we were right. Now is the time to slam that pitch too many of us fouled off or looked at eight years ago. In a way, it's easy to leave McGwire off this year's ballot; it boasts so many more deserving candidates. Next year will be more of a test, when the only real new blood in the race will be David Justice, Tim Raines and Shawon Dunston, a Hall of Fame good guy. But that doesn't matter, either. I wouldn't vote for McGwire if the only other candidates on the ballot were the Seven Dwarfs. To honor McGwire is to dishonor Roger Maris and Frank Robinson and Harmon Killebrew and Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Schmidt and Mickey Mantle and everyone else who hit their home runs using pine tar and real, not manufactured, muscle. In five or six years, it will be the same story with Barry Bonds, who already has been allowed to spit on Willie Mays and Babe Ruth and by then may even have besmirched Hank Aaron. But at least in Bonds' case, his pre-steroid era numbers are good enough to warrant serious consideration. If only I could cast half a vote for Natural Bonds and deduct half for Bionic Barry. But that's a quandary for another day. Next week, the problem will be McGwire, and for me it is no problem at all. I went into journalism with the idealistic belief that somehow I could change things, that I could expose the bad guys and elevate the good guys. Over the years, I have learned it often is just beating your fists against a steel door. However, we must continue to try. Leaving McGwire off a Hall of Fame ballot is my try. If enough guys feel the same way, that steel door will finally come down.

seawolf17 Nov 28 2006 11:02 AM

Yes • Bert Blyleven (10) • Andre Dawson (6) • Rich Gossage (8) • Tony Gwynn (1) • Jack Morris (8) • Dale Murphy (9) • Jim Rice (13) • Cal Ripken (1) No • Harold Baines (1) • Albert Belle (2) • Dante Bichette (1) • Bobby Bonilla (1)* • Scott Brosius (1) • Jay Buhner (1) • Ken Caminiti (1) • Jose Canseco (1) • Dave Concepcion (14) • Eric Davis (1) • Tony Fernandez (1)* • Steve Garvey (15) • Orel Hershiser (2)* • Tommy John (13) • Wally Joyner (1) • Don Mattingly (7) • Mark McGwire (1) • Paul O'Neill (1) • Dave Parker (11) • Bret Saberhagen (1)* • Lee Smith (5) • Alan Trammell (6) • Devon White (1) • Bobby Witt (1)

Edgy DC Nov 28 2006 11:46 AM

Gwreck wrote: I suspect the McGwire arguments will get pretty loud (and repetitive) soon but he's clearly a first-ballot hall-of-famer too. The steroids thing is just stupid at this point. Was he caught? No. If McGwire doesn't get in, I guess that means Gaylord Perry gets kicked out. Sheesh. If refusing to answer direct questions before Congress isn't as damning as a positive test, I don't know what is.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 28 2006 12:28 PM

So are we all agreed Oh must go (to Cooperstown)? (on a plaque?)

Edgy DC Nov 28 2006 12:39 PM

Sure but... does that mean every Japanaese player better than Tony Oiva goes with him? I imagine at least a dozen Japanese players who never got a chance to play in MLB would've been so good if given a chance.

Edgy DC Nov 28 2006 12:50 PM

My ballot: Bert Blyleven Rich Gossage Tony Gwynn Cal Ripken Alan Trammell Guys I'm still thinking about, roughly in the order I'm thinking about them: Andre Dawson Dave Parker Jim Rice Tommy John Orel Hershiser Dave Concepcion

metirish Nov 28 2006 12:58 PM

What sucks about the McGwire thing(and he sucks the most) is that a lot of the writers that are now killing him and won't vote for him turned a blind eye toward the steroid question in 1998,his performence before congress was disgraceful,but why weren't more of his peers called in,Piazza,Bonds,A-Rod and I-Rod......how many of those guys would have hemmed and hawed under oath?

Edgy DC Nov 28 2006 01:02 PM

Totally valid point. Let's subpoena them.

sharpie Nov 28 2006 01:07 PM

My ballot: Gwynn, Ripken, McGwire, Gossage. I might be swayed by Blyleven.

Vic Sage Nov 28 2006 01:19 PM

[u:3e90f92855]My ballot: [/u:3e90f92855] Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, Gossage [u:3e90f92855]on the fence: [/u:3e90f92855] Bert Blyleven, Jim Rice [u:3e90f92855]Close, but no cigar (for various reasons):[/u:3e90f92855]Dave Parker, Andre Dawson, Mark McGwire, Dale Murphy, Alan Trammell, Jack Morris

metsmarathon Nov 28 2006 01:38 PM

hey, we should have our own hall of fame vote thingy!

metirish Nov 28 2006 01:44 PM

Yeah,cool idea...make up a table.....

Willets Point Nov 28 2006 02:00 PM

The main reason I don't see Japanese league players being inducted is because the official name is the National Baseball Hall of Fame which implies that it is the Hall of Fame for this nation alone. Thus only players who are from the US or play in the US are going to be inducted.

metirish Nov 28 2006 02:03 PM

Willets Point wrote: The main reason I don't see Japanese league players being inducted is because the official name is the National Baseball Hall of Fame which implies that it is the Hall of Fame for this nation alone. Thus only players who are from the US or play in the US are going to be inducted. such an insular country....change the bloody name.....

Willets Point Nov 28 2006 02:11 PM

No more insular than Canada or Japan (for example). You'll notice that Babe Ruth (nor any other gaijin) is not in the Japanese Hall of Fame even if it could be argued that his tours in Japan helped popularize the sport there. In a sense, I think it would be arrogant for the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown to just declare themselves the worldwide Hall of Fame. I think it would be better to start an International Baseball Hall of Fame or work things out with baseball federations worldwide first.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 28 2006 02:45 PM

Frank O'Doul, an American who brought a touring team to Japan in the 1940s is in the JBHoF. Horace Wilson, the American teacher who was the Johnny Appleseed of Jball is too. Wally Yonamine, a Hawiian, is enshrined. So is that Russian pitcher. Like I said Ichiro is going to force the NBHoF (national meaning national, not American necessarily) to confront how to recognize Asian professionals and by then I'd be surprised if ties between the pro leagues weren't a lot closer than they are now. Oh oughta be a shoo-in.

Edgy DC Nov 28 2006 02:55 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Frank O'Doul, an American who brought a touring team to Japan in the 1940s is in the JBHoF. Horace Wilson, the American teacher who was the Johnny Appleseed of Jball is too. Wally Yonamine, a Hawiian, is enshrined. So is that Russian pitcher. These are enshrined presumably for their contributions to the Japan game. Are Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and Walter Johnson enshrined? Your points are valid, but there would still have to be a reconceptualizing. I don't think the current concept allows Oh in. That said, they've reconceptualized before.

Centerfield Nov 28 2006 03:01 PM

Mine seems to be the minority opinion around here, but I think every writer should vote for McGwire. It is one thing to deny someone the hall for bad character. It is another entirely to deny someone based upon suspicion of bad character. He has never failed a test and there has been no credible evidence he used steroids. If he had been caught, then I would understand a writer withholding his vote...but since he wasn't caught, I don't think it's justified that a writer withholds simply because he thinks McGwire cheated. Now, I understand that his answers before Congress were pretty damning...but those crappy answers are no where near enough to establish him as a cheater. He could have answered that way for a number of reasons...it could have been just bad advice from his lawyer. But the reason that shouldn't come into play is only a select few were required to testify. Ripken wasn't asked about steroids. Neither was Gwynn. Do we really know they didn't use? How? Is it fair to penalize McGwire for his answers when the others weren't even asked the question? We go down a slippery slope here. What if a player denies using steroids but a writer doesn't find his testimonial convincing. Should that writer be allowed to reach the conclusion he used and therefore deem him unworthy of the Hall? Baseball needs to take responsibility here and find out who cheated and who didn't. And if it's impossible to establish that now, then we have to assume everyone is clean. Otherwise this turns into Salem.

metirish Nov 28 2006 03:06 PM

I'm with you CF,that's the best argument for McGwire I have read yet...wish I had written it....

Johnny Dickshot Nov 28 2006 03:14 PM

Edgy DC wrote: ="Johnny Dickshot"]Frank O'Doul, an American who brought a touring team to Japan in the 1940s is in the JBHoF. Horace Wilson, the American teacher who was the Johnny Appleseed of Jball is too. Wally Yonamine, a Hawiian, is enshrined. So is that Russian pitcher. These are enshrined presumably for their contributions to the Japan game. Are Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and Walter Johnson enshrined? Your points are valid, but there would still have to be a reconceptualizing. I don't think the current concept allows Oh in. That said, they've reconceptualized before. I was responding to the assertion above that no gaijin are enshrined in Japan. Of course they made contributions. And my argument is all about reconceptualizing. I just don't see how Oh and Josh Gibson are all that different other thasn the continents they played on. Both played professionally at the highest level they could play, more or less, and were the best at their level.

Mr. Zero Nov 28 2006 03:15 PM

I think the case for Oh might work if he is presented as some kind of cultural emmisary, who eventually paved the way for Ichiro et al . His numbers are so extraordinary that if he were even 2/3s the player in the US as he was in Japan he'd stll be a lock. I may be mistaken but aren't there Cuban nationals in the HOF? Martin Dihigo?

ScarletKnight41 Nov 28 2006 03:17 PM

Centerfield wrote: Is it fair to penalize McGwire for his answers when the others weren't even asked the question? That is an excellent point.

Edgy DC Nov 28 2006 03:34 PM

Centerfield wrote: Mine seems to be the minority opinion around here, but I think every writer should vote for McGwire. 'Cept those who don't think his legacy holds up. Centerfield wrote: He has never failed a test and there has been no credible evidence he used steroids. You're a better lawyer than I am, but I think the evidence is credible. Centerfield wrote: Is it fair to penalize McGwire for his answers when the others weren't even asked the question? Sure. What legal principle says we toss out what we found on one guy because others weren't searched? Centerfield wrote: We go down a slippery slope here. What if a player denies using steroids but a writer doesn't find his testimonial convincing. Should that writer be allowed to reach the conclusion he used and therefore deem him unworthy of the Hall? Why not? They're asked to do this because of their perspective and judgment. Let them exercise it. I imagine their standard of criedibility will be pretty high. Centerfield wrote: Baseball needs to take responsibility here and find out who cheated and who didn't. And if it's impossible to establish that now, then we have to assume everyone is clean. Setting a standard nobody can reach so we wash our hands of it. And it's absolutely possible to build credible cases that some have cheated, and has been done. Everybody else, naturally, gets the benefit of the doubt. It's silly to suggest that, if we can't prove everybody's guilt one way or the other, we throw out the evidence against anybody. Centerfield wrote: Otherwise this turns into Salem. No it doesn't.

Centerfield Nov 28 2006 03:38 PM

] I went into journalism with the idealistic belief that somehow I could change things, that I could expose the bad guys and elevate the good guys. Over the years, I have learned it often is just beating your fists against a steel door. However, we must continue to try. Lines like this from Wallace Matthews really get under my skin. It is a wonder one can be in journalism for as long as he has been and still not understand the difference between what he set out to do and what he is doing. If Wally really wants to "expose the bad guys", how about some investigative journalism. How about digging around, finding out what really went down, expose the whole steroid phenomenon and make baseball deal with it. Report some facts, some substance, something we can view objectively and conclude "Wow, McGwire used steroids." What Wally is doing is sitting back, spouting an unsupported opinion, and then attempting to characterize said opinion as socially responsible. Give me a fucking break. Perhaps the reason the steel door remains strong is because Wally is attacking it with paper-thin arguments.

Nymr83 Nov 28 2006 03:49 PM

]I just don't see how Oh and Josh Gibson are all that different other thasn the continents they played on. Both played professionally at the highest level they could play, more or less, and were the best at their level. Gibson played in the United States, Oh didn't, thats all there is too it. The National Hall of Fame should include all leagues that play in the Nation (taking into account, of course, the relative importance and difficulty of those leagues.) Letting someone in for their off-the-field activities as an "emissary" or whatever is not the same as letting them in as a player. if Oh really made significant contributions to the American game then let him in, but I'd say he didn't, not even close. Josh Gibson on the other hand was a well-known player in this country and even putting statistics aside he probably contributed alot to the American game. If they wanted to change the HOF into some sort of international thing thats their business (though i would find it highly unnecessary...we don't need to tell the Japanese who the best players in the history of Japanese baseball were.) As it stands now, Oh has no business with a HOF plaque. A better idea, if you wanted to promote Oh and others within the existing framework, would be a mutual agreement between the HOF and its counterpart in Japan that created exhibits based on the other country's most famous players.

metsmarathon Nov 28 2006 04:02 PM

what exactly prevented Oh from coming to america to play in the MLB?

Johnny Dickshot Nov 28 2006 04:11 PM

Contractural obligations tied him up for many years and by the time he could become a free agent (late 60s) a diplomatic meltdown between MLB and NPB clubs had occurred that wasn't cured until Nomo's arrival in 95. The dispute involved a misunderstanding over the rights to Masanori Murikami, who pitched for the SF Giants in '65 (and made his pro debut at Shea). The Giants believed they had signed him for 2 years and his Japan club didn't. Masanori's rights were badly abused by his Japan club.

Edgy DC Nov 28 2006 04:11 PM

It's long and complex: http://baseballguru.com/jalbright/analysisjalbright15.html The Murakami Affair and the de facto Ban In 1964, the Nankai Hawks sent a few of their younger players to the San Francisco Giants to gain experience in the Giant farm system. One of those players was left handed pitcher Masanori Murakami. Murakami pitched so well that the Giants called him up for the pennant drive. His major league debut came on September 1, 1964 against the Mets. He continued to pitch well, though he only got 15 innings pitched in the majors in 1964. The Giants and Hawks had signed an agreement before Murakami and two other Hawks came over in the spring of 1964. That agreement had a clause which allowed the Giants to purchase the contract of any player who had earned a promotion to the major league club. Murakami qualified, and the Giants were sufficiently impresssed with his pitching to exercise their right to purchase Murakami’s contract. A full-scale international baseball incident ensued. Hawks officials told Murakami he might never be allowed to play again in Japan if he returned to the majors. Murakami bowed to this pressure and decided to stay in Japan. Major League baseball saw this as a clear violation of their precious reserve clause. The war of words between NPB and MLB escalated, with threats of lawsuits and Ford Frick's "suspension" of relations with NPB over the matter. The Hawks tried to claim the club's signature agreeing to send Murakami to San Francisco was a forgery. The majors, through Frick, would have none of that. Next, the Hawks tried to claim Murakami was homesick and therefore a clause covering that situation applied. However, Murakami had been quoted on a number of occasions in the press as liking San Francisco and wanting to stay with the team, so Frick nixed that ploy as well. Eventually, the commissioner of Japanese baseball suggeted a compromise: Murakami could play for San Francisco in 1965, but had to come home for good in 1966. Frick declined that offer as well because he maintained such a compromise was still a violation of Major League Baseball's reserve clause. The Japanese commissioner let things simmer for a while, and then enlisted the help of Murakami's father. The elder Murakami made a plea to San Francisco and Frick for sympathy. Also, The Meaning of Ichiro suggests the father's approval might have been needed in 1964 (it wasn't obtaned), but it is unclear if this requirement still had any meaning in 1965, when Murakami was no longer a minor under Japanese law. Suddenly, the Americans caved in. Frick ruled that Murakami had to play in San Francisco in 1965, but that he could return to Japan in 1966 if he so desired. The Meaning of Ichiro advances two possible reasons for the American's sudden change of heart while rebutting the idea of any official governmental action regarding the matter on either side of the Pacific. The first suggestion is that Mr. Stoneham, the owner of the San Francisco Giants, found the plea of Murakami's father touching, and also did not think the matter worth ruining international good will over. Given the callous way the majors often treated players (and Murakami himself), the suggestion about the plea by Murakami's father is hard to accept. As for the larger issue of international goodwill, the majors had consistently framed the issue in terms of the sanctity of their reserve clause. Perhaps a payment by the Japanese, possibly hidden by inflating the purchase price of a player going to Japan could have resolved the matter. However, The Meaning of Ichiro provides no evidence of such, nor am I aware any evidence of such exists. Accordingly, I find this to be unpersuasive in explaining the American change of heart in the Murakami affair. The other explanation presented by the book is that Japanese teams were purchasing player contracts from MLB at fairly good prices. However, no information on the frequency or amounts of these sales is not discussed, and therefore it is difficult to accept at face value. Furthermore, MLB would have been aware of this aspect of the situation from the get-go. If this is the answer, why was MLB so bellicose early in the dispute if it intended to fold in the end? It may also be that if San Francisco consulted a lawyer, they might well have been advised that forcing Murakami to come to the States would be impossible (or nearly so) and that collecting a money judgment against Murakami or the Nankai Hawks might be about as unlikely. The majors and Stoneham may have overestimated their allure to Murakami himself. However, the possibility of back channel governmental or business pressure on MLB is not much explored in The Meaning of Ichiro, and Robert Whiting, the author of that book conceded in a post on japanesebaseball.com that such a scenarion was possible. Certainly, if significant business interests of major league owners or the reserve clause were threatened, it wouldn't be surprising if MLB folded in view of the unlikelihood of any meaningful legal success in the matter. A variation on this idea is that the NPB may have quietly informed MLB that if the Murakami matter was litigated, they would challenge the legality and/or enforceability of the reserve clause. I can only say that I expect that some day an explanation along the lines covered by this paragraph or a previously undisclosed payment by the Hawks to the San Francisco Giants will come to light. Of more importance, though, is the fact that as a result of this incident, MLB and Japanese baseball signed a "Working Agreement" in 1967. The fact the parties felt such an agreement was appropriate in the aftermath of the Murakami affair suggests that perhaps NPB had caused threats to be made against MLB's reserve clause. A key aspect of the agreement was that each side would respect the other's rights to players. At the time, both sets of owners had an enforceable reserve clause which forever bound players. Both groups of owners ruled with iron fists. It can accurately be said that at the time the agreement was signed, the players on either side of the Pacific were well-paid indentured servants. The major league players escaped this indentured servitude with the Catfish Hunter case, and free agency was born. The majors continued to honor the Working Agreement, however, so Japanese players remained indentured servants. The players remained in that status in Japan in large part because Japanese players and their union were far more docile than their American counterparts. Free agency did not come to Japan until 1993, and player agents were banned from negotiation sessions until 2001. Even when agents were finally permitted, it was under extremely limited circumstances. The loophole we will discuss in the section on the busting of the de facto ban existed from the creation of the Working Agreement. However, it was a fine enough legal point that it took 28 years for someone to find it. Of course, if Japanese players had had agents and/or a stronger union, it might not have taken so long. Nevertheless, it is extremely doubtful that major league owners would have been receptive to any attacks on any professional baseball reserve clause prior to the loss of their own ironclad enforcement of their reserve clause in the Catfish Hunter case. Even after that, they might have been concerned about setting off a bidding war with Japan for players. In such a situation, it might have been reasonable for them to believe that such a bidding war would put them in a position of having more to lose than they could gain in Japanese talent. Therefore, it is questionable how receptive they would have been to a Japanese player's attempt to come to the majors. In any event, such a Japanese player would have had to found the Nomo loophole, retired from a good paying job, and endured significant Japanese public pressure against the move. After all that, he might face legal maneuvering in the States for a significant period of time. During that time, he would have trouble finding serious competition to keep him sharp. This could easily cost him his career if the legal maneuvering took too long. Even if the player overcame all that, part of his reward would consist of adapting to a new league in a strange new land--at who knows what salary. The only other road to the majors was simply not going to open: a Japanese team granting a player permission to go to the majors. The Meaning of Ichiro documents several occasions in which major league teams tried to acquire Japanese players, all without success.

Mr. Zero Nov 28 2006 04:15 PM

]what exactly prevented Oh from coming to america to play in the MLB? maybe he wasn't asked? The rule used to be a Japanese player had to wait 9-10 years before they could leave Japan to play in the US. Nomo got around that by retiring first. Now Major League teams just have to pony up the bucks.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 28 2006 04:16 PM

Dickshot's Memory = Speedy, succinct if not entirely accurate for names and dates Wikipedia = Slower, more complex, harder to understand.

Frayed Knot Nov 28 2006 04:17 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 28 2006 04:19 PM

metsmarathon wrote: what exactly prevented Oh from coming to america to play in the MLB? Don't know that he ever tried, but the ultra-restrictive system in Japan would have made it difficult even if he did. on edit: (FK: even slower and less complete) On McGwire; I tend to agree w/CF in that I prefer proof to innuendo before declaring someone guilty of something (particularly for something w/only quasi-illegal status in baseball at the time) -- but it's also a new issue at this point in which we don't know at least as much as we do, all of which would lead me to casting a 'no for now' vote and deal with it on a year-by-year basis.

Vic Sage Nov 28 2006 04:17 PM

CF, you've approaching this issue from a formalistic legal perspective, and to that extent, i agree with you. If we were talking about governmental action (or even private action) that was denying basic civil liberties and due process to individuals, i would wholeheartedly support your position. But that's not what we're talking about. Membership in the HOF is a privilege, not a right. More than that, it's a privilege awarded to the privileged. The voting body for the HOF is obligated to take in a whole range of factors, not just career numbers. They have absolute discretion to consider and weigh those factors in whatever way they, in good faith, may determine. If a HOF voter wants to use unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo and circumstantial evidence to reach conclusions about a prospective candidate, he/she has every right to do so. If those conclusions are so biased, or otherwise unreasonable, they'll inevitably be diluted by more rational voters over time. 15 years is a pretty good amount of time during which rightous flames of indignation can die down, plus the veteran's committee provides a further safety net (in theory). There have been voters who withheld their votes for the stupidest of reasons. There is no reason why this shouldn't be among them. That Wallace Matthews is the leading exponent of exercising impotent outrage is not a surprise, nor does the appropriateness of the messenger for the message go totally unappreciated. But in this case, a voter could come to reasonable conclusion about McGwire, inasmuch as he already admitted to using the Andro that sat noticably in his locker during the 98 season, putting aside his non-responsiveness to congress. What a voter chooses to do about that conclusion is, appropriately, up to him/her. Personally, i think there's been a good deal of scapegoating over the whole steroids issue, and Selig's whole Captain Renault-style feigned outrage ("Rick, I am outraged to learn of gambling going on in this establishment!" "Here are your winnings, monsieur...") is of the most self-serving, hypocritical sort. Still, i'm okay with Big Mac being forced to endure his retirement in wealthy obscurity. If someday more is learned, and there is a reexamination of the issue (and who, if anyone, is really blameworthy, and of what), perhaps the tide will turn and he'll be invited back into baseball's good graces. and if not, fuck him.

metirish Nov 28 2006 04:18 PM

Stark on McGwire...... ] Mac Debate sparks a sad startposted: Monday, November 27, 2006 | Print Entry I used to look forward to the day the Hall of Fame ballot arrived every November. Not this year. It isn't just because the already-ugly Mark McGwire Debate is going to crash what is supposed to be Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken's party, either. It's because this is only the beginning. Looking over those Hall of Fame candidates used to be a time to reflect on the greatness of players -- even the greatness of men we couldn't convince ourselves to vote for. Now all that becomes a subplot to the national sports-talk Main Event. Now, we have to decide if we're ready to become the morality police. With every new name that appears on these ballots now, we're not just going to have to ask ourselves, "Was this guy a Hall of Famer?" We're going to have to ask ourselves, "What are the chances that this guy used steroids?" For some of these players, we might think we know the answer to that question. But what about the players we've just heard an idle rumor about? What about the players whose names have never, ever appeared in the steroid conversations? What do we do about them? And even those guys we think we know about -- how much do we know? Not enough. Never enough. We have no testing results to go by. So how are we going to figure this out? By who got bigger and later got smaller? By whose stats exploded and whose didn't? By which guys made miraculous comebacks from the dead? By which guys showed up in the wrong book or on the wrong subpoena list or on the wrong floor of Congress on the wrong day? This, friends, is a mess. But you already knew that. Except now it takes on a whole new dimension of mess-hood. This is the point when we have to decide where The Big Mess fits in the context of baseball history. Do we let some of these guys in? All of them? None of them? And if we let any of them in, how do we decide which ones? Peruse the index of "Game of Shadows"? Ask Jose Canseco? Paste all the names on a dart board? I think I know where I stand on that question. But I've got a month to kick it around one last time... And then I can keep on kicking it around for the rest of my life. Because this is only the beginning. How many years will this debate hover over what used to be the only Hall of Fame debate? Ten years? Fifteen? Twenty? Thirty? The disgusting answer is: It's going to hover until every last star player from that generation has shown up on the ballot and been voted on or off Cooperstown Island. When you consider that players can't appear on the ballot until five years after they've retired, and then they can hang around that ballot for another 15 years, you realize exactly how long we're all going to be trekking around in this muck. So yeah, it stinks that Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken are going to see their moment get lost in a giant steroid fog bank. But what really stinks is that it isn't only them. They're merely the first of many. Because, sadly, this is only the beginning. And the end is so far off right now, you can't see it with the Hubble Telescope.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 28 2006 04:27 PM

I like: 1. how there's 2 conversations happening in this thread at once (three really) 2. Radd's 8 grafs of pure eloquence, summed up with "fuck him."

Nymr83 Nov 28 2006 04:28 PM

leaving aside McGwire for the moment, what happens when Palmiero, who did fail a test, is up for consideration? I suppose his numbers are borderline enough that leaving him out wouldn't be a complete vote against steroids. so i'll ask, assuming that you believe Palmiero's statistics to be hall-worthy should he get in? If so, what justification is there for continuing to keep Joe Jackson and Pete Rose out?

metirish Nov 28 2006 04:30 PM

I like how CF's and Vics contrasting opinions all sound reasonable....I'm torn....

Centerfield Nov 28 2006 04:32 PM

We've been at odds ever since Rudolph.

sharpie Nov 28 2006 04:33 PM

McGwire doing andro or whatever he did was quasi-legal at the time. Palmeiro did steroids after the ban was in place. Jackson and Rose committed baseball crimes that were well known. I say no to all three of those guys even if I thought Palmeiro was a lock for the HOF, which I don't.

Edgy DC Nov 28 2006 04:42 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I like: 1. how there's 2 conversations happening in this thread at once (three really) 2. Radd's 8 grafs of pure eloquence, summed up with "fuck him." The confersaiton about the multipe conversaitons is becoming the fourth. I'm being a hardass in the two major conversations, but I have probably the most liberal of ballots of those posted.

ScarletKnight41 Nov 28 2006 04:43 PM

Centerfield wrote: We've been at odds ever since Rudolph. [url=http://p079.ezboard.com/fthecranepoolforumfrm21.showMessage?topicID=295.topic]One of my favorite threads ever![/url]

Centerfield Nov 28 2006 04:43 PM

Vic Sage wrote: If a HOF voter wants to use unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo and circumstantial evidence to reach conclusions about a prospective candidate, he/she has every right to do so. I'm surprised you would take that position. Especially knowing how different agendas can affect the rumors and innuendos that may be prevalent. But different strokes, I guess. I do realize it is a bit counterintuitive to promote a "Just the Facts" approach to a process that is so subjective to begin with. I'm just saying I want my subjective opinions reached as objectively as possible.

Vic Sage Nov 28 2006 04:55 PM

]I'm surprised you would take that position. Especially knowing how different agendas can affect the rumors and innuendos that may be prevalent. But different strokes, I guess. I do realize it is a bit counterintuitive to promote a "Just the Facts" approach to a process that is so subjective to begin with. I'm just saying I want my subjective opinions reached as objectively as possible. I'm not advocating that voters act in such a manner, simply recognizing that they not only DO so, but they're entitled to do so. Like Democracy in general, you hope the special interests, the hidden agendas, the stupidity and bad ideas sort of cancel each other out, and a sensible consensus emerges in the middle. Of course it doesn't always work out that way, but with 15+ years to get it right, i'm more hopeful that the HOF voters can stumble upon the proper course than we seem to have done as a society as a whole.

Centerfield Nov 28 2006 04:55 PM

Edgy DC wrote: You're a better lawyer than I am, but I think the evidence is credible. I think this is where we differ. The evidence here is simply evading a question. And that wouldn't be enough to get a suspension, much less a denial of the Hall. By the way, I am working with the premise here that if you don't vote for him, you don't think he's worthy of the Hall. Not simply because you don't think he's a "first-ballot guy". I never really understood that sort of reasoning to begin with.

Edgy DC Nov 28 2006 04:57 PM

The evidence is not about punishing hiim, but about denying him baseball's highest honor.

Mr. Zero Nov 28 2006 04:57 PM

So let me get this straight, if Mcgwire doesn’t take andro and finds himself peddling some 54 home runs a year for the Yomiuri Giants, he has a more agreeable chance of getting into the Hall of Fame than reindeer have of flying out of Sadaharu Oh’s butt?

Vic Sage Nov 28 2006 05:00 PM

The "1st ballot" thing is an effort by some voters to turn the binary nature of HOF membership (in/out) into something a bit more nuanced. "He's a HOFer, but he's not a 1st BALLOT kind of HOFer" seems to me a reasonable (if pointless) distinction. Ripken and Gwynn? 1st ballot guys. Gossage? Yes, i think he's a HOFer, just not a 1st ballot guy. A 2nd tier HOFer, if you will. Of course, there isn't actually a 2nd tier in the HOF, so the distinction only exists in the voters' minds and in the baseball public's consciousness (for about a week).

metsmarathon Nov 28 2006 07:57 PM

so, the difference between josh gibson and sadahura oh is that oh was contractually obligated to remain in japan, while gibson was racially consigned o the negro leagues. oh's situation is more like if the national league had its own hall of fame, and didn't enshrine babe ruth or ty cobb, or why neither of those players will be in the mets hall of fame. my question is really, if oh had wanted to, could he have signed with an american team instead of a japanese team, or was major league baseball responsible for prohibiting asian players from entering the game?

dinosaur jesus Nov 28 2006 09:36 PM

I believe it was the Japanese leagues that put up the barrier, which is perfectly understandable. They didn't want to lose their most popular players. And still don't, so far as they can help it. The first Japanese player in the major leagues was Masanori Murakami in the 60's, who signed with the Giants when he was 19 years old, before a Japanese team grabbed him. He pitched for a couple of years and was very impressive, then went back to Japan and had a long career. I think a better comparison than the Negro leagues would the high minor leagues at the turn of the century into the 30's. The overall level of play was lower than in the majors, but some of the best players in the game were held there by contract. Ruth would have been a legend if he'd never left the old Orioles, but he wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. The same with Dimaggio and the Seals.

Johnny Dickshot Nov 28 2006 09:59 PM

That is a better analogy. The point is, I don't think it'd hurt the integrity of the Hall one iota were they to reach out to recognize Earth's best pro players, regardless of the name on the front of the building and how literally some might interpret that. It's also obvious that NPB and MLB are beginning to make efforts today to involve themselves with one another, and there will be issues soon enough of great players such as Ichiro to consider who may not compile like a MLB HOFer but play like one in the time he was there. And when that happens, you're going to have to consider those who may have played here but couldn;t due to circumstances. The real point is Oh was a fantastic player, highly influential as a historical figure with ramifications today (where do you think Shinjo got his leg lift?), famous in two countries. He'd be the Josh Gibson-like slam dunk among a new class of potential inductees and they oughta be proactive and do it before he dies. (he's not sick asaik). It's just that bb moves pretty glacially. I have no objections to an exhibit exchange or other stuff too.

patona314 Nov 28 2006 10:10 PM

sorry for the silly response but, Gibson: why can't i find any stats on the guy? The Goose: yes, give it time (thank you mr. sutter) Oh: no Suzuki: 3 more years and yes. p.s: mark will make it, but i don't mind making him wait for a while (preferably 15-20 years)

Nymr83 Nov 28 2006 10:31 PM

i might be remembering incorrectly but doesn't a player need 10 years in the majors to appear on the ballot at all?

Frayed Knot Nov 28 2006 10:35 PM

]... doesn't a player need 10 years in the majors to appear on the ballot at all? That is correct.

Gwreck Nov 28 2006 10:51 PM

Edgy DC wrote: ="Centerfield"]He has never failed a test and there has been no credible evidence he used steroids. You're a better lawyer than I am, but I think the evidence is credible. The very fact that you're using the word "evidence" is a problem. There is no evidence. There is rumor, speculation, innuendo, and suspicion. It may a strongly held suspicion. But there is no evidence. To say so is disingenuous. Evidence of Mark McGwire using performance-enhancing drugs includes admissions thereto, failed drug tests, photographic or videographic accounts documenting such, corrorborated eyewitness accounts or corrorborated hearsay admissions. I may not like McGwire much either. I think he used steroids too. I also think that he should be in the Hall of Fame. That a Ty Cobb or a Gaylord Perry is in the Hall speaks very clearly to the issues of character or cheating. The Hall honors the best players. McGwire was one of them. Of that there should be no doubt.

Edgy DC Nov 28 2006 11:17 PM

I think there's plenty that provides a ground for belief. That's evidence. Refusing to answer direct questions before Congress --- not rumor, speculation, or innuendo --- invites me to draw my own conclusions. Invites all of us. Why should we fear that? He didn't even take the fifth, but rather answered every question except the one that mattered. Sorry about Ty Cobb. Sorry about Gay Perry. The rules explictly instruct voters to weight these issues when considering a player's career.

Edgy DC Nov 28 2006 11:19 PM

Part of the reason bullshitting is so epidemic is that we're so happy to let public people get away with it.

metirish Nov 28 2006 11:31 PM

The whole thing before Congress was bullshit though....a few people like McCain and Shea talked big for a few days and it seems like they could care less since.....as a fan I cast every player in doubt on steroids...I have accepted that players took the stuff..look at I-Rod...he went from beefed up to slimed down...but in the minds of many he's the best catcher all time...will the same writers that won't vote for McGwire look at "Pudge" the same way.....?

Edgy DC Nov 28 2006 11:43 PM

Whether or not the Congressional intervention was bullshit is not the issue before us here, thoughm, unless we want this to be a five-subject thread.

metirish Nov 28 2006 11:53 PM

Sure lets go for a five-subject thread..IIRC McCain talked big on reforming boxing....talked big is all..same in baseball......

Nymr83 Nov 29 2006 12:18 AM

the (strong) suspicions of steroid use have to be part of the equation- but only part of it. i personally dont think they are enough alone to keep him out, but i won't criticize any voter who thinks otherwise. If he had actualy gotten caught by a test for something that was illegal (and i mean ILLEGAL, the fact that baseball didn't ban something doesnt give a player the right to use a substance controlled by Congress) or legal but banned by baseball at the time he used it then i would keep him out no questions asked.

Gwreck Nov 29 2006 02:54 AM

="Edgy DC"]I think there's plenty that provides a ground for belief. That's evidence. Refusing to answer direct questions before Congress --- not rumor, speculation, or innuendo --- invites me to draw my own conclusions. Invites all of us. Why should we fear that? He didn't even take the fifth, but rather answered every question except the one that mattered. I respect your position -- but I think you are still confusing the issue. (Maybe this is me just spending 12 hours at the office today, but) Something that simply provides a ground for belief is not necessarily evidence. In the McGwire case, the suspicion you have that grounds your belief is not evidence. Why should we fear drawing our own conclusions? Because without a standard, the system's pointless. People can draw conclusions however they see fit. Some degree of uniformity is needed. Evidence should be required. The debate for Palmiero is far different than the debate for McGwire. ]Sorry about Ty Cobb. Sorry about Gay Perry. The rules explictly instruct voters to weight these issues when considering a player's career. Well, I guess they sure missed the boat on those two. In all seriousness -- and I do realize this is fundamentally another issue -- the instructions should be modified so that Hall voting is for the best Major League Baseball players. I don't think there's a problem honoring Cobb or Perry -- or McGwire. I think there's a fundamental contradiction for those who advocate not honoring McGwire while saying nothing about others.

iramets Nov 29 2006 06:13 AM

It's funny, because I'm currently serving as foreperson on a jury (Grand Larceny case) where we have just been instructed as to what constitutes evidence. The judge in the case is (rather angrily) responding to our requests to know if we may consider this (a witness's tone of voice) or that (whether or not we feel certain that the amount of stolen goods has been proven to qualify as Grand Larceny) by telling us that what we think is evidence is evidence. We're free, IOW, to say, "I don't know what it is, I think that guy was lying his ass off, don't you?" and if all twelve of us believe the guy was lying, with no basis that we can even put into words to express it, then guess what? The guy was lying. McGwire was lying. (I just wish I could send McGwire off to jail, and the poor shnook in the case free.) Unless 75% of the HOF voters believe otherwise, then he's not getting in, because his on-the-field record clearly warrants his election. I believe Rose's ineligibility is a cop-out, btw. I wish he WAS eligible, but that the HOF voters felt that he had violated the "sportsmanship" standard of the HOF--that would be a stronger statement to me than "Well, we wanted to elect him but we weren't allowed to." As to Cobb and Perry and others, their election could be excused or explained by the fact that they were elected before we became sensitive to gambling and sportsmanship and such. We can't unelect them now, so their plaques stand as relics of an unenlightened era. I can tell my kids, "These guys were scumbags, and I don't want you fellows behaving like them, EVER, but even scumbags get honored sometimes. That dont make being a scumbag, or cheating, or lying about the scummy things you done, okay. But parents like me stand in front of their plaques everyday and explain to their kids what they done wrong, and that's a kind of dishonor, too, that I don't want you guys ever to go through. Do the right thing, and people won't ever have to explain why you were a scumbag. That's all I ask."

Edgy DC Nov 29 2006 09:28 AM

Spock to McCoy: "You're confusing being empirical with being stubborn." ev-i-dence –noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. 3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. –verb (used with object) 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support. 5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters. —Idiom 6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence. ]In all seriousness -- and I do realize this is fundamentally another issue -- the instructions should be modified so that Hall voting is for the best Major League Baseball players. But that is the instruction, in black and white, and you're arguing for standards on one hand, and on the other suggesting that voters arbitrarily ingore some very explict standards that they are asked to use.

Edgy DC Dec 14 2006 11:34 AM

You know, I was kind of surprised to see so few ex-Mets on the ballot, compared to previous seasons. Checking though, it seems they're getting a little more miserly with the ballot these days. Among the guys retiring after the 2001 season were Dave Magadan, Bernard Gilkey, Derek Bell, Darryl Hamilton, and Rico Brogna, who'd be a good fit. The policy had been to put anybody with ten years on the ballot, and then cull out anyone who squeezed in by meeting that standard by being mostly a part-timer or pulling partial seasons. That comes down, of course, toa judgement call. Not that it matters much at the end of the day, but it seems that at least Magadan and Gilkey would have made it in previous years.

Vic Sage Jan 09 2007 12:04 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 09 2007 12:45 PM

The vote comes down today, doesn't it? [on edit: a 2pm announcement is scheduled]

Edgy DC Jan 09 2007 12:13 PM

Dale Petroskey, come on down.

Vic Sage Jan 09 2007 12:17 PM

here's Jayson stark's ballot, with his commentary. I agree with him, mostly... especially about Gossage, Blyleven and the underappreciated Dale Murphy. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof07/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2724111

seawolf17 Jan 09 2007 12:18 PM

Make this the year, folks.

Vic Sage Jan 09 2007 12:25 PM

here are the ballots of the dozen HOF voters who are regular contributors to ESPN.com http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof07/news/story?id=2721445

metsguyinmichigan Jan 09 2007 02:53 PM

So McGwire gets smacked because he testified poorly before Congress, because that's the only evidence. Meanwhile, does Bonds get a pass because he was able to avoid appearing before that committee? What would he have said up there? Does he get the same 23 percent in his first year? This is a slipperly slope. Just wait until that list of 100 players who tested positive gets released. Are those guys tainted forever, too?

Yancy Street Gang Jan 09 2007 02:57 PM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: So McGwire gets smacked because he testified poorly before Congress, because that's the only evidence. I have no problem with that.

Edgy DC Jan 09 2007 03:10 PM

I think the results of his career combine with that evidence. And that's compelling evidence. And there's compelling evidence against Bonds without him appearing before Congress. And he didn't get smacked. He failed to get baseball's highest honor. And there's no forever about it.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 09 2007 03:13 PM

Oh didn't make it.

Nymr83 Jan 09 2007 03:44 PM

]Ripken was picked by 537 voters and appeared on 98.53 percent of ballots to finish with the third-highest percentage behind Tom Seaver (98.84) and Nolan Ryan (98.79). i guess you're either in or you're out, but i have to wonder how Ripken "did better" than guys like Mike Schmidt, Willie Mays, etc. Gwynn and Ripken were the only ones who got in, though Gossage got 71% of the vote. Rice (64%), Dawson (57%), and Blyleven (46%) were the next 3.

Vic Sage Jan 09 2007 03:56 PM

started a new thread on this topic, to deal with post-vote reaction.