To be honest, this is my favorite article in my arsenal of essays. I like this one. I really do.I think Baseball: Trots is a good essay. I can't say I'm proud of most of the crap I wrote in this very experimental writing training blog over the years... especially the earlier very crass ones which are sucky. With Baseball: Trots though .... even looking at it now ... it still holds up... it's something I think is good. I think it's my magnum opus.
There's unfinished work in this essay though, for it seems in the conclusion rests this ominous line:
"Are Nerds ruining baseball? Maybe, we'll have to look into that another time though." (Baseball: Trots, March 2016)
It's about time we looked into this old chums ... for I feel there is no better time than right now. For I fear nerds are virtually on the verge of running amok all over baseball and this moment is literally the most crucialest of junctures if anyone wants to prevent this from happening.
Now, before you think I am some sort of anti-nerd nerd-hating jock ... let's clarify first off that I am not that at all. I am too ... A Nerd. This article is written from the viewpoint of one Nerd to Another and not from the viewpoint of a Jock to a Nerd.
Just take my word that I'm a Nerd, okay? I can lay down nerd Street Cred all day if you'd like that but time is of the essence, friends. Time is of the essence at this crucial-most path and I will not spend many a paragraph illustrating for you my Nerd credentials with a flurry of geeky anecdotes and references. I could wax off yarns and a half about 80s cartoons or some other manner of sweet n' sour silliness ... but there's no time.
Let's bypass the meaningless set up and dive right into the main point here.... and that's that Nerds ARE Ruining Baseball! They are.
If I wrote this in 2016 or 2017 ... I would have emphatically said that Nerds are not doing that ... but in 2018, as of right now, my stance has changed and I must eliquate as to why.
Why Nerds Are Ruining Baseball They laugh at our clothes, they laugh at our hair, n' the girls walk by with their nose in the air!
Again, let me remind you reader, that I am a baseball stat nerd and love baseball stats more than pizza .... but the analytics shtick is going too far. It is.
I remember first noticing it when people were clamoring around that Billy Beane and his moneyball gimmick. I remember hearing things like "Billy Beane invented On Base Percentage, noob! Get with the Money Ball program there slappy!" ... and I'm like ... he didn't invent On Base Percentage. It had been on the baseball leader board since 1984 ... how did he invent it almost two decades later? To top it all off it gets a hollywood movie cast with a good looking actor to star in it ... if that doesn't shout "over-hyped" to you then nothing does.
From the second I heard of Money Ball I thought it was a stretch at best and silly/dumb at worst.
Yes, back in the early 2000s I was already skeptical about nerd-related advances on the game. It has really come into the danger zone now though. Things are popping up outta right field and left field that have really got me teetering on a slight slope.
I was reading an article the other month about how a minor league team in the Mexican league hired some analytics dude from some university to coach their games from his tv set in some posh American mansion. This is too far. It is. This is beyond the realm of reasonable. This is every fans dream (to coach the game from his arm chair) but it should remain so. The article goes on to say that like .... the posh American statistician was in awe that the lowly Mexican on-field on-site manager would not take his over-the-phone advice. If I was that Mexican Manager ... I'd leave the phone off the hook the entire game or maybe tell the bat boy to talk to the dude. You can't coach games like that.
I read in Bill Veeck's book that he let the fans coach a game once and held up signs like "shall we jerk the bum?" and the fans would democratically hold up a YES or NO sign. Even that's a saner managing style than having to phone a law professor on his couch in some mansion in the Nappa Valley to see what to do next.
The hands-on approach of general managers and their reliance on "Money-Ball" style strategies is not just from some Mexican league team ... it's every MLB team is run like that now. They want 3 variables to think about and only 3 ... Walk, Strikeout, Homer. That's it. Three variables. That's all they can handle.
I'm talkin' Nerds Nerds Nerds!
Forget long stat lines, as long lost are the days where on baseball card backs you could see how many doubles, triples, homers, walks, steals, etc. somebody has. They want that condensed to ONE variable. They don't have time to look at a full stat line. They want ONE stat to sum up an entire player. Whether it's WAR or WOBA or WHATEVA.
Throw all the scouting reports out the window! Who needs 'em!? This guy's a .910 and that's better than this other bum who's just a .902 ! We don't need to know if he can run or field .... he's a 910 and that's 8 things better than a 902!
Baseball is being run by accountants!
In 1985 a game had on average 5 strikeouts per game... in 2018 it's closing in on 9 per game. It's almost doubled. They're not good strikeouts either ... like I remember if Tony Gwynn or Tim Raines struck out everyone was in shock ... you had to earn a K on guys like that. So many of these 2018 Ks are guys trying to blast homers with 2 strikes on them. You blast those on 3-1 or 3-2 ... why you blastin' on 1-2 or 0-2 for? Then they throw the helmet and yell to make a show for the audience after they swing and miss. You whiffed by a mile on a 1-2 pitch .... it's not like you tried your best and failed ... you tried to do way too much and failed.
I've seen players, in the PLAYOFFS, with a runner on third with nobody out strike out trying to hit it out of the park. That's lunacy. Downright sweet n' sour LUNACY!
Neeeeeeerds.
You want power and walks? Well you got them. You got 2/5 tool players with 3 weaknesses. A lot of these guys are basically beer league soft ball players more so than terrific athletes.
Then there's the buzz words. All the silly stuff they do has to have corny gimmicks thrown on it. You use 12 pitchers in a game? That's called Pitchering ... oh I'm sorry ... Hash Tag Pitchering. You hit your pitcher 8th in the batting order instead of 9th? That's called Eightering. You write the line up card while standing on your head? They call that Heading.
Lay one down you egg heads!
They probably want baseball played by robots. Then the simulations would match up better to their predictions. But the joke would still be on them because even robots would get pretty hectic and chaotic out there. Remember Base Wars?
Gee Eugene, I wonder what Tank Bot's WRC+ Squared is with RISP!
Robots playing baseball wasn't a friendly stuffy simulation between competing Nerdlingers... it was WICKED and it was GOOD!
Conclusion
The Boys n' the Moos are Clappin' Along!
It's suffice to say, Nerds ... Goose Gossage was RIGHT on all accounts! You're ruining the game and everyone knows it and is calling you out on it! You're behind the eight ball now, NERDS!
All jokings aside, I'm still a big baseball stat-head ... I'm just cautioning that this analytics business can go too far. I think a vision for binary variables ... Homer, Strikeout (or walk) .... isn't a great idea. Obviously it would never get to that point .... but with strikeouts per game almost doubling in the last 30 years and other trends of that nature ... I think it is taking a lot away from the game.
I still love stats, and I still love nerds ... but have we reached Peak Nerd?
After being shell shocked from losing my Team (the Expos) I really stopped watching baseball for a good chunk of time. The season where the Kansas City Royals won the World Series (2015) is when I really started getting back into it Big Time again.
So, my years of watching the old ballgame have a chunk missing in it. I was an avid if not rabid fan of MLB from 1986-ish (when I saw Tim Raines hit the Cocoa-Cola Sign at the Big O) until 2004 when the Expos left and now have resumed fanhood (albeit in less avid fashion mind you) as of 2015.
So for me, 2005 to 2014 is sort of like a big hole for me in the baseball world ... and there's things in the game now that I do need to wrap my head around because there's some new stuff in there.
One big one is The Shift, which can be written as in Caps because it is a big deal in the league now which it surely was not during my avid fanhood years. I'm gonna do some thinking about The Shift right now and you can follow me on this exciting journey if you wish...
The Basics of the Shift
I'm not gonna "term define" The Shift because if anyone is gonna read a barn burner article about it I am quite sure they are familiar as to what it is. It just refers to when a team moves its infielders lopsidingly to one portion of the infield against a certain hitter.
There's two reasons why the shift is a good strategy in some cases. The first is as a defensive stratagem, yes indeed, some hitters tend to hit to one side of the infield when they hit grounders or liners or choppers .... and placing all your infielders there should make more of these batted balls into outs. That one everyone knows because it is self evident.
The other factor of why the shift works is mental. It is a tactic designed to sew uncertainty and panic into the hitter's mind. Historians of the game tend to know this, as they point to the first instance of The Shift, being when Lou Boudreau used it in the days of yore to throw Ted Williams off his game.
Personally, I believe it is the mental aspect of the Shift as why it works. I think it has gotten into a lot of hitters minds and threw them off their game.
To me what the shift says to the hitter is, "Hey man, you are such a bum even if I give you half the field open you still couldn't get a hit." I mean the pinnacle full-escalated version to show this (I doubt any manager would ever do this) would be to take all of your fielders off the field except for the pitcher and catcher to send the message of "Hey man, you're such a bum ... if I give you the WHOLE field you still can't get on base!"
If the hitter makes an out while that affront is on him ... he can come out of that situation pretty defeated-feeling and prime himself to go into a prolonged slump. Every time after when he sees the infielders going to huddle on one side of the field he's gonna be like "oh crap not this again."
I can think of two players who the Shift got them. Belt and Smoak. I watched a few Blue Jay games in 2016 (Jays games are on TV in my region all the time) and Justin Smoak was devastated by the dopey shift .. and I am 100% sure it was mental. He had a .705 OPS in 2016 and he was brutal out there. Fast forward to 2017 and where was he? He was at the ALL STAR GAME! Why? Because he adjusted mentally in his approach to the plate.
Same thing with Brandon Belt, he's a big name that I think got hoodwinked by that stratagem but this season he's not letting it get to him and is hitting very well.
So yes, to give it some credit, it can and does work ... but I believe only in a more mental way in which some hitters are thrown off by it.
Criticism
This article was titled "Silly Shift" so this section as you can guess will be longer. It was titled "Dumb Shift" but I changed it because it isn't really dumb it's more silly than dumb.
Let's start at a big critique of the Shift now ... and that's that it only works on ONE particular version of hitter and that's two-tool left handed hitters. Their two tools being power and eye.
I've always been a fan of 5-tool players because they always have something to fall back on if the opposition figures out a weakness on them. The two-tool lefty power n' walks hitter can't fall back on anything when their weaknesses are singled out and pounced on. A TTLPW (two-tool-lefty-power-walker) is out of baseball if his tools are isolated and destroyed. He's usually a firstbaseman or DH so he can't fall back on his defense when goings get tough and stay on the roster because of solid defense. He can't let his speed do the brunt of the work and break out of the slump by stopping his power approach, going for a pure contact approach, and be productive with base running. If you can isolate and punch holes in the TTLPW's game ... he's out of baseball for good. If you stop him from doing the only two things he does well, he's walking the lonely road to Palookaville ..... just him, his dog, and his equipment bag ... walking the long road down to Nowherestown, USA.
This scene and "firing" Boco in Final Fantasy Tactics made me almost weep openly.
Truth be told, not many TTLPWs are out of baseball because of the shift. Why? Because it barely even stifles their ability to do what they do ... and that's draw walks and hit extra base hits. Once they overcome the mental aspect of the shift it barely even affects their game. You think David Ortiz gave a human crap or even a pile of horse crap that they put the infielders to one side of the field? NO! The guy's job was to either walk, strikeout, or blast an extra base hit on or over the wall. He's not giving ten pounds of cat crap about the stupid shift ... and if the mental aspect doesn't work then what good is it? None. You think Ortiz cared how many guys were standing on first base after he hit homerun number 30 of the season? No, he really did not.
That's one way to overcome the mental voodoo of the shift that can enter the hitter's head ... literally to not care about it and keep swinging for the fences. You're a left handed, slow as molasses, DH, power hitter ... you hit homers ... that's what you do. That's your job. You don't have to pretend to care about the silly shift. Don't let it get to you.
The other way you can say Gimme-a-Break to a manager shiftin' on you is to take a breath every 5th shift on you or so ... and tell them ... look .... I know I'm a lefty power hitter who is slower than my grandma at base running but look at this, man, I'm gonna pull a fast one on you. Take two steps back in the batter's box and lunge-slap an opposite field liner into left field. If you can't master the lunge-slap hittin' style then just throw a bunt down the third base line every 5th shift or so just to tell the opposing manager ... "yo, I'm not a Statue, okay? I'm not a Stone Golem here, ok? I can employ other tools if I have to ... don't run this shit on me, man, okay?
I saw Rizzo on the Cubs bunt for a single once. That's rare for him but if there's no thirdbaseman at third base a bunt there is basically a 100% method of getting on base and not making an out. I know with the TTLPWs they don't pay them for bunt singles but pay them to homer ... but if you feel the opposing manager's shift is getting to you then it's not a bad idea to let them know that you're not a Stone Golem every now and then and slap something to third, you know? Hoist the petard on those former back-up catcher nerd managers who think you are nothing but mere one-tool ham-fisted statues.
Can you imagine if 80s or 90s pure hitters had shifts on them? They'd laugh at it. If you did this back then on lefties like George Brett, Tony Gwynn, Al Oliver, etc., etc.,? They'd hit a double off you EVERY TIME. You think they had trouble slappin' to opposite field? No, they were pure hitters. They could hit anything. If you pulled this bush league cow crap on those guys they would have LAUGHED and LAUGHED and LAUGHED. They would have regarded The Shift as ridiculous.
So to sum up my criticism of The Shift....
-It basically stops singles.
-It only works on Slow as Molasses Left Handed Power Pull Hitters who have no plan-B auxiliary tools to fall back on (i.e. opposite field lunge-slaps or bunting/speed attempts)
Left Handed Power hitters are usually hitting 3, 4, or 5 in the lineup and are not paid to hit singles ... they are paid to drive in runners with powerful wallops to the outfield (NOT THE INFIELD EVEN). So, even if the shift does work .... how much difference is it actually making?
-It can be countered by something as simple as not caring about it (i.e. David Ortiz not caring that there were 5 guys standing on first base whilst he circled the bases after a 430 foot homerun)
-It can be countered by just using your brain sometimes and putting a ball where the fielders aren't.
I really think the success of the Shift is mental, that it gets into some hitters minds, and throws them off their shtick ... but as we've seen with even some of the most two-tooled of two-tooled lefty power n' walks hitters (Smoak and Belt) .... even guys who it worked on got out of it. Smoak is smashing balls, Belt is smashing balls. Whatever mental affects it had on them have warn off already.
One other thing that should be noted is that the appeal it has with the fans ... and it does have decent appeal with some fans ... is that it is from the cross-over between NFL fans and MLB fans (which is pretty large). In football, defensive formations is paramount to the game. I mean, if you are set up to stop the offensive play of the opposing coach in football you're gonna win a lot of games. In baseball, defensive formations are part of the game but not NEARLY to the scale of football. Fans should keep in mind that baseball and football ... though both great .... are pretty different cups of tea. They really are.
I followed the Hall of Fame voting in Baseball's Hall of Fame for many years and wrote various essays on different topics related to that over the last ... well ... since I started writing essays for fun online back in 2011.
Tim Raines - The Legend
I used to do every year at this time a "Tim Raines for the Hall of Fame" essay .... it was like a winter tradition.
Now Tim Raines is in the Hall of Fame, so, I guess that tradition can be laid to rest. Which is good because I ran out of material at one point and wrote about all kinds of Rocks once.
I had other ones too. I did a hypothetical hall of fame ballot one year, as if I had a vote, how I'd vote. Which was fun. Hall of Fame votin' time is a magical time, indeed.
Baseball's legend Al Oliver tweeted something the other day that helps explain why this season, Hall of Fame votin' season, is so magical ... he said:
"...THIS IS AMERICA.RIGHT-WRONG OR INDIFFERENT. EVERYONE HAS THEIR THOUGHTS." - AL OLIVER (BASEBALL ICON)
Baseball History is pretty rich if you ask me ... and that is the reason why Hall of Fame votin' Time is so wondrous and full of glee. Right, Wrong, or, Indifferent, everyone has the right to state their opinions. You don't need a Baseball Writers Association of America seat on some committee or some position of authority to have a voice. All baseball fans have their thoughts, their memories, their opinions ... and that's great.
If you grew up in one city you might have a very different view on who's a Hall of Famer than that of someone who grew up in another city. Everyone's seen different things, heard different things, felt different things, over the course of their lives ... and it's when all those voices meet that we begin to paint a very vivid picture of consensus.
Democracy may not be easy, democracy may not be fun all the time ... democracy might be a winding road of thorns n' brambles when you least want it to be .... but it's what we got ... and even if you're right, or even if you're wrong, what's important is that you participated and let your opinions, thoughts, and feelings be known.
Al Oliver is right. I may not be a big time guru of baseball, or the crowned prince of analytics, or the grand daddy of what's right .... but that doesn't matter ... if I feel like writing a Hypothetical Ballot of my thoughts on the Modern Baseball Era players under consideration for the hall of fame then that's what I'm gonna do ... and if you wanna read it ... then, hey, that's great too.
The "Modern Baseball" List
Baseball in 2016, divided up History in a manner I find interesting. They cut up baseball history into Four chunks. They are:
"Early Baseball" (colloquially oft referred to as the "Dead Ball" era) Ranges from: 1871 to 1949
"Golden Days" (I like this term it's very Bruce Srpingtseeny) Ranges from: 1950 to 1969 "Modern Baseball" (I'm guessing the period following was the Post-Modern period) Ranges from: 1970 to 1987
"Today's Game" (The Game played Today) Ranges from: 1988 to a time called Right Now
I think it's an interesting sectioning-off of chronology ... some of the cutoffs seem sort of arbitrary but that's okay. They have to keep it professional, obviously, being the official arbitrator of Baseball History, but I think a completely colloquial categorization would be something more like this:
"Dead Ball Era" 0 (beginning of baseball is debated so I'll call the beginning "Zero") to 1919.
This era is before they had real gloves even. Stats from this era are never counted as official because the records are sketchy and not defined. For example a "stolen base" could have been anything from advancing on an error to legging out an extra base on a ball hit into the gap. Stats mean very little from this era due to inconsistencies.
"Glory Days" From 1920 to 1959
I like the Springsteenian denotation of "Golden Days" but I'm gonna Springsteen it up a notch to Glory Days. This is the Babe Ruth era you'd call it ... where baseball had its first mega like superstar of behemoth proportions. Babe Ruth was more than just the "face" of the game ... he basically was the game for a brief portion of time.
People have to look at some of the parks from this era when considering the stats. Like Ebbets Field for example was 297 feet out in right field corner. Like, some parks didn't even require 300 feet for a home run which explains a lot of the offensive stats from this era.
"The Big Time" From 1960 to 1994.
The game became very popular after the Glory Days, everyone wanted a piece of the pie. The fiscal and money parts of the game expanded. Revenue, expenditures, wages, etc. all went up big time. The game was no longer a beautiful little pass time but a Super Popular Mega Attraction. Stadiums went from 15,000 seats to some as large as 50,000 seats.
In 1981 Wrigley bubble gum sold the Cubs to Tribune (WGN, etc.) and thus the first media conglomerate owned a baseball team. To under score this in history is a great miscalculation. Radio, TV, and advertising all became intertwined with the game. Baseball went from penauts and cracker jacks to Mass Media. One 15 second Coca Cola commercial could net a team more money than selling out a stadium.
"Steroid Era" From 1995 to 2010
Coming out of the strike which hurt relations with the fans ... efforts were made to make baseball the Big Thing again and homeruns was where they wanted to go with it. Whether it was the balls being altered, the weird concoction of chemicals players were altering themselves with, or a combination of both ... people hit a lot of homers in this era.
The average fans love this era and see it as like the most exciting era of baseball ever but a lot of historians aren't fond of this era at all. They believe it turned baseball into a freak show and damaged the reputation of the game. Records didn't mean anything anymore they felt.
A lot of players from this era, some of them HUGE NAMES, are having trouble making the baseball Hall of Fame due to the negative stigma this era carries.
"Present Era" From 2011 to Now. Self explanatory. Offense is back up now after being down for about 5 years. People suggest the balls are being whacked up again or something. Either way baseball now is pretty A-Okay.
That's how'd I'd section up baseball history. But, that's not really here or nor there, really. Just a bonus opinion.
The Hall of Fame committee will vote on players who missed entry to the Hall from various eras in upcoming years. Early Baseball will be perused over in 2020, Golden Days will perused in 2020 and 2025, while Modern Baseball will get perused often in 2017, 2019, 2020, and 2025.
So guys like Dick Allen, Mike Marshall, Jim Kaat, Al Oliver and others will get a chance again in 2020 ... that's a ways off. The "Modern Era Ballot" is being debated early and often it looks like. The names on said list are the following:
Steve Garvey Tommy John Luis Tiant Don Mattingly Jack Morris Dale Murphy Dave Parker Ted Simmons Alan Trammell
There's two names on that list that seem more oriented for the "Golden Days" list ... I mean Tiant and Tommy John were bigger in the 60s and 70s than they were in the 80s ... hmmm .... this leads me to believe people I thought would be on the Glory Days ballot probably won't be (i.e. Kaat, Marshall, Allen, Oliver, etc.).
Oh well, that's how it was sliced so we gotta work in the confines of that. The following is my OPINION/THOUGHTS on the above names from my experience pool of baseball thinking ... I confess before hand that many of my opinions on these players are biased ... and I don't care ... because I'm writing this article for fun so .... you know.
YES? .... or No?
This rating of these great baseball players will be divided into Pros, Cons, and Miscellaneous. It is in no specific order.
Steve Garvey
Pros: Good Hitter, Work Horse who often played every game per season, Gold Gloves
Cons: Gold Gloves were First Baseman Gold Gloves, Wasn't a A+ Hitter.
Garvey is like Mattingly, when I get to Mattingly I'll probably save time by writing "See: Garvey, Above".
First Base is an easy position because every player in the infield is making an effort to make your life easy. The infielders are trained to get to ground balls fast and relay it to you in the most efficient and easy to execute means. After Designated Hitter, your first baseman, is usually your worst fielder. So a first base gold glove is more like the award for "Best Worst Fielder on the Diamond" which is not a great award ... it usually winds up in the hands of a first baseman in a large market like L.A. or New York ... and that's why Steve Garvey and Don Mattingly have a wall of them at their houses ... because they were the first basemen for the L.A. Dodgers and N.Y. Yankees respectively.
Therefore Garvey needs some pretty good offensive stats to be a Hall of Famer ... and his career .775 OPS isn't sky scraping or earth shattering.
If he was a gold glove thirdbaseman with a .775 OPS and all those meaty RBIs then fine ... but as it stands .... I'm gonna go with a big NO on Garvey.
Stance:No.
Tommy John
Pros: Great Pitcher, Longevity
Cons: Lost time to injuries, wasn't best pitcher of his era, No Cy Youngs.
Miscellaneous: Has surgery named after him!
Tommy John pitched his ass off, then his arm basically tore and broke, so he took ligaments from his knee and replaced his broken arm stuff with knee stuff ... and then pitched until he was 46 years old.
This is a folk lore style story, something you'd see in a movie ... but it's real life, that's true. His stats and story warrant him entry, I do indeed believe.
Stance: Yes.
Luis Tiant
Pros: Great Pitcher, Could Smoke Cigars whilst Showering
Cons: Stretch of 3 Bad Seasons, No Cy Youngs.
Miscellaneous: Was a Cuban Defector before that was common.
Tiant has a slew of great seasons mixed in with a slew of rough seasons on his stat card. He's not a shoe-in that's for sure. I'm 50/50 on him from his stats. He's got a back story which is interesting though.
Tiant left Cuba to pursue his dreams and has remained outspoken about the Castro regime to this very day. A lot of young people who wear those communist T-Shirts with Castro's face on it, or even the Prime Minister of Canada who's a big Castro fan should listen to people who defected that regime to understand how dangerous it was there.
Since my vote really has no bearing on the future, and since I'm 50/50 on it, I'm gonna just go with Yes for the sake of it. Stance: Yes.
Donny "Baseball" Mattingly
Pros: Great Hitter, Lots of Ribbies, Gold Gloves
Cons: Short Career by HOF standards
Miscellaneous: Side Burns heat on Simpsons with Mr. Burns very memorable
See: Steve Garvey Above. (See told you). Goldies are all gimmick because he was a first baseman in a large city ... he has 9 of them ... probably has like a closet full of goldoes. He has less longevity than Garvey but was a much better hitter than Garvey ... so they even out at about the same overall caliber.
Stance:No.
Jack Morris
Pros: Good Pitcher, with seven wins in the post season. Cons: ERA tended to balloon up to over 4 quite often. He pitched in a lot of post seasons and was the World Series MVP with the Twins ... so his credentials are pretty good.
He's still got the mustache too ... which is commendable. It's getting to Honky Tonk Man territory though. I mean if your 80s gimmick is still your 2017 gimmick that's cool but I mean the cut off point I think is seeing the Honky Tonk Man wrestler with his Elvis hair (not a wig) in 2017 ... I think that is like a demarcation point in the sand when a 80s gimmick went on too long.
Morris's iconic 'stache isn't of Honky Tonk Man level over-done yet though as far as 80s gimmicks go. As for Hall of Fame, a close but regretful No, here. His ERA is 3.90 for his career which is just too close to 4 I find. The World Series MVP and cool mustache pack some punch but not enough to swing him into the solid Yes column.
Stance:No.
Dale Murphy
Pros: Power.
Cons: Missed any "Sure-Thang" Stats like 3000 hits or 400 homers.
Dale missed that 400 homer plateau by 2 homers ... which is one of those big numbers the writers like to see. If he hit two more homers he'd probably have gotten a lot more consideration. Similarly with Fred McGriff who missed a plateau by inches I think the adherence to these "sure thing" numbers shouldn't be written in stone.
What is the discernible difference of a person who hit 398 homers and a guy who hit 400 homers? I don't know. Or with McGriff who sat at 493 homers instead of a hitting a nice round number like 500?
Murphy had "5-tool" seasons as well of running well, defending well, judging the strike zone well, hitting well, and power alleying well.
Mouphy
The year he got 90 walks and 30 steals he scored over 130 times ... in addition to hitting 36 homers. So he wasn't a one dimensional power hitter in any sense ... he had some 5 tool years.
Murph has some big name backers too ... recently the popular cartoon site Homestar Runner gave homage to Murph's iconic "Power Alley" poster whereas Mr. Murphy stood in a damp yet cool alley way with a baseball bat light saber ... which anyone with a brain can admit looks cool.
I'm a pretty solid Yes on Dale Murphy.
Stance:Yes.
Dave Parker
Pros: Stacked Statistical Resume
Cons: No "Milestone Numbers" again .... no 3000 hits or 400 homers.
Like Murphy and McGriff, the old voters never voted for people who missed the milestone numbers. The voters who skipped out on voting for Parker were those types who really looked at the milestone numbers and not the complete package.
The old school voters wanted Iron Men who didn't miss games. I think the "Iron Man" gimmick is pretty over rated. I mean watching a old Pete Rose or an old Cal Ripken rack up stats while some young go-getter kids were sitting on the bench waiting for their chance to crack the lineup doesn't really impress me as much as it does others. Cal Ripken at 40 years old with a .600 OPS just in the lineup to pad his stats really doesn't impress me at all.
Parker, statistically, is similar to Dick Allen and others who aren't in. He's got monster stats but no real milestone/longevity stats. I mean some of these Dave Parker seasons are Monster Seasons, man. Let's see, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1985 ... he had some Monster Years.
Ripken, as I was using as an "Iron Man" example ... had a career .447 slugging percentage. Dave Parker had a career .471 career slugging percentage. I mean are we supposed to think because a "Iron Man" had more at-bats and larger sample sizes that he was better? I don't think so ... 24 career SLG points is a wide margin. No one can say with a straight face that Cal Ripken was a better hitter than Dave Parker.
Stance: Yes.
Ted Simmons
Pros: Great offensive numbers posted at a rarely offensive position
Cons: Very Little Publicity Ever About this Person
This is a name I am least familiar with on this list, he's not a player you ever hear talked about or written about in baseball circles. Little if ever. Stats wise, he's like a secret superstar ... only behind Johnny Bench and Gary Carter as the best catcher of his era. Is third best catcher of the era warrant him entry? Possibly, yes.
I don't think he was as good defensively as Bench and Carter ... but he needs some sort of recognition of some sort, no? Being the third best catcher of that era must mean something, Catching is friggin' hard, man.
I've read so many baseball biographies over the years and never seen this name come up. It's rare you hear about him ever. I don't know he's like ... I dunno ... this man needs a publicist I think. He needs a promo guy or something.
If hypothetically I was voting on this and there was a vote maximum ... Simmons would be the first to switch from the Yes to the No column. I'm gonna file him down as a Yes, but like weird Yes ... like a Who Is This Forgotten Man sort of a weird Yes.
Stance: a Weird Yes.
Alan Trammell
Pros: Gold Glover Shortstop with above average hitting prowess.
Cons: Sub par offense numbers, no milestone numbers.
I was a Yes back then, so I guess I'm still a Yes, now. So, yeah.
Out of this current pool he's a soft Yes ... but I'm on record as being a Trammell Yesser so I can't change that plea in this article out-of-the-blue and all willy-nilly, y'know?
Stance:Yes.
Post-Writing Assessment
Okay dokay. What were the binary entries here ...
Solid YES: Dale Murphy and Dave Parker Soft YES: Tommy John, Luis Tiant, Ted Simmons, Alan Trammell
NO: Steve Garvey, Don Mattingly, and Jack Morris
I think Dale Murphy and Dave Parker are guys who should have got in 100% ... four of them are guys who aren't sure things but could go either way ... and three of them, I think, don't have solid enough credentials.
The United States of America has just been crowned for the first time ever .... the winner of the World Baseball Classic. I have previously written one time on the subject,
In that one, we looked at what I believed were factors at play as to why the United States of America, the supposed King of Baseball, doesn't beat teams like Japan and the Dominican in this Olympic style tournament. It talked about homeruns, and of Terry Crowley I think at one point, and a comedic interlude involving the great Earl Weaver was in there if memory serves me right.
It looks like that 2013 article can finally be laid to rest now that the USA has been crowned the champion of this illustrious tournament.
This tournament has it all, it's Worldly, it's Baseball, and it's CLASSIC. I don't know what more anyone can ask for. The Worldhood of Baseball is inherently Classic and over the last few weeks it was on full display for all to see. Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher Dock Ellis once referred to Baseball as a Country .... insinuating that Baseball was in and of its own self ... a Nation.
After this tournament ... I have come to agree with the great sage Dock Ellis (rest his soul), after seeing so many regions and physiognomies united under the flagship of Baseball and how beautiful it was ... I have no choice but to agree with Dock Ellis on this matter. On display was the dynamic flair of Puerto Rico, the consummate efficiency and attention to detail of Japan, the talent powerhouse which is the Dominican Republic, The diaspora teams who may be American now but who gladly suited up for their parents or grandparents homelands, the determination and reliability of Canada and Mexico (USA's most trusted allies), the heart and soul of Venezuela ... and last but certainly not least the birth land of baseball itself ... The United States of America.
When the dust of this gentlemanly tournament settled we saw for the very first time ever ... the land where Baseball was first born .... was once again crowned as the Champions of it.
.....and it probably couldn't have come at a better time.
Deep Divisions
I've been reading Broadcast Icon Dan Rather's poignant essays he posts to social media of late and I think he has his finger on the pulse of the current deep, almost historic, partisan divisions in America's political landscape of today. In a recent one he described the political climate of the times as,
"...consumed by the churning political hurricane that is America today. The deepening divisions that are pulling at the fabric of our nation are on raw display. This is my country that I love with all my heart. We are a weakened nation, in our own estimation, and that of the world. If this was happening in some distant land, we would shake our heads and thank our lucky stars that we are Americans. But this nightmare is happening here, and we have no choice but to confront that disorientating truth."
-Dan Rather, March 4th of 2017
The political bickering, the slander, the fighting, the trickery, the slings and arrows being volleyed to-and-fro ... has this really become depressing to the point where the very fabric of it is on the verge of tearing? Reading the papers, yes, that seems to be the case .... but ... Americans should remember something in times such as these .... and that's .... that there's another side to this coin. Yes, America is the land of Freedom and of Law .... and yes, we know its political stability and Laws are sacrosanct to itself and its function ... but .... America isn't just a political sphere .... there's another side to the coin which embodies America ....
What's on the other side of that Coin, you ask?
When you walk down the road and see children playing and laughing .... That's on the other side of the coin.
When you continue down that same road and your foot gets stuck in a crack and you tumble down to your knees .... yet, .... there's an arm and a hand immediately outstretched to help you back to your feet .... that's on the other side of the coin. It's that local pizza store you stop at every friday night to buy-a a slice-a of the pizza pie! Its that park right by where you live, that every time you enter foot in it and look around, you have to stop and wonder for a second if this is a Norman Rockwell painting which has come to living breathing life or if it truly is a real park that exists in total reality, who's sights and sounds are so real they hurt. A reality that echoes in your heart and the powerful truth that dawns on you that you exist in this real life painting who's beauty is captivating .... that's on the other side of this coin too! It's the feeling, the feeling at this park, when you step onto the field and look at the sun and say "WOW" .... that's there too. You know what else is on the other side of this coin? The coin that represents America? Well, there's first base ... then there's second base .... oh, then there's this thing I like to call third base .... and then we all know what comes next don't we ... ..... IT'S CROSSING HOME PLATE AND SCORING THE WINNING RUN IN THE BOTTOM OF THE NINTH TO WIN GAME SEVEN OF THE WORLD SERIES!!!!
That's right America, Baseball is on the other side of this coin. It's been there the whole entire time.
America's not just about some sly fox up on capitol hill greasing some pocket or wheelin' some deal! America is not just about some tycoon up on the beltway buying off some other tycoon! No, you rightly must understand that it's not! It's not just about some salesman trying to sell you some crap or other! It's more than just about the richest man in town trying his darndest to fleece the second richest man in town through some hoodwinkin' carpetbaggery! It's not only about some official up on stupid idiot street trying to line up his next scam! NO! That's only half of the coin named America ....
... the other half of America is the part that you look at and say "WOW! YES! I'm proud of this!" and even in these trying and turbulent times of political uncertainty up there in the Land of Politicians ...
... there's still powerful and inspiring moments of glory to be found in another land ... the Land of Baseball.
Now whaddya say America!? CAN YOU GET DOWN WITH YOUR OWN BAD SELVES!!?!?!?? Yeah!
(Congratulations as well to Puerto Rico for taking home the Silver Medal. Puerto Rico and all the Boricua should also, yes indeed, get down with their own bad selves. Wepa!)
"My trots dictated that something like that might happen." -Jeffrey the Hack Man Leonard
Oh man, everyone is talking 'bout trots these days. Left and right. Trots this and Trots that. Oh my goodness.
What are "trots"? That's just when a homerun is hit and the player proceeds to make a big deal about enjoying that homerun. He gets to go around all the bases, and then touch home plate ... and he has all the time in the world to do so. Some guys savor it up and take their time trotting around the bases (as such).
Everybody in the news talking about trots now. Goose Gossage, Mike Schmidt, et al..... My goodness. The old school guard is up in literal arms over this Trots situation.
Trots have always been of a National Importance and of a News Inducing caliber ... yet in the wake of Jose Bautista's "bat flip" in the last ALCS and some other incidents (including the press surrounding Korean players who love bat flippin' and trottin' down in their league).
Look, Trots are serious, okay man? As the Hackman has stated.... Trots can dictate that things might happen. If you're not familiar with the 1987 NLCS series, Mr. Leonard caught himself on human fire, went on an offensive tear, and topped it off by celebrating a homerun with something called the "One Flap Down Trot" .... as seen in this highlight reel:
"The Flap Down meant that pitch .... was Nothing."
If he had that flap down as he circled the bases after a homerun .... it meant the pitch that was thrown to him just then was literally Nothing. Like his number Double-Zero on his back ... Nothing At All.
Trots are nothing new ... but if you read the news stories these days you'd think Jose Bautista and some Korean guy invented homerun celebrations/taunts.
Two news stories are of interest as of late in regards to this article:
Two old-schoolers/microphone-rulers are sounding off about the young players these days and their effronterous behavior when it comes to Trots.
Nerds are Ruining Baseball
In a flagrantly f-word fueled rant the other week, Hall of Famer Goose Gossage took the utmost of umbrage to two aspects of the current situation of baseball in this most current of eras.
In the Hall of Famer pitcher's wild tirade he stated that "Nerds" are ruining baseball by trying to turn the great game into some sort of robotic statistical simulation. He cursed these terrible nerds for attempting to ruin baseball with their sweaty and stinky analytics and calculators.
Whether or not stinky/smelly Idiotic Nerds are ruining Baseball is not the current topic of this article so let's not go into that any further. That argument possibly has some important merit to it but we're talking 'bout trots now, ok?
Goose Gossage, the relief pitching legend, claimed in the salty-tirade that Jose Bautista's homerun celebration in the ALDS was a disgraceful act. Bautista's "bat-flip" and long look at his homerun against the Texas Rangers was interpreted by Mr. Gossage as being of the utmostly outrageous in terms of personal demeanor.
He went on to claim that "all those guys in Toronto" are like that... they're all a bunch of idiotic nerds!
Is he right? Is he wrong? I don't know, maybe he is. Alls I know is .... Goose Gossage talking mad smack about Toronto...
....made me very envious of Toronto.
I'm Canadian but grew up and live in Montreal, and we lost our team more than a decade ago. For Toronto and the Blue Jays to have this much heat over some trots... it just makes me wish we had a team again in Montreal even badder. It makes me deep in my heart wish we had a team here again WAY more badder. It doesn't bother me that Goose Gossage is angry at Toronto and the Blue Jays .... because deep down I wish Goose Gossage was angry at the Expos. I wish we still had some of that.....
We want trot heat. We miss trot heat. Why can't Montreal have any of that good flagrant trot heat? We want trot heat too, you know....
Mike Schmidt versus Ellis Valentine
A week or so after Goose Gossage's angry swear-filled assault on Toronto and on Nerds, the great Home Run King and Legend, Mr. Mike Schmidt penned an article for the Associated Press in which he echoes Goose's statements about the antics of the New Generation.
Vintage Trot Heat. Legend versus Legend.
So here I am, in the baseball-less wasteland of Montreal wishing we still had Major League Baseball over here ... and I'm jealous as filthy sin that the stupid Blue Jays of Toronto have Trot Heat out of the wazoo ... just wishing that even a simple slither or a small smidgen of Trot Heat could still somehow find its way to my beautiful home-city and Baseball-Less town of Montreal....
When Lo and Behold, One Michael Jack Shmidt pens an op-ed for the Associated Press which not only claims that Toronto Blue Jays star Jose Bautista's trot was a disgrace but he goes on to state that an event which occurred in Canada over THIRTY YEARS AGO was also a huge disgrace.
Mike Schmidt states in the piece,
"The Expos had a player named Ellis Valentine in the '80s. Great talent, power, speed, maybe the best throwing arm I've ever seen. We were acquaintances from competing over the years, so I considered him someone with whom I could speak. One day early in his career, at Olympic Stadium, he hit a home run and proceeded to trot around the bases as slowly as humanly possible. The trot included a little Reggie Jackson touch, he held nothing back.
Later in the game, he was on third base and I couldn't resist saying, 'I guess you're not planning on hitting many home runs, trots like that are for guys who don't.'"
-Mike Schmidt
The Expos? Olympic Stadium? Wait.... Mike Schmidt is calling out Trots from more than thirty years ago!?
Thank you so much. Thank you from the bottom of my heart! I KNEW SOME TROT HEAT COULD STILL FIND ITS WAY HERE! I just knew it! I never gave up hope! I knew deep down we'd still have Trot Heat! I never gave up hope.
Thankfullness and gratitude aside .... Mr. Schmidt proceeds as an aside in the article to state that maybe once he himself did engage in this by doing the "running man" dance of "running in place" after a homerun but he claims he never engaged in any overly effefronterous trots.
Yet, one must ask ... was that "running man" trot as benign as Mike Schmidt claims it to be? The proof must be in the pudding, as they say.
Mr. Ellis Valentine himself took the Twitter-Sphere yesterday to make a counter-claim that not only does he not recall Mike Schmidt telling him that at Olympic Stadium on the day in question but also Mr. Valentine located an animated gif of....
.....Mike Schmidt's Running Man Trot!
Along with the hashtag of "hypocrite" Mr. Valentine provides a link to an animated GIF of One Mike Schmidt engaging in said "running man Trot" which Schmidt brushed off as quite reserved in his Associated Press article on Trots. Now let's view the GIF in question....
Oh my gooooodness. What do we have here? A simple reserved "running man trot" as described in Schmidt's essay or something much more audacious?
In slow motion we can plainly see the following:
1. A gigantic two handed clap 2. A vigorous fist pump 3. A shorter fist pump 4. A series of motions which, as described in the article, would be regarded as "running in place"
The question now at the heart of the matter is the following... ....was Philadelphia Phillies Third Baseman and Baseball Icon Mike Schmidt's trot of an overtly gregarious and brazen nature? In the slowed down GIF provided by Mr. Ellis Valentine .... the conclusive answer is and only can be ....
....Yes, it was. It was a brazen and gregarious act. Those actions told the pitcher who threw that ball to him that the pitch meant Nothing to him. Nothing at All.
Conclusion
Are Nerds ruining baseball? Maybe, we'll have to look into that another time though.
Did Jose Bautista's bat-flip offend many many people and bring scorn and disflavor to the city of Toronto? YES!
Am I Envious of Toronto's Trot Heat? Yes, I am.
Did Mike Schmidt's article warm my heart, when in a time where I wished Montreal had Trot Heat like Toronto does, he brought said Trot Heat to Montreal like a Timely Rain? Yes.
Yet is Mike Schmidt justified in Condemning the Actions of Mr. Ellis Valentine when he himself engaged in Trots as shown via twitter by Ellis Valentine? NO, Mike Schmidt is NOT justified.
Did Jeffrey "Hackman" / "Penitentiary-Face" Leonard dictate the doings of which transpired during the 1987 NLCS due to his trots? YES. Yes, he did. His trots indeed dictated the events which transpired.
I love baseball, it's the best, it makes me very happy inside of my heart.
It's hall of fame votin' time again and if I had the opportunity to vote (which I obviously don't) then this would be my hypothetical ballot.
First off, the Steroid Era players, is a hot topic for debate (I wroted on it once too), and I think players who were caught and/or admitted to using steroids will not make the hall of fame. Maybe down the line when society is more accepting of drugs of this nature, and in the case that science is producing safer versions of steroids and human growth hormone, then a committee will probably let some of them in. Voters it seems are not voting for them in this era and I think there is a valid reason as to why they are not voting for them.
The following players are the highest profile players who were caught or admitted use: Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, Sheffield, Palmeiro, Kevin Brown, Andy Pettitte, Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell, Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Miguel Tejada, Albert Pujols, and that no-good A-Rod.
Ok, let's get going,
This article will look at each player's case on the ballot minus those names from the above list.
Case by Case
Craig Biggio
Biggio will make it this year 100% so there's no reason to spend too much time on him. He's basically already in. Only 14 more people have crossed the plate more times than Craig Biggio, this guy scored a heckuva lot of runs in his life.
He will be in this year, no doubt about it.
Hall of Famer?Yes.
Tim Raines
I've wrote about Raines's candidacy on four occasions:
I don't know what is holding up Tim Raines' entry into the Hall of Fame, and now that it's down to a 10 year maximum to be on the ballot (Mattingly, Trammell, and Lee Smith get a grandfather clause to stay on the ballot for 15 years but Raines for some reason didn't get that clause), he has only 3 chances left to get in instead of 8. It looks more and more like he won't get in at all which really is a shame.
I think now that the steroid era is dying down and teams are returning to a style of baseball that was less reliant on homeruns for offensive production...more people will start to realize what impact players like Raines brought to the table. His ability to get on base, get around the bases, and score runs is matched by only a few others in all of history.
Hall of Famer?Yes.
Lee Smith
I don't think the amount of innings pitched by Lee Smith is enough to warrant him really making the Hall of Fame, he only appeared in 1,289.1 innings in his entire life which is like 3 times less the amount of innings than what the average hall of fame has pitched.
That being said his era in which he pitched in was the first where the "closer" really started to be looked at as a big deal. Coaches in the eighties were starting to use a guy just for the ninth inning, so his lack of innings pitched was not necessarily because he couldn't log a lot innings but because the role he was being used in only required him to throw that many.
The thing about Lee is that he was a dominant bull-pen pitcher for about 16 years which is pretty amazing, really. He was given the task to pitch only in the ninth inning when they had a close lead (which to me is an odd role to assign a player) and he did that incredibly well. He finished with a 3.03 career ERA and 478 saves.
Even if I think the Saves stat is a very gimmicky and kind of silly stat, this man did take the job assigned to him and proceeded to excel at it for 16 years straight...so, in the end I think he is a Hall of Famer.
Hall of Famer?Yes.
Curt Schilling
Awww, Curt has a booo-boooo, poor Curt.
I've had a lot of bloody injuries and I know that blood doesn't really give any indication of how bad an injury is. It's called a "flesh wound" for a reason...and that's because only the flesh is wounded. I think he's seen as a legend for having a bloody sock in a playoff game but that shit is sort of exaggerated to an extent where it's just annoying to hear about him.
He was sort of linked with roids....many on the '93 Phillies did them (like Dykstra) yet Curt is not mentioned by anyone as having done them. He has an odd investigation for steroids in Boston yet this occurred after his career was over in 2008 where maybe he was thinking of coming back, I don't know. Either way, officially, his name is not linked to steroid use.
He's got decent numbers, it's a shame Randy Johnson and Pedro have shown up on the ballot because it makes his numbers look like trash compared to them. The big stat for him is his 3000+ strikeouts and honestly anyone who struck out that many people in his life is probably a Hall of Famer.
Curt Schilling played in some big markets and still never won a Cy Young award though. He's a tough call, I think he will eventually get in due to his Ks though.
Hall of Famer?Yes.
Edgar Martinez I come from the view that pitching and defense are paramount to winning ball games, I really do. I know offensive numbers are what makes most fans excited, but one of the reasons I think Schilling (and Mussina too) are Hall of Famers is because pitching and defense is what wins games.
Edgar Martinez was a career DH, meaning he didn't field a position and in the years early on when he did play third base he was atrocious. He finished with a .933 OPS which is amazing but how much of a penalty should he get for never playing defense? I don't know, it's just my opinion that Edgar is not a Hall of Famer.
In the final assessment of things, 1261 RBIs is not enough to warrant his entry...if he never played defense and had like 2000 RBIs then fine but his numbers aren't anything really amazing anyways to begin with.
Hall of Famer?No.
Alan Trammell I wrote about Trammell not long ago (in an article about him, Mike Marshall, and Dick Allen).
I came to the conclusion that if Ozzie Smith (a contemporary and comparable short stop to Alan) is in the Hall then 100% so should Alan. It's literally just an IF and THEN case scenario with this case.
There's no way he's not a Hall of Famer, really.
Hall of Famer?Yes.
Mike Mussina
K, now there's a manly injury
I remember when he was hit in the face with a line drive and everyone thought his career was done but he made it back and still pitched very well after that scare. His stats are hard to compare to other pitchers from other eras because he pitched through the steroid era so his ERA was definitely higher due to that. If he pitched in the seventies I think Mike would have had a sub-3 ERA, I think that would be a good estimate.
Like Schilling he never got a Cy Young but I still think he will make it with like 75% near the end of his candidacy....I think it'll be a close call but I think he'll make it. Again, I do value pitchers quite highly so maybe it's just me, I don't know.
Unlike Schilling though, his blood image is actually fucking hardcore as fuck, it's not a foot boo-boo it's a broken eye for crying out loud.
Hall of Famer?Yes.
Jeff Kent
Too coiffed lookin'
He played with Bonds on that Giants team where Bonds went nuts, but Kent has stayed out of the steroids scandal's long-casting net of stigma.
Jeff was a great player, who looked like an 80s guy with that mustache too. He was never known as a superstar and due to playing in the steroid era his .855 OPS looks pretty average.If he was a stellar defensive player than he'd be a shoe-in but I don't think anyone saw Kent as a great or even good second baseman.
I have a feeling he'll sneak in because he played in some big market cities but he's borderline at best. If he hit like that in the seventies or eighties then yeah but just because he looks like he played in that era doesn't mean he did. He played in the steroid era where one of his own teammates hit 70 fucking homeruns in one year...his numbers really pale in comparison to his era.
Hall of Famer?No.
Crime Dog He's a big homer big RBI guy, usually these dudes always make it in with little trouble. I wonder why he doesn't get a lot of votes. The voters are weird with their milestone numbers I find, like say a hypothetical player gets 2,991 hits with a .956 OPS then he's somehow worse than a guy who got 3,000 hits with an .880 OPS. They mainly care about the milestone numbers, they don't care about sample size or anything else.
In the case with the Crime Dog, he got 493 homers in his life....but that's 7 less than 500, if you didn't notice, and 500 homers is one of those milestone numbers that gets you in. Are they really gonna keep Crime out due to 7 measly homers? Gimme a break. If Jim Rice made it than so does he. Rice only had 382 homers...he didn't even make it to 400 let alone 500.
I think Crime should go in.
Hall of Famer?Yes.
Larry Walker I wrote a long one about him the other day,
I don't know with Larry, I think my brain is saying No but my heart is saying Yeah, He's a Hall of Famah.
I 100% do not think he will ever get in but I for me personally I will put him down as a Yes.
Hall of Famer?Yes.
Don Mattingly Playing in a big market I think the 4 or 5 great seasons he had somehow got exaggerated into him being of legendary status. He was showered with golden gloves and this and that...good for him. Cut yer side burns for crying out loud you dirty hippie!
He was a great hitter for 3 or 4 seasons but that don't make a hall of fame career.
Hall of Famer?Nope.
Pedro, Unit, n' Smoltz
Pedro Vs. Gerbil (RIP Don Zimmer)
Pedro was the greatest pitcher I ever saw, he was incredible...if he doesn't get 100% of the vote then whoever doesn't vote for him shouldn't be dis-barred but they should be fucking executed for fuck's sake. He's god damned fucking PEDRO for crying out loud he's like the best pitcher ever. He had a sub-2 ERA in the darned steroid era on two occasions (once in the NL and then in the AL), that's actually ludicrous when you think about it. Pedro is literally amazing, the fact that there's probably millions of people named Pedro on earth but he can still be identified solely from his first name is incredible in itself, when someone is talkin' 'bout Pedro you know exactly who they are talkin' 'bout.
Randy too, that guy started as a weird lanky dufus but ended up being a real pitcher's pitcher. He's not as good as Pedro but he's one of those guys who could get 100% of the votes in his first year. He even hit a bird mid-air one time and caused said bird to literally EXPLODE.
Smoltz? He's going in too, no doubt about it. Oh man I hated Maddux/Smoltz/Glavine so much, they were great though. They got all the calls these guys, man. Sometimes it felt like they paid the umps these three guys. At least that Steve Avery character petered out, there used to be four or them in that clan...4 of their stupid faces to look at.
