Fixing the Hall of Fame – Part 1
by Daniel Greenia
Introduction: What is a Hall of Famer?
Jim Rice was finally voted into the Hall of fame last year. Should he be there? Were there better players on the ballot that should have been elected before him? Considering the process that got him there, should he feel honored?
Before we can begin to assess whether a player should or should not be in the Hall, we need to have an answer to this basic question: What is a Hall of Famer? Some of the most vociferous arguments about players result from the failure to come to a common understanding of the definition of this term. All of the most sophisticated metrics can’t prove a thing until we know the answer.
Looking at the rules for electing players to the hall of fame is no help. The criteria given can be used to describe a hall of any size, from a couple dozen players to more than a thousand players. And we’re not looking for a fuzzy definition like, “One of the top players of his generation” or some such. We need something concrete.
Well, how many players are in the hall of fame? The official count is 232. This includes 203 players in MLB from 1876 to 2004, plus 29 Black players barred from playing in MLB. Not counted among these are a few great players that the Hall classifies otherwise (as pioneers, managers or executives).
This gives us the definition now in use by the Hall. A “Hall of Famer” is one of the top 232 players retiring in 2004 or before (not including banned players such as Pete Rose and Joe Jackson). Thus, the Hall’s electorate can be said to be in error when it elects a player who is not one of the top 232, or when it fails to elect a player who is among the top 232.
My focus is on the latter group of players, the guys that the Hall voters are missing. This is towards the larger aim of identifying, prioritizing and publicizing the players who deserve the most attention from the Hall voters. Based upon virtually every survey and advanced metric I’ve seen, I’m convinced there are from 45 to 55 players who are among the top 232 players eligible for the Hall but have not been elected. (Correspondingly, there are then 45 to 55 hall of famers who are not among the top 232.)
That’s a lot of players, I think. How can the voters be missing so many guys? A few likely explanations:
- Many voters holding to personal, stricter standards of what “Hall of Famer” means, that leaves room for much less than 232 players.
- Lack of interest. Face it, few among the electorate ever sought to become a voter for the Hall. Filling out a ballot is often a perfunctory act; little thought (and no research time) is invested in the process.
- A general lack of understanding of findings from sabermetric analysis.
- A system of rules that fails to allow for a thorough vetting of candidates, even to the point of giving some strong candidates only one year of eligibility.
My initial focus in this series will be on that last one, the rules for election for the annual BBWAA voting. Ideas for fixing the electorate we’ll save for another day.
=================================================================
Part 1 – Undoing the Anachronistic Constraints
This guy’s great, this guy’s not quite so great, this guy’s almost great…. Who decides these things? Beautiful ballplayers, great ballplayers, like me. They go to their graves in little out of the way places, after waiting, waiting, waiting thirty, forty years, one step away. Forever.
–Harry Willette in the movie Cooperstown
Who decides? Initially, it’s six guys. Six anonymous newspaper writers comprise the BBWAA ballot screening committee. Each year, they are charged with the task of assessing the qualifications of everyone who played their last major league game five years before. Their job is made easier by the rule that restricts their review to players that were active in ten or more seasons. These days, this results in about three dozen players they have to judge. All it takes for a player to make the ballot is for two of the six screeners to support his inclusion. Whatever process they use in arriving at their choices is known only to them.
Does this make sense? Isn’t there a better way? I’m here to argue that the rules for hall of fame elections by the BBWAA have become outdated. The BBWAA screening committee, the 10-years played rule, the 15-year limit on eligibility, and the 5% rule are relics from a prior age that need to be retracted. None of these were part of the Hall’s rules during their early elections; the conditions that led to their establishment are no longer in existence.
Up until about forty years ago it was easy being a voter for the Hall. Merely being an experienced observer and scribe of the game gave you the right to be considered an expert. Few research tools existed to enable people to construct factual arguments to challenge your opinion. This is no longer the case.
The creation of the first computerized baseball database led to the publishing of the Baseball Encyclopedia by MacMillan in 1969. The Big Mac was the first resource with a complete stat line for every player in history. Today, we have readily accessible computerized databases. It’s easy to use a spreadsheet to customize your own numerical studies. In addition, baseball historical research has boomed in recent decades. The founding of the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) in 1971 has led to a great expansion of knowledge of every aspect of the game.
Given these advances, it’s as easy to study 200 players now as it was to study 20 players when the screening committee was instituted 43 years ago. In addition, there are more teams, 30 now as opposed to 20 back then, so the number of players with outstanding careers has similarly expanded. Yet the BBWAA ballot is smaller than ever, 25 candidates in 2008, 23 in 2009 and 26 in 2010. How does that make sense? The voters should be allowed to consider a larger field of candidates now that’s it’s easier to do so. Indeed, if you trust that your electorate is interested and knowledgeable, you don’t want to limit them; you would want to rely on them.
If I’m a hall of fame voter, I want to vote for the best candidates. So, I want to be able to make my own study of ALL the candidates; I don’t want to be limited to the tiny field they have now, with many top candidates eliminated by archaic rules. The rules enacted over time to suppress the ballot size need to be eliminated.
Tags: candidates, Hall of Fame, rules
March 30th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Again?
Son of a b*tch…
March 30th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
@Raul, My feeling exactly. This is the problem with not having an archive.
March 30th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
You’re excused.
March 30th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Is it perhaps possible that a new reader, someone who wasn’t around here four months ago, might chance to see this article and enjoy it?
Yeah, I also wish the originals had not been swept away. Seems to happen a lot when sites “upgrade”.
March 30th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Hey we have databases now. Let’s just let the computers decide who gets in. What’s the point of even watching anymore?
March 30th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
We should go all go back and re-post our comments from 4 months ago and just move on to the next story.
March 30th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Awwwww, sh*t…
If David Segui can make it past the screening committee, what does that say about the guys who didn’t?
More importantly, what does that say about the people who would like to “study” them?
March 30th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
This is the problem with the screening committee:
Appearing on the HOF ballot is an honor. Indeed, it is the final and highest honor a player like Segui will attain. Why did he make the ballot and not Mark McLemore, a distinctly better player? Because the process is subjective, without even any guiding criteria for the committee to follow.
In Part 3 of the series I argue for the elimination of the screening committee and establishing objective criteria for determining who appears on the ballot.
March 30th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
“and establishing objective criteria for determining who will be on the ballot.”
A process which will be managed by a screening committee.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Does anyone really care about David Segui, or Mark McLemore?
Now not only does it matter who makes the hall of fame, or who made it on the first ballot… it matters who made it on the ballot at all?
Who cares?
DanielGreene: “Is it perhaps possible that a new reader, someone who wasn’t around here four months ago, might chance to see this article and enjoy it?”
In the 1950’s, publishers of comic books felt that their readership turned over about once every 12 months. In their wisdom, they saw this as an opportunity to reuse story ideas, often nearly word for word.
In the end, all it did was bore the long-time readers (who formed the backbone of the constituency), and served to drive those regular readers away even quicker.
I would say there’s a lot of similarities between this series of articles, and Superboy running two stories within a year of each other about Jimmy Olson switching his brain with a monkey.
A lot of similarities.
March 30th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Those Superboy Comics are worth a small fortune so, yeah, I can see the similarities as well.
I would ask that those regular backbone readers simply pass on another reading of this series if it causes them distress. Again, if they were archived here I would not be reposting them.
As for who cares about Segui and McLemore, I’ll get that list to you ASAP. In the meantime, try to see how that small issue calls into question the efficacy of the screening committee.
March 31st, 2010 at 9:28 am
good article i would make slight changes forget 10 year rule iwould institute a 6000 total ab and pitching 2500 innings for starters and 900 for rp.also batters under 250 and pitchers above could be elected. a plonger layer with a severe enough injury and no pr 4000 totalablayerathes or dies within shot of reach.catchers with 4000 ta very few players didnt reach it dean.hafey chance to name a few
March 31st, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I know the Hall of Fame stuff bores some folks, but many feel the same way when the beautiful game of baseball is presented as a series of calculus problems that would make Einstein cringe. IMHO, some of the recent statistical measures have a much more narrow audience than does HOF talk. I’ve seen some people, for instance, make a great case for Tim Raines as a HOFer and others make equally convincing arguments against his induction. Personally, I like that tension. It makes for interesting and intelligent discussion.
I don’t consider myself a “small Hall” or “big Hall” proponent. However, I am 100% in favor of erring on the side of a “yes” rather than a “no.” In other words, if it is truly close in my mind I would vote “yes.”
As for the article, I am not sure which 45-55 players Daniel has in mind but that number seems a tad high. Now, when I see the list of names he might change my mind. He is also probably right about a number that do not belong (again, I think his number might be high–off the top of my head I’m thinking 15-20). One problem with the theory of making the HOF the “best 232″: the poor choices won’t be kicked out. If you add 40 deserving players, do we then have to add the players who were ranked 233-272? If the worst Hall of Famer becomes the template we may be down to the top 800 and then Manny Sanguillen and Johnny Temple become reasonable candidates.
Looking forward to seeing the list.
March 31st, 2010 at 1:35 pm
To me, any Hall of Fame argument starts with the numbers. There are some really good systems out there and they pretty much agree on who is wheat and who is chaff. Of course, then there’s all the guys in the Gray area.
Raines is pure golden wheat; I’ve never seen a convincing argument that he’s not one of the best 232 eligible players for the Hall.
As for how many players don’t beong in the HOF, that 15-20 is about the number of obvious mistakes, players outside of the best 400 eligible players. The next 30-40 have an argument to belong. Concurrently, there are about 15-20 players outside who clearly should be in, with the next 30-40 not quite so obvious.
Part 5 of the series discusses the top HOF candidates, identifying the top 50. For now, here are the top 10, listed alphabetically:
Dick Allen
Roberto Alomar
Bert Blyleven
Bill Dahlen
Paul Hines
Barry Larkin
Tim Raines
Ron Santo
Alan Trammell
Deacon White
March 31st, 2010 at 2:19 pm
“I’ve never seen a convincing argument that he’s not one of the best 232 eligible players for the Hall.”
And I haven’t seen one that says he is.
Most of us, if not all of us, have predetermined opinions of players, either we liked them when they were active or they signed an autograph when we were kids or even sympathize with them because of external issues, like with Santo.
I’m admittedly a small Hall guy but also realize the system is far from perfect, a system which has admitted guys who shouldn’t be in and eliminated some guys who should.
What would be infinitely worse, however, was having baseball’s Hall be like everyone else’s who basically let everyone in.
IMO, Raines is not a Hall of Famer, and it’s not close, and there isn’t anything anyone can say to change that, and I’d argue I saw Raines play more than most of the readers of this article.
March 31st, 2010 at 3:26 pm
While I use stats like everyone else, I’d hate to see players get elected to the Hall of Fame because some computer said he belongs.
“The numbers say…etc”.
(in the year 2040)
Please let me welcome our newest member of the Hall of Fame, 0010011001101, or in non-computer terms, Dick Hertz, who is survived by his wife, Maya P. Burns….
March 31st, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Hmmmm 4 months ago was December. So my comments were probably like “Man it’s cold. I’m looking forward to the holidays. I wish baseball season wasn’t so far away.”
March 31st, 2010 at 5:54 pm
With Tim Raines, I think I picked the perfect player to stir the puddin’. Chuck and Daniel played that out. I’d go along with Daniel as I see the biggest difference between Raines and Rickey Be Rickey as longevity. I say that as one a Rickey Henderson fan. In my opinion, Raines was the best leadoff hitter, and one of the best players period, in the National League for about 9 seasons. That is a significant period to be that good.
Alomar will go in next year, so I normally don’t think of him with the unjustly denied. Don’t think there is a question his time will come. Probably the same for Bert.
Santo remains the biggest head scratcher for me. I’d add Minnie Minoso to the list. The biggest reason Trammell isn’t in is a guy named Ripken (and that as his career ended and he became HOF eligible the offensive numbers of SSs exploded).
Let me throw another name into the mix: Ted Simmons. If his peak decade had occurred when a guy named Bench was not active, I think he would be in. Among HOF catchers who preceded him, Simba’s numbers are among the best.
March 31st, 2010 at 5:58 pm
“Raines is pure golden wheat; I’ve never seen a convincing argument that he’s not one of the best 232 eligible players for the Hall.”
Then you’re not looking hard enough.
He’s DOA and has got 0 chance.
The HOF is supposed to be for the elite players in the game, not the guys who were just good or better than average.
People keep forgetting that.
Raines overall career was not elite. Not even close.
March 31st, 2010 at 6:16 pm
We can argue Santo and Raines all day long, but I’m not even touching Minnie Minoso.
April 1st, 2010 at 1:36 am
Bill James actually makes a pretty convincing argument for Minoso. His major league career didn’t start until he was almost 26 years old, in large part because of discrimination. His numbers after that age are equal or greater than all but a dozen or so other outfielders. How good could he have been had he started in the majors at 20 or 21? We’ll never know for certain but unlike Josh Gibson or Oscar Charleston we do have clear evidence that he was a hell of a ballplayer against the best competition there is. I probably wouldn’t vote him in but it would be close and I’m sure the right argument could change my mind.
And, as I’ve said at least a dozen times before, Alan Trammell belongs in the hall.
April 1st, 2010 at 10:05 am
Lefty33:
“Then you’re not looking hard enough.
He’s [Raines] DOA and has got 0 chance.
The HOF is supposed to be for the elite players in the game, not the guys who were just good or better than average.
People keep forgetting that.”
After Blyleven’s election next year, Raines will become the new darling of the stat geeks. He doesn’t have the classic HOF profile of a Jim Rice, so it needs to be broken down for the voters just how Raines’ value is so much greater than players like that.
In an ideal world, it’s true that “the HOF is supposed to be for the elite players.” For the actual HOF, that ideal held true for a very brief time. And while the HOF has enshrined a few “guys who were just good or better than average,” few would agree that that level of player is who we should be looking to enshrine.
Raines may or may not be among the top 100 players of all time, but he can be shown to easily rank as one of the top 232 players eligible (a circle that encompasses about 275 players, including ineligible players). Since that is the actual standard of the real HOF, there is really no debating the deservedness of players like those in the top 10 list in post #14, or players from the second ten, like Simmons and Minoso.
April 1st, 2010 at 10:29 am
Raines is already the darling of the stat geeks, they’re the only ones talking about him as a candidate.
Without them, he’d already be off the ballot.
April 1st, 2010 at 10:41 am
What evidence are you looking at that tells you he’s not a hall of famer?
April 1st, 2010 at 10:55 am
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/raineti01.shtml
April 1st, 2010 at 10:58 am
I was for Tim Raines to get in the Hall of Fame but now I’m not so sure.
I’m on the fence.
I know he has good numbers. On the other hand, when I think of Tim Raines, I don’t think or feel “Hall of Fame”. I know that doesn’t sound fair, but that’s just me.
Was Tim Raines ever one of the best 5 or 6 position players during any point in his career?
Don’t get me wrong. He was a solid player. But Hall of Fame? Meh…
I guess it’s to the point where I don’t really care whether he gets in or not.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:04 am
“What evidence are you looking at that tells you he’s not a hall of famer?”
I’ll give you the Readers Digest version of the discussion from last year.
Raines had about 6 years where he was maybe elite or at the very least very good.
But then via injuries and other maladies he spent the majority of the rest of his career as a part time player and when he still was a full-time player his stats were average at best.
HOF players do not spend twice as long as an average or part-time player as they do a dominant player.
Also you forget that starting in 2013 there is at least a 10-12 year log jam of first ballot worthy guys that will decrease his vote percentage immensely and he will be forgotten about.
Just ask Lee Smith, Jack Morris, Alan Trammell, and Don Mattingly
And also as Chuck said: “Raines is already the darling of the stat geeks, they’re the only ones talking about him as a candidate. Without them, he’d already be off the ballot.”
Most BBWAA voters are not stat geeks but old farts who vote in far more prejudicial and subjective ways.
Raines only chance is the Veterans Committee, a year 15 vote like Rice or possibly Blyleven, or a giant new ‘Roid issue that would discredit players that are coming up for induction in the next 5-10 years.
Short of that, like I said he’s DOA.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:06 am
Baseball-Reference shows Tim Raines’ Similar Batters as:
1. Johnny Damon
2. Lou Brock
3. Kenny Lofton
4. Max Carey
5. Willie Davis
6. Jimmy Ryan
7. Jose Cruz
8. Julio Franco
9. Fred Clarke
10. Enos Slaughter
Lou Brock got in for his stolen bases and Johnny Damon played a tougher position and he isn’t going to the Hall.
I don’t know….I think I’m leaning towards leaving Raines out.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:08 am
Damon should be in the light-weight throwing arm Hall of Fame.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:48 am
First of all, BB-Ref’s lists of “Similar Batters” are nothing more than an amusement, a comparison of raw career totals. Running quickly through that list: Carey, Slaughter and Clarke are deserving HOFers; Brock was demonstrably inferior to Raines; Damon, Lofton, Ryan and Franco played in much better offensive contexts; Davis and Cruz are hidden gems.
Second, I agree that Raines will find rough sledding with the BBWAA voters, who have demonstrated their inadequacy time and again. I’m saying that their failure to recognize Raines’ quality is as ridiculous as Blyleven’s treatment from them.
Third, characterizing Raines as “about 6 years where he was maybe elite” and then 15 more years of “average at best” is the profile of many players in the HOF. Although, I would modify the profile and more accurately describe Raines as having about 7 years as an elite player (81,83-87,92), about 7 years as above average (82,88-91,93,97) and 7 years as average at best.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:55 am
Electing a non-deserving player to the HOF in part because other non-deserving players are already in is, quite frankly, dumb.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:16 pm
I didn’t think anyone would really take the “similar batters” thing seriously. It’s just an interesting reference point.
Could you define “elite” player?
Because from 1983-1987 his slash stats average out to .318/.406/.467. That’s very good. Elite? I mean Pedro Guerrero put up better numbers. But I’ll give you your point that it’s a very good stretch of 5 years.
But what about the rest of his career? I mean Lefty brings up a good point. It’s not like Raines was ever dominant, and he certainly wasn’t much better than average outside those 5 years.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:17 pm
“Electing a non-deserving player to the HOF in part because other non-deserving players are already in is, quite frankly, dumb.”
Agreed. That’s why we don’t compare candidates to Lindstrom and Haines to determine who’s deserving. It’s a question of standards. How should we define “non-deserving” in an objective manner? By using the Hall’s established standard for election: “one of the top 232 players retiring in 2004 or before”.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:23 pm
You’re starting with the premise that electing players to the Hall of Fame should be an objective exercise. It shouldn’t.
The idea that the standard needs to be the same for everyone is what’s going to get you into a sh*tshow in the first place.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:39 pm
“Because from 1983-1987 his slash stats average out to .318/.406/.467. That’s very good. Elite? I mean Pedro Guerrero put up better numbers. But I’ll give you your point that it’s a very good stretch of 5 years.”
This overlooks some important points. First of all, slash stats omit Raines’ value as a historically great base stealer. Second, Raines played in a time and place that depressed his numbers. BB-Ref has his AIR at 95 for his career through 1992. Their “neutralized batting” for his 1983-87 prime shows his slash stats as .346/.437/.507. Third, his glove was worth much more than players like Guerrero. Fourth, between the strikes and collusion Raines lost 142 games in his career.
Any of the comprehensive metrics show him as an elite player in his prime. Win shares, for example, from 1983-87: 29/32/36/32/34. Adjusting for the strikes and collusion, he has 411 career Win Shares.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:48 pm
…but he was essentially an average player from age 30 to the end of his career.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:57 pm
The era depressed everyone’s numbers, Daniel, so that argument doesn’t hold water.
Win shares is not a good stat to use.
The number of games he lost is irrelevant. Everybody else lost them too.
April 1st, 2010 at 1:03 pm
The argument for Raines is not going to be won by stats. He was, for a stretch, the second best leadoff hitter (Rickey) in baseball. It is going to depend on how you value something like that. Similar to a closer. It’s also going to depend on if you think he was the second best leadoff hitter for long enough, and/or if his second career as a ‘professional hitter’ was enough to supplement that.
April 1st, 2010 at 1:24 pm
“he was essentially an average player from age 30 to the end of his career”
Again, this is not uncommon for a long-career Hall of famer. Also to note, average players add value to their team. All of this “average value” added to his elite peak makes Raines deserving of the Hall.
“The era depressed everyone’s numbers”
Which is of vital importance to consider when comparing players of different eras, as is necessary to compare apples-to-apples, HOF candidates across the game’s history.
“Win shares is not a good stat to use”
So use something else; the story’s the same. Any comprehensive metric that accounts for defense, baserunning, offensive level and strike credit will find Raines to be in the middle among the players comprising the top 232 players retiring in 2004 or before.
“He was, for a stretch, the second best leadoff hitter in baseball”
You could argue that the two best leadoff hitters in history were playing concurrently. But that’s a tangent the pop media like to talk about. Regardless of what his batting order position happened to be, Raines was a great player.
April 1st, 2010 at 2:07 pm
How can you say that the “standard” for the Hall is flawed, but then use that same standard to say Tim Raines belongs in the Hall?
April 1st, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Raines was done as an All-Star caliber player by age 28, and as regular player by age 33.
His last ten years were below replacement level.
He was great for five years, decent for four, and completely sucked for ten.
HOFer my ass.
April 1st, 2010 at 2:31 pm
I wonder where people draw the line.
Like, who’s the best player that isn’t (and shouldn’t) be in the HOF?
April 1st, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Raul: Let me nominate Alan Trammel.
Trammel: .352/417 OPS=.769
Lou Whitaker: .363/.426 OPS=.789
He’s not even the best infielder on the Tigers of the late 70′
s and 80’s.
April 1st, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Raul: “How can you say that the “standard” for the Hall is flawed”
?Huh? Where did I say that?
April 1st, 2010 at 3:53 pm
You just said Tim Raines ranks around the middle of the 232 players before 2004.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Yes, I said that. If there’s any “flaw”, it’s with the voters who don’t realize that this is where Raines ranks.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Out of curiosity, Daniel…
Who are the best…7-10 outfielders of the 1980s/early 90s?
April 1st, 2010 at 6:48 pm
brautigan
“He’s not even the best infielder on the Tigers of the late 70′
s and 80’s.”
First of all, Whitaker belongs in the Hall of Fame, right alongside Trammell. Secondly, I think about 90% of people who understand baseball & had seen both players would pick Trammell over Whitaker if they had to chose. Just because Trammell’s career directly overlaps an era when 5 of the 10 greatest shortstops of all time were playing (Trammell, Ripken, Larkin, Smith, Yount) and was followed by an offensive explosion that saw 3 more that looked like they might be even better. By almost any measure Trammell is one of the 10 or 12 greatest shortstops of all time & is a better player than over half of the current shortstops already enshrined.
Don’t go dissin’ on AT
April 1st, 2010 at 7:00 pm
There are a lot of enshrined shortstops that don’t deserve it.
Trammell is a cusp guy to me. I’d put him in, and feel pretty comfortable doing so… but I can see how others might pass on him.
Also… lol at checking Trammalls page (just to refresh my memory), and seeing his baseballreference sponsor.
I sponsored Eric Karros’ page a few years back.
April 1st, 2010 at 7:06 pm
I just came back from the Royals game…
Won’t be announced for a couple of hours, but the Royals traded David DeJesus and minor league pitcher Tim Melville to the Yankees for Brett Gardner and Joba.
More to follow.
April 1st, 2010 at 7:15 pm
I hate April Fools Day.
April 1st, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Can’t get anything by you….
April 1st, 2010 at 8:04 pm
LOL
April 1st, 2010 at 8:58 pm
I think Raines was on his way early in his career but came up short because he did not have enough great seasons. Raines was a very good baseball player but is very good HOf? Maybe if he reaches a magic total like 3000 hits or 500 homers.. Brock alsi got in for 3000 hits… I think if you were the best at your position for almost a decade posted numbers among the lead leaders, you should go in.. and that is the argument for Santo…
April 1st, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Chuck: “Can’t get anything by you….”
lol… I actually almost texted my father to tell him.
Then I felt stupid.
You’re a meanie.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:34 pm
“If there’s any “flaw”, it’s with the voters who don’t realize that this is where Raines ranks.”
Here’s about where Tim ranks to me. And I’ll put this in Yankee lingo.
His first five years he was Rickey Henderson.
His next five years he was Jose Cruz.
His next five years he was Randy Winn.
His final five years he was Sal Fasano.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Subtract the “Fasano years” and he’s STILL not a HOFer.
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:02 am
I dunno, I’ve felt Raines deserves to get in. He’s one of the better guys that’s been in leadoff, was pretty good with a glove and ran like hell. I guess I’m kinda biased being a Raines fan, but I think he deserves to be in because he was a very, very good player.
And on a rhyming note, I wish Harold Baines got more support. He may not deserve to get in, but for his productiveness and consistency, and being one of the best at what he did, he should be getting more votes. I’m on the fence about him being in, leaning towards no, but wish he got more backing. I like him.
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:05 am
Jimmy Vac: “I think Raines was on his way early in his career but came up short because he did not have enough great seasons.”
It doesn’t help that between strikes, and collusion, he lost almost two full seasons. The first strike, and the collusion came when he was pretty much in his prime (just coming off a batting title in the collusion year), and he certainly wasn’t too far over the hill during the 1994 strike.
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:32 am
“Subtract the “Fasano years” and he’s STILL not a HOFer.”
No debating that Chuck. I was just dying to drop a Sal Fasano reference in.
April 2nd, 2010 at 1:05 am
Chuck: You might have succeeded with your ruse had you left out Joba. NOT even the Royals would trade for Joba.
April 2nd, 2010 at 1:15 am
We traded for Yuniesky Betancourt when he had the worst OPS in the league, braut. At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if we traded Greinke for a ham sandwich.
April 2nd, 2010 at 1:27 am
Hartvig: I cannot dispute how good those guys were in the 80’s. To me, the golden age of shortstops was in the 30’s:
Luke Appling
Arky Vaughn
Joe Cronin
Travis Jackson
Cecil Travis
Dick Bartell
Bill Rogell
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:38 am
Hartvig, nice Trammell homepage. That’s putting your money where your mouth is.
Cameron, it has to be tough being a Royals fan when their front office has a collective baseball IQ of 60. Last year they had 4 fat 1B’s so they traded the Marlins a closer for a fifth fat 1B(Jacobs). This year they have a .300 hitting 2B (Callaspo) so they trade one of their core players(Teahan) for a .250 hitting 2B, (Getz). I’m surprised they don’t deal Billy Butler. That guy can really rake, which is very unlike the Royals. C’mon Butler, get with the program!
Chuck, good try, I could almost see that trade happening. The Royals like guys who can’t reach the fences so Gardner would be right up their alley and I’m sure they would jump on the chance to get Joba because they recognize his name from the newspapers. If we get DeJesus, you may as well try to give the Royals Randy Winn too. Can’t hurt to try. I hate April Fools too.
April 2nd, 2010 at 9:18 am
I love Sal Fasano. If he could hit .260 HE would be a HOFer.
The Royals bring in Jacobs believing his 32 HR in Florida were legitmate, then they get rid of him and bring in essentially the same player..Rick Ankiel.
At least Ankiel can play defense.
He’s alot bigger than I thought, too.
April 2nd, 2010 at 10:24 am
“I love Sal Fasano. If he could hit .260 HE would be a HOFer.”
Sal already has a spot in the MLB facial hair HOF.
April 2nd, 2010 at 10:31 am
I remember one night, I was out with some friends at the bar and the Yankees were on tv.
The camera is on Sal Fasano and his EPIC fu manchu. My buddy calls over to the bartender, “Hey, what’s up with this? Who’s watching ESPN Classic?”
He thought it was a replay from 1977 or something.
LOL
April 2nd, 2010 at 11:23 am
I was actually upset when I saw that Sal had shaved everything off when he was with the Richmond Braves in ‘08.
The team had a mustache only policy so I guess Sal shaved out of spite.
April 2nd, 2010 at 11:50 am
He’s a manager now..Blue Jays system, I think.
April 2nd, 2010 at 11:56 am
He’ll be the first manager ever to have an excessive only facial hair team policy. Everyone with an least a goatee by Memorial Day or your released.
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:04 pm
The Yankees have a thing about facial hair as well, but I think that may have been Fasano’s first game with the team and I guess he didn’t bother to shave it.
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I definitely have to find out what team Fasano manages and go there.
If I’m the owner of his minor league team, I’m doing a monthly promotion – “Sal Fasano’s Free Admittance to Anyone with a Moustache Night”
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Lansing Lugnuts, Toronto’s Class A team in the Midwest League.
http://www.lansinglugnuts.com/PRESS/RELEASES/11_24_09.html
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:52 pm
“If I’m the owner of his minor league team, I’m doing a monthly promotion – “Sal Fasano’s Free Admittance to Anyone with a Moustache Night””
LOL Raul.
April 2nd, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Sal was with Colorado Springs last year and I remember watching him work with his younger teamates. I remember them loading up the bus for the trip to Tacoma and the coaches left in a van, and Fasano was the defacto coach in that situation and he really did take control (and had the younger players respect). I felt at that time Fasano was going to be a coach or a manager. Which is kind of funny, because he had this black heavy metal t-shirt on, with these huge guns for arms, long hair and his fu manchu going on. He didn’t look like a baseball player, he looked like a biker from the corner tavern. Man, I love Sal Fasano and I wish him the very best……maybe I’ll see him in a couple of years in Las Vegas!
April 2nd, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Yeah, it kinda does suck to be a Royals fan. Hell, it sucked to be a Royals fan since before I moved to Kansas City (been deep in Royals country my whole life though). They really dropped off after the strike. The only good thing to happen in between Cone winning the Cy and Greinke winning the Cy? 2003. …ONE winning season.
Hell, the Pirates are better positioned to have a winning season than us right now. The NATIONALS have a better chance of a winning season right now! I hate David Glass so much…
April 2nd, 2010 at 2:58 pm
This die-hard Yankee fan buddy of mine thinks Jesus Montero is the reincarnation of Jeezus himself. He’s always talking about how his caught stealing percentage went up so much last year and how he’s improved defensively.
Fasano was the guy I used to discount his argument.
Montero’s problem is footwork, which is something that can’t be taught. You either got it or you don’t.
When Sal Fasano runs to first base, he’s timed with a sundial. He’s up there with Piazza and Erubiel Durazo as the slowest guys I’ve ever seen.
But he had the quickest feet behind the plate, and could transition to throwing faster than some other catchers who were smaller.
Montero’s improvements might be related to changes in his techniques, sort of cheating to cover a weakness, but slow feet will always be slow feet.
April 2nd, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Chuck: “He’s up there with Piazza and Erubiel Durazo as the slowest guys I’ve ever seen.”
Less notable for sure, but Karros was the resident piano hauler on that Dodgers team. He used to get a lot of crap for not running out flyballs.
April 2nd, 2010 at 7:38 pm
I want to thank Chuck, Raul and brautigan for making today Sal Fasano day on DC.
Never has his name been uttered so much on any site in one year let alone one day.
TW should send him a plaque.
April 2nd, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Sal Fasano is awesome.
My buddy goes to this annual event in NYC called El Dia del Moustache and one year they tried to contact Fasano to attend.
http://www.eldiadelmustache.com/
Personally I think it’s gross and full of creeps and losers, so I’ve never attended. But it is a little funny.