I had been complaining to anyone who would listen that the Senate should just seat Roland Burris for three reasons. One, not doing so gave Blogo too much power. Two, the Dems needed to get another vote in there to try to do omething and he gave them one more vote. And finally that confirming him would at leas thut people up about Roland Burris and I wouldn't have to listen to it anymore.
Well, he was seated today, and they are still talking about him.. o intead I will discuss the Hall of Fame voting from earlier this week.
Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice were the two inductees. Both of them are fine choices, in my opinion. Rickey is kind of a jerk, but he' also one of those obviou, no-brainer decisions that makes the BBWAA look bad because he did not go in unanimously. Let me say that anyone who did not vote for Rickey Henderson, career leader in runs scored, steals, etc. should have his vote taken away.
Jim Rice is another matter. His problem is two fold. He did not age well. He aged quickly. Additionally, his stats are discounted because he played in Fenway. My reaction to this is that a lot of other players played in Fenway, and not all of them had 400 total bases in a season. Jim Rice has a problem in that he was not able to stick around and pile on the career totals like 500 home runs and 3,000 hits that usually define a Hall of Famer. On the other hand, he had a lot of big seaons. He had MVP votes in half his seasons. He was a terrific power threat. And, by Jeffrey, he was famous. I'm glad he made it, though, because he was a terrific ballplayer, and now we do not have to listen to a bunch of Bosox fan whine about how he hasn't been let in.
The two guys I was disappointed did not make it this year were Blyleven and Lee Smith. They'll get in eventually.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Let me say that anyone who did not vote for Rickey Henderson, career leader in runs scored, steals, etc. should have his vote taken away.
Maybe. I recall years ago, there were several BBWAA guys who steadfastly maintained that they didn't vote for first-timers. That was the 80s, though - they may be dead now. If not, that might be why, or they may have held back simply so it *wouldn't* be unanimous. Why? Because it's never been unanimous, so why start now. It may not make sense to us, but that's ironclad logic in the world of the BBWAA.
I read in an early report that two of the ballots submitted were blank. Now I do believe those two, if they haven't already, should be forced to reveal both their identities and their possible reasons why they felt that Rickey (alone!) didn't deserve their votes.
I agree with you about Blyleven and Smith's worthiness. Though I wonder about how many years on the ballot that Blyleven has left?
If it was up to me, he'd have been in years ago. The top 10 vote-getters this year all would easily make my ballot (if I had one, natch) - unless I swapped a few out for the next 4 (Parker, Mattingly, Murphy, Baines), who I would give serious consideration to.
Excellеnt pοst hοωever , I was wantіng to know if
you сoulԁ write а litte more on this topic?
I'd be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Kudos!
http://blog.lgmedsupply.com/?p=246/
Post a Comment