An Idiot's Perspective on the Hall of Fame

by justin007000 on Dec 30, 2008 10:43 AM EST Comment 43 comments

The Blind Guy from the North feels that McGwire is not Hall of Fame material. He claims that the number one reason is McGwire's use of steriods and Congressional denial of the use of steriods.

I am okay with that reasoning, but unfortuatly the Blind Guy continues.

He feels that if McGwire did that all clean his numbers aren't Hall of Fame material. He hit 583 Homeruns but only had a .262 average, and he played shitty defense. The Adam Dunn argument. Plus in 1998 when he hit 70 home runs he only hit 61 singles. Nevermind that he put up a .470 OBP and a .299 BA that year. When a guy hits 70 home runs, and walks 162 times there isn't aren't many plate apparances left to hit singles.

So the guy with the carear OPS+ of 162 isn't a good hitter. Would Hal rather McGwire hit 40 home runs and 91 singles in 1998? Would that have made him a better hitter?

0 recs | Comment 43 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Marty say's

OBP?? he is paid to drive in runs not walk. He isn’t clutch and doesn’t do the little things. His defense is indefensable and don’t get me started but he has his own beany baby.

by SadbutTrue on Dec 30, 2008 12:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I say

Mc Guire cheated, he used steroids and his style of play came from well…..steroids. The argument is without steroids McGuire wouldnt be a HOF calibur player, and more importantly, since he cheated the game he shouldnt be allowed is for being a ginger with a muscley problem.

Apart from that, defense IS a pat of the game, so “The Adam Dunn argument” is sound, especially when you look at the fact that if McGuire`s strength was hitting homeruns, and his strength was synthesized……I think McGuire was feeing HGH to his whole family, did you see his kid when he broke the record? He was like a 230 pound 8 year old….

by Reynard on Jan 2, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow and that is

a bit of a typing problem….a couple times.

by Reynard on Jan 2, 2009 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps it's more of a preview button problem

I have discovered in 20 years of moving around a ballpark, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. - Bill Veeck

by PeteyHendrix on Jan 2, 2009 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If there's an argument against McGwire

it’s that he didn’t play that long compared to other 1Bs who didn’t fight in WWII. He’s got 1874 games; most other 1Bs are well above 2000.

Hal’s ballot: Henderson, Rice, Dawson, Blyleven, and Lee Smith (!). I’d swap Raines and Trammell in for Rice, Dawson and Smith, but at least he got Henderson and Blyleven.

by ken on Dec 30, 2008 1:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

No credit for Henderson

Everyone will have him.

by Red Menace on Dec 30, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was interested in the salary cap argument in Hal's column.

I just read a column by Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle. He figures any salary cap, not that one will ever come to exist, would be no less than $114 million. Would every team meet that cap? Probably not, including our Reds. Interesting to think about, though.

We Are ... Marshall!

by Thundering Turtle on Dec 30, 2008 1:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I would think they'd have to have a minimum payroll as well

Doesn’t the NFL have a system like that in place? Or am I on the peyote again?

"Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est."

by jch24 on Dec 30, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the floor is just as important as the ceiling...

I can’t wait until the day these are in place

Think of me what you will...I gotta little space to fill

by chandrathan on Dec 30, 2008 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. Justice threw out a $65 million

figure, not really suggesting it as a floor but as something the Astros owner might like to see.

We Are ... Marshall!

by Thundering Turtle on Dec 30, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure about that number

I’d probably go around $50 million or so, which last year would have caught the Pirates, A’s, Rays(!), & Marlins in its net. I can’t believe the Royals payroll was nearly $60 million.

"Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est."

by jch24 on Dec 30, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the ceiling can't be more than double the floor.

that doesn’t really eliminate the problem

Think of me what you will...I gotta little space to fill

by chandrathan on Dec 30, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why not?

Baseball is unique in that its rookies and young players make fractions of what they could as free agents. It doesn’t make sense to force a team full of good pre-arb guys (like the Rays) spend money just to reach an arbitrary floor. It’s a problem if the team continuously cycles out its good players as they reach arbitration (like the Marlins), but as long as they’re required to spend the revenue sharing $$ on baseball operations (salaries, draftee bonuses, scouting, etc.) I don’t see a huge problem.

What I’d hate is an NBA-style cap where teams end up trading contracts more than players and “clear cap space” to make a run for a particular player two years from now. That’s no fun.

by ken on Dec 30, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

because the rays are the extreme example

you have other teams like the pirates that will pay the minimum and field crappy teams.

Think of me what you will...I gotta little space to fill

by chandrathan on Dec 30, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Pirates suck because they're cheap with the draft

Until this year, anyways. If Pittsburgh has to meet a floor it just means that they’ll sign more Jeremy Burnitzs or Kevin Youngs.

by ken on Dec 30, 2008 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that's their problem

but at least baseball will be doing something to try and make them competitive…

While we are at it…Foreign player shouldn’t be free agents, they should have to go through a draft process…

Think of me what you will...I gotta little space to fill

by chandrathan on Dec 30, 2008 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd say anyone under 22 has to be drafted

If the other leagues can get away with an unconstitutional(IMO) rule, baseball can too.

"Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est."

by jch24 on Dec 30, 2008 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We should try a cap without a floor.

We can add a floor later if needed, should teams like KC or even the Cubs field a team purposely built from non-contenders. Due to league minimum salary restrictions, the MLB minimum salary for a 40-man roster is $16M. That’s the current floor.

A luxury tax is fine if it works as intended. MLB’s luxury tax doesn’t slow the Yankees down because it’s not enough to thwart their ill behavior. Perhaps the luxury tax should be 300% of any dollars spent beyond the cap ($155 million in 2008) instead of 40%. When the Bankee$ can sign an impact player for 140 % of his worth, it doesn’t slow them down much. But if they’d have to pay Teixeira $720M, that would stop them.

The spending by the Yankees doesn’t hurt us directly, as we don’t really play them unless it’s s WS matchup. But indirectly, it’s killing us and most other teams due to inflated salaries brought on not by the free market, but by artificially inflated free agent and arbitration figures.

And by killing, I mean almost all teams are still profitable, regardless.

I have discovered in 20 years of moving around a ballpark, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. - Bill Veeck

by PeteyHendrix on Dec 30, 2008 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can see raising the luxury tax rate

Another idea that’s floated around is making each team contribute half its revenues or profits into a pot that’s split 30 ways. This way each team still has a profit incentive but the market disparities are somewhat reduced.

by ken on Dec 30, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Never happen

Just because it would cut into the owners’ ability to cook the books and ask for a new stadium by showing how “unprofitable” they are.

"Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est."

by jch24 on Dec 30, 2008 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I want a floor

Don’t care about a ceiling.

I’m fine with the luxury tax. But teams like the Pirates shouldn’t be able to suck money from other teams and put it in the owner’s pockets.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Dec 30, 2008 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

/Yankees Fan rant

We’’re in process of trying to a guy with a trade record of working with pitches

by Slyde on Dec 30, 2008 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

A Yankees fan rant would be “Get rid of the luxury tax! This is America, not some communist country! Other owners are richer than the Steinbrenners, they’re just too cheap to spend their money.”

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Dec 30, 2008 6:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

/More Respected Than Most Yankees Fan rant

I have discovered in 20 years of moving around a ballpark, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. - Bill Veeck

by PeteyHendrix on Dec 30, 2008 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

More like

a Pirates fan rant. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has been criticizing the Pirates for not spending the revenue sharing money on payroll for years.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Dec 30, 2008 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

While other owners

may have more of a personal fortune than the Steinbrenners, no other owner gets the kind of revenues from their MLB team the Yankees get (through TV, radio, etc).

Other owners aren’t going to go broke dumping their personal fortune into the team.

Basically, the biggest revenue disparity, and the biggest Yankee advantage, is how MLB allows each team to keep their local media revenue. THAT is the money that needs to be distributed evenly so teams are on a more even playing field.

You went full retard. No one ever comes back from that. - Sgt. Osiris

by cesarhernandez on Dec 31, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and yet

The Mets payrolls is the same as the Detroit Tigers. Why, when they have the same market the Yankees do?

I’m not sure what the answer is. I like football’s revenue sharing, but baseball is different. It’s always been more local than national. With games almost every day during the season, there just isn’t the national interest the NFL gets.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Dec 31, 2008 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Salary cap

Awful terrible failure of an idea.

Let the Yankees spend $250 million per year to go 4 games over .500 again. Is that unfair to everyone else? If they’re going to sign a free agent, shouldn’t it be because they spent way too much money on them?

As Posnanski pointed out recently, almost 90% of the teams in MLB have been to the WS in the last 30 years. In the NFL, no guaranteed salaries, and shuffling rosters year after year, about 30% of the teams have NOT been to the Super Bowl in the last 30 years. And in that time period, the Bengals have been there twice.

by Brian B on Dec 30, 2008 10:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dan Szymborski

has written the best piece on a salary cap ive read so far. give it a look.

by Charlie Scrabbles on Dec 30, 2008 3:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

good read

I have always been opposed to a salary cap. In fact I hate caps in general, I am more of a visor kinda guy.

by jacob brumfield on Dec 30, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dont visor guys

Gloat alot about the past, dress in khakies and act like they are in biker gangs, make asses out of themselves at class reunions, sport artificial tans and say bro well into their 30`s?

by Reynard on Jan 2, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, visor guys can be annoying.

I have discovered in 20 years of moving around a ballpark, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. - Bill Veeck

by PeteyHendrix on Jan 2, 2009 7:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I read that recently, too.

He makes excellent points, particularly that a cap simply will put more money in the owners’ pockets. You know they’re not suddenly going to drop the prices of tickets, hot dogs, etc., if a cap is in place.

We Are ... Marshall!

by Thundering Turtle on Dec 30, 2008 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Another issue is that NYC doesn't have enough teams.

I read a financial study that showed that NYC could support 4 teams currently (they used to do fine with 3). If there was a team in Northern New Jersey and another in Brooklyn, the Yankees would make less revenue due to the diluted market. It may be the only way to slow them down.

The New Jersey Rays?
The Brooklyn Marlins?

I have discovered in 20 years of moving around a ballpark, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. - Bill Veeck

by PeteyHendrix on Dec 31, 2008 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was going to link that

He makes a good case that the floor would be north of $100M. The conversation above was way off. The players’ share of the pie has been going down in recent years.

by Red Menace on Dec 30, 2008 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I liked the piece BUT

one of the comments on that site made what seems like a good point: Is it apples to apples to compare the NBA and NFL to MLB financially when the individual clubs in MLB have to operate entire minor leagues? Don’t minor league operations typically operate at a loss, but are then subsidized by the franchise? Don’t MLB teams have to spend far more on scouting and analysis to remain competitive?

I have discovered in 20 years of moving around a ballpark, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. - Bill Veeck

by PeteyHendrix on Dec 30, 2008 5:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs