Conference 7.286::sports_91

Carew, Jenkins and ? (drew a blank on the name just now) were elected
to the HoF yesterday.

Jenkins made it by one vote.  Perhaps this bodes well for Pete Rose
and his attempts to make the HoF.

Be interesting to see how that goes.

btw, it's the first time in a while that three guys have made it...

'Saw

    
    >Carew, Jenkins and ?
    
    Gaylord Perry.
    
    Looks like Jim Bunning will have to wait for the veterens' committee.
    
    Rich
    

    
>    >Carew, Jenkins and ?
    
>    Gaylord Perry.
    
>    Looks like Jim Bunning will have to wait for the veterens' committee.
    
    Which would be  a farce!  The veteran's committee was not established to
    induct modern day players who could not get in by the writer's votes. 
    If a player can't get voted in by the writers, he shouldn't be able to
    get in.
    
    Bruce    
    
   

    The Veteran's Committee was created for players who were around before
    the Hall of Fame was founded and thus not necessarily voted on when the
    Hall was formed.  Many people (and I'm one of them) feel it's outlived
    its usefulness and should now be abolished, because it was never meant
    to be a back-door, after the fact means of entry into the Hall.
    
    This is the one Hall of Fame issue I do care about.
    
    John

    
    That is my point in .7.

    RE: .5
>btw, it's the first time in a while that three guys have made it...
    
    Frank,  I don't recall any women getting into the Hall of Fame.
    
    Confused,
    Paul

    
 
>    >btw, it's the first time in a while that three guys have made it...
 
    I used to live in the Bay Area, and it happened there quite a bit, I
    believe.  Granted, they've closed down the bath houses and that has
    curbed that activity, and this safe sex thing has slowed things down,
    but I doubt that "it's the first time in a while..." as Frank has said.
    
    
    Bruce
       
  

Okay, let me rephrase that and place some proper emphasis....

	The paper said it's the first time in a while that
	there have beeh THREE inductees.....

Clearly, now we all understand,
'saw

    what's beeh mean?

Oops...should have been "been"....

But, in Russian, the "n" sound is represented with an "H".  Since
I've been doing a lot of work with ultrix lately, I slipped and
forgot to upper case it...  So....

;^)
'Saw

    
    Are there any women in the Baseball Hall of Fame?  I figure in this day
    and age there must be some, but I just don't know.
    
    I don't really deen to wonk, just curious is all.
    
    Dickstah
    

    
    I believe that the Hall of Fame has a section called 'Women in
    Baseball'.  There was an article in the Worcester paper about some lady
    from Gardner (maybe???) that just received notice that she would be
    featured in this section.
    
    - Ken -

    Serious questions are arising. 
    
    Granted Ferguson Jenkins had HoF credentials but how do they differ
    from Bunning's. Bunning pitched for lousy teams in Detroit and
    Philadelphia. Jenkins amassed his stats for lousy teams in Chicago and
    Texas. Yet, Jenkins was busted for Coke. What does Pete Rose have to
    say about this?
    
    Personally I believe Jenkins belongs. And I also STRONGLY feel that
    Bunning belongs in the HoF. And what of the ethics involved in the
    election of Perry. Here's a guy who was a sub .500 pitcher until
    someone named Bob Shaw taught him the spitter. So, essentially, Perry's
    stats were garnered while breaking MLB rules.
    
    What I'm getting at is the whole hypocracy of the Rose/Shoeless Joe
    Jackson situation. In my mind, the elections of Jenkins and Perry are
    deserved. They do, however, make a mockery of any argument to keep Rose
    and Jackson out!
    
    Rich
    

    The argument that "Player X is in the Hall of Fame and Player Y was at
    least as good as Player X therefore Player Y should be in too" will
    devalue the Hall of Fame because the only standard for admission (in
    the absence of other standards) will be the least common denominator.
        
    My opinion of the Veterans Committee still stands.  It was meant for
    players who played long before the Hall of Fame was formed and before
    those voting were able to watch them play.  It was not meant as an
    alternative, back door, after the fact means of admission for those not
    deemed good enough on the first pass.  It leads to campaigning for
    friends and by fans and bastardizes the entire meaning of the Hall.
    
    John

	It's simple Rich.  We now have the ultimate "egghaid" commissioner.
You know, one of those guys who equates baseball with poetry, beauty, 
truth, justice, the 'Merican way and all that other crap.  He doesn't
want to soil his image of baseball with someone like Rose and he sure
doesn't want to trust the sportswriters to uphold this image, so he changes 
the rules to make sure old Petey never gets in.  Kind of like the protective
father who wants every one of his daughter's dates to check their johnsons at 
the door before taking daddy's princess out.  Jenkins didn't lock horns with
the commish like Pete did, so after a short stay in limbo (an unjustified 
stay) Ferguson was allowed to pass through the Hall's pearly gates.

				/Don

    
    > What I'm getting at is the whole hypocracy of the Rose/Shoeless Joe
    > Jackson situation. In my mind, the elections of Jenkins and Perry are
    > deserved. They do, however, make a mockery of any argument to keep Rose
    > and Jackson out!
    
    Well, I agree that Rose should not be denied admission, but with
    Jackson there's the small matter, by his own confession, of throwing 
    World Series games.  And don't hit me with these revisionist excuses
    of how badly he was treated by ownership, how he wasn't the ringleader 
    and was duped, how he may have given his testimony drunk, how he was a
    simple man too dumb to know any better, etc.  I read the book, too, and 
    didn't come away convinced of anything but that Joe Jackson knew 
    exactly what he was getting into.
    
    While players in Jackson's day weren't treated as well as they are today,
    they were certainly still better off than the average man on the street 
    and that man on the street, in the context of 1919, was *not*
    sympathetic to the plight of the participants in the Black Sox scandal.  
    The fixing of the World Series was every bit as shocking as it would be 
    today, if not more so.  In no way was it acceptable then, to which the 
    absence of any outrage over the lifetime bans attests, and the romantic 
    passage of time shouldn't change that sentiment in the case of Joe 
    Jackson.
    
    glenn
     

>    deemed good enough on the first pass.  It leads to campaigning for
>    friends and by fans and bastardizes the entire meaning of the Hall.
    
John, 

I'll give you that, but then you have to consider the other side
of the same sword in the case of Shoeless Joe Jackson.

Surely Jackson's abilities on the field were/are good enough to make
the HoF.  

If campaigning by friends to get someone in on the basis of them
being overlooked because they were "good", then Jackson should not
be held back because he was supposedly "bad"....

JMHO,
'Saw

    There are quite a few HoFers already enshrined who would make a mockery
    of the likes of Rose and Jenkins being snubbed - Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth
    to name a couple.

    Jackson is a special case.  His talents were certainly good enough to
    get him in, but he was kept out for other reasons.  Now if those other
    reasons no longer apply, then fine, get him in.
    
    I'm talking about people like Bobby Doerr.  He didn't get enough votes
    when he was first eligible and I believe one of the reasons he was
    voted in is because of Ted Williams being on the Veterans Committee.  I
    have to also feel now that Bunning should never get in.  I'm sorry he
    wasn't considered good enough now but he doesn't deserve a second
    chance because that's *NOT* what the Veterans Committee was created
    for.  I'm talking about campaigns like "Pee Wee belongs in the Hall"
    because the Hall of Fame should not be a popularity contest.
    
    John

    � I have to also feel now that Bunning should never get in.  I'm sorry
    � he wasn't considered good enough now but he doesn't deserve a second
    � chance because that's *NOT* what the Veterans Committee was created
    � for.  
    
    Sad to say but I agree with your assertion that the Veterans' Committee
    has outlived its original purpose and that Jim Bunning should now be
    ineligible for future elections.
    
    But, as a Phillies fan, I cannot express enough contempt and anger
    towards those handful of BBWAA writers who, a few years back, submitted
    empty blank ballots and kept Bunning just 3 or 4 votes short of the
    required 75% majority.  If those writers had abstained instead of
    voting empty, Bunning would have been in already.  He got shafted, no
    ifs, or buts about it.   And I'm sorry ... but if Catfish Hunter is in,
    then Jim Bunning should be in.   A travesty.
    
    As for Shoeless Joe, I'll borrow a line from Eliot Asinof's book
    although I don't recall who said it ...
    
    	"His sin so old; his play so sublime."
    
    He should be in.   I have a soft heart for him.  I also would vote for
    Pete Rose in a flash of a second.  First ballot, all the way.
    
    Bob Hunt

>>    He should be in.   I have a soft heart for him.  I also would vote for
>>    Pete Rose in a flash of a second.  First ballot, all the way.

But Bob, you'd vote for Bake McBride in a flash of a second too ;-).

    
� But Bob, you'd vote for Bake McBride in a flash of a second too ;-).
    
    Touch�, Jeff.    And, while I'm at it, Larry Bowa, Manny Trillo, and
    Tug McGraw, too.
    
    Bob Hunt

    
    >	"His sin so old; his play so sublime."
    
    Undoubtedly true on both counts.  I guess I'm just content with the 
    judgement of his contemporaries on his sin (the most grievous possible 
    relating to the game, in my opinion).  Most of those who ever got a 
    chance to see him are dead.  Those that did didn't seem to be too
    emotional on the subject.  Most of that has come many years later
    mainly from romantics who weren't around when Jackson played, yet 
    still feel cheated for some reason that he isn't in the Hall of Fame.
    
    In any case, if a deserving Jackson really was snubbed by his peers, I
    don't see how that makes the induction of deserving yet imperfect 
    modern-day players like Jenkins and Perry by modern-day voters 
    in any way hypocritical, which was the point of the note I was 
    responding to.  If they bar Rose, however, *that* will be wrong.
    
    glenn
      

    Jenkins is a little different, his charges were dropped, he was never
    convicted...

    
    I would agree to get rid of the Veterans Committee if the writers would
    do their homework and research exactly what's going on. Jayson Stark of
    the Philadelphia Inquirer has talked on that subject on a number of
    occasions and he's right on, IMO. He mentioned that quite a few writers
    have never seen the players that they're voting on and don't take the
    time to check their numbers in perspective to how they measured up
    against their peers. WHen you do that, there would be no way they would
    exclude Bunning, Reese, of have excluded Enos Slaughter for so long. As
    for the bozos that sent in empty ballots, I think they should have
    their vote taken away from them.
    
    Dennis
    

    Take a look at their comparitive numbers, Rich.  Jenkins was a much
    better pitcher than Bunning.  I have no problem with Bunning being left
    off.
    
    And if had exactly one vote in this year's election, it would have been
    for Rollie Fingers.  He'll probably make it next year considering he
    was very close and three players were elected, but I think he's more
    deserving than any of those elected yesterday.
    
    Dan

                                      
    Enos Slaughter?  Now there's one of the most marginal players ever
    elected by the Vets, if you take the time to check his numbers (.300 on
    the nose in an offensive era, only 2300+ hits, 169 HR's).  There's
    plenty of guys over baseball's history with those type of
    accomplishments.  And Pee Wee Reese did make it in, by the way.
    
    On the contrary, the voters who sent in empty ballots were exercising
    their right to vote just like everyone else.  There is no requirement
    to admit a player each and every year, and those voters obviously 
    felt that there were no deserving players in that year.  If their
    ballots were intentionally excluded, the 75% requirement would be
    watered down to a lower number (it's kind of like in an election when
    you decide "none-of-the-above" and vote independent or write-in; your
    vote still gets counted as much as the next guy's and helps to drop the
    overall percentage of the big boys...)  I'm sure there are empty
    ballots in many years, and there have been years when no one made it.
    There's nothing sinister about it.
    
    The more important question for Bunning is not why those four voters
    didn't vote for him or any of the other guys who did make it that 
    year, but why after he got so close did so many change their minds and 
    back off in subsequent years?  Rarely, if ever, has a player's vote 
    total steadily grown and gotten so close and then receded (Nellie Fox 
    came very close, but that was in his last year eligible).  If a guy was
    good enough to make it one year, why isn't he good enough the next?
    
    glenn
    

    re:.31
    
    The vote numbers change because the writers are jerks.
    
    Dennis
    

    And speaking of Ferguson Jenkins ...
    
    Has to be one of the all-time horrible trades in baseball history.  The
    Phils gave up Jenkins to the Cubs in the late 1960s.  He was completely
    unproven at that point but the Phils just tossed him into some big
    multi-player trade as an afterthought.   The Cubs jumped on it and
    Jenkins was on his way to Cooperstown.  Oh, and check out Jenkins'
    lifetime numbers against the Phils.   God, did he ever torture them
    during his primetime years.
    
    And just when I thought the Phils didn't do this kind of thing anymore,
    in the early 1980s, they threw in Ryne Sandberg at the last minute to
    complete a Larry Bowa for Ivan DeJesus deal.
    
    Dumb, dumber, dumbest ...
    
    Bob Hunt

    � but why after he got so close did so many change their minds and 
    � back off in subsequent years?  
    
    Because "automatic" guys like Bench, Morgan, and Yasztremski come up
    for election in the subsequent years and they push Bunning off the top
    of the list.
    
    He got hosed.   Sorry, my mind was made up a long time ago on this. 
    These weren't joke votes.  These guys were deliberately submitting
    empty ballots to make it harder to gain entry.   Not necessarily for
    Bunning in particular but he was the one who got screwed by it.
    
    Catfish Hunter plays in five World Series and is welcomed in with open
    arms.  Jim Bunning barely gets on national tube and gets royally jobbed
    by a couple of jerk writers.   Bah.
    
    Bob Hunt

    
    I was curious about that Jenkins trade because I wasn't really familiar
    with it like some of the other classic heist jobs of all time.  None of
    the players the Cubs received had much experience, so it was a youth
    for age trade all the way.  The Cubs got Jenkins and Adolfo Phillips
    for over-the-hillers Bob Buhl and Larry Jackson (who was a pretty damn
    good pitcher in his day, but that was mostly past).  For the Cubs, it 
    sort of made up for trading young Lou Brock a couple of years earlier, 
    I guess.
    
    The year Bunning got so close was the year only Willie Stargell was
    inducted.  I thought Stargell was deserving, but his total wasn't
    overwhelming, so I guess he wasn't an "automatic" for his first year.
    You're right; Bunning apparently was a follow-on in a slow year, and
    when more candidates cropped up, he fell back with some forgetful
    voters.
    
    glenn
    
    

    
    
    	Does anyone have this years voting results?  I'd like to see where
    my favorite (Bill Mazeroski) came in.  It also appears that Mazs'
    chances are dwindling at getting in.  Sigh.
    
    
    							bill..g.
    

    
    Maz got 142 of the required 333 votes, which I believe was a slight
    slip from last year.  Mazeroski's stock definitely rose sharply from
    earlier years, in part because of some newfound appreciation for 
    defensive statistics and the recognition of defense in recent years.  
    Maz' defensive statistics are probably the best of any player ever 
    at *any* position, which corresponds with the testimony of most who 
    saw him play.  He's off the ballot now, so it's back to the Veterans' 
    Committee and all of that controversy (but I wouldn't give up hope, not
    when those old-timers vote in a Red Schoendienst almost out of the
    blue).
    
    Personally, in light of his defensive ability, I think Maz should be
    in.  He was also one of my favorite players.  I even have an autographed
    polaroid of myself as a kid sitting on his leg, which was in a cast, 
    taken in Spring Training in 1966 when he broke his leg.  I've had some 
    intense arguments in the RED_SOX conference over the merits of Maz 
    making the Hall, but I understand that he's on the edge and it could go
    either way.
    
    glenn
     
        

    >Catfish Hunter plays in five World Series and is welcomed in with open
    >arms.  Jim Bunning barely gets on national tube and gets royally jobbed
    >by a couple of jerk writers.   Bah.
    
    I'm all for exemplary WS performance being valued over no WS
    performance.
    
    Dan

    Damn, 'Saw, one minute I am reply #31 in the National League topic, the
    next minute my note disappears in thin air. That was this morning about
    the time you created the HoF topic. 
    
    Anyway, I was addressing a couple of issues. First, I have not had a
    chance to bring in by stat books yet (still unpacking....books are
    probably with my winter foul weather gear which I won't be using here
    in Virginia...) but I recall Jim Bunning being the most dominant
    pitcher with the Tigers in the 50's. When Frank Larry, Hank Aquirre and
    Don Mossi got it together, they - with Bunning - were unstoppable.
    Isn't/Wasn't Bunning the first guy to win 100 games in both leagues or
    the first to throw no-hitters in both leagues?  Dan, I appreciate your
    view of Jenkins' superiority to Bunning but I still believe Bunning's
    accomplishments deserve serious consideration due to the fact he
    pitched for some pretty woeful teams (Chris Short excepted).
    
    I hear what you are saying, John H., about the Vet Committe but I am
    going to take issue with you on your example. Bobby Doerr deserved to
    be in the HoF. Check out his stats. So Ted Williams campaigned for him.
    Old Ted can appreciate a guy who stands for so many R's in Ted's RBI
    totals. I believe that the Vet Committee can still serve a useful
    purpose. In some cases a player's accomplishments may be overshadowed
    during their time for normal election. A case in point is Doerr. If
    Doerr amassed his stats from 1975-1990 he would be a shoe in in 1995
    given the publicity the Red Sox get today. He was no Joe Morgan but he
    was a lock for .300 and was steady if not masterful in the field. My
    point is that Doerr would be behind only Sandburg and Morgan during the
    '75-'90 timeframe and ONLY in HR's. Doerr doesn't even belong in the
    same breath with Slaughter because Slaughter's selection was a
    travesty.
    
    As far as Shoeless Joe goes, Glenn, what crime did Jackson commit?
    Prove to me that he didn't play his heart out in 1919? The fact is that
    Jackson knew about what was going on, was threatened not to say
    anything, never agreed to dog it on the field and was unfairly
    sentenced by the first Commish. A 5 or 10 year ban, maybe. You can't
    tell me that every guy in the HoF hasn't shut up about something. Maybe
    Bill Dickey told a batter to expect a fastball when THAT was what was
    coming. Is that cheating if Dickey didn't announce it to the press that
    he tipped a pitch? 
    
    Your going to tell me nobody in the HoF ever stole a signal from a
    rival catcher or coach? You are assuming that no pitcher in the HoF
    ever threw a spitter ir doctored a ball? 
    
    Jackson's play on the field ALWAYS exeplified the best the game could
    hope for. Nowhere has anybody ever disputed that fact. The spite and
    vindictive spirit of Judge Landis alone was responsible for for the
    terrible blemish on a fine athlete. 
    
    We have gone back and righted the wrong done to Jim Thorpe. I believe
    it is time to do the same for Joe Jackson.
    
    Rich
     

What happens if nobody gets inducted in a given year? Do they still have a 
ceremony with nobody going ?

This sorta parallels the If a tree falls in the forest question.


Metz

    
    I think maybe a solution to this Veterans' Committee thing is to
    eliminate it, pare down the BBWA voters to a reasonable number who 
    can demonstrate some knowledge of the game, and allow them to vote
    again on players whose eligibility has expired, maybe once every five
    years or so.  I agree that the door should not be slammed shut.  Even
    now, players who were overlooked because they didn't play in the
    limelight or for other extenuating circumstances are finally receiving
    just recognition.
    
>    As far as Shoeless Joe goes, Glenn, what crime did Jackson commit?
>    Prove to me that he didn't play his heart out in 1919? The fact is that
>    Jackson knew about what was going on, was threatened not to say
>    anything, never agreed to dog it on the field and was unfairly
>    sentenced by the first Commish.
    
>    Jackson's play on the field ALWAYS exeplified the best the game could
>    hope for. Nowhere has anybody ever disputed that fact. The spite and
>    vindictive spirit of Judge Landis alone was responsible for for the
>    terrible blemish on a fine athlete. 
    
    Where'd you find this version of events, Rich?  Does throwing the
    World Series sound like it exemplified the "best the game could hope
    for"?  I can hardly compare that to your example of a catcher tipping
    pitches.
    
    Jackson was guilty of more than just knowing what was going on.  He
    took $5000; in fact, as a star player I believe he was one of the
    first and only to actually receive any money.  He confessed to his 
    crime in a courtroom in front of many people.  When asked how, if he 
    was involved, did he manage to hit a stellar .375 for the Series, he
    answered that it was easy if you botch a key play in the field here 
    or there, or leave men on base in a critical situation (both of which
    actually occurred early in the Series).  Granted, Jackson appeared to 
    be burdened with a heavy conscience afterwards and may have started 
    playing to win late in the Series with the rest of the players, but 
    that can hardly make up for dumping a World Series.  I see no reason 
    to re-write history 50-60 years later...
    
    glenn
    

    Apparently they went ahead and did it to Rose...  I disagree, to say
    the least.
    
    glenn
    
    
	NEW YORK (UPI) -- Baseball legend Pete Rose, three days out of jail,
is one step closer to being barred from the Hall of Fame.
	A Baseball Hall of Fame committee voted 7-3 Thursday to recommend
that any player on baseball's ineligible list also be declared
ineligible for the Hall of Fame.
	The Board of Directors of the Hall of Fame will meet Feb. 4 in New
York to issue its ruling.
	Rose, baseball's all-time hit leader, ordinarily would become
eligible for the Hall of Fame next year.
	On Monday, Rose was released after a 5-month stay at a federal prison
in Marion, Ill., for tax fraud. He is completing his sentence at a
Cincinnati halfway house.
    

Glenn,

If I read this right, if he petitions Fay to lift the ban from baseball,
then that would make him eligible for the Hall? Sort of like the lifetime
ban that you can appeal in some number of years?

TTom

                                          
    That's my understanding, TTom, but the problem is that since Fay was
    behind this movement it may also indicate that Rose's reinstatement is
    a long time in coming.  Not only don't I think that Rose's crime was
    not great enough to keep him from the Hall, but also that Vincent's
    little scheme will serve the opposite of what he desires, which is that 
    Rose's name will come up each and every year and the the supposed 
    stain on baseball won't go away until it's dealt with.
    
    glenn
    

    Joe Jackson did indeed take $5,000 to throw the 1919 World Series.   He
    got this money *after* the first or second game.   It was the only
    money he ever saw out of the deal and it was $5,000 short of the
    $10,000 they were each promised.
    
    Eddie Cicotte, the Sox star pitcher, got $10,000 before the first game. 
    Buck Weaver, 3rd baseman, never received any money and wouldn't have
    taken it if offered.  Three other players, Lefty Williams, Happy
    Felsch, and Fred McMullen, each got $5,000.
    
    The two architects of the scam were Chick Gandil, 1B, and Swede
    Risberg, SS.  Gandil got $35,000 and Risberg took $15,000.  Gandil left
    for the West Coast shortly after the Series and never returned (except
    for the trial).   He literally took the money and ran.
    
    Buck Weaver is the only player who was truly hosed in this scandal. 
    Landis banned him because he knew about it and didn't report it to his
    manager.  That's it.   He played his heart out and refused all monies.
    
    Jackson was not innocent but he was in no way the leader of the bunch. 
    Gandil and Risberg ran it.
    
    Bob Hunt

    re .34
    
    And you wonder why most of your notes are followed by dersive laughter.

I think the H of F Committee should be executed.

I don't care if Pete Rose chopped up little babies to eat before every
game, and fed what he didn't eat to the WOLVERINES!

He is still one of THE all time great baseball players... and he belongs
in the Hall Of Fame!

Mike JN (SIDJNOTY)

� I don't care if Pete Rose chopped up little babies to eat before every
� game, and fed what he didn't eat to the WOLVERINES!

� Mike JN (SIDJNOTY)

	Gee, I dunno Mike.  I think if he did this getting voted in his first
year of eligibility would be tough.  JMHO.

				/Don

    These holier than thou baseball egg haids are the same who threatened
    to ban Willie Mays for life for being a greeter at a casino in Atlantic
    City. Said these learned men, "The proximity to gambling is a blemish
    on the great game of baseball."  Bah!
    
    Glenn, I think we are both certain of one thing in the Jackson case. We
    both have strong feelings of our own. I respect yours and understand
    where you are coming from. I still maintain that Jackson's
    contributiuon to the 1919 Series scandal were minimal and and do not
    deserve forever being banned from company he belongs with.
    
    Rich
    

    The past few years they've been having "dream" games here in the
    Phoenix area.  This year is the '65 Dodgers vs. '65 ? (Orioles?).  They
    actually reunite the available players from those rosters and play for
    charity.
    
    Great time to get some autographs and watch some of the old greats.
    
    Mike

    	Mike, did Don Drysdale hit anybody in the head?

    > The past few years they've been having "dream" games here in the
    > Phoenix area.  This year is the '65 Dodgers vs. '65 ? (Orioles?).  They
    
    Do you know what date the game is this year, Mike?  I may be out there
    in late March to visit my brother before he gets commissioned out of 
    Williams AFB...
    
    glenn
     

    The game is tomorrow.  I'm guessing on the Orioles.  I know last year
    they had the '65 Cubs and '65 Orioles.  Who won the AL West that year?
    Minnesota?  It might be them vs. the Dodgers.
    
    Mike

    
    I think I remember hearing about a game last year between the '69
    Cubs and '69 Orioles (I guess the Mets couldn't make it).  The '66
    Series was Dodgers-Orioles; '65 was Dodgers-Twins.  There were no
    divisions in those years.
    
    glenn
     

    
    
    It's the Twins.

    thanks Bruce!

    Tom Seaver and Rollie Fingers were elected to the Baseball Hall of
    Fame.  Seaver was elected in his first year of eligibility and received
    the highest percentage of votes of any candidate in HoF history.

    Something like 420 out 425 available !!  I heard it on the news between
    Bush's Hurling scene in Japan and the local Bronco Mania B.S. that gets
    going this time of year and really wasn't paying much attention.
    
    BG
    

    Pete Rose got 41 write-in votes.
    
    Mark.

    
    On ESPN last night they went through the list of players the
    baseball writers had to select from.  What a bunch of stiffs.
    
    Why in sam HE double hockey sticks was Pete Vukovich on the ballot?
    
    The only thing I remember of Vukovich was in the world series
    between Milwaukee and St. Louis and Joe Piscopo on SNL explaining
    the reason the Brewers lost was because they were slobs.  The
    entire piece was a Brewers spitting out tobaccy juice.  Vukovich
    was shown most often.
    
    \pjb
    

    Didn't Vuck win a Sigh Yung award too ?
    
    Would love to have seen Tony Perez, Oilva (should get the same
    consideration as Koufax) and Cepeda get in ....
    
    Jim Kaat ? Come on ...I can't understand the indignation there. He was
    a good pitcher, but that was it. Hung around way too long. 20 years in
    the majors, and won 280 games, but just 2 or 3 20 win years, and a lot
    of average ones ....
    
    Doc

    I think it was on W EEEE EEEE IIIII and eddie anvilhaid last night when
    inbetween his iname conversation about buying a vcr and cars for
    his kids, he had a interview with some old geezer living up in Maine
    who just happens to be one of the HoF ballot guys.
    
    Anyway, this guy says that as a matter of principle he didn't vote for 
    Seaver.  He said that he never votes for anybody in their first year of
    eligibility, preferring to vote for folks who have been eligible for
    longer and who still haven't gotten in.
    
    It was also reported someplace that the NY Daily News reporter who
    votes just sent in blank ballots as a sign of protest about Pete Rose's
    ineligibility.
    
    schlep that,
    I remain,
    yer rovin ears,
    Kev
    

    > On ESPN last night they went through the list of players the
    > baseball writers had to select from.  What a bunch of stiffs.
    
    > Why in sam HE double hockey sticks was Pete Vukovich on the ballot?
    
    Any major leaguer who plays for a given number of years (I think it's
    ten) is automatically placed on the ballot five years after he retires.
      
    
    py

       Three ballots were sent in blank as a Rose protest.
                                 Denny

    Tony Oliva and Sandy Koufax, Doc?  C'mon.  One of these players was the
    most dominant in the game for five years.  Shut Oliva and the rest of
    the Twins down in one of the most dominant Series performances ever...
    
    glenn
    

    Heard this bit of trivia: Rollie Fingers is the second pitcher to be
    named to the HOF with a career losing record.  Who was the first?
    
    Also, gotta wonder why Mazeroski continually gets ignored.  He was one
    of the greatest infielders ever.
    
    	--dan'l

�    Also, gotta wonder why Mazeroski continually gets ignored.  He was one
�    of the greatest infielders ever.
    
    Offense garners more votes than defense and is easier to measure.

                              
>�    Also, gotta wonder why Mazeroski continually gets ignored.  He was one
>�    of the greatest infielders ever.
>    
>    Offense garners more votes than defense and is easier to measure.
    
    But his vote total has steadily increased with increased recognition of
    defensive ability (he finished fifth this season).  Unfortunately, this 
    was Maz' last year on the ballot (not that he was getting close though,
    anyway).
    
    I'm still holding out hope for Mazeroski with the Veterans' Committee.
    I don't like the concept of the Vet Committee but in a couple of rare 
    instances they've righted some wrongs in my opinion, and the BBWAA 
    sure as heck haven't been perfect with their work, either.
    
    glenn
     

    According to the Globe, Fingers is the first to be voted in with a
    losing record.
    
    Mark.

�    Why in sam HE double hockey sticks was Pete Vukovich on the ballot?
    
    Well, if it will make you feel any better, he won't be on next year's
    ballot.  He didn't get the required 5% to remain on the ballot.  As a
    matter of fact he didn't get a single vote.

    Neither did teammates Gorman Thomas and Ben Oglive-oglava-life-goes-on.
    
    Mark.

              <<< HECKLE::DISK2:[NOTES$LIBRARY]BASEBALL.NOTE;1 >>>
                                 -< Baseball >-
================================================================================
Note 257.14             Seaver and Fingers Elected to HoF               14 of 15
24857::NEEDLE "Money talks. Mine says "Good-Bye!""   18 lines   8-JAN-1992 15:12
                                -< The voting >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992 Hall Of Fame Voting
    NEW YORK (AP) _ Results announced Tuesday night in the 1992 Baseball Hall
of Fame voting (430 votes cast; 323 needed for election):
    Tom Seaver, 425; Rollie Fingers, 349; Orlando Cepeda, 246; Tony Perez, 215;
Bill Mazerozki, 182; Tony Oliva, 175; Ron Santo, 136; Jim Kaat, 114; Maury
Wills, 110; Ken Boyer, 71; Dick Allen, 69.
    Minnie Minoso, 69; Joe Torre, 62; Luis Tiant, 50; Mickey Lolich, 45; Curt
Flood, 42; Bobby Bonds, 40; Vada Pinson, 36; Thurman Munson, 32; Rusty Staub,
26; George Foster, 24; Vida Blue, 23.
    x-Bobby Grich, 11; x-Dusty Baker, 4; x-Dave Kingman, 3; x-Bill Russell, 3;
x-Cesar Cedeno, 2; x-Steve Yeager, 2; x-Toby Harrah, 1; x-Dennis Leonard, 1.
    y-John Denny; y-Ken Forsch; y-Garry Maddox; y-Ben Oglivie; y-Gorman Thomas;
y-Pete Vukovich.
    ___
    NOTE: Pete Rose received 41 write-in votes, but he is ineligible for
election because he is on the permanently ineligible list.
    x-did not receive required 5 percent of vote to remain on ballot.
    y-did not receive any votes.
    

    Somebody actually voted for Toby Harrah. Is Mike Hargrove up next?
    
    

Yeah, but Vukovich was GREAT in Major League.....


8^)

    Mine...all mine.
    
    Mark.

    	I heard the Hall Of Fame Committee wants to take away the vote
    from sportswriters and have a select few choose.  Phew, you'll really
    have to a kissarse goodytwoshoes to get in then.  8^(
    
    				/Don

    Oliva won 3 batting titles, and was on the verge of cranking out great
    numbers before his knees went to hell. To his credit, he remained a
    good hitter afterwards. His numbers still look good.

    And no, I'm not saying he was as dominant a hitter as Sandy was a
    pitcher, but I think he was both productive and played long enough to
    merit serious consideration.

    The answer to the trivia question about who was the first pitcher with
    a career losing record to be inducted is Sachel Page.  Don't know if
    it's true or not, just what I heard.  Perhaps Page's MLB record is a
    losing one but his lifetime reocord must be a winning one.
    
    Anyone got the stats to prove this right or wrong?
    
    	--dan'l

    
    Yup, Satchel Paige has a career losing record in MLB.  I think that's
    not being mentioned in these news accounts because Paige (like Monte
    Irvin of the New York Giants) was indeed elected for his Negro League 
    career.
    
    The thing about Fingers being elected with a losing record being
    mentioned at all is kind of stupid, because in modern-day baseball if
    you're a closer and you have a winning record you're blowing too many
    leads. 
    
    glenn
    

    
    >>I'm still holding out hope for Mazeroski with the Veterans' Committee.
    
    I may be wrong, Glenn, but I think Maz had to get either 50 or 60% of
    the votes to be eligible for the veterans committee to vote him in and
    he didn't get those, leaving him forever out of the HOF.
    
    JaKe
    

    Hawk,
    Ah believe it was Dean Chance who faced Lonborg in that 7th game in
    '67.
    And Kaat was a dang good pitcher for years. Who says longevity cain't
    get you in the HoF. Look at Yaz.
    
    MikeL
    

    	Yup Mike, it was Dean Chance, but no 7th game.  It was the last
    game of the '67 season and Lonborg won 5-3.  Kaat pitched the day
    before and was mowing the Sox down before something popped in his
    arm.  When Kaat went out the Sox went to town.  Kind of tough to
    take that's it'll be 25 years this season since the Impossible Dream
    Team.  8^)  
    
    				/Don

       If you're ever at The Sports Depot in Allston/Brighton there's a
    painting on the front of the building of the scoreboard at Fenway at
    the end of the last game of '67.
                                  Denny

    I saw that Denny, but  it was in triplicate. 8^)
    
    MikeL
    

    
    re: Maz and the Hall
    
    	Why is it that defensive ability is not recognized as a worthy
    stat in baseball, but relief pitching is?  Isn't relief pitching in
    part a defensive ability?
    
    	It seems like every year we (pirate fans) hear the same tune about
    Mazeroski.  Maz deserves to be in the Hall as much if not more than a
    lot of guys including Tony Perez.
    
    	I don't have all of Mazs' career stats, but the ones I have stack
    up favorably to any infielder who played and certainly to any of the
    ones playing today.
    
    	17 Seasons, all with the Pirates
    	.260 lifetime BA
    
    	138 HR's (which was pretty good considering Forbes Field was one of
    		  the largest parks in all of baseball)
    
    	.983 Fielding average (again, were talking grass here, not that 
    			       smooth rolling carpet)
    
    	8 Gold Gloves (which was the most until Sandberg I believe broke
    		       that this year for a 2nd baseman)
    
    	Led the league in assists 9 years which was/is a record
    
    	Led the league in chances 8 years which was/is a record
    
    	Turned 1,706 DP's over his career from one position.
    
    	Set a record of 161 DP's by position in '66...don't know if the
    	record still stands, but that is one per game!
    
    
    	I guess as time goes by, many forget just how good some of the 
    older folk were.  With stats like the above, Maz could generate about
    4 million a year in salary and I'm sure a lot more people would be
    singing his praises for the Hall.  Instead, Maz is most remembered
    for his dramatic 9th inning homer to win the '60 series against the
    Yankees.
    
    	Maz deserves the Hall..it simply a shame that the best 2nd baseman
    to ever play the position can't make it becaue he didn't hit .020 more
    over a lifetime..
    
    
    							bill..g.

    
    	Betcha Ozzie gets in for his defensive talents.....
    
    	Claybroon

    To me, an everyday ballplayer needs to shine in all apsects of the game
    to be considered. Like a Dave Kingman or Frank Howard may have been two
    of the most awesome hitters to ever lumber up to the plate but were not
    even adequate in the field. 
    
    For an outfielder to be considered, he should have hit over 250 HR's,
    had a lifetime average of over .280, have a few gold gloves and hit
    over 800 RBI's. There - now why isn't Bobby Bonds in the HoF????
    
    An middle infielder needs to either be a +.290 lifetime hitter of be a
    stolen base threat in addition to sparkling in the field. Mazeroski was
    indeed one of the premier 2nd basemen of his time. I also recall two
    SS's named Belanger and Brinkman who were great in the field but
    horrendous at the plate. Speaking of 2nd basemen, is Nellie Fox in the
    Hall? And talk about a slick 2nd baseman, what about Dick Green from
    those championship A's teams?
    
    Few, VERY few everyday players make it on strictly offense alone. Even
    Willie Stargell and Willie McCovey were very good defensively. And
    these two guys CARRIED their teams noty for a game or two, but, in some
    cases, a season.
    
    Maz was good. Is he in the same league with current residents of the
    Hall? Well, he deserves to shine their shoes and smoke a cigar with
    'em but not to live with them.
    
    But I guess everyone has a player they feel should be there and isn't.
    I've heard arguments about Rizzuto and Oliva and Mazeroski. My guy is
    Richie Ashburn.
    
    Rich
    

                       
    > For an outfielder to be considered, he should have hit over 250 HR's,
    > had a lifetime average of over .280, have a few gold gloves and hit
    > over 800 RBI's. There - now why isn't Bobby Bonds in the HoF????
    
    That's a heck of a lot of players you just qualified there, Rich. 
    Hell, Bobby Grich (another guy I think was very underrated) put up
    those numbers (in addition to a .375 career OBP) as a second baseman 
    plus six or seven Gold Gloves and he got a grand total of 11 votes 
    this year and will never be on the ballot again.
    
    I think most fans who never saw him play just can't comprehend what
    kind of a defensive player Bill Mazeroski was.  I agree that your
    run-of-the-mill defensive star doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, not
    Belanger and certainly not Brinkman or Green.  But Mazeroski was 
    one of the top few defensive players *ever* at *any* position.  The top
    offensive players in baseball are automatic HOFers regardless of what
    other skills they possess, but similar credentials on the defensive 
    side are virtually ignored.  Mazeroski's dominance on defensive is 
    attested to both by his peers in the game, and the defensive stats (he 
    still holds assist and double play records that may never be broken).  
    Maz is right there with other defensive revolutionaries like Ozzie 
    Smith, who in my mind should also be inducted to the Hall without a 
    second thought based solely on the number of hits and runs he stole
    away with his glove.
    
    If Bill Mazeroski had demonstrated his defensive brilliance in the
    pinstripes of the New York Yankees and had hit the only World Series-
    winning home run in baseball history in The Stadium, there's 
    absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he'd have a plaque up in
    Cooperstown...
    
    glenn
    

    nicely put, glenn.
    
    
    JaKe
    

    Minor nit ... Maz clocked his game (and series)-winning shot in Forbes
    Field.
    
    Who did he hit off of ?

    Ralph Terry
    
    
    
    JaKe
    

 Glenn, you ought slip that last note to the Veteran's committee. You convinced
 me. The part about the "offensive stars" being automatics convinced me...

 mike

              <<< HECKLE::DISK2:[NOTES$LIBRARY]BASEBALL.NOTE;1 >>>
                                 -< Baseball >-
================================================================================
Note 254.84  1991 BASEBALL NOTER's HALL OF FAME VOTING (for voting ONL  84 of 88
39527::JHENDRY "John Hendry, DTN 297-2623"           36 lines  21-JAN-1992 09:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I don't care much about who is/isn't in the Hall of Fame, but Bill
    James came up with a list of potential criteria against which potential
    candidates should be measured.  It's always made sense to me.  Why not
    measure "your guy" against this list to see if he makes it or not?
    
    1.  During his career was he regarded as the best player in baseball?
    2.  Was he ever regarded as the best player on his team?
    3.  During his career was he regarded as the best player in baseball at
    his position?
    4.  Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
    5.  Did he play regularly when he was past his prime?
    6.  Was he ever regarded as the best player in his league at his
    position?
    7.  Is he the best player in history who isn't in the Hall of Fame?
    8.  Are most players with comparable career Triple Crown stats in the
    Hall?
    9.  Are his totals of Career Approximate Value and Offensive Wins and
    Losses similar to other Hall of Famers?
    10. Is there evidence to suggest that he was a better or worse player
    than his stats indicate?
    11. Is he the best player eligible at his position who isn't in the
    Hall?
    12. How many MVP-type seasons did he have?  How many MVP awards did he
    win?  Was he close to winning but didn't?
    13. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have and how many All-Star
    games did he play in?
    14. If he was the best player on his team, could his team win the
    pennant?
    
    James came up with this list in reaction to his being asked to
    participate in a campaign to get Ken Keltner into the Hall.  Like I
    said, I really don't care much about who is in and who isn't, but this
    list makes sense to me, I respect James and it's at least a starting
    point for the debate.
    
    John 
    

    > Minor nit ... Maz clocked his game (and series)-winning shot in Forbes
    > Field.
    
    There was a mighty big *if* in my statement, Doc (I know he hit it at
    Forbes; I used to walk by the monument and what's left of the outfield
    walls on what is now Roberto Clemente Drive every day on my way to 
    school).  The point was that Mazeroski's talents were not nationally 
    showcased playing in Pittsburgh in the era that he did...
    
    glenn
    

    Terry is correct ....

    Glenn, Your argument was well thought out and presented in a convincing
    manner. Although I was not a big NL fan in those days, 2nd basemen I
    followed then included Nellie Fox, Bobby Richardson and Billy Goodman.
    
    Since the only time I ever saw Mazeroski play was on TV in the WS vs
    the Yankees, I admit to not experiencing plays he made. And the point
    you mader about playing in NY is also a valid point although you
    couldn't convince Rizzuto about it (or Dan Schnieder, either).
    
    What 2nd basemen are in the HoF? Compare Mazeroski's stats to them.
     
    (And, by the way, Mark Belanger was not a mediocre defensive SS. He was
    brilliant in the field).
    
    Rich
    

>    (And, by the way, Mark Belanger was not a mediocre defensive SS. He was
>    brilliant in the field).
    
I agree with Rich.  Every characterization I've ever heard about Belanger
was a superb defensive specialist who stunk at the plate....


'Saw    

                                           
>>    (And, by the way, Mark Belanger was not a mediocre defensive SS. He was
>>    brilliant in the field).
    
> I agree with Rich.  Every characterization I've ever heard about Belanger
> was a superb defensive specialist who stunk at the plate....
    
    Where did that come from?  This is a Baltimore Orioles' fan here, guys,
    who lived near Baltimore for four years when Belanger was in his prime.
    I used Belanger's name in conjunction with the phrase "run-of-the-mill
    defensive star" (emphasis on *star*), and while maybe he was even a
    little better than that defensively, what I was trying to say was that 
    he was no Ozzie Smith and his offensive skills were so pathetic that 
    that's all he was, a defensive star but an absolute offensive
    liability, even for a shortstop.
    
    By the way, I think that Nellie Fox was such a great all-around player
    by second base standards that he should also be in the Hall of Fame
    (much more deserving than Red Schoendienst), and by all indications
    (personal recollections and the numerous defensive records he holds)
    Richie Ashburn might even qualify as one of those very few best
    defensive players ever, although stacking him up offensively against so
    many great outfielders who played the game it's much tougher to
    justify a Hall induction.  Very few second basemen and shortstops can 
    do it all, which explains why there aren't many in the Hall, where
    the emphasis has been placed on offense...
    
    glenn
    

    
    
    
          In my opinion, Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose rightfully
    earned their place in the Hall of Fame. History will prove that it is
    shame to act like they never exsisted because of blemishes they did off
    the field. After all, neither were ever convicted of a crime that was
    directly related to baseball. So much for the true Americian justice
    system.
    
          The way that I would reccommend that Rose and Jackson be
    immoratalized is with their bronze plaques listing all the reasons why
    they are enshrined, but the final line will read "Banned from Baseball
    Forever". Immortalize both the good and the wrong. But give them them
    their rightful place in history
    
          Play With It Hard!
    
         Chuckers
       

 Absolutely.  100% agreement.  Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose are both baseball
 immortals and deserve to be enshrined in Cooperstown for all time.
 
 Pete Rose was the single most dynamic baseball player of this generation. 
 He had a work ethic devoted to winning that has not been seen since.  He
 earned every dime he ever made playing ball.   It would stagger the
 imagination to think what kind of salary he could command now.   He'd be
 worth every penny.
 
 And Joe Jackson was probably the sweetest hitter the game had ever seen to
 that point.  Fans would have to wait 20 years until Ted Williams came
 along to see another swing like Jackson's.
 
 Bob Hunt

> And Joe Jackson was probably the sweetest hitter the game had ever seen to
> that point.  Fans would have to wait 20 years until Ted Williams came
> along to see another swing like Jackson's.
 
I don't know if they ever captured Shoeless Joe's swing on film, but
they had one clip of The Splendid Splinter swinging in WIWAGII that
was absolutely marvelous.    Probably the most perfect swing I've ever
seen...


'Saw

    
    Ron Santo of the Chicago Cubs should have been in the Hall of Fame by now.
    What a great player he was.
                                      Pat

    
    Speaking of the Hall of Fame, "Mr. October" Reggie Jackson was elected
    yesterday.  He got something like 96% of the Basaball writers votes.
    
    He'll be inducted in early August so make your hotel reservations now!
    
    question - why is my most powerful memory of Reggie Jackson the one
    where he's hypnotized and "has to kill the queen" in the movie "Naked
    Gun"?
    
    I remain,
    a former "Reggie Bar" eater too!
    Kev
    

    What uniform will he wear for his plaque?

              <<< Note 62.104 by PATE::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>
                           -< Yankee, Angel, or A? >-

    >What uniform will he wear for his plaque?
    
    Don't know 'bout his uniform, but I hear he'll use Crest Tarter
    Control.

	Yankee Cap for Reggie

I kinda thought that with all the ink he got for his cause the past year or so, 
that Orlando Cepeda had a shot this time around.  To bad, I think he deserves 
it.

=Bob=

Reggie said he wants to go in as a Yankee.....

He was the 29th player to be elected in the first year of eligibility....


'Saw