The hall pass monitors

Mike:
Man, another ball bustah for Jim Rice.

 

---

Doug:
Yeah, while I couldn't give a rat's ass for the Hall of Fame, because it means a lot to Jim Rice and othah playahs, I do sympathize.

 

---

Mike:
Wait a second, you don't care about the Hall of Fame?

 

---

Doug:
Yeah, yeah, I know, it's shocking to the baseball nostalgist that lives in the soul of 99% of fan to learn that not everybody genuflects at the mention of Cooperstown.

 

---

Mike:
But what's up with that? I mean c'mon, Cooperstown, the history, the magnificence, the bloody sock!?!?!

 

---

Doug:
Hey, it's like Ditka says, "Those who live in the past are cowards." Me, I'm a futurist.

 

---

Mike:
Dude, you're a nihilist is what you are. The Hall of Fame is the nads. You have to know the past to understand the present.

 

---

Doug:
Whatev. All I know is entrusting the selection of who gets in who doesn't to the collection of interlopahs, misfits, and miscreants that make up much of BBWAA is at best laughable and at worst heinous.

 

---

Doug:
I mean, c'mon Dante Bichette got 3 votes while two other ass clowns turned in blank ballots? Why not give Paris Hilton a ballot next year. It'll be worth as much.

 

---

Comments

[Kaz]

Another egregious sin in the world of sports today: The San Diego Chargers restricted ticket sales on Ticketmaster to Southern California zip codes only. The Chicago Bears limited it to Illinois and northern Indiana only.

What the hell? What ever happened to fair play? You couldn't get away with this at a Euro soccer match. The other team's fans would still show up and then they'd burn your stadium to the ground. It's just a time-tested thing. You let the rivals in and then you beat their team down in their face.

Now I wish I had time this weekend to go to San Diego and start some mayhem.

[Designated Sitter]

Don't know about all of Europe, but in the U.K. it depends on competition and stadium size Kaz. For Premier League games, the home team has to allow the visitors the option of 15% of the tickets, subject to policing restrictions.

Anyway, onto Jim Rice. I can't believe that the BBWAA voters keep their vote for life. So if I stop being a baseball writer at say, 60, I could still vote on the HoF for another 30+ years? Good way to keep prejudices against certain players alive and well...especially those who weren't exactly press-friendly (like THAT makes you a less deserving candidate).

[Griffin]

Whether or not you "believe" in the Hall of Fame, the copper plaques are only a small part of the place.
Anyone who can't lose himself in that building for a day or two isn't a baseball fan.

[Ryan with a capital "R"]

I like the HOF but I hate the selection process. I heard an NPR interview with one of the dips who sent in a black ballot and sounded just as douchey as you thought he would. He wasn't "comfortable" voting for any player from this era due to steroids although he might be in the future. Blech. Seriously, Tony Gwynn? On steroids? Definitely on some sort of a high-carb and high fat diet. No doubt. But steroids? Don't you think HE would have hit 73 homers with steroids?

Then, he tried to claim that his vote didn't make a difference, that Ripken and Gwynn still got in. Asked why he didn't just not vote, he actually cast aspersions on the non-voters. He said he wanted to be involved in the process.

Also, the douche made a point of saying "Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn, Jr." I don't think either of those guys belongs in the HOF. (Douches do not get the benefit of the doubt.)

I don't mind allowing reporters to do the voting. But, just as with jury selection, there should be a process that admits reporters to the HOF jury. You should have to demonstrate knowledge of the era you're voting on, knowledge of the history of the game in general, and be known not to carry any biases against eligible players.

[Ryan with a capital "R"]

Oh, and the ticket crap, it's not unheard of. St. John's men's hoops, back when Mike Jarvis coached there, pulled that all the time with UConn after MSG was Nutmeggers filled MSG. St. John's decided not to offer the chance to buy just tickets to the UConn game. You were forced to buy them in combination with a package of other St. John's home games.

Mike Jarvis, another douche.

[mikeya2k1]

another prob with the hall of fame
is the fact that people can hold a grudge and keep people out dispite there numbers. i think our man jim is perfect proof of that. i also think the slight against mark maguire is totaly unjustified. if you read shaunessys article today you would have thought he was holdin marks johnson in one hand and the pee vile in another. im not going to sit here and say he didnt do roids. but with out a positive sample you have to go by his numbers on wether he deserves entrance into the hall of fame... hey pete gammons voted for him to me that speaks volumns. ok stepping off the soapbox now.

[yazbread]

I'll second Griffin's comments. A visit to the HOF is fantastic. Once you get there you realize that the plaques are such a smaill part of it and rather insignificant in light of everything else. It is a great museum -the Smithsonian of baseball. A visit should definitely be on your list of '1,000 things to do before I die'.

[Rob in CT]

Prayers and wishes for a quick return to health for Bobby Murcer. Was sorry to read today that the brain tumor he had removed last month turned out to be malignant.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bba_yankees_murcer_1

[Dave S.]

Cooperstown is the bomb. I actually love the plaques, too. What's amazing is how many HOF players there are who I know absolutely nothing about. I can think of the greats I have learned about, follow now or remember, but this game has forgotten more than my left little toenail has ever learned. There's so much depth there, and it's always fun to get lost in something that's simply too big to really grasp.

For all the crap about the BBWAA (and I do hate them. most passionately), they do actually rarely vote someone in who really shouldn't be there. Their Cy Young and MVP votes are regularly FUBAR, but with the HOF, while they'll sometimes get it wrong, they tend at least to err on the side of caution: and I think a club as such should remain on the exclusive side.

To the Rice lovers...he's a guy who really isn't quite there. He's as close to the cusp as you'll find, but in the end he doesn't make it. There are other players worthier of the Hall- and on the ballot- who haven't yet been voted in and should. My guess is that Rice'll somehow get in, either with the BBWAA or the veterans. I certainly wouldn't complain loudly about it, but if I was voting I'd say he wasn't in the circle.

[Kaz]

I saw Cal Ripken Jr. play against Toronto in the Hall of Fame game a few years back. The HoF is a nice place to visit and it's a pretty crazy place to catch a game. While I like the HoF and all of the great stories of baseball history in there, I am disappointed by the selection process.

[Bob]

//To the Rice lovers...he's a guy who really isn't quite there. He's as close to the cusp as you'll find, but in the end he doesn't make it.//

But Dave S., isn't the Hall really about stats and comparisons? It certainly has been in the past. So let's take that Skankee killer Bill Mazeroski (who I personally love for all the obvious reasons).

Hall of Famer with a .260 lifetime batting average, 50 rbi per season average, and 8 home runs a season.

Uh, and Jim Rice doesn't belong?

[paddy24]

Dave S. -

The only players as good or better than Rice when Rice was playing from the 1975-1986 era were Eddie Murray, Dave Winfield (maybe), George Brett, Rickey Henderson and Mike Schmidt. Molitor wasn't better. Yount wasn't better. Dennis Eckersley wasn't better. Gary Carter wasn't better. Bruce Sutter sure as shit wasn't better. Fisk wasn't better. It's funny how history is re-written after players retire. I don't recall anyone thinking Gary Carter or Paul Molitor was better than Jim Rice from 1975 to 1986 (or in Molitor's case - 1978 to 1986). I was a fanatical collector of baseball cards. I can assure you that no one would trade a Jim Rice card from 1975 to 1986 for any of his contemporaries except maybe Schmidt. I hate to keep bringing the same stat up - you've already seen it - from 1975 to 1986 (12 years - not five, not eight, not 10, but 12!!!!) - most hits, most RBI, most runs, most HR, most total bases, most outfield assists, most game winning RBI, most triples in the A.L. He was a slugger and hitter for average in a non- offensive era. He played The Monster great. Had he not been hit by a pitch, the Sox would have won the 1975 World Series. In 1978 every position player had an off-year except for Rice. He was a one-man wrecking crew. For those 12 years there was not a more imposing player than Jim Ed. Runner up for Rookie of Year. Most total bases (406) in a year since Stan Musial. Chronic top ten finisher in MVP voting (that is the true measure of Hall of Fame worthiness). Dominant seasons in 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1983 and 1986. Many 100 RBI seasons. .298 lifetime average. Played his whole career with one team. Somebody please explain to me when Gary Carter, Bruce Sutter and Dennis Eckerley became better players than Jim Rice. He even had more great years than them, so it's not that Rice din't do it for a long enough time to be compared favorably to them. Nobody went for a beer when Rice strode to the plate. Again, only Henderson, Schmidt, Murray and Brett were better. I guess you had to be a fan during that era to understand. - Paddy