Quantcast

greg maddux rookie cardYesterday, the BBWAA released its Hall of Fame balloting, revealing that Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas had surpassed the 75% threshold in their first time on the ballot. Good for them, nuts for everyone else, and reactions from all around …

  • The Cubs’ organization offered its love for Maddux, upon the news of his election. “I join my family, the Cubs organization and Cubs fans in congratulating Greg on this tremendous honor,” Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts said in a statement. “He is one of the greatest pitchers of all time and a tremendous competitor who earned the nickname ‘Mad Dog’ whenever he took the mound. Greg’s near-unanimous selection to Baseball’s Hall of Fame is the ultimate salute to an extraordinary career.”
  • The congrats to Maddux, of course, is bittersweet for anyone who remembers how the two sides parted ways before the 1993 season. By all accounts, Maddux’s demands before hitting free agency were more than reasonable, and he never wanted to leave. But, leave he did, and it is with the Braves that he became a superstar. And that’s whose hat he’ll be wearing when he enters Cooperstown. What might have been.
  • Maddux, himself, shared some love for the Cubs’ organization in a conference call yesterday, per Cubs.com. He says he tried to stay back in 1993, and he was happy to have a chance to come back 11 years later. Jon Greenberg writes about the Cubs’ colossal mistake in letting him go.
  • Myles writes about the much-discussed non-Maddux vote. He’s got several possible explanations for the omission.
  • The infamous “bought” Deadspin ballot? It belonged to Dan Le Batard, who didn’t actually accept any payment for his ballot – he just wanted to participate. I don’t have a doubt in my mind that his move was at least partially motivated by the desire for attention, but the negative backlash he’s getting from other writers is disappointing. The Deadspin ballot was actually pretty legit, and if there are writers out there permitted to send in blank ballots or vote solely for Jack Morris, then who cares if Le Batard wants to come up with his ballot this way?
  • FanGraphs on the greatness of Greg Maddux, the greatness of Tom Glavine, and the greatness of Frank Thomas.
  • A Baseball Prospectus study on whether there’s an appreciable difference between the votes of folks who reveal their ballots publicly and those who do not. Short version? Yup. Seems like anonymous voters are much more likely to not vote for the PED guys, and much more likely to vote for the Don Mattingly/Lee Smith types.
  • Sammy Sosa, who saw his vote total drop to 7.2% this year, is in serious danger of falling off of the ballot next time around – as Rafael Palmeiro did.
  • Grant Brisbee discusses how Craig Biggio missed out.
  • bushybrows74

    I wonder what a win above replacement was valued at in 1992. Great example of how sabermetrics could quantify how bad a decision Larry Himes made.

  • mjhurdle

    I have no problem with Le Batard letting Deadspin’s reader dictate his vote. If the BBWAA has a problem, they should have put rules against it in place before now.

    However, I did lose a lot of the little respect I had for Le Batard by announcing this today. I have heard twice as much discussion about his ballot than I have about the actual players that made it in.

    This is a once in a lifetime event for these great players. If Le Batard was trying to make a point, I could have respected that. But I cannot respect the way he rushed to make this about him and his cause and what he did. Yesterday and today should be about Maddux, Thomas, and Glavine.
    If Le Batard’s desire was really to improve the HoF voting process, he would have respected the vote and allowed these players their time in the spotlight. Instead he rushed to make it about him.
    I could definitely be wrong, but it just looks to me like his entire motivation was to stir the pot just to get his name out there, at the expense of everything else.

    • cub-hub

      I have a lot of respect for Le Batard, and while he comes across as a jokester sometimes, he is really good at what he does. He actually apologized for this, and it appeared to me that it was genuine. Just my opinion, but I’ll give him a pass this time.

  • notcubbiewubbie

    larry himes you got one week to take or leave our offer.one of the worst cub gm’s of all time. greg maddux never wanted to be a brave but when dealing with an idiot GM that didn’t have a clue he had little choice.31 two of the greatest cubs of all time wore that number.now they r both in the hall of fame where they rightly belong. Don’t think himes or hendry should be allowed in the building.

  • hansman

    To think, he did all of that with a 14 MPH fastball…

    • mjhurdle

      that must have been early in his career before his velocity dropped off.

    • DocPeterWimsey

      That was the secret to Greg’s success: guys would swing two or even three times at one pitch! That kept the K’s high and the pitch count low.

      • hansman

        “Maddux, today, fanned 23 hitters on only 7 pitches.”

        “Ya, Bob, he really had his gas going topping out in the low double-digits. Hitters were kept completely off balance.”

  • miggy80

    “But, leave he did, and it is with the Braves that he became a superstar. And that’s whose hat he’ll be wearing when he enters Cooperstown.”

    12 yr. me just got punched in the stomach, again.

  • Jon

    Do further on the point what a pile of human shit Larry HImes was, Maddux called Himes back and offered to let him match the Braves offer and he declined.

    • notcubbiewubbie

      larry himes a reason that we never want anything or any person who came from the MLB team on the south side.

      • Jon

        Who could forget that dumbass and his logic “well I can get 7 players for what 1 Greg Maddux costs”

        • brickhouse

          Himes signed Guzman, Maldonado, Myers and Wiilson instead of Maddux. Maddux called Himes when he saw they signed Guzman and Himes told Maddux the Cubs no longer had money to sign him.

  • jh03

    As someone who only got to watch old Greg Maddux pitch, young pictures of him are absolutely hilarious.

  • http://www.ehanauer.com clark addison

    Himes also drove Sandberg into early retirement.

  • ChrisFChi

    Man, that was a sick rotation the Braves had in the 90’s. I really don’t care about the hat he will wear in the hall, I’m glad he’s in and us Cubs fans got to experience some time with him.

  • CubsFanSaxMan

    I’d like to see the Cubs organization get behind the election of Lee Smith, much the way that they did for Ron Santo. I know that Smith played for other teams, but I find it hard to believe that the voters have selected Sutter and Gossage and not Lee Smith. If you are not going to vote for anyone from the PED era than vote for Smith!!

  • hansman

    Should I not be finding it odd that Thomas has completely escaped steroid talk? Or am I missing something here.

    • bbmoney

      Well he was very outspoken about steroids and was a physical specimen even when young so people don’t point to his body changing as much.

      So those are probably the reasons. But I do find it funny that people pick and choose who has that shadow over them and apparently it’s as easy as someone being outspoken against steroids before they were even testing (as in could be shooting up with no fear of being caught) to avoid suspicion. Like no one has ever said drugs are bad whilst using drugs.

      None of this is to say I think Thomas used. I just don’t know. We can’t really know since there was no testing for the vast majority of his career.

      • hansman

        I didn’t know that about him. But that would have been a great way for them to deflect any suspicion.

        Like you, I have no reason to suspect him of using, just curious.

    • ssckelley

      Frank Thomas never showed up one day huge and started hitting home runs, he was huge even through his high school years.

    • bushybrows74

      No you should not find it odd that people have not speculated without any basis that Frank Thomas used illegal drugs.

  • Ivy Eater

    Interesting read in the Rockford Register Star about Maddux. Some quality writing in there… What a joke.

    http://www.rrstar.com/article/20140107/BLOGS/140109680/2000/NEWS

    • Fishin Phil

      As a Rockford resident, I can confidently say “Worst Sports Coverage Ever!”. Their sports section has been horrible for years.

      • Fishin Phil

        And Matt Trowbridge in particular is why I cancelled my subscription.

    • Dafoxx

      That may be the most ignorant baseball article I have ever read. And to attempt to justify that hare-brained idea as a basis for not voting for Maddox and Glavine would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

      • Dafoxx

        Sorry, meant Maddux.

    • papa dunks

      To even mention sports and Trowbridge in the same sentence gives him way too much credit.

  • ssckelley

    Larry Himes was on the Score yesterday and offered an inside view of how that all went down. While he accepted his share of the responsibility it was not all his fault, part of the blame was with the ownership and how things were run back then. When the Cubs were owned by the Tribune unless you could prove to them that spending more money would get them an ROI they didn’t do it. It was like pulling teeth back then to get the Tribune to spend money and they really did not care about winning or losing, to them it was all about profit.

    Larry Himes regretted that he did not push the Cubs more to get that extra funding to match the Braves offer.

  • NorthSideIrish

    Tim Brown ‏@TBrownYahoo 4m
    BBWAA statement: Le Batard banned from future Hall voting. Also, loses membership for a year.

    Apparently BBWAA cares how he came up with his ballot…

    • ssckelley

      That is a shame, his vote looked more legit than a lot of other voters who use it as a platform for their views.

    • hansman

      BBWAA “Official” Statement:

      We don’t care if you are a moron in filling out your ballot or have dumb reasoning. We DO care, though, if you let someone else decide for you.

      Just remember, we would greatly appreciate it if you would use out of date stats, improper logic and hatred of steroid users (or those remotely suspected of steroids) in your voting process.

    • mjhurdle

      He had to know this was coming. They couldn’t allow him to do this.
      Regardless of what you think of Le Batard’s intentions, what he did is very very close to selling his ballot. If you allow voters to let other people use the power you gave them to vote, what stops a voter from letting some billionaire use his ballot in exchange for a 5 million dollar “writing contract” for some magazine that the rich person owns?

      To me this just makes me a little more certain that all Le Batard wanted out of this was his name thrown around in the media to enhance his show.
      If he really wanted to change something, he would have gone the proper channels to try to fix what was wrong, instead of a publicity stunt that he knew would lose his vote and remove him from any position to effect change going forward.

      • jh03

        If what Le Batard did changes the voting process, he’s a genius.

        Also, he didn’t sell his vote. Deadspin was going to pay him but he said to donate it to charity instead, so they did.

        Also, other writers have asked their readers who they should vote for. It’s really no different. He signed his name to it. He asked Deadspin’s readers for help.

        Saying that, Le Batard never should have had a vote in the first place. He knows he isn’t qualified. There’s plenty more voters who are just like him, and they all need to go.

        • mjhurdle

          I know the Le Batard didn’t sell his vote, but it is a small step away from someone selling their vote.
          And if the BBWAA allowed people to intentionally give away their vote but prohibited selling the it, what would prevent someone from letting someone else fill out the ballot for someone, and coincidentally that person pays the voter $25K for an article?
          Of course, it would be hard to prove if someone did it undercover, but letting someone flaunt that they are giving away the vote is never going to fly.
          Le Batard’s move won’t change anything. People already knew the system was flawed, what he did exposes nothing new. He didn’t offer any solutions or fixes.
          He will get what he wanted out of it, which is a few more viewers of his show.

          • jh03

            I don’t buy into the slippery slope argument.

            But, Le Batard may have done this for bad reasons. It’s possible. We don’t know that though. And, how can the BBWAA take his vote away while letting other guys “make statements” with their votes?! At least Le Batard’s ballot was good. Other people are leaving players off because of he-said-she-said crap, making a joke of the BBWAA (just like Le Batard, I know), and they won’t do a thing to them.

            Hopefully it just causes enough noise that something happens. Le Batard wasn’t qualified to have a vote. Just like a very high percentage of the voters now.

      • Norm

        But how can you be “close” to selling a ballt? You either sold it, or you didn’t.

        From Richard Justice:
        “We had a guy in Houston ask for fan help in filling out his HOF ballot. He still votes.”

        How is that different than Lebatard?

        • JB88

          “How is that different from Lebatard?”

          Well, for one, the guy in Houston actually cast the vote, not someone else.

          • ssckelley

            I think LeBatard still technically cast the vote.

            • JB88

              Sorry, being cheeky gets me in trouble. I meant that “asking for help” and giving someone else the power (regardless of who pulls the little lever) is different. Here, LeBatard completely ceded his responsibility for that ballet. Deadspin could have written in the characters for Disney and LeBatard still would have cast the vote.

              • ssckelley

                But wasn’t the understanding that voting for someone silly like Disney characters was not going to happen? Deadspin posted a poll and any of their readers voted and unless that 1 online group gets involved (I forget their name, the online community who likes to screw up votes) there was no threat of this happening.

                • JB88

                  I won’t pretend to have followed this story as closely as some, so I won’t claim to know whether DL put some condition on how Deadspin voted. From what I’ve briefly heard, I hadn’t heard anything like that. Maybe you have heard something that would lead you to believe that DL wouldn’t have cast the ballot if Deadspin had treated it as more of a joke.

              • Norm

                No, the deal was the fans would vote. Not Deadspin choosing.

        • ssckelley

          Since LeBatard did not accept any money for his vote then this is the same thing. I think BBWAA is out of line for taking his vote away.

        • mjhurdle

          “But how can you be “close” to selling a ballt?”

          it is a relative term, but here is how i would break it down, and why i called it “close”

          Farthest away: No outside influence at all

          little Closer: Talking to friends/family about who would be good choices. Limited outside influence, voter is involved in every aspect of the vote still

          even Closer: Not knowing much, collect samples of data and voting for players that the people you respect the most in the business. More outside influence than internal choices.

          Close: Not accepting compensation for someone else filling out your ballot. Total outside influence, only contribution being the signature on the ballot.

          Selling the ballot: Accept compensation for someone else filling out your entire ballot. Total outside influence, only contribution being a signature on the ballot

          • mjhurdle

            And i think one could argue that Le Batard did accept compensation in the form of free marketing of himself in return of allowing Deadspin to dictate his vote.

            • ssckelley

              But I do not see this as being any different than someone who turns in a blank ballot or simply votes for Jack Morris. If you are going to strip this guys vote then strip all the others who use the ballot as a platform to get people to listen to them.

              • mjhurdle

                I think the difference is that those people voted with their own opinions, however stupid they might be. They even attempt to rationalize why they voted the way they did.
                If you went to someone that cast a blank ballot, they could give you a reason, even if you think it is wrong.
                What could Le Batard say if someone asked him why one player was on his ballot and not another?

                • Edwin

                  He could say that’s what the fans wanted. Ultimately, it should not be the BBWAA’s HOF, it should be the fans. Currently, the BBWAA is failing at it’s job, at least in regards to the HOF.

                  • blublud

                    No. First, its not the MLB Hall of Fame. Its the North American professional Baseball Hall of Fame. I believe the Hall is owned by the Forbes family and is a private operation. They have a right to do as they please. They choose to allow the BBWAA to determine entry. MLB actually has no control or say in who gets inducted. Neither do fans. In fact, the Hall could let Pete Rose in and there is nothing the MLB could really do about it.

                    • blublud

                      It also a non-museum.

                    • blublud

                      Meant nonprofit meseum.

                • ssckelley

                  He answered that question in that deadspin article Brett linked in his blog.

                  • mjhurdle

                    I would respectfully say that he did not in fact answer the question as to why he did not have Don Mattingly on his ballot.
                    He listed a bunch of complaints about the process, which may be valid. But he cannot say why Mattingly is not on the ballot beyond “well, the people that made the decision didn’t think he should be there”.
                    if he was so upset with the process and felt that he was not able to perform the duty asked of him, then he should have simply not sent in a ballot.
                    Instead, he choose to by-pass the restrictions setup on who is allowed to vote, and then promote what he did turning the attention away from the players and towards himself.
                    There are ways to create effectual change in an organization, and if Le Batard was as concerned as he wants everyone to believe, then he should have used his position in the BBWAA to make it better, not destroy his credibility in a tantrum/publicity stunt. Just my opinion though.

  • ssckelley

    From that Deadspin article it sounds like they already have someone else lined up for next years HoF vote.

    • Scotti

      A simple remedy for the HOF would be for them to invalidate any vote that Deadspin uses retroactively.

      • Edwin

        I think the BBWAA should also take a look and try to fix their current problems.

        • Scotti

          Santo was a real problem but he retired a long time ago and now writers don’t even think about keeping guys off because they came from a team with too many great players who never “won the big one.”

          Keeping guys off because of the “character” requirements (roids) or even jackasses like the MLB.com dweeb not voting for Maddux isn’t a problem.

          • blublud

            The one thing about the guy who didn’t vote for Maddux, even though I disagree with him, is that he is not trying to determine who used and who didn’t. While his reasoning is hollow, IMO, at least he’s not hiding behind his ballot and he is straight up about it.

          • Edwin

            David Cameron breaks down a pretty big problem with the current HOF.

            http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-hall-of-fames-standard-and-its-biggest-problem/

            You’re basically starting to wind up with generations that will be severely underrepresented. The whole point of a HOF is to preserve history, honor excellence, and connect generations. Not putting players into the HOF accomplishes none of these goals.

            • blublud

              This is why I said start a steroid wing below. You can even have a separate ballot. Therefore the players are disgraced and the history is still preserved, but they still become hall of famers. I don’t want them honored in the way Maddux will be honored, but I’m starting to think the history or the era should be preserved. This should make everybody happy.

              • bbmoney

                I still don’t know what people want to use as the line for what is a known steroid user. Failing a test after 2006? People who fail the eye test?

                What ballot / wing would you put Piazza or Bagwell on / in? No evidence whatsoever yet they get lumped in by many people.

                • blublud

                  Keep players on both ballots. If they get in on the regular ballot, fine. If not, but they get into the steroid wing, they have to go in as a user. Or, you can have their name on the steroid ballot once they fall off the regular ballot. There are different ways to use it. It`s basicly giving them a trial, and letting the jury(voters) decide guilty or not.

                  As far as Bagwell and Piazza, there is evidence. The question is is it sufficient enough?

                  • Edwin

                    Real trials have guidelines. There are even rules governing what can be considered evidence. The HOF is nothing like a trial, at least not a fair one.

                    • blublud

                      Obviously, this is not a court. The players don’t really have any say and they are not getting in any other way. Who cares about fair. Nobody is promised a hall ticket, no one has any earned it as a right. I’m actually making it more fair anyway by giving them a different route to get in.

                    • bbmoney

                      I care about being fair. I don’t think this is more fair. I think it’s pretty silly.

                      A more fair way would be voters not assuming people used steroids if they never tested positive. For guys who tested positive feel free to moral clause them out ( I wouldn’t…. But that’s just me).

                    • blublud

                      I think its the voters responsibility to ask those questions and assume who did or did not. I would rather a known non user, as we know anyway, like Maddux or Thomas not get in than a known user like Bonds or Clemens get in. I’m glad the voters have selectively chosen guys like Maddux and Thomas, as it would be unfortunate for them to be left out. Also selectivity is why 2 guys with the near same career stats can have completely different voting results.

                    • bbmoney

                      I think making assumptions like that is dangerous. Assuming guilt without facts is frankly acceptable and sends a worse message than a steroid user getting in the hall. It’s worse not just in courts ….. In any aspect of life.

                    • bbmoney

                      *not acceptable

                      Grumble

                    • blublud

                      I think it is worse to give someone something that they have no entitlement to until you are sure they deserve it. In a court, you have to be proven guilty, in a hall vote, you need to be proven worthy.

                    • mjhurdle

                      the difference Blublud is that these players have “proved” that they are deserving based on their stats.
                      If you want to discredit them, that is your responsibility.
                      They have the stats to belong in the Hall. If you don’t want to let them in, it is on you to prove that those stats were gained ineligibly.
                      I am a fan of keeping cheaters out, but you can’t operate on the assumption that everyone is a cheater unless they can prove differently.

                    • blublud

                      There is no written benchmarks in a hall vote. If you feel certain stats make a player hall worthy, put it in writing and make it automatic. No vote should be required. The fact is stats is only part of the process. According to the guidelines of the vote, integrity is part of the vote and these guys are not hall guys. Just because previous voters ignored what IS actually in writing doesn’t current voters should.

                    • blublud

                      Also, it is not the voters Job to prove the stat were earn ineligibly, its the voters job to prove they earn eligibly. If they can’t prove they were earned legally, they should not vote.

                  • hansman

                    “It`s basicly giving them a trial, and letting the jury(voters) decide guilty or not.”

                    No, not really. It’s more like a witch trial. Throw them in a gym. If they lift the weight, they did steroids. If they leave, well they don’t need to lift because they took steroids.

                    Can we then have asterisks for MI who routinely don’t come close to 2B on a double play or for pitchers who have doctored the ball?

                    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                      Do you even lift?

                    • bbmoney

                      If I know Hansman….and I think I do….he lifts burgers all the time. Beyond that, I can’t say.

                    • CubFan Paul
                    • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

                      CFP Hansman calls that lady a little leaguer, according to my sources he now benches 400lbs or hamburgers and it started when he met Sosa in 2004.

                    • hansman

                      So many hurtful words. I hate you guys.

                      I WISH I WAS NEVER LOGGED IN!

                    • hansman

                      I forgot that the carrot makes the computer think there is coding going on.

                      between those two lines was supposed to be:

                      [runs out crying and screaming into his room and slams the door]

              • Edwin

                I don’t think we need to create a wing designed to dishonor players.

                • blublud

                  The hall is a museum. The hall should embrace the era. If the people who have say in the hall feel the era was that of disgrace, then that should captured. It a part of the history of the game.

                  • Edwin

                    So why don’t they do that for any of the other players that have cheated and are in the hall of fame?

                    • blublud

                      Because those guys are already in. Can’t change that. But guys are cleaning up the hall. If you want in, go in as dirty, or don’t go in at all.

                    • hansman

                      Oh, the old “Well, we can’t possibly move their plague to a new wing in the Hall” defense. That’d be worse than digging up an Indian burial ground.

                      They’re in, sure, but that doesn’t mean we can’t add the asterisk or move them to a cheaters wing like everyone wants to do with the steroid guys.

              • Voice of Reason

                Cubzfan23:

                Where have you been? The time period is already known as the steroid era! Lol

              • Voice of Reason

                The hall could have a steroid wing, an amphetamine wing, a cocaine wing, a wife beater wing….

            • mjhurdle

              “The whole point of a HOF is to preserve history, honor excellence, and connect generations. Not putting players into the HOF accomplishes none of these goals.”
              disagree here.
              you can put players stories and accomplishments in the Hall without inducting them.
              Pete Rose has his stats and story in the Hall, even though he is not in the HoF.

      • ssckelley

        I am not sure the identity of the voter will be revealed. He wants money to go to a charitable organization and does not want to promote himself with it.

        “This voter also agreed with our aims, but didn’t want to jeopardize his franchise for the sake of a protest if we’d already secured a ballot; he was concerned, too, about being seen as a self-promoter or profiteer.”

        • Scotti

          Sure they’ll have someone voting for them “secretly”–so do I. So does Playboy and Penthouse. And Hooters, too!

          It really only worked because they had a guy who was willing (eager?) to be outed. Without that, this is just swinging at air.

  • jh03

    I agree with pretty much everything Keith has to say about the Hall…

    http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/49787/mlb-insider-keith-law

    • bbmoney

      I agree with a lot of it. Specifically this:

      Ian (OK)

      How do you know Bagwell’s clean or is it just an assumption? Related question: Don’t you think that journalists should try and find out who cheated?

      Klaw (1:57 PM)

      I have zero evidence to say he used PEDs. Zero – no facts, not even good rumors. Ergo, I assume he’s clean. Because I’m not a moron.

  • blublud

    I been doing a lot of thinking, and I researched the hall. I don’t want the steroid hundred, but I do want them recognized. How about a steroid-era wing of the hall. Therefore, the era is not erased or forgotten, the players who used are still kind of disgraced and but the history is still recorded.

    • blublud

      Meant I don`t want the steroid users in, but

    • cubzfan23

      My thought on this is that there should be a recognition of this era, because it is part of the history of baseball. The players should be at least included in that they were part of it. I don`t necassarily think Bonds, Sosa, Mc Gwire, etc etc should be enshrined, but the era yes. People should be able to have the history, the whole history not just what these sports writers decide.

      • Edwin

        I don’t think we need to set the era apart as “The Steroid Era”.

        • http://bleachernation.com woody

          Come on give me a break. I suppose you want Lance Armstrong to return to his former glory too. He made a mockery of that sport. All of those excuses that everyone was using don’t fly. Cheating is cheating period. If you want a steroid hall of fame then build it. Just keep it the hell away from Cooperstown.

          • Edwin

            Cheating has been a part of baseball since forever. It’s been a part of all organized sports since forever. The Baseball HOF hasn’t kept cheaters out before. Why are players today held to such a higher standard than players in the past? I’m tired of this idea that baseball has always been some pure holy religion, until steroids (GASP) were introduced.

            Don’t even get me started with Lance Armstrong. He’s one of the best cyclists, regardless of what he was taking. And Cycling is one of the dirtiest sports out there. Lance wasn’t the first, and sure won’t be the last to dope. Thinking that Lance made a mockery of Cycling, or that steroids have made a mockery of baseball shows a huge ignorance for the histroy of both.

            • blublud

              Edwin, Remember when we were talking about speeding. I stated that no one drives within the speed limit and neither do I. The first everyone said was, “just because no one else does it doesn’t make it right.” Well, the integrity clause has been in the formula for hall voting from the start. Just because prior voters ignored it, does not mean current voters have to continue. If a voter chooses to use the integrity clause to form an opinion, and hall voting, regardless of how special it is to people is nothing more than opinion, then that is their right. If you can’t get in clean, go in dirty on a steroid ballot. The hall is a private entity. Its not own by MLB, it owners, the players or the players union. They really have no entitlement. If they get in, fine. If they don’t, fine. It doesn’t change their story or legacy.

  • CubChymyst

    Chicks Dig the Long Ball

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltD21rYWVw&feature=youtu.be

    Hilarious old Nike commercial worth a watch. Maddux and Glavine are funny as hell in it.

  • MoneyBoy

    Hey everybody… I just finished the Boswell article on #31. It’s absolutely a masterpiece. I have long been in awe of Maddux. The bullpen session referred to was, I believe, duplicated elsewhere quite some time ago. It may have compared Glavine, Avery and Maddux.

    The closest analogy, and it has absolutely nothing in common, was a description of Wayne Gretsky skating vs other skaters. Something to the effect that other skates hit the ice; 99’s, for lack of better memory, skimmed the ice.

    To me, that’s part of what Boswell tried to explain – that Maddux was as much science as art. It sure wasn’t about physical gifts. Just a fabulous article about a once-in-a-lifetime pitcher!! Maybe with gifts never to be seen again – who knows.

    • DocPeterWimsey

      Ah, Avery: if he had been so fortunate as Glavine or Maddux regarding injuries (or even as lucky as Smoltz), then he, too, would have been a HOFer.

      • blublud

        Avery was actually my favorite pitcher growing up. I thought he was just the biggest star.

  • DarthHater

    Just saw the item below on Twitter. Don’t know if it’s true, but if so, it is staggeringly amazing:

    Jonathan Cregier ‏@JJCregier 53m
    Out of the 20,421 batters Gregg Maddux faced. Only 133 went to a 3-0 count. (Just 0.0065%) #Cubs #HOF

    • cubzfan23

      This ^ is truly amazing!

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+