My blog entry on yesterday's Hall of Fame silliness is now up for Insiders: http://bit.ly/5bOocN
In the meantime...
Keith, what HOF-ballot ramifications, if any, would there be if McGwire played for part of 2010? Would his time reset? Would he wait five years and the have 13 years of eligibility left?
He'd be off the ballot for five years after his (new) final game. Not sure about the years of eligibility. Of course, it's not a bad strategy - get him out for five years while Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, Clemens come up, maybe use the time to fix his image a little, and suddenly he looks like a choirboy in 2014.
Are the Cubs delusional in thinking that they don't need an upgrade at 2b(Hudson, Lopez)? That seems to be a relatively inexpensive way to add some much-needed speed & OBP to the lineup.
Hudson's not fast. Lopez is 14/28 in steals the last two years. They're good players, and Lopez absolutely would give them an OBP boost, but the speed isn't a factor.
Keith, are we missing the obvious on the whole Yankees LF thing? Are Gardner/Hoffmann just placeholders until Montero is ready later in the summer?
Words like "lumbering" are popping into my head...
Do we know who sent in the five blank HOF ballots?
Only Mariotti, who bragged about doing so in a column. We know some voters who abstained from voting, but that's not the same as a blank ballot. A blank means you signed your name and sent it. Abstaining means you didn't send anything and therefore weren't counted.
I'd just like to go ahead and decry your obvious anti-Cardinal bias now, just so we can get the whining out of the way early on...
Excellent, I appreciate that.
When are you eligible to vote for the HOF?
Three years short of forever.
hypothetically speaking, what would happen if no one on the HoF ballot gets at least 75%? Would they just not have an induction that year?
The Veterans Committee voted two players in this year, so even if Dawson had fallen short, they would have had a ceremony in August ... it just would have been rather short.
What is worse, the "Dawson played on two bad knees so he should be in the HOF" or the "OBP was not widely known in his era" excuse?
The latter one. You think Dawson/his contemporaries didn't realize that OUTS were bad?
Who is the next guy in line to get snubbed for at least 10 years of the voting?
Raines. The electorate really has to turn over for him to get his shot.
What do you think of the baseball writer tactic of noting a lack of awards that *they voted on* to invalidate a player's Hall candidacy?
Agreed - rather circular, isn't it? And do you believe the idiots they let vote on those seasonal awards? One guy put Javy Vazquez SECOND on his NL Cy Young ballot!
Will Pujols see the open market after the '11 season? If so, who are the likely suiters?
In your Matt Holliday signing article you wrote that the Reds are the biggest challenger to the Cardinals. Is that because you don't see the Brewers getting fair value for Prince or your not impressed with their farm system?
Getting fair value for him would mean a rebuild, so it would take them out of contention for a few years. Their system is not strong, especially not in pitching, which is what the big club needs right now. I don't see how they're going to contend with a superior St. Louis club over the next two years without a miracle or two on the pitching staff (like, say, Manny Parra turning into a #2 starter).
So the Cardinals in 2012 will be Pujols, Holliday, and a bunch of guys making $475K?
My guess is Wainwright's still there, but that they eventually let Carpenter walk. The bigger concern is those guys making the minimum - the system is among the weakest in the majors right now (due in large part to trades), and there's very little coming in terms of impact talent before 2012-3.
Meaning that those impact guys arrive in that timeframe, not that they're impact guys right away.
Do you see a shift in perspective by the BBRAA over the next ten or twenty years, or are their still too many new writers following old-school reporting styles to make a significant difference? As the number of fans who grew up with sabermetrics as part of their background increases, will demand force the mainstream to improve its baseball coverage?
There's a difference between the active membership ("badgeholders" - people like me who still work in the field) and the HoF electorate, which includes retired writers, writers who've stopped covering baseball, and so on. The electorate changes every year because some older writers die or stop filing ballots, while a bunch of new badgeholders reach their tenth year of, um, badgeholding and become eligible. So you should expect HoF voting to lag philosophical changes that show up in something like seasonal award voting.
Keith,Please rate Smoak, Ackley and Alvarez. Thanks
Just like that.
Hello Keith, I could live with Raines and Alomar not getting in to the HOF this year. But can you explain to me how any of the following players even got a vote? Ellis Burks,Eric Karros,Kevin Appier, Pat Hentgen and David Segui. Besides maybe Burks' rookie year, have the words HOF'er ever been used to describe any of these guys ability to play on the MLB level? To me it's more of a joke than a guy like Rice making the Hall. What do you think? Thanks
It's one of several questions raised by the results. What possible argument is there for a vote for Eric Karros? A friend of the writer? A former source? Because he's a good announcer? There are only bad reasons, and some are, to me, ethical violations. You can't make up rules and you can't use the process to fulfill personal obligations.
2 quick comments Keith. 1, the baseball hall of fame is the best hall of fame in sports, but I can't remember the last year I felt good about a year's class. 2. As a Cubs fan, I acknowledge that Dawson doesn't belong, but he is certainly better than Rice.
1. Yep. 2. Yep.
My Royals... any hope in the near future or even longterm?
Not in the near future. Some pitching on the farm. But it would sure be nice if they'd acquire or develop some guys who got on base.
I read someone who included the 7 votes Robin Ventura got in the list of silly voting. But wasn't Ventura really really good? Maybe not HOF-worthy, but being one of the best fielding third basemen ever and a good hitter sounds like a better resume than either Dawson's or Rice's right?
Agreed, he's not in the class of the Appier-Burks-Karros group. And there's a significant historical bias against 3b, for whatever reason, in Hall voting.
Do you think Andre Dawson and (especially) Jim Rice would have been elected if there wasn't this ideologic war between old school BBWAA voters and the stat-heads?
I believe that Rice was elected as part of a backlash. Some old-school voters didn't like to hear that the way they thought about players their whole lives was wrong. Some clearly don't like - or won't accept - that their monopoly on the transfer of information to readers is over. And some are just clinging madly to RBIs like they're life rafts in an ocean.
Gus from New City should go take a look at Kevin Appier's first 8 full seasons in MLB, during which he posted a 103-74 record and an ERA+ streak of 139-121-165-179-130-123-138-137 playing for mostly lousy KC teams. You wouldn't have to look too long to find HOF pitchers whose early careers don't match up to that. That injuries cut his career short shouldn't diminish how good he was in his 20s.
But careers that short aren't Hall worthy. Although he's a better candidate than Jack Morris.
Keith, anytime you have a chance to elect the tenth-best player on a HOF ballot, you have to do it, right?
Klaw - Your thoughts on the Red Sox new scouting director? More of the same or a change in direction? Thanks!
More of the same, but that's a good thing, as they have drafted exceptionally well.
Is Daric Barton an adequate comp for Brett Wallace? Scouting reports on Wallace sound an awful lot like early reports on Barton: high average and on-base skills, defensive question mark, differing opinions on projected power.
No. Wallace is a much better hitter.
Trust the process, Keith.
I'm having trouble processing the trust, Ryan.
Is there a coefficient to determine the value of a walk versus a single? Like, a walk is worth 70% of a single. A hit does do things that walks don't do, obviously, like drive in runs and move runners two bases. But, at the same time, it still seems like the walk is still undervalued. I'm wondering if you or anyone has taken a stab at it, although I would guess it is factored into the advanced stats like WAR.
Yes, but I believe there's some disagreement over what the coefficient should be.
Do you see Bagwell getting in next year..or at all? And do you think he's worthy?
Yes, and yes.
Klaw, what are the odds the Jays get Chapman? Would that signing give them a legit shot to compete in the east in 2012 with the way the roster is shaping up? I say yes.
Very low. And no.
Your thoughts on Rick Porcello going forward? Possible #1?
Yes, absolutely. And not that far in the future.
I noticed in your Holliday piece that you mentioned my beloved Reds as possible contenders for the Central along with the Cardinals in 2011. Curious to know who/what will be the driving force behind this?
There's certainly a lot of young talent in that organization, but most of it is undeveloped - Bruce, Cueto, Volquez (RoY-eligible since 2006!(tm)), Votto, Leake, Bailey, Heisey, Stubbs, etc. I could see enough of their young talent developing/emerging that they make a surprise run in 2012 or so. Would have been nice if they'd still had Zach Stewart, though.
It's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Stats. We already have the record books and almanacs and libraries for that. There are INTANGIBLES at play too. Coeffieicnet of a walk? Give me a break. If you don't know the difference intrinsically you shouldn't write on baseball.
Yeah, that's an old argument, full of fail as usual. The guidelines for voters start with a player's "record (and) playing ability."
Not sure how relevant this is to the OBP talk, but if a player comes up with no outs and moves a runner from 2nd to 3rd with a ground ball to second, that's not a sacrifice like a bunt, but is recorded as just a ground out. Should there be a stat for that type of out? It seems just as productive as a sacrifice bunt, but hurts the batter's stats, yet good hitters do it all the time. Did that make sense??
It did, but the problem is that the benefit of that out is so much less than the benefit of any play that doesn't involve an out that it's not worth measuring.
I love those that throw a fit about people using stats and how they're taking the "fun out of baseball." They know the world isn't flat anymore, right?
They're still arguing against the germ theory of disease.
Next year, couldn't the head of the BWAA issue an edict that simply says blank ballots will not be counted? Seems to suck the agenda right out of Marrioti and his like.
No, because in theory, we could have a year when a blank ballot was legitimate. And if a voter simply believes that no player on a typical ballot meets the criteria ... okay, I think that's incredibly stupid, but I suppose you could be a super-small-Hall guy and justifiably vote for no one. We had seven qualified candidates this year and it wasn't even a good ballot.
Do you see a similar bias hitting Frank Thomas that hit Edgar Martinez because he spent most of his later career at DH?
If Thomas can't get in we have lost our minds.
Please rank these pictures who made their debut in 2009- are they all #1 starter potential? B. Anderson, T. Hanson, R. Porcello, B. Matusz, C. Tillman, W. Davis, T. Cahill, M. Latos, M. Baumgarner. Thanks- love the dish...
Anderson, Hanson, Porcello all clearly project as 1s to me. Matusz isn't far behind that, nor is Latos. Bumgarner's major velo drop concerns me.
Go see the movie Pi. and tell me if that doesn't remind you of the saber geeks you run with.... News flash... you lost your minds long ago.
I saw the movie Waitress. Same subject.
It seems to some writers, it's not enough to be great, but you have to be "famous for being great" as well. How else to explain the difference between Alomar and Larkin's results? Larkin was every bit as good and played a tougher position, but he was underrated at the time, so he continues to be.
And he played in a smaller market. I think that counts far more in HoF voting than it does in seasonal awards. Tim Raines spends the 80s as a Met and he's in the Hall by now.
what do the numbers tell you on Ron Santo being a hall of famer !!
That he should be in.
I had 10 seasons better than Dawson or Rice (they each had one year that matched my best). Am I not even talked about because I ran over kids and hated everyone?
You weren't nice to the media, so they're having their revenge.
Does it bother you that Tim Raines' nickname was "Rock" and nobody really cared about the real reason?
Just heard the story yesterday that it was because he had hands of stone at 2b.
The thing so ridiculous about voters who refuse to vote for DHs is that most DHs would be bad fielders...so basically, players are being penalized for not doing something that would hurt their team. Are these same voters penalizing slow runners for not attempting to steal bases?
And excluding DHs means making up your own guidelines, like excluding pitchers from your MVP ballot. You can't do that. You don't like the guidelines for voting? Fine. Change them. Don't make them up to suit your whims.
Here's a question. How do we tell that a guy's "intangibles" are worthy of him getting into the Hall of Fame? Intangible is defined as "difficult or impossible to measure or understand." Doesn't sound like something that should be included in a voting process to me.
Intangibles are used in the voting process to justify votes (or non-votes) that clearly contradict the statistical record. Bert Blyleven? He wasn't seen as an ace! He didn't have TEH FEAR!
If we are using stats as a pure guideline to determine in or out of the HOF, what is the cutoff? Is it an average over x, or more hrs than y, or and era under z? Seems kind of rediculous to go just by stats.
I'm sorry, Tim. Who exactly is suggesting that we "go just by stats?"
Will you please write a book, let's call it "The Book of Baseball," and rearrange the Hall of Fame, in let's say a 'pyramid' style? (And feel free to move the location from Cooperstown if you so desire).
Actually, if I could change one thing about the Hall, the location would be it. It's too far from any major metropolis to get the traffic it deserves.
The same voters saying "no DH" are the guys who allowed Bruce Sutter and his barely 1000 IP to waltz in.
Yep. And probably some of the same who vote for Jack 3.90 ERA Morris.
Hey Keith, When will your top 100 be coming out and who are some of the biggest risers from last year?
End of the month. Nice try.
KLaw..How good / deep in this years draft, let's say after the first 10 picks?
Very meh. Weak college year. Next year, however, looks stacked.
At least in the internet age guys like you and other stat heads can give guys like Raines and Edgar Martinez a better chance of getting in than over the last 20 to 30 years.
True - Blyleven never gets this far without the online community, especially the campaign Rich Lederer undertook.
Alright, Keith, what player that didn't make your top-100 do you see as the best bet to leap into 2011's upper echelon?
The top 100 isn't done yet - not close. I won't finalize the ranking till a few days before I post.
You dont think Carpenter is going to take a discount for the Cardinals being patient with his injuries and St.Louis being St.Louis?
I think he pitches this year at 35. Given his age and injury history, how many more great, healthy years does he likely have? The over/under has to be three or four.
For any questionable activity, my friend and I have running joke that the decides the ultimate validity: Would the Veteran's Committee vote it in?
I like that. I bet they would have put the Social Text hoax in on the first vote.
Keith - A House for Mr. Biswas may not have been the best starting point for delving into the Naipaul opus. For a more biting take on the satire of post-colonial life, try Miguel Street, the Suffrage of Elvira or the Mystic Masseur. Some of his more recent works (Half Life, Magic Seed) also brilliant.Baseball - what are you hearing about Aroldis Chapman's destination? Angels? Jays? Marlins? $?
It was on the TIME 100. I'm a bit of a slave to the list. The rest of your question is probably better directed at Jorge.
Keith, say the Giants have Posey starting behind the plate and do end up getting a left-handed power bat (LaRoche,Damon) in the lineup. Do they have enough to overtake the Dodgers and Rockies? And is bumgardner a better 5th option or another FA veteran?
I think Bumgarner should probably start in AAA; he's young, inexperienced, and didn't look ready stuff-wise at the end of the season. As for the divisional race, no, they're still too weak on the offensive side and not strong enough in run prevention to overcome it.
Would 150 IP, 2.76 ERA, 10 K/9, and 3.6 K/BB at AA get a 21-22 year old into your top 100? How about a 19 year old?
Can't judge a minor leaguer's promise just on his stat line. Without any sort of scouting report, preferably my own, I would pass.
You and many others keep advocating Tim Raines as better then Tony Gwynn. This seems an insult to Tony Gwynn. Do you think you could reference other players occasionally instead?
This has to be a joke, right?
Here's what I don't understand about Alomar and Larkin. They should have been in just based on traditional measures. They were the best players on championship teams. They have the gold gloves, the All-Star games. Neither has been implicated in PEDs. By the way Mariotti is a moran. ESPN should be ashamed of itself for ever giving him a podium to spew his nonsense.
I'm also surprised that Alomar/Larkin didn't get more love from the PED moralist faction of the electorate. Larkin in particular is about as clean as they come - not just PEDs, but great guy with an image to match, still around the game, etc. Honestly, the worst thing he ever did was take too much money from the team when his skills had declined.
A) did someone just refer to Damon as a power hitter? B) If someone wanted to read the books on Klaw's top 100, should they start at the bottom and work their way up, start with number 1 and go down, or cherry pick around the list?
A) Well, in that lineup, if you can put the ball out of the infield, you're a middle-of-the-order bat. B) I'd cherry-pick. Go for books similar to ones you've read and liked.
KLaw, have the questions during your chats gotten overall dumber since the Cy Young vote, or have you just been selecting them more frequently? It sure seems like there are a lot more flat earthers in your chats recently.
I've been trying to select them less frequently.
You stat-geeks have all lost your minds and you don't know what your talking about. Me or my compatriots would prove this to you if we were capable of rational argument and/or persuasive writing - so you'll just have to trust us. Thanks
Absolutely. Time for your nap.
What kind of production should the Braves expect out of Jason Heyward this year?
I'd keep expectations low - he's incredibly talented (this isn't exactly a shocker, so I'll mention he's going to be #1 on my top 100) but young and still developing physically and as a hitter. He'll take good at bats and could be a 20-HR guy, with solid defense, but he'll get substantially better over the next 2-3 years.
Hey Klaw, who has a better year in 2010, Jake Arrieta or Martin Perez?
Perez is the better prospect. I'm not expecting either guy to spend much time in the majors, if that's what you're assuming.
Too impatient for the dish post here...how'd you enjoy Gilead?
Not quite halfway through it yet.
Neyer laughed at me in a recent chat, but is it within possibility that Wieters will be a better hitter than Mauer in the next few years? (Yes, I'm a shameless Orioles fan).
Mauer's just entering his peak years - I guess he's already entered them - so if you're talking about Wieters being better in the same season, then I think you have several years to wait.
If a team doesn't sign their first round pick, they get the same number pick next year, right? So if you think next year's draft is more stacked than this year's, is that a tactic some might take? I know there's more value intrinsically in this year's pick than next year's pick, but if the expected difference in quality is so great, could some teams do that?
That has been suggested for a few years now, since the rule change, and no team has done it (that I know of) because it's a bad strategy. The value of a pick now is substantially more than the value of next year's pick, and you don't know where you'll pick next year, whether the class will be as good as expected, or whether you might give up that pick for a free agent.
What sort of career path do you foresee for Gordon Beckham?
Give him a full year in the majors at one position, and then after that I think he'll take off. Being shuffled around isn't good for players' development. I also still think he should get a shot to stick at shortstop.
I think the modern-day statistical analysis is a great way to look at performance, and I welcome the new stats like OBP+, etc. But I wish you and most of the other sabremetricians would realize you often come off like brillaint engineers who don't understand why people don't buy their products even though theirs are better than the competition's. (IN other words, try not to sneer at the people who don't yet get your ideas and points of view)
I don't sneer at people who don't get my ideas or POVs. I sneer at people who don't think there's value in them. Anyone who has ever asked me in any forum to explain why more modern methods of evaluating performance are worthwhile, or simply how they work, has received an explanation without condescension. Everyone has to start somewhere. If you run around in your underwear with drool on your chin and "RBIs ROOLZ!" written in marker on your torso, yes, I'm going to call you an idiot.
You don't give up the first-round pick that you get when you don't sign someone the previous year do you?
Yes, I see now I didn't explain what I meant very clearly.
the Twins young pitcher who pitched game 1 last year, what's his ceiling and how realistic is it?
Oh, you mean that guy who threw the thing? He's either going to be good or not so good.
Do you like Win Shares? Posnanski's recent look at baseball's best players over five-year intervals was fun, but it relied solely on Win Shares. Is it a reliable measure of overall performance that can be used to compare players at different positions and in different eras?
No. Horrible stat. Had the book, couldn't get past all the kludges.
Keith-thanks for the chat. Do you think Heisey can win the LF job in Cincinnatti in spring training?
Yes, I think he could do it if given the chance. He's going to hit. I don't even like his swing, but he's going to hit.
Keith is it just me or are people seriously underestimating the Red Sox offense this year? Sure they lost Bay, who was a big help, but a full year out of Victor Martinez and Scutaro should help. And all the knocks the offense was getting last year, they did score over 700 runs and were 3rd in baseball in runs scored. It's not like they're have the Giants line up out there.
They won't have a lot of power, but they'll still get on base ... that's funny, I was about to make the Giants joke, and you beat me to it. Next you'll be turning my face to alabaster.
Is 2013 an unrealistic eta for Shelby Miller? If so, when can we expect him to make it to the show?
He'd be 22. I'd call it optimistic, not unrealistic.
Don't forget that sabermetircs rely on statistics. Statistics can be hard, and there are tons of people out there who will never understand statistics on even the most basic level. If they can't (through know fault of your own) comprehend what you are saying, they'll never accept it. I guess what I'm saying is, even as the old timers fade away, a new crop of people who are good at writing but poor at math will take their places. There's always going to be a vocal opposition to sabermetrics, just like there is to evolution or quantum mechanics.
But sabermetrics is pretty straightforward conceptually. Quantum mechanics - wait, you want me to believe in these theoretical particles that have to be there because the formula says so, but we don't really know if they're there? That's a bit more to ask someone to swallow. (I'm not disputing the validity of quantum mechanics, just pointing out why people might find it hard to accept.)
Shelly Duncan was off the charts good in the AAA last year - international league MVP, etc... However, in the majors, with the exception of a few "hot" games with tha Yanks, he's looked way over matched. is he just a perrenial "AAAA" player???
Was it smart for Rafael Soriano to accept arbitration?
Explain to me how Matsui wasn't a Type A or B FA but Wagner was a Type A after playing for one month. It just doesn't make sense to me.
A player gets some boost to his statistics, pro-rated, for time missed due to injury.
Hey, it's bad enough we have to watch that lineup. We don't need you making fun of it, ok?
You don't have to watch it much. After all, their at bats are short.
My question is why are the most vocal sabermetric naysayers so comfortable with other, more simple statistics? Do they really believe that baseball is such a simple game, it's so easy to understand everything that is happening on the field that it can be boiled down to RBI and wins and saves?
Yes, because that's what they grew up reading in the sports section. And some is about vocabulary. You hear that a pitcher "won" 20 games. No, the Official Accountant gave him those wins. His *team* won those games.
KLAW, how can you belive in UZR when it shows Ryan Howard being better than Albert Pujols last year?
I don't have blind faith in the stat, and I've said before I don't think it (or any other defensive stat) does a great job with first basemen.
Do you or have you ever used a pressure cooker, and if so, any recommendations?
I own one but don't use it often. It is great for making brown rice in 1/3 the time, though.
Tried to get on your Dish website the other day and got a response saying the website is no longer there, was that just a glitch? You ever read Neuromancer?
It was down Monday afternoon/night when I switched hosting providers. It's up now. I did, it was fair, but Snow Crash was a better book with a similar topic.
Will the Rockies end up regretting the long-term deal for Tracy? I think the man is an outstanding coach, sure...but he's a terrible manager. His decision-making is atrocious!
Yes, he was a right-place-right-time guy in Colorado. And the right-est part was him being not-Hurdle.
Hey Keith. Have you ever used a dehydrator?
I'm in Massachusetts in winter. My HOUSE is a dehydrator.
I've seen a lot of fans suggesting the Nats are spending money wisely. How do you view the Capps and IRod signings in particular?
Capps - wisely. Pudge - not so much.
Not sure your rules for eligibility, but will Chapman make your top 100 if eligible?
I have to decide what to do with him. I've omitted players coming from the Japanese major leagues in the past, but is he more comparable to them or to a US college product like Strasburg? More importantly, is including him more valuable to readers than excluding him and adding someone less-known to the back of the 100?
I've found your write-ups of games at The dish interesting. Is there a game that you would recommend starting with if I've never played that style of game (Settlers of Catan, Ticket to Ride, etc.) Thanks Keith.
Carcassonne is a German-style game that's pretty straightforward to learn. We just got Zooloretto and played last night - also very simple to play and learn. All four games are Spiel des Jahres winners, too.
Has Votto become untouchable for the Reds? Would Joba be a good trade for him?
I'm not sure why the Reds would trade Votto.
Where can we find your dish website? Thanks
Try this: http://bit.ly/5JkBPZ
What can you tell me about Trevor Reckling? Young for his leagues, but has shown promise...
I'm a fan, chance for 3-4 pitches, great body, arm works well, would like to see the performance take a step forward this year, but I think he's going to be very good, no worse than mid-rotation.
Or there is this cool new thingy on the internet called google...
Click the link I posted.
Wife and I got Le Havre' for Christmas, which we have enjoyed so far. You should check it out, it's about the same complexity as Puerto Rico.
That's on the want list. We have added six new games including Christmas gifts, so we're a little backlogged. I think we've got 13 or 14 we play at least somewhat regularly now.
DO YOU NOT KNOW ABOUT BRETT JACKSON OR JARED MITCHELL? IS THAT IT
MAYBE I JUST DON'T LIKE BEING YELLED AT
Texas or Alabama tonight? What is more rational, the baseball HOF voting process, or how college football determines a "national" champion?
Alabama. At least, people who know something about college football tell me this.
All these new fangled board games. I stick to yahtzee. It's what I grew up with.
I have a ballot I need to send you, Kevin...
Little Secrets or Sleepyhead?
Little Secrets. (I assume we're talking about songs by Passion Pit? Gotta throw some love to the local band.)
Do you play chess?
No. Never liked it.
Who gets a better shot to crack the opening day line-up: Justin Smoak or Jason Heyward?
Where do you see David Price in the rotation this year and down the road.
I still think he ends up a 1. The path from top-shelf-prospect to number-1-starter isn't always smooth or direct.
1. Doesn't Sammy Sosa have a stronger HOF case than McGwire? 2. Nothing wrong with single-digit HOF vote totals, it's the system working. 3. Who gets your hypothetical vote in the 1941 MVP race?
1. Yes, but I don't try to discount stats for PED usage, suspected or otherwise. 2. Meh, I still say it's an abuse of privilege. 3. Williams.
Don't like chess - ever tried Go?
I'm going to Go right now, actually. Thanks for the questions!