Craig Biggio Hall of Famer?

I'd be a hypocrite if I said that Santo's image shouldn't count. It helps Biggio, it certainly helped Puckett and it'll help a bunch of guys still playing (Chipper, Jeter, etc.)

But Santo, to me, is similar to Buck O'Neil in that way. He's a great ambassador for baseball, by all accounts an exceptional human being, and he should be honored in every way possible. But the fact is: he was not a Hall of Fame baseball player. It's nothing personal. He was a great player in his day, don't get me wrong. But HOF induction is not -- nor should it be -- a lifetime achievement award. And that's really the strongest argument I have against him. Like I said, it ain't personal. But he ain't a Hall of Famer. (IMO, of course. But that's all any of this is.)

 

What other honor is there? He should be a Hall of Famer. Even if it's in the broadcast wing.

 

Hell, Lasorda's in the HOF. If that guy is in the HOF, there's plenty more of these "baseball ambassadors" who should have a spot in Cooperstown.

 

Lasorda was a Hall of Fame manager. He won two World Series, four NL pennants and 1,599 games in a 21-year career. He's not in the Hall for ambassador work (although, again, as with Puckett, et al, his image certainly helps him.) He deserves to be in as a manager.

Maybe Bud should convince the Hall to start up a lifetime achievement award. But he still doesn't deserve to go in as a player -- and that's all he's eligible for. Broadcaster? Argh, that's arguable. I don't listen to him enough to have an educated opinion.

I agree, maybe they should create an ambassador award. But Buck O'Neil gets it first. Then Santo.

(And for the record, the broadcast and writers' awards are "honors", not "inductions." It's chic to say Peter Gammons, Bob Uecker, et al, are Hall of Famers, but they're not. That distinction is reserved for player, managers, execs and umpires who are elected to the Hall. ... Gammons, OTOH, is a Spink Award honoree. There's a difference. ... A proposed Lifetime Achievement award, like we're discussing here, would also be such an honor. Again, there's a difference. As there should be.)

 

Manny should be a mortal fucking lock. David Ortiz should be the front-runner for his second straight MVP right now, but where would he be without Manny?

But Manny's too flighty and wacky for some. He probably has to get to 500-plus homers to lock it up, and even then he's not going to get the percentile he deserves.

Biggio's a lock, because he's the opposite of Manny and, of course, a great player to boot.

Bert's stats say he should absolutely be in the HOF. But there are people whom I greatly respect who covered him and say they will never vote for him. He was a bit before my time but those that covered him never seemed awed by his performance.

 

Percentile, schmercentile.

Tom Seaver has the No. 1 percentile of all time. Does anyone in their right minds think Tom Fucking Seaver is the No. 1 pitcher of all time?

Nolan Ryan has the No. 2 percentile of all time. No comment necessary (although I do feel Ryan is a sure HOFer, no doubt about it.)

 

Agree on Manny, who doesn't get the credit he deserves for how well he plays left field in a park with so many different nuances. Ortiz is good, but take Manny away and see what pitches he gets.

(And A-Rod had the numbers to deserve it last season. Ortiz didn't play the field every day, and the Red Sox didn't win the division -- the Yankees did. But we've done that argument 100 times before.)

 

If Craig Biggio makes -- which he should -- so should Barry Larkin.

 

I will be very interested to see the percentage Clemens gets. Clemens was never a media darling, but there would be no good argument for any voter not voting for him. You can't make a plausible argument that he is not a HOFer. There won't be a better player going in at the same time, so no one can claim, "I will vote for Clemens next year, but I don't think he deserves to go in the same class as John Doe" (as some will do with McGwire vis-a-vis Ripken and Gwynn). Clemens has as good of a shot of any player of being the first unanimous selection, a sentence sure to send BYH into a rage that will end in a 3-state killing spree.

 

You've got that right.

Unfortunately, I also agree with you re: Clemens. My wife and I were trying to figure out if anyone could be unanimous and we settled on Clemens or Maddux. Maddux might not get every vote because some dope will punish him for nor being dominant enough or pitching only six innings a start after his 40th birthday.

Hopefully someone views Clemens' shocking late-career surge with the proper suspicion and doesn't vote for him. That, or doesn't vote for him because he's a giant human turd.

 

Well, he's got that going for him, which is nice ...

 

Maybe he'll throw a bat at a voter.