2022 MLB Thread formerly the 2021 thread..

[Dream Team]

Rolen is arguably the greatest defensive third baseman ever (or 2nd behind Mike Schmidt).  He should be a lock.

Baseball HoF voters are dopes.

Rolen was a great player, but had a "good at everything" style that the voters overlook in favor of gaudy HR or AVG numbers. And yes awesome D. I think he'll get in eventually as modern analytics continues to make advancement and highlight how good he was.

[KevShmev]

Jim Edmonds won 8 Gold Gloves and lasted one year on the ballot.  What an utter joke.

Meanwhile, Mike Piazza was mediocre at best defensively and got in right away, because offense matters and defense doesn't (99% of the time).

[pg1067]

What metric are you using?

In terms of fielding percentage, Rolen is tied for 18th with such luminaries as Hank Majeski and Don Wert.  https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/fielding_perc_3b_career.shtml

If you're into new age stats, Rolen's dWAR is sixth all time, but it's worth noting that only one of the four guys above him who are eligible are in the HOF.  https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_3B.shtml

In terms of straight up WAR, Rolen ranks 10th all time (and this was sort of the basis of the stuff I heard yesterday), and the only player ahead of him not in the HOF is Adrian Beltre, who isn't eligible yet.

The third baseman below Rolen in the WAR rankings who are in the HOF are all from the early 20th Century (except for Edgar Martinez, who is on the list despite having played less than 30% of his career games at 3B).

I wouldn't be bothered if Rolen got in, but, at the end of the day, he didn't do enough to get in on numbers alone, and I don't have that snese of "I don't want him coming up with the game on the line."

[TAC]

I would've voted for :
Jeter
Clemons
Bonds
Schilling
Manny



Larry Walker getting in is a fucking joke.

[KevShmev]

What metric are you using?

In terms of fielding percentage, Rolen is tied for 18th with such luminaries as Hank Majeski and Don Wert.  https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/fielding_perc_3b_career.shtml

If you're into new age stats, Rolen's dWAR is sixth all time, but it's worth noting that only one of the four guys above him who are eligible are in the HOF.  https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_3B.shtml

In terms of straight up WAR, Rolen ranks 10th all time (and this was sort of the basis of the stuff I heard yesterday), and the only player ahead of him not in the HOF is Adrian Beltre, who isn't eligible yet.

The third baseman below Rolen in the WAR rankings who are in the HOF are all from the early 20th Century (except for Edgar Martinez, who is on the list despite having played less than 30% of his career games at 3B).

I wouldn't be bothered if Rolen got in, but, at the end of the day, he didn't do enough to get in on numbers alone, and I don't have that snese of "I don't want him coming up with the game on the line."

I am not into new age stats, aka made up stats, like WAR.

As for the "I don't want him coming up with the game on the line" factor, all that does is reinforce that most people only care about offense and discard defense.  Should Ozzie Smith not have made the Hall because you didn't get that sense about him either? 

[pg1067]

What metric are you using?

In terms of fielding percentage, Rolen is tied for 18th with such luminaries as Hank Majeski and Don Wert.  https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/fielding_perc_3b_career.shtml

If you're into new age stats, Rolen's dWAR is sixth all time, but it's worth noting that only one of the four guys above him who are eligible are in the HOF.  https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_3B.shtml

In terms of straight up WAR, Rolen ranks 10th all time (and this was sort of the basis of the stuff I heard yesterday), and the only player ahead of him not in the HOF is Adrian Beltre, who isn't eligible yet.

The third baseman below Rolen in the WAR rankings who are in the HOF are all from the early 20th Century (except for Edgar Martinez, who is on the list despite having played less than 30% of his career games at 3B).

I wouldn't be bothered if Rolen got in, but, at the end of the day, he didn't do enough to get in on numbers alone, and I don't have that snese of "I don't want him coming up with the game on the line."

I am not into new age stats, aka made up stats, like WAR.

As for the "I don't want him coming up with the game on the line" factor, all that does is reinforce that most people only care about offense and discard defense.  Should Ozzie Smith not have made the Hall because you didn't get that sense about him either?

As a Dodger fan, I have a bit of experience with Ozzie coming up with the game on the line....

Ozzie was flashy and almost universally regarded as the best defensive shortstop of all time (and his numbers bear that out).  His offensive production gave folks an argument that he shouldn't get in.  Rolen isn't Ozzie and, like I said, he's right on the cusp.  There's just nothing that, for me, moves him from the "hall of really good" into the Hall of Fame.

The announcement should be happening as I'm typing this, so let's see what the voters think.

[pg1067]

Only Jeter and Walker got in.

Jeter wasn't unanimous (missed by one vote).  I think whoever didn't vote for him needs to be forced to publicly explain why Derek Jeter isn't HOF-worthy and, if that answer isn't something better than, "voting in Rivera unanimously was a mistake that shouldn't happen again; if Hank Aaron wasn't unanimous, then no one should be unanimous," that person needs to lose his vote.

Schilling got 70%; Clemens got 61%; Bonds got 60.7%; Vizquel got 52.6%.  Everyone else was well below 50%.

Looking ahead to next year, none of the first time candidates are worthy (Tim Hudson, Mark Buehrle and Torrii Hunter are the most notable candidates), so Schilling probably makes it in (maybe by himself).

2022 will be interesting because, if they don't make it in 2021, it will be the last year for Bonds, Clemens, Schilling and Sosa.

[TAC]

Right. The guy that didn't vote for Jeter should flat out lose his vote.

Larry Walker?? That's gross.

[pg1067]

Letting Walker in is analogous to letting Def Leppard into the R&RHOF.

Here's what I don't get:

Paul Konerko played in parts of 18 seasons (playing over 120 games in 15 consecutive seasons and more than 135 games in 13 of those 15 seasons).  He played the overwhelming majority of his time at first base.  He finished with a .279 BA, 410 HR and 1412 RBI (.486 SLG and .841 OPS).

Bobby Abreu played in parts of 18 seasons (playing over 150 games in 13 seasons.  He played the overwhelming majority of is time in the outfield.  He finished with a .291 BA, 288 HR and 1363 HR.

Both were first-time candidates on this year's ballot.  One got 22 votes (meaning he'll be on next year's ballot), and the other got ZERO votes and will drop off the ballot.

This is something I don't get.  I don't think either is HOF material, but how does someone (22 someones) give Abreu a vote but doesn't also vote for Konerko?

[KevShmev]

Right. The guy that didn't vote for Jeter should flat out lose his vote.

While I agree, there has been only one unanimous vote in the history of the baseball Hall of Fame, so this is consistent with what nimrods most voters are.  Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, etc. were all not unanimously voted in either, so this is not new.  Despite the ultimate man-crush many have on Jeter, he was not so great that he should have been the 2nd guy to make it unanimously.

[TAC]

Man crush or not, which I don't have one. Is he a HOFer or not. If he is..vote yes. If he's not..vote no.

[KevShmev]

I agree, but there is always a voter or two who thinks nobody should get in on their first try.

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

These would be my picks, based on my growing up watching all these players play. Sammy Sosa is a close call for me. Sure he hit 600 homers, but I think overall he was just a good player. He struck out way too much and just didn't get on base nearly as much as you would like a middle of the order guy to. Curt Schilling is another close one, but I just don't think he was quite good enough. I'm not really sure why so many people around here are so anti-Larry Walker....

Returning Candidates
Curt Schilling
Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Larry Walker
Omar Vizquel
Manny Ramirez
Jeff Kent
Scott Rolen
Billy Wagner
Todd Helton
Gary Sheffield
Andy Pettitte
Sammy Sosa
Andruw Jones

First-Timers
Derek Jeter
Bobby Abreu
Jason Giambi
Cliff Lee
Rafael Furcal
Eric Chavez
Josh Beckett
Brian Roberts
Alfonso Soriano
Carlos Pena
Paul Konerko
Chone Figgins
Raul Ibanez
Brad Penny
Adam Dunn
J.J. Putz
Jose Valverde
Heath Bell

[TAC]

Curt Schilling is another close one, but I just don't think he was quite good enough. I'm not really sure why so many people around here are so anti-Larry Walker....

Letting Walker in confirms this as the Hall Of Very Good. I'm sorry, in my eyes he is simply not a HOFer. I like him. I have nothing against him, but him getting in, over Bonds and Ramirez is a joke. Sorry.

How is Jeff Bagwell in, but not Manny? That makes zero sense.

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

Curt Schilling is another close one, but I just don't think he was quite good enough. I'm not really sure why so many people around here are so anti-Larry Walker....

Letting Walker in confirms this as the Hall Of Very Good. I'm sorry, in my eyes he is simply not a HOFer. I like him. I have nothing against him, but him getting in, over Bonds and Ramirez is a joke. Sorry.

How is Jeff Bagwell in, but not Manny? That makes zero sense.

Oh, I'm not saying he was better than or deserved to be in before Bonds or Ramirez (cause he wasn't better), I'm just saying based on watching him play and his ability to play both sides of the ball well and was able to run the bases well (at least in the first half of his career), he should be in.

As far as Bagwell is concerned he also deserves to be in. He was a very similar player to Walker, other than he batted righty.

On the subject of Bonds, he is the greatest player of all time and I will argue him against any other player, Steroids or not. And on the subject of steroids.....in baseball you still have to hit the ball and have good plate discipline (both of which Bonds either did very well or better than anyone else). Steroids doesn't do that for you.

[TAC]

See, I'm out on Bagwell. He was made with steroids, as was Sosa.

Manny and Bonds would've been HOF hitters even without roids. To me, there's no way Bagwell has nearly the career he had without them.

[DragonAttack]

Due to press coverage at the time, one day I stopped by on my way home from work to see a kid from Kalamazoo Central named Jeter get a couple of hits against Comstock H.S.  A single and triple while I was there.  A shame the Tigers didn't draft him.

[pg1067]

Due to press coverage at the time, one day I stopped by on my way home from work to see a kid from Kalamazoo Central named Jeter get a couple of hits against Comstock H.S.  A single and triple while I was there.  A shame the Tigers didn't draft him.

That's pretty cool.

[Samsara]

I am with Tim that the Hall of FAME has become the Hall of Very Good. And it has become this for one reason, and one reason only - MONEY. The Hall brings in crowds, generates revenue, and MLB gets more exposure. They will never go a year without putting SOMEONE in. It's ridiculous, even if I get the financial reasons why.

For me personally, only players where it is a complete no-brainer without any thought needing be put into it should be in the Hall. Griffey Jr., Jeter, Rivera, Ripken Jr., Maddux, Thome, etc. If you even have to pause more than a couple seconds to recall the names, they shouldn't be in. But that changed, and for me, that's wrong.

I don't want to stir things up for a big debate, because the Hall of Fame is a celebration. But Harold Baines? Edgar Martinez (who never played the field)? Come on. These guys were really good players. REALLY good. And they deserve to have their numbers retired (as they are) and the accolades they get from the teams they played for. But in my mind, if you put Harold Baines up against say...Dave Winfield. Winny will eat the guy for breakfast.

I am happy for Larry Walker. Great ballplayer. Not a HOFer in my eyes. Good stats, even adjusted for Coors. But he's not a Hall of Famer to me.

In this day and age, with baseball's stats sort of changing (nowadays advanced pitching stats are more important than wins, for example), things are in a very gray area. But where you can make arguments for dominance over certain lengths of time, etc., for me, it now comes down to the No-Brainer test. If you have to pause more than a couple seconds, the player isn't HOF worthy.

[pg1067]

I am with Tim that the Hall of FAME has become the Hall of Very Good. And it has become this for one reason, and one reason only - MONEY. The Hall brings in crowds, generates revenue, and MLB gets more exposure. They will never go a year without putting SOMEONE in. It's ridiculous, even if I get the financial reasons why.

For me personally, only players where it is a complete no-brainer without any thought needing be put into it should be in the Hall. Griffey Jr., Jeter, Rivera, Ripken Jr., Maddux, Thome, etc. If you even have to pause more than a couple seconds to recall the names, they shouldn't be in. But that changed, and for me, that's wrong.

I don't want to stir things up for a big debate, because the Hall of Fame is a celebration. But Harold Baines? Edgar Martinez (who never played the field)? Come on. These guys were really good players. REALLY good. And they deserve to have their numbers retired (as they are) and the accolades they get from the teams they played for. But in my mind, if you put Harold Baines up against say...Dave Winfield. Winny will eat the guy for breakfast.

I am happy for Larry Walker. Great ballplayer. Not a HOFer in my eyes. Good stats, even adjusted for Coors. But he's not a Hall of Famer to me.

In this day and age, with baseball's stats sort of changing (nowadays advanced pitching stats are more important than wins, for example), things are in a very gray area. But where you can make arguments for dominance over certain lengths of time, etc., for me, it now comes down to the No-Brainer test. If you have to pause more than a couple seconds, the player isn't HOF worthy.

I'm with you on all of this, EXCEPT for Edgar Martinez.  First, Martinez played 2055 games in his career and played well over a quarter of those games as a 1B or 3B (primarily the latter), so it's not correct to say ne "never played the field").  Second, while I don't like the DH, it's a part of the game and has been for over 45 years.  It's not going anywhere; we're more likely to get it in the NL than we are to get rid of it altogether.  That being the case, a DH is just as much a part of the game as any other player, so the best of the best should be recognized, and Martinez was THE best of the best (although since surpassed by David Ortiz).  Now, if you want to make an argument based on his career numbers, I might listen to that, but I don't think the "he was just a DH" argument doesn't really fly (it's basically the same argument that was made about closers).

I particularly agree about Walker (although all of the new age stats rank him above Jeter, so....).  Last year was even worse with guys like Roy Halladay and Mike Mussina and Tim Raines two years before that.

The funny thing is that, in 2013, the only year that no one got elected, there were NINE players on the ballot who subsequently got elected (Biggio, Morris, Bagwell, Piazza, Raines, Lee Smith, Martinez, Trammell and Walker).

[Samsara]

PG - even with the DH argument aside, Edgar's stats don't warrant HOF inclusion, IMO. He's one you have to think about. So under my own process, he falls short. I'm not an anti-DH guy. Reggie Jackson played the last several years of his career as a DH. The great Eddie Murray did too. I just think Edgar's numbers don't add up to a HOF.

Thank you for pointing out Halladay, Mussina, and Raines. None of them should be in. I'm a Yankees diehard and have been one since 1979. I love Moose. Love Raines. Neither of them is a HOFer in my eyes. Not even close. People are pining for Petitte to be in the HOF - No. Not even close. Love Paul O'Neil and Bernie Williams too--- not HOFs. Neither is Posada.

I think 2013 is the last year you'll see no one elected. I think the loss of revenue turned into a spike that following year. I don't think Morris is a HOF either. Or Trammell. That is crazy. Great players. But not legendary ones.

[KevShmev]

I still say Pete Rose should be in, but he made his own bed.  MLB will probably induct him once he passes, simply to get him and to not let him have the enjoyment of having made it.

[Samsara]

I still say Pete Rose should be in, but he made his own bed.  MLB will probably induct him once he passes, simply to get him and to not let him have the enjoyment of having made it.

I think Pete should be in, as what he did (betting on his teams to win) didn't (unless I am forgetting circumstances) affect the outcome of games. But he broke a rule, agreed to the harsh penalty, and like you said, he made his own bed. I think it's different than say an admitted steroid user who tried to cheat the game, or something of that ilk. But again,  a lot of time has passed since the years of Pete Rose, and I can't claim to remember all the accusations and such, and what is true and what isn't. And that's sort of the danger -- you forget the nuances that make a difference over time.

Unfortunately, I think that's going to happen to a degree with Bonds and Clemens. Two guys who knowingly cheated, but never admitted it, and nothing ever was definitively proved by law (but proved by research from neutral parties). Time will eventually get to a point where the argument of "era" will win out, and those guys will get in. And while they arguably were HOFers prior to steroid use, that "character" clause that is in the voting guidelines, at least to me, really signals that they shouldn't be put in because of their choices.

[pg1067]

PG - even with the DH argument aside, Edgar's stats don't warrant HOF inclusion, IMO. He's one you have to think about. So under my own process, he falls short. I'm not an anti-DH guy. Reggie Jackson played the last several years of his career as a DH. The great Eddie Murray did too. I just think Edgar's numbers don't add up to a HOF.

Thank you for pointing out Halladay, Mussina, and Raines. None of them should be in. I'm a Yankees diehard and have been one since 1979. I love Moose. Love Raines. Neither of them is a HOFer in my eyes. Not even close. People are pining for Petitte to be in the HOF - No. Not even close. Love Paul O'Neil and Bernie Williams too--- not HOFs. Neither is Posada.

I think 2013 is the last year you'll see no one elected. I think the loss of revenue turned into a spike that following year. I don't think Morris is a HOF either. Or Trammell. That is crazy. Great players. But not legendary ones.

Fair enough about Martinez, and I agree about all the others you mentioned.

I'm curious what you (and anyone else) thinks about Steve Garvey.  He's a Dodger legend and was my favorite player as a kid.  She shows up semi-regularly on local talk radio, and the subject inevitably turns to whether he should be in the HOF (he's not exactly a humble guy and is more than willing to engage on that topic).  I'm obviously biased, and it's hard not to get a little caught up in the Dodger pride thing, but I feel like he's not even close to the no-brainer that some of our local radio guys make him out to be.

I still say Pete Rose should be in, but he made his own bed.  MLB will probably induct him once he passes, simply to get him and to not let him have the enjoyment of having made it.

That would be consistent with the lifetime ban thing.

I recall something from many years ago that Pete said that part of his deal with Bart Giamatti was (verbally) that, although they'd call it a lifetime ban, it wouldn't really be that.  He was fairly convincing, but in retrospect, it seems like an awfully convenient story given that, if it had happened, it died with Giamatti.

That said, I agree that Rose should be in for the reasons mentioned by Samsara.

[Samsara]

Garvey is a tough one. I DID have to think about him, but not as a part of my personal thoughts on how to do the HOF. It's just that his career was so long ago, and while I remember it, the memories are fuzzy. Going back to the stats, he was one of the dominant players in the game -- for seven years. 1974-1980. He's hurt by his first several seasons where he didn't play a ton. Great player, but I don't think he rises to HOF candidacy. As much as it pains me, he's a better case than my favorite growing up - Don Mattingly (Jackson was my first favorite, followed by Donnie). But neither of them (Mattingly/Garvey) were great for long enough, IMO.

Both were very good players who made huge impacts on their team. But they weren't legendary in terms of the greats of the game.

p.s. PG - we're old my man. 

[pg1067]

Garvey is a tough one. I DID have to think about him, but not as a part of my personal thoughts on how to do the HOF. It's just that his career was so long ago, and while I remember it, the memories are fuzzy. Going back to the stats, he was one of the dominant players in the game -- for seven years. 1974-1980. He's hurt by his first several seasons where he didn't play a ton. Great player, but I don't think he rises to HOF candidacy. As much as it pains me, he's a better case than my favorite growing up - Don Mattingly (Jackson was my first favorite, followed by Donnie). But neither of them (Mattingly/Garvey) were great for long enough, IMO.

Both were very good players who made huge impacts on their team. But they weren't legendary in terms of the greats of the game.

p.s. PG - we're old my man. 

Don't remind me....

And yeah, Garvey and Mattingly seem very similar (although Garvey gets a bit of a boost because of multiple postseason appearances).

[Samsara]

(although Garvey gets a bit of a boost because of multiple postseason appearances).

Well, I don't think postseason appearances should be weighted that highly -- not everyone gets into the postseason, and if they don't, it's not necessarily through fault of their own. Mattingly was great, but played on crap teams. Ernie Banks was great, he played on unsuccessful teams, etc. So I don't put a lot of stock into postseason stuff. I mean, yeah, if a player has some big moments, sure, they get thought of. But for the most part, postseason play never really should be a criteria.

I think Mattingly and Garvey are fully even. Garvey played longer, and was better for longer (Mattingly had that bad back injury that took away his power and ability to pull the ball). But Mattingly was a far superior defender. And has the GG hardware to back it up. So given all that, I consider them fairly equal, honestly. 

[pg1067]

(although Garvey gets a bit of a boost because of multiple postseason appearances).

Well, I don't think postseason appearances should be weighted that highly -- not everyone gets into the postseason, and if they don't, it's not necessarily through fault of their own. Mattingly was great, but played on crap teams. Ernie Banks was great, he played on unsuccessful teams, etc. So I don't put a lot of stock into postseason stuff. I mean, yeah, if a player has some big moments, sure, they get thought of. But for the most part, postseason play never really should be a criteria.

I was imprecise in my prior comment.  It's not that Garvey's teams made the postseason as much as how he performed when they did.  He had a career postseason line (55 games over 11 series) of .338/.361/.550/.910, 11 HR, 31 RBI (1978 and 1984 NLCS MVP).  The only series in which he didn't perform particularly well were the 1978 and 1984 World Series (and pretty much NO ONE from the Padres played well in that '84 series).  I certainly can't hold it against Mattingly that he was the best player on a bunch of mediocre teams (just as it would be unreasonable to hold it against Garvey that his teams only won 1 WS in 5 tries -- ouch!), but Garvey has to get a bump for being a generally clutch performer in several series.

[TAC]

I have always considered Garvey an icon of his era, no?

[Samsara]

I was imprecise in my prior comment.  It's not that Garvey's teams made the postseason as much as how he performed when they did.  He had a career postseason line (55 games over 11 series) of .338/.361/.550/.910, 11 HR, 31 RBI (1978 and 1984 NLCS MVP).  The only series in which he didn't perform particularly well were the 1978 and 1984 World Series (and pretty much NO ONE from the Padres played well in that '84 series).  I certainly can't hold it against Mattingly that he was the best player on a bunch of mediocre teams (just as it would be unreasonable to hold it against Garvey that his teams only won 1 WS in 5 tries -- ouch!), but Garvey has to get a bump for being a generally clutch performer in several series.

By that logic then, Mattingly's lone appearance (his last year, 1995) was one for the ages. He batted .417, with 1 hr, and 5 rbi (going by memory) and tried to will the team to a win against the Mariners. I'm not discounting Garvey's performance, but here is where the rub is - Garvey played 55 games. Mattingly played in five. That's why postseason play is such a wildcard (pun intended). While I think performance in the playoffs should be a very minor factor, it's almost unfair to some other players who haven't had the chance to perform on that stage. Garvey was clutch, but so was Mattingly. And there is no way to know if Mattingly would be MORE clutch or not. So I tend not to really consider postseason play when I can avoid it.

I have always considered Garvey an icon of his era, no?

I consider him a Dodgers icon, and a star from his era. But an icon of the game from his era? I'm not sure. I don't think so. An all star for sure, but "icon" conjures up thoughts of iconic players in history, and I can't say I think Garvey belongs in the same space as guys like Reggie Jackson, Carew, Schmidt, etc., from the late 70s/early 80s. Those guys are another level.

[pg1067]

I have always considered Garvey an icon of his era, no?

I consider him a Dodgers icon, and a star from his era. But an icon of the game from his era? I'm not sure. I don't think so. An all star for sure, but "icon" conjures up thoughts of iconic players in history, and I can't say I think Garvey belongs in the same space as guys like Reggie Jackson, Carew, Schmidt, etc., from the late 70s/early 80s. Those guys are another level.

Well...I guess it depends on what you mean by "an icon of his era."  He was one of the top first basemen of the 1970s, but there were a lot of really good first basemen at that time:  Tony Perez, Keith Hernandez, Eddie Murray, Willie Stargell, Cecil Cooper, Chris Chambliss, etc.  Perez and Stargell were the best, and Murray didn't start until 1977.  They're all in the HOF.  The others are not.  Garvey wasn't Perez, Stargell or Hernandez.  He probably is the next guy in line, but I don't think that gets him to baseball icon (as opposed to Dodgers icon) or the HOF.

[Samsara]

True, in that list, I would probably put Garvey up there, if we're just eyeing say the late 1970s, which was Garvey's prime. 1977-1980 were the best years of his career. Stargell was in decline. Murray debuted in 77 and had great years, arguably better than Garvey. Certainly more consistent, I think. Perez was declining, just like Stargell. But in this, I'm just focusing on a narrow window, which happens to be the absolute best years of Garvey's career.

It's so difficult to just pinpoint, so that's why the total body of work, and length of high performance is so critical to me in evaluating if a player is a HOFer or not. Sadly for us, our two guys, Mattingly and Garvey, simply didn't reach those iconic heights.

[TAC]

As a 10 year old kid in 1978, way the hell out here on the East Coast, Garvey was one of the most popular players going. He transcended the game with his celebrity. And the Dodgers were pretty damned good during his time.

[Samsara]

As a 10 year old kid in 1978, way the hell out here on the East Coast, Garvey was one of the most popular players going. He transcended the game with his celebrity. And the Dodgers were pretty damned good during his time.

Although I was quite a bit younger, I do get that. And for that short window, he was one of, if not the best at his position. But that dominance didn't last long, which I think was what we were trying to identify (Iconic vs. star, vs. very good, etc.) Trust me, I am a big sports and music history guy. Garvey was freakin' legit, Tim. No taking that away. Had he sustained his dominant level for 10 years, I think we'd be having a different story. Same with Mattingly. But fans of the Dodgers and Yankees, respectively, know those two guys were huge.

[dparrott]

Dusty Baker new Astros manager.  70 years old.  Wow.