Ducksnorts World Tour 2007
Thu, Jan 11, 2007
by Geoff Young
With Tony Gwynn’s Hall of Fame induction ceremony coming up in July, I figure now is as good a time as any to plan a road trip. You know I love the minor-league ballparks, so I’ll be hitting seven of them over 10 days on my drive from San Diego to Cooperstown and back. If you’re in or near any of the places I’ll be, let me know — I’d love to meet you in person.
| Date(s) | City | Game |
|---|---|---|
| Mon., Jul. 23 | Albuquerque, N.M. | NO (Was) @ Alb (Fla), 7:05 p.m. |
| Tue., Jul. 24 | Oklahoma City, Okla. | Por (SD) @ Okl (Tex), 5:05 p.m. |
| Wed., Jul. 25 | Knoxville, Tenn. | Car (Fla) @ Ten (Ari), 7:15 p.m. |
| Thu., Jul. 26 | Durham, N.C. | Nor (NYN) @ Dur (TB), 7:00 p.m. |
| Fri., Jul. 27 – Sun. Jul. 29 |
Cooperstown, N.Y. | HOF induction |
| Mon., Jul. 30 | Fort Wayne, Ind. | Bel (Min) @ FtW (SD), 7:00 p.m. |
| Tue., Jul. 31 | Springfield, Mo. | Tul (Col) @ Spr (StL), 7:15 p.m. |
| Wed., Aug. 1 | Albuquerque, N.M. | SLC (Ana) @ Alb (Fla), 7:05 p.m. |
This is an extremely aggressive schedule, so I’m not sure how much blogging I’ll be able to do. I will try to check in every now and then, and I’ll upload photos to Flickr when I return. Anyway, take a look and let me know if I’m coming to a town near you. We’ll catch a game or two. 
Also, we have shirts:
Love the blog? Buy the book!
The Ducksnorts 2009 Baseball Annual provides the most comprehensive analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres available anywhere... featuring a foreword by Padres Executive Vice President Paul DePodesta.
January 11, 2007 at 7:08 am
Hey, I know someone that lives really close to Durham. I’m betting he’ll let you knock the dogs off the spare bed and save yourself the hotel money. Might even be willing to go to the Bull City to see the game w/ you. I’m thinking this person is pretty happy with the news that Ducksnorts is coming to the Tarheel State.
January 11, 2007 at 7:50 am
From mlbtraderumors.com:
“According to a New York Daily News exclusive, Barry Bonds failed an amphetamine test during the 2006 season. The newspaper has several sources saying that Bonds indicated teammate Mark Sweeney as the source when informed of his failure. Sweeney’s agent denies it.”
Welcome to SF, Boch.
January 11, 2007 at 8:07 am
For everyone whose going to the HOF, what is the proposed plan?
I know last year’s ceremony was somewhere in the 1:30 timeframe, but what time is everyone arriving?
And it’s been said we have to remain outside of a roped off area unless we get some $500 membership, or something?
January 11, 2007 at 8:23 am
#2: Bochy knew what he was getting into; this isn’t the first time he’s had to deal with Sweeney.
#3: That is a very good question. Thoughts?
January 11, 2007 at 8:36 am
Sweeney has always struck me as a pusher. He’s a bad seed. Probably the one who got Bonds on the juice in the first place. IF you ask me, he’s the one one they should have written Game of Shadows about! Clearly he’s the linchpin of the whole nasty business.
January 11, 2007 at 8:41 am
Thanks Geoff. I figure with the large collective we have here we should be able to find out what the best way to make this work is.
January 11, 2007 at 8:49 am
Good luck on the trip, Geoff. I’m totally jealous. I’m thinking the Ripken fans will probably be outnumbering Gwynn fans at about a 3 to 1 clip, so the Ducksnorters will need to be three+ times louder than normal.
January 11, 2007 at 8:58 am
It will be loud Dex…if for no other reason than the rest of the DS community beating me up for holding up a sign that says “Keep Bert Out!”…
January 11, 2007 at 9:09 am
Geoff, sounds like a great trip.
Any plan for TGwynn shirt?
CM: Elmo will be crushed by that sign.
January 11, 2007 at 9:19 am
#7: Thanks, Dex. It’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity; we will represent!
#8: I’m working on a sign that says “Keep CM Out!”
#9: Possibly. I’ve got some ideas.
Also, I’m researching the chapter on Tony’s 3000th hit right now. Here’s a fun one: #2997 was a first-pitch grand slam off Kent Mercker that gave the Padres a 6-3 lead in the fifth. In typical 1999 fashion, they later blew the game.
January 11, 2007 at 9:41 am
Maybe even a shirt or throw pillow would be in order GY…for Tony or me!
January 11, 2007 at 10:19 am
Ask and you shall receive. Gwynn shirts:
http://www.cafepress.com/ducksnorts.100065460
January 11, 2007 at 10:29 am
Throw pillow:
http://www.cafepress.com/ducksnorts.100068021
January 11, 2007 at 10:41 am
9: Not Elmo, but Bert’s life partner Ernie.
No San Antonio stop? What’s 10 more hours of Texas driving?
January 11, 2007 at 10:54 am
GY, looking at your itinerary, my compliments to Mrs. Ducksnorts, for giving you that kind of leeway to take a trip like that. More compliments if she’s going with you. If I tried that one, I’d have an “ex.” Wait . . . I have that already . . . .
January 11, 2007 at 10:59 am
Moving the Hall of Fame discussion here since it seemed to be a good one …
re: 92
Your numbers are either wrong or manipulated.
“2. One 20 Win season — only had 17 wins twice”
The 20-win season is correct, but he won 19 games once and 17 games four times.
That’s not exactly Steve Carlton, but it’s better than what you had.
“1. 3.31 ERA — very unimpressive, not just in his era, but also all-time”
The career ERA is correct, but the league ERA over the same period was 3.90. “Very unimpressive” may be an overstatement here. A run better than the league is certainly impressive, so how can 0.59 better than the league be “very unimpressive.”
“3. Zero Cy Young’s — Never even finished second”
If you’re going to use Cy Young award voting, then at least give him credit for finishing third twice, since three players receive votes on the ballot. That’s why top 10 in MVP voting is used. Finishing third twice doesn’t make him Greg Maddux, but there are Hall of Famers who never won a Cy Young award.
January 11, 2007 at 10:59 am
#14: I haven’t ruled out a trip to San Antone this year. We’ll see how it goes.
#15: Yes, I am blessed.
January 11, 2007 at 11:17 am
Geoff,
I am a Ducksnorts newbie, so call me naive, but how to you come out with product so fast? Does your wife have a T-shirt printing biz?
January 11, 2007 at 11:19 am
Kevin, sorry I mistyped on the 17 wins…meant to say more than 17 wins…
The Cy Young’s are not a huge thing, but it is a piece of the pie. You are right there there are guys who never won the CY, but they had other overwhelming reasons to put them in.
As far as the ERA being unimpressive, I will reiterate what I said yesterday…He is a guy that had a very good career, but not a GREAT one. He is, as someone else said yesterday, the Barry Zito of his day…To me it is the hall of greats, not the hall of very good’s.
January 11, 2007 at 11:28 am
Oneonta plays in a very interesting old ballpark about 45 minutes from Cooperstown and is home that weekend. You should try to catch a NY Penn League game.
January 11, 2007 at 11:31 am
Geoff, it’s possible I will be back in the Raleigh-Durham area by that time.
January 11, 2007 at 11:39 am
The Dodgers are going to charge $40 for bleacher seats with all-you-can-eat Dodger Dogs:
http://tinyurl.com/yzhjhc
They should have quite a profit margin on this since Dodger Dogs are disgusting.
January 11, 2007 at 12:59 pm
re: 91 (from yesterday) … I’m finding CM’s argument reasonable … rather than asking “isn’t there room for 35 pitchers”, an alternative question is: is there room for 6 or more from a single era? (and given an era = ~10 years, we’ve had 10-11 era’s, so now the total question becomes “isn’t there room for 60-70 pitchers”?)
It seems more mythical than I expected that “he played on bad teams” … he often played on teams that were over .500 … and it doesn’t appear that he helped them as much as you’d expect an HOF’er to help a team.
Not winning a CY award is a huge negative for me … in fact, he never even came in 2nd … 2 3rds … only got votes 4 times … hmmm … only got votes 4 times seems like an huger negative for me.
I’m starting to like ERA+ … his max ERA+ was 158 … which is good … how does it compare? It’s not one of the Top 100 seasons of all-time … http://www.baseball-reference&.....ason.shtml … (note: it did lead the league that season)
Having said all that, if I had a vote, he’d be on my next ballot …
January 11, 2007 at 1:09 pm
re: 22 … thanks for the heads-up … yet another reason not to set foot in Dodger Stadium
(btw, if you do want to read the article, you can use username = bugmenot@dodgeit.com and password = ‘bugmenot’ (without the quotes, compliments of bugmenot.com))
January 11, 2007 at 1:19 pm
#18: Stephen. No, I use CafePress.com.
#20: Thanks for the tip, Lem. I’ll be staying in Oneonta, so that sounds like a no-brainer.
#21: Cool. Keep me posted, Kevin. I’ll be meeting at least one other person there (Jeff, #1 — my partner in crime for the Cal League tours). The more, the merrier…
January 11, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Blyleven:
Bill James has him the 39th best pitcher of all time in the 2001 abstract. Not gospel, but compelling.
You throw a lot of innings, you’re in a position to lose games. How many more Ws would he have if he was being lifted after 5 innings, as is habitual now? He was consistently one of the top 3-5 pitchers based on things he had more control over, like strikeouts and whip.
Comparing him to his peers may be a little unfair, because he had some dominant peers. Sometimes you have a group of greats all playing at the same time, like 3b of the 70s. How do you penalize Blyleven for pitching at the same time as Vida Blue and Jim Palmer, or stick it to him because some writers gave Sparky Lyle the Cy Young in 1977, one of the worst selections ever? John Smoltz was a terrific pitcher during many of the seasons that Randy Johnson was winning the Cy Young, he’s only won it once and has a 3rd, 4th, and 7th place finish. He consistently lost votes to Maddux and Glavine, even when Glavine wasn’t as good.
I don’t know if anyone’s posted this, but here’s an article on Blyleven:
http://baseballanalysts.com/ar.....en_f_1.php
January 11, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Nice article on Gwynn at MiLB:
http://www.sportingnews.com/ar.....eline.html
January 11, 2007 at 1:40 pm
26:
I agree about the peers thing. If you can pick only five pitchers from that era to make the Hall of Fame, then of course it’s going to be Carlton, Palmer, Jenkins, Perry and Seaver. But the Hall of Fame has never worked that way. Like you said, Schmidt, Boggs, Brett played at about the same time, and they are all easily Hall of Famers. To keep Blyleven out because he was born about the same time as Jim Palmer is sort of ridiculous.
January 11, 2007 at 2:11 pm
The powers-that-be have made it almost impossible to find, but you can see video of Gwynn’s 3000th hit here:
http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NA.....p?c_id=nym
I love that Jerry Coleman and Bob Chandler are doing the call.
January 11, 2007 at 2:14 pm
There has to be a bit of luck involved in making the HOF and unfortunately for Blyleven the luck of when he pitched works against him…
Tom you ask “How many more Ws would he have if he was being lifted after 5 innings, as is habitual now?” And that is a fine question…it also then would include fewer shutouts, K’s, and, obviously, complete games…all of which are things most people who argue for his induction use as MAJOR points of reference.
I obviously hit a nerve with my stance on Bert…I just don’t want to see this borderline guy get in…other names I don’t think should get in are:
Rice, Dawson, Lee Smith, Mattingly, Baines, Garvey, Jack Morris
Other names that I would lean towards a no, but not sure yet include Trammell, Raines, and McGwire…
Bottom line, and where it seems I am losing many of you, is that I think there has to be a good deal of subjectiveness in this. Borderline guys like Blyleven need an extra push to get the vote and those pushes come from things like Cy Young’s, All-Star appearances, MVP’s, and direct comparisons to their peers…he just does not match up well there.
January 11, 2007 at 2:25 pm
That article TW links is an excellent one. It lays out how Blyleven frequently got hosed in the Cy Young voting, and certainly was one of the top 5 pitchers of his era. It also shows how much better Blyleven is than Jim Kaat and Tommy John.
There’s an article up at BP (subscription required for it) about baserunning. It ranks the Padres fourth in the league in terms of runs from baserunning, although with a net negative total. They gained the most value through stolen bases of any team (thanks Dave Roberts!), but were hurt by failure to advance on base hits (thanks Mike Piazza and Adrian Gonzalez!). The Southern California Angels were first. The Washington Nationals lost themselves 15 runs in base stealing (thanks Alfonso Soriano wildly seeking 40 SB!). The full list of runners is at:
http://danagonistes.blogspot.c.....ceive.html
Fascinating stuff. Soriano was one of the worst baserunners in the league; Pujols was +2 while Howard was -3; Barfield and Roberts were excellent, but so was Marcus Giles; Gonzalez and Piazza were both really bad, mainly at advancing on hits.
January 11, 2007 at 2:31 pm
One other thought on what you were saying Tom…We can make very valid excuses for him not getting the Cy Young in 1977 or other years…we can say it was bad luck that he pitched when so many greats were pitching…we can say it was because he was a grumpy guy that made it onto 2 All-Star teams…we can say he was a victim of mediocre teams in Min…
The problem with that is we keep making these excuses. Sure, each taken on their own, they are very valid, but when they keep coming up there seems to be a big hole in his candidacy. Like I told my buddy who has a habit of bailing out of plans at the last minute with VERY valid excuses each time…I don’t question your excuse. It is very valid, but when it keeps coming up over and over and over again, there is something wrong.
January 11, 2007 at 2:32 pm
30: You’re bouncing around a bit, CM. If you go by his strikeouts, shutouts, WHIP, anything EXCEPT wins or awards given by writers, Blyleven’s not borderline. He’s already got his plaque if those things were the actual criteria. If you want your HoF to have wins, then the pro-Blyleven response has to be “Wins were beyond his control.”
Another point on peers awards: Eddie Murray never won an MVP, but was an legitimate MVP candidate almost every season. That’s another steal from James.
The only other players you list that I’d vote for are Trammell and maybe Raines. Not voting for McGwire has nothing to do with steroids, he missed a couple of peak years with injury. That peak was peaky, though, I could be convinced pretty easy. I don’t see the other pro-Blyleven people proposing a Big Hall, or an NFL Hall, or a Rock and Roll Hall.
January 11, 2007 at 2:35 pm
30: I agree with your rejection list, and I agree Raines, Trammel, McGwire are borderline (but I think they should get in). I disagree with your last point, because most baseball writers and those connected with the game that create the subjective memories and images are idiots (see: 2006 AL MVP voting, 2005 AL Cy Young voting, to a lesser extent 2006 NL MVP voting; also, Mark Redman as an All-Star).
January 11, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Tony (and Cal) on Letterman …
http://www.cbs.com/latenight/l.....110.phtml#
Top Ten Good Things About Being Elected To The National Baseball Hall Of Fame
Top Ten
10 - “While traveling the country, I can shower with any team I choose”
9 - “Can now advertise my garage sales as ‘Hall of Fame garage sales’”
8 - “George Steinbrenner just offered me $20 million to play again”
7 - “On Bobblehead Day, guess who gets two bobbleheads?”
6 - “At any moment, there’s a good chance Bob Costas is boring someone with stories about me”
5 - “It’s nice to be mentioned in the same breath as Arky Vaughan, Burleigh Grimes, and Gabby Hartnett”
4 - “Free chalupa from Taco Bell if I mention them in my induction speech”
3 - “Made all those years playing in southern California’s lousy climate worth it”
2 - “I can now admit I broke my streak in 1998 because I had tickets to ‘Les Mis’”
1 - “Get to be on national television– even if it is this show”
January 11, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I don’t see what “Rice, Dawson, Lee Smith, Mattingly, Baines, Garvey, Jack Morris” have to do with Blyleven.
Blyleven should be in the Hall of Fame. They shouldn’t.
Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus went to great pains to point out why those guys weren’t Hall of Famers and Blyleven is.
Blyleven being in the Hall doesn’t mean a bigger Hall; it means a better Hall. He would bring up the Hall of Fame average.
January 11, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Hey guys! It’s a Padres prospect mentioned positively! Kyle Blanks is mentioned as a Diamond in the Rough in the Hardball Times’ eight prospects to watch article.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/m.....h-in-2007/
January 11, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Kevin…I guess that is where we diverge…I see all those guy’s as having the same or similar issues as to why they are borderline at best…
January 11, 2007 at 4:08 pm
37 - thanks for the link … I saw Blanks at Peoria last spring … he’s super-size, that’s for sure … the impression was a bit muted by the sight of Walter Young in the same camp … YOW!
January 11, 2007 at 4:14 pm
29 - GY … *THANKS* for the link to mlb.com’s video of Tony’s 3000th hit! It’s a *very* well done video … many comments … they show the whole AB … sweet!
January 11, 2007 at 4:51 pm
hey geoff…love the blog. would love the chance to meet you at the fort wayne game…i’m 60-90 min away…depends how heavy the foot gets lol. keep me in mind.
January 11, 2007 at 8:02 pm
re: Tim Raines
using Win Shares:
1981: 18 (in strike year)
1982: 21
1983: 29
1984: 32 win shares, fifth in NL
1985: 36, tied for first
1986: 32, first
1987: 34, first
1988: 19
1989: 25
1990: 19
1991: 19
1992: 28
1993: 19
1994: 14 (strike year)
1995: 14
I’ll spare you the seasons in which he had less than 400 at-bats.
In short, his 1981-89 period is why the sabremetric crowd thinks he is a Hall of Famer. He finished in the top five in win shares four times. I’m sure he finished in the top 10 a few more times. That’s more important than MVP voting, I think.
A strong MVP case can be made for him in 1985, 1986 and 1987. If he had won three straight MVPs — I know, unlikely for a leadoff man in Montreal — but if he had, everyone would think he’s a Hall of Famer.
He was 53rd all time in win shares, when Bill James put the Win Shares book out in 2002, ahead of many, many Hall of Famers, as you may have guessed.
James ranked him as the 81st best player of all time. He wrote: “Raines, in my opinion, is the second-best leadoff man of all time, but he had the misfortune of being an exact contemporary not only of Henderson, but also of Paul Molitor, the third-greatest leadoff man ever.”
January 11, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Blyleven is not a borderline case. He is better than most of the pitchers currently enshrined. Unless you consider most of the pitchers in the Hall to be undeserving, I don’t know how you can claim that Blyleven is “borderline.”
January 11, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Richard, we have already named 8-10 guys that pitched during Bert’s career that were better…not exactly a glowing argument that he is one of the best pitchers of all time…
January 11, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Ben B., nice call on Blanks. I don’t know how he’s slipping under the radar for so many prognosticators…
He’ll play High-A this year as a 20 year old (turns 21 in Sept.) and hit:
.292/.382/.455 in the Midwest League (pitchers’ league)
Had 10 HR & 20 2B in 208 AB (injured and did not finish the season) to go with a 36/79 BB/SO ratio…
He is one of the few prospects who is age appropriate-to-young and has performed solidly or better at every level. He’s absolutely one to watch.
January 12, 2007 at 2:18 am
And he also has big upside, a rare thing among Padres prospects.
January 12, 2007 at 4:04 am
I’m going to post this in chunks as its way too long. No one will probably read it, but I enjoyed researching and writing it (can I get some of those big bucks for this GY?
).
Let me state up front this is not a personal attack on CM, although it is generated by the position he is articulating. Mike, I apologize if it comes across as such; I do not mean it to be.
Anyway, hopefully the formatting will work as I didn’t compose it within the comment box.
January 12, 2007 at 4:05 am
“Here is a capsule of why he is not a HOF’er:
1. 3.31 ERA — very unimpressive, not just in his era, but also all-time
2. One 20 Win season — only had 17 wins twice
3. Zero Cy Young’s — Never even finished second
4. .534 winning %
Bert has the same #’s as Tommy John…”
CM, you seem to be trying to hold Blyleven’s longevity against him rather than acknowledging its utility, its recognition of his skill and value by MLB teams, and its durability. Furthermore, you seem to be unable to look within a 22 year career and identify the high points, the peak, the examples of where he was a great player. No one maintains a HOF peak for 22 years, but can’t you give Blyleven his due for the great seasons he did have? I’m a peak guy myself when it comes to the HOF, but even I recognize that career has some value and consideration as well.
As for peak, let’s begin with ERA and ERA+ (for you LM :-), and because it is more important than raw ERA). 3.31 is very unimpressive, according to CM, but without any support to validate it. So let’s examine it in context. 3.31 over 22 years is still .6 of a run lower than what the league averaged during that same 22 year span. This is significantly lower and it includes all of his “longevity” seasons where he was supposedly padding his numbers. In only 5 of those 22 seasons was he worse than league average in ERA, and in one of those it was an injury shortened season of only 20 IP. Just how far above average on ERA or ERA+ does one need to be to be considered great or Hall-worthy? Personally, I find anything above 130 to be at least worth considering, and we can also look at number of times among the league leaders in order to further consider era and dominance thereof.
January 12, 2007 at 4:05 am
I’ll compare Blyleven, Carlton, Perry, Kaat, and John. Why these four? They are names which have all been in the discussion, but they also comprise two HOF guys and two guys who are cited, rightfully, as players who should not be in. Also because all four are amongst the 10 most similar pitchers to Blyleven on BR, all had long careers like Blyleven (in fact, Blyleven’s at 22 seasons is the shortest, along with Perry), and they all four overlap significant portions of their careers with Blyleven. To begin I will list the number of times each led the league in ERA, followed by the number of times they were in the top 5 and then the top 10.
Blyleven: 0, 7, 10; Carlton: 1, 5, 8; Perry: 0, 3, 11; Kaat: 0, 0, 3; John: 0, 6, 6 (John’s best 6 finishes were all top 5).
Now ERA+: Blyleven: 1, 7, 11; Carlton: 2, 5, 7; Perry: 1, 2, 10; Kaat: 0, 2, 4; John: 0, 3, 7 (dodger stadium strikes again
).
I think it should be clear that Blyleven was much better than the latter two and quite comparable to, if not better than, the former. What about great seasons, over 130 (I’m open to an upward adjustment on this, by the way, but it seems a pretty good level to me)? Blyleven had 6, with a high of 158, and the lowest IP total in any of them was 234.7. Carlton had 6, but threw only 25 IP in one and 190 in another; however, it should be pointed out he had a high of 182 as well as a 164 and a 162 all in full seasons. He undeniably had a higher peak, but a shorter one than Blyleven. Perry had 4, all in full seasons, with a high of 168. Kaat had 2 in full seasons, 130 and 131. John had 7, but one was in 20.3 IP, another was in just 177.3, another in 153, another in just 140.3, and still another in just 70.7 IP. In other words, the only time John was able to sustain that level over a full season was in 1977 and in 1979 both of which were 138.
For their careers Blyleven ended at 118, Carlton at 115, Perry at 117, Kaat at 107 and John at 111. Is anyone still unimpressed with his ERA?
January 12, 2007 at 4:06 am
ERA can be influenced by the pitcher’s teams as ERA+ does not adjust for defense. If pitching in front of a great defense, fewer BIP will result in hits (anyone who watched our OF last years knows this). So how does a pitcher control the game? How does he dominate on his own without the aid of defense? Current theory, I believe, holds that he has little, if any, control over a ball in play; therefore, I will look at his ability to prevent balls in play and base runners from reaching; in other words, how many players does he strike out, how many does he walk, and what is his WHIP, as a good metric of base runners allowed over the course of a game (for I think we all realize by now that OBP, or its pitchers correlation in WHIP, is the most significant factor in runs scored). First, how many times did the pitcher lead the league, top 5, top 10 in K’s and then in K/9:
Blyleven: 1, 13, 15; Carlton: 5, 12, 16; Perry: 0, 7, 12; Kaat: 0, 2, 4; John: 0, 0, 0. This should make it clear Blyleven was a dominant pitcher akin to Carlton, better than Perry, and not at all similar to Kaat or John.
Keep in mind Blyleven was pitching at the same time as Ryan, which made it tough to lead the league; he did, however, have three straight 2nd place finishes from 1973 to 1975. He was not a soft tossing guy who relied on his defense like Kaat and John. 15 years in the top 10 in K’s, 13 in the top 5; that is sustained excellence, that is both peak and career excellence!
K/9 Blyleven: 0, 10, 14; Carlton: 2, 11, 16; Perry: 0, 3, 6; Kaat: 0, 0, 1; John: 0, 0, 0. I think the numbers speak for themselves here.
January 12, 2007 at 4:06 am
How about control? Not allowing runners via the walk? First I’ll list BB/9, followed by WHIP:
Blyleven: 0, 3, 8; Carlton: 0, 0, 0; Perry: 1, 4, 10; Kaat: 2, 7, 13; John: 1, 5, 12.
Here we can see why John and Kaat enjoyed their longevity. It’s not that they were great pitchers, but by not allowing the free pass they were able to remain effective for a long time. Blyleven also had excellent control, but was far more dominant; he was much more like Carlton due to his ability to K the hitter and prevent balls in play. This brings us to WHIP.
Blyleven: 1, 7, 11; Carlton: 0, 4, 5; Perry: 0, 6, 10; Kaat: 0, 1, 3; John: 0, 1, 5. Here again Blyleven differentiates himself from Kaat and John. Although they both had excellent control, they were eminently hittable, Bert was not. Carlton was dominant despite being somewhat wild; Blyleven was both dominant and dominant in the strike zone, and for a long time.
Sustained greatness is a true mark of a HOF player.
Wins are cited as a lack of dominance by Blyleven. Personally, I find wins to be a terrible way to judge a pitcher as the pitcher has no way of influencing the number of runs scored by his offense, nor do he have control over the bullpen support he receives (although this is not as much of an issue with the pitchers we’re looking at). Wins are a team stat, not an individual pitcher stat. Nonetheless, it has already been mentioned Blyleven’s WPct. is about 30 points higher than his team’s, and BP has him losing 23 games more than he should have based on run support. If anyone wants to hold him out of the HOF because he didn’t win enough or often enough, I think it’s a very poor argument, but I won’t try to dissuade you further on this point.
Cy Young awards I put into the same category as Wins. They are a subjective award voted on by writers who often do not do a good job of identifying the best players, and in Blyleven’s case by writers whom he didn’t enjoy a cozy relationship with. Also, San Diego fans should be aware of media bias toward the big markets and against small markets. This plays a role in voting. Another factor fully acknowledged by voters is an unwillingness to vote for players on non-contending teams. I hope everyone is familiar with the, “How can the MVP/CY winner play for a losing team?” argument. In Blyleven’s best season, 1973, the Twins (small market) finished .500, and he finished 7th in the voting. Take a look at the voting and tell me who was clearly better as a pitcher than he was:
http://www.baseball-reference......1973.shtml.
He threw more innings than Palmer, struck out 100 more hitters, his ERA was comparable and his ERA+ was exactly the same. What’s the difference? In 1974, his second best season, Minnesota finished 82-80. He didn’t get a single vote, but in 281 IP he had a 2.66 ERA, lower than four of those who did and basically the same as John Hiller’s 2.64; he struck out 249, higher than all but Ryan of those who did receive votes, and 102 more than Hunter who won; his WHIP was 1.14, lower than four of those who received votes. In 1984, his third best season, he pitched for Cleveland who finished 75-87, and finished third behind two relief pitchers who, combined, pitched only 14 more innings than he did and, combined, won fewer games. There are other seasons like this as well. For those anti-longevity folks in the crowd, don’t you think the fact that Blyleven received and deserved CY consideration and recognition at 33, 34 and 38 years of age is testament to his greatness and not just to longevity?
I hope this has adequately addressed all four numbered points above. And the fifth, he has the same numbers as Tommy John, should also be clearly refuted. Never the best pitcher in the league, highly debatable. Never the top 5, clearly incorrect.
January 12, 2007 at 4:07 am
“The subjective analysis has to play some part in the HOF…He was never the best pitcher in the league, he was not even the top 5 over his career…a total of 2 All-Star appearances give you an indication of what people thought of him during his playing career. Was there a period of 3-5 years that he was considered one of the top 2 or 3 pitchers in the league? No. He had a very good, sustaining career, but he did not dominate the league the way a HOF pitcher should.”
All Star appearances? This is far, far worse than Wins. So after the fans have selected the eight position players, a manager has to pick a pitching staff, and a representative from each team, after less than half a season’s work. Just how does this measure a player’s greatness? It doesn’t, pure and simple. For example, in 1974, one of Blyleven’s best years and no AS appearance, Steve Busby, Wilbur Wood, Ed Herrmann, Dave Chalk, and Cookie Rojas made the roster. They must have had a hell of a first half. In 1977, another great year with no AS game, Bill Campbell had a career year, Eckersley didn’t but made the team for some reason, Wayne Gross, Jim Kern, Dave La Roche, and Jim Slaton all also made the roster. Doesn’t this make it clear why AS games are pointless in evaluating the HOF caliber of a player? Making an AS appearance, in many cases, is not based on a player’s performance, but instead is based on roster construction and the need to have a player from each team. Furthermore, it is possible a player is simply having a hot streak at the right time. Using them to determine the quality of a player’s career is pointless.
How about something a bit more geared toward performance, but still somewhat unique, if not subjective? These are not AS or CY, but they are still significant and perhaps overlooked by some. Blyleven threw 164 IP in 25 starts with 5 CG’s, 1 SO, an ERA+ of 117, and a WHIP of 1.16 as a 19 year old rookie for the first place Twins, and didn’t receive a single vote for ROY! At 20 he threw 278.3 in 38 starts with an ERA+ of 127. After his age 25 season he already had six seasons of over 275 IP and had an ERA+ of no lower than 117, including a 158 and a 142. That is an extraordinary start for any pitcher, but almost entirely unique for one who started at 19.
Despite not pitching for many good teams, he does have post season experience. Being “clutch” in the post season is often cited by the stodgy (your word, CM, not mine
) as a HOF quality. So how does he stack up? In 8 post season appearances he started 6 games and went 5-1 with a 2.47 ERA and 36 K’s in 47.3 IP. His WHIP was just 1.08. He was 1-1 in the 1987 WS with a 2.77 ERA and struck out 12 in 13 IP with a WHIP of 1.15, at 36 years of age! His teams won 4 of the 5 post season series he played in, including both WS. Seems like he had a positive impact when given the opportunity.
January 12, 2007 at 4:07 am
“Basically, his overall numbers make him a borderline candidate, especially when put into context of a 25 year career…the subjective analysis is what keeps him out for me. He is Tommy John and Jim Kaat…he is the pitchers equivalent of Edgar Martinez or Harold Baines…”
How are you placing them into context? Are you ignoring the peak entirely and only looking at the career counting stats? I honestly do not understand what you mean by this. How is he Tommy John and Jim Kaat? I think his record as I’ve laid it out show very clearly he is not.
“It won’t be a travesty if he gets in (like it was for Maz), but he is borderline at best. You can give me all of the JAWS, ERA+, Anaconda stats you want…I have learned them, I am paying attention to them, and I am using them…I would be a fool not to…but just like any other new toy/tool that comes out, I have to take them with a grain of salt until there is proven staying power….As a good buddy of mine says “Mike, you can make the numbers say anything you want.””
The only thing remotely SABRE I’ve used is ERA+; I hope you understand why it is used and how it is valid. I’ve shown good, old K’s and BB’s, hits allowed and ERA, just the basics, and they show Blyleven was a top pitcher for an extraordinarily long time. Are you a pure peak person? Does a player have to be absolutely the best, number 1, for a couple of years, three, five? Isn’t being top 5 for a decade good enough? I honestly don’t get it.
Wins, CY and AS are the measure of a pitcher? Three things over which he has little or no control and which do not objectively measure his performance are more important than preventing base runners independent of his team’s defense, thereby preventing runs, and thereby giving his team the best chance to win? No way, that is simply not reasonable!
“I’m finding CM’s argument reasonable … rather than asking “isn’t there room for 35 pitchers”, an alternative question is: is there room for 6 or more from a single era? (and given an era = ~10 years, we’ve had 10-11 era’s, so now the total question becomes “isn’t there room for 60-70 pitchers”?)”
LynchMob, Blyleven is one of the top 60-70 pitchers using your numbers for era and qualifiers. Furthermore, his career covers two “eras” and I think I’ve shown him as a top 5 guy for at least 10 of those years. Doesn’t that qualify him? I think he suffered bad luck and bad timing for his career. Not only did he overlap a lot of great pitchers, but he played in small markets for noncompetitive teams. Not his fault in either case.
What do you think about the upcoming HOF pitchers? I think it’s going to be a very similar case for any number of guys. We have three, and arguably four, of the top 10 to 15 pitchers of all time still active: Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, and Martinez. Then you have guys like Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, Mussina, Kevin Brown, and the closers, Hoffman and Rivera. Several of those guys are arguably strong candidates, or borderline, or clearly out depending on how you limit the number of guys from an era. Tough call, isn’t it?
January 12, 2007 at 6:37 am
44: CM, to be clear, YOU’VE come up with a list of 8-10 pitchers you think were better than Blyleven. Who is this “we?”
I’ve said he was clearly one of the 3-5 best pitchers in the game during his peak. My only reason for bringing up how good his peers were is to explain, beyond writer stupidity, why he didn’t get many Cy Young votes.
53 (last paragraph): Excellent point. Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Martinez are all first-ballot. Smoltz was a great pitcher, still is, and he shouldn’t be kept out because he was #5 on the list of 1990-2006 pitchers.
January 12, 2007 at 7:48 am
Pat, could you expand on your points a bit? Try to really explore the studio space this time. For my money, I need more on Bert Blyleven.
January 12, 2007 at 7:58 am
Pat, you bring up some very solid arguements. Many are similar to ones I have read before, but put in a different light. I will chew on it for a bit. And for the record, I think longevity is huge and a HOF’er’s peak 3-5 seasons better be GREAT.
Tom…Okay, let’s get rid of “We”…and put me…1970-1992 was Bert’s career…during that time (Let’s throw out the last 3 years to help him) we saw Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Bruce Sutter, Nolan Ryan, Jim Palmer, Fergie Jenkins, Bob Gibson, Gaylord Perry, Roger Clemens, Catfish Hunter…that is 10-guys, off the top of my head, that were better than Bert…the reality is, his luck as to when he pitched was not very good, which is astounding given that he pitched 22 seasons.
January 12, 2007 at 8:31 am
Hunter and Sutter were not as good as Blyleven. Jenkins and Perry are too close to call (they’re in the Niekro/Sutton category). I’ll accept Seaver, Carlton, Ryan, Palmer, Gibson, and Clemens.
January 12, 2007 at 8:39 am
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
January 12, 2007 at 8:49 am
Pat, you’ve convinced me, I’ll vote for him next time they ask me :>)
January 12, 2007 at 9:26 am
56: Again, you’re using Blyleven’s longevity against him. Just compare him to Gibson. Their careers overlapped for 6 seasons, 1970-75.
1970 was Blyleven’s rookie year, and he was still really good, but you’re not going to see many rookies be better than one of the 5 best pitchers of all time.
1971: Blyleven has the better ERA+ and he threw more innings. In short he was the better pitcher.
1972: Gibson.
1973: Blyleven has his best season by ERA+, beating Gibson and throwing 130! more innings.
1974 and 1975: Blyleven clearly better, as Gibson was winding down.
In the years they were both playing major league baseball, Blyleven was better than Gibson more often that not.
It works the other way for Clemens. He broke into the majors as Blyleven’s career was ending. Bly was still a better pitcher than him in 84, 85, and 89. It’s like you’re using what Gibson WAS and what Clemens WOULD BE to say that Blyleven wasn’t great when he played.
GY’s covered the pitchers who weren’t as good. For 20 of his 22 years, Blyleven was one of the 5 best pitchers in the majors. He might have only been the absolute best pitcher in 2 or 3 of those years, but he was always right there. 20 years is almost 1/5 of what we’d call modern baseball.
January 12, 2007 at 9:35 am
re: Sutter
No offense, CM, but if you think Sutter was better than Blyleven or Gossage or should be in the Hall of Fame, then that’s much worse than thinking Blyleven should be in the Hall of Fame.
January 12, 2007 at 9:41 am
re: agreeing with Tom
1969-93 is a baseball era.
Many careers last 20 years or so.
This era included one two divisions in each league and one playoff system. It also had a fairly constant style of play and many artificial turf stadiums.
A player should spend most of his career in an era to be a part of that era. Clemens (although he was fantastic at the beginning of this era) and Gibson are not part of this era.
January 12, 2007 at 9:58 am
Pat - nice job, thanks!
A general thought … just as there are orthogonal parameters of peak-value vs longetivity, so there are absolute greatness vs relative greatness … by that I mean … should the HOF be reserved for only absolute greats? Or should the “Top 3-5 of each era” get in, no matter their absolute greatness?
I think Blyleven qualifies for HOF along all 4 vectors … but I think some of them are what I’d call “borderline” … perhaps that’s where that sentiment is coming from …
To me, calling someone “borderline” is not a negative … because I think I have high standards … there’s got to be a border somewhere … and someone / anyone above that border should get in … and Blyleven seems to be above the border, to me …
January 12, 2007 at 10:04 am
63: If you had a crappy era, then no, the best of that era shouldn’t get in just because they were better than their contemporaries. The 1970s and 80s were not a crappy era. Blyleven didn’t pile up 5 great seasons when most major leaguers were in the armed forces.
January 12, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Clayton, next time I get reallly bored at work, I’ll try to get into a bit more detail for you.
January 12, 2007 at 9:12 pm
“Pat, you bring up some very solid arguements. Many are similar to ones I have read before, but put in a different light. I will chew on it for a bit. And for the record, I think longevity is huge and a HOF’er’s peak 3-5 seasons better be GREAT.”
Cool, Mike! I appreciate you explaining your thinking on peak and longevity. It helps me understand your perspective better. I’m glad I brought some insight to you through the discussion, too.
January 12, 2007 at 10:32 pm
GY: Seaver without doubt. Gibson and Clemens without doubt as well, but as TW pointed out they overlapped but are not necessarily of the same era.
Ryan, no way, not even close. Ryan is a one trick pony; it was a very good pony, but still only one. Take a look at his ERA versus the league and you’ll see he was not as much better as Bly. ERA+ also reveals he was not as much better. He led the league in BB allowed 8 times, was in the Top 5 15 times, and in the Top 10, 24 times! In other words, despite being the K King and being the most unhittable pitcher ever, he still allowed a ton of base runners, and by extension more runs than a guy like Bly.
Carlton I think you could make an argument for him being too close to call like Perry and Jenkins. In fact, I think much of what I posted yesterday shows how close they are. Carlton’s peak three are undoubtedly higher, but Bly’s career value exteneded longer and later in some ways. I don’t have any heartburn giving the nod to Carlton, but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk.
I would not give Palmer the edge at all. It’s easy to look at 8 20 win seasons in 9 years and think he’s the better pitcher, but Baltimore was a dynasty at the time. Now I know part of the reason they were was Palmer, but my point is he benefitted from great defense and great offense in those years.
Take a look at their careers from 19 to 25. Palmer had one great season with over 200 IP and one with 181 IP, and nothing else. Bly had two great seasons with at least 281 IP and four very good seasons with at least 275 2/3 IP, plus one good season with 164 IP. Bly is much better over the first 7 years of their careers.
Now look just at their age 24 and 25 seasons when Palmer was “finally” hitting his stride.
Palmer puts together the first two of his big 20 win seasons while throwing 305 and 282 IP, ERA+ 134 and 125, K’s 199 and 184, BB 100 and 106. He started 37 and 36 games, threw 20 and 18 CG’s and 3 SHO in each season.
Bly won just 15 and 13 (and had a losing season at 25 going 13-16), but he threw 275 2/3 and 297 2/3 (only 12 fewer IP), ERA+ 129 and 125 (essentially the same), K’s 233 and 219, BB’s 84 and 81 (big edge to Bly). He started 35 and 36 (essentially the same), threw 20 and 18 CG’s, 3 and 6 SHO’s (slight edge for SHO’s?).
So what is the difference in those two years? Bly played for crappy teams who didn’t give him the support needed to get the wins and Palmer played for a great team who did. But Bly was the better pitcher for the first seven years of their careers, by far.
You can do the same thing at the end of Palmer’s career. From ages 33 to 38 Bly is far better. Palmer was essentially done after that 9 year run. He was an effective pitcher in over 200 IP exactly once during the six years from 33 to 38 while Bly had three of his 130+ ERA+ seasons and was effective in two of the other three.
That’s 13 of Palmer’s 19 year career where Bly is better (Palmer didn’t pitch in the majors at 22 so we’re actually looking at a 20 year period). What about the other seven years from 26 to 32? Palmer was at his peak, as one would expect at that age, and Bly ran into injury troubles from 29 to 32 (I’m going by IP and performance there, I haven’t looked it up to see if it’s documented, but it seems pretty clear). He still had one great season and two other effective ones (going by ERA+ on this), plus two other effective seasons albeit with only about 150 IP in each.
So does Palmer’s staying healthy and dominant during the normal peak/prime years outweigh Bly’s big edge during the other 13 years? I don’t think so, especially when you look at how much Palmer benefitted from better offense and defense. Bly was clearly the more dominant pitcher in terms of K’s and BB’s; in other words, he allowed far fewer base runners and balls in play, but it doesn’t translate into a huge difference in ERA dominance and W’s versus Palmer. The reason being Palmer benefitted from a great D and a great O.
Palmer only had one season in the Top 10 in BB/9, a 4th place in 1975, and he never had a Top 10 in K/9. In raw K’s he had just 3 top 5 finishes and 4 other Top 10’s. Bly had 13 Top 5 alone, including one season leading the league. The only way this adds up to me is Palmer had great D behind him which lent him the appearance of dominance while Bly really was dominant.
Now maybe it’s not as extreme as it appears, and Palmer was undoubtedly a great pitcher and a HOF, but I don’t think he was better than Bly just because he had the good fortune to pitch for the Orioles while Bly toiled for the Twins and Indians by and large.
January 12, 2007 at 10:36 pm
LM: I lean toward absolute greatness, but I think I consider relative greatness to an extent. When push comes to shove though, it’s absolute which wins out. For example, Rice, Dawson and Murphy. Relative greatness says they’re in, but absolute says they’re out, and I say they’re out.
I also think we should watch out for guys like Blyleven (and Raines) who are absolute greats, but suffer in comparison to peers due to circumstances such as a large number of greats at one time and/or playing for teams and in markets which mask their greatness.
January 13, 2007 at 12:28 am
67: Pat, you’re right about Ryan. I can’t be objective about him because he’s the most dominant pitcher I’ve ever seen, but the ERA+ numbers just aren’t that impressive. Main things working for him are the strikeouts, the no-hitters, and the extreme longevity of his career.
I’ll still take Palmer, but it’s close. Blyleven lasted longer, but each of Palmer’s top 10 ERA+ is better than same for Blyleven. I could see arguments for either depending on how much weight one puts on peak vs career. Carlton is tricky because he has five completely lights-out seasons and a whole boatload of Chuck Finley type years. Off the top of my head, I’d put Carlton around where Perry is, with both of them ahead of Jenkins. But I have to admit, I haven’t given the question as detailed consideration as you have.
Here, for grins, are the top 10 ERA+ seasons (min 162 IP) for Palmer, Blyleven, Ryan, and Carlton:
JP BB NR SC
169 158 142 182
156 151 141 164
152 142 138 162
149 140 128 151
143 135 124 150
134 129 119 126
130 127 115 119
130 125 114 117
125 123 114 115
122 118 110 111
I can’t begin to tell you how disappointed I am in Ryan’s showing. His career is a great lesson in why it’s important to examine statistics — the right statistics — in making these evaluations. If I’m going just by my eyes and gut, I say he’s top 20 all time, but the evidence doesn’t support that. Not even close.
January 13, 2007 at 2:23 am
Geoff, don’t feel too bad about Ryan. In one sense he is the most dominant pitcher ever. He literally is The Most Unhittable Pitcher ever. Career H/9 he is #1, and by a pretty good margin. 6.56 to Koufax’s 6.79, but he didn’t do a good job at preventing runners otherwise which somewhat cancelled out his unhittableness.
ERA+ is cool and a good tool, but it doesn’t take defense into account, and if you’re going to be fair in comparing Palmer and Bly, you have to do that.
For example, I looked further at the mid portion of their career where Palmer really blows him away, and I found something very interesting for the age 27 season (I’m not trying to make too big of a case out of one season, but it is illustrative of where I’m coming from).
Palmer went 22-9 in 37 starts with 19 CG’s and 6 SHO. He threw 296 1/3 IP alowing 225 H or 6.83 H/9, 113 BB or 3.43 BB/9, struck out 158 or 3.4 K/9. His WHIP was 1.14 and his ERA+ was 156.
Blyleven went 14-10 in 34 starts with 11 CG’s and 4 SHO. He threw 243 2/3 IP allowing 217 H or 8 H/9, 66 BB or 2.44 BB/9, struck out 182 or 6.72 K/9. His WHIP was 1.16 and his ERA+ was 123.
So how did they differ in order to account for that 33 point spread in ERA+ since Bly walked a batter less and struck out a little more than 3 batters per 9 innings?
Bly gave up 8 hits per 9 innings and Palmer a little less than 7, but that doesn’t mean Palmer was more unhittable than Bly, as the K record clearly shows. The difference lies in the defense behind them. When you calculate BABIP (Batting Average on Balls In Play), which I did by subtracting HR from H and dividing by Batters Faced minus BB and HBP, you’ll see Palmer’s was .195 and Blyleven’s was .213.
If we accept that a pitcher has no influence over whether a ball in play is a hit or an out, the difference between Palmer and Bly, in terms of ERA+, in this year is solely due to luck or better defense for Palmer or both.
BP’s DERA stat supports that Palmer played in front of an above average defense throughout his career. I would still say Palmer was the better pitcher in this season, just slightly, for pitching more innings in more starts, but it’s not as big as the gap between ERA+ would show, and the peripheral stats also support this position I believe.
January 13, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Great discussion, everyone. Thanks to CM for starting it.
Here are the top pitchers of all time according to The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, the top 10 plus the guys from 1969-93:
1. Walter Johnson
2. Lefty Grove
3. Pete Alexander
4. Cy Young
5. Warren Spahn
6. Tom Seaver (best of 1969-93)
7. Christy Mathewson
8. Bob Gibson
9. Kid Nichols
10. Sandy Koufax
15. Steve Carlton
17. Jim Palmer
18. Gaylord Perry
23. Ferguson Jenkins
24. Nolan Ryan
26. Phil Niekro
31. Don Sutton
32. Dennis Eckersley
37. Goose Gossage
39. Bert Blyleven
January 13, 2007 at 9:58 pm
I thinnk Bill James has a serious woody for Koufax. Granted he has an extraordinary peak, albeit a short one, but he has no career to go with it. I just can’t see him as a top 10 guy with no longevity whatsoever. To continue with the Bly focus, he has twice the career vallue by BP’s WARP3 than Koufax. Even if you shorten peak to three years, Koufax was worth only 3 more WARP3 than Bert. How does the higher peak over just a three year span offset all of that career value?
It’s not just Blyleven who you can do this with either. Koufax’s 3 year peak is 24th all time, and of 23 guys in front of him the only two modern guys who are close in terms of short careers are worth 20 more WARP3, Dazzy Vance and Juan Marichal. Even if you throw out the two 19th century guys and the one dead ball pitcher, he’s still 21st. So put him in the top 20 if you want to give him a good time line adjustment and some bump for his WS pitching, but unless you have an enormous Man Crush on him, he’s just not a top 10 pitcher, even before you start taking Clemens, Maddux, and Randy Johnson into the discussion.
January 15, 2007 at 7:49 am
Geoff, I get the feeling you’ll like the Knoxville area (even though they’re now a Cubs affiliate, and not a Diamondbacks affiliate. :))
I live about three hours from Knoxville, and I wrote a review of this park as part of my ongoing ballpark series. The sight lines are great in that park, and it’s a good place to see a game.
I look forward to seeing your thoughts.
June 29, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Time to start stiring this pot a bit …
I’m going to be flying into NYC (JFK) on Friday morning, July 27th … I’ve got all day to “play” … then I pick up my best friend on Saturday morning (also JFK) … we may do something “touristy” in NYC, but the basic plan is to drive up to Cooperstown and try to get into the museum before it closes at 9pm … we’re staying at the dorm at Hartwick in Oneonta … we’ve got blow out of Cooperstown either Sunday night or REAL early on Monday morning for my friend to make his flight from JFK back to SD … but then I’m planning to again spend a day at “play” in NYC … perhaps take in a Broadway play, perhaps just walk around Ground Zero or take the Staten Island Ferry or … maybe even take 2 days … when I’m done with NYC, I’m going to drive down to Washington, DC, perhaps stop in Philly along the way, perhaps detour from Philly out to the Jersey shore … but then I’ll be spending a couple of days visiting some cousins in DC, and then some more family in the Orlando area of Florida, before returning home to Oregon on Aug 9th … so that’s my mini-world-tour …
What’s relevant here is if any of you DS’ers might be interested in any kind of meet-up in NYC either the Friday before or the Monday after? I’m pretty flexible still … the one mega-outragous-idea I have is to do take a “food tour” … http://www.famousfatdave.com/ … and I’m looking for other ideas
June 29, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Did anyone consider getting a HOF membership, which supposedly lets you get closer to where the ceremony is going to be?
July 6, 2007 at 12:23 pm
75 … Ya, I consider’d it … it seems like it’s $500 before you get “Exclusive Hall of Fame Weekend privileges” …
http://web.baseballhalloffame......levels.jsp
I’m resigned to being there primarily so I can currently say that I’m going and in the future say that I went … me and 50,000 of Cal’s best friends from Baltimore … ’cause it’s gonna be a zoo.
I’m going to be driving from NYC up to Oneonta/Cooperstown on Saturday … do you have a gut feel for best drive route? I’m considering 3 routes …
1. I-87 to Albany then I-88 back down to Oneonta
2. I-87 to Kingston then cut over thru Catskill Park to Oneonta
3. I-87 to Monroe, then to Liberty/Roscoe and weave up to Oneonta
I’m not really interested in views/scenary … just getting to Cooperstown as fast as possible … less than 4 hours? And I’m guessing that if I’m starting at JFK, then it might be fastest to cut over to New Jersey before heading north?
July 6, 2007 at 12:57 pm
As promised from the other thread LM: http://ducksnorts.com/blog/200.....l#comments