I agree. Another "dominant for a short time" player we struggled with was Al Rosen, who had two of the best seasons ever enjoyed by a third baseman in the midst of an excellent five-year run, but whose career had nothing beyond that 1950-54 period. We ultimately kept him out. But this hypothetical player FnL is talking about is in a whole other category -- basically, you're talking about the 2001-04 Barry Bonds without the baggage. I'd vote for him.

1994 Ballot

Sal Bando
Steve Carlton
Bobby Grich
Jim Hunter
Tony Oliva
Amos Otis
Vada Pinson
Pete Rose
Ted Simmons

1994 BALLOT
Steve Carlton
Norm Cash
Rollie Fingers
Bobby Grich
Jim "Catfish" Hunter
Sam McDowell
Tony Oliva
Vada Pinson
Reggie Smith
Bruce Sutter

Normal enviornment...and his team won the World Series all 4 years, hypothetically. Basically, so good that there was nothing left to accomplish...

It's an athlete in another sport, so we're doing apples and oranges. My argmuent is that the guy failed to have a very long fruitful career - and while over in that sport the debate is "Is he the greatest ever", my suggestion was that in baseball, he might not even be a Hall of Famer.

Your comments have helped move that discussion along. Thanks. I'm not sure this was even the correct thread for this, but...

Baseball has never had a guy even remotely like this, but its still an interesting hypothetical discussion. Addie Joss was never the best pitcher in the game, or even close to the best pitcher, and might not have even made the Hall if he had lived.

What if Ted Williams had decided to retire after WW2, and devote himself to a career in the marines? He was not as good as the player you describe, but I think he would have been enshrined very quickly, and deservedly so.

Geez, Lahoud, that's just a bit harsh. He was a contemporary of Walsh and Waddell, Matthewson and Brown which made it tough, but he was pretty well-regarded. Beyond those four, I don't think there was anyone else who was considered better - even a few HOFers - Plank, Vic Willis, McGinnity, Bender and even old Cy Young - who was never considered the best or close either, while he was playing.

Yes, he likely would have made the Hall of Fame, but his list of accomplishments was not particularly high yet. According to Pete Palmer's metrics in the Baseball Enclyclopedia, he was the 2nd best pitcher in the league twice, 3rd once. He had one excellent season, 1908, but he obviously was no match for Ed Walsh, who beat him by 16 wins. He got an early start, which means he had a shot at 300 wins, but if you put the expected drop-off into his career, he's basically Sam Leever with a few more seasons.

Hey, we're debating Joss again?

I think I overrated him back in the day -- I just couldn't see not voting for the all-time leader in WHIP and the #2 all-time guy in ERA (#11 in ERA+), regardless of the low IP totals and short career (the latter of which not really being his fault, given that he died and all). So, I overrated him, but I still stand by the selection.

And it's not like Palmer's metrics really destroy the guy. Those metrics put him as the tenth-best pitcher during the 1901-20 era (behind eight guys we inducted with ease and Eddie Cicotte, who was never going to be seriously consdered anyway, and ahead of at least two guys from that era -- Waddell and McGinnity -- that we inducted). Those metrics also put him ahead of such HOFers as Sandy Koufax, Dizzy Dean, Nolan Ryan, and Early Wynn -- although behind such non-HOFers as Bret Saberhagen, Tony Mullane, Clark Griffith, Dolf Luque and Dave Stieb, to name a few.

Anyway, Joss may be a "borderline" call rather than the obvious call that I thought he was, but I still think he belongs.

I was not really debating him. I wasn't involved when we debated Joss, sad to say. I am sure I would have voted for him, but he's not Ed Walsh or Tom Seaver, as he is sometimes depicted.

Fred not Lynn started out by suggesting this hypothetical Roy Hobbs quality hitter with a four year career, and I merely said we've never had anything like that. Addie Joss was like if Roy Halliday retired in a year or two. This is a complement--Halliday is a heck of a pitcher.

Well ... among the current considerations, Tony Oliva comes as close as we're going to get. in my post a couple of pages back, I threw hypothetical numbers out there showing numbers for Oliva (and Pinson and Cedeno) for the decade he played with relative health and speculated that if his career had ended after 10 years instead of adding five mediocre years at the end of it, he would have been HOF caliber with just those numbers.

I have been voting for Oliva, but I haven't tried to sell the case since several weeks ago when he first got on the ballot. I'll try again.

Tony Oliva was as good a hitter as Roberto Clemente, very comparable actually. If you compare them age for age (at age 21, 22, ...), Oliva is way ahead until he ripped up his knee in 1971. He was hitting .375 with power in late June when he got hurt, and hobbled along the rest of the way and held on for his 3rd batting title. Even after playing as a an average hitter for another few years, he still ended up with a higher OPS than Clemente (who did not have, tragically, any decline phase). His EQA ended up lower than Roberto's. He was not as good as Clemente in RF, but he was good--he won a Gold Glove, and could have won a couple of more.

How long is enough? Oliva was one of the 2 or 3 best players in the league for 8 years. He played at a time when batting averages were very low, so he hit .330 in his big years rather than .375 which he would have hit in the 1980s.

I prefer a guy like Oliva, who was clearly a big star for an extended period of time, to a long career accumulator. The real Hall prefers accumulators.

1994 Ballot

Steve Carlton
Catfish Hunter
Rollie Fingers
Sam McDowell
Tony Oliva
Vada Pinson
Peter Rose

May still add another name or two...may not..will be doing some additional research

- Surprised that there has been so little vitriol here regarding Rose. People are quietly just voting for him or not voting for him. Let me be the first to say: he was never proven to have gambled as a player. As a player, he was nothing but blood and guts, at least until it is proven otherwise. I will vote for him every time.

- 3 more good or 2 more great years, and I would have voted for Hunter 5 years ago. Time to come around on him.

One more little note regarding Oliva: I read once that he was an absolute yankee killer, with something like a .580 career SLG vs the Yanks (can't find the exact number)....

Very high for that era.

Actually, his career SLG vs the Yanks was .517, which was still pretty damn good for that era. His career mark was .476. and the only two teams he slugged better against were the Athletics (.543) and Red Sox (.568).

The aggregate AL slugging average during his tenure was .369. Over the past decade it's hovered around .430 or so. (see graph)

FWIW, he was a career .357 hitter against Boston with a .402 OBP. His career line at Fenway (340 PAs) was 376/406/596. At the Toilet, he was 248/315/492 in 297 PAs.

Link

By the way, I'm willing to bet my 401K stash that Tony Oliva is the only player in MLB history whose last name is also used as a middle name:

Antonio Oliva Lopez Hernandes Javique Oliva

This information is available, for modern era players anyway, on www.retrosheet.org, an absolutely fantastic site that every serious baseball fan should bookmark. Warning: it can be hazardous to your having a life.

Oliva's specific SLP breakdowns:
Vs. NYY overall: 517
At the Toliet: 492
At Shea, home to the NYY in 1974-75: 719

Linky

(Edit: beaten to it by the Dog.)

I will make a note of it now, thanks. Always wondered why B Ref didnt have splits.

Sorry, overestimated Oliva's #'s a bit. I guess .517 is still pretty drn good for the era, but not .580 good...

oops

Dave Bancroft
Bobby Grich
Catfish Hunter
Sam McDowell
Thurman Munson
Phil Niekro
Tony Oliva
Vada Pinson
Ted Simmons
Reggie Smith

We wrote quite a bit about Oliva in Paths to Glory. Actually, that chapter was all Dan's doing. Oliva's real first name is Pedro, but when he left Cuba for the States in 1961 very suddenly (as the walls were closing down), he did not have a passport and borrowed his brothers, whose name was Antonio.

FWIW, using a metric we developed for the book (WAR, or Wins Above Replacement), Oliva was the third best hitter in the AL during his prime years (1964-1971), behind Killebrew and Yastrzemski.

By my count, Oliva is currently sitting at 6/9 for this ballot. If you want me to quit yammering about it, please change your ballot or vote for him now.

DELTA, I AM TALKING TO YOU.

Guess I'll have to scrounge for bottles & cans to finance my retirement now. Just tell me where to send the check, Mark.

For one last look at Cash, I extracted Rates for Cash and his first base contemporaries in the early Expansion Era:



Although Cash is a notch below the Big Three 1B in this era (Allen, Killer and Stretch), he is a bit higher than Cepeda in OPS and ToH. However, Cepeda was a much more significant hitter when he made contact, perhaps the best pure hitter of this group, including the Big Three. That was why I voted for Cepeda.

Cash and Boog Powell had nearly identical rate stats, with Cash getting the edge on HR rate. However, if we correct for park using Composite Park Factors for 2B's and HRs (Values: Tiger Stadium 2B: 93, HR: 120; Memorial Stadium 2B: 96, HR: 97) their rates are as follows:



Cash loses 27 pts of ToH adjusting his HRs to park neutral. FWIW, Killebrew loses points for Park as well, but I think looking at Cash on the borderline, Tiger Stadium really aided his HR totals.

Mind you, Cash was more than a HR hitter. He had good singles and walk rates, but was unexpectedly low in his 2B rate (Park corrections give him +3.3 ToH points for 2Bs, but .039 is still below average). As a borderline candidate, I can't vote for him.

Edit: Post script: Out of curiousity, here is how Killebrew corrects by composite park factors:



Metropolitan Stadium CPFs from 1961-1981 are HR: 110, 2B: 97.

Anybody want to revisit old Boog Powell?

Delete. Dupe.

Tough ballot. I'd vote for more than 10 if I could.

1994 ballot :
Sal Bando
Steve Carlton
Norm Cash
Bobby Grich
Thurman Munson
Phil Niekro
Tony Oliva
Pete Rose
Ted Simmons
Don Sutton

Have to delete Smith, and Pinson for now to stay at 10. Otis, Kaat, Cedeno, and Sutter are all worth a look, too.

I'd love to vote for Catfish to help relieve the logjam, because we are electing far too few people lately. And, as Lahoud says, that team deserves more than one Hall of Famer. However, that second HoFer should be Bando, not Hunter. As I posted a while back, here are the 1969-74 win shares of Jackson, Bando, and Catfish:

Reggie: 41, 17, 32, 26, 32, 30 (total 178)
Bando: 36, 24, 29, 23, 31, 21 (total 164)
Hunter: 13, 12, 22, 24, 15, 27 (total 113)

Plus, Catfish had a career ERA+ of only 104. I know that ERA+ is not a perfect metric, and it tends to undervalue pitchers like Hunter who operate in pitchers' parks and/or pitchers' eras, but even with extenuating circumstances 104 is just not great, especially over a career of only medium length.

Catfish enthusiasts, convince me I should vote for him. Also, if you voted for Catfish and not Bando, why?

I think Catfish and Bando both belong in, but I voted for Hunter this time (I voted for both) simply because I wanted to make more room on the ballot and Hunter has less time than Sal does.

Next year, there is one lock, and a really interesting choice that I know will be on the ballot...if we elect 2 this year (Looks good so far), Bando will definately be on my next ballot, replacing Nettles who I put on as a discussion candidate. If no one else votes for him, it was never to be.

Vote for me!

Hey, DELTA, did you know I was an All-Star my first eight seasons in the major leagues?

I hit .314 in 51 post-season at bats.

In 1968 I was hitting .289 on August 31 and leading the league. Yaz was at .285. I got hurt and did not play in September at all, and watched Yaz sneak by me to win at .301. I finished 3rd behind Danny Cater. Danny Cater?

Hey, LAHOUD, did you know that I was an all-star my first nine seasons in the major leagues? And I managed to hit .407 in 54 post-season at bats. I'm a lock, baby!

P.S., don't forget about me. I was an all-star in my first eight seasons too!

Seriously, I have no doubt that Oliva would have been a Kaline-like Hall-of-famer had he not gotten hurt. But he did. I see no evidence that he was one of the best two or three players in baseball (as someone hypothesized) at any point during his eight-year run. He wouldn't be the worst Hall of Famer by any means, but I'm still not seeing why he was so great. (And believe me, I've been trying to convince myself to vote for him -- any time I find myself in disagreement with you, Tudor, VAL, mabrowndog, URI, 67Yaz, etc., my first thought is always that I'm missing something big.)

I probably would have rather have had Sparky Lyle traded for you than Danny Cater.

All right, all right . . . I'm going to get out my copy of Paths to Glory and see what you say about him. I still suspect I'm missing something, and I still don't know exactly what it is.

He had six seasons with a WARP1 above 7, but never had a WARP1 or WARP3 above 10. He had six seasons with 25 win shares, but only 1 above 30. If you take his best eight seasons, his WARP3 averages 7.0. Now, none of these figures are the be all and end all, but I worry that a vote for Oliva is a vote for Rusty Staub, Roy White, etc. That said, I'm still looking for something, and that metric you cite above gives me something to look at. (Same with your stats, VAL.) I may be changing my vote on Oliva.

But not Pinson.

A couple of other things, Delta ...
1. He was coming off his best season the year before he got hurt.
2. His 8 peak seasons (1964-1971) were during the height of pitcher dominance in the early Expansion Era.
3. Compare his numbers to Yaz during that time frame, since Yaz was his main hitting rival in the A.L. and was a certifiable HOFer.

1994 Ballot
Dave Bancroft
Sal Bando
Steve Carlton
Bobby Grich
Thurman Munson
Phil Niekro
Tony Oliva
Ted Simmons

1994 is a great year, with tons of borderline HOFers, but I never got around to long post about them.

Grich - top 8 2B, in my opinion.
Hunter
Niekro - a clear Hall of Famer in my eyes. Look for Niekro's bad season. There aren't any, but he had plenty of very good ones. Plenty.
Oliva
Bando - the best position player on the A's after Reggie.
Cey
Carlton - duh.
Guidry - had some good to great years.
Munson
Nettles
Sutton - a lot like Niekro, except he didn't throw the knuckleball.

1994 Ballot

Steve Carlton
Rollie Fingers
Catfish Hunter
Reggie Jackson
Sam McDowell
Phil Niekro
Pete Rose
Ted Simmons
Bruce Sutter
Don Sutton


In order to separate the wheat from chaff, compare Fingers saves numbers to see where he ranked. The following is from baseballreference.com's listing of top 10 finishes in saves during his 17 year career:

Saves
1969-12-9
1971-17-4
1972-21-3
1973-22-3
1974-18-4
1975-24-2
1976-20-3
1977-35-1
1978-37-1
1980-23-3
1981-28-1
1982-29-3
1984-23-6
1985-17-8

I find this a much more compelling comparisom than ERA+ or win shares, as it's a direct comparison of performance against peers.

I neglected Fingers 114 wins in my original post. Add to this the All Star appearances, MVPs, CY, and Rolaids relief awards mentioned previously, and it's an impresssive body of work. Fingers was in no way "a good, not great, pitcher, who happened to play for a great team and to sport facial hair that some found charismatic."

I agree with Lahoud in the hypothetical situation that the object is to win games and championships. Fingers did just that.

There should be more players elected from the A's during their heyday. However, Hunter and Fingers should make it in before Bando.

Too easy.

You made a good point here. If we are going to use Saves as a viable metric to compare closers, its more important to look at them in the context of their time rather than in totals, because the save has evolved over time. The win totals attest to the fact that Fingers often pitched multiple innings and not just with a lead.

Fingers was certainly an integral part - perhaps the integral part of the pitching staff, on those A's teams. ERA+ figures aside, Fingers was a pretty amazing figure in the context of his time. I still haven't decided when or even if I am going to vote for relief pitchers in this thread, but if I do, I think the door starts with Fingers.

Majordad-

Reggie Jackson was elected in the last round, as an FYI.

Two points:
1. Saves are much more a function of a manager's decision of how to use a player than of that player's ability. Did Mariano Rivera suddenly become a better pitcher when he moved into the closer's role? In 1996, he had 108 IP, an ERA+ of 242, and 5 saves. In 1997 he had 72 IP, an ERA+ of 235, and 43 saves. It seems obvious to me that he brought more to the table in 1996. Speaking of table, is Jose Mesa (319 saves, ERA+ of 101) a great pitcher? By your logic, he is.

2. You say Hunter should make it in before Bando, yet do not provide any evidence or even arguments to support this. Why do you believe this? According to both win shares and ERA+, Hunter was far from a great pitcher, and generally not even the ace of his own staff.

I do agree with Lahoud that the best point in Fingers's favor is his high number of IP. I don't think this is nearly enough to make up for the fact that he was not performing at a particularly high level while pitching those innings.

Clearly, we need a better set of metrics to study relief pitchers. I see both sides of the argument, your ERA+ side and the Save side that Major Dad is adhering to, but I find both arguments lacking in inclusiveness.

First, we have to look at relief pitching eras, since the roles and usage have changed. Its too difficult to compare Sparky Lyle with Trevor Hoffman, for instance, to predict how Hoffman would have done had he been used in the same way Lyle had been used, or vice versa.

In each era, perhaps we can look at some comparative statistical data, but we need some qualitative data too. We know, for instance, that Fingers was a top guy in the 1970's, but Mesa is certainly not a top guy in the modern era, so we can't compare them directly. It has to be done in the context of their times.

We may want to invent a new metric, perhaps something called a quality relief inning, where we establish something like zero RS and zero IRS as a quality inning. We could weight them - for instance max points for bases-loaded, no outs QI, and graded down from there. Such an endeavor would lead to many, many hours spent in Retrosheet (lol), but it would be awesome.

I really don't have time to do this right now - I've got too many irons in the fire, but I can't resolve the argument that compares Fingers to Rivera - its absolutely not fair. If someone wants to take the time to define relief pitching eras and do some comparitive research of contemporaries within those eras, I'd love to see it.
We can establish some sort of threshold, depending on the length of the eras, and begin to elect a certain number of relief pitchers (perhaps even old Firpo Marberry, Roy Face, Ron Perranoski, etc)

Until then, I think I'm going to refrain from voting on any relief pitchers.

I think people tend to overcomplicate the entire relief pitcher argument. The "save" stat just gets in the way, and no sensible person would use it. Do you know that the rule was substantially changed in 1974, and again in 1975? So the numbers don't even mean the same thing.

In the 1970s there were only a handful of pitchers used as the "primary" end-of-game guy. In 1975, maybe Fingers best season, the A's had 44 saves as a team, which was the most in the league, and Fingers had 24 of them. He also had 10 wins, and pitched 120 innings with a 2.90 ERA. They had a very good bullpen, and a manager that was not an idiot about using it. Some teams used their best relievers in the middle of the game, some when it was tied, some at the end. The pitchers who were used in a certain way got the saves. The four main relievers on the A's that year were 32-15, pitching 500 innings. The bullpen was phenomenal, and the main reason the team won 98 games.

I beg of you all. Do NOT break this up into eras and evaluate this. Do NOT rank save leaders and try to make sense of it. Please, Don't Do This. Go to baseball-reference.com, take a tube of white-out, and paint over the save column on every page. It is worthless, useless, garbage. For the love of God, please.


The way to evaluate relief pitchers is the same way you evaluate pitchers, or shortstops for that matter. How much did he pitch, how well did he pitch? Give appropriate bonus points for big games, post-season, winning, etc.

Fingers was a good pitcher for 120 innings a year. Rivera is a phenomenal pitcher for 70 innings a year. I think Fingers was better in his best years, but Rivera has been so incredible for so long that he has might have passed him in career value.

Other than Rivera, it is simply impossible to make up the difference in innings pitched though. The best relievers ever all pitched before 1990: Wilhelm, Gossage, Sutter, Quisenberry, Fingers, Lyle, something like that. The line, for me, is either right before or right after Gossage.

It's difficult to make an argument for a closer if saves are arbitrarily thrown out, so I won't even try. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

From Lahoud's list, I would elect Wilhelm, Fingers, Gossage and Sutter, in that order.

Lahoud- one question on an otherwise great post- inasmuch as usage, for a relief pitcher, is often determined by a managerial "philosophy" and not, as in Fingers' day (to use an example) simply performance, how does one interpret the premium relievers from the 90s until now? The 90+ IP premium reliever is more or less a thing of the past- unless we're talking about a spot starter/ long man.

I guess the more direct question would be- are you arguing that it's a general decline in relief quality? Since I don't think you are, how would you "interpret" the career of Trevor Hoffman, for example. Modern relief usage patterns dictated, through his career, that he appear in about 65-70 games a year for 75-80 IP, only at the end of the game with the team in the lead. This compromises his value- is this fair to him? I'm not sure it is, but I'm also not sure it matters. He pitched what he pitched.

I think it's an interesting question. I think there's certainly reason to believe that, extended to something like ~110 IP a year, Hoffman's career would change. I can't really think of an instance where we have to account for an entire subset of very valuable, quality players not being used often enough because of a "fad," or a pervasive managerial philosophy. There are certainly isolated examples, but this is an entire "position" on a roster.

I am sure relief pitchers are just as good, or better, than they ever were. But, individually, they are much less valuable, I think that is obvious. If Barry Bonds had played his entire career as a pinch-hitter, it would not effect how good he was (assuming he stayed the same player), but no one would argue that he was just as valuable as Willie Mays, would they?

I think the "bullpen" is just as valuable as ever. A 2006 bullpen throws almost the same number of innings as a 1975 bullpen did. But if four guys were doing the job that it takes seven to do today, it is clear that the individuals aren't as valuable as they used to be. They can't be. There is only so much value to go around.

Is this Trevor Hoffman's fault? Probably not. It is possible that Trevor Hoffman could have had a career as a 120 inning guy. We don't really know though.

I totally understand the declining value of the individual reliever, I guess the point I meant to raise was simply that this "problem"- the relative evaluation of modern relief pitchers- is something of an anomaly in player evaluations, in that the better players aren't being used more they're being used less (to oversimpify a bit), and in cases independent of their performances.

This is what clouds that evaluation to me. Do you evaluate that subset of the last 15 years of elite relievers against only their peers? Do you evaluate them against the entire group?

I'm not sure how you get past the idea that relievers are, first of all, failed starters. I don't mean this in the negative sense necessarily - rather the same way that second basemen are failed shortstops, leftfielders are failed center fielders, and bullpen coaches are failed catchers.

In Fingers' day, though, that was particularly true. Pitchers were pitchers, the came to the club and the best ones started, the other guys went to the bullpen. It was very unscientific. Guys who didn't start in the minors almost never made it to the big leagues.

Nowadays, guys are converted to relievers earlier in their careers. They are developed as relievers. At some point, however, someone decided that they didn't have a third pitch, or they lacked stamina, or control, or the dominance to be a starter.

Eckersley and Smoltz were excellent starters who were moved to the bullpen for stamina reasons after serious arm injuries. Both became excellent relievers. Neither were likely HOFers as starters however, so that again raises the question of how good the dedicated relievers really were/are.

So I want to know a couple of things about relief pitching before I decide that Rollie Fingers was better than Don McMahon, or that Mariano Rivera was better than Dennis Eckersley. I want to know at what point someone said, "This guy's too valuable as a reliever to be a starter." I want to know at what point a manager said, "Tom Terrific's probably got another inning or two in him, but I'm going to bring my ace reliever in because he's got better stuff." I don't know if anyone ever said either thing about Sparky Lyle, or Dick Radatz, or Bruce Sutter, or Jeff Reardon, or Rollie Fingers.

So if we are going to elect relievers I need to know why they deserve it above the contemporary starting pitchers who are on the borderline. How can we say Fingers deserves it more than Hunter, or Vida Blue, or Ken Holtzman or Blue Moon Odom? How can we say that Sutter deserves it over Blyleven, or Don Sutton, or Tommy John or Sudden Sam McDowell? How can we say that Rivera deserves it over David Cone, or Smoltz over Tommy Glavine?

1994 Ballot

Steve Carlton
Rollie Fingers
Bobby Grich
Catfish Hunter
Tony Oliva
Ted Simmons

Regarding the evaluation of relievers/closers, I'm currently working on collecting data to provide the basis of comparison. Besides Win Shares, ERA+, Saves and IP, I've also got Adjusted Runs Prevented (ARP) and Expected Wins over Replacement Level (WXRL). These should hopefully provide enough information to do a valid comparison. I intend on focusing on the following relievers:

Dennis Eckersley
Rollie Fingers
Rich Gossage
Trevor Hoffman
Mariano Rivera
Lee Smith
Bruce Sutter

Plus, I'll include anyone else with interesting stats (Dan Quisenberry?). Hopefully, I'll have the results up within the next few days.

Thanks, looking forward to your study. Yeah, you should definitely include Quis. He had virtually the same number of career IP as Sutter and a significantly better ERA+ (146 to 136), so it would seem prima facie that he was apples-to-apples better than Sutter. I'd also suggest including Tom Henke (ERA+ of 156, K/IP well over 1, but relatively low career IP).

Bob Stanley. Had some reallya awesome years as a reliever. Led the league in ERA+ one year without starting a game - he just threw 170 innings out of the pen.

Tomorrow is a crazy long day. The 1995 ballot will be up either late tomorrow night or Friday night. Just a heads up.

Lahoud - I have always though that Luis Tiant is a HOFamer (compare his numbers to first-timer Jim Hunter). What is your take on El Tiante?

On another subject, one of Roger Angell's better pieces in the '80's was his prolife on Quis. Hew was a HOF character as well.

Baseball Cards

By Dan Quisenberry

I look back
At who I thought I was
Or used to be
Now, trying to be funny
I tell folks
I used to be famous
I used to be good
They say
We thought you were bigger
I say
I was