58 Responses to “More walks than hits (yes, another list appearance by Adam Dunn)”

1. markjazz Says:
   September 21st, 2011 at 8:21 am

   How do players like Dane Sardinha manage to even make it to the majors for more than one season? Even his minor league numbers suck!

2. Detroit Michael Says:
   September 21st, 2011 at 8:46 am

   This inspired me to do a related search. Has any player, minimum of 1,000 plate appearances, ever had more walks than hits for his entire career?

   Yes, one guy: Mickey Lolich. Mickey had 105 walks and 90 hits in 1,017 plate appearances. Rather famously, he had no regular season homers but did hit one in the 1968 World Series.

3. Steven Page Says:
   September 21st, 2011 at 8:50 am

   I found it interesting that in 1973, Willy McCovey led the league in IBB with 25. In 2004 , Bonds probably got that many in a good month.

4. Steven Page Says:
   September 21st, 2011 at 8:52 am

   I can't believe I misspelled "Willie" . (Too much discussion of "Wily" Mo Pena:-)

5. Charles Says:
   September 21st, 2011 at 9:07 am

   Sort by SO, you'll see the 50% three true outcome players, of course.

   I noticed sorting by SO's put a lot of younger guys at the top of the list. Older players tended to have less SOs on the list, but that portion is dominated by the older Barry Bonds.

   Sort by IBB, subtract the IBB, first 8 batters fall off the list.

6. koma Says:
   September 21st, 2011 at 9:19 am

   the IBB aspect of this list is amazing:

   only Adam Dunn had no!! IBB, while the 2004 "(I)ntentional (B)arry (B)onds" had nearly as much IBB as hits (120/135) despite having nearly double as many hits as Dunn.

   Dunn even can get a qualifying season if he gets another 40 PA in the seasons last 10 games.

7. Larry R. Says:
   September 21st, 2011 at 9:27 am

   @4

   Does anyone else see the irony in a Wily Mo Pena mention in a blog about more walks than hits?!

8. Liam Says:
   September 21st, 2011 at 9:30 am

   why do we care about Bonds' numbers? they don't count

   he wont get into the hall becasue of sterioids and cheating, so why should he count for baseball-reference.com? i figure both institutions have enough integrity to recognize a cheat.

9. Richard Says:
   September 21st, 2011 at 9:33 am

   8 - they count; they happened. Nothing more needs to be said about it.

10. Andy Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Liam, so what should we do? Remove his numbers from the site? And who else? McGwire? Palmeiro? Sosa? Paul Byrd? Andy Pettitte? Ty Cobb for spiking? Gaylord Perry for spitballing? The numbers here represent facts of what actually happened in games--they themselves are not a commentary on the player or his behavior.

11. Brian Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 9:34 am

    Bonds's, not Bonds'.

    And they count because they happened. Statistics aren't something you can vote on whether they happened or not. They're just a collection of recorded data, unbiased by the subjective notion of "cheating."

    The Hall of Fame, on the other hand, is an elected honor, which means human judgment comes into play. Voters can decide for themselves whether any candidate deserves or doesn't deserve a vote.

    Baseball-reference.com collects statistics. All of them.

    The Hall of Fame uses human judgment.

    That's why Bonds's numbers count.

12. pauley Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 9:45 am

    Dunn has 7 less plate appearances than the other nine guys on the first list and 14 more strikeouts! But perhaps when people mention how bad a season he's had he can bring up Velez- 0-33! He's maybe the worst baseball player I've ever watched in person but couldn't you accidentally get a hit with 35 chances?

13. jiffy Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 9:48 am

    @11, Bonds' and Bonds's are correct, though I prefer the former. It's like how you could have said "The Hall of Fame uses human judgement" and still been correct.

    Anyway what in the hell happened to Big Donkey anyway? And has the White Sox hitting coach been fired?

14. MLB 2011 GDT: Week 24 Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 10:05 am

    [...] than hits over a season. It consists of Barry Bonds and a lot of people with low batting averages. http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/15220 Official sponsor of my daughter Sarah, SPOILERS!, and the St. Louis Cardinals Isa turn the [...]

15. Charles Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 10:08 am

    @1 Simple answer. Sardinha is a catcher.

    They keep him on the bench as a backup catcher in the minors and they wait until they need a backup catcher in the majors. (One of the typical two a team carries gets hurt). Then he goes to the majors and sits on the bench. He started 12 of 44 team games while he was in the majors. I guess they would rather have the starting AAA catcher play regularly in AAA than sit on the bench in the majors. He's not a September call-up player (4/59 career games).

    In his short stint this year, he had no errors, threw out 27% of the SB attempts (higher than the other two catchers and the league average) and particpated in 3 of the 7 double plays by catchers. His career fielding average in the majors is 0.998.

    I'm sure every team has a designated backup catcher in the minors. There were 109 catchers this year. 41 started fewer than 20 games. 20 started 81 or more.

16. nightfly Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd ever see Adam Dunn have a higher OBP than SLG, like some banjo-hitting 80's infielder. The guy's turning into Bobby Meachem before our eyes.

17. Andy Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Excellent eye, there Nightfly. Here are guys in the last 3 years to have OBP > SLG, minimum 450 PAs:

    Rk	Player	Year	OBP	SLG	PA	Age	Tm	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OPS	Pos
    1	Jamey Carroll	2011	.354	.342	487	37	LAD	138	433	48	124	14	5	0	14	44	57	.286	.696	*46
    2	Adam Dunn	2011	.296	.291	470	31	CHW	115	395	35	66	16	0	11	42	69	165	.167	.587	*D3/9
    3	Juan Pierre	2011	.335	.334	682	33	CHW	150	611	79	173	17	4	2	48	42	39	.283	.669	*7/D
    4	Elvis Andrus	2010	.342	.301	674	21	TEX	148	588	88	156	15	3	0	35	64	96	.265	.643	*6
    5	Yunel Escobar	2010	.337	.318	567	27	TOT	135	497	60	127	19	0	4	35	56	57	.256	.655	*6
    6	Chone Figgins	2010	.340	.306	702	32	SEA	161	602	62	156	21	2	1	35	74	114	.259	.646	*4
    7	Brett Gardner	2010	.383	.379	569	26	NYY	150	477	97	132	20	7	5	47	79	101	.277	.762	*78/D
    8	Cesar Izturis	2010	.277	.268	513	30	BAL	150	473	42	109	13	1	1	28	25	53	.230	.545	*6
    9	Jason Kendall	2010	.318	.297	490	36	KCR	118	434	39	111	18	0	0	37	37	45	.256	.615	*2
    10	Nyjer Morgan	2010	.319	.314	577	29	WSN	136	509	60	129	17	7	0	24	40	88	.253	.633	*8
    11	Juan Pierre	2010	.341	.316	734	32	CHW	160	651	96	179	18	3	1	47	45	47	.275	.657	*7D
    12	Ryan Theriot	2010	.321	.312	640	30	TOT	150	586	72	158	15	2	2	29	41	74	.270	.633	*46
    13	Luis Castillo	2009	.387	.346	580	33	NYM	142	486	77	147	12	3	1	40	69	58	.302	.732	*4
    14	Chone Figgins	2009	.395	.393	729	31	LAA	158	615	114	183	30	7	5	54	101	114	.298	.789	*5/4D7
    15	Tony Gwynn	2009	.350	.344	451	26	SDP	119	393	59	106	11	6	2	21	48	65	.270	.693	*89
    16	Nick Johnson	2009	.426	.405	574	30	TOT	133	457	71	133	24	2	8	62	99	84	.291	.831	*3
    17	Jason Kendall	2009	.331	.305	526	35	MIL	134	452	48	109	19	2	2	43	46	58	.241	.636	*2
    18	Russell Martin	2009	.352	.329	588	26	LAD	143	505	63	126	19	0	7	53	69	80	.250	.680	*2/D5

    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
    Generated 9/21/2011.
18. BSK Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Bonds hit one HR vs Paul Byrd. So, at the very least, he's on the list!

19. Minor Leaguer Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Ack! I was about to write something on this last night but decided to get sleep and got scooped.

    @6 I was gonna write about how Adam Dunn one of two players in since 1955 (when the IBB stat was introduced) to have >400 PA with more walks than hits AND to have 0 IBB in a season. Eddie Yost was the other, and he did it in 1955.

    You can take a look at the list here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=s1TyK.

20. Andrew Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 11:10 am

    Jack Clark, Jimmy Wynn, and Gene Tenace all put up more than 48 WAR - close to the HoF threshold. If you go by Adam Darowski's Hall of wWAR (peak-weighted WAR, with some positional adjustments), Tenace is actually in the HOF because of the lower threshold for catchers (he's the 11th best catcher by WAR, 10th best by wWAR).

21. Minor Leaguer Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 11:10 am

    And Eddie Yost's nickname? "The Walking Man"

22. Identity Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 11:13 am

    To 11,

    The hof voting system needs an overhaul because most of the voters are using it to unleash their own personal feelings/reasoning instead of using baseball stats to decide if one is worthy of being inducted. Bonds was never a popular character with the media so they have a grudge against him. If a racist like Ty Cobb can get in and Bonds can't, then it's a shame because the hof isn't a game of personal behavior but they're playing it like it is.

23. oneblankspace Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 11:15 am

    Interesting that Bonds '01 and McGwire '98 both had more HR than singles. There may be others I haven't found yet.

24. Lawrence Azrin Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 11:18 am

    @9/ Richard "8 - they count; they happened. Nothing more needs to be said about it."

    Agreed, Richard; also as #11/Brian states, baseball statistics are nothing more than the the recording of the actual events on a baseball field as they happened. It's hard enough to evaluate the actual numbers; to pretend that performances never happened because of PED performances is absurd.

    That's not to say to that numbers cannot be placed in the context of their era,park, and conditions. If you wish to discount certain performances of Bonds in your subjective evaluation of him, fine, but to state that Bonds' numbers shouldn't be listed on the site is ridiculous.

    @16/ Nightfly - Adam Dunn/2011 is like a hitter's version of Steve Blass/1973 (WAR of -5.8!!) - discuss amongst yourselves...

25. Lawrence Azrin Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 11:53 am

    @20/ Andrew - I've seen Gene Tenace-for-the-HOF-talk before, but I don't consider him a strong candidate.

    While he was an interesting player, his career was awfully short (1555 games/ 5525 PA), he didn't have that many full seasons (six years of 140+ games), and he was seldom a full-time catcher (only two years of 100+ games caught). Also, I don't think he deserves a huge "catcher bonus", as he was universally considered below-average defensively, adequate at best.

    He did have a decent peak from 1973-79, he sure could hit HRs and take his walks, and he was on a lot of playoff teams. Maybe if the A's stuck him on first base in 1970 and left him there, he could've had a nice 2000+ game career. But based on the actual numbers, there's just too many other players better qualified for the HOF than him.

26. Andy Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 11:57 am

    Tenace really did have a weird career. He had a great and long peak of 8 seasons from 1973 to 1980 with an OPS+ of 138 while averaging 147 games, but played only a few hundred other games before and after that peak. If he had a bunch of 100-105 OPS+ seasons before and after that peak, he'd probably be in the HOF. Weird that it comes down to having some average seasons.

27. Hartvig Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    As always, it's a great day when there's a Rob Deer sighting. Oneblankspace, the redoubtable Mr. Deer has a season in which he meets both your and Andy's criteria and throws in a new one to boot. In 1996 in 64 plate appearances he managed 9 hits with 14 walks and hit 3 doubles & 4 home runs meaning he had more walks than hits and more home run AND more doubles than singles.

    The man just keeps on giving.

28. Artie Z Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Jack Clark - would his HOF prospects look any different if he had won the MVP in 1987? He didn't help himself by getting hurt at the end of the season, but that was a pretty big year.

    I was wondering who is on the list pre-1971. I would have guessed the Babe would be on the list but he's not - he doesn't really come close (within 20) until 1934 when he had 105 hits and 104 walks. It was his age 39 season.

    Pre-1900 there are two players - Yank Robinson and Jack Crooks - who each did it twice.

    Then there is a gap until Max Bishop shows up - 5 times. I'm always suspicious that there is missing data when I see a gap that large, but maybe it just didn't happen in the deadball era, the teens, and the 1920s and 1930s (outside of Bishop).

    In the 1940s 5 players combined to do this 7 times - Ott, Stanky (2x), Joost (2x), Cullenbine, and Greenberg.

    The 1950s saw 4 players - Wes Westrum, Ted Williams, and Ed Yost (2x).

    The 1960s saw 2 players - Jimmy Wynn and Mickey Mantle (2x).

    It seems like a similar type of list - HOFers (Mantle, Williams, Ott, Greenberg) surrounded by some players who were probably underrated while they played.

29. Mark T. Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    Gene Tenace had such an odd career. I have a tough time understanding guys like him who have a high OBP but a really low batting average. Obviously Tenace must have had a great eye at the plate and been very patient to get all those walks. Because he took so many walks, presumably when he did swing the bat he wasn't hacking away at bad pitches out of the strike zone. So how come he made so many outs when he actually swung the bat? I don't get it.

30. Andy Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    Regarding both Tenace and Dunn, here are players with a career OBP at least 50% higher than their batting average (minimum 1000 plate appearances):

    Rk	Player	PA	OBP	BA	From	To	Age	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	IBB	SO	HBP	SLG	OPS	Pos	Tm
    1	Eddie Yost	9175	.394	.254	1944	1962	17-35	2109	7346	1215	1863	337	56	139	683	1614	15	920	99	.371	.765	*5/37964	WSH-DET-LAA
    2	Eddie Joost	6783	.361	.239	1936	1955	20-39	1575	5606	874	1339	238	35	134	601	1043	2	827	33	.366	.727	*64/53	CIN-BSN-PHA-BOS
    3	Adam Dunn	6535	.374	.244	2001	2011	21-31	1563	5370	900	1312	282	10	365	922	1059	107	1797	75	.504	.879	*739/D	CIN-TOT-WSN-CHW
    4	Max Bishop	5779	.423	.271	1924	1935	24-35	1340	4494	966	1216	236	35	41	379	1156	0	452	31	.366	.789	*4/36	PHA-BOS
    5	Mickey Tettleton	5745	.369	.241	1984	1997	23-36	1485	4698	711	1132	210	16	245	732	949	72	1307	30	.449	.818	*2D39/7	OAK-BAL-DET-TEX
    6	Gene Tenace	5525	.388	.241	1969	1983	22-36	1555	4390	653	1060	179	20	201	674	984	58	998	91	.429	.817	*23/59D47	OAK-SDP-STL-PIT
    7	Eddie Stanky	5435	.410	.268	1943	1953	27-37	1259	4301	811	1154	185	35	29	364	996	0	374	35	.348	.758	*4/65	CHC-TOT-BRO-BSN-NYG-STL
    8	Eddie Lake	3199	.366	.231	1939	1950	23-34	836	2595	442	599	105	9	39	193	546	0	312	8	.323	.689	*6/451	STL-BOS-DET
    9	Wes Westrum	2849	.356	.217	1947	1957	24-34	920	2322	302	503	59	8	96	315	489	9	514	19	.373	.729	*2/5	NYG
    10	Jack Cust	2581	.374	.242	2001	2011	22-32	670	2107	311	510	96	2	105	323	444	12	819	12	.439	.813	*D79	ARI-COL-BAL-SDP-OAK-SEA
    11	Ken Phelps	2287	.374	.239	1980	1990	25-35	761	1854	308	443	64	7	123	313	390	28	449	21	.480	.854	*D3/9	KCR-MON-SEA-TOT
    12	Chris Iannetta	1716	.357	.235	2006	2011	23-28	452	1417	194	333	72	9	62	231	238	15	378	39	.430	.787	*2/35D	COL
    13	Red Faber	1550	.240	.134	1914	1933	25-44	670	1269	98	170	21	2	3	70	169	0	479	8	.161	.401	*1	CHW
    14	Hooks Dauss	1318	.284	.189	1912	1926	22-36	545	1124	107	212	41	14	6	107	141	0	288	8	.266	.550	*1/8	DET
    15	Lance Blankenship	1292	.350	.222	1988	1993	24-29	461	1050	176	233	48	3	9	92	200	2	218	11	.299	.649	4/7985D36	OAK
    16	Tommy Glaviano	1246	.395	.257	1949	1953	25-29	389	1008	191	259	55	6	24	108	208	0	173	21	.395	.789	*5/48679	STL-PHI
    17	Mark Bailey	1126	.337	.220	1984	1992	22-30	340	949	101	209	37	1	24	101	166	23	222	3	.337	.674	*2/3	HOU-SFG
    18	Urban Shocker	1046	.334	.209	1916	1928	25-37	412	798	89	167	23	3	1	70	139	0	211	11	.249	.584	*1	NYY-SLB
    19	Mickey Lolich	1017	.215	.110	1963	1979	22-38	592	821	63	90	5	2	0	31	105	0	362	5	.121	.335	*1	DET-NYM-SDP

    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
    Generated 9/21/2011.
31. Andrew Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    I'm not saying that Tenace should be in or out - the Hall of wWAR isn't my project, although I do think that overall it does a much better job than the real Hall. Obviously any adjustment that gives a boost to players who had a strong peak is going to help out Tenace, and he also benefits from being lumped in with the catchers even if he wasn't purely a catcher. Tenace, with his .241 career batting average, received almost no consideration for the Hall when his time on the ballot rolled around, but he was a great hitter, especially for his position. If you count him as a catcher, he's probably one of the dozen or so best to ever play that position, which is HoF level.

    Tenace's career arc reminds me a lot of Thurman Munson's - though obviously for different reasons, both of their careers consisted almost entirely of a sustained peak. Tenace was more patient and a better hitter overall, but Munson was better defensively, yet it's easy to imagine that Munson (who had already begun to decline) could have played a few more average seasons and retired. As a single-team player he would have received strong HoF consideration - even given his premature death, he did far better than Tenace on the HoF ballot. Bill Freehan, who went one-and-done on the ballot several years earlier than Tenace, is another catcher who comes to mind.

32. Lawrence Azrin Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    @28/ Artie Z. - I don't think Jack Clark's HOF chances would've improved much, even if he had won the 1987 MVP. Juan Gonzalez won _two_ MVPs, but barely got 5% of the vote last year. Clark might have got more than 5% of the vote his first year (he got 1.5% in 1998), but that's it.

    As for why there are no players with BB>hits in the deadball era, in general there were fewer walks then, as a premium was placed on contact for place-hitting. The poor gloves and bad field conditions meant that making hard contact and placing the ball in play was more likely to result in getting on base than in recent times, so fewer players worked the count deep often, resulting in walks.

    That's not to say that no players walked a lot the 1st two decades last century - there was Topsey Hartzel, Roy Thomas, Donnie Bush, Jimmy Sheckard, and Miller Huggins, for starters...

    I think the really great hitters like Ruth, Foxx, and Mantle who also walk a lot don't make the list of BB>hits, simply because their BA was so high in their high BB years (Bonds being the exception).

33. Jeff Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    To ever suggest that Bonds shouldn't be in the HOF is absurd. His numbers through age 34(before his head and body became huge) look like this compared to other legendary players at that age.

    Bonds had more runs scored than Griffey Jr, Ted Williams, Man Ram and Palmeiro
    more doubles than Mays, Ruth, Griffey and Williams
    triples than Williams, Griffey, Ramirez, Ott and Palmeiro
    HR's than Williams and palmeiro
    BB's than Mays, Foxx, Aaron, Ott, Williams, Palmeiro, Griffey
    SB than Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Ott, Williams, Palmeiro, Foxx, Griffey and F. Robinson
    Higher OBP than Mays, Aaron, Griffey and Palmeiro
    Higher OBP+ than Griffey, Aaron, Ott, Palmeiro, and Manny Ramirez

    This is all before the 2000 season. I wonder, he dominated Griffey in almost every category but HR and RBI and that was solely based on his huge lead on Griffey's walk total (1430-984). Griffey is a HOF player in everyone's eyes yet Bonds isn't?

34. Hector Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    If Paul Byrd is not HOF eligible I'm going to start watching women's golf

35. BSK Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    The HOF is a museum that documents the history of baseball. As all museums do, they must limit what they choose to exhibit. For any museum to exclude an exhibit as relevant as Barry Bonds is to the history of baseball is to forever call into question its legitimacy.

36. Andrew Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    @33 Jeff: Palmeiro was a great baseball player, but he's not exactly the guy that comes to mind when I think "legendary." I must admit that I'm curious as to why you included him on your list. did you include him on your list?

    Also, I'm pretty sure that Bonds is a Hall of Famer in most rational baseball fans' eyes. No one in this thread besides #8 Liam has suggested otherwise, so please don't lump us all together and say that 'everyone' doesn't view Bonds as a HoFer. Additionally, those people who don't think Bonds belongs in the HoF probably wouldn't base their argument on his statistics - traditional or sabermetric, pre-steroids or post-steroids - but rather on the subjective view that players who cheated do not belong in the HoF regardless of the quality of their performance.

37. kds Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    @ 35 My response to people who say Pete Rose should be in the HoF is that he is in the museum. There are probably few players with more balls, gloves, bats, etc. there. But put up a placque celebrating someone who broke one of baseballs best known and most important rules? Hell no! (Actually I do support Bonds for enshrinement, but the museum and what we mean when we generally say "Hall of Fame" can be seperated.)

    @30 Nice table, Andy. Notice how much Tettleton's career resembles Tenace. Tenace was in the league 1969-1983, Tettleton from 1984-1997. So there was a low BA, high OBP, good power, low GIDP, sort of catcher, named "T" around for almost 30 years.

38. The Original Jimbo Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    I thought Matt Stairs would be on there but he ended up with 10 hits and 9 walks.

39. The Original Jimbo Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Bonds has 3 batting averages on that list that are more than double 2011 Dunn's.

    Did Eddie Yost clone himself and create Eddie Joost or vice versa? Such similar players, such similar and yet unusual names....

40. Lawrence Azrin Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    @35/ BSK - To play devil's advocate, the baseball HOF in Cooperstown has exhibits that include material by banned players such as Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson, they just don't have HOF plaques for those two players. Pete Rose was a huge part of baseball for a quarter-century, but somehow the baseball HOF has survived without him inducted into the HOF.

    What the baseball HOF exhibits in the museum, and what specific players get their plaques added to the room of HOFers in the HOF, are two totally different arguments. I've often heard people argue for Roger Maris along those lines, "you can't tell the history of baseball without including him in the HOF". Well fine, give Maris an exhibit in Cooperstown, but he's still not close to _belonging_ in the HOF as an inductee.

    This isn't meant as a direct criticism BSK, just a clarification of your wording. I do think Bonds should be in the HOF, but don't expect it soon.

41. Cheese Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    @8: wow, but then what do you expect from a Fox News listener. I want to live in my own personal bubble where history didn't happen and my mommy tells me I'm special. lol.

42. Lawrence Azrin Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    @37, @40 - I see Kds made my argument in about half the words, nice job.

43. Andy Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    Cheese, I don't see a lot of comments from you on this blog, but they pretty much always put a smile on my face. I'd like to see more from you.

44. Johnny Twisto Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    I always forget Eddie Lake as the 4th of the "Walking Eddies."

    I agree an MVP wouldn't have gotten Jack Clark close to the HOF. Still, he was a tremendous hitter who deserves to be remembered. I often think of him as pair with Pedro Guerrero. Guerrero didn't walk as much, but they were both defensively-challenged, injury-prone players in poor offensive environments who could hit the hell out of the ball.

    FWIW, my pick for the '87 MVP is Ozzie Smith, but Clark would have been a decent choice too, better than Dawson. As would about 8 or 10 other guys.

45. John Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    (Sorry, I can never shake free the Red Sox fan in me...)

    Disappointing to see Anthony Rizzo get so overmatched in his first shot in the bigs. Hopefully, he matures as a hitter and succeeds in the bigs, because everyone wants to root for the cancer survivor.

    I still hold out hope for the day when, during an interleague Pads/Sox game, we get to see Jon Lester (cancer), Anthony Rizzo (cancer) and Ryan Westmoreland (brain surgery) on the field at once.

46. Steven Page Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    #29, Besides the wear and tear of catching, Tenace was usually in the top ten in being hit by pitches. Not blessed with blazing speed to begin with, he didn't beat out many grounders. By the time he got to the Padres, and i got to see him play Atlanta a lot, he was stating to slow down.

    He was, and still is, one of my all time favorites.

47. BSK Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 9:00 pm

    LA-

    Great point. There are ways of including folks without enshrining them. My specific comment was aimed at the folks who insist we should pretend Bonds didn't exist. Which is just silly.

    Personally, I would vote Bonds in and not think twice about it. I don't think Rose is quite so clear cut, because gambling and PEDs are apples and oranges to me (and I'm no gambling prude... I just think there are major issues surrounding a player or coach betting on games involving his own team). Was Rose actually playing when he bet? Or solely managing? I thought he was a player-coach for a while. That would actually be a factor for me. If I had a vote. Which I don't.

48. BSK Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    Sorting by OBP, it is interesting the gap that emerges. The top 20 all put up absurd to great to good OBPs, ranging from .609 (!!!) to .367. Then you've got #21 (Deere) at .314 and #22 (Dunn) at .292.

49. Bryan Monkhouse Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 11:39 pm

    Rose and Bonds , Shoeless Joe-- Of course, as many have said, their accomplishments belong in the museum as part of the history; but as inductees, I am shocked that anyone could even consider their candidacy. Sure, all three would have walked into the Hall (which didn't exist in Jackson's day) based on their skills and accomplishments as players if they had just not cheated late in their careers - @33, Bonds was a great player whose statistics easily would have qualified him, but ,like Jackson and Rose before him, he voluntarily disqualified himself .
    When a player is inducted into the Hall , he is being honored by his sport, by cheating, he dishonors the sport, and in fact makes a mockery of the competition, since fair play is the essence of sporting competition; there's plenty of cheating and scheming and double-dealing in the rest of life, Wall street fleeces investors for billions, nobody gets prosecuted and 3 years later honest folks can't get a job ah but we can escape into sports,because over on the playing field, there everyone plays by the rules and the winner has done it fair and square
    Rules for being inducted into the hall of fame
    1. Have a career of excellence
    2. Don't get caught breaking the rules
    was Cobb a racist?, yes, like the majority of his teammates
    did Ruth cork his bat? maybe, he didn't get caught.
    was Mantle a skirt-chasing drunk? yep, but baseball has no rules against it.

    We don't need the HOF to tell us who the best players are and were; The record speaks for itself ; Bonds' numbers belong right here;and show us he was one of the best that ever played. He has no business in Cooperstown

50. Chris Waters Says:
    September 22nd, 2011 at 12:40 am

    He has no business in Cooperstown

    And you really have no business pontificating. Rose clearly BROKE the rules. Clearly. Bonds did not. Clearly. How narrow-minded are you to not differentiate between the two? Please take a look at "Only Baseball matters" for the details. I really enjoy this blog, but stuff like this is so inane. What you say in total is really well-reasoned and thought-out, so please leave the moral judgments to idiots like Brown and Passan at yahoo: they get paid for being the enforcers of morality for the whole of western civilization ( even though they probably can't spell "civilization" )..

    Still, you are a heck of a lot better than the dimwit that is Liam. Hey, Liam, you never cheated on your Income Tax forms? Never looked at someone else's answers in grade school? Never strayed from your GF or BF? Why don't you get off your high horse and GET A LIFE!

    I apologize to everyone else other than Liam for this rant.

51. groundball Says:
    September 22nd, 2011 at 1:03 am

    Well, even for his time Cobb was more a racist than his contemporaries. (Dude, was "insanely" racist)

    with PEDs regardless, I cant take them into account really (other than maybe how inflated were their stats, thanks to it) with the Hall of Fame. Like it or not, baseball ignored it and didnt set up rules dealing with it till many of those in question were retired or nearly so. (and I'd love to keep Bonds out, I loathed the guy, but if I was voting I'd still have to vote for him first ballot. It shouldnt be about like/dislike, it should be good enough or not-though good enough should be where the subjectiveness come into it)

52. Detroit Michael Says:
    September 22nd, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Several posters on both sides of the "should Barry Bonds be inducted into the Hall of Fame" should show more tolerance for opposing viewpoints. There are reasonable arguments going both ways on the issue. It is not "absurd," "shocking" or "inane" to hear a viewpoint that differs from your own.

53. Bryan Monkhouse Says:
    September 22nd, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Detroit Michael is right, we need to tone down the rhetoric. For my part, in the spirit of tolerance, I withdraw the "shocking" and replace it with
    "I am shocked" which is a report on my reaction, rather than an implied comment on opposing points of view. To respond to Chris Walters, I have made , and do make, no "moral judgments" , on racism, cheating, or any other human activity , We are talking about who "belongs" in the HOF; If Cobb was the greatest racist of all time, it would have precisely zero relevance on that question. Rather, I have tried to point out that cheating and getting caught has consequences, one of which, historically , has been ineligibility for the HOF. If Bonds didn't cheat; then of course he belongs in the hall on the basis of his record. If he did, he doesn't ; Chris and I have polar opposite views on whether he did or not, but it's not a moral question , but one that ultimately will be judged by a jury ( the voters) . I don't get a vote, but IMHO, he, and several other stars of the early part of this century with a similar history,should not be inducted.

54. Andy Says:
    September 22nd, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    I also agree with Detroit Michael. Without rhetoric, though, #50 is right. Rose very clearly broke rules in a very black-and-white fashion with clear evidence (and admission). It is not clear that there is any proof that Bonds broke any MLB rules (remembering specifically the timeline that various rules were implemented.)

    I'm sure Rose is not the only player or manager to have bet on games in which he participated. But in the absence of proof that any of the other guys actually did it, they cannot be banned, and for Bonds it's the same way.

55. Bryan Monkhouse Says:
    September 22nd, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    As to Timeline; Major league Baseball has banned steroids implicitly since 1971, and explicitly since Commissioner Fay Vincent's June 7, memo.
    Each team and the players' union received the memo, which begins, "This memorandum sets forth Baseball's drug policy." The memo goes on to say, "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited.... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."
    So, any player who used steriods after June 7, 1991, deliberately broke the rules of major league baseball.
    Of course it is true to state that the period from 1991- 2002 was characterized by
    1) NO enforcement of the rules by MLB
    2) growing public outrage that the game was being made a mockery of

    the result, under pressure from congress, was the 2002 basic agreement, which for some , means that PED's were effectively only banned in the 2003 season. this is incorrect, as the 2007 Mitchell report clearly stated, and I quote:
    "Many have asserted that steroids and other performance enhancing substances were not banned in Major League Baseball before the 2002 Basic Agreement. This is not accurate. Beginning in 1971 and continuing today, Major League Baseball's drug policy has prohibited the use of any prescription medication without a valid prescription. By implication, this prohibition applied to steroids even before 1991, when Commissioner Fay Vincent first expressly included steroids in baseball's drug policy. Steroids have been listed as a prohibited substance under the Major League Baseball drug policy since then, although no player was disciplined for steroid use before the prohibition was added to the collective bargaining agreement in 2002.

    "It is also inaccurate to assert, as some have, that baseball's drug policy was not binding on players before it was added to the collective bargaining agreement. Many players were suspended for drug offenses before 2002, even though none of those suspensions related to the use of steroids or other performance enhancing substances. Some suspensions were reduced in grievance arbitrations brought by the Players Association, but no arbitrator ever has questioned the authority of the Commissioner to discipline players for 'just cause' based on their possession, use, or distribution of prohibited drugs."

    As to "Proof" , well, what is "proof" ? The standard that juries are told to adopt is the absence of reasonable doubt; If you have a reasonable doubt that player x used steriods after 1991,when it first became crystal-clear that they were banned, then you have no proof.

    The Rose case is instructive; the evidence against him would never have stood up in court; yet we "know" that he was guilty; MLB new that their evidence was weak , and that a competent attorney would drive a truck through it; therefore they cut a deal with him; he agreed to be banned for life, in exchange for no official finding by MLB that he had bet on games. Pete was suckered; we the fans didn't need an "official" finding , and he has been guilty ever since.

56. Andy Says:
    September 22nd, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    #55, that's true enough regarding timeline, and clearly Bonds or anybody else who used steroids was doing something they knew they shouldn't have. However, I'll still call out the difference between Fay Vincent's decree and the rules about gambling, which are explicit in terms of definition and punishment. There are tons of rules in MLB that get broken all the time, and the punishments range from ignoring them to severe...but to my mind, Vincent's statement about PEDs is pretty much the same as the third base coaching box...nobody paid attention to the rules and there was no clear discipline. Even though it's clearly wrong, it's still not the same as Rose.

57. Bryan Monkhouse Says:
    September 22nd, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    Andy, a reasonable point of view; as to punishment, though, Vincent stated in 1991 that violators risked "expulsion from the game" and , while there are many rules that get broken all the time, very few have a lifetime ban as their ultimate sanction. Rose broke one of those, PED users broke another. So for those few rules, whether or not they were effectively enforced , we are justified in viewing their breach as extremely serious.

58. BSK Says:
    September 22nd, 2011 at 9:05 pm

    Was Bonds under the supervision of a doctor? If he was, he didn't break baseball's rules, as they have been explained here.