The Baseball Book Club discussion

This will be an unofficial book of the month here as more than one member has expressed interest in reading this one. Feel free to join in.

I enjoyed this book alot. It is a great trip back into a classic era of baseball with the great Dodgers pitching and the upstart Baltimore Orioles.

Although the Dodgers were heavily favored, the Orioles had a terrific team and may have been underrated by those who picked the Dodgers.

The author does a good job of explaining what the Orioles had and how the trade for Frank Robinson was the missing piece. I loved the quote from one of the Oriole pitchers when Frank first climbed into the batting cage in Florida and ripped a vicious line drive to left: "We just won the pennant."

The author provides a very good explanation of the key plays in the Series, starting with the back to back home runs in the first game by the Robinson boys that set the tone for the Series and let everyone know the Orioles were not intimidated by their more seasoned opponents.

He details Sandy Koufax's last game and the terrible strain he had been under throughout his last season, even as he pitched brilliantly and was worn out the last week to help the team win the pennant.

Overall, a good baseball book and a worthwhile read.

I enjoyed this book alot. It is a great trip back into a classic era of baseball with the great Dodgers pitching and the upstart Baltimore Orioles.

Although the Dodgers were heavily favored, the Orioles had a terrific team and may have been underrated by those who picked the Dodgers.

The author does a good job of explaining what the Orioles had and how the trade for Frank Robinson was the missing piece. I loved the quote from one of the Oriole pitchers when Frank first climbed into the batting cage in Florida and ripped a vicious line drive to left: "We just won the pennant."

The author provides a very good explanation of the key plays in the Series, starting with the back to back home runs in the first game by the Robinson boys that set the tone for the Series and let everyone know the Orioles were not intimidated by their more seasoned opponents.

He details Sandy Koufax's last game and the terrible strain he had been under throughout his last season, even as he pitched brilliantly and was worn out the last week to help the team win the pennant.

Overall, a good baseball book and a worthwhile read.

I read the book several years ago and also enjoyed it. While I am a Dodger fan at heart, it was interesting to read how the Orioles had put the pieces together to make themselves into a World Series team.

My other impression was that the Dodgers were a bit older and worn out, and not just Koufax. The main cogs in the engine were starting to show their age and when Sandy retired there wasn't enough talent left on the team to make up for his absence. Which is why 1966 was the last WS appearance of the Sixties for LA and it would be eight long years before they managed to get back.

A very good baseball book. And I have to say that I wish Adelman would write another one soon. He has been off the radar for far too long.

James wrote: "I read the book several years ago and also enjoyed it. While I am a Dodger fan at heart, it was interesting to read how the Orioles had put the pieces together to make themselves into a World Serie..."

Worn out describes the condition of Maury Wills. His legs were like raw meat after all the pounding he took. Yet O'Malley forced him to play in Japan that winter, after a bitter dispute, that would ultimately lead to a trade to Pittsburgh.

Jason Star

They may be separated by just 100 miles of Jersey Turnpike, but it became clear this week that the Mets and Phillies are moving in two different directions in what once looked like a parallel search for a new president of baseball operations.

In Queens, the Mets hauled out the front office version of the hidden-ball trick, keeping the ball in the glove of their once and future baseball-ops horse, Sandy Alderson. But meanwhile, in Philadelphia, the Phillies were actually picking up the pace this week in their own hunt for a new president.

According to industry sources, the Phillies have now interviewed at least three candidates from outside their organization, including multiple meetings this week. One, as previously reported by The Athletic, was former Marlins president of baseball ops Michael Hill, who sources said was interviewed Wednesday. There are strong indications that Josh Byrnes, the Dodgers’ senior VP of baseball operations, also met with the Phillies this week.

The names of the other candidates interviewed aren’t currently known. But one name you can scratch off their list is the biggest candidate of all, Theo Epstein.

Sources who have spoken with Epstein told The Athletic that the Phillies’ managing partner, John Middleton, made contact with the outgoing Cubs president of baseball ops. But the Phillies were informed that Epstein isn’t interested in the job at this time. As expected, Epstein intends to step away from the front-office grind for at least a year.

Through a spokesperson, Middleton again declined comment. But as his search widens for candidates to head a revamped front office following the decision to “reassign” GM Matt Klentak last month, other clubs now have a more clear sense of the Phillies’ plans.

Executives from those teams say the Phillies have now reached out to a number of teams — in some cases to ask permission to speak with people on their list, in others to get a feel for how much interest those people have in the job. Based on those contacts, it seems likely that they will speak with additional candidates in the next few days and could begin bringing back a smaller group for a second round as soon as next week.

The Phillies have asked candidates and their employers to keep the names on their list confidential. But sources who have been in touch with them say the Phillies’ focus has been on a mix of established current names, rising front-office stars and people who have run successful front offices in the recent past.

Philadelphia began their search by casting a wide net of experienced candidates, according to other clubs. But in some cases, the team has run into the same issues as the Mets and Angels, who were also unable to get permission to pursue several names on their lists.

As The Athletic previously reported, the group of executives that has been declared off-limits includes the Indians’ Chris Antonetti and Mike Chernoff, Oakland’s David Forst and Tampa Bay’s Erik Neander. There are indications the Phillies also have inquired about several big names beyond that group, but were rebuffed.

Execs from other clubs say the one common theme the Phillies have communicated is an effort to prioritize candidates with a track record of winning. So they portray the Phillies as a team searching for someone in the mold of a Jed Hoyer, who just ascended to the job of president of baseball operations with the Cubs after years working alongside Epstein, both in Boston and Chicago.

Hoyer obviously isn’t available. But just last week, The Athletic identified other candidates who could fit that profile — names such as Byrnes, former Angels GM/Yankees assistant GM Billy Eppler, Twins GM Thad Levine and Dodgers assistant GM Jeff Kingston, as well as Cardinals GM Michael Girsch, whose name hadn’t surfaced earlier.

The Phillies may also interview executives with extensive track records who have won in previous stops but aren’t currently running teams. Among the names previously floated from that group are Giants executive vice president Brian Sabean, former Dodgers GM Ned Colletti, former Rockies general manager Dan O’Dowd and former Cubs GM Jim Hendry.

Dave Dombrowski, currently serving as an advisor to a potential expansion team in Nashville, was almost certainly on the Phillies’ list. But Dombrowski has told The Athletic on multiple occasions that he remains committed to the organization in Tennessee.

In addition to this group, there are indications the Phillies have begun assembling an early list of candidates to work as a general manager under the new president of baseball operations. Their preference is to fill the bigger job first. But among the names of current assistant GMs previously published in The Athletic as possible GMs are Kansas City’s J.J. Picollo, Arizona’s Amiel Sawdaye and Jared Porter, Oakland’s Billy Owens and Kingston.

It also remains possible, however, that the Phillies won’t rush to hire anyone on either list for now. Middleton has told other clubs that his No. 1 priority, in his search for a president of baseball ops, is to find the optimal combination of vision and experience, not to make a hire just to appease an impatient fan base.

So if he decides the timing isn’t right, or the field isn’t right, or his preferred candidates aren’t anxious to change teams during a pandemic, he still could put the search on hold, much as the Mets did. A lot can change in baseball in a year, especially in a sport still grappling with pandemic-related uncertainty about the future.

Maybe by next offseason, Epstein could decide he’s interested. Or candidates who aren’t available now could be available then. Or someone who says no this winter might be more inclined to say yes down the road.

For now, just as Alderson is in place in New York to steer the Mets’ ship, the Phillies still have team president Andy MacPhail (whose contract expires after next season) and interim GM Ned Rice to handle the decision-making. But with pivotal decisions awaiting — on free-agent catcher J.T. Realmuto, free-agent shortstop Didi Gregorius and the need to blow up a historically shaky bullpen and put the pieces back together — there will be immense pressure to get all of this right.

So as opposed to the Mets, where the path is now clear, the Phillies’ picture remains murky. But suddenly, after weeks of slow-motion list-making, their push to find the right front-office visionary to lift that haze is now picking up steam by the day.

(Photo of John Middleton: Mitchell Leff / Getty Images)
k on the Phillies and Mets search for front office men.
"

Thanks for all the feedback on this book. I am starting it on Tuesday as part of a challenge in another group so it looks like this will be quite good.

I read most of the book offline today and will finish tonight or tomorrow morning. Dodgers do indeed appear to be an aging juggernaut and it was only a matter of time that someone beat them. Still for Sandy to lose his last game the way he did and not really be responsible. That hurt.

Well I finished and for other group it’s within the 7 days so I still get the points. You all know that other than the Cubs, if Sandy or Jackie is in a book, I’m inclined to read it. Jackie is mentioned in passing so that wins brownie points from me. It’s saddening the end of Sandy’s career. I’m wondering the way his arm gave out if the new surgery pioneered by Tommy John would have even helped. Arm was like a balloon after each start and having to ice it down in a bath afterward, was it even worth the pain he went through. I like the comparison the author makes to Jim Brown who bowed out early that year as well. That the Orioles won almost seems like an afterthought only because I knew going in that this was Sandy’s last season.

Other note that got me aggravated was how ignorant people were. The fans at Baltimore’s bar scene noting how G-D was punishing Sandy for pitching on Yom Kippur. Did they know so little about Judaism in a city as Orthodox Jewish dominated as Baltimore that they did not know that the calendar is lunar? Apparently not. And Sandy didn’t pitch on Yom Kippur in 1966 either. Good Jewish boy.

Brina, never be surprised at how little people know about religion.

I know. I know. There were no iPhones with built in calendars back then that told people when Yom Kippur was. I know people are ignorant. I answer questions all the time. In 1966 Yom Kippur fell out on September 24- before the World Series. Sandy didn’t pitch. Good enough for me.

Now, 1965 was another story. That Yom Kippur fell on game 1 of the series against the Twins & (of course) Sandy did NOT play. Don Drysdale started ( & lost game 1 ) & then Sandy lost game 2. I guess it was still a bit fresh in a mind or 2.
Mike Linn
BTW, as I hear the talk on Sandy`s last year in the majors, you would think he stunk that last year. His regular season stats were a 27-9 record with an ERA of 1.73!! He only had the 1 start in the `66 series so the stat line reads 6 innings pitched, 1 run given up & an ERA of 1.50 ! Just awful huh ? What the world didn`t know was just how much that left arm of G-D was killing him. Yeah, good enough for me too.

Just finished the long first chapter on the Orioles. I am surprised- or maybe I shouldn’t be - that more is not told about Frank Robinson not sitting out the doubleheader against the Twins on the last day of the season and still winning the Triple Crown. We always hear about Ted Williams not sitting on the last day of 1941 to maintain his .400 average. It was the same for Robinson - had he sat, he would have been guaranteed winning the batting crown and therefore the Triple Crown unless Tony Oliva went 8 for 8, highly unlikely. Robinson played anyway, got a couple hits and easily won the Crown. That’s just as admirable, IMO, as what Williams did. Yet we always hear about Williams and never about Robinson.

Another interesting Robinson story in that chapter- the day he nearly drowned in the pool at a party thrown by the team owner.

Lance wrote: "Just finished the long first chapter on the Orioles. I am surprised- or maybe I shouldn’t be - that more is not told about Frank Robinson not sitting out the doubleheader against the Twins on the l..."

Good point Lance. I had forgotten that.

Lance wrote: "Another interesting Robinson story in that chapter- the day he nearly drowned in the pool at a party thrown by the team owner."

That was a funny story in retrospect but it could have been a tragedy. A little too much alcohol-fueled celebration with boys being boys but they forgot to check for his Boy Scout swimming merit badge before they chunked him into the deep end of the pool.

The book makes you appreciate how hard it was to hit in the mid-sixties and just how good all the arms were: not only Koufax, Drysdale and a young Jim Palmer, but McNally, Bunker (wonder what he could have been without the injuries), Sutton, Drabowski and the rest.

I thought in an interesting contrast to modern baseball: Hank Bauer only played I think 13 or 14 guys the entire series. Complete games in game 2, 3 and 4 and one reliever who threw 6 innings in game 1. No platoons or pinchhitters.

Also the two catches, one by the ill-fated Willie Davis and the other by Paul Blair were nearly identical and I think are two of the best ever in the Series.

Check this out at 6:50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQeCP...

And I loved those days with chain-link looking fences where kids could jump out of the stands and run behind the fence to get a home run ball--Willie stole a souvenir from some unlucky kid.

Lance wrote: "Another interesting Robinson story in that chapter- the day he nearly drowned in the pool at a party thrown by the team owner."

Lance wrote: "Another interesting Robinson story in that chapter- the day he nearly drowned in the pool at a party thrown by the team owner."
I didn't remember that either. Those guys had guts and pride. They didn't want to take the easy way out. Or he could have pulled a Goose Goslin and tried to get himself thrown out of the game to hold the triple crown. Wikipedia tells it best.
"The 1928 batting title was not decided until the last day of the season. Goslin and Heinie Manush of the St. Louis Browns were tied going into the final game, and the Senators and Browns played each other in the final game. Goslin was leading Manush when his turn came to bat in the ninth inning. If Goslin made an out, he would lose the batting crown. In Lawrence Ritter's 1966 oral history, "The Glory of Their Times", Goslin described the events that followed. Manager Bucky Harris left the decision to Goslin on whether to bat or sit. Goslin decided to sit and take the batting crown, but his teammates (particularly Joe Judge) goaded him that he would appear yellow if he didn't bat. Goslin was persuaded to bat and promptly took two strikes. At that point, Goslin recalled that he unsuccessfully tried to get ejected from the game, as the at bat would then disappear. Goslin began berating the home plate umpire about the strike calls, only to have the umpire tell him that he was not going to get ejected, and wasn't going to get a walk, so he better step back up and swing. Goslin ended up with what he called a "lucky hit" to beat Manush by a fraction of a point.[5]"

Joe Posnanski's countdown of those not in the HOF> I already disagree. Garvey and Evans should be higher
"

This offseason, leading right up to the 2021 Baseball Hall of Fame announcement, we’re counting down the 100 greatest eligible players not in the Hall of Fame and ranking them in the order in which I would vote them in. Each player will receive a Hall of Fame plaque based on the pithy ones that the Hall used to use back at the start. We’ll do these 10 at a time until we get to the Top 30. Let’s start with Nos. 100-91.
100. Juan Alberto González Vázquez
Texas—Detroit—Cleveland—Kansas City, 1989-2005

A two-time most valuable player, Juan Gone was one of his era’s most fearsome hitters. He hit 40 or more home runs five times. He loved driving in runs, famously saying “I concentrate more when I see men on base.”

In retrospect, Juan Gone probably wasn’t the right choice for the MVP either time he won it. His MVP awards can best be explained by two phenomena: Voters loved RBIs and loathed Albert Belle. In 1996, they gave González the MVP when Belle actually hit one more homer and drove in four more RBIs (anyway, it should have gone to Ken Griffey Jr. or Alex Rodriguez). The 1998 award was a little bit less egregious as González actually did lead the league in RBIs, but it is almost impossible to believe that the voters didn’t give it to the supposed media darling Derek Jeter, who was the driving force behind one of the greatest teams in baseball history. Anyway, those two MVPs are at the heart of González’s Hall of Fame case.
99. Fredric Michael (Fred) Lynn
Boston—California—Baltimore—Detroit—San Diego, 1974-1990

Among the most joyous players of his day, he became the first player in Major League history to win the Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player Awards in the same year. Went after fly balls with wild abandon, often crashing into walls. Hit the only grand slam in All-Star Game history.

If Fred Lynn had stayed in Boston, he almost certainly would be in the Hall of Fame today: He had Fenway Park wired. During his six-plus seasons in Boston, he hit .308/.383/.520, made the All-Star team every year, won four Gold Gloves, a batting title, the Rookie of the Year award and an MVP. So much of this was Fenway. In his MVP year, he hit .368/.451/.609 at Fenway, almost 200 OPS points better than on the road. In 1979, he hit .386/.470/.798 at Fenway — more than four hundred OPS points higher than on the road.

In 1981, the Red Sox were unwilling to pay Lynn’s asking price, and they dealt him to California. Lynn’s numbers settled into a different zone — from 1983-1987 he had five nearly identical seasons, hitting around .270 with 22 or 23 home runs while generally missing 40 or 50 games because of a vast array of injuries. He played the game so hard, the injuries were inevitable and a big part of why he fell short of no-doubt Hall of Fame numbers.
98. Rocco Domenico (Rocky) Colavito
Cleveland—Detroit—Kansas City—Chicago White Sox—Los Angeles—New York Yankees, 1955-1968

Beloved star fashioned his game after his hero Joe DiMaggio and hit 374 home runs in career. Had one of the greatest right-field arms in the history of baseball. Cleveland fans never quite got over the team trading him to Detroit in 1960.

Rocky Colavito is one of those players who casual baseball fans of the 1960s just assume is in the Hall of Fame. He was an outsized character with a great baseball name, immense home run power and a throwing arm that is legendary. When I was a kid, I saw Colavito — who was coaching at the time — stand at home plate and throw the ball over the center-field fence at Cleveland Municipal Stadium. Colavito led the league in homers once, in RBIs once, in slugging once, in total bases twice, and those were all in different seasons.

In all, Colavito hit 374 home runs, which ranked him 15th when he retired. But he was basically done at age 31, which is why he has never gotten much Hall of Fame consideration.
97. Albert Jojuan Belle
Cleveland—Chicago White Sox—Baltimore, 1989-2000

The most feared hitter of his day, he powered Cleveland’s titanic lineup throughout the mid-1990s. Only player in baseball history to hit 50 homers and 50 doubles in the same season. An intimidating presence, he knocked the cover off the ball for a decade.

Belle is, in some ways, the opposite of Juan González. In a time when the Baseball Writers idealized run-producing sluggers, they refused to give Albert Belle an MVP award. In 1994, he hit .357 and slugged .714, but didn’t get a single first-place MVP vote (Frank Thomas was better that year because of the walks, but not that much better).

In his absurd 1995 season, when he hit 52 doubles and 50 homers, the writers somehow gave the MVP to Mo Vaughn.

In 1996, when he led the league with 148 RBIs, they gave it to Juan Gone.

And in 1998, when he hit .328 with 48 doubles, 49 homers and 152 RBIs, he finished eighth in the MVP balloting. The voters loathed Belle … and not without reason. He hated the press and there were plenty of other reasons to loathe him. Plus Belle’s career was short. But let’s just say that Albert Belle was not just a good hitter, not just a great hitter, he was an all-time hitter.
96. Samuel James (Jimmy) Tilden Sheckard
Brooklyn—Chicago Cubs—St. Louis—Cincinnati, 1897-1913

Perhaps the greatest defensive outfielder in the first decade of the 20th century. Blazing fast with a powerful arm. He was a patient hitter who twice led the league in walks and he was an aggressive baserunner who twice led the league in stolen bases.

Eh, who knows what to do with these guys from the late 19th century and early 20th century? Jimmy Sheckard was a standout player who got on base, stole bases, scored runs and played breathtaking left-field defense. Players marveled at how he handled the bat; his 286 career sacrifice hits ranks Top 15 all-time. The legendary sportswriter Ring Lardner once called him “the best outfielder I ever looked at.” But he got lost in the early Hall of Fame days when everyone was focused on the immortals and nobody ever really picked up his case after World War II. There are a couple of people now trying to revive his case.
95. Quincy Thomas Trouppe
St. Louis Stars—Detroit Wolves—Homestead Grays—Kansas City Monarchs—Chicago American Giants—Indianapolis ABCs—Cleveland Buckeyes—New York Cubans, 1930-1948

A switch-hitting catcher with power, Big Train was a lifetime .300 hitter in the Negro Leagues, all the while wowing observers with his defensive reflexes and strong arm. Famed for using the heaviest bat in baseball, he made it to the Major Leagues in 1952 at age 39.

One thing that is underappreciated about the Negro Leagues was the quality of catching. Josh Gibson might have been the best catcher in the history of baseball, but there were those at the time who argued that Biz Mackey was an even greater all-around catcher than Gibson. Mackey taught another Hall of Fame catcher, Roy Campanella.

And then there is Quincy Trouppe, who played for almost three decades in the Negro Leagues, in Mexico, in Cuba and wherever else there was a job. Trouppe hit, walked, played great defense and could throw with anybody. He was so admired that Cleveland gave him a shot to play in the big leagues long after his reflexes had faded, this after he’d been in baseball for two decades. “He has much stuff up here,” his former teammate Minnie Miñoso said as he pointed to his head.
Fernando Valenzuela. (Ron Vesely / MLB Photos via Getty Images)
94. Fernando Valenzuela Anguamea
Los Angeles—California—Baltimore—Philadelphia—San Diego—St. Louis, 1980-1997

Left-handed phenom who inspired a national case of “Fernandomania,” as a rookie in 1981. Threw eight shutouts in 25 starts and won the Cy Young Award and Rookie of the Year. Inspired a whole generation of Latino fans to embrace baseball.

Jaime Jarrín, the brilliant Spanish language broadcaster for the Dodgers, has said that Fernando Valenzuela “created more new baseball fans than any other player in baseball history.” Fernando certainly made an enormous impact on the game when he arrived — “here comes this 19-year-old kid, a little bit chubby, long hair, Indian features, couldn’t speak a word of English,” Jarrín says. “And it was like, wow!”

Wow. In the Fernandomania year — a strike-shortened season — he threw eight shutouts in 25 starts. Over the next seven seasons, he would win 111 games and strike out almost 1,500 batters. Unfortunately, he declined rapidly after age 27, which is why he has received minimal Hall of Fame support. You could still make a good Hall of Fame larger-than-baseball argument for him based on the enormous impact he had on the game.
93. Darrell Wayne Evans
Atlanta—San Francisco—Detroit, 1969-1989

Howdy was the epitome of the underrated player, he did little things — walked a lot, played good defense at multiple positions, etc. — and big things, like swat 414 home runs. He was a character who claimed to have seen an unidentified flying object during his playing days, earning him a second nickname: UFO.

Bill James once listed off 10 characteristics of the underrated player, and Evans checked seven of those boxes. His low batting average of .248 guaranteed that nobody would ever take him seriously as a Hall of Fame candidate — and indeed he got just eight Hall of Fame votes his one year on the ballot even though the only player on that ballot with more home runs was Mike Schmidt. Evans spent most of his career languishing on bad teams out of the public eye, and he went 1-for-15 in his only World Series appearance, and he made just two All-Star teams and never finished even Top 10 in the MVP voting. But this is because people just didn’t see Evans.

In 1973, Pete Rose won the MVP award because he hit .338 with 115 runs scored for a winning Reds team. That same year, though, Evans had a higher OBP than Rose, scored as many runs, bashed 41 homers, drove in 104 RBIs and was a marvelous defensive third baseman. He was, in other words, better than Rose, but nobody saw it that way. There are a few years like that for Evans. He retired 20th on the all-time home run list, 29th in times on base and 49th in RBIs. Everybody just missed how good a player he was.
92. Steven Patrick (Steve) Garvey
Los Angeles Dodgers—San Diego, 1969-87

Captain America played in 1,207 consecutive games for the Los Angeles Dodgers, the National League record. Had Popeye forearms and a charismatic smile, cracked 200 hits in six different seasons and won four Gold Glove awards. One of the most iconic players of his time.

People are deeply split on Garvey’s Hall of Fame case. There are those who are stupefied that he is not in the Hall of Fame already and they fight ferociously for him. I can see their point: He was so famous in his time. He won the 1974 MVP award, he finished second in the MVP race in 1978, he was a consistent 100-RBI man for those great Dodgers teams in the 1970s and early 1980s.

On the other hand, I fully understand why there are some people who wonder why Garvey’s case keeps being heard. He didn’t walk, he never slugged .500, his 38.1 career WAR is not particularly close to what most would consider Hall of Fame worthy. And his post-baseball career has been filled with controversy, to say the very least.

In many ways, Garvey represents the argument about what the Hall of Fame is supposed to be — does it celebrate the most famous players as the name might suggest? If you think it does, then Garvey belongs. Does it honor the greatest players based on a dispassionate study of their career? If you think that, Garvey’s overall inability to get on base and limitations as a base runner and fielder make him a pretty underwhelming choice. If you believe that the Hall of Fame is a little bit of everything, well, that’s why it’s tricky.
91. David Gene (Dave) Parker
Pittsburgh—Cincinnati—Oakland—Milwaukee—California—Toronto, 1973-1991

There was nothing the Cobra could not do.

He was called the next Clemente before he even got started, and then for five years lived up to the comparison: He hit, ran, slugged, threw like nobody in the game. After his career veered off-course, he returned as a pure slugger and received MVP votes even as he approached 40 years old.

One question that continuously lingers around the Hall of Fame is this: How long does someone have to be great to qualify? For five years in Pittsburgh, 1975-79, Dave Parker was truly great. He was a great baserunner, a great fielder, a great hitter, a great slugger. He hit .321/.377/.532 over those years, won three Gold Gloves, picked up an MVP award, finished third in the voting two other times, he made a strong argument for best player in the game over that stretch.

Then, you probably know the story, he got caught up in drugs, he declined as a player, he lost some prime years. He returned to some prominence in his hometown of Cincinnati in 1985 when he hit .312 with a league-leading 42 doubles and 125 RBIs, and he came close to winning another MVP award. He wasn’t the same all-around player, but he did have a couple more productive years at the plate.

So is that enough? So far the voters have said: No. The trouble is that Parker didn’t hit any obvious career marks associated with the Hall of Fame. He didn’t get to 3,000 hits, didn’t approach 400 homers, his 40.1 career WAR falls a bit short of what you’d like to see from a Hall of Famer. Still, five years as perhaps the best player in the game? Let’s just say that there are players in the Hall who put up better career numbers but never approached Dave Parker at his best.

(Photos of Quincy Trouppe: Mark Rucker / Transcendental Graphics, Getty Images; Juan Gonzalez: Focus on Sport / Getty Images; and Dave Parker: George Gojkovich / Getty Images)

Harold wrote: "He was called the next Clemente before he even got started, and then for five years lived up to the comparison: He hit, ran, slugged, threw like nobody in the game. After his career veered off-cour..."

I agree Harold.
Garvey was clearly one of the dominant players of the '70s. He is hurt because he really didn't get a starting role until he was about 25, so that hurt his career totals.

There is no way there are 90 better players than Dave Parker who aren't in the Hall. I thought he should have been elected last round. Again, he was a dominant player for a decade.

We've discussed this for years, but I don't get excited by the compilers like Harold Baines who while very good are never, not for one instant in their careers considered to be in the top ten in the game. These are contrasted to guys like Dick Allen (his other foibles notwithstanding), Garvey, Parker, Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly who for 5 or 10 years are in the top 5 of all players. Who remembers how hot a 1984 Don Mattingly rookie card was? Did anybody even care about a Harold Baines card while he was playing? Kids (and collectors) sometimes know more than HOF voters.

Of course, the kids and collectors did miss the mark just a bit with the 1989 Gregg Jeffries debacle.

Doug wrote: "The book makes you appreciate how hard it was to hit in the mid-sixties and just how good all the arms were: not only Koufax, Drysdale and a young Jim Palmer, but McNally, Bunker (wonder what he co..."

And always Marichal & Gibson
Mike Linn

I have to amend my earlier statement about Evans. I breezed through the list without reading them at first. Now I am. I thought he meant Dewey Dwight Evans, who for me is and should be on the cusp if not in the HOF.

I'll give a pass to Jeffries, however. Had he been a prospect for a different team, even if it was Boston or the Dodgers, he wouldn't be considered a bust as he was a solid major league player. Given the hype, he would have had to be Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Ted Williams rolled into one - oh, and probably throw touchdowns like Montana and score goals like Gretzky as well.

Lance wrote: "I'll give a pass to Jeffries, however. Had he been a prospect for a different team, even if it was Boston or the Dodgers, he wouldn't be considered a bust as he was a solid major league player. Giv..."

Good point

Couple of comments from me. First on Jimmy Sheckard. Because of the years she played he could have been considered by both the Baseball Writers, who could only consider players from the 20th century or the Veterans' Committee which could at time only consider players from before the 20th century. The last 19th century player who got in did so because the person on the committee who argued his case basically referred to him as the Roberto Alomar of his day, and since Alomar was already in the Hall it was easy to convince others to vote for him.
In Trouppe's case I daresay the fact the Hall said there would be no more Negro Leaugers inducted after that special election a few years ago that saw something like a dozen people associated with the Negro Leagues go in has affected his chances.

Of the 1st 10, Albert Belle is the only one I feel clear cut on. He only played in 10 full seasons & those power numbers for the 10 are awesome, if you venture in a bit of math. Of course, his scintillating personality " might " work against him.
Mike Linn
A mention; Troupe was decent but just not Biz Mackey enough for me. Jimmy Sheckard was a dead ball, poor boys version of Richie Ashburn, & not quite Ashburn enough for me. I could go either way on the "Cobra " Dave Parker & Steve Garvey, he of 6 200 hit seasons seemed to have gotten hurt a la Mattingly after age 31. You can see it in his stat line,
Albert Belle was a beast, also a prick, but he`d join a few others already in IMO

It's hard to gauge where some of these players belong without seeing the whole list, though I agree on both Parker and Belle, two devastating hitters (and that gun Parker had for an arm, wow!). They probably should be higher.

Doug, you make a good point about card collectors and how kids know who the real stars are. Do kids collect cards the same as as I did? I'd use my allowance to get a pack or two of cards at the corner store (augmented by my mother and father treating me to packs when they were out shopping). Do they flip cards? Do they trade cards (i'll give you Tom Shopay and Steve Rogers for your double of George Brett)? I'm very out-of-touch with collecting.

Lawrence wrote: "It's hard to gauge where some of these players belong without seeing the whole list, though I agree on both Parker and Belle, two devastating hitters (and that gun Parker had for an arm, wow!). The..."

As a kid it seems like our whole world revolved around baseball cards for a while. Talking to people, I think flipping was a northeastern thing; we never did that in the south. But we would always have our cards organized with the doubles pulled out as trade bait.

I got back into baseball cards in the '90s when my two sons were growing up. Everything had changed with the investors and rookie card speculation and each company making multiple sets throughout the year (yes, it was all about money--maybe it always was but we were too young and naïve to know the difference).

I couldn't keep up with all the different sets and it was discouraging when you would see a 1984 Darryl Strawberry, 1985 Eric Davis or Dwight Gooden going for 15 or 20 bucks, then a few years later when they had ruined their careers with drugs or injuries and those cards were worthless. Then of course when you found out how they had massively overproduced in the '80s and all the cards from that era are not worth the postage to give them away, it was was even more disheartening.

So I can't really say much now because my kids are grown and my cards are in a box and I only look at the very best cards occasionally and ignore the rest.

I passed the baseball card section at Walmart near the register not long ago and I had to tell myself, "Don't look back" as I walked passed them with a sad feeling of nostalgia in the pit of my stomach.

But on a happier note, my wife and I are downsizing and this summer I went through some boxes and sold some of the lousy stuff on ebay for pennies just to save from having to move them.

Over the course of the summer, the amount in my Paypal added up little by little. I finally decided that I didn't need the money and so, while battling depression over the state of the universe, I decided that I would blow my Paypal account and buy a midrange 1956 Ted Williams, hoping that would make me happy.

It did.

I am still going strong as a card collector. Almost 47 years now.

Mike wrote: "I am still going strong as a card collector. Almost 47 years now."

Good for you.
What's your favorite card?

Off the top of my head I'd say 1957 Koufax. I love that year and Koufax was the first star I got.

My wife gets me the new Topps set every Christmas. I do miss opening the packs up. I've got every Topps complete set from 1968 to now. Getting close to completing 1967 but Seaver's rookie card will be quite pricey.

Mike wrote: "My wife gets me the new Topps set every Christmas. I do miss opening the packs up. I've got every Topps complete set from 1968 to now. Getting close to completing 1967 but Seaver's rookie card will..."

That sounds great.
I always liked the '68 and '69 sets because those were the ones I started as a kid. I was close to completing them but the '68 Nolan Ryan is out of my league. Also, I am missing a nonstatistically valid number of stars from 1969.

My best friend in those years, George, had an older brother who had a ton of old cards and we used to trade all the time. Over the years I suspected that 8 year old George may have syphoned off some of my better cards from those years--using my zeal to get the older ones against me. I later discovered that some of George's cards I had traded for, while great like a '65 Willie Mays or '66 Hank Aaron, all seemed to have some defects like creases or marks that I didn't notice as an 8 year old.

Could it be that George was wise beyond his years and pawned off some defective cards to me while grabbing my newer, mint condition cards? I've often wondered. But then again, we were both happy to be trading and the memories are worth more than the cards.

We used to play a game where we would take 2 decks of cards and assign each one a value. Jack, Queen, King, and Ace were single, double, triple, and homerun. A four was a walk and everything else was an out. We each had an all star team of baseball cards and would play against each other. My team was made up from. 1965 cards. We kept stats on every player which led to the worst trade I ever made. Pete Rose was my leadoff hitter and he totally sucked. So I traded my 65 Rose for a 65 Nellie Fox, and Orlando Cepeda.

Mike wrote: "We used to play a game where we would take 2 decks of cards and assign each one a value. Jack, Queen, King, and Ace were single, double, triple, and homerun. A four was a walk and everything else w..."
How is that a bad trade Mike? You got two Hall of Famers for one banned player!

To buy that Rose card now will cost me more then the other 2 combined.

Mike wrote: "To buy that Rose card now will cost me more then the other 2 combined."

That is surprising.

In the mid-80s Pete Rose was the hottest baseball card on the market--his '64 rookie went for $400.

By the way Mike, you have a great wife. Anytime you can have a wife who buys you baseball cards you better hang on to her.

That reminds me of a story from my past: we had just gotten engaged and my future wife came to visit me at my parents house. My parents had to go somewhere and we found ourselves in the house alone, except for the dog.

At the time she was a skinny, 21-year-old auburn haired beauty and I was, well, I was a guy with a 3.84 GPA who was hopelessly out of his league. She was wearing those short shorts girls wore in those days and a tank top. I quickly did some calculations, summoned up my courage and took her upstairs to my old bedroom and proceeded to . . . . . show her my baseball card collection.

Suffice it to say, she did not seem impressed. At the time I thought "maybe because my Mickey Mantle collection doesn't go back further than 1958?" but now that I think about it I'm not so sure.

I wish I could say I was making this up, but it's true. In our defense, neither of us were what you would call well-traveled at the time (we later had 3 kids before we figured out where they were coming from).

We used to have these every other month shows out here. I kept seeing a lot of CFL cards in bargain bins and such. I got to thinking maybe I could build a set. Then I checked my price guide to see what a set was worth and discovered a slight problem. Joe Theisman's first card was in that set. There went any ideas of building that one.

Doug wrote: "In the mid-80s Pete Rose was the hottest baseball card on the market--his '64 rookie went for $400.

By the way Mike, you have a great wife. Anytime you can have a wife who buys you baseball cards ..."

Another classic story for the memoir! LOL!

I had great parents who both loved baseball and encouraged me to collect cards. I have many full sets from the '70's to the 80's. One retirement projects is taking them out of these boxes I have and putting them in the protective sleeves. If you had to ask which is my favorite, i'd say it's any number of Tom Seaver cards.

My favorite? Hmm. I collected in the 80s and 90s and put the cards in sleeves as I went along. I still have the binders at my parents and want to go rescue them but haven’t visited in a year and a half due to travel restrictions. I need help here but once I found a Ted Williams card in a parking lot. This was in the 90s and someone must have inadvertently discarded it. The back noted that he fought in Korea so it must have been from the end of his career.

In terms of cards I got from Topps packs, any Cubs card was special to me. They have their own binder. I think I have Barry Bonds from 1986 if only he didn’t do PEDs it would be worth a lot more. Oh well. Which would bring us to another subject- will he get into the hall with this year’s first year class being so so.

Brina wrote: "My favorite? Hmm. I collected in the 80s and 90s and put the cards in sleeves as I went along. I still have the binders at my parents and want to go rescue them but haven’t visited in a year and a ..."

I remember that my son had some Ted Williams cards that came in an Upper Deck set in the early '90s. Maybe it was one of those.

As for Bonds, I think as the older voter die off and are replaced by younger voters it is inevitable that he will get in. Just a matter of when. Many of the stuff I have read indicates a large movement to just fold in the stats from the steroid era and ignore the elephant in the room. That's the easy thing to do; it avoids all those nasty discussions and questions.

I remember one that I loved, even though I was a Phillies fan and not an A's fan, but I loved the A's Gus Zernial card. He is holding about 5 balls in one hand. I always remember it.

Well, considering all other "elephants in the room" have been ignored (segregation, amphetemines, etc) before, I agree with doing this.

As for all the card comments - I never was big into card collecting. Oh, I would occasionally buy a pack, but admittedly, if the pack didn't contain a Twins player - didn't have to be a star, just say "Twins" on the bottom of the picture - or a superstar like an Aaron, Seaver, etc I wasn't really interested. I would put them on the bike spokes until they were worn off, then replace them because that sound was just sooooo cool.