I think the Angels have the better starting staff, best hitter on the either team, better defense (though the addition of Jones and LaRoche probably makes the Dodgers outfield closer)

I think Broxton/Saito vs. Shields/K-Rod is getting closer if not even already.

Overall, the Angels certainly have been the more successful team in terms of wins and losses but off the field, it has yet to be proven if the Moreno's strategy to brand the team as an LA team has paid off.

And what "former" Dodger said Kemp should be dealt because he is highly coveted, was he a former outfielder by chance. (being tabbed as a "former Dodger" lets Kent off the hook but then again, I don't Jeff being a source for anyone except Simers)

And you are right, I think we are getting closer to a possible Golden State World Series than ever.

"Nomar, ...according to one scout, his bat slowed last year"

Emphasis mine. Really? Only one scout? Are there any scouts that saw Nomar last year and didn't think his bat slowed down?

Obviously, I wouldn't vote for him, and I don't even think that he will garner enough support to get elected. But I do think there's a chance that because of the steroid mess, the voting could get strange enough that Anderson might receive a significant show of support and hang around on the ballot for a long time.

See if anyone else can figure that code.

First, Blyleven's support has grown steadily over the years. He's now over 60% and will likely be elected by the BBWAA.

Second, Jim Rice and Andre Dawson both saw great increases in their support this year. Rice will almost certainly get elected next year. Dawson may or may not make it, but my point is that come people who otherwise wouldn't vote for him are getting on board because he is perceived as being clean. Will this be enough to get him elected? Maybe not.

I also think that the growth in his support has something to do with the steroids mess, but I could be wrong.

1) No.
2) Yes, if he hits like Edgar Martinez.
3) Yes, but he must hit even better than Edgar Martinez.

My answer is #2, but I can definitely see the case for #3.

Drysdale, lets see, he got in but only after being on several ballots.

For many years, writers felt they were the gatekeepers and only very few got the honor of being first ballot Hall of Famers. Over the last 30 years, that has changed as most players who are elected, go in on their first ballot.

I think the way the football voters elect their Hall of Famers is even more ridiculous.

Really, the only problem with Martinez' resume is that the Mariners buried him in the minors until he was 27 years old.

I used to work with a HOF voter who hadn't been to a baseball game -- for work or pleasure -- in about two decades and didn't even watch the sport on TV in that span. Yet since he paid his dues every year, he always got a ballot and voted. I'm also fairly certain he sent in blank ballots from time to time.

No other position in LA Dodger history has been so well occupied and now we have Russell Martin, already an all-star manning the post.

On a semi-related note, is anyone else in favor of extending Brad Penny sooner than later? When I look at our future rotation, I see a lot of potential: Bills, Kershaw, McDonald, Meloan, Elbert, Withrow, et al. But it would make me more comfortable if we had someone like Penny there year after year. If there's any way we can get him for close to what Peavy just signed for [I know they are different situations], I think it might be prudent.

Really, aside from the young pre-arbitration bunch, there's no other player I'm interested in extending.

(Strangely, I was in favor of trading Penny last offseason--shows how much I know!)

Authorization — Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) is authorized to hold an election every year for the purpose of electing members to the National Baseball Hall of Fame from the ranks of retired baseball players.

Only active and honorary members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, who have been active baseball writers for at least ten (10) years, shall be eligible to vote. They must have been active as baseball writers and members of the Association for a period beginning at least ten (10) years prior to the date of election in which they are voting.

There is also an Veterans' Committee that can elect those passed by or other non-players who do not have to be out of the game as long as the players.

I am sure I am blocking out the Duke Sims/Chris Cannizzaro years.

1953 - 117 votes 44.3%
1954 - 175 votes 69.4%
1955 - 223 votes 88.8%

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but if the rules were the same at the time (five-year waiting period), it looks like DiMaggio wasn't "eligible" in 1953 or 1954, but got some write-in votes anyway. Then, in 1955, when he was eligible, he got in. Is that correct? Or were the rules different then?

Will anyone care about who is even in there in two hundred years?

I spend so much of my limited time above ground on this silly game as it is, I can care less where you draw an imaginary line as to who is good enough to be on one side of that line. BORING.

1974 118 votes 32.3%
1975 148 votes 40.9%
1976 189 votes 48.7%
1977 239 votes 62.4%
1978 301 votes 79.4%

Any guesses?

Average - 91st
On base - 21st
Slugging - 67th
OPS - 35th
OPS+ - 41st

Maybe he's not first ballot, how could you not vote this guy in type of material, but he is without a doubt one of the greatest hitters of all time.

"The modern rule establishing a wait of five years was passed in 1954, although an exception was made for Joe DiMaggio because of his high level of previous support, thus permitting him to be elected within four years of his retirement."

I don't even care now.

He contributed nothing on defense. Because Martinez couldn't play his position, 3B, the Mariners played Russ Davis.

That's the best I can do. It's not a very good argument.

In his first year on the ballot, 1954, DiMaggio still got 69% of the vote, but he trailed Bill Terry, Bill Dickey, and the player who got the most votes that year:

Rabbit Maranville.

DiMaggio was the top votegetter the next year. He made it in with Ted Lyons, Dazzy Vance, and Gabby Hartnett.

Here are the results of the very first ballot in 1936:
http://tinyurl.com/yr78o8

Lots of extraordinary players didn't make it in.

Saying that no one should get in on the first ballot of the Hall of Fame is akin to saying that Thomas Jefferson was a lesser historical figure because he was just the 3rd President.

This is fanerman's favorite inductee into the Pro Football Hall of Fame:
http://tinyurl.com/28nytc

Look, I don't know if anyone will be talking about Babe Ruth or A-Rod in 200 years but I do know that for me, the first thing I ever read was a book about the first 5 elected to the Hall of Fame and it has stuck with me ever since. (I will probably forget where I live when I am a old man but I will know that Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Mathewson and Johnson were the first 5 elected to HOF). And one of my all-time vacation highlights was spending a day in Cooperstown.

Trading him now coming off his best season with two years left at a reasonable 8 mil a season (one year plus club option) would make him a very valuable commodity.

His name hasn't been tossed about but it wouldn't surprise me if he gets dealt before he serves out his contract with us. I wouldn't advocate moving him unless we know we have healthy options like Kuo, Schmidt, and Loaiza coming along and perhaps a Kershaw showing he is ready for the bigs.

I don't think we'll extend him at all. If we do, it will be next offseason. If he has a great year this year for us (I hope), he might price himself out of our reach. With Bills and Kershaw and hopefully Kuo and McDonald, we might not be looking at a big contract for a power guy who is 32 years old.

You seemed to be offended by my opinions yesterday. Were you?

http://weblogs.variety.com/season_pass/2008/01/the-treatment-b.html

D4P, I'm counting on you to watch.

The quality of the new Hall of Fame exhibits has increased hundredfold since about 1995, when they started hiring actual curators with advanced degrees in Museum Studies, instead of having some random local guy whip up labels on his typewriter in the basement.

But I think this could get pretty tiring after 10 episodes.

Has any team had more talent with less to show for it? Four HOF-worthy talents in Rodriguez, Griffey, Martinez, and Johnson result in three playoff appearances, never making it to the WS, between 1995 and 2000. By '01, three of them are gone. (Of course, in '01, they won 116 games and still couldn't get past the Yankees in the ALCS.)

I'll grant that the late-90s Yankees were extraordinary. But man, the Mariners shoulda coulda woulda.

They didn't win a pennant.

But I got a screener for the first two new episodes of "Lost" today - so that plan could go out the window.

The late-sixties Cubs had four should-be Hall of Famers in Banks, Williams, Santo, and Jenkins, and didn't even accomplish as much as the Mariners did.

And they gave him 484 at bats.