Nothing much to say...sorry.

Now that the ink is dry and Johan Santana has officially turned his head and coughed…I reckon it is time for me to write something about the ginormity of the Twins-Mets trade.

But I won’t…I don’t care.

Frankly, I was more excited when I heard that Sean Casey signed with the Red Sox then when I heard about Santana going to the Big Apple. We all knew he was going to be traded…and we all knew he was going to be going to one of a select handful of teams.

You see, I started this post a while back when comments like that were fresh. Since then, plenty has happened in the world and I’ve been way too sidetracked to sit down and bang out something new for you, my eight loyal readers.

In a world where Herbie Hancock (yes, THAT Herbie Hancock) wins the top Grammy of the night, Roger Clemens continues to piss away his credibility (and entrance to the Hall of Fame) and just minutes down the road from me, Northern Illinois University erupts in gunfire…I’ve got precious little to add.

I mean, who really cares what I think about Juan Gonzalez’s comeback and his chances of being elected to the Hall of Fame (he won’t) when, thanks to the writer’s strike being over, we’re just a few LONG months away from all new episodes of According to Jim?!?

So here ya have it…a lot of words, but no substance. Would you want it any other way?

I’ll be back in the fold within the week, gang. I’ve got some material kicking around this old head of mine and once I sort it out…we’re all in trouble.

Thank you for your patronage and to avoid this from becoming yet another cliché post, I have one last thing to add…“I drink your milkshake!”

Brady Anderson is a pimp (maybe...no?)

Earlier this month, former Oriole outfielder Brady Anderson parlayed the support Hall of Fame support he received from former teammate Cal Ripken, Jr. into zero (yes, ZERO) votes.

In the five years between his last Major League at bat and the Hall voting, Anderson has been named in the Mitchell Report, had his sexuality questioned, sired some bastard kid with a Bulgarian supermodel, became co-owner of the ABA Hollywood Fame and is rumored to be part of the upcoming cast of Dancing with the Stars (he's not).

His latest antics (click on the picture) take the cake I'm afraid.

Let me get this straight...this guy could walk into a club and get ANY girl he wanted, but instead he's throwing his junk around Los Angeles and trying to bed anything that will answer a text message? Is he the only player besides Barry Bonds to have had both a 50 home run season and a 50 steal season (he is) or a fraternity president?

Personally, I still think of him as part of the trade (along with Curt Schilling) that brought Mike Boddicker to Boston in 1988. I'm lying...I'll always remember him for the bitchin' sideburns.

Pitching might have been better in 1971

***Note: E is back. Check out his normal ramblings HERE!***

The other day, I just happened to catch a replay of Game Seven of the 1971 World Series on ESPN Classic. As I wasn't born at the time, I really didn't know anything about this series, but as I enjoy watching old baseball games, back in the days when TV sports broadcasting was so primitive, I sat and watched the thing.

During the seventh or so inning of the game, the play-by-play guy mentioned that there were two Baltimore starters warming up in the bullpen for relief. He said that, at that time, Baltimore's three 20-game winners were all pitching at the same time (Mike Cueller was in the game, with Pat Dobson and Dave McNally in the pen).

"Three 20-game winners?" I thought to myself. "That's a TON!"

What I didn't realize (and the announcer didn't mention) until I looked into it further is that Baltimore actually had four 20-game winners, the fourth being some young punk named Jim Palmer.

I know: Who is THAT?

Four 20-game winners.

Wow!

Mind you, those Orioles teams of the late '60s/early '70s were some great teams. They went 318-164 from '69-'71, a win total some teams have trouble hitting in four season, much less a mere three. Those three teams never had any fewer than two 20-game winners on them (two in '69, three in '70). And, '71 was the whopper year with four. For comparison, in 2007, there was one 20-game winner in all of baseball. The '71 Orioles had four on just that one team. I'd say the pitching quality has maybe decreased over the years, wouldn't you?

Now, the instant rebuttal to the four 20-game winners is the fact that that staff rolled with a four-man rotation, which means the pitchers ended up getting more starts per year. If Jake Peavy (second with 19 wins in '07) had four or five more starts, maybe he would have broken 20 wins, as would a number of other pitchers. But teams nowadays run with five starter rotations: fewer starts means fewer win opportunities. Maybe if today's pitchers went with four man rotations, they could have four 20-game winners. So, maybe that's not all that impressive.

But I suspect that all those wins didn't come from just having a lot of starts.

Pitchers back then were a lot more durable than today's guys. Between them, the four Orioles starters had 70 complete games. For comparison, in '07, both leagues combined had 112. That's four guys with 70 versus at least 30 times as many guys with 112. The individual leader in '07 was Roy Halliday with seven. The least any starter on the '71 Orioles could manage was Dave McNally with 11. So, maybe the Orioles pitchers had so many wins because they were able to pitch it all the way through, something almost unheard of these days.

It's gotten so bad, that we have a stat, the "quality start," which has basically replaced the complete game.

But complete games don't mean anything if you go out there and pitch like shit. Oh sure, you pitched nine innings, but you gave up 15 runs. Kinda makes those complete games irrelevant. But that wasn't a problem with the '71 Orioles. The four Orioles starters had a combined ERA of 2.89, with Jim Palmer's 2.68 the best on the team.

The best in '07 was Jake Peavy's 2.54. If that's the best ERA in both leagues, I'd be hard pressed to believe that you could come up with any four starter combinations from any team that could top that 2.89 ERA. Hell, the '71 Orioles team ERA was 2.99.

The best '07 could muster was the Padres' 3.70.

It should be noted that 17 of the 24 teams that existed in '71 had team ERAs better than the '07 Padres.

What it comes down to is four guys on the same team who were better than anyone we got pitching today. And the fact that at least three of those guys put up the same stat line year after year only strengthens the case. Everyone seems to blame the past two decades' increase in power on all the hitters being juiced up. I think it's because the pitching stinks. And, the fact that we now have five man rotations means we have more shitty pitchers than they did back in the day.

I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

Better late than never I suppose

At some point last Tuesday night, I lost part of a filling. I’ve gotta admit, chewing on food and then (all of a sudden) biting down on a piece of amalgam is startling. It didn’t hurt…I’m getting it fixed.

Earlier in the day, Goose Gossage became the lone inductee to the Baseball Hall of Fame and somehow, losing a filling was the most exciting thing that happened on the that day. Hell, it was the most exciting thing to happen all last week to be honest!

Frankly…I’m not surprised.

I’ve posted it here that Goose being voted in was pretty much a foregone conclusion. As I’ve said before, I don’t think he is a Hall of Famer, but since SOMEONE seemingly had to get in…why not Goose, right? Dig your Gossage jerseys out from the mothballs, kids! Wait...what number was his? Did/do people even OWN Goose jerseys?

It was the vote totals that surprised me though.

After nine years on the ballot, 85.8% of the writers ALL OF A SUDDEN believe that Gossage is a Hall of Famer. In that same nine years, Dave Winfield (84.5%), Eddie Murray (85.3%), Dennis Eckersley (83.2%) and Paul Molitor (85.2%) all made the Hall of Fame with LESS support than Goose got this year.

That’s right, all of a sudden, more Hall voters feel that Gossage is more worthy than each of those players who (at the time they were elected) BURIED Gossage in the voting.

I try understand how it works...I really do. What can’t be stressed enough is the importance of who you are stacked up against.

Which brings me to…

Jim Rice (72.2%)
Many expected that this would be the year that Rice FINALLY made it to Cooperstown given the lack of competition. But even though he fell only 16 votes short, I don’t see it happening next year either. Basically, it’ll be hard to induct the guy that, this year, many proclaimed the “best leftfielder not in the Hall” when Rickey Henderson is up for election.

Andre Dawson (65.9%) and Tim Raines (24.3%)
No love for the Expos I guess. Hawk not making it in is not as surprising as Rock getting less than a quarter of the vote. Dawson will be one of those guys like Tony Perez who, after a number of years on the ballot…voters will say “why not”. HOWEVER...Perez didn’t have the competition that Dawson likely will. We’re about to see a slew of Hall worthy players coming up before the voters, folks.

Raines, on the other hand, shocks me…I figured he would have gotten at least double the votes he did. Maybe voters are planning a Henderson-Raines induction next year. I mean, why not induct the best two lead-off hitters of their time in the same year? It won’t happen, but the speeches would be awesome.

Bert Blyleven (61.9%), Jack Morris (42.9%) and Tommy John (29.1%)
Plenty of wins and Ks from this trio, but all in all…there’s not likely to be any Hall calls here. Blyleven has (for some reason) become the sexy pick as of late. Like Gossage, he’s been vocal about the Hall of Fame and that has drummed up some support for his inclusion. Morris, while I’ve made the case for him, is about to be overshadowed by some big name pitchers on some upcoming ballots. Sorry Jack…it probably won’t be happening for you.

And speaking of “not happening”…Tommy John is still on the ballot?!? I’m pretty sure, John has been on EVERY ballot since about 1984. I will say that, like his career, John has been VERY consistent with Hall voters. The lowest percentage of votes he’s gotten…18.7. The most…29.6.

Mark McGwire (23.6%)
Next…ain’t happenin'..

Alan Trammell (18.2%), Dave Concepcion (16.2%) and Don Mattingly (15.8%)
Apparently Detroit, Cincinnati and New York have between 15.8 and 18.2% of the vote. I know that math isn’t right…but you get what I mean.

Harold Baines (5.2%)
28 voters think Harold Baines is a Hall of Famer. That’s it? In his first year on the ballot (last year), 29 voters were on the side of Baines. So…who changed their vote?!? C’mon guys…three years ago, 26 of you thought that Willie McGee should be enshrined. If the argument for Blyleven is that he has the most wins or most Ks out of ANYONE that isn’t enshrined…Baines’ hit total has to mean more than 5.2% of the voters think he is worthy of the Hall of Fame.

Rob Nen (2 votes)
I kinda thought Nen would get more than 2 votes considering he was lights out before his arm fell off in 2002. Nen had 315 saves in nine seasons as a closer…yikes!

Brady Anderson and Jose Rijo (0 votes)
The man with the 90210 sideburns and the Playmate wife had the support of Hall darling Cal Ripken Jr., is one of two players (Barry Bonds being the other) to have stolen 50 bases and hit 50 home runs and STILL couldn’t buy a vote. Incidentally, in 2004, Hall of Famer Jim Palmer suggested Anderson’s 50 jack season was steroid influenced. Not a chance I say!

I only mention Jose Rijo because in 2001 (the FIRST time Rijo was Hall eligible), he received one vote. How that ONE writer decided seven years later (after Rijo retired AGAIN) to NOT vote for Rijo again is beyond me.

The big question…how did Todd Stottlemyre get a vote?

***Note: Following the Hall of Fame voting, I posed the question..."who else should have been elected?" Overwhelmingly, NO ONE garnered much support. Andre Dawson was just under 50% with 48% of the vote. After that, Tim Raines (43%), Jim Rice (39%), Bert Blyleven (35%), Harold Baines (30%), Mark McGwire, Jack Morris and Alan Trammell (26%), Dale Murphy (17%), Tommy John, Dave Parker and Lee Smith (9%), Dave Concepcion and Don Mattingly (4%). "Other" received a whopping 13%...thanks gang!***

Mr. Blyleven, it's your time...maybe!

I was sitting around with the fellas the other night and we got talking about the Hall of Fame. As expected, all the usual names came up.

Tim Raines.

Andre Dawson.

Jim Rice.

Goose Gossage.

And since the Mitchell Report is still in the news (thanks Roger Clemens!)…Mark McGwire’s name even got a mention or two. Not a bad crowd of potential Hall of Famers. Hell, two or three of them might soon wake up to the pleasant sound of Cooperstown calling them home.

But you know who DIDN’T get mentioned…Bert Blyleven. That’s right. The darling of the online 2008 Hall of Fame discussions (I've even casually endorsed him in the past both here and here) is rarely ever REALLY brought up outside of Googling “Bert Blyleven+Hall of Fame” from your laptop.

Why is that?

Here’s a guy that PLENTY of writers are pimping for enshrinement, but for some reason, people out in the “real world” aren’t really bringing his name up in polite conversation. The guy played professional ball in four decades (Bert was drafted in 1969, but didn’t make the bigs until June 1970) for five different teams (twice with the Twins). He even has two World Series rings…and both times, one could argue that he was his team’s "go to" guy!

All-time, Blyleven’s stats stack up wonderfully to some of those already in the Hall. Over at Baseball Reference, his top ten comparisons feature eight Hall of Famers. The two that aren’t…Tommy John and Jim Kaat.

And let’s be honest, someone COULD make a case for both of them.

Fifth all-time in strikeouts has to account for something right? I mean, 3701 is nothing to sniff at. Only Nolan Ryan, Clemens, Randy Johnson and Steve Carlton have more. Of the players with 3000 Ks or more, you could almost say that all of them WILL be enshrined, even if the jury is still out on Curt Schilling. Not bad company to be in if you ask me.

When making the case for the Dutchman, EVERYONE mentions Blyleven’s low ERA (3.31) and points to his career 60 shutouts as a contributing factor. To put that into perspective…Ryan and Tom Seaver each have 61. Clemens is 26th all-time with 46…Blyleven is ninth. Allow me to go one step further…there are only TWO pitchers eligible for Hall induction that have thrown more scoreless games than Clemens. Luis Tiant is one…he has 49. Blyleven, obviously, is the other.

The magic number for career victories is 300. EVERY pitcher (all 20 of them) eligible for the Hall of Fame that has more than 300 victories is in there. But that’s where it falls off…275 to 299 victories must not mean as much. Blyleven’s career total resides at 287. Say what you want to…had there not been a strike in 1981 or had he not been hurt in 1982, Blyleven might have gotten to 300.

But he didn’t.

Heck, had he retired following his last good year (1989), he would have topped off at 271. Again, he didn’t and therefore falls into the “almost…but not quite” company of John and Kaat.

All that being said, his career numbers are, if at the least…”Hall worthy”. So, I’m confused…how do people NOT know who this colorful character is?

The layman’s argument for Blyleven’s inclusion sounds impressive when you lay them out over the span of a “normal” career…but Rik Aalbert Blyleven pitched longer than Christ walked the Earth. He was also durable…which means even if he was slightly above average (at best), his numbers would STILL pile up. And they did.

Let’s start with wins.

No one seems to mention that fact that of those 287 victories…only ONCE Bert topped 20 victories. And that was in a season where he went 20-17. 20 wins is great, but 20-17 is a record only Wilbur Wood would be proud of. Once at 20, another time with 19…then what? Five seasons of 17 victories? Is that how we’re judging “greatness now?!?

It should be noted that in that “magical” 1973 season when Blyleven was 20-17, his Twins were 81-81. It wasn’t like he played for the 1962 Mets. He was a slightly average pitcher on an average ballclub. I won’t even mention the fact that there were TWELVE American League pitchers with 20 or more victories in 1973.

Wait, I just did.

Let’s face it…a .534 winning percentage isn’t all that spectacular, even if you played for some lousy teams. A Hall of Famer (to me) is someone who elevates his team to be better than they should be. And, admittedly, perhaps Blyleven’s record isn’t indicative of his worth. He did, of course, pitch his team to FIFTEEN 1-0 victories. Granted, he lost ten others…but you can’t blame a guy for lack of run support.

3701 is a tremendous number when it comes to strikeouts and Blyleven reaching 3701 Ks is an equally tremendous feat. The fact that eight times scattered throughout an almost 21 complete seasons, Bert topped 200 Ks is good…but not an eye popper. I’m not comparing the two, just using him as an example, but Pedro Martinez topped 200 Ks in ten out of eleven years during his climb to prominence…and twice he surpassed 300! That, to me, is the example of someone out there killing the opponent.

And of those years where Blyleven racked up some quality strikeout figures, did he ever blow away the competition and lead the league?

Once…in 1985 he bested Floyd Bannister by 8 strikeouts. 206 compared to 198 AND Bert pitched in almost 90 MORE innings…not really dominant.

“Dominance” shouldn’t be judged the number of times a guy leads the league in strikeouts, right? Basically, when I think of a “strikeout pitcher”…I think of a guy like Randy Johnson. Not a guy who benefited from a four-man rotation instead of the modern five.

But that’s okay.

I mean, let’s look at the bigger picture…how many times did Bert lead the league in ERA? Wins? What about winning percentage?

How many Cy Young Awards did this cat bring home?

Zero.

He was an All-Star twice, but c’mon…so was Esteban Loaiza. And frankly, when do you suppose the last (or first) time someone NOT named “Blyleven” uttered the words…”I sure do hope Bert’s on the hill today” on their way to the ballpark?

Plenty of writers will give a sympathy nod to Blyleven by labeling him “unlucky”. Unfortunately, these are mostly the same guys who blast writers for calling Jim Rice the “most feared hitter of his time”. So what opinion is most valid…we’ll soon find out when that sleepy little town in New York comes a callin’ for some new blood.

Drop me an email at hallofverygood@yahoo.com and who knows…your words might just end up on this website!

***Note: There is a really, really great site out there (Bert Belongs) that makes a great pitch (pun intended) for Bert's inclusion...you should check it out!***

The world is spinning out of control!

Okay, baseball, I get it…I get it. There are players out there that MIGHT have used HGH and steroids. Remind me again…were they banned substances at the time they were allegedly used?

No?

But they are now?

Gotcha.

So…test for them regularly. If someone fails, react accordingly. There is absolutely NO REASON to punish those that are mentioned in the Mitchell Report, yet Bud Selig somehow has FINALLY mustered up the courage to threaten action against those that were mentioned POST 2003.
Of course, that CONVENIENTLY leaves out Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte. And let’s face it…baseball doesn’t REALLY want to go after them.

However, you know what would have been cool? Major League Baseball cracks down on performance enhancing drugs ten years ago instead of waiting for a report on how mucked up their game is (allegedly). Besides, the times have changed. That was then…this is now. Steroids were en vogue then. Now…baseball is cracking down. I get it.

Finally.

Heck, ten years ago, Hoyt Wilhelm (inducted in 1985) and Rollie Fingers (1992) were the only relief pitchers in the Hall of Fame. Twice in the last four years, Dennis Eckersley (2004) and Bruce Sutter (2006) have been enshrined. This year, Goose Gossage looks to be a lock to have his ticket punched at the doors of Cooperstown.

So…why not the designated hitter?

In 1973, when Ron Blomberg of the Yankees became baseball’s first DH (he dug in against Luis Tiant of all pitchers), who knew that 35 years later…there would still be NO full-time DH in the Hall of Fame?!?

Sure, many of modern era’s best hitters (Paul Molitor, George Brett, even Dave Winfield and Eddie Murray) ENDED their careers as their team’s DH…but there has not been a full-time DH voted in to join them.

A couple years ago, I would have said that Rafael Palmeiro would be the next notable DH to join the list…but he all but blew his chances by being found guilty of taking steroids. And while others will make the case for Edgar Martinez (and let’s face it…a case COULD be made), I think the next BIG name “full-time” DH is going to be Frank Thomas.

But why wait until then? Why not embrace the designated hitter and vote in someone whose stats stack up with some of baseball’s elite.

And yes…I’m looking your way Harold Baines. Let’s take a quick glance at his numbers.

First off, it needs to be pointed out that Baines holds the record for most games played at DH…1652. For his all around career…Rusty Staub is the only Hall eligible player that has played in more games.

Baines’ 2866 career base hits (40th all-time) means that he has the most hits of ANY player that is Hall eligible. Sure, there are other players ahead of Harold, but they are not eligible…yet. That short list is Pete Rose, Craig Biggio, Rickey Henderson, Palmeiro and Barry Bonds. Odds are that had Baines not had two work stoppages during his career, he would have eclipsed 3000 hits.

For the record, Baines also has the most RBI of all Hall eligible players and ranks 26th all-time. Those ahead of him that are NOT eligible…Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr., Thomas and Sammy Sosa. An even shorter list than the last one!

And again, not too shabby.

Over his career…Baines batted .289. He hit at or above that mark THIRTEEN times. Eight times, he batted higher than .300. Combine this with his 384 home runs (Baines is actually third on the all-time list of walk off home runs), a .324 post season batting and you’ve got a player that was arguably one of the most valuable of his time. Also, as a full-time DH, Baines was selected to appear in six All-Star games.

Statistically, Baines is pretty comparable to (if not better than) both Al Kaline and Tony Perez…both Hall of Famers. Interestingly enough...after Kaline, Baines is the player with the most number of home runs that never hit more than 30 in a season.

Games
Kaline - 2834
Baines – 2830
Perez – 2777

Hits
Kaline – 3007
Baines – 2866
Perez – 2712

Doubles
Perez – 505
Kaline – 498
Baines – 488

Home Runs
Kaline – 399
Baines – 389
Perez – 379

RBI
Perez – 1652
Baines – 1628
Kaline – 1583

Avg.
Kaline - .297
Baines - .289
Perez - .279

It’s time, writers. It’s time to start considering a full-time DH for induction to the Hall of Fame. Sure you’ll wait for Frank Thomas…I understand. Hell, if he continues to rip the laces off the ball, you’ll put in David Ortiz before you even consider Harold Baines. But don’t Baines’ numbers warrant at least a look? Doesn’t he deserve his place in Cooperstown for a reason besides being the owner of the bat that ended baseball’s longest game ever?

I think so.

I leave you with this about the White Sox favorite. In 1971, a then 12 year-old Baines was all the rage on the Little League diamond…so much so, that legendary owner Bill Veeck made the trip halfway across the country to see what all the fuss was about. He was apparently impressed.

In 1977, upon his graduation from high school, Veeck made Baines the number one pick overall in that year’s amateur draft. Less than three years later…a 20 year-old Baines made his debut for the southsiders.

His number 3 has since been retired and “un-retired” twice.

Over the next month, the HoVG will be examining more of the players that might (but shouldn’t) be overlooked on the current Hall of Fame ballot. If you’ve got something to say about Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Lee Smith or even Don Mattingly…I’d like to hear from you!

Drop me an email at hallofverygood@yahoo.com and who knows…your words might just end up on this website!

Thanks for the opportunity, New York!

So let me get this straight...the Yankees imposed a deadline for the Twins to trade ace Johan Santana. How does THAT work exactly?

Let me repeat...the Yankees set a deadline for the Twins to trade THEM their star pitcher.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, shouldn't the Twins be the ones setting the deadlines for people to up the ante for Santana's services? I don't know that I've ever witnessed such arrogance and frankly...I hope Minnesota slams the door on the Bombers because of it.

Now, that brings me to what I am typically here for...waxing poetically about one of my favorite topics. However, I am going to stray from that today and enlighten you all with something my good friend Andy Social wrote (you can check out his Myspace page HERE).

Enjoy!

This week marks the 25th anniversary of the greatest album ever conceived or recorded, Michael Jackson's "Thriller." That's right, just like me, Thriller also came out in 1982. And by "came out" I mean I was squeezed into a doctor's hands from between my mother's labia and not that I professed to friends and family that I was gay. That has yet to happen (projected date: October, 2011).

Anyway, it seems destined that epic masterpiece, Michael Jackson's "Thriller," and I would share a special bond and in celebration of our collective 25th year, I have done some research and compiled this labor of love:

"THRILLER" FUN FACTS!

Compiled by Andrew "FoodStamp" Davis, P.Y.T. Ph.D.

- According to Guinness, Thriller has worldwide sales exceeding 104 million. That makes it, by far, the best-selling album of all time and has topped the sales of Don Johnson's "Heartbeat" and Chris Burke's (Corky from "Life Goes On") "Singer with the Band" COMBINED!

- In 2007, the NARM and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ranked Thriller third on their "Definitive 200" list, a compilation of what they believed to be the greatest albums ever. The first and second ranked were The Beatles "Sgt. Pepper's Lonley Hearts Club Band" and Pink Floyd's "The Wall." This is widely regarded as total bullshit, because nobody has ever even heard of those two jagoff bands and, frankly, they sound made-up.

- Michael Jackson's Thriller contains the track "Baby Be Mine," which is scientifically proven to get the ladies totally wet.

- In the United States alone, Thriller has gone platinum 27 times (selling more than 27 million idividual copies.) In Canada, Thriller has sold only 2 million copies. This proves the already widely-accepted theory that Canada is "13 and a half times lamer" than the United States.

- The Michael Jackson/Paul McCartney collaboration, "The Girl is Mine," was not a pre-written piece of music but rather an actual recorded conversation between the two former friends, who had taken to arguing only in song.

- Thriller won 7 Grammy Awards, 8 American Music Awards, and 3 MTV Music Video Awards. It is rumored that, due to their abundance, Jackson hands out the award statues to trick or treaters during Halloween.

- The song "P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)" was originally titled "P.Y.T. (Punchin' Your Tummy)" and was about Jackson's distaste for his many pregnant girlfriends. The original chorus lyrics were as follows:

"I want to punch you

(P-Y-T)

In the tummy

You need some kickin'

(K-F-S)

Down the fucking stairs

And I'll take you there"

The song's title and lyrics were later changed at the urging of Thriller producer, Quincy Jones. Jackson then penned the song "Billie Jean" to further explore the pregnancy issue.

- In early 1984, a rumor surfaced that the first 7 digits of the UPC code for Thriller were Michael Jackson's phone number. This, however, was an obvious hoax as Michale Jackson has no need for telephones because he communicates telepathically.

- The original name for the "Thriller" single was "Give Me Starlight", while the album was originally to be called Starlight. Both titles were changed to "Thriller" when Michael Jackson expressed that the original titles were "too faggy" and would never "get him all up in some cunt".

- Queen singer(and then good friend of Jackson's), Freddy Mercury, recorded a few songs with Jackson during the Thriller sessions, those being "State of Shock", "There Must Be More to Life Than This" and "Victory". None of these tracks have ever been officially released. Jackson's official comment on the shelving of these tracks was that he didn't want Mercury "queering up [his] image".

- The dancing hoard of zombies in the "Thriller" music video were not dancers in make-up, but rather an actual army of undead corpses that Jackson summoned from the grave with his moonwalk powers. Upon wrapping of production for the video, Jackson personally beat the skull of each and every zombie in with one of his Grammy's.

- Contrary to the song's adamant protests, Billie Jean indeed was Jackson's lover. However, Jackson's refusal of paternity tests still leave the verdict out on whether or not the kid is his son. The aforementioned kid, (Ronnie Jackson-Seigle, pictured below) currently lives in Iowa and works as an accountant.
A photo of Ronnie Jackson-Seigle in 1993 at age 11. Paternity has yet to be proven.

Is it Hall of Fame time already?

The 2008 Hall of Fame ballot was released the other day and it is about the most underwhelming collection of players in a long, long time.

It’s a shame really.

I mean, baseball is, as a sport, kinda teetering right now. Popularity is at an impressively high level…YET, public perception is one George Mitchell report away from being worse than one could ever conceive!

Which brings me back to this year’s Hall of Fame class. We need a year like last year’s Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn class rather than the “well, someone had to be elected, right?” ceremony that awaits us in 2008. Frankly, I’m more excited for any sequel to “Two Girls…One Cup” than I am the 2008 Hall of Fame class. At least with that, you have willing participants being fed a mouthful of you-know-what instead of whoever the writers present us with as being a baseball immortal.

Who are the first ballot front runners? Tim Raines, David Justice…Rob Nen? Shoot me now.

I could make a case for “Rock” if (and it’s a BIG “if”) Rickey Henderson did not exist, was already in the Hall of Fame OR Andre Dawson was already enshrined. Henderson was roughly THREE TIMES the player Raines was and Dawson was more of the face of the baseball north or the border than anyone else. And let’s face it…Raines was pretty much only an Expo, right? I implore you to tell me who else he played for, when AND what he might have done with those teams that is worth mentioning.

The holdovers are intriguing and it is on that list where you’ll find the class of 2008. Most notably…Goose Gossage, Jim Rice, Andre Dawson and Mark McGwire are getting plenty of attention.

Last name first…McGwire won’t get in because of the steroid implications. It probably wouldn’t be the best PR move for baseball to elect someone to the Hall that is routinely mentioned in the “did he” or “didn’t he” steroid debate. Besides, and this is probably the best case for NOT voting him in…his stats weren’t that great. In short, McGwire wasn’t a Hall of Fame player…plain and simple.

Rice and Dawson, both of whom are guys that I support wholeheartedly, are probably going to fall short as well.

Again.

Dawson has seen his vote totals go from 45% in his first year of eligibility (2002) to a high of 61% in 2006 and back down to 56% last year. In that time, both Bruce Sutter and Ryne Sandberg have jumped past him on the list and waltzed into Cooperstown.

Similarly, Jim Rice (who many consider the “most feared” batter of the 70s) has gone from 29% in 1995 to his high of (roughly) 64% in both 2006 and 2007. Rice getting in would be a tip of the cap to the Red Sox franchise and a fitting compliment to their 2007 Championship season. He is beloved by the “Nation” and would certainly bring the crowds to sleepy Cooperstown, New York.

What about the perennial “why not this guy” Bert Blyleven?

Well, like Tommy John (another great “why not”), if he wasn’t elected yet…he won’t be now. And, unfortunately, as much as I like (and support) Jack Morris…I almost have to put him in this same category.

So…the guy with the best chance of being the lucky recipient of the “we had to pick SOMEONE” award is Gossage. Process of elimination, right?

Right?!?

Goose is a head scratcher though. For the life of me, I can’t figure out where this ground swell of support is coming from. It isn’t like he ONLY played for the Yankees. If he did…I could understand why such a colorful character would even be talked about.

On paper, his stats were good. HOWEVER, if you compare him with some of his contemporaries…he is the Vince Coleman to Sutter’s Raines. And that is, of course, if you look at Rollie Fingers as being the Rickey Henderson of the bunch.

To me, Gossage isn’t even the best reliever on the ballot this year…especially with both Lee Smith and Rob Nen up for consideratin. Now, I’m not saying they SHOULD be in the Hall…I’m just saying they are more “Hall worthy” than Goose. But that’s only if you look at the stat line.

The key to being a Hall of Famer is dominance. In short, you need to be THE dominant player (if not one of the most dominant players) at your position during the time you played. Gossage clearly was very, VERY good…but “dominant”?

Sutter supporters would disagree the loudest…but who cares? He’s already in the Hall.

What about Dan Quisenberry, Jeff Reardon, Tug McGraw or Kent Tekulve?

Look at their numbers during the same time that Gossage played. I mean, Goose only led the league in saves THREE times (with only two years with more than 30 saves)…and one of those years, he tied with Quisenberry. Quisenberry, I might add, led the American League in saves five out of six years in the early 80s…right at the same time Goose was said to have been at his peak.

Gossage did get Cy Young consideration five times between 1975 and 1984. However, in that same span…Fingers, Sutter, Sparky Lyle and Willie Hernandez each took home the Cy Young award. Hell, Quisenberry (again) had five top five finishes in a six year span and he dropped off of the Hall ballot after appearing only once.

And yes, I know…any monkey who laces up the spikes can get “Cy Young consideration”. But when you talk “dominance”…you have to take that into consideration.

So is Gossage a Hall of Famer? Frankly…I’m not sure how he garnered 71% of the vote last year. However, the writers seem to like him and (like I said before), this year could belong to him and Rice (maybe)…but only time will tell.

Over the next two months, the HoVG will be examining more of the players that might (but shouldn’t) be overlooked on the current Hall of Fame ballot. If you’ve got something to say about Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Lee Smith or even Don Mattingly…I’d like to hear from you!

Drop me an email at hallofverygood@yahoo.com and who knows…your words might just end up on this website!

***Note: I had a poll on the site asking about whether or not you thought Goose should be inducted this year and I'm surprised...78% of you thought he should. Let's see if your opinions match those of the actual voters.***