EVIL~! alkeiper

Hennig debuted in 1979, so he far exceeds the requirement. I'm using the PWI Almanacs for debut dates, wherever possible.

Sweet. Picked up the Billy Graham dvd and the 2006 Rumble.

William Howard Taft still had bigger tits.

Excellent. Utley is in the discussion as far as the top ten players in baseball go. This deal keeps him for four years past free agency. I didn't know Ruhle was in a bad way. That's two members of the 1980 Astros' starting staff gone in three months.

Watching the end of that Maeda/Andre match. I know there's controversy about the footage, as some claim it's edited to make Maeda look worse. I don't see how, but that is a side issue. In any case, it is apparent that Andre was not prone on the ground from taking so many kicks. He was trying to entice Maeda to lock up on the ground. I think the whole thing ended up as a giant mess rather than validating anyone.

The J.D. Drew hate amazes me sometimes. From ESPN's Sportsnation poll... 51% believe J.D. Drew will play less than 100 games this season. Drew has played eight seasons (not counting his '98 call up). In those eight, he failed to play 100 games just once. Twice in the last three years, he reached the top plateau only 3% believe he will attain.

It was about five or six months. He only wrestled two matches as I recall.

I'm guessing because Smackdown is being discussed in the spoilers thread, making the second thread redundant.

It's a mood piece. It's quite enjoyable if you're in the right frame of mind for it. But I can definitely see where it becomes a chore otherwise.

Given the interest in the WWE Hall of Fame whenever the topic rolls around and interest in Hall of Fames in general, I thought it would be interesting to run our own WWE Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is nothing we could take seriously, but it would provide for some interesting discussions, particularly when we roll past the obvious choices. Second, it would demonstrate a little about how Hall of Fame voting works in general. Voting would come in two stages. First, a "nomination" stage. Here we simply illicet wrestlers the voters feel worthy of induction. The top ten vote getters, regardless of percentage, would advance to the "election" stage. In this second stage, voters could vote for up to all ten wrestlers they see deserving of the Hall. Those who received 75% of the vote would gain induction. While the primary focus is wrestling, promoters, managers, announcers, and others are eligible. A person (such as Gorilla Monsoon or Pat Patterson) can earn credit for the sum of his or her contributions. For the most part, only a person's work in WWE should be considered. In order to merit induction, a wrestler should have debuted no later than March 29, 1987 (in other words, before Wrestlemania III). I think this time frame includes most of the valid wrestlers, while allowing for a few choice wrestlers to come up if the time period is extended, thus giving the HoF a longer shelf life. *Please Note* The following wrestlers are ineligible at this time: The Undertaker, Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, Triple H, Kurt Angle, Goldust, The Rock, Kane, Steve Austin, Kevin Nash. That list is not exclusive of course. Votes for anyone who debuted after Wrestlemania III will be disregarded. By debut, not necessarily within WWE. Any member of the forums is welcome to vote, but they must join before the current voting period. A voting period lasts for one week. The nominations will run from Saturday-Mondays, with the elections running Tuesday-Fridays. Voting ends at midnight Eastern on each specified day. Elections will begin Tuesdays as soon as I get the ballot completed. We will run a new "election" every week as interest/candidates warrent. Feel free to ask any questions. Consider the nominations open. Pick up to ten (10) you think deserve a place on the first ballot.

I'm looking at doing a series on expansion teams. Looking at the '61 Angels, I couldn't help but notice Ryne Duren, All Star. Duren was a dominant, Bobby Jenks style reliever for the Yankees in 1958-59. In 1961 however, Duren went 6-13 in relief work with a 5.19 ERA. Best of all, he walked 75 batters in 99 IP. It wasn't just a first-half fluke either. He was 3-9 at the All-Star break.

From 2004-06 J.D. Drew ranked 6th in MLB in OBP and 11th in OPS. When he plays, he's an elite player. Given that he played 145+ games two of the last three seasons, I think his reputation precedes him.

Nintendo can't keep Wiis on the shelf at $250. That would indicate that they're underpriced, not overpriced.

I've been on a huge Kinks kick lately. Getting over a breakup, listening to their dripping bitterness on songs like Who'll Be the Next in Line? is quite fun.

Does Ringo get extra credit for voicework on Thomas the Train Engine?

Pitchers are inherently unpredictable. Vazquez made the All-Star team in 2004. He was 10-5 at the break with a 3.56 ERA, and the acquisition looked like a major success at that point. What happened at that point is a mystery. If the New York pressure was an issue, why did it not faze him in the first half? Why didn't he recover upon leaving New York? It seems apparent that Vazquez lost something physically that wasn't disabling, but zapped his dominance.

I guess it is a nice way of saying they show emotion. Howard doesn't have intangibles, he just knocks the f*** out of the ball. They did improve the team. They already had enough run production, so the smart move was to deal some of it for defense. A few pitchers with obvious flaws fail, so let's stick our heads in the sand. What a great attitude!

I like the deal for both teams. Atlanta's got a few extra options at first base, while Pittsburgh gets a player they can hang onto for a few years. A team in the Pirates' position has little need for an ace reliever. Honestly, the Braves could really surprise people this season.

I like the idea of the Chief on Jeopardy, standing there and not saying a thing the whole show.

It's almost like people are proud of the idea of destroying Andre's reputation. I wouldn't know firsthand of course, but I imagine there's a difference between prime Andre and the guy who was a shell of his former abilities by 1986. As for Maeda, that shoot kick to Riki Choshu more than qualifies him.

Law noted that 17 of 26 writers he polled believed Raines deserved the Hall. He noted that the writers' perception may be difficult than the public's, boding well for Raines. Only three paragraphs in total, it was a blog entry.

Sometimes I think I'm getting overly tolerant in my old age. At least football is over in Northeast PA.

Oh it's valid to talk about them. It's just that the format is horribly tired.

Recently an ESPN Sportsnation poll stated that approximately 83% of respondents do not believe Tim Raines was a Hall of Fame caliber player. This is extremely unfortunately. Tim Raines was not only a Hall of Famer, but if left out he would clearly stand as the most deserving player left out. On statistics alone, he rates higher than Mark McGwire. In making this argument I am going to attempt to avoid bogging down the argument with too many sabermetrics. Runs Created Above Average and WARP3 might view Raines as deserving, but they are not going to convince the casual fan. My goal is to convince the casual baseball fan that Raines deserves the Hall. Tim Raines' stat line is not convincing at first glance. A .385 On Base Percentage is good but not among the greats. .425 is quite pedestrian for a slugging percentage. Delving into Raines' value requires more work. Start with his stolen bases (808, 5th all time). The four players with more steals are all in the Hall, and Vince Coleman is the only non-Hall of Famer among the top ten. Of those ten, Raines was caught stealing the least, only 146 times. In fact, Raines' stolen base percentage of 84% is the greatest stolen base percentage of all time. Raines reached base almost 4,000 times in his career, good for 38th all time. When he did reach base, which was often, he was absolute terror on the basepaths. He's 46th all time in runs scored. 32nd in walks. Tim Raines vs. Jim Rice Jim Rice seems like an inexplicable Hall candidate. Let's compare the two. Raines played in over 400 more games, collecting more runs, hits, doubles, triples, steals, walks, and less strikeouts and double plays. Those are counting statistics so maybe that is unfair. Raines' OBP is 33 points higher. Rice played in eight All-Star games, Raines played in seven. Rice played left field and DH'ed in Fenway Park, while Raines played left field in Stade Olympique. But Rice's argument is all about peak. In 1978 Rice won the MVP award, hitting .315 with 46 home runs and 139 RBIs. That is impressive. Compare that with Raines in 1987. Raines hit .330, had a .429 OBP (59 points higher than Rice), walked 90 times, hit 18 home runs, scored 123 runs, and stole 50 bases in 55 tries. Rice was a feared hitter? Raines was intentionally walked 26 times, 14 out of the leadoff slot. In fact, Raines was intentionally walked more than 10 times in a season four times. Rice was intentionally walked ten times in his best season. What all this indicates to me is that managers saw Rice as a power threat, but one they could beat. Raines? No way. (In fact, Raines' prolific on base tendencies earned Tim Wallach 123 RBIs and a 4th place MVP finish.) Tim Raines vs. Lou Brock Brock is seen as a good Hall of Famer. 3,000 hits, held the record for stolen bases until Rickey Henderson. Draw up the list, and Raines is clearly a superior player. Raines stole 130 less bases, but was caught 161 less times. Raines had a higher batting average, higher slugging percentage, and a MUCH higher on base percentage. Raines had 400 less hits but over 500 more walks. More impressively, Raines actually appeared in more All-Star games. Win Shares Skip this part if you don't believe in the stat at all, but you may find this enlightening. Tim Raines has 390 career win shares. Every player with 400+ win shares is in the Hall of Fame. Two players with more win shares than Raines are out. One is Tony Mullane, who racked up wins pitching in the inferior American Association in the 1880s. The other is Bill Dahlen, an unheralded infielder of the turn of the century. There are 70 players with more than 363 win shares, and all but two who are eligible are in. That's rare company, and Raines is smack in the middle of it. I hope if you were unconvinced, you are now. If not, I'd like to hear from you.

The Reds really dodged a bullet in the '70s. 102 wins in 1970 and 95 wins in '72 led to World Series losses. They won 99 games in 1973 and lost the NLCS to the 82-79 Mets! I can't imagine how history would have viewed them if they lost this series. Of course, 1976's dual playoff sweeps really cemented their reputation. Carbo's quite the overlooked player. 126 OPS+. Walked a ton, had power but lack of defense kept him out of a regular job.