1) wade boggs, ryne sandberg, peter gammons, and some guy that i've never heard of got inducted into the baseball hall of fame this past weekend. no real controversy here. sandberg dominated his position for his era. his numbers are a little lower than what you might expect from a hall of famer, but i think his accomplishments warrant the induction. he got in on his third ballot, which seems about right to me. wade boggs had a six year stretch where he was the best hitter in the league but then dropped off into the world of slightly above average players. normally this would make his induction iffy, but since i believe in magic numbers, boggs and his 3000 hits gets in. i'm not sure if i think he should have gotten in on the first ballot, but since no one else really got in, i say whatever. the crazy thing about all of this is that i feel that they weren't the most deserving honoree this weekend. that would go to my generation's and the previous generations' best baseball writer, peter gammons (who as i mentioned previously on this blog, can no longer read on espn.com). of these three, the one i would most like to hang out with is gammons. and i'm pretty sure that most fans would echo this sentiment as well, which speaks to both gammon's greatness and the marginality of sandberg and boggs as hall of famers. to put things into perspective, alomar's numbers blow sandberg's out of the water and tony gwynn had a much better career than boggs. i'm not saying that boggs and sandberg shouldn't have gotten in, just that i'm not so excited about them getting in. maybe i grew up at a different time and didn't get to see them play enough, but in my book, they're 2nd or 3rd tier hall of famers.
but seriously, what's the deal with wade boggs' crispin glover haircut?
well, as i was searching for better pictures from the hall of fame ceremony, i found out the answer to that question.
2) raffy, the most handsome-est player in all of baseball got busted for steroids. this after he emphatically denied this allegation earlier this year at the congressional hearings. i've said it before, so it warrants, "i told you so" status. jose canseco had no reason to throw raffy under the bus, so it made the most sense that raffy did in fact take steroids at some point. of course, he's denying up and down that he ever knowlingly took steroids, and that the stuff got into his body a different way. while i suppose that may be true, i just want to remind people rather than give him the benefit of the doubt, to hold his feet to the fire and ask yourself which is more likely to be true, raffy developing his power a little later in his career than most players naturally or with some kind of steroid help?
anyways, raffy, of course, had the obligatory press release where he still denies ever haven knowlingly ingested steroids. i just don't know how anyone with any sense believe this. but it is typical behavior for athletes who think that a press event to defuse the situation. i think i've said it before, but it's just like the republicans who just keep always say the same thing even if they have been cought red handed (are you listening to me karl rove?). anyways, it's a childish tactic, and even more importantly, it's a tactic that reeks of douchey-ness. but i suppose that it must work since athletes keep having them after something has gone wrong.
anyways, i wonder if this will affect his hall of fame chances. raffy actually is in possession of 2 magic numbers, 500 homers and 3000 hits, so you should be hard pressed not to include him. but even now, people question his credentials, and i imagine that this will be more ammunition for the anti-raffy faction. all i know is that steroids can't improve how handsome you are, so if handsome-ness is a factor in hall of fame voting, it should be enough to outweigh any strikes against that raffy might have.
is anyone not swooning over this hunk of rugged-handsome-ness?