Other parts of the book tackle the ‘morals’ issue for getting in the HoF and lay out some really serious monsters in there (3 Ku Klux Klan members) and there’s a section on the cronyism of the Veteran’s Committee (now changed) and another where the book takes on PEDs as a reason to keep people out (he argues no, but it isn’t the most coherent part of the book).

Worth looking at.

If ‘running wild’ on VariVMart is a factor, L.A. is going to break their hearts… and arms.

[34][35] Another “problem,” a greater problem in my opinion, is that voters differentiate between “first ballot HOFer” from other HOFers. In other words, I have no problem if a voter feels that Babe Ruth shouldn’t get in, or that relievers don’t belong in the Hall, or whatever. They’re voters and they have their opinions, and so long as they are internally consistent I can’t get too upset.

But as I understand it, getting into the HOF is a yes/no, pass/fail proposition. You can’t be more in the HOF or less in the HOF. So it has never made any sense to me that a voter would withhold his vote for a deserving player (that is, a player whom he thinks deserves to get in) simply because he does not believe that he is a “first ballot” HOFer. Thus, he will vote FOR the same player the following year.

The only reason for a voter to change his vote from year to year should be because he has changed his mind on the player (e.g., accepted new metrics, like OPS over BA, or over time has come to recognize more clearly a given players place within the historical context, etc.). Voters should not be voting to create tiers of HOFers (1st ballot guys v. regular guys), or other such principles (player X should get in and I know he will, but no one deserves to go in unanimously so I won’t vote for him, etc.).

You’re bound to get at least one “expert” with a vote who feels relievers shouldn’t be in the HOF or something asinine like that.

As for Beckett/Buccholz versus AJ/Andy, I think that’s close to even. Then, when you take a look at offense, I think the edge definitely swings to the Yankees. It won’t be easy, but there’s nothing that would make you think the Yankees were the underdog.

Now, as for Anaheim, something about the Big-A still worries me, but taking 2 of 3 did much for my psyche, so hopefully it did the same for the Yankees.

Of course, we also can’t look past Detroit either, but the Yankees are definitely a better team. Anything can happen in a 5 game series, but that is a series the Yankees win more often than not. Hopefully this time is “more often”.

I don’t think we can necessarily draw that conclusion because there are, as David Cone pointed out yesterday on ESPN 1050 (amplifying what some of us have speculated), Joba’s velo is probably down because of some mechanical problems and as a result of reduced arm strength because he hasn’t fully recovered it since the shoulder injury. Undoubtedly, these issues have impacted his effectiveness, and vitiate Sheehan’s assessment.

Sox vs. Yanks is a very close match-up. Our guys hit a little better, their guys pitch a little better. If it happens, it’s just a great series.

But I hate short playoff series! I fear them, I go in tight. I need the calming powers of the Banter as we head in. And I made a mistake last night: I watched Buchholz annihilate KC. (And KC have been playing very well.) I think Lester/Beckett/Buchholz and I look at the numbers last 2 months for Lester and last month for Buchholz, and Beckett getting it back together … and we are not even close in the three starters. We can so easily be K-ed to death by them.

So we hope for L.A.? Right. Sure.

And these are AFTER Verlander + Jackson … (I do think CC matches up fine with Verlander).

In short, the Hoss is starting to get edgy, and it is all about pitching.