Skip to content

Steve Garvey and Dave Parker? Bah! Give Dewey Evans a shot at the Hall!

Nov 5, 2013, 2:27 PM EST

Dave Parker smoking

Our continuing series on the 12 players on the Baseball Hall of Fame Expansion Era ballot.

* * *

Steve Garvey

Summary: First baseman who played 19 seasons for the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego Padres. Winner of an MVP Award (1974), the Roberto Clemente Award (given for great play and contribution to the comminutey), the Lou Gehrig Award (given to players who exhibit the character best exhibited by Lou Gehrig), two National League Championship MVPs, two All-Star Game MVPs and four Gold Gloves.

The quick case: Garvey was one of the most celebrated players of his day, not only for his play but for the type of leadership and integrity he displayed. For this, they called him Captain America. He was voted the All-Star first baseman nine times. He was a lifetime .294 hitter with almost 2,600 hits and more than 1,300 RBIs — he also played in 1,207 consecutive games, which remains the longest streak in the National League. He had an interesting enough statistical career that there are several ways you can chop up his numbers and put him in elite company. For instance: Here is the list of players who had 250 homers, 1,300 RBIs and six-plus seasons with 200 hits.

– Lou Gehrig
– Charlie Gehringer
– Rogers Hornsby
– Stan Musial
– Al Simmons
– Steve Garvey

The history: Garvey got off to a very good start in the Hall of Fame balloting, drawing more than 41% of the vote his first year on the ballot (1993). Two years later, the percentage had ticked upward. Then, the interest in his case started to fade. Undoubtedly Garvey’s personal problems — he settled in multiple paternity suits, had various money issues, seemed to be involved in some shady dealings and so on — unquestionably played a role in his fading Hall of Fame chances. Also his career, when looked at in retrospect, does not have quite the brilliance it seemed to have when he was active. In his last year on the ballot, Garvey got 21.1% of the vote.

Comparable Hall of Famer: Hard to find a great comp. Maybe Sunny Jim Bottomley.

I have a theory about Steve Garvey that is probably ridiculous, but I’ll share it anyway. To me, Steve Garvey was the Great Gatsby of baseball. It isn’t that the man lacked for nicknames — they called him Senator, Mr. Clean, Captain America — but what strikes me about Garvey’s career is not the personality he dispelled but how he meticulously and purposefully built himself into one of baseball’s biggest stars by manipulating the standards of the day.

For instance, in Garvey’s day, people admired .300 hitters. Garvey hit .300 every year but one from 1974 to 1980. He determined that 200-hit seasons helped define excellence. He wrote “200” in his batting glove, figured out a formula for how many hits he would need each month, carefully plotted out a schedule that included the occasional bunt for a single, and he got 200 hits six times in seven seasons.*

*Three times, he got EXACTLY 200 hits, which is utterly fascinating. In 1974, he needed two hits on his final day to reach 200. He got two hits — a double and a single off J.R. Richard. In 1976, he had exactly 200 hits with two games left in the season. He played in both games, but did not get a hit in either (he did walk twice and drive in a couple of runs). In 1980, he needed one hit to reach 200 in his 162nd game. He led off the second inning with a bunt single off Vern Ruhle (as it turned out, the Dodgers played in a one-game playoff that year against Houston which did count toward Garvey’s season stats — he did not get a hit).

Garvey determined that RBIs made the star — he had 100-plus RBIs five times. He determined that he could not throw the ball, so he became adept at racing to the bag and beating the runner there — he won four Gold Gloves despite his obvious defensive flaw. He determined that playing every single day would place him positively in the public eye. He played every single day. He worked and worked and worked into building his public image as a player and a man. He tirelessly did charitable work, he signed every autograph, he presented himself as a milk-drinking superhero.

We all know how Garvey’s off-the-field image collapsed. But in building himself as a player, he left several gaps on the field, gaps that were not really noticed until after he finished played. For instance, he got those 200 hits every year, but he almost never walked. That’s no exaggeration — he is one only on 12 players in baseball history to play in 2,000 games and walk fewer than once every 19 times up. He never walked more than 50 times in a season — and he only once walked more than 40 times. Well, walks were not part of the Gatsby plan.

Because he did not walk, he did not get on base. His .294 career batting average is pretty impressive, but his .329 on-base percentage is not. Because he did not get on-base, he did not score runs — he never scored 100 in a season. Again, nobody paid attention to runs. He did not generally hit many home runs. In 1977, he hit 33 home runs (his only season with 30-plus homers) but in doing so he sacrificed both his .300 batting average (.297) and his 200 hits (192). It messed with the program. He didn’t do it again.

I don’t mean this to sound harsh — Garvey was simply doing an extreme version of what every great athlete does. He looked at his situation (Dodger Stadium and, later, Jack Murphy Stadium were pitcher’s parks), he defined the kind of player he wanted to become and, perhaps more than any player ever, he went all out to become that player. I would guess that from 1982 or so until the end of the decade, no player was called “Future Hall of Famer” more than Steve Garvey. It’s just that Garvey was dealt a cruel trick of fate. They changed the standards on him after he stopped playing. By the time Garvey’s Hall of Fame case was being seriously discussed, nobody really cared about 200-hit seasons. people started talking about this odd thing called “on-base percentage” which nobody had ever mentioned to him. Suddenly his 274 career home runs seemed a little short as did his .446 slugging percentage (slugging percentage? Seriously?).

And so, my theory on Steve Garvey? I think if he had come up this decade, he would have been a different player. I think Garvey had the amazing discipline and athletic ability to become the kind of player he wanted to become. He was Captain America in the 1970s because that’s what people admired then. I think Garvey in the 2000s might have been a different personality on the field and, on the field, more like Adrian Gonzalez — batting average drops some, on-base percentage goes up quite a lot, home runs go up too. I almost never think that players can change who they are. But Garvey was a master of disguise.

* * *

Dave Parker

Summary: Played for six teams from 1973 to to 1991. Two-time batting champion and seven-time All-Star. They called him the Cobra, and in his prime he was something close to a five-tool player. He hit, with some power, could run some, could field some and could throw like crazy.

The quick case: Parker might have been the best player in the National League from 1977 to 1979. That stretch for the Pirates included two batting titles, three Gold Gloves, three seasons where he scored 100-plus runs. He won the 1978 MVP Award and was far-and-away the best every day player in the league that year. He declined severely after some personal problems in the early 1980s, then reemerged in his mid-30s as a much rounder-looking slugger for his hometown Cincinnati Reds. He is in the Top 60 all-time in numerous categories including total bases (51st), RBIs (54th) and doubles (37th).

The history: Parker got almost 25% of the Hall of Fame vote his second year on the ballot but never gained any momentum after that. The viewpoint seemed to be that if not for the drug problems, Parker would have been a slam-dunk, first-ballot Hall of Fame guy. But those drug problems derailed his Hall of Fame chances.

Comparable Hall of Famer: Jim Rice or Andre Dawson.

Let’s take a look at two players who were almost exact contemporaries. We’ll call them Player A and Dave Parker.

Dave Parker had about 300 more hits than Player A. Parker had 50 or so more doubles. He had 100 more RBIs. Parker won an MVP — Player A never did and never really came close. Parker started four All-Star Games — Player A never started in an All-Star game. Parker won two batting titles and hit .300 six times. Player A hit .300 once.

So what’s the point of the comparison?

Well, Player A has his advantages too. He hit about 50 more home runs than Parker. He scored about 200 more runs than Parker. While he never came close to leading the league in hitting, he did lead the league in on-base percentage one year and had a .400 OBP three times — Parker never did once. Parker won those three Gold Gloves; Player A won eight of them. While Parker had more hits, Player A reached base almost 500 more times.

When you total it all up by WAR, Dave Parker had a 40.0 WAR. Player A’s WAR was 66.7. Not even close.*

*If you prefer Fangraphs WAR, Parker had 41.1, Player A had 65.1.

Player A, you undoubtedly already know, was Dwight Evans and he remains, perhaps, the underrated jewel of his time. People just never thought of Evans as a great player, even though they DID think of him as a great defensive player with a great arm and an excellent run producer, especially in his later years. That batting average kept him down (career .272), he was largely overshadowed by teammates Fred Lynn and Jim Rice (though, for his career, he was probably better than both of them), his best season was cut short by the 1981 strike (he was leading the league in homers and total bases), and he just did smaller things that people did not appreciate like walk a lot and run the bases well despite a lack of speed.

Even Red Sox fans I talk with often say, “Oh, hey, I loved Dewey but I never saw him as a Hall of Famer.”

I tend to doubt that ANY of the players on the expansion ballot will get into the Hall of Fame — I think this year’s ballot is dominated by managers and executives. Still, the point of the Expansion Era ballot should be to look at players who, for one reason or another, were overlooked as Hall of Famers by the BBWAA. Dave Parker was not overlooked. He was fairly judged as a fantastic player who, sadly, lost the middle of his career to a drug addiction. He was judged short, and I suspect this committee will come to the same conclusion. It should have been Dewey on the ballot instead.

  1. joestemme - Nov 5, 2013 at 2:40 PM

    Dwight Evans is a Hall of Famer. If you are the very best at your position during your playing days, then you should be in.

    Dewey’s hitting numbers are low compared to the roids era guys, but, pretty comparable for the time period.

    AND, he had 8 Gold Gloves (And remember, GG’s aren’t given out by outfield position. There is no designated ‘Right Fielder Gold Glove’. Evans would have undoubtedly been in double digits if there was). He is widely considered one of the very best defensive right fielders of all time.

    But, it seems as if Defense is only considered top priority in the Hall of Fame for Shortstops. For all other positions, particularly outfielders, some neanderthal who hits 500 home runs but couldn’t catch a beach ball is much much more highly valued than the best at his position defensively. And, as these stats show, Evans was a damn fine hitter as well.

    • wendell7 - Nov 5, 2013 at 6:27 PM

      My dad was a sales rep for the company whose hot dogs were sold at Fenway Park for many years. Dewey Evans was the player pitch man for the company and my dad got to know him a little bit over the years. Dad always said what a genuine and down to earth guy Evans was. He and his wife still live in the same modest house that he bought when he was a rookie.

    • jeffa43 - Nov 5, 2013 at 7:44 PM

      Nailed it! speaking of dominating over a decade……

      Since 1920… The BEST EVER in first 11 seasons of a career…

      Joe DiMaggio 317 1,344
      Ted Williams 322 1,264
      Hank Aaron 366 1,216
      Jeff Bagwell 349 1,223
      Miguel Cabrera 345 1,204
      Albert Pujols 445 1,329

      Jeff Bagwell is a Hall of Famer.

      • jeffa43 - Nov 5, 2013 at 7:47 PM

        Those are Home Runs and Rib Eyes…

    • wpjohnson - Nov 5, 2013 at 10:13 PM

      Evans is no Hall of Famer. The Hall already has far too many merely good players. It should be reserved for the great- not the merely popular good players. If you want to recognize players like Evans, create something else.

  2. rickdobrydney - Nov 5, 2013 at 2:42 PM

    I don’t think I ever saw a better defensive right fielder than Evans at his peak— His arm was SCARY good—-

    • Glenn - Nov 5, 2013 at 7:30 PM

      I agree. I grew up thinking that a runner on first base couldn’t go to third on a single to right. No one ever bothered to try against Dewey, or they got thrown out if they did. I don’t remember Clemente and am too young to remember Carl Furillo. Barfield had a great arm, but Dewey’s was better.

      • jeffa43 - Nov 5, 2013 at 7:46 PM

        Glenn Wilson was scary good as well.

  3. jimsjam33 - Nov 5, 2013 at 2:50 PM

    What Garvey did outside of baseball with his personal life shouldn’t matter. He was the anchor of the Dodgers greatest infield ever with Garvey at first , Lopes at second , Russell at short , and Cey at third . Garvey had the numbers , World Series rings , and was the MVP in 1974 . That should be enough , but I don’t think he’ll make it Too bad he deserves a place .

    • cohnjusack - Nov 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM

      I don’t care what Garvey did off the field, he is really, really damn far from a traditional HOF first baseman. Posnanski uses most of this post to explain why that is, yet you chose to ignore that and only look at the part on this personal life?

      I know these guys played in different eras, but see if you can pick out whose career line is whose.

      Player 1: 272 HR, 1308 RBI, .294/.329/.446
      Player 2: 272 HR, 1292 RBI, .296/.327/.469

      You believe one of those players in a HOF….and the other is Garret Anderson. Obviously, Garvey is better, he played during a lighter offensive era. But were the differences in ERA so great that if Garret Anderson repeated his career with the same numbers in the late 70s he would be a HOFer?

      • 18thstreet - Nov 5, 2013 at 6:24 PM

        Well, yes. The differences in offensive eras are, in fact, that dramatic. Baseball reference has a fun tool that lets you compare what a player’s numbers would like like in different environments. You can try it.

    • raysfan1 - Nov 5, 2013 at 3:42 PM

      Regardless of how one feels about him as a player, he carefully cultivated that Captain America/Mr Clean persona. When all that personal dirt came to light, his reputation was toast. How he was seen as a ball player had as much or more to do with his image as his actual production to begin with; thus, when his false image was erased, so were his chances of ever being selected by the BBWAA.

      I’m a “big hall” guy, but he is someone who should maybe be honored by his team(s) but really does not measure up to the 1B already in the HoF.

  4. pastabelly - Nov 5, 2013 at 2:51 PM

    Evans gets hurt because he was a horrible hitter when he first came up. As a result, he is hurt because he was brought up when he was very young and lacked plate discipline. His career WAR is very high and so is his OPS. I saw an earlier article promoting Dan Quisenberry. I would never have traded Evans straight up in his prime for the prime of Quisenberry. Nobody in his right mind would.

    • largebill - Nov 6, 2013 at 3:05 PM

      Agree. Believe Evans early career performance cemented an image of him in writers minds that his later much better performance couldn’t erase. He was also hurt by the strikes. His best offensive season was 1981 where close to a 1/3 of the season was lost to a strike.

  5. cohnjusack - Nov 5, 2013 at 3:05 PM

    10 Players who get absolutely no HOF love from anybody. The Raines and Trammel’s have people fighting for them. Keith Hernandez, Darrel Evans and Bobby Grich have their backers. Here are ten people who are on ten people who may be deserving (on the border anyway), but I hardly ever heard about in terms of HOF injustice.

    1. Reggie Smith — Spent half his career as a center fielder and posted a 137 OPS+ in 1987 games. By comparison, David Ortiz has a career 139 OPS+ and in 1967 games. Peaked during the light-offense early 70s (remember, offense was so bad, they lowered the mound and added the DH!). Still hit 314 homers, and put up 64.4 WAR for his career. Fell off the ballot his first year.

    2. Willie Randolph — Got on base like a madman….373 for his career, as an elite defensive 2nd baseman. Could also steal bases at one point in his career. 65.6 career WAR

    3. Kevin Brown — Kevin Brown was good. Really, really good. From 1996-2000, he averaged 242 innings and a 2.51 ERA. Repeat, that is a 2.51 ERA in the height of the 90s offense explosion. Only Pedro Martinez had a lower ERA during that span. Ended with a career 127 ERA+ in over 3,000 innings. I cannot find another qualified pitcher not named Roger Clemens with a higher ERA+ in as many innings who is not already in the Hall. Obviously, PEDs play a role, but I doubt he would have gotten the time of day even without that hanging around his neck.

    4. Bill Dahlen — Dead-ball era shortstop. 2400 hits, 1590 runs scored for a dead-ball era shortstop and no Hall??

    5. Graig Nettles — On of the best defensive 3rd baseman ever, played for a long time and had enough power to hit 390 home runs in a light offensive era.

    • cohnjusack - Nov 5, 2013 at 3:06 PM

      10 Players who get absolutely no HOF love from anybody.

      I know there are only 5 here. I was feeling a bit too optimistic about how long this would hold my interest when I started that post.

      • Anoesis - Nov 5, 2013 at 7:58 PM

        First post interesting and enlightening, second post hilarious.

    • dinofrank60 - Nov 6, 2013 at 11:02 PM

      Reggie Smith was a better player than some of the guys in the HOF. His problem was injuries and a supposed bad attitude. One of the best switch-hitters of ll time.

  6. rickdobrydney - Nov 5, 2013 at 3:16 PM

    Graig Nettles was the best defensive third baseman I ever saw. The only one close for me was Aurelio Rodriguez (Tigers) who had the most beyond belief , sickest strong arm from 3rd I ever saw. He would casually flip the ball from 3rd , and it had to be the 90 MPH range—

    • dexterismyhero - Nov 5, 2013 at 3:39 PM

      Did you ever watch Mike Schmidt?

    • randomdigits - Nov 5, 2013 at 4:30 PM

      So you are too young to have seen Brooks and quit watching before Beltre and Machado started playing?

      • 18thstreet - Nov 5, 2013 at 6:33 PM

        This, a million times. Defense today is SO MUCH better than it was 30 years ago. Manny Machado regularly makes plays that are just as good as Brooks Robinson’s highlight reel.

    • jeffa43 - Nov 5, 2013 at 7:58 PM

      Ken Caminiti ….. Brooks Robinson said, he may be the best ever.

      Nettles, Brett and Schmidt were eye popping, but Brooks and Caminiti may be at the top.

    • adimo82 - Nov 5, 2013 at 8:58 PM

      Larry Bowa was once quoted that Scott Rolen was the best defensive third basemen he ever watched. Says something coming from a guy that played most of his career next to Mike Schmidt.

      • 18thstreet - Nov 6, 2013 at 4:15 PM

        Can we just ignore comments made by coaches about their own players?

      • adimo82 - Nov 9, 2013 at 11:49 AM

        Good call. However, Rolen was pretty fun to watch.

  7. mvd513 - Nov 5, 2013 at 3:16 PM

    Dewey is the little brother in Malcolm in the Middle and that show is awful. You wanna pu Dwight Evans in the Hall of Fame, thats fine, but call him a man’s name.

    • joestemme - Nov 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM

      Fans have called him Dewey for decades. I’ve never seen him flinch from it.

      And, I don’t think Pee Wee Reese minds being called by less than a “man’s name” as long as you called him a HALL OF FAMER.

    • someguyinva - Nov 5, 2013 at 3:44 PM

      Babe Ruth wouldn’t understand your point.

    • 18thstreet - Nov 5, 2013 at 6:34 PM

      And I’m tired of all these racists called Whitey Ford by that nickname.

    • Glenn - Nov 5, 2013 at 7:32 PM

      mvd513 is a vacuum cleaner’s name … or an STD virus.

    • cur68 - Nov 5, 2013 at 8:05 PM

      Satchel Paige answered to Satchel Paige. He never once said “I am not a handbag”.

      Pfun Pfact: his real name was “Leroy”. Just like Harry Leroy Halladay III’s middle name. I love, by a factor way to high to calculate, that Roy Halladay PREFERS to be known as “Roy” and not “Harry” or “Hank”.

  8. rickdobrydney - Nov 5, 2013 at 3:19 PM

    In an appearance on the YES Network by several great third basemen, George Brett once commented on Rodríguez’s arm, saying to all (but particularly to the Philadelphia Phillies great Mike Schmidt), “You remember that guy? He would toy with you and pound the ball in his glove and you were still out by 10 feet!”

  9. dexterismyhero - Nov 5, 2013 at 3:43 PM

    Well Garvey did lose his wife Cindy Garvey to Marvin Hamlisch. And she was pretty hot. Hamlisch was a geek piano player.

  10. randomdigits - Nov 5, 2013 at 4:31 PM

    I would put Bobby Grich in before Garvey or Parker.

  11. florida76 - Nov 5, 2013 at 4:35 PM

    Dwight Evans has a solid case, but it should be mentioned, he failed to win a world title. By contrast, Dave Parker had a standout 1979 postseason as the Pirates crushed the Reds, and took down the O’s as well.
    Evans was never, and I mean never, in the conversation as the best player in MLB, and his candidacy for the HOF has been supported by many people who never saw him play, and are only using data.

    No doubt, Parker is a slam dunk for Cooperstown without the drug problem in the 80s, countless players in all sports made the same poor judgment. Just ask Keith Hernandez.

    • joestemme - Nov 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM

      I saw Dwight Evans. And, Dwight Evans was a Hall of Famer.

      And, his most meaningful measurement isn’t a “stat” – it’s the fact that he was the most feared Right Fielder in baseball while he played – few would even consider running on him (8 Gold Gloves notwithstanding).

  12. kountryking - Nov 5, 2013 at 6:54 PM

    Hey, young bloggers: Steve Garvey doesn’t get into the Hall until Gil Hodges does! I’m 77 and I’m not going to Ebbets Field in the sky until #14 is given his due in Cooperstown and the Lost Angeles Dodgers stop putting that number on the backs of nebbishes.

    • dinofrank60 - Nov 6, 2013 at 5:57 PM

      Garvey should be in, but I agree: Hodges should already been in. But you notice how despite being on great teams, Hodges and Newcombe aren’t in and it took Snider forever to get in. Yet, a certain team has two of its players being first ballot HOF’s, something that surprised me even to this day and without debate

  13. jlilly67 - Nov 5, 2013 at 9:03 PM

    I read these articles that scratch every stat computation possible but I really wonder how much they watch the game. Evans was always a complimentary player…..the Andy Pettitte of the OF. The problem I have is applying these modern day formulas to eras gone by. Stop it. Players did not have the emphasis placed on OBP or the God awful WAR stat. They were graded on a different set of criteria that isn’t really fair to apply these days

    • joestemme - Nov 5, 2013 at 11:14 PM

      Yes, Evans was often in a complimentary position – complimented on being the Best Right Fielder of his generation.

      And, speaking of applying “modern day formulas”, if you norm Dwight Evans’ stats to the ‘roid era, he would not only have had 400 hr’s – he would easily have gotten to 450 or more. If Evans had even sniffed 500 homers, numbnuts who only look at power stats would have perked up. Like I wrote before, it’s a damn shame that outfielders are judged on home runs no matter if they could throw out a walrus going from 1st to 3rd. Why does defense only count for Shortstops??

  14. jwbiii - Nov 5, 2013 at 9:07 PM

    [Garvey] determined that he could not throw the ball

    Garvey came up as a 3B. I think Walter Alston determined he couldn’t throw the ball and that Garvey/Ron Cey at 1B/3B would be better than Wes Parker/Garvey.

    • jwbiii - Nov 6, 2013 at 1:02 AM

      Ok, thumbs downer, Alston platooned Garvey and Bill Buckner for a season before choosing Garvey. Both also spent some time in LF at the expense of Manny Mota.

      • dinofrank60 - Nov 6, 2013 at 5:18 PM

        I read that Bobby Valentine said that the Dodgers infield should have been: Buckner at first, Lopes at second, Valentine at short and Garvey at third. Which left out Lee Lacy and Bill Russell and later, Tom Paciorek

    • dinofrank60 - Nov 6, 2013 at 5:09 PM

      Exactly.
      Garvey could not physically throw the ball with any power, despite having a linebacker’s set of forearms.
      But he kept Lopes, Russell and Cey from having 60 errors apiece.

  15. redsox23 - Nov 6, 2013 at 8:34 AM

    Ozzie Smith got in based on his defense, not on his hitting. Dwight Evans was the best RF of his day and had the most HR’s in the AL during the 1980s. Evans played a great RF in a tough ballpark, Ozzie played most of his career on turf. Ozzie led the league in back flips before games.

  16. dinofrank60 - Nov 6, 2013 at 5:43 PM

    Reading the stuff on Garvey, the two things that strike me are these:

    1. Are people still holding the off the field stuff against him? There have been scores of athletes who have done a lot worse than what he’s did and they don’t get smashed like that. I have another thought about this, something I’ve never heard about why this bothers some people, but I’m not ready to go down that path yet.

    As for the Captain America crap, really?? A guy presents himself with a stupid, public image and people take him at his word? Senator Garvey, that was an idea that wasn’t going to work. You could hear Garvey talk and know he would not go into politics. And that haunted him for ages.

    I think the people should’ve called him on it. They became hurt when he wasn’t what he projected to be, which was the image he thought they wanted from him. I’m surprised none of his friends or teammates really sat him down.

    • dinofrank60 - Nov 6, 2013 at 5:53 PM

      2. Joe makes the best point about Garvey. Just as he retired, the rules were changing about the HOF. Garvey is one of the biggest causalities of this. So he gets affected by the changing evaluation of the voters. I don’t think that’s enough to keep him out of the HOF, but it’s consistent with what happened after Garvey retired. He was a great player in his time and he did what he was asked to do and what he thought was successful. He should be in the HOF.

  17. irishdodger - Nov 10, 2013 at 11:33 PM

    As a biased Dodgers fan, I’ve always thought that Gil Hodges & Steve Garvey deserved enshrinement into the HoF. Had you polled fans & sportswriters (& Bill James) in the late 70s to early 90s if Garvey was a HoFer, most would have agreed that he was. Comparing his power numbers to modern day power numbers is not apple-to-apples. The clean cut image sullied by a divorce & paternity suits shouldn’t be the reason he doesn’t get in. We’ve had men elected POTUS that have done worse.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. W. Myers (5362)
  2. M. Kemp (3165)
  3. C. McGehee (2923)
  4. W. Middlebrooks (2921)
  5. J. Upton (2856)
  1. J. Kang (2776)
  2. M. Morse (2251)
  3. A. Rios (2040)
  4. J. Peavy (1964)
  5. D. Ross (1822)