1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does The Mitchell Report give Rickey Henderson a shot at HOF history?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by BYH, Dec 15, 2007.

  1. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    The Mitchell report has nothing to do with Rickey. He'll get 95% or better first year.
    And as flaky as he is, writers love him because he was always avaiable and always had something to say, even if it was totally out of left field.
    Anyone who thinks Rickey is dumb has never sat down and talked to Rickey. Flaky as they come, but far from dumb.


    Realistically, the Mitchell report has no bearing on the Hall of Fame credentials of anyone other than those who are mentioned in the report.
     
  2. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    Rickey should probably be on at least 99 percent of those ballots. If it does turn out to be 90, the other 10 percent out to forfeit their HOF votes. I realize this is Cooperstown, that they do take this very seriously ... but sometimes there are no-brainers, right?
     
  3. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    Maybe I shouldn't have called Rickey dumb, though he said some asscrazy things and his mastery of the English language left a lot to be desired.

    He certainly strikes me as absent-minded enough to have left a paper trail if he bought anything.
     
  4. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Thomas was in regardless. The fact that his name came up in the Mitchell Report -- and he came out sparkling clean -- is mind-blowing, considering some of the hearsay that other guys were painted with.
     
  5. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    I wonder if this also gives some impetus to getting one Peter Edward Rose into the HOF.
     
  6. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    No. None.
     
  7. And we're off!
     
  8. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    Rickey was taking, too, so I would say no.
     
  9. mannheimadler

    mannheimadler Member

    Maybe this will help guys like Andre Dawson and Goose get in.
     
  10. rickey was a physical freak in high school. one of the best prep running backs ever in the bay area while at oakland tech. he flat out ran over people. to automatically say he was taking steroids, etc., is bogus IMO. dude was a monster and probably arrogant enough to decide he didn't need, uh, help to be "the greatest of all-time." ... and yes, i am a complete "Billy-Ball" apologist, so take this for what it's worth. but i think it's a no-brainer that's he's the best leadoff hitter ever
     
  11. Cousin Jeffrey

    Cousin Jeffrey Active Member

    Frank's al
    Frank came out strong against steroids in 95, this wasn't new. It was him and Gwynn who were quoted in that Boswell story that rippled baseball.

    He was free from most suspicion because a. he's always been a big dude, natural big, not rocked up, b. he always aspired to take walks and hit singles to beef up his average, and c. he certainly didn't get more muscular and "youthful" as he aged.
     
  12. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Simon, are you posted about Henderson on actual information, or just guessing?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page