Did the Hall of Fame voters get it right?

In My Humble Opinion
41

I’ll just never understand the rules the writers have made up. Ripken and Gwynn are obvious choices. But how the f*** does Gossage not get in first ballot?!? The guy routinely came in 6th or 7th inning and was lights-out. It wasn’t a deal where he came in during the 9th to mop up.

Blylevin? In. How is he not in?

McGwire? Maybe (if he did use) the chemicals weren’t specifically banned at the time. But depending on what chemicals they were, it’s possible they were already banned by the Feds. Meth is illegal, does that mean my employer can’t fire me since there’s nothing in the HR material that specifically bans it?

What is even more shocking to me is below McGwire is Don Mattingly. :confused:

And of course, since the votes totaled less than 5%, Orel Hirshiser is no longer eligible. WTF???

One good thing about baseball is we will always have a conversation starter.

Such as, who didn’t vote for Ruth? What was it about his career that was lacking in HOF credentials? Who were the ones voting against (or at least not for) Ripken and Gwynn? What was lacking?

42

[QUOTE=duffer]
What is even more shocking to me is below McGwire is Don Mattingly. :confused:
[/QUOTE]

I was surprised, but pleasantly so, at the vote of no-confidence Mattingly received. One of the most severely overrated baseball players of my lifetime IMO.

43

[QUOTE=Ivan-Osokin]

I was looking at a list of players elected in their first years of eligibiliy and noticed that Warren Spahn was listed - having been elected in 1973. However, he retired after the 1965 season. Assuming the five year rule was in place at the time it seems he should have been elected in 1971. I checked a few players that retired prior to Spahn (Musial, Feller, Koufax, J. Robinson) and they were all enshrined five years after retirement.

Any ideas on whats going on here?
[/QUOTE]

After leaving MLB, Spahn spent a couple of years in minor and Mexican league baseball. As a result, his clock for eligibility had him wait two years longer.

Link

44

mhendo, this was gone over in depth in the other thread, but Ripken, streak aside, doesn’t merit the near unanimous vote and isn’t a “inner-circle” HOFer based on his numbers.

Now, I think he is unquestionably a HOFer, with or without the streak, but he’s not quite as high on the mountain that most of the media members seem to argue. If the streak is one of those grand numbers to you, then he probably is the greatest SS of all time, but I personally think it’s more of a statistical anomaly than anything else.

Still, he’s the Ryne Sandberg of shortstops and deserves the first-ballot treatment. Ruthian he ain’t though.

Now, when people realize that Dawson is every bit the player Ripken was sans streak maybe he’ll get the enshrinement he deserves.

45

[QUOTE=Omniscient]
Is that good enough for the “reflecting the games history” angle? I’m not sure, should we let all these guys be there as part of a living almanac but reserve the plaques for the feel-good type guys? Maybe. I know I’m not as certain about my opinion on keeping them out any more.
[/QUOTE]

I think that the long-term historical viewpoint will eventually come to terms that
steroids were simply one of elements of that era (1993~now), in the same way that
big ballparks and high mounds were characteristic of the 60’s, and bandboxes and
lively balls were a part of the 20’s and 30’s. They have to. You can’t have a HoF
with just a meager handful of players from this era-the punishment simply doesn’t
fit the crime. So Barry B breaks Aaron’s record-you could say that absent the juice
he’d be at 656 rather than 756, right? You can’t just wash away his entire career
can you?

At the moment players like McGwire are being punished two-fold: the voters discount
their raw totals as compared to people like Dawson and Rice, AND they punish them
further for having the steroid taint. 'taint right. [sorry]

46

[QUOTE=Omniscient]
mhendo, this was gone over in depth in the other thread, but Ripken, streak aside, doesn’t merit the near unanimous vote and isn’t a “inner-circle” HOFer based on his numbers.
[/quote]
Yes, it was gone over in depth in the other thread, and those who made the most compelling arguments, in my opinion, were folks who made a strong case for his numbers, his ability, and his contribution to the way that shortstop—probably the most important defensive position—is played in the modern game. For my benefit, people linked to the criteria for election to the Hall, and numbers weren’t listed as the be-all-and-end-all; there were plenty of other criteria connected with general service to the game, and Cal has just about all of them.

And what the hell’s an “inner-circle” hall of famer? Now you’re just making distinctions where there’s no need for them. If you believe that he’s “unquestionably a HOFer” (your words), then what’s wrong with a near-unanimous vote?

Personally, i have no particular stake in the streak. I’m not even taking it into consideration.

As for his being “Ruthian,” i’m not quite sure why you’re attempting to rebut an argument that nobody has made. I’ve certainly never argued that Ripken was as good as Babe Ruth, and in the other thread RickJay explicitly stated that he wasn’t as good as Gehrig or DiMaggio. If a player had to be as good as those guys to get in the HOF, then Cooperstown would be one room with half a dozen pictures on the wall. There’s no contradiction in saying that Ripken wasn’t as good as those guys, but that he can still be a near-unanimous first round entry.

Anyway, my first post in this thread was done specifically to rebut Moonchild’s assertion that Ripken was an “average-to-below-average fielder,” that Ripken is “basically recognized for being lucky enough to have never suffered a significant injury,” and that he is “getting into the Hall on the first ballot because he went after a record (consecutive games played) to the detriment of his team.” Do you believe that any of those statements are true?

As for my own position on Cal, i’m not defending him here because i’m an Orioles fan. While i support Baltimore because it’s my local team, and i like to see them do well (ha ha!) i’m developing more into a fan of baseball in general than a fan of any particular team (although, like any good AL East watcher, i reserve a dark spot in hell for the Yankees).

I arrived in the US just in time to see Cal’s last season and a half. The only place i ever saw him play shortstop was on TV; all the games i went to, he was 3B. When he retired, i actually got pretty sick of the constant apotheosizing by the local and national media. You’d think the guy had solved world hunger or cured cancer, ferchrissakes. So, in that sense at least, i understand your argument about media writers who blow him out of all proportion. But, as often happens in such cases, people react to the excessive praise by offering excessive criticism, and it seems to me that many folks take an excessively jaundiced view of Ripken purely for the sake of not going along with the crowd, and to the extent that they often ignore his genuine statistical and intangible contributions to baseball.

Just MHO.

47

[QUOTE=Governor Quinn]
After leaving MLB, Spahn spent a couple of years in minor and Mexican league baseball. As a result, his clock for eligibility had him wait two years longer.

Link
[/QUOTE]

Thanks a ton. Such a stupid little thing, but it was driving me nuts.

48

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
That’s only true if you limit your considerations to stats, which of course aren’t going to change. If instead you consider sportsmanship and significance to the game, then yes, an ex-player continues to play a role, and that can change after his formal retirement. McGwire could fess up, speak out, and become a leader in cleaning up the game,...

[QUOTE]

But that isn’t the opinion I was replying to, is it? hajario’s point was simply that he should wait because he was “bad.”

And even if McGwire were to apologize and tell the truth, I don’t see how that changes anything. Apologizing and telling the truth is the minimum standard of behaviour for being a grownup. I don’t want them putting people in the Hall of Fame for being nice guys.

McGwire either has Hall of Fame credentials or he does not, and he either should be rejected for cheating or he shouldn’t. I believe he has Hall of Fame credentials (I’m willing to hear arguments to the contrary, though) and I simply don’t think there is enough evidence he cheated. The one substance we do know he was using was, at the time, not against the rules, wasn’t against the law, and in fact you didn’t even need a prescription for it; it was no more “cheating” than taking vitamins. He looked like a weasel in front of Congress, but that doesn’t constitute evidence of anything except that he was a weasel in front of Congress. For all we know he was trying to avoid implicating ex-teammates out of some misplaced sense of honor. When I see a smoking gun, I’ll consider changing my mind. Until then, he should be in.

I’m not saying I KNOW Mark McGwire didn’t take steroids. But I don’t know that Mike Schmidt, Dale Murphy, Mickey Mantle and Nolan Ryan didn’t take steroids. You can dredge up suspicion against any number of guys (christ, that Carlos Delgado is the size of a damn house!) so I’m gonna go with “caught cheating with 'roids” as my standard to begin discounting accomplishment.

But, hey, I don’t get a vote.

(Referring to Joe DiMaggio)

But that’s my point. DiMaggio was regularly torn apart by the New York press; he was cold, arrogant, and engaged in money wars with the Yankees every year. Twenty years after he was retired, he was a saint. Nobody remembers that he wasn’t elected right away because in the long run it doesn’t matter, which is why **hajario’s ** suggestion McGwire wait in a penalty box for five years is so irrelevant.

For that matter, the issue of unanimity long ago became irrelevant. If fuckin’ Hank Aaron wasn’t elected unanimously, what difference does it make that Cal Ripken wasn’t? All it means is that some writers are cocks.

49

[QUOTE=RickJay]
But that’s my point. DiMaggio was regularly torn apart by the New York press; he was cold, arrogant, and engaged in money wars with the Yankees every year. Twenty years after he was retired, he was a saint. Nobody remembers that he wasn’t elected right away because in the long run it doesn’t matter, which is why **hajario’s ** suggestion McGwire wait in a penalty box for five years is so irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]

You can turn this around and say that him not getting in on the first try is also irrelevant.

Actually, RickJay, I normally agree with you that either one is a HOF’er or they aren’t but this time I like the idea of making him wait. I know that it’s totally emotional but there it is. First of all, there is precedent for players having to wait a couple of years if they aren’t “top tier” for whatever reason. Also, I like the idea of Tony and Cal not having to share the stage with anyone else. I bet that that was on the minds of a lot of writers.

I appreciate that McGwire (along with Sosa and Cal) saved the game after the strike and brought fans back to the game. I also think that he weaseled when he could have helped the game again. I bet that next year, a year when there aren’t going to be any no-brainer first year electees, will see a huge increase of votes for McGwire.

On another subject, I am surprised about Hershiser, 200+ wins, 2000+ Ks, the consecutive innings record and the comeback from surgery.

50

[QUOTE=hajario]
On another subject, I am surprised about Hershiser, 200+ wins, 2000+ Ks, the consecutive innings record and the comeback from surgery.
[/QUOTE]

Also a Gold Glove, Cy Young and World Series MVP.

51

Count me as another person who believes Dawson should be a no brainer. I remember watching baseball in the 80s as a Cardinals fan(until they traded Hernandez, who was my favorite player, so I became a Mets fan) and then the Mets, so I got to see Dawson with the Expos and Cubs quite a bit. I think if you are the best player at your position for the better part of a decade, you are a HOFer. He was an MVP with something like 8 gold gloves and 8 all star appearances. He along with Jessie Barfield had the most feared arms in baseball. Was there a better all around right fielder in the 80s than Dawson?

52

[QUOTE=hajario]
Actually, RickJay, I normally agree with you that either one is a HOF’er or they aren’t but this time I like the idea of making him wait. I know that it’s totally emotional but there it is. First of all, there is precedent for players having to wait a couple of years if they aren’t “top tier” for whatever reason. Also, I like the idea of Tony and Cal not having to share the stage with anyone else. I bet that that was on the minds of a lot of writers.
[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. I can’t argue with that.

This, however, I will argue with. It’s become commonplace to hear that the McGwire/Sosa race somehow “Saved” baseball; it did nothing of the kind. Baseball was coming back very nicely before they went on the home run chase. Baseball’s doing fine, and would have anyway.

Hershiser was a very fine pitcher but his career numbers are not particularly impressive by the standards of the Hall of Fame. His closest comparison in terms of career numbers is Bob Welch, who also won a Cy Young Award and who nobody thinks is a Hall of Famer. Other similar players: Jim Perry, Vida Blue, Billy Pierce… Kevin Brown is/was just as good as Orel, really. Luis Tiant was better. Jerry Koosman was just as good for a longer period of time. Orel had some more postseason panache but I don’t think that’s enough. Lots of guys had records like Hershiser’s (202-150) and some, like Tiant, were better.