There are a few writers who know that a guy won’t get in, but want to give him some props. Kinda like when I voted for a friend of mine who was running for office as a socialist a few years ago. Everybody knew who was going to win, and I figured **somebody **should vote for him–he was a nice guy and all.
I remain surprised by the low support for Raines. His vote totals actually went down from last year, which is an ominous sign. I agree that he probably shouldn’t be a 1st balloter (which I think is kind of an honor within an honor), but he’s low enough to make you think it’s not going to happen and heading in the wrong direction. He’s even at 390 win shares, if you want to use that method (to compare OF, Kirby Puckett had 281 and he’s in 1st ballot- though 2 WS titles add to his resume considerably)
Is he suffering by comparison to Rickey Henderson since they were contemporaries, had similar styles except Rickey was much better?
What debt will Alomar have paid in 2011 than he hasn’t paid in 2010? None. Nothing will be different in January 2011 as opposed to January 2010.
Alomar was a Hall of Fame - calibre ballplayer and should have been elected this year.
You have got to come off the Dawson hate. It makes you sound silly.
Rock Raines deserves inclusion as does Alomar, but I understand the bias against first ballot guys. I don’t really agree with it, but I understand it.
ETA: I’d be shocked if Dawson were not in a Cubs hat, his stretch with the Expos was probably just as worthy but that team doesn’t exist any more.
I’m not saying he was a bad pitcher. I’ll buy that he’s underrated. I can’t put him in the Hall. To me, a vote for him is off the wall.
The ‘well he was a nice guy and even though he won’t get in, I’ll give him a vote’ thing is just as silly as the ‘I’m not voting him in first ballot’ thing. There are things I don’t like about the voting process that will probably never change because it’s always been this way. “If Tom Seaver didn’t get 100% of the votes, then Ricky Henderson can’t either.” I don’t care too much about how things used to be done. Today, in this day & age, a writer should have to explain votes given or not. The guys who didn’t vote Henderson in should be smacked in the head with a bronzed Home Plate.
I’d like an honest & rational explanation why someone would vote for Eric Karros for the Hall of Fame.
That’s a good point. As a kid when Raines and Henderson were in their primes, I always considered Raines the less good version of Rickey.
Allow me to sound silly. According to the most prevailing run estimators, here’s a list-
Raines------------+47%
Henderson-------+46
Larkin------------+37
Jeter (thru '08)-+32
Dawson----------+29
Alomar-----------+27
Trammel---------+13
This is a measure of offensive runs produced above average.* I don’t have the numbers on hand, but its safe to say Edgar is way out front, with McGriff 2nd.
So that’s efficiency, alright, career totals-
Henderson--------2097
McGriff-------app 1700
Raines------------1563
Alomar------------1491
Jeter (thru '08)–1487
Dawson-----------1464
Larkin-------------1312
Trammel----------1197
So Dawson comes in well behind Raines on both lists, but was selected in front of him. And notice the other guys up for consideration are all middle infielders. Dawson was a damn fine outfielder, but is anyone seriously going to argue that he was as valuable as Larkin, Alomar or Trammel, defensively?
So far as I can see, a sane list would have Raines, Alomar, Blyleven easily in front of Dawson, and I personally would have Larkin well ahead, McGriff with definite edge, and Trammel probably a horse race, depending on the defensive numbers. Well, Dawson’s in front of Edgar, I guess.
IOW, the HOF committee managed to select, depending on how you score it, the 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th best candidate, while excluding 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.
What a joke.
*These numbers are league adjusted, but ARE NOT park adjusted, which is why Raines is in front of Rickey in efficiency.
When it gets renamed the Hall of Runs, then I’ll check in with you.
As I’ve said before, Bags will be the first test of the theory that there is a general steroid “taint” surrounding every power hitter who had a prime from 1993 on. That is, a small but significant bloc of voters won’t vote for any such slugger, even if his rep is reasonably “clean”. My guess is 10% of the voters, which means Bags, who normally would probably get no less than 70% of the vote in his first year (gliding in on his second at the latest) might get only 60% in '11. Hell that might partially explain McGriff’s poor showing today.
I think you mean it’s outrageous that Ventura got as many as 7, not that it is outrageous that he didn’t get more (but it’s hard to tell). He was the best defensive 3B of the 90’s, with a peak which compares favorably with Brooks Robinson’s. When you look at the list of upcoming candidates, which 3B who played mostly post-1990 have a good shot? Edgar played more at DH; other than him I got nothing (A Rod? His most valuable seasons were at short, and he won’t be eligible before 2020 or so. Rolen? Oh, I got one-my man Chipper-he went to my high school BTW). You have to hit like a like a 1B while still being able to field at a glove position to get in at third anymore.
If there’s one good thing about Dawson getting in, it’s that he’s the 2nd prime CFer to be elected by the BBWAA since Willie Mays 31 years ago. Same problem-have to hit like a corner outfielder and field like a CFer.
That, and the seeming inability of voters to recognize just how vital a good on-base percentage is for fueling an offense. Well, we convinced them (almost) on Blyleven, now we need to sell the voters on Raines. [And, before someone mentions the word “coke” here, I’ll note that it didn’t hurt Molitor’s chances]
Good to see the most comprehensive and objective measure of a player’s worth dismissed out of hand.
Since we’ve gone totally off the rails and are now evaluating players according to whim, I’d like to nominate Ron Gant. Loved him for the early 90’s Braves (I was 12). Credentials? Lets see…oh I know, his OB% is higher than at least one HOFer (elect), .336 to .323. :rolleyes:
Don’t get me wrong, maybe Dawson should be a HOFer. I don’t object to him going in, per se; I do object to him going in unaccompanied by any of the 3 or 4 men who were patently more valuable than he was on the diamond.
Why?
I don’t see anything wrong with a token vote, especially for a solid player like Eric Karros. He hasn’t a chance to get in, but there’s not one thing wrong with a writer showing respect by throwing him one vote.
:rolleyes:
Runs are not the “most objective measure of a player’s worth” since they are incredibly dependent on the player’s teammates to put the ball in play behind them. But yeah - when you boil an entire career down to a stat dependent on your team, it’s going to be dismissed when it’s not put in league with the rest of that player’s accomplishments.
He won’t have been a first-ballot inductee. That honor, which is real even if you don’t like it :dubious:, is now denied him as a result of an insult to the game. It won’t keep him out, unlike McGwire, though, because it was a moment’s loss of temper and not a conscious decision acted on over years.
Another thing that hasn’t changed in 13 years is Blyleven’s qualifications. He hasn’t gotten a damn bit better since his retirement. Yet his vote has gone from the 20’s to the 70’s over that period. Why are you not similarly outraged by that silliness? Because you do agree with that result, maybe?
It isn’t at all rare, btw, for a writer who particularly liked a player as a person to do him a favor by casting a vote for him. Or even if he didn’t like him all that much but he was on that team’s beat. There are few candidates who get shut out in the vote, and it has to be embarrassing to be one. There’s no harm in preventing that - just being on the ballot means you were a major-league-caliber player for at least 10 years, and that deserves only admiration.
I thought Jim Rice was a lousy choice last year and Andre Dawson is a lousy choice this year. But there are LOTS of undeserving players in the Hall of Fame, always have been, always will be, and it’s not worth getting too excited about.
What puzzles me, though, is why sportswriters waited so long to vote in Rice and Dawson. IF the writers really thought they were deserving, why not vote them in years ago? What kind of idiot bypasses a candidate year after year after year, and then decides at the last possible moment, “You know, I guess he really belongs in the Hall after all”?
It’s NOT as if the statistical revolution opened people’s eyes and made them see that these guys was much better than we once thought (as has happened with Bert Blyleven). If anything, the new stats have made Dawson and Rice look much WORSE than they did at the moment of their retirement.
Obviously, stat geeks would NEVER have voted for Rice or Dawson. But even the old-school guys make no sense to me. Even if they think homers and supposed “Most Feared Hitter in Baseball” status make a guy Hall-worthy, well, weren’t Rice and Dawson just as worthy their first years on the ballot???
I’d LOVE to ask any writer who changed his vote, “Why, exactly, are Rice and Dawson more worthy now than they were 5 years ago?”
Probably you should consider looking at the actual statistic Incensed cited (hint: it wasn’t “runs”), learn what it is if you don’t already know, and then go with the snide eye-roll.
I think the whole baseball argument thing has reached a permanent impasse. The folks who don’t want to learn anything aren’t going to change their minds. You will never convince someone who still thinks Andre Dawson was better than Tim Raines that they are wrong. It doesn’t matter how many ways Raines was better; they know what they know, and no amount of discussion will ever move them one inch from their opinion.
It’s almost inexplicable. Baseball fandom has been split by this in a way that I can’t understand. Someone should write a book.
Blyleven is something of a special case. When he retired, he was #3 on the career strikeout list, but this wasn’t seen as a great accomplishment because strikeouts were on the rise game-wide, and it was assumed that Bert would be quickly passed by a flock of whiff artists racking up K’s against free-swingers. Now here we are, a generation later, and Bert’s still in the top 5 lifetime. Now folks are starting to realize that he really was a great pitcher, not just part of a movement. Bert hasn’t gotten better, but his qualifications now appear more meaningful in perspective.
I don’t think Ventura should sniff the hall. Comparing Robin to Brooks doesn’t do Robin any favors. Robinson has 1000 more hits with about 300 less strikeouts in a career that lasted over 20 years in a different offensive era. Robin’s strength at defense has to be wieghed against his final five years (when his ankle really started to die) where he was below average at best, and outright liability at worst. I love Ventura…he was always one of my favorite players. I met the man, and he was awesome. I remember him as being very clutch & always thought you should walk him rather than pitch to him with the bases loaded. I never once thought of him as a Hall of Famer.
Your points on third basemen & center fielders does intrigue me though.
Both of their careers are now understood to have taken place in an era where steroid use was rampant, but both are generally thought to have been clean (no, you can’t be sure of anyone). That wasn’t generally understood and accepted until Canseco blew it open (say what you will about the guy, he did the game a great service with that). You’re seeing a discount factor applied to the other big bashers of the era who are known or suspected to have been dirty), but the basic facts haven’t changed - steroids *were *rampant at the time. There is no comparable new knowledge of what the game was like at the time to apply retroactively to Blyleven.
Plus, Rice alienated writers for many years, and didn’t see his vote totals come up until he put on a charm campaign. No, that shouldn’t matter, but yes, of course it does.
A human.
The electorate as a whole has so far refused to face the Steroid Era directly, but Bobby Bonds will be the test case. Can a deficit of character, integrity, and sportsmanship (half the criteria) as he exemplifies be offset by record, playing ability, and contribution to his teams, or is cheating a complete disqualifier? If the union would come clean and just release its list, instead of letting them leak out one name at a time, it can be faced and understood and put in the past. Not this way, though.
I think it’s fair to say that Bobby Bonds has no shot at the Hall of Fame.
The problem with Bonds is that if the electorate tries to keep him out for very long, the whole Hall is going to run into some problems in about fifteen years. Somewhere around that time there will be a shortstop-turned-third-baseman who will probably be baseball’s new home run king, a guy who will wear at least one ring and probably several more, a guy who was a strong defensive player at two premium positions and stole bases and drew walks. He’s a guy that, while he is kind of a douchebag in some ways, has never been considered a bad team-mate and has never been surly and unpleasant with the writers.
So will that guy get elected?