Bottom line is that a good chunk of these people are idiots. It’s scary that the Hall of Fame is taken seriously when the voters are so clueless.
Henderson belongs, no question. I didn’t think Rice did but I never had a strong feeling one way or the other. Since Dawson got up to 67 percent, I assume he’ll get in maybe two years from now.
Here’s an early look at the 2010 eligibles - and this may be good news for Dawson and even Blyleven.
Roberto Alomar
Kevin Appier
Andy Ashby
Ellis Burks
Andres Galarraga
Pat Hentgen
Mike Jackson
Eric Karros
Ray Lankford
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Fred McGriff
Shane Reynolds
Robin Ventura
Todd Zeile
Jesus, is that for real? Shane Reynolds? Ray Lankford? Andy Ashby? Mike Jackson? I know they meet the eligibility rules and all, but that’s embarassing to even have them in the conversation.
I think Alomar probably has the best case. I’m not sure how many second basemen were his equal with the bat. But a class like that probably makes Dawson look better. The class of 2011 doesn’t look very impressive either.
Nobody has ever been a unanimous pick. Some writers are just dicks, and that has always been the case.
Alomar is going to pay for the spitting incident by cooling his heels for a few years. I think he’ll get in eventually, but not without the writers getting back at him first, the way they got Rice. But he’s the only plausible choice among that group.
So, maybe a few others will get considered, with a serious campaign like the one that finally got Rice’s vote up. 'Course, it could be that the writers are just tired of hearing about Blyleven by now.
McGriff is interesting. Good, but not outstanding numbers, and a well liked, classy,guy generally. Sadly, he’s probably not a first ballot guy, and the numbers of the guys in the years after arn’t going to make him look any better as time goes on.
It’s fairly normal. Not everyone who meets the eligibility rules goes on the ballot, but the screening committee does like to put on anyone who meets the rules and was a regular for a substantial period of time. The theory, which I agree with, is that it’s best to let the voters decide, and if a guy is not a serious candidate, well, he’ll be off the ballot on a year.
That said, Marley is right; a lot of the voters are retards. It appalls me that imbeciles like Richard Griffin are permitted to vote for the Hall of Fame. Most if not all of the people who have posted to this thread and smarter and more generally knowledgable about baseball than Griffin.
God, I hate the idiots who intentionally don’t vote for a player simply to keep him from getting 100%. Why does anyone reward these people for their childishness? IMHO, anyone who doesn’t vote for a guy that ends up with at least 95% should be suspended from voting for a couple years. Do it three times, you’re out.
Seriously, how do you look at yourself in the mirror after not voting for Rickey? Last year was even worse - how do you respect yourself after not voting for Cal Ripken or Tony Gwynn? Jerks.
I respect voters who withhold their vote to withhold unanimity. If Rickey or Tom Seaver or whoever gets 100%, that can be seen as “best player who ever lived.” If that’s a possible interpretation of 100% of the vote, I understand why someone might want to hold back. Worst possible result is that so many will do this Rickey or Tom wouldn’t get in, in which case they’ll certainly get in next year. Not a big deal to me.
I heard on the radio this afternoon that some people think Rickey could have been a 500 HR guy if he’d been of a mind to. I’m sure he could have hit more HRs if he’d tried to, but 500? That’s simply crazy, no?
I don’t know about that. Rickey hit 297 home runs in his career. Had he felt like it he might have gotten to 500.
He played in 25 seasons. The first and last two in limited action. So let’s call that 22 seasons. He needed to hit an average of 9.227 extra home runs per season to get to 500 over his career. Most of those would have bunched up in his 22-34 years so that would be 15 per year on average. A stretch, but acheivable.
The important thing to remember is that during his 20s and early 30s a single against Henderson was almost bound to become a double and sometimes a triple. In 1982 he had 143 hits and 130 steals! Toss in the 10 home runs and he stole a base at a rate of 97.7% of his times his got a hit! Even tossing in his base on balls that’s almost 50% of his times on base leading to an extra base just on his legs and balls. He must have given catchers hives.
So, 500? Doubtful, but possible. The biggest thing preventing it from happening is that I think he just didn’t give a damn about hitting home runs. During his heyday it wasn’t as big a thing as it is now. Remember, when Cecil Fielder hit 51 in 1991(?) it was the first time that had happened his 1977 when George Foster did it.
I agree with most of what you said, but to me Rickey was more of a lock than Ripken or Gwynn. Rickey is simply the best at what he did. Steal bases, score runs and lead off games.
Except that everybody already thinks the voters are idiots. Nobody is going to think Rickey is better than Mickey Mantle just based on a statistical oddity.
Well, he was a regular for 23 seasons. His average number of home runs per 162 games is 16; if he raised it to 22, he’d have around 500. (His season high was 28.) I don’t think it’s completely crazy to think he could have hit more home runs at the expense of average.
As others have said, some think no player should receive a unanimous vote.
Is it also possible some didn’t vote for Henderson because they dislike him personally? I would like to believe the voters are above that.
So year after year you don’t vote for players that you know perfectly well belong in, simply because you’re afraid that someone, somewhere in the far distant future might accidentally misinterpret which HOFer was the best HOFer? Here’s an idea – how about you just vote for the guys who actually deserve your vote, and then find some way to express to the world just how good you really think they are.
Now if only there was some way for a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America to publish his actual thoughts on the subject…
Instead, they devalue their entire institution by voting against players who clearly deserve to be there. It makes the voters look like idiots. I don’t believe anybody interprets the voting that way. Not when almost 5 percent of the voters said no to Babe freaking Ruth.
I just don’t believe that would happen. Nobody knows the vote percentages of Babe Ruth or Ted Williams, and furthermore, that’s not why they do it; they do it to draw attention to themselves. The only way this “Nobody should get 100%” philosophy could hold water is if one or more writers NEVER vote for ANY surefire Hall of Famer, in which case, why the fuck are they bothering?
Tom Seaver actually did get the highest vote percentage ever (98.84%) and how often do you hear anyone say he was the greatest player of all time?
It’s pretty out there. He hit 297 homers; to raise his own home run rate by 67% would have required him to presumably change his approach, and likely mean lower batting averages and fewer walks, which means he wouldn’t have been as good a player, and therefore wouldn’t have lasted as long as he did, so wouldn’t have hit 500 homers anyway.
I don’t know who the people are who think this but it’s frightening how many allegedly professional sportsjournalists you hear saying stuff like this. (I’ve also heard people claim Pete Rose could have been a 35-homer-a-year man if he’d been willing to hit .270, or whatever other arbitrary number the person conjures up.) A major league baseball player can’t just completely change his hitting approach and expect to get an even tradeoff. The way Rickey Henderson hit was the way he hit. It’s a whole package - the stance, the physical skills, the strategy, the hitting philosophy, and the mechanics of the swing. Most of this is fundamentally set before a player ever makes it to the major leagues and it’s very few players who can change it all that much.
I’ve been watching quite a lot of 1970s/1980s baseball on DVD the past few weeks. Given the stadiums of that era, why would a player want to focus on hitting home runs? Most of those multipurpose stadiums are huge and are many times the field was in terrible shape. Also, many of the fields used that horrible astroturf. This plays to the strength of a get on base player, not a home run hitter.
If Jim Rice had the same career with the Brewers or Royals, he wouldn’t have been elected. He’s not the **worst ** hall of famer, but he’s close. They should put him right next to Don Sutton and the other Hall of very good players.