Yes, that’s kinda why I picked him for an example. I had no problem with the 1.6% who left him off their ballot, though I was a rabid Mets fan, age 14 in his rookie year, for his entire career. I believe that people leaving “locks” off their list, especially the first time around, is fine—it doesn’t keep them out of the HoF, it isn’t meant to exclude anyone, it just makes a statement about the relative credentials of even the best players (i.e., no one is perfect) and it makes that statement pretty well. The only way I think someone will crash that 100% barrier is if some spectacular player someday manages to get through his entire career without pissing off a single sportswriter personally, and that’s only a “maybe.” Maybe a Stan Musial could do that–not a Ted Williams, and I doubt that since even a super-nice athlete like Musial fell short.
.
Yeah, and I coulda been a contenduh. You’ve nailed it. The people who speculate about Rickey hitting 500 HRs don’t argue that maybe focusing on that goal coulda meant he would have hit under .240, meaning that in his worst years he would have been benched despite the power ability, which in turn would have caused him to hit fewer HRs. Hitting HRs means he would have had to make different decisions on which pitches he would have swung at, which would have affected how he was pitched to, which would have taken away his greatest strength, his tiny strike zone and excellent OPB.
Tim Raines was the same ballplayer as Henderson, at a slightly lower level of excellence. To say that Henderson was four times the ballplayer Raines was, or that RH is clearly a HoFer and TR clearly not is the real shame here.
Just estimating based on a few general stats, to be as good a player as Jim Rice was, George Kelly would have had to play four more years and have a better season than he ever actually did, have been deserving of the MVP Award, in every one of them. Four MVP seasons of difference is a lot. I wouldn’t say that’s really close.
I know it’s kicking a dead horse, but a lot of those Frankie Frisch HoF selections were not in Jim Rice’s zip code in terms of greatness.
It’s not fair to compare those earliest elections to modern ones. The earliest elections started with an empty Hall, and voters were still limited to how many players they could vote for. That means that voters at the time were comparing Ruth, Cobb, Young, Wagner, etc to every other great player in some 50 years of pro baseball history. It’s not impossible that some thought that Ruth was not one of the best ten players in all of history. It’s also possible that some early voters thought priority induction should go to pioneers of the game rather than to more modern greats (Ruth had only been retired for a year when the first vote was held!), and that the recent players would get honored when their “turn” rolled around.
These days, the BBWAA is just picking from a pool of recently-eligible players, a much smaller pool from which to choose up to ten top players. No one with half a brain could have genuinely thought that Seaver, Ryan, Ripken, Brett, Gwynn, and this year, Henderson are not amongst the ten best players on the ballot. Voters who show this kind of insanity need to be removed from the process. At the very least, people like this need to be made to justify their non-vote. Anyone who admits omitting someone for no performance- or character-based reason should be booted.
So if I have a vote, and I think that “priority induction should go to pioneers of the game” who still haven’t been honored yet “rather than to more modern greats” like Henderson who will get in whatever I do, almost certainly in his first eligible season and certainly in a few seasons, if need be, and with my support, then I am insane?
How about if I just think prioritizing peoople in order of their impending non-eligibility, instead of their eligibility? How about if I think no one should get a unanimous vote and am voting that way on principle? Insane? Sane? In need of counseling? What?
Huh? cmkeller was clearly referring to voters back when the HOF just began who gave priority to pioneers of the game. These “pioneers of the game” are no longer under consideration, so what are you trying to say?
In need of having your ballot taken away from you. Voters need to prioritize people into two categories - those who are Hall of Famers and those who are not. It’s really quite simple.
Well, I guess you’d be insane if you thought it was still 1940. The conditions under which Ruth was elected were completely different; the voters had 60-70 years of baseball history to sort through. There was, in fact, a strong feeling among many voters that the voting should begin at the dawn of pro baseball and move forward. If you look at the overall vote results, it’s clear the voters simply had too many candidates to choose from and were struggling to focus on where to put their votes.
That issue no longer exists, but imagine if they just started the Hall of Fame today and you had to select from all the players who’d played since, say, Jackie Robinson started. You only get 10 picks, but obviously there would be scores of qualified candidates. Where do you start? That’d be a tough call, and the motivation to game the system is clear; if you only get 10 votes, it might be tempting to drop Willie Mays, who you assume will be #1 on a lot of people’s ballots, so you can fit in a vote for one of the many other deserving selections.
But that problem doesn’t exist now. The ballot is very limited in scope, and the job of the voters is really quite simple; Is this guy a Hall of Famer or is he not? There’s no point in gaming the system. Yes or no, in or out.
I would not vote for Henderson. I would be sure my vote would not matter and he was certainly going in, but he was a pain in the ass. I remember when he signed the biggest baseball contract of all time. Then someone else got a bigger one. He wanted to renegotiate his the next week. Wonder if he will spend his speech time telling everyone how good he was?
Yes, I’ve been able to read for quite a few months now. Why can’t I think that honoring great players from the 19th century who haven’t been honored yet is more important than wasting my vote on Rickey, who’s going to be elected whatever I do?
If you’re going to dictate my vote, how come I (in this scenario) have one at all? Did you circulate some memo telling me what my vote must be? You’re being obnoxious in trying to impose your opinions on people who may be operating on different, but sound, principles than you are.
There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Henderson, certainly at least on this go-round besides what I’ve named. You could consider him a selfish ballplayer, interested in his stats above all else, interested in playing cards in the clubhouse rather than rooting for his teammates (some say he didn’t even recognize John Olerud after being his teammate on two teams), interested in his self-declared greatness (you remember his remarks on breaking Brock’s SB record, right?). Maybe someone values character more than you do, and votes primarily on character, which is not Rickey’s strong suit. Hell, I’d make him wait a year for all the third-person references to himself: if he goes a year without another “Rickey thinks…” remark, I’ll check his name off, okay?
Rickey is one of two ballplayers, btw (Thurman Munson was the other) who I overheard conversing with a nearby fan during a ballgame. To give him credit, Rickey was far more polite than Munson was and his language much more printable.
Of the 28 voters who didn’t vote for Henderson, only one has come forward. Corky Simpson, a retired writer for the Tucson Citizen, is the one voter who has admitted doing so. His reasoning is less than compelling - he forgot. I fail to see how he should be getting a ballot next year.
These certainly are reasons to not vote for Rickey. But I personally feel that if someone who has a BBWAA vote and bases their vote solely on these criteria, they cease being a baseball writer and are simply another human interest columnist.
Character has its place - I’m not arguing that it shouldn’t, it’s right there on the ballot criteria. But do you really think it’s anything more than a tie-breaker for every-day players? I see the character category as a catch-all way to get contributors to the game who weren’t necessarily on the field - Buck O’Neil (no, I’m not bitter still - why do you ask?), James Andrews, Fay Vincent, etc.
I still honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. Are you trying to say that if you had a vote this year, you’d try to write in Bobby Grich, even though he’s not on the ballot?
I’m saying that I can write in anyone I think deserves election, and omit anyone I think doesn’t need election or doesn’t need my vote. All this RO about “You MUST vote as I think you should vote or else you’re a senile, halfwitted psychotic panties-sniffer” really toasts my shorts. Even if a write-in won’t count, if I think it’s important to make an issue out of, then I can. And the more I hear from people about what I can or can’t do, the more inclined I am to vote perversely.
One of the voters (Sean Horgan) had posted a .pdf of the ballot and all the accompanying materials online last month, and I’ve been trying to dig up a copy of it. I’ve been failing miserably. Regardless, the ballot itself doesn’t exactly lend itself to writing in a name that isn’t on it, nor do I think the BBWAA would even acknowledge it. Thus, I don’t see what your little act of rebellion or whatever you’re trying to prove would accomplish or convey.
Well, if Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Stan Musial and Tom Seaver aren’t unaminously elected, part of my mission would be to see that no one else is. You got a problem with that principle? That’s a shame.
I do have a problem with that. A voter’s job is simply to decide whether an individual’s performance and character ranks with the best in baseball. His vote is not a sliding scale of 1 to 10 that will rank a Rickey Henderson or a Tom Seaver differently than a Babe Ruth, it’s a yes or it’s a no. Prior voters’ preferences, circumstances or mistakes have no business changing a vote. If you cannot coherently explain why Rickey Henderson’s career does not deserve a yes, you should not vote against him. Period.