You hear that Robbie Alomar? Bill Livingston Has Spoken
He trots out some unbelievably flawed logic to support his not voting for Robbie Alomar as a first ballot HOFer. The highlight: Even Mark Shapiro agrees he was a jerk and traded him as his first order of business as GM, ushering into Cleveland the "character guy" era.
9 months ago
Ockus_NYC
111 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
You know what? I don’t really have a problem with this.
I’m not a fan of voters drawing distinctions between “first-ballot guys” and other HOFers. Having said that, a lack of effort in an elimination game is not the worst reason to deny a player your vote.
have to concur. this is not one of those situations where the media is holding a guy accountable for being rude or personally unlikeable by not voting for him (e.g. albert belle and the ‘95 MVP award). that is just plain petty and infuriating. livy is actually taking issue with things alomar did as a player—he’s basically saying that his attitude took away from his actual on-field contribution on one of the biggest stages of his career, and objectively there doesn’t seem to be much dispute that this actually occurred. if the writers are explicitly allowed to consider character, this is one of the times when i would say it is relevant to the guy’s candidacy.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 2, 2009 11:09 PM EST up reply actions
But look at what he achieved despite this! He still has a slam-dunk case. If Alomar had the stats and position of a borderline guy, Jim Rice-type career, only then could I see this being important enough to swing a vote.
Well, first, it’s not really swinging his vote, it’s only swinging his first-year vote. Livingston doesn’t claim this should keep him out of the Hall altogether.
I’m not saying I would vote this way for this reason, I’m just saying, I don’t think it’s a dumb reason. Failure to give full effort at a critical moment is a fatal weakness in a player’s game. What good are any career numbers if a player dogs it in the playoffs?
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:40 AM EST up reply actions
I guess I just think the whole idea misses the point. Just as I would if all things were the same and he wrote a column saying he would vote him in on the first ballot based on the fact that he hit a couple of big postseason homers in 92 and 96.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
a lack of effort in an elimination game is not the worst reason to deny a player your vote.
The part that bugs me is that next year, lack of effort in an elimination game will make Robbie a Hall of Famer and for rest of his years in Livingston’s eyes.
He is or isn’t, I think.
Steel Nick
to be fair. . . much of the baseball community sees “first ballot HOFer” as a (at least marginally) higher honor than plain old “HOF’er.” otherwise, you wouldn’t hear the phrase bandied about so much. regardless of whether it’s what the folks at cooperstown intended when they set up the voting process, making it on your first ballot is a de facto distinction, and if bill sees it that way and structures his voting accordingly i’d say it’s reasonable.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 2, 2009 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
I suppose that in the spirit of full disclosure i should mention that Bill Livingston could save my life and I’d find fault with how he did it. I’m not a fan. But this particular column really rubbed me the wrong way. He didn’t like him. That’s basically it. He concedes he’s a hall of famer, but he’s gonna make him wait because he didn’t like the guy. Because of that, he’s able to base his vote, essentially (at least this year), on one game that particularly ground his gears. If you look at it from the other side, should a guy get in on the STRENGTH of a particularly impressive game? He’s a Hall of Famer or he’s not. At some point, we started putting emphasis on this first ballot/non first ballot business and it seems like such petty, hair-splitting minutiae. This is less about Alomar, I guess, than it is about the logic, the rationale behind it. And it’s not just Livingston. We trust Hall of Fame voting to a bunch of obtuse gas bags who wore dark socks in gym class. It’s one thing if its done behind closed doors, but when they announce it to the world it just exposes the flaws of the HOF election system.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
The first ballot stuff has been going on for years—it’s not a recent invention. It’s a nuance I have no problem with.
I’m not a fan or defender of Livingston, but I agree with him about Robbie. It’s not just one game. It’s how that one game revealed something about Alomar’s character, something we all had seen over the course of his seasons with the Tribe.
I still can’t figure out why Robbie was so pissed off in that Seattle game. It’s almost like he was angry that Moyers was throwing junk.
And who should vote for HOF if not the dark-sock guys? Scientists?
on a semi-related note. . . at what age does it become desirable, from the wearer’s perspective, to constantly rock dark crew socks, regardless of the accompanying footwear and/or whether you’re wearing shorts (or worse, jorts)? i’ve noticed this disturbing trend in men who are reaching late middle age. it appears that somewhere between 55-60, those dark socks really start appealing to you, and wearing them with loafers, tennis shoes, boat shoes, and even sandals becomes socially acceptable.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 3, 2009 1:26 AM EST up reply actions
I think it’s at the point when you realize that the hair underneath your socks isn’t ever growing back.
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:48 AM EST up reply actions
You know, whoever it is, there really ought to be some sort of mandatory statistical training and possibly an aptitude test. Anybody can spin a horsecrap story and rationale for something. For something which is for all voters heavily based on the use of statistical data, some basic competency with the handling of that data would really help.
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:50 AM EST up reply actions
The quality of award selections this year offers hope for future HOF balloting, and as for those already permanently enshrined, the real damage was done many years ago, with all those players from the ’30s.
Livingston doesn’t claim it’s all about that one game. His argument, I think, is that that one game illustrates a fatal flaw in Alomar’s candidacy.
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:47 AM EST up reply actions
I wonder where this will leave Manny when he retires. He’ll certainly have attained all of the magic numbers (the kind that please both saberheads and batting average folks, alike), but his latter day sins have revealed much about his character, as well.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
One reason why I still think Robbie’s getting short shrift about this is that he was seen as caustic, Manny as endearing, though both “dogged” it during games.
to be fair. . . much of the baseball community sees "first ballot HOFer" as a (at least marginally) higher honor than plain old "HOF’er.
Which is why the entire HOF system is in desperate need of an overhaul.
That actually is not even one of the main reasons.
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:47 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t know if it’s “much of the baseball community” or just “some number of the voters, many of whom are kind of idiots.”
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:41 AM EST up reply actions
well. . . the voters are obviously writers, and so i suppose they’re the ones propagating the idea. but i would guess that if you gave the average baseball player the choice, all other things being equal, of being inducted in the HOF on his first ballot or later, he would want to come in on the first ballot. i mean, the idea has filtered down through the baseball community to a large extent, and since the HOF derives any legitimacy it had from the community consensus on which players were the most deserving, i don’t see the distinction between first ballot and non-first ballot as meaningless (not any less so than the HOF itself anyways).
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 3, 2009 2:08 AM EST up reply actions
Well of course. Who wouldn’t want to be elected on the first ballot? To anything?
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 2:36 AM EST up reply actions
There’s nothing that changes between 2009 and 2010 that makes a player who retired in 2004 more or less worthy of a HOF vote. This first-ballot distinction is stupid.
Steel Nick
I think I said this in the very first comment.
Regardless of that opinion which many of us apparently share, it remains the case that Livingston is not disqualifying Alomar permanently from HOF enshrinement. He’s saying only that he should be kept out for the first year.
I am only trying to give some refinement to Livingston’s position on Alomar. I am not defending the “first-ballot” voting distinction.
Damn the no politics rule…
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 3, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I do remember that game, and the lack of effort was obvious. An unfortunate end to his last productive season. To this day, I don’t know what bothered him so much.
With a couple minutes until first pitch, Alomar rushed into the clubhouse. He reached into his locker, grabbed a bottle of cologne and liberally sprayed himself. “Do you always wear cologne when you play a game?” I asked. “To play good, you must feel good,” Alomar replied. “And to feel good, you must smell good.”
Looks like he ran out of Drakkar that night.
In 2007, when Ripken and Gwynn were elected, there were some voters that didn’t vote for them because they didn’t want to have either of them be the first unanimous inductee.
Is there anyone playing today – or recently retired – that could possibly be a unanimous inductee? The only possibility I can see now is Pujols.
Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux might be close too.
well with Livingston’s logic, Randy Johnson should have to wait a couple years. He was a jerk and a difficult teammate. And he might be too tall.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
i think you’re still missing livingston’s point
it’s not just that alomar was a jerk. it’s that his attitude actually affected his performance in a big playoff series.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Dec 3, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
Clemens, Bonds and A-Rod all would have been good candidates for this.
I could see Maddux getting it. But there’s always some douche who will find a reason.
Yeah, Paul Reuschel ruined it for all eye-glass wearers forever.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Dec 3, 2009 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
they didn’t want to have either of them be the first unanimous inductee.
That’s even worse than the first-ballot distinction. Both things suck. Either someone is or is not a HoFer. Don’t make someone twist in the wind just becuase you can.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 3, 2009 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
Pujols hasn’t started off any better than Frank Thomas did. Thomas won’t be unanimous, and only time will tell what Pujols’ thirties look like.
That’s an interesting comparison, fun to look up. Pujols is entering his age 30 season, and that’s where Thomas dropped off a bit. After being a consistent MVP candidate through age 29, like Pujols, Thomas only put up one MVP quality year over the 5. I think the move to DH (starting around age 30) hurt him. It’s somewhat remarkable that Thomas was only an All-Star 5 times.
I still think Albert ranks ahead of where Thomas was at this age in the mind of the voters: better counting stats, postseason play (and a title), a gold glove. Those aren’t necessarily fair factors, of course.
I can promise you that Thomas was as revered at that point as Pujols is now. The Gold Glove is a cute little bauble.
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
As revered as Frank Thomas was at that time, I think Pujols is even higher now. Just look at their MVP finishes through age 29 season:
Thomas — 3, 8, 1, 1, 8, 8, 3
Pujols — 4, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 9, 1, 1
So Pujols won 3 MVP’s compared to Thomas’ 2 and he finished second 3 more times while Thomas never finished second once. Not that MVP voting means everything, of course, but I think it shows what the media and many fans think of a player, and Pujols is in Bonds level right now (minus the steriods and bad attitude, of course).
I totally reject this analysis. If we ignore RBI around here, why should we pay attention to MVP, which is even more subject to opportunity?
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 5:42 PM EST up reply actions
i think he means this shows where he stands with many of the same cats who will be voting on his HOF creds, as compared with Frank Thomas. At least how I took it. But I’m only reading while trying to look like I’m working. So I’m not all there…
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
yeah, “revered” is the key here, i think. he’s using it as evidence of what people think, not who’s actually better…
Yeah, if we’re talking who is more revered then we should look at what the fans and media and thought at the time, which is why MVP voting is appropriate.
I was going to go with this MVP comparison before thinking that it’s much too subjective for the purposes of debate. But I just realized that MVP voting actually is a valid measure here. Both Pujols and Thomas are / were loved by the media.
However, if you check out their OPS+, Thomas is way ahead. He had a season with an OPS+ of 201. That’s just unreal.
Actually, according to BB-Ref, Thomas’ best OPS+ was 211. But Pujols has three seasons better than Thomas’ second-best season by OPS+ so I don’t think you can say that Thomas is “way ahead” of Pujols.
Thomas’ lowest OPS+ was 174. Pujols has topped 174 only 3 times. In fact, he’s topped 165 in 6 of 9 seasons, with 3 years of OPS+ at 151 or 157.
Thomas had set a bar consistently higher than Pujols when only looking at OPS+.
Keep in mind, I still think Pujols could be a unanimous selection and we’re just splitting hairs here. But I think Thomas’s first 9 years were better if you use OPS+. If you use HR, it’s not close. 257 for Thomas vs. 366 for Pujols. MVP voting also shows Pujols ahead.
If Ripken and Gwynn, two guys who played the game “the right way” for decades with the same club, weren’t unanimous, I honestly don’t know who will be.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 4, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
we’re just splitting hairs here
No question. I think everyone would agree that they were (have been) both dominant hitters in their 20s. MVP voting would never be a very reliable measure of anything, but the main thing is that it’s way, way too blunt of an instrument for discerning the difference between these two guys, who are so very close to begin with.
by Jay on Dec 4, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
I totally reject this analysis.
Think you missed the point, as others below pointed out.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 3, 2009 10:20 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think I missed the point.
MVP results do reflect a player’s prevailing reputation, that much is true. But they are still largely driven by opportunity. Pujols himself would have won another one or two of them by now, except that this other guy Barry Bonds happened to exist. Bonds’ existence did not, however, diminish Pujols’ reputation.
MVP results — and first-place votes in particular — are also heavily dependent on each player’s team’s place in the standings that year. Thomas’ club went to the playoffs only once in his first ten seasons. That undeniably deflated his MVP results, but it did not mean that he was less highly regarded as a player.
In a similar vein, over a dozen BBWAA voters admitted that they thought Johan Santana was a better pitcher than Bartolo Colon in 2005, but they voted for Colon for Cy Young anyway. The point — my point, anyway — is that award votes are not only poorly reflective of actual value, they are not even that good of a gauge of a player’s actual reputation.
Pujols’ comps are sick. If you start off being compared to Joe DiMaggio, you’re doing ok.
I still think that Pujols is a better player than Thomas was at the same. time. I grew up a huge fan of Thomas – he was my favorite player – but I’m in Pujols’ corner. I’m actually really surprised that Thomas doesn’t show up as a comp in that link, as you could make a case that Thomas is the most accurate comp.
DiMaggio? Feh. What is he, the seventh-best CF all-time?
Pujols sailed past him offensively a year ago. Flag for unnecessary Yankee reference.
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions
DiMaggio only looked graceful because he didn’t like to get his uniform dirty. Notice how despite his allegedly prodigious speed, he was a total non-factor on the bases.
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
He actually is not eligible for the HOF, because he hasn’t played in 10 different seasons. He needs to play one more game.
by Jay on Dec 3, 2009 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
If he never played again (unless he was arrested for an ax murder), they’d clemente him in. Also! Maybe some people have forgotten how truly awesome a player Frank Thomas was before he started having foot problems.
they’d clemente him in
Clemente played 18 seasons. What are you referring to here?
I think Addie Joss would be the better reference.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 3, 2009 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
Without bother to actually look it up, I think for Clemente they waived the five year post-career waiting period, not the the length of career requirement.
Steel Nick
Correct. They put him in the year after his crash.
Who are the 31 d-cks who couldn’t vote him in on the first ballot?
by JulioBernazard on Dec 3, 2009 10:46 PM EST up reply actions
I was referring to the waiving of the waiting period.
Who are the 31 d-cks who couldn’t vote him in on the first ballot?
I bet they weren’t Puerto Rican sportswriters for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
There’s no way — if Pujols retired today — they’d let him in EARLY, if at all.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 4, 2009 7:29 AM EST up reply actions
I think an exception might well be made for Pujols, who has played nine rather full seasons at a ridiculously high level, but it would be tough to set that precedent.
It’s obvious that people don’t really remember how feared Thomas was. In the late 90s, he was one of the only people that you could see adding to the Indians lineup that would actually improve it.
I thought this may be where you were headed, that this is an undersell of Thomas. I remember, he was one of the most feared hitters in the game at that point, a sure fire hall of famer, possibly one of the best right handed hitters ever.
Even with all that, my point would be that you might be underestimating the national media’s view of Pujols. They think the guy walks on water.
He did run on that tarp.
I think my least favorite thing ever is when the media heaps on a guy for being a good first basemen. I find it very irritating.
better than heaping on a guy for being a slap-hitting right fielder with a decent glove
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
Probably because compared to some of his peers he appears to at this point. It’s kind of hard to come out looking bad when compared to A-Rod or Barry Bonds.
And to a lesser degree, Chris Gimenez.
by Logodaedalus on Dec 5, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think Maddux will poll up there with Seaver and Ryan. Griffey should, too, though there will be writers who somehow think he didn’t do enough. But blank ballots will prevent unanimity.
There actually was a unanimous HOF selection: Lou Gehrig, in a special election.
What if 90% of voters all voted against Tony Gwynn because they had in mind that they did not want him to be the first ever unanimous first ballot inductee while also thinking that every other writer is probably voting for him?
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
That’s known as Roy Jones-ing a guy, right? You bring up a good point — how do they decide which voters will stiff a deserving guy?
by JulioBernazard on Dec 8, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- BIG Series: Padres and Giants set to battle for control of NL West
- The Grandstand: Crunch time in September arrives again
- Hello, Bourjos: Angels rookie plays it fast on both sides of ball
- An off-the-wall take on why the Twins will make the World Series
- John Lindsey couldn't have come any closer to his first at-bat
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
