Blyleven misses by .8%, Alomar by 1.3%, Mike Jackson by more.
Dawson gets in.
about 2 years ago
Brick.
142 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
The guy who voted for David Segui should have his BBWAA credentials pulled.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
Seriously? You’re opposed to the otherwise-meaningless tip-of-the-cap courtesy vote?
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 2:46 PM EST up reply actions
He was twice as good as David Segui?
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 6, 2010 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Which is worse, throwing a name on a ballot that doesn’t belong there (you can, after all, vote for as many as 10) or submitting a blank ballot, as five voters did? Blyleven missed by 5 votes; Alomar by 8.
I’m a little more bothered by the ballots that had Jack Morris and not Blyleven than the blank ballots.
Maybe there should be a mandatory retirement age for the voters.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
Actually there should be a minimum age for voters. If you’re gonna vote for a player you shouldda actually seen him
play.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Why, so you can overrate yourself as a scout, utilize your faulty memory of how long a player was actually good, and overlook how much really helped his team?
A lot of great players were a lot better than the human eye could detect. Jim Rice was “feared” for about two and a half years and somehow gets in the Hall. But at least those voters “saw him play,” so it’s all good according to you. Total BS.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
You’re right. Let’s just use all those high-falutin’ sabermetric stats. Set a mimimum average ERA+ for pitchers and a OPS+/URZ composite stat for everybody else. Add minimum years service and Voila! you’ve eliminated the voters and their personal judgement altogether. Sounds like a very enlightened system to me.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
“I’m not sure about black, might be a little dark for this room”
“FINE, MAKE IT WHITE!”
by Brick. on Jan 6, 2010 5:19 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
This is underrated.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 6, 2010 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think having seen a guy play is a meaningful concept – what does that mean? One game? Ten? Which games? That Ron Swoboda catch in the WS was fantastic!!
On the other hand, it’s hard to argue that there are agreed-upon statistical measures of excellence. I mean, André Dawson has OPS/OPS+ numbers that are weaker than Ken Singleton’s!!. Does that make Singleton better? Do the statistics make EITHER of them worthy of the HOF? I don’t think so.
I think you need to have voters who both watch a lot of games and understand the strengths and limitations of the various quantitative measures of baseball excellence. At least a few of the voters appear to me not to qualify, as measured by Blyleven’s continued exclusion (and Dawson’s being voted in!).
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
It would be more fair. The beat reporters who vote on this suck at objective evaluation — let’s not mince words, they are complete idiots in this regard — and there is no reason to think they are any better as scouts.
At least with the hard data there can be some accountability, rather than Shaughnessy’s stubborn insistence that other teams — not the Red Sox, whom he covered, but other teams — totally “feared” Jim Rice.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 8:47 PM EST up reply actions
Okay, what are those ‘standards’?
I’m not be a douche, I just have no idea what those might be. Currently.
I've really got to change my signature.
All writers with 10 years of membership in the BBWAA are eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame. That’s it. Looking at the list on wiki those that have voting rights from the PD are Hoynes, Grossi, Shaw, Livingston, and Mike Peticca. Pluto isn’t listed but I would think he’d have a vote. Bob Hunter from the Columbus Dispatch also has a vote.
Frankly — and I say this as a writer — being a professional writer in particular shouldn’t be any qualification at all.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 9:42 PM EST up reply actions
Not to mention:
Virtually all sportswriters, I suppose, believe that Jim Rice is an outstanding player. If you ask them how they know this, they’ll tell you that they just know; I’ve seen him play. That’s the difference in a nutshell between knowledge and bullshit; knowledge is something that can be objectively demonstrated to be true, and bullshit is something that you just ‘know.’ If someone can actually demonstrate that Jim Rice is a great ballplayer, I’d be most interested to see the evidence.
(By the way, you and I are not allowed to swear on this site, but Bill James is.)
by Jay on Jan 7, 2010 4:10 AM EST up reply actions
Based on watching Steve Carlton pitch for the Indians, there’s no way I thought he should gone into the Hall of Fame.
by Ryan on Jan 6, 2010 9:30 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
But did these writers actually see these guys play? MLB.tv did not exist. Neither did satellite TV. Interleague play didn’t even exist for Dawson’s career (or did it for a little bit? not looking it up). How many times did Dan Shaunessey actually see any of these NL players play? 20 times total? less for pitchers. That does not make him any more qualified than someone who has never seen the guy play. (though, for the record, Shaunesy voted for Alomar and Blyleven and not for Dawson).
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
I think Raines eventually gets in, but it may take another ten years. Ten years for the electorate to shift from Jim Rice to Tim Raines.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 2:46 PM EST up reply actions
Agree on Raines, and they’ll get a snippet on Randy Johnson’s plaque as well and maybe, if he can have a good twilight to his career, Vlad.
Apparently in response to this thread, the New York Times has an article this morning on the “reunion” of Expos in the Hall of Fame. They mention Larry Walker as another possibility (as well as Randy Johnson).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/sports/baseball/08expos.html?ref=sports
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
More good news than bad here.
Dawson shouldn’t be in there, but I can’t get worked up over a guy with 438 HR and 319 SB going in. That’s the bad news, and it ain’t that bad.
The good news is that Blyleven is a lock to go in next year, and I think Bert is smart enough to have the pleasure of realizing that.
The other good news is Alomar, who may have missed but also is a lock for next year. I’m sure he’s disappointed, but at the same time, I’m sure he’s relieved that the vote reveals only a minimal amount of blackballing.
The final good news is Larkin, who got over 50% on his first ballot, which strongly suggests that eventually he’ll make it, though the ballot will get a lot more crowded after 2013.
I actually saw Blyleven pitch – and Morris too. Practically indistinguishable in terms of how they controlled the game. In either case, neither one of these guys was Greg Maddox or Cliff Lee for that matter. The HoF will be a lesser place if either gets in.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Practically indistinguishable in terms of how they controlled the game
It’s exactly that false sense of observation that becomes the basis for ill-minded support. I’m not saying it’s not true (but it’s not, so I guess I am saying that), but the whole point is to prove it.
by xrickx on Jan 6, 2010 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
What the heck does “controlling the game” mean? Blyleven was the better pitcher and every stat you can use shows that.
You know, Chuck, you’re the one who always wants to say that your record is what you are (like when you compared the Royals to the Indians above). Well, Morris and Blyleven are what they numbers say they are, and the numbers say Blyleven was much better. And I’m not just talking advanced stats, either. Look at basic stats like ERA, K/9, BB/9, WHIP, and even shutouts, and Bert is far ahead.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 7, 2010 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i really hope larkin gets in eventually. he lived next door to a friend of mine in cincinnati and he played catch with us a couple times. it would be so cool to say i played catch with a HOFer.
It’s already pretty cool to say you played catch with Barry Larkin
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
There was this time when I was in Cincinnati and I actually saw Barry Larkin playing catch with 2 kids. He threw much, much harder than they could and never dropped a ball. The kids looked scared and I’m pretty sure one was crying a little.
If only there were a way for a non-moderator to look that up.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
Well, since you asked…the guys I listed just grabbed my attention (for whatever reason).
2011:
Palmero
Bagwell
Larry Walker
Juan Gonzalez
Benito Santiago
Kevin Brown
John Olerud
Marquis Grissom
Carlos Baerga
Al Leiter
Tino Martinez
All-
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2011.shtml
2012:
Bernie Williams
Vinny Castilla
Javy Lopez
Ruben Sierra
Jeromy Burnitz
Tim Salmon
Danny Graves
Jeff Fassero
All-
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2012.shtml
2013:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Mike Piazza
Sammy Sosa
Curt Schilling
Craig Biggio
Jose Mesa
Kenny Lofton
David Wells
Bob Wickman
Julio Franco
Sandy Alomar
Steve Kline
Jaret Wright
All-
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2013.shtml
2013 should be an interesting year for the voters.
by Oscar_the_Dog on Jan 6, 2010 7:03 PM EST up reply actions
When I get my BBWAA card, I’m voting Baerga every year until he drops off the ballot or they kick me out.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 6, 2010 8:36 PM EST up reply actions
Based on the way these people vote, I don’t think you would have to be worried about getting kicked out.
by Oscar_the_Dog on Jan 6, 2010 8:47 PM EST up reply actions
And I am sure there will be someone who will find a reason to vote for Grissom, and still not think Tim Raines deserves it.
by Oscar_the_Dog on Jan 6, 2010 9:15 PM EST up reply actions
lol danny graves
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jan 6, 2010 8:24 PM EST up reply actions
The whole class of 2012 is pretty weak, I think. Wake me up when it’s 2013.
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
Another nice player, but I’m not sure he’d be seriously considered if he weren’t on the Yankees. I’d say Ellis Burks is a comparable offensive player, although Burks had a bit more power and speed; I don’t think he’s a serious hall-of-fame candidate. Williams was a much better defensive player, I acknowledge, so that gives him a little edge there, but if he gets into the Hall, it’s because he was a Yankee (and a good, but not great, one).
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
His BRef comps include the likes of Bobby Abreu, Ruben Sierra, Ellis Burks, Will Clark, Bobby Bonilla, and Garret Anderson. I agree, that’s pretty damning evidence that Williams is good not great.
They are his BRef similar batters, not similar players. Bernie played 1800 games in centerfield. The only one of those guys to play any substantial amount of time in center was Burks. Bonilla did log some 957 innings at third, which I think is close to center in terms of positional value.
I think a big part of it depends on how you value his defense. I recall him being a pretty good defender. He does have some hardware, but that’s always a little dicey.
I’m not sure he does belong, but I think he has an argument, especially in light of the elections of Rice and Dawson. Either way, I am not going to be upset.
Man, 2013 is when it’s really going to hit the fan. Palmero in 2011 should start the debate on HoF level steroid users. Outside of Biggio and Piazza the rest that are Hall worthy in 2013 have some taint on them.
McGwire has the suspicion about him (and the testimony of Jose Canseco) but he never waved his finger in front of that committee only to test positive later that season, or to appear on a list of players that tested positive. He also never had his trainer talk to the Mitchell investigation and provide mounds of evidence or have his drug lab busted by the Feds.
McG’s non-testimony in front of Congress didn’t help him one bit.
by JulioBernazard on Jan 7, 2010 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
Robbie wuz robbed. Shoulda been a first-ballot guy.
by JulioBernazard on Jan 7, 2010 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
So with Dawson getting in, Thome is a lock right? Assuming he stays free of the steroids accusations
I’d say Thome is a lock Dawson aside. But if you are a HoF voter that voted for either Dawson or Rice I’d really like to hear why you think they are better than or more Hall worthy than Albert Belle or Fred McGriff.
You seem to be assuming a capacity for abstract thought.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 9:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
With one more stolen base, Thome will be at 20 for his career. That’s just too strong and round of a number for voters to ignore.
by xrickx on Jan 6, 2010 9:35 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
The baseball Hall of Fame is a construct of American newspaper sportswriters. It’s not Valhalla or Mount Olympus. Of course it’s flawed. And to correct this fundamental limit you propose the selection be taken over by scientists? Why not let players, managers and front office decide?
If you’re satisfied with gold glove voting, then sure, let the managers decide. Of course, if you’re satisfied with gold glove voting as is, you don’t give a damn about it. As a whole, players and managers are just as subjective as beat writers. You want Dusty Baker to have a vote? The guy bats Willy Taveras and Corey Patterson leadoff because he genuinely believes it’s a good idea.
Letting front offices vote would make the most sense, but I don’t want members of my $400M enterprise wasting time on Hall of Fame voting when they have a team to run. Not to mention some front offices actually think it’s a good idea to pay Barry Zito $126M dollars, so you’re still getting a mixed bag at that level.
Yeah, you’re right. I guess my point is to accept it as a flawed process and an imperfect institution. I’ve always enjoyed reading Bill James on the HOF, and he doesn’t seem to get too riled up about it. the whole Tracy Ringolsby brouhaha about Tim Raines—where saberfanatics were calling for Ringolsby’s head—seems misdirected. As a result of the complaints, the BBWA allowed BP guys to vote. The whole thing is human, ergo messed up. I don’t see why it should be taken so seriously. Ellis Burks was a good player and a great guy. Whether he’s in Cooperstown or not doesn’t change anything.
The cry for heads stems from the fundamental difference in approaches.
1. Objective approach: Here’s the statistics that are important. Here is why they are important. Here’s how the members of the Hall stack up. Here’s how the candidates compare.
2. BBWAA approach: I remember him. He was good. Trust me. Look at these counting stats. I don’t like rate stats unless it’s batting average. I’m not going to even mention context-adjusted statistics to compare players across eras. Let these few random stats tell part of the story, and let’s seal his candidacy by pointing to things we can’t measure.
In the first approach, you can still argue over whether Dawson or Blyleven belongs. But the argument is over the criteria, not your feeling about the player. The second approach allows the voters to never be wrong, because you can’t disprove a method that doesn’t exist.
You get a mixed bag at any level. Front offices at least are oriented to think in terms of real value.
odradek, it is possible to empanel a group of real experts to make difficult judgments. Of course that too would be imperfect, but at least it would be an attempt to create the best possible group to make the best possible decisions. We sure as hell don’t have that now.
by Jay on Jan 7, 2010 3:31 AM EST up reply actions
I can’t believe they let Dionysius in! I mean, all the guy did was drink wine and party. Mount Olympus was way too inclusive.
Tribe fan trapped in Kansas
by Avindian on Jan 7, 2010 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
it is possible to empanel a group of real experts to make difficult judgments
Sometimes. But then again that’s how we got the Ford Pinto.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Actually, I might visit the Mauichuck Hall of Fame. There’d have to be the Real Clevelander Wing, though.
I've really got to change my signature.
In the lobby of the Real Clevelander Wing, someone is always trying to negotiate admission price at the ticket window, or trying some cock-and-bull story about how their wallet is in the trunk of their car and the girlfriend threw the keys into the bushes, etc.
just send Scott Sauerbeck out to go find them.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
by westbrook on Jan 8, 2010 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
See, I disagree with this. Decades, unlike centuries, are always referred to by the leading digit (the 80s, 90s, and… today). If you want to consider 2010 as the same decade as 2001-2009, then you have to consider 1990 part of the 80s, and 2000 part of the 90s, which is pretty weird.
Now I realize that we end up with a system where centuries are not neatly composed of decades, but that’s a small price to pay not to have to call 2000 part of the 1990s.
I agree. While 2001 was the start of the new millenium, not 2000, nobody would say that 2000 was part of the 90’s. That just doesn’t make sense.
A decade, after all, is defined as any 10-year period, so 1995-2004 can be called a decade. So the decade of the 90’s lasted from 1990-1999 and the decade of the Aught’s (or whatever) lasted from 2000-2009.
Exactly. If it were any other decade there wouldn’t even be a discussion… it’s just because nobody agrees on what to call this past decade that this is even brought up.
No, dorks were talking about this in the 80s and 90s, too. I mean, that’s what some dork told me.
by Jay on Jan 8, 2010 9:40 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I don’t know why you’d celebrate pi day on 3/14, since the coolness of pi stems from its irrationality. If you’re just going to round, what’s the point?
It’s my birthday, too. So annoying.
Even worse, I was born at 1:59 a.m. And 27 seconds.
by Jay on Jan 9, 2010 7:22 PM EST up reply actions
Really, I didn’t even know about this. I thought it was Steak and BJ day? I always felt bad for you because that’s like having your birthday fall on Christmas or something.
by randallhank on Jan 12, 2010 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
See, it was a joke. Every discussion involving a decade has to include a pedantic dork, and nobody seemed to be willing to step in. Always willing to take one for the team, I am.
The other way to look at it is that LGT had a chance to rise about the usual pedantic dork factor … and you ruined it.
by Jay on Jan 9, 2010 7:22 PM EST up reply actions
What do you mean? Making Pi day jokes (along with being bad with women) makes you a mega-smart genius. Super smart.
I assume you’re being sarcastic. I personally assume that anyone who has even considered Pi Day as a good idea must not be all that smart.
e Day would be much cooler, but alas there is no 71st day in February.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 13, 2010 12:39 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
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
