If you want to start a heated discussion with even a casual baseball fan, just bring up who should be in the Hall of Fame and who shouldn't. It is amazing how quickly cheeks flush and v
olumes raise when those borderline guys are mentioned...or even guys who are obvious choices for most people. I can't even utter the sounds "bee-zhee-oh" (Biggio) without an immediate reaction that "the Hall is for great players, not guys who were pretty good for a long time!!". It is kind of a running joke in my family, actually. If there is a ever a dull moment or need for some passion, just bring up Biggio (or the Hall, for that matter). Never fails.
There are all kinds of angles to argue...whether or not to factor in for "the steroid era", what to do with short stretches of greatness or accumulative stats, how to adjust for the team that surrounded a player, how to compare different eras, and so on. Whether or not I fall in the "Bonds was great even without steroids" camp (my brother) or the "steroid use (even suspected) precludes entrance into the Hall" camp (hordes of people) or if I think there is no room in the Hall for a DH, there are legitimate arguments to be made. And that's what makes it fun. The fact that there are defensible positions is what gets us going and even turns us into an advocate of sorts.
But this is just mind-boggling...how do you come up with a legitimate argument for Pat Hentgen or David Segui, who each garnered a single vote this year? Who chose to become an advocate for Kevin Appier (one vote)? Seriously? While it is tempting to analyze why Bert Blyleven fell just a few votes short again this year and how essentially the same voters gave him 11.5% more votes than last year (because he's a year older? Send out Christmas cards with his stats to voters?) it seems just as fascinating to speculate how anyone (let alone two!) could jot down Eric Karros or Ellis Burks (two votes each).
It is hard to imagine a writer thinking they were going to push those players over the top or create a groundswell of support with their vote. Or thinking any of those players truly deserving of the Hall. If that were the case, the revoking of their voting rights should not stop merely with the Baseball Hall of Fame, but any kind of democratic vote on this terrestrial ball. I can't see their whole ballots, but it is still troubling that of their 10 possible selections they chose these guys and left off several guys who were obviously at least more deserving, like a Dale Murphy or Don Mattingly.
The most likely option is they were simply nice gestures to nice guys. And I suppose it is
heartwarming and all, but it does make one wonder how seriously these voters take other cases. Are they the kind who would also flip in a vote for a borderline guy because he was always a good interview? Or because their kid had his poster on every wall? Were they the same kinds of sentiments that caused 22 voters to select Andres Galarraga, a well-known nice guy with a cancer comeback to boot? Possibly.
No, this isn't going to get guys that far off the radar into the Hall...and might not play much into what happens to the guys always riding the fence. But it does raise the question of what kind of standards we are holding these voters to. And why Ray Lankford didn't get a token vote, too. I loved Ray.
olumes raise when those borderline guys are mentioned...or even guys who are obvious choices for most people. I can't even utter the sounds "bee-zhee-oh" (Biggio) without an immediate reaction that "the Hall is for great players, not guys who were pretty good for a long time!!". It is kind of a running joke in my family, actually. If there is a ever a dull moment or need for some passion, just bring up Biggio (or the Hall, for that matter). Never fails.There are all kinds of angles to argue...whether or not to factor in for "the steroid era", what to do with short stretches of greatness or accumulative stats, how to adjust for the team that surrounded a player, how to compare different eras, and so on. Whether or not I fall in the "Bonds was great even without steroids" camp (my brother) or the "steroid use (even suspected) precludes entrance into the Hall" camp (hordes of people) or if I think there is no room in the Hall for a DH, there are legitimate arguments to be made. And that's what makes it fun. The fact that there are defensible positions is what gets us going and even turns us into an advocate of sorts.
But this is just mind-boggling...how do you come up with a legitimate argument for Pat Hentgen or David Segui, who each garnered a single vote this year? Who chose to become an advocate for Kevin Appier (one vote)? Seriously? While it is tempting to analyze why Bert Blyleven fell just a few votes short again this year and how essentially the same voters gave him 11.5% more votes than last year (because he's a year older? Send out Christmas cards with his stats to voters?) it seems just as fascinating to speculate how anyone (let alone two!) could jot down Eric Karros or Ellis Burks (two votes each).It is hard to imagine a writer thinking they were going to push those players over the top or create a groundswell of support with their vote. Or thinking any of those players truly deserving of the Hall. If that were the case, the revoking of their voting rights should not stop merely with the Baseball Hall of Fame, but any kind of democratic vote on this terrestrial ball. I can't see their whole ballots, but it is still troubling that of their 10 possible selections they chose these guys and left off several guys who were obviously at least more deserving, like a Dale Murphy or Don Mattingly.
The most likely option is they were simply nice gestures to nice guys. And I suppose it is
heartwarming and all, but it does make one wonder how seriously these voters take other cases. Are they the kind who would also flip in a vote for a borderline guy because he was always a good interview? Or because their kid had his poster on every wall? Were they the same kinds of sentiments that caused 22 voters to select Andres Galarraga, a well-known nice guy with a cancer comeback to boot? Possibly.No, this isn't going to get guys that far off the radar into the Hall...and might not play much into what happens to the guys always riding the fence. But it does raise the question of what kind of standards we are holding these voters to. And why Ray Lankford didn't get a token vote, too. I loved Ray.
