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.
I've heard of local BWAAA beat writers throwing a sympathy vote to players they covered who were always friendly to them and gave them good interviews. It does raise the question on how serious they take their vote though. David Segui might have been the greatest guy ever but his career stats simply do not warrant inclusion in the HOF and he shouldn't get a vote under any circumstance.
ReplyDeleteI swear they should give some kind of test to validate the voters baseball knowledge or at the very lease their sanity to maintain the integrity of the voting. They really need to release the votes to the public so they can be held up to scrutiny. What voter doesn't vote for Cal Ripken? I don't buy the whole "I don't vote for 1st time ballot players" excuse. So what if Babe Ruth didn't get a unamious vote!? Shouldn't they judge each player on their own individual achievements and not comparitively to other players or voting situations?
I'm not a real huge fan of a player being strung along for 10-15 years either before being voted in. Of course the stats don't change so the votes schouldn't change that much either. Do voters have it in their mind that certain players are only worthy of a 12th year on the ballot selection? By my recollection, no where in the HOF does it say how many times the player was on the ballot before being voted in so why wait? I can understand that some players stats take a longer time for people to appreciate as voters may develop a better perspective of a player's achievements against an era. In addition I agree that writers can be persuaded to voter for a player they initially didn't deem worthy by the analysis of other writers and such. However, these few numbers of voters shouldn't be so drastic that it really changes a player's chances of making the HOF. These so called "baseball experts" should know from the very first vote and vote accordingly based in the player's individual achievements alone.
BTW, like most of the senior writers at ESPN. I'm all in favor of voting in steroid players. Unless there is some way we could definitively tell everyone who juiced, we can ban the few who got caught or confessed. I say if a player has the stats and was considered an elite player then they should be voted in. That includes Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and so forth. Because really, who's to say for sure that probably the greatest pitcher of the steroid era, Greg Maddux, didn't juice? No one would think of it because he was such a "smart" pitcher and relied more on movement and pitch selection then power, but I think it'd be very naive for anyone in this day of age to be able to say definitively that player X did not use steroids. We will never know for sure and unfortunately the public is pretty much forced to assume everyone used.
It could be that votes were cast for undeserving players as a way of protesting the 'steroids guys' (McGwire etc.) Instead of voting for guy number 11 on the list, the writer chose instead to say, I am throwing away this vote on a player that will never make it. In a way, it ensures that only the best of the best will make it into the hall and not a guy who was just barely bad enough to fall out of your top ten.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought...
I'm pretty sure the voters don't have to put 10 players on their ballot though Gustine. It's not like what people like Keith Law did to ensure Lincecum won the 2009 NL Cy Young by leaving Chris Carpenter completely of his top 10 ballot.
ReplyDeleteWow, you guys jumped in quick!
ReplyDeleteAnd David Segui has been linked to HGH (I think he admitted it, even), which I think makes the vote that much more strange.
Also, I'm just waiting for Phil to work up a good anti-Biggio novella here...give it time...
I believe that Biggio's resume, or lack thereof, speaks for me. Nobody has made a good enough argument for his inclusion in the Hall yet, so I think the ball is in your court...if you think he should be in.
ReplyDeleteAnyone want to start writing The Glory of Their Times II with me? It will focus on a handful of the great players and a handful of the mediocre players from the last 25 years and since everyone is so easily swayed by stories about how nice a player was and random, virtually meaningless stats that we could get pretty much anyone into the Hall of Fame that we wanted. Did you know that in the entire history of baseball only 4 players have hit more than 40 doubles with multiple men in scoring position in the 8th and 9th inning? 3 of them are already in the HOF. The other one...David Segui. How can we not vote for the guy? Also, he promised to buy a sick kid a puppy if he didn't hit a homerun that day. He went out and hit two homeruns. You know what he ended up doing? He bought the kid 2 puppies. HOF!!!
ReplyDeleteAnd Bert Blylevyn pitched a really long time and is better than another guy who is in the Hall of Fame, so if he doesn't get in it will be a traveshamockery.