2011 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot

1. 63

   I am DB Cooperposted 13 years ago

   I found this interesting Google spreadsheet that tracks the published ballots of all the baseball writers who have disclosed their ballots for this year: https://spreadsheets.google.com/lv?key= … y=CPyuwqIJ
   
   From this sample, it looks like Roberto Alomar and probably Bert Blyleven will get in this year. Barry Larkin will miss the cut. Jeff Bagwell has a surprising lack of support in his first year on the ballot, and once again Tim Raines gets ignored by over half the voters. John Olerud will probably fail to get 5% support and will be removed from the ballot, despite having a career remarkably similar (but better) to Don Mattingly, who continues to have numerous writers supporting him.
   
   So what do you think of the ol' boys club? Are the writers no longer looking at the career stats and just voting for players they remember fondly?

   replyreport
   1. 64

      Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      i'm biased being a Blue Jay fan...
      
      Alomar for sure.. Olerud was great as a Jay, and should surely get more than 5%.
      
      The balloting for most Halls of Fame disgust me.  This idea that one person is a 'first ballot' entry while another is a 5th ballot is bogus.  Who instructed the voters to create different levels of inductees?  How can a voter not vote for one player 3 or 4 years in a row, and then decide all of a sudden his career is worthy of entry?
      
      This kind of stupid mentality is creeping into other sports too.  In hockey, coach Pat Burns just passed away, and the voters refused to let him into the Hall even though as a dying man, it would have been great for him to get this last accolade.  He is a no brainier to get in, having won a Stanley Cups and having been the coach of the year on three separate teams...
      
      yet they decided it would be better to give him this honor after he was dead.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I think a lot of baseball fans (myself included) feel the same way about Ron Santo as hockey fans feel about Pat Burns. He wanted it, he deserved it, he didn't get it during his lifetime. It's almost insulting to vote him in now, as if he was being punished by keeping this honor from him while he was alive.

         replyreport
   2. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The writers are NOT how this should be determined. It's pretty clear that celebrity is being valued more that career achievement. TIM RAINES IS NOT IN THE HALL? GEEZ

      replyreport
      1. 63

         I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         They are supposed to be more knowledgeable than the average fan, and they have more free time to contemplate these things than managers, coaches, players, and executives (all of whom can serve on the separate Veterans Committee). Retired players, especially those in the HOF already, tend to have standards that are way too high, possibly because they are trying to protect the exclusivity of their little club. There have also been some instances of cronyism with the Veterans Committee in the past.
         
         The problem is that some writers seem to have no clue, even though they get paid to write about baseball. Take a look at Barry Stanton's ballot (highlighted in pink). Edgar Martinez is arguably a good choice. Don Mattingly and Jack Morris are marginal candidates at best but they have their supporters. But Tino Martinez and BJ Surhoff? Really? The two of them have a total of 3 all star selections. They are slightly above average players at best, and yet he's chosen them over Roberto Alomar, Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Bert Blyleven, and many other more worthy candidates on the ballot. It's clear Stanton doesn't take this process very seriously.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            carefull, if you go by all-star selections you start to make a better argument for Mattingly over Olerud. Can't have it both ways. To me the ding on both is the lack of power. You expect power from the corners. While neither totaly lacked power(total of just under 500 homers between the two) Neither got 300 dingers in their career. I think it's a big strike against them. Mattingly however has the MVP and many more all-star selections. He was also the MLB Player of the Year.
            
            After reviewing the stats, I think Will Clark is a better candidate than both. Actually Rafael Palmero is the obvious choice if you consider stats alone. Of course we know that the roids have probably done him in. Which I'm starting to wonder about. Consider this. Coccain was widely used in the 20's and 30's in MLB. Wonder if....

            replyreport
            1. 63

               I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The thing about All Star selections is they tend to benefit popular players from larger market teams. Mattingly should have a lot of All Star selections, being a popular player in New York. Tino Martinez was also very popular in New York, so the fact that he's only got a couple All Star selections should indicate that he wasn't nearly as good as the best of his contemporaries. Receiving MVP votes in just two seasons is also an indication of that.
               
               Mattingly received a lot of help in the mid-1980's thanks to being sandwiched between two Hall of Famers in the Yankees lineup. There might not be a more ideal spot in a lineup in the history of baseball than one or two spots behind Rickey Henderson in his prime. How enjoyable must it have been to hit with Henderson in scoring position with a distracted pitcher who knew it wouldn't get any easier with Dave Winfield in the on-deck circle?
               
               Absolutely agree about Will Clark. His career is far more valuable than Mattingly's, but he didn't receive any support from the writers. Don Mattingly is basically Will Clark Lite. John Olerud will get the same poor treatment as Will Clark did from the writers, even though he compares well against Mattingly overall.
               
               I think Palmeiro will get punished by the writers more than the other alleged PED users. His crime against the game was more egregious, because he very boldly lied in front of Congress (I can't prove that, and neither can they or he'd be in prison, but the baseball writers do not have to use the same standard of proof). Baseball's privileged antitrust status is threatened when baseball players offend politicians. 
               
               Cocaine is actually still an issue for some writers. There was one writer who actually admitted that he didn't vote for Tim Raines in past years because of his admitted cocaine use and the possibility that it helped his performance. Raines voluntarily entered rehab during his playing career to recover from his addiction. I think it's outrageous that a writer could try to claim that cocaine was a performance enhancing drug for Raines, even though that same writer has voted for other players who were either caught with illegal drugs or later admitted to using them. I think there's a perception that because cocaine is an "upper", it would benefit a speed guy like Raines more than a singles guy like Paul Molitor or a pitcher like Fergie Jenkins, both of whom had cocaine problems during their careers. Why should Raines get punished because he admitted to having a problem and sought help for it?

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You know as soon as I sent the post about coccain in the 20's and 30's I realized..HEY it was VERY popular in the 70's and 80's. However, I kinda agree with your comments. I believe it was used more as a recreational drug in the 70's and 80's. It was definitely used as speed in the 20's and 30's. All in all the only thing that has changed regarding drug use in professional sports is the level of scrutiny.

                  replyreport
   3. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Whats the big deal with Larkin? A SS with 19 seasons and only 3 GG's? I don't see it. Also what's the deal with Dale Murphy. I would have thought he was a shoe in!

      replyreport
      1. 63

         I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Larkin's WAR of 68.9. I doubt there are many eligible position players with a higher one AND have never been mentioned as possible PED users (Bagwell's is almost 80). He had a solid batting average, so-so power, excellent base stealing capability and a good glove at one of the most challenging positions. Similar players in the Hall of Fame include Ryne Sandberg, Pee Wee Reese, and the newly-elected Roberto Alomar. Larkin actually has a higher wins above replacement than all of them. That's not to say that Larkin was the best player out of that bunch, but he certainly had a career similar to those that have already been deemed Hall of Fame worthy.
         
         Murphy is a Mattingly-like candidate. He had a red hot peak, winning back-to-back MVPs, but a few seasons after that his numbers had a steep decline. His 5 best seasons are probably much better than the 5 best seasons of the average Hall of Famer. His 6-10th best seasons are well below the average Hall of Famers, and his 11-15th best seasons are so bad he probably shouldn't have been starting in the majors.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            This where I don't like the new metrics. WAR doesn't apply in Larkins case. He's a SS. He's not supposed to boot the ball! I guess I'm seeing it in an old fasion way. Power on the corners speed and efficiency down the middle.
            
            I just don't think WAR is a meaningfull metric.

            replyreport
            1. 63

               I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Wasn't Larkin speedy and efficient? 379 stolen bases versus just 77 times caught stealing. .371 on base percentage isn't in the "all time great" category but it's not bad. He also only struck out 817 times in 9057 career plate appearances, which is very good for his era.
               
               For the first 11 seasons of Larkin's career he played the same position and in the same league as Ozzie Smith, one of the greatest fielders of all time (most fielding metrics have Smith and Brooks Robinson on a completely different level than anyone else in history). Smith won 7 Gold Gloves during that time. I don't know who would have won those awards if Smith wasn't there, but nobody was beating Smith during his prime.
               
               Do you think Ryne Sandberg deserved induction? Sandberg was clearly a worse overall hitter than Larkin, was a slightly worse base stealer, and he struck out more often. He was a better fielder, but 2nd base is also considered a less demanding position because the average throw is much shorter length.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  optimus grimlockposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  worse no, actually there very similar. larkin was a better base runner but ryno was a better hitter.
                  larkin g-2180 r-1329 h-2340 2b-441 3b-76 hr-198 rbi-960 sb-379
                  ba-295 obp-815 walks-939
                  ryno g-2151 r-1318 h-2386 2b-441 3b-76 hr 282 rb1 1061 sb-344 ba-285 obp-795 walks-761
                  They both are similar and there gloves were great sanberg 16 seasons larkin 19. they both deserve it and so does edgar martinez the best dh of alltime!!!

                  replyreport
               2. 57

                  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Sanberg was clearly a worse hitter? Fewer trips to the plate, more RBI's and More homers. My ding on Larkin is the errors. 235 Errors in 19 seasons for Larkin vs 109 in 16 Seasons for Sanberg.
                  However he has fewer errors than Ozzie. So I guess he's good enough. You know it looks like there is some issues with score keeping....regarding errors. Probably always has been.

                  replyreport
      2. 61

         TomC35posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I agree about Murphy.  If other older players are judged by what were considered good stats for their generation rather than by today's numbers, than Murphy also should get in.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yea, I don't think the fact that he hung around too long should hurt him. In his prime, he had HOF numbers.

            replyreport
2. 59

   optimus grimlockposted 13 years ago

   I think mcgrif deserves it over mattingly and clark. Clark has a chance in a year or sp. lee smith, alomar and edgar should get in this year! bagwell deserves it and like your guys said palmeiro and mcgwire should be in but the steriod link kills them. I still dont buy palmeiro was on roids you can get his size on good nutrition and lifting.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It's possible he could have got his size naturally, but he was specifically named as a steroid user, he denied it in front Congress, and he tested positive for steroids a few months later. Maybe he really did think it was a vitamin B shot like he claimed, but when you're accused of using a substance and you know you might be randomly selected for testing of that substance, how do you accept a syringe from a teammate and inject it into your body? Wouldn't you be especially careful about what you're putting inside yourself?

      replyreport
      1. 57

         C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly. When you know your conditions of employment, your responsible to keep those conditions. That includes medical treatment. I'ts even been upheld by the courts. In fact pro athletes normally go through the teams medical staff to ensure they are complying with policy. There are all kinds of performance enhancers, not just drug based.

         replyreport
3. 57

   C.J. Wrightposted 13 years ago

   Hey DB, here is a great site for comparing players....
   
   http://www.baseball-reference.com/

   replyreport
   1. 63

      I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, that's one of my favorites. Some of the advanced metrics are relatively new but really show how HOF voters have screwed up over the years. I especially like WAR (wins above replacement) and OPS+ (on base percentage plus slugging percentage adjusted for ballpark factors).

      replyreport
4. 60

   AskAshlie3433posted 13 years ago

   I still think Barry Larkin deserves to be in. Maybe not as much as Roberto, but Barry was clutch. He did make a lot of errors but he came through when it counted. With the rich history at Cincy, your always on the spot. I think he did great, dealing with all the ghost of the past. Because of all the great Cincy teams of the past, his team was supposed to be elite, a contender. They never were. The same can be said about the Blue Jays. Anyway, both of them deserve it.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Don't forget about 1990. The Reds were mismanaged after that season, but those 1990 Reds were something else. They went into that World Series as huge underdogs and swept the highly-touted A's in 4 games.

      replyreport
5. 59

   optimus grimlockposted 13 years ago

   ok im lost at how edgar martinez didnt get in, the fact that he was a dh shouldnt hurt him. Over 1200 rbis, 2200 hits, 500 plus doubles, 312 ba 306 homers 1200 runs, 1283 walks, slug 515. not to mention the best dh ever.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think it's a combination of not having the milestone counting stats (500 HR, 3,000 hits) and being a DH. He'll get in eventually, because that .418 career on-base percentage is hard to ignore.

      replyreport
6. 59

   optimus grimlockposted 13 years ago

   While you watch these guys play you keep up with there stats, when years go by its easy to forget. Sanberg only 109 errors in 16 seasons, most guys have over 100 in 3-5 seasons.

   replyreport
7. 60

   AskAshlie3433posted 13 years ago

   Your right. That 1990 team was one for the ages. I always like the underdogs. I don't know why. I think Bobby Cox should get in quick. It's a shame they only won title in all those trips. For some reason, they never played their best ball in the World Series. Greg Maddox, John Smoltz, and Tom Glavine, with Rocker in the pin. Any team would die for a rotation like that. It might even keep Bobby out for a few years. They had a good run this year. Thumbs up to Atlanta and Cincy. Just like the good ole days!

   replyreport
   1. 63

      I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think Cox will get in rather quickly. A lot of people forget what a great team builder he was. He made the Braves competitive for the first time in decades in the early 1980's, then he went to Toronto as the GM in the mid-to-late 1980's and built up that franchise. Those Blue Jays would go on to win back-to-back titles a couple years after Cox went back to Atlanta, where he was able to turn the Braves around (again) from perennial cellar-dwellers to perennial division winners. That 1992 World Series between the Blue Jays and Braves was really pitting two teams that Cox built against one another.
      
      Cox wasn't just a manager working with the teams his general manager built for him. He called most of the shots and surrounded himself with quality (but often underrated) talent and some great coaches, and he did it all without an "open checkbook" owner, even though when he was with the Braves Ted Turner was one of the richest owners in baseball.

      replyreport
8. 60

   AskAshlie3433posted 13 years ago

   I never knew he was with the Blue Jays. They should of never let him go. i bet they regret that now. I don't really like the Yankees, but they are in it year in and year out. I can't believe they treated Jeter like they did. If I was him, I would of left. That shows you it is all about money in New York. They always try to buy the best player. In the end, you can't blame a player wanting paid.

   replyreport