I'm ok with him getting elected in this his 5th year of eligibility, but I'm not sure I would have voted for him if I had a vote. I liked him when he played and he certainly had some great years (winning the MVP once and had 8 gold gloves), but to me he's on the fence as to being hall of fame worthy.
I guess I just have a higher standard of what the hall of fame should be. I'm against good players or marginally great players getting in. The hall should be for superstars or guys that were right there. We're watering this down, hence the reason why a guy gets barely 50% of the vote when they retire, but 10 years later get the necessary 75%.... It's not like they're hitting more home runs or winning more games the longer they're retired, so why vote for them now if you didn't before?
A good example is a player that'll be inducted next year. Bert Blyleven. He's been retired for 18 years and been on the ballot for this, his 13th year. He came up 5 votes shy in this latest ballot so next year, watch out... With the extra 113 strikeouts and 8 more wins he'll put up in his retirement it'll put him over the top! I joke, but really, why is he being voted for now when writers have had the last 13 years to vote for him and he hasn't come anywhere close to making it until recently?
Blyleven was a good pitcher for 22 years. Not great, not horrible. Due to the fact he played 22 years, he won a lot of games (287) and struck a lot of people out (3,701) but in none of those years was he ever considered "The Guy". He was a nice number 2 or 3 starter for his team. He was never dominate for a decade, half decade or even a year. Only twice did he make the all star team, only twice he won as many as 17 games in a year and only 4 times did he ever receive Cy Young votes. Doesn't sound very Hall of Fame worthy to me....... Here's a modern day scenario. Do you consider Joe Blanton a future hall of famer? A nice middle to back end guy in your rotation, but no one you or your team fears or tries to acquire in the off season..... And yet, that's basically what Blyleven was during his career. If Blanton hangs around for 22 years and wins a bunch of games should he be in the hall of fame?
Let me ask you this. Who was the top pitcher of the 8o's? If you're old enough to remember baseball back in the 80's, the answer's simple. Jack Morris. He was The feared pitcher of the decade. Most wins in the decade, a World Series MVP and Championship, received Cy Young votes in 7 different years and threw a no hitter. He's also known for having pitched what is generally considered the best World Series clinching game 7 ever, when he won the 1991 World Series with a 1-0 10 inning performance. Name me another pitcher in baseball history that's done that? I'll save you the research, there hasn't..... And yet, he's not in the hall of fame and actually received 118 votes less than Blyleven, a pitcher who he was far superior to. When the Detroit Tigers and Jack Morris came to town, you feared Morris and set your lineup appropriatly. Blyleven? No one cared........ He was Minnesota's number 2 or 3 pitcher (depending upon the year). And yet, Blyleven's going into the Hall next year. Go figure.... Using the Blanton scenario again, when the Phillies come to town, you're worried about Halladay and maybe Hamels, but Blanton? Who cares, you'll be happy the day he pitches!
Part of the problem now a days is the voters look at who's in the hall and then base their votes on that (in other words, is the player on the ballot as good as who's already in?). That keeps this watering down effect continuing as if one not great player gets in, then how can you say another not great player with similar stats is not good enough to make it....... So I see why some voters vote the way they do, but still it's a shame..... The Hall of Fame should be for the best of the best, not someone who was just good for a long time.
As to this years ballot, Robbie Alomar got stiffed. This was his first year eligible and some writers left him off due to 1) it's his first year of eligibility and 2) he had an incident during 1 season where he got in an argument with an umpire and ended up spitting on him... He's apologized multiple times over the years (and the umpire it happened to has forgiven him) but I can understand why some writer would say "yeah he's a hall of famer, but still, he can wait till next year"...). And yes, Alomar will get in next year as he's probably one of the three greatest second baseman to ever play the game.
So having said all that, here's my ballot:
2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Vote
| Player | Vote? | % of vote |
|---|---|---|
| Andre Dawson | Yes | 77.9 |
| Bert Blyleven | No | 74.2 |
| Roberto Alomar | Yes | 73.7 |
| Jack Morris | Yes | 52.3 |
| Barry Larkin | Yes | 51.6 |
| Lee Smith | No | 47.3 |
| Edgar Martinez | No | 36.2 |
| Tim Raines | No | 30.4 |
| Mark McGwire | No | 23.7 |
| Alan Trammell | No | 22.4 |
| Fred McGriff | No | 21.5 |
| Don Mattingly | No | 16.1 |
| Dave Parker | No | 15.2 |
| Dale Murphy | No | 11.7 |
| Harold Baines | No | 6.1 |
| Andres Galarraga | No | 4.1 |
| Robin Ventura | No | 1.3 |
| Ellis Burks | No | 0.4 |
| Eric Karros | No | 0.4 |
| Kevin Appier | No | 0.2 |
| Pat Hentgen | No | 0.2 |
| David Segui | No | 0.2 |
Larkin is someone else that this was his first year eligible and with his stats and background I feel is deserving and will get in.
I guess at the end the question becomes "what is a baseball hall of famer"? We all have different opinions but I'll refer to the famous 1964 quote by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's comment when asked to describe pornography: "I may not be able to describe pornography but I know it when I see it". I'm that way with a hall of famer, I may not be able to describe him, but I know one when I see one!
Bill
No comments:
Post a Comment