Baseball Hall of Fame - 2010 Edition
12/31/2009 1:32 pm
It's time for my seventh annual "If I had a Hall of Fame Vote" post.
My previous ballots:
A few reminders:
1. Voters can vote for up to ten players.
2. I'm a "Big Hall" guy so I voted for ten.
3. I reserve the right not to have reasonable explanations for any or all of my selections.
4. To be inducted, players need to be named on 75% of the ballots cast.
5. The real results will be announced on January 6th.
Holdovers from last year - Harold Baines, Bert Blyleven, Andre Dawson, Don Mattingly, Mark McGwire, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Tim Raines, Lee Smith, Alan Trammell
First-timers - Roberto Alomar, Kevin Appier, Ellis Burks, Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, Ray Lankford, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Shane Reynolds, David Segui, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile
Go to Baseball Reference.com for player stats.
Roberto Alomar - Eligible since 2010; 1st time on my ballot ('10)
Bert Blyleven - Eligible since 1998; 7th time on my ballot ('04-'10)
Andre Dawson - Eligible since 2002; 7th time on my ballot ('04-'10)
Barry Larkin - Eligible since 2010; 1st time on my ballot ('10)
Edgar Martinez - Eligible since 2010; 1st time on my ballot ('10)
Fred McGriff - Eligible since 2010; 1st time on my ballot ('10)
Mark McGwire - Eligible since 2007; 4th time on my ballot ('07-'10)
Dale Murphy - Eligible since 1999; 3rd time on my ballot ('08-'10)
Tim Raines - Eligible since 2008; 3rd time on my ballot ('08-'10)
Alan Trammell - Eligible since 2002; 7th time on my ballot ('04-'10)
Dropped from last year's ballot:
Rickey Henderson ('09) (elected)
Jim Rice ('04-'09) (elected)
Tommy John ('06,'08,'09) (lost eligibility)
Jack Morris ('04-'09) (fell out of my top 10)
Added this year (all first-time eligible):
Eligible, and voted for in the past, but not this year:
Jack Morris ('04-'09)
Lee Smith ('06,'07)
|Carlos44ec - 2078 Posts|
|Do you take into consideration whether or not a candidate is going to lose eligibility in the next year or so? It would be bad to drop a guy like Morris for a newcomer with a lot of years of eligibility.|
|Jon - 2847 Posts|
Here's my marginally informed opinion:
Guys who solidly have my "vote":
Alomar, Blyleven, Dawson, Larkin, Martinez, Raines, Trammell
Guys who I feel slightly less comfortable with:
McGriff (He gets put over the top by his great endorsement work)
Murphy (I'd listen to a case for him, but every time I see something that makes me lean one way, there's something else that makes me think the opposite.)
I would not vote for McGwire. I know there are probably all sorts of reasons why it's unfair to do so, but it doesn't seem right to me to vote for him. I think in a lot of ways it's because he is so completely defined by the homerun. So when you throw the "alleged" PED thing in there, it's hard to see why he deserves a vote. It's weird too, because as a skinny rookie he did hit 49 hr, so I wonder what could have been. He could have been HOF without enhancements, but I don't think it's fair to make that the criteria either. His career just doesn't sit well with me as a HOF career.
On a HOF related note, I think Ron Santo should be voted in by the veterans. I'm pretty sure third base is underrepresented in the Hall.
|Jon - 2847 Posts|
|Also, it should be noted that, if RBI Baseball excellence counted (and it probably should), Dawson, McGwire, Raines, and Murphy would be first ballot inductees.|
|Jon screwed with this at 01/02/2010 7:18:17 am|
|Alex - 3618 Posts|
|Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven, Jack Morris, Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, Alan Trammell, Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff|
|Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!|
|Can I vote for Brett Favre for MLB Hall of Fame while he is still playing in the NFL?|
|Matt - 3355 Posts|
The inductees are announced today at 1 pm CT. You can watch live on the MLB Network or MLB.com.
My predictions: Alomar should make it fairly easily (with probably around 85%). Dawson will either just make it, or just not. I'm going to be optimistic and say he gets in with around 77% (up from 67.0% last year). Blyleven has an outside chance this year but will probably have to wait until next year (71%, up from 62.7% last year).
|Jeremy - 8953 Posts|
You thought wrong, dude.
At least Bert not still being in the HOF gives opposing/alternate broadcasters something to bring up every time they do a Twins game.
|Matt - 3355 Posts|
|Alomar not making it is pretty shocking. Most people assumed he would go in and be the top vote getter. I was right about Dawson though (77.9%), and was close w/Blyleven (74.2%)|
|Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?|
|It's just a line from Back to the Future III|
|Matt - Washington Bureau Chief|
Carlos44ec Wrote - 12/31/2009 @ 04:45:25 PM
Do you take into consideration whether or not a candidate is going to lose eligibility in the next year or so? It would be bad to drop a guy like Morris for a newcomer with a lot of years of eligibility.
I forgot to respond to this.
If players are close I may take it into account, but I try to keep it the ten I feel are most deserving. Morris still has four years left on the ballot though, so he still has time. Depending on how things play out he may make it back on my ballot (though probably not next year as I'm pretty sure Dawson's spot will be taken by Jeff Bagwell).
|Matt perfected this at 01/06/2010 2:09:14 pm|
|Alex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel|
Check out this out, "Here are players who are likely to be on the 2014 ballot: McGwire, Palmeiro, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Edgar Martinez, Barry Larkin, Tim Raines, Jack Morris (his last year of eligibility), Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Frank Thomas (his first year of eligibility), Mike Piazza, Tom Glavine (first year), Greg Maddux (first year), Jeff Bagwell, Curt Schilling, Jeff Kent, Mike Mussina, Bernie Williams and Lee Smith.
OK, now vote for just 10 of those guys."
|Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?|
|I like his ideas.|
|Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist|
I wonder if the limit of ten is a face saving move. If you're on the bubble, or you're friends enough with enough people or whatever, you could always tell yourself, or tell a ball player buddy who asked, well, there were 6 guys you can't say no to and yada yada. You'd really have no excuse for not voting, other than just not thinking they're deserving. (Though, that SHOULD be the only reason.)
Also, I'm not sure his highway analogy is apt. Sure, you getting in or not shouldn't be effected by who else is eligible, you deserve it, or not, but to claim that's the norm when they just voted in one guy probably isn't fair (in general, I realize this article was written earlier.) Blyleven isn't any more deserving now than he ever was, and they only put one guy in, I doubt his was a case where the vote is being split lots of ways, so much as it is lots of people think he's not deserving. (It might have mattered this year, since he was like 5 votes away.) Some people are probably comparing you to the other guys on the ballot, but there's probably enough there that you vote for everyone you think is deserving. Caple himself said this year was the first time he used all 10 votes, so obviously this isn't the travesty he's making it out to be, though he is worried about the problem in the future.
If they have a problem they need addressing it's wondering how a guy can get 10, 20, 40, 50, 65, 70, and 79% of the votes in sequential years when his numbers, and everything about him, other than the amount spend lobbying, has changed. If raising the limit of 10 fixes that, then it should be fixed, because the process is just silly now.
|Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 01/06/2010 5:25:03 pm|
|Alex - 3618 Posts|
I think the "it takes 13 years to get in" probably makes (or at least seemingly will in the near future) the 10 limit an issue. I agree that the bigger issue is the voters seem to attach some significance to the amount of years it takes to get in as a "level" of hall of famedness, which is dumb. In his hypothetical list, only 3 guys would be in their first year of eligibility, so if the rest of those guys were elected within 3 years of being eligible the 10 vote limit becomes at least less of an issue, although it's still a totally arbitrary limit.
So I think they should both be fixed, the 15 year eligibility is probably more important long term but harder to change (probably have to phase it out or something) while the 10 vote limit seems like a no brainer easy change that they could make tomorrow.
|Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future|
McGwire admits steroids use
Good for him, hopefully people will cut him some slack about not being here to talk about the past now.