Baseball Hall of Fame ballot released

So what? My point is: They're in the Hall of Fame, same as Ruth and Aaron. Doesn't matter how they got in; they're in.

And unless we're going to take them OUT, instituting some "higher" standard from this point on ... is impossible.

 

I have a pretty good idea who voted for him.

 

Just taking a quick glance at their numbers -- I have vague, at best, memories of Morris and Blyleven -- it's an absolute no-brainer in my eyes.

You're not the best pitcher in a decade with three seasons of a plus-4.00 ERA. Hell, I think it's fair to question if Morris had one truly outstanding year in the '80s.

I know ERA isn't the end all be all but if you're a dominant, Hall-worthy starting pitcher, you probably should have at least a few seasons with a sub-3.00 ERA. Morris had just one season below 3.27; Bert had a run of eight straight years at 3.00 or lower in his fucking early to mid-20's.

So yeah, this isn't fucking hard. And if nothing else, taking a few minutes to compare makes me appreciate what Blyleven accomplished that much more.

 

Again, Buckweaver, that's missing the point. It's not setting up a group higher standard. Each voter has his or her own standard based on the criteria of playing record, contributions to team, character, etc. A current voter does not need to take into consideration the standards of past voters.

 

Then each voter should start his own HOF or be ridiculed.

 

Hell, Blyleven had almost as good an ERA in Morris' prime as Morris himself.

During the fabled 1979-91 range:

Blyleven (who didn't even pitch that last year due to injury) went 143-115, 3.73 ERA, 1721/674 K/BB in 2,449.2 IP.
Morris went 212-156, 3.69 ERA, 2067/1106 K/BB in 3,137.2 IP.

 

Each voter's standard is only important in regards to the sum of all the votes.

The group standard IS what matters.

 

I hate this argument. Because it is so vague. And usually it is way overblown. Seeing as though Alomar finished in the Top 5 in MVP voting just twice, I find it hard to believe that he was generally regarded to be among the top half dozen players in the game if he was regarded as one of the Top Five players in his own league just twice.

Larkin, by the way, won a Silver Slugger nine times.

Alomar certainly passes the sniff test as a Hall of Famer, and Larkin doesn't. I'm not arguing that Larkin is as deserving as Alomar.

It does seem to me, though, that the accomplishments of a guy like Alomar, who appeared in the playoffs in seven different seasons (career .313 AVG, .381 OBP, .829 OPS), tend to get "more widely regarded" than those of a guy like Larkin, who appeared in the playoffs twice (.338 AVG, .397 OBP, .862 OPS in 17 postseason games), never after 1995, and played all 22 years of his career in a small market.

 

I am very surprised Alomar didn't make it. That is a total mistake. But I've frequently wound up shaking my head over the results of this process. The BBWAA is a tough crowd.
I tend to vote for a lot of players, seven or eight a year. I've been voting for Blyleven right along, Morris and Dawson, too. I don't understand the underwhelming result for Raines.
I am absolutely against not voting for a guy to prevent him being in on the first ballot. When I am voting, my main question is, is he a Hall of Fame player? Yes or no. Not, maybe next year. I have never been pissed because I could ONLY vote for 10. I don't think I have ever voted for 10.
The steroids-era players make this voting a new ballgame. I was truly puzzled about what to do with McGwire.
I talked with a friend who used to be a major league batting coach, thus he had access to all statistical data and video. He said that in the years before the drug testing was done, just about every guy in the bullpens for every team threw 92-96 mph. There were a few below and a few above. After the 2004 testing, the numbers dropped to 88-92, with a few below and a few above.
His feeling was, the juiced hitters were hitting off juiced pitchers, canceling out the so-called advantage.
But I know that info will never change the minds of most of the BBWAA voters.

 

Heh. So voters should be ridiculed for using their judgment on their vote while basing it on the criteria presented rather than basing THEIR vote on the votes others have made? Interesting.

 

It will be very interesting to see who the first player with steroid allegations to get in will be. I think Bonds will make it in, although maybe not the first year eligible. Same with Clemens.

I have no idea how voters will handle Sosa. I'm fairly confident Palmeiro will be shut out.

 

I think you have that backwards. There is no "group" standard. When voters sit down with their ballot, they should be evaluating candidates based on the criteria. Which means you have individual standards. For instance, if Tony Perez gets voted in and a new voter wouldn't have voted for Perez, why should he or she consider the fact he's in as influential on their vote?
There is a uniform criteria and a subjective evaluation of that criteria. Can you compare a current candidate to former Hall of Famers? Sure. But if there's someone you wouldn't have voted in before, why should you compound that issue by lowering your standards on YOUR vote. That doesn't make sense to me.