Baseball Hall of Fame ballot released

Yes. They shouldn't make up their own personal criteria for an established institution. That's just egoism on their part.

 

OK, you either didn't read what I wrote or, uh, willfully ignored it. I said they should use their judgment while basing it on the criteria presented when they receive their ballots.

 

Except when you get a vote, that "established institution" is asking for your opinion

 

Huh? I never said a new voter should have to consider Tony Perez -- I said when players like Tony Perez are in, it is absolutely impossible to hold the Hall of Fame to a "higher" standard from some arbitrary point on.

There's not going to be a pre-2010 Hall of Fame and a post-2010 Hall of Fame. There is only one Hall of Fame.

We're having two different conversations here. I have no idea whose point you're responding to, but I never said any of that.

 

I figured that it would be Alomar and either Dawson or Blyleven with an outside chance all three would go.

I don't understand how Alomar can be kept out, unless it was some combination of the umpire thing, the falling off a cliff at 33 thing and the perception that enough people would vote for him that others didn't thinking it wouldn't matter.

I don't understand why there isn't more love for Tim Raines, especially when guys like Morris and Smith get significantly more votes.

I was surprised that Larkin started as low as he did and was pleasantly surprised that Martinez starts where he does, because I thought it would be under 25 percent.

With Alomar and Blyelven falling short, this ballot is starting to turn into a clusterfuck. I think it's obvious that those two go in next year and Bagwell probably falls short, if Alomar falling short is an indication. Parker falls off the ballot next year and then you have, right now, a chunk of guys between 50 and 20 percent who no one can seem to pick one or the other over.

Assuming all that happens next year, here's the potential ballot for 2012: Jack Morris, Barry Larkin, Lee Smith, Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Harold Baines, Jeff Bagwell, Rafael Palmeiro, John Olerud, Kevin Brown, Larry Walker, Juan Gonzalez, Bernie Williams.

And here's my suggestion for the ballot: If we're going to keep the 15-year status, make one change. After the 10th vote for a player, if he doesn't get more than 20 percent of the vote, he drops off. The same 30-something people keep voting for Baines. Dave Parker in his second-to-last year is at 15.2 percent. It's not going to happen. So in years 11-15, if a player dips below 20 percent, they go to the Vets Committee.

 

I'm not sure how making up some imaginary, glorified "only the unquestionably great and guys I liked" standard following the criteria set? As far as I know, they are:

playing ability
integrity
sportsmanship
character
contribution to the team on which they played and to baseball in general.

I don't see a lot of guys getting in on sportsmanship these days.

 

Morris had two lights out World Series. I don't know if that should affect voters, but I'm sure it does. It's why Schilling will probably get in, too.

I know it drives the sabermetrics crowd absolutely bonkers when a "clutch" performance is considered, because they largely consider it good timing. Maybe they're right. There's certainly a wealth of evidence saying they are. On the other hand, at some point what happened happened.

As far as the steroids guys go, this is where comparing within an era is going to be helpful. There's probably a case to be made against McGwire on merit alone because his career numbers just aren't that great within his era.

 

Actually, I absolutely think great performances in baseball history should be counted toward a player's HOF resume.

I don't for a second believe that Jack Morris had a special "pitch in the World Series" ability, but he should be credited with the fact that he pitched great in two World Series.

Schilling should get in anyway, but his key role in a couple historic postseasons should push him easily over the top.

 

The Alomar thing might be a bias against second basemen. There's a perception - not unfounded - that they shouldn't be rewarded for not being good enough to play a more challenging position. Guys like Ryne Sandberg put up numbers that would never get them in as third basemen, even though he came up as a third basemen and couldn't hack it.

 

But by saying it's impossible for an individual voter to hold the Hall of Fame to a higher standard because a player like Tony Perez is in, you ARE saying a voter should have to consider a Tony Perez. And compare future candidates to him and players like him.

You're saying that because certain players have gotten in that the standards should drop. I'm saying it's not an "arbitrary" point for a voter today to have a higher standard than a colleague from years ago. Or a lower one for that matter. It's up to each voter to decide on a candidate based on their evaluation of the criteria, not former voters' decisions.

Just because someone is in the Hall of Fame does not mean a current voter would consider him a Hall of Famer and so the standard established by who is already in is not necessarily relevant.

 

I think with guys like Bonds and Clemens, people are going to argue that they were Hall of Famers before it was assumed that they started using.

I think most people think McGwire was using for the bulk of his career.

 

I don't think that the sentiment is universal, but it's out there. I also am mystified at how much the stat crowd rallies around steroid guys. It's bizarre.

I obviously think that sabermetrics is a good thing that has advanced the game and analysis of it. I also think that proponents would advance their cause a lot more by not acting like a bunch of fucking assholes about it on the Internet every time Joe Morgan or Jon Heyman says something they disagree with.