Baseball Hall of Fame ballot released

Waylon, there's more a bias against third basemen than second basemen in the Hall.

Third is the most underrepresented position in Cooperstown. There are 17 second basemen in the Hall and only 14 third basemen. And two of those: Judy Johnson and Ray Dandridge, were Negro League stars.

Bill James wrote that third base has gotten short shrift because the voters aren't totally on board as to whether the position is offensive or defensive in nature. It's kind of a hybrid in that regard, so the voters take different standards with it: putting aside the obvious choices like Schmidt, Brooks Robinson, Brett and Boggs.

 

Using these types of ballots for personal or political reasons is total bullshit.
Like the Heisman ballot. A voter thinks it should be 1. Ingram, 2. Gerhart, 3. McCoy.
So they vote for Ingram No. 1, but don't vote for Gerhart or McCoy at all so they don't get the second- and third-place points. Bullshit.
Not voting for Alomar because a voter doesn't want him in on the first ballot, also bullshit. I repeat my earlier post: Hall of Famer player? Yes or no. Now.

 

Alomar and Kent will be in the Hall in the next decade. Other than ARod, I can't think of a sure-fire Hall of Famer on the hot corner.

 

That's wrong.

He was easily the greatest player of his generation (yes, including Griffey) before 1998. He was already in the discussion, without any hint of steroids.

Bonds became a top-3 player (with Ruth and Aaron) because of steroids, but barring career-ending injury, he would have been top-10 regardless. The guy was legit.

 

I agree with the second part of your post, which is why I said that in the middle of my post.

 

I understand it's lazy and sloppy. And certainly vague. But popularity -- let's call this what it is -- is not always quantifiable by just numbers. Keep in mind Alomar marshaled this kind of esteem and recognition playing (and excelling) in a technically foreign market. Not to be overlooked.

 

Exactly. Bonds had already won three MVP awards before 1998 (having been robbed of one in 1991). He had 374 home runs and 417 stolen bases (which would put him 62nd all-time, just ahead of Craig Biggio.) He had 1,094 RBI and 1,244 runs scored, five seasons with a .300 average or better and eight consecutive seasons with an on-base percentage above .400.

Bonds was also an outstanding defensive outfielder to that point in his career. He was only 33, so he would very likely have added to those numbers, but he probably would have been a Hall of Famer if his career ended right then.

 

Bonds would've been a 500 homer, 500 steal guy without steroids. You can count the number of players who have done that on one finger.

He was otherworldly from 2001-2005, but he was a freaking lock before that and there's no logical argument to refute it.

 

My point was, BBWAA writers have a history of looking for excuses to keep out jerks who weren't nice to them. Albert Belle's career was cut short and the lack of votes he got was criminal. He was a fringe HOFer (he certainly put up better numbers than Andre Dawson) but he got 7% of the votes, then 3% and was booted from the ballot.

Bonds has an airtight case on stats and impact but the steroid allegations--remember, an unbelievable number of players were juicing in this era--will be the writers' ticket to tell Bonds to fuck off. And that's abusing their power if you ask me.

 

It's the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Like it or not, the history of baseball includes a large, large number of players taking illegal and/or against the rules substances to enhance their game.

The fact that for a few years, the substances got so good that they upset the historical balance of the numbers shouldn't be nearly as big of a deal as it is with regards to Hall voting.

 

Voters in other sports don't regularly participate in such deliberate parlor games.