Baseball Hall of Fame ballot released

Sam Rice was on one of 262 ballots in 1938 and was eventually elected by the Veterans Committee after peaking at 53 percent in 1960. Somewhat Blyeleven-esque in that he was punished year after year for falling 13 short of a magic number (2,987 hits).

 

Yes, it's interesting to consider how moronic Hall of Fame voters have been through history.

In the first year of election, Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, Cy Young, Grover Cleveland Alexander and George Sisler were among the legends who failed to sufficiently impress the BBWAA.

And, when Young got in the next year, it was with only 76 per cent of the vote.

Yogi Berra also didn't get in until his second try.

These players each needed three tries to get elected: Alexander, Rogers Hornsby, Willie Keeler and Joe DiMaggio.

Among those needing four tries: George Sisler, Eddie Collins, Jimmie Foxx and Harmon Killebrew.

Guess Robbie Alomar is in good company when it comes to being unjustly snubbed.

 

I can't explain the rest of them, but Young was hurt by the voting procedure in 1936. The voters were asked to select one group from pre-1900 and one group from-1900. It think it was the writers post 1900 and a vets' committee for pre-1900 Since, Young's career fell on both sides of that date, voters were confused as to which he was. He actually finished just on the cusp of both sets.

 

I saw that explanation too, but it doesn't really explain how he only got 76 per cent the following year.

 

Well, he never won a Cy Young Award, for one thing.

 

Touche. ;D

 

More Bill Conlin logic, this time on Tim Raines:

" I voted for Tim Raines his first year of eligibility. But when he failed to get 25 percent of the vote, he was moved to the back burner. Sorry, that's just the way it has to be. Maybe more eligible ballwriters should have measured the Rock's career numbers in all phases against those of analog basestealer and first-ballot inductee Lou Brock. Try it, you'll be amazed.

Good news for Raines, however. Yesterday, in one of the most bizarre elections in a bizarre process, he collected 30 percent and is now back on my radar."


Time for Conlin to turn in his voter ID card and give it to someone with some sense.

 

For what it's worth the Raines/Brock comparison is pretty intriguing. Raines got on base much more, has a little more power. Both have more than 800 SB. Raines was considerably better in the field. Brock does have 400 more hits, but that's about it. They played in different eras but it's not like Raines played in the juice era.

 

Brock had 3,023 hits. It might not mean that much now in comparison to Raines' 2,605 hits and his ability to get on base whether by hit or by walk, but it was still a huge deal when Brock did it and when he was elected to the Hall of Fame. That's the difference.

But I'm curious as to what Conlin means by referring to Brock as an "analog basestealer." Analog? What? ???

 

Good point about the 3,000 hits. The other big difference is: 1964, 1967 and 1968. Brock played a starring role in three memorable World Series, and that postseason exposure counts for a lot. Other than the 1987 All-Star Game (when everyone was asleep when he tripled in the 13th inning) and the 1993 ALCS (which his team lost despite his 12 hits), Raines doesn't really have any glamorous moments in the spotlight.

re: analog, perhaps Conlin meant "analogue," which by definition is "something that is analogous or similar to something else." Raines and Brock are certainly similar ballplayers in many ways.

 

Looking at Tim Raines' career, I can't see any reason he isn't a slam dunk. The statheads even love his stolen bases because he had a high success rate. My guess is that once Blyleven gets in, Raines becomes the next big cause and eventually sails through.