Baseball Hall of Fame Voting
Today, the results of the BBWAA voting for the Hall of Fame are announced (announcement comes at 2pm EST (noon MST) and will be broadcast live on mlb.com). I did some looking for results from those who have already cast ballots, neatly compiled in a single place, but was not able to find such a thing. I did find results for mlb.com writers (13) and ESPN.com writers (12), which combine to form less than 5% of the electorate. From that subset, Gwynn and Ripken were unanimous, while Gossage and Dawson each received over 75% of the vote (curiosly, the baseball homepage on ESPN.com lists their writers as selecting Gwynn, Ripken, Gossage, and Rice, with no mention of Dawson). Other writers have announced their ballots, but I'm too lazy to compile all of them, especially this close to the actual announcement.
There was some talk about Tony Gwynn and/or Cal Ripken, Jr., being the first player(s) unanimously elected to the Hall. Well, I've heard that one writer announced he sent his ballot back blank, so this seems unlikely. Still, either could wind up with the highest percentage ever. As memory serves, that distinction currently belongs to Tom Seaver, who missed only five votes from a smaller pool of voters -- three were from blank ballots submitted to protest Pete Rose not being on the ballot, one was from a guy who was hospitalized around the time of balloting who said leaving Seaver off was a mistake, and one was a guy who just wouldn't vote for first-timers.
Anyways, here's my hypothetical ballot for the Hall:
Tony Gwynn -- Duh.
Cal, Ripken, Jr. -- Ditto.
Bert Blyleven -- One player who has gained major steam after the statheads took up his cause, it looks like Blyleven will get into the Hall, though I'm not optimistic about this year. He accumulated 287 career wins (26th alltime) playing mostly for mediocore teams (a game-by-game analysis showed that he "deserved" to reach the 300-win mark which is considered a lock for the Hall). He's fifth alltime in strikeouts, and ninth in shutouts. His ERA+ is 118 (18% better than league average). Really, there's no compelling reason not to put him in the Hall of Fame, but voters keep finding a way.
Tommy John -- I could talk about the 288 career wins, the ERA+ of 111 for a career that lasted from 1963 through 1989, or any number of othe stats, but, let's face it, he belongs in the Hall for having the surgery named after him, just like Lou Gehrig got into the Hall not for his 493 HR, 1995 RBI, .340 BA, or any other stats, but the fact that he had a disease named after him.
Andre Dawson -- I debated this one for a bit, as his .323 OBP is ... not exactly good. Certainly not Hall of Fame caliber. He was the third player to post 300 homers and 300 steals (a club whose size has since doubled to six). He had 438 homers, 1591 RBIs, 1373 Runs, 2774 hits, 4787 total bases, 314 steals, and slugged .482.
Players I would not be voting for, if I had a vote.
Rich Gossage (and, to a lesser extent, Lee Smith) -- basically, a reliever is someone who couldn't hack it as a starter (or could only get by as a mediocore one). See, e.g., Dennis Eckersley (later in his career), Mariano Rivera, Eric Gagne.
Jim Rice and Dale Murphy -- I spent a good amount of time thinking about these two and Dawson. What really sealed it for me was looking at the park effect these two enjoyed (go here and scroll down to "outfielders" to see it). On the road, they had similar OBPs to Dawson, but their slugging was worse. Dawson was also a better fielder and baserunner. So that's why he gets in but they don't. I will admit, however, that all three will be getting more thought from me in about a year.
Jack Morris -- I like him, but I'm skeptical of his Hall worthiness. This skepticism is mostly due to his career ERA of 3.90. His ERA+ of 105 indicates he was 5% better than league average over his career, and, while that's good, is it really Hall worthy? If nothing else, I'll always remember Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, the first World Series I ever watched (and quite possibly better than any of the ones since).
Mark McGwire -- I'm doing one of those protest votes (or non-votes, or would-be non-votes). Yeah, I'm getting a bit tired of some of the moralizing coming from this group, but it doesn't irritate me nearly as much as the moralizing against the moralizers from the likes of Bill Simmons (who is totally oblivious to the irony).
Bobby Witt -- how, exactly, did he get on the ballot? They screen the newly eligible players such that not all of them are placed on the ballot, and I'd argue for some of those newly left off over him. He was a below average pitcher (ERA+ of 90, for instance) and had a losing career record. I don't mean to be mean, but who's going to vote for the guy?
Bret Saberhagen -- I ended up giving him a lot more thought than I thought I would. His ERA+ was 126, which is rather impressive. He also won two Cy Young awards. However, he had various injury problems and a rather short career by Hall standards (Blyleven and John each pitched nearly twice as many innings, although they both had fairly long careers). He totaled 30 starts in a season only five times in his career, and only once after 1989. He pitched well enough to be in the Hall, but not often enough.
There was some talk about Tony Gwynn and/or Cal Ripken, Jr., being the first player(s) unanimously elected to the Hall. Well, I've heard that one writer announced he sent his ballot back blank, so this seems unlikely. Still, either could wind up with the highest percentage ever. As memory serves, that distinction currently belongs to Tom Seaver, who missed only five votes from a smaller pool of voters -- three were from blank ballots submitted to protest Pete Rose not being on the ballot, one was from a guy who was hospitalized around the time of balloting who said leaving Seaver off was a mistake, and one was a guy who just wouldn't vote for first-timers.
Anyways, here's my hypothetical ballot for the Hall:
Tony Gwynn -- Duh.
Cal, Ripken, Jr. -- Ditto.
Bert Blyleven -- One player who has gained major steam after the statheads took up his cause, it looks like Blyleven will get into the Hall, though I'm not optimistic about this year. He accumulated 287 career wins (26th alltime) playing mostly for mediocore teams (a game-by-game analysis showed that he "deserved" to reach the 300-win mark which is considered a lock for the Hall). He's fifth alltime in strikeouts, and ninth in shutouts. His ERA+ is 118 (18% better than league average). Really, there's no compelling reason not to put him in the Hall of Fame, but voters keep finding a way.
Tommy John -- I could talk about the 288 career wins, the ERA+ of 111 for a career that lasted from 1963 through 1989, or any number of othe stats, but, let's face it, he belongs in the Hall for having the surgery named after him, just like Lou Gehrig got into the Hall not for his 493 HR, 1995 RBI, .340 BA, or any other stats, but the fact that he had a disease named after him.
Andre Dawson -- I debated this one for a bit, as his .323 OBP is ... not exactly good. Certainly not Hall of Fame caliber. He was the third player to post 300 homers and 300 steals (a club whose size has since doubled to six). He had 438 homers, 1591 RBIs, 1373 Runs, 2774 hits, 4787 total bases, 314 steals, and slugged .482.
Players I would not be voting for, if I had a vote.
Rich Gossage (and, to a lesser extent, Lee Smith) -- basically, a reliever is someone who couldn't hack it as a starter (or could only get by as a mediocore one). See, e.g., Dennis Eckersley (later in his career), Mariano Rivera, Eric Gagne.
Jim Rice and Dale Murphy -- I spent a good amount of time thinking about these two and Dawson. What really sealed it for me was looking at the park effect these two enjoyed (go here and scroll down to "outfielders" to see it). On the road, they had similar OBPs to Dawson, but their slugging was worse. Dawson was also a better fielder and baserunner. So that's why he gets in but they don't. I will admit, however, that all three will be getting more thought from me in about a year.
Jack Morris -- I like him, but I'm skeptical of his Hall worthiness. This skepticism is mostly due to his career ERA of 3.90. His ERA+ of 105 indicates he was 5% better than league average over his career, and, while that's good, is it really Hall worthy? If nothing else, I'll always remember Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, the first World Series I ever watched (and quite possibly better than any of the ones since).
Mark McGwire -- I'm doing one of those protest votes (or non-votes, or would-be non-votes). Yeah, I'm getting a bit tired of some of the moralizing coming from this group, but it doesn't irritate me nearly as much as the moralizing against the moralizers from the likes of Bill Simmons (who is totally oblivious to the irony).
Bobby Witt -- how, exactly, did he get on the ballot? They screen the newly eligible players such that not all of them are placed on the ballot, and I'd argue for some of those newly left off over him. He was a below average pitcher (ERA+ of 90, for instance) and had a losing career record. I don't mean to be mean, but who's going to vote for the guy?
Bret Saberhagen -- I ended up giving him a lot more thought than I thought I would. His ERA+ was 126, which is rather impressive. He also won two Cy Young awards. However, he had various injury problems and a rather short career by Hall standards (Blyleven and John each pitched nearly twice as many innings, although they both had fairly long careers). He totaled 30 starts in a season only five times in his career, and only once after 1989. He pitched well enough to be in the Hall, but not often enough.
Labels: baseball
posted by DC | 3:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home