HOF Voting Results
Hawk in
Bert No
Alomar No
I would have never predicted this outcome
about 2 years ago
Fatter than Joey
34 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Blyleven
5 votes short. He will get in next year. He’s pretty pissed.
surpised by Alomar/Larkin exclusion. But pretty encouraged by Trammell increase, there is hope for him yet. McGwire bumps up a bit too.
Actually
It looks like most players bumped up a bit — which would indicate that the votes/ballot ratio is on the rise.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Jan 6, 2010 1:58 PM CST up reply actions
Full vote totals
2010 Hall of Fame voting
Name Votes Pct.
Andre Dawson 420 77.9%
Bert Blyleven 400 74.2%
Roberto Alomar 397 73.7%
Jack Morris 282 52.3%
Barry Larkin 278 51.6%
Lee Smith 255 47.3%
Edgar Martinez 195 36.2%
Tim Raines 164 30.4%
Mark McGwire 128 23.7%
Alan Trammell 121 22.4%
Fred McGriff 116 21.5%
Don Mattingly 87 16.1%
Dave Parker 82 15.2%
Dale Murphy 63 11.7%
Harold Baines 33 6.1%
Andres Galarraga 22 4.1%
Robin Ventura 7 1.3%
Ellis Burks 2 0.4%
Eric Karros 2 0.4%
Kevin Appier 1 0.2%
Pat Hentgen 1 0.2%
David Segui 1 0.2%
Mike Jackson 0 0.0%
Ray Lankford 0 0.0%
Shane Reynolds 0 0.0%
Todd Zeile 0 0.0%
Note: 405 votes (75%) required for enshrinement. Induction July 25, 2010 in Cooperstown, N.Y.
"That's not a weird stat. Rickie is a run-scorer," Yost said. "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter," Yost told reporters. "See, you guys have no concept. He's a run-scorer. So there's nothing weird about it. That's what he does."
It was a weird result
I could of seen a scenario where no one got in, perhaps one with only Alomar, but it seems to me, if Dawson would have made it, a bunch of other guys would have.
Sort of a weak class, none of these guys would have passed my standard.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Jan 6, 2010 1:55 PM CST reply actions
Alomar was the best 2B of the 90s
that wouldn’t have passed your standard?
"That's not a weird stat. Rickie is a run-scorer," Yost said. "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter," Yost told reporters. "See, you guys have no concept. He's a run-scorer. So there's nothing weird about it. That's what he does."
Being the best player of "X0s"
Is entirely arbitrary IMO.
For example when someone says “Jack Morris had the most wins in the 80s” you are defining the period of time from 1980-1989 as more important than 1973-1982. If I said “Milt Pappas had the most wins from 1958-1967” you’d say “Who cares”, henceforth, I do not put a lot of cred into statements like “best 2b of the 90s”
Also, I don’t think you need to induct a player just because they were the best in their league, time period or franchise history.
Roberto Alomar was a great player — just maybe not where I would include him in my HOF.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Jan 6, 2010 2:04 PM CST up reply actions
Interesting
See, one of my heavily weighted cridentials is, “Was he the best player in baseball at his position during his career?” The answer for the entire decade of the 90s is yes.
In addition, comparing his career to other 2B HOFers and he’s up there with the best.
If you want to throw a charecter issue in with the Hirshbeck incident, I understand. However, he and Hirshbeck cleared that air years ago.
It’s fun to debate this.
"That's not a weird stat. Rickie is a run-scorer," Yost said. "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter," Yost told reporters. "See, you guys have no concept. He's a run-scorer. So there's nothing weird about it. That's what he does."
He didn't hit a home run to defeat the mighty Yankees
An inning after his team blew a lead and stuck the backup catcher’s name back into the ash heap of history.
If he had done that, he’d be in.
Best 2B of the 90s
Craig Biggio was the best 2B of the 90s. I think the case could be made that Chuck Knoblauch and Jeff Kent were both better than Alomar too.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
by SRB on Jan 6, 2010 2:51 PM CST up reply actions
Damn
Way to be 100% right.
"That's not a weird stat. Rickie is a run-scorer," Yost said. "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter," Yost told reporters. "See, you guys have no concept. He's a run-scorer. So there's nothing weird about it. That's what he does."
Also
Perhaps you would back that statement up with some statistics? I could say Braun is the best defensive outfielder of all time and it would carry as much weight as your Jeff Kent and Knoblauch being better than Alomar argument.
For one, tone down the attitude.
This is a baseball discussion, not a barfight.
For two, here are some numbers for you.
In the 1990s, Biggio leads Alomar in OPS+, runs, hits, doubles, home runs, walks, stolen bases and OBP.
That's all I've got for you today, unless you're interested in some Chris Capuano/Tom Haudricourt Fan Fiction.
Like watching a car accident
I am quite interested to see what Alomar looks like, or how he looks, given the speculation that he might have AIDS. Pretty huge if so to have a Hall of Famer (eventually) who has it. Just as big as Magic? probably not, but still pretty big.
Who the hell cares if he's sick?
I hope he’s not, but if he is, so what? Do you think it played a roll in the HOF vote? Why would it be significant (to anyone other than the person, his family and his friends) for a HOF ballplayer to have HIV? I personally hope he’s healthy, though I’m not sorry he didn’t get in on his first vote, but I don’t see how whether he’s sick, or with what, is any of our business.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jan 6, 2010 3:19 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Over reaction?
I am simply saying that is something that is interesting, imo. Its a culturally significant factor.
I dont think it effected his vote.
But it's the second time you brought it up, and I wasn't sure why....
… and I’m still not.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jan 6, 2010 5:31 PM CST up reply actions
You really are missing the point though
Milt Pappas having the most wins from 1958-1967 is not a big deal because anybody that knows baseball knows that wins are not the most important statistic for a pitcher. Now if you had said Milt Pappas was the best pitcher in the game for 10 years (1958-1967) then you would be making a significantly different argument than just saying he had the most wins. If Milt Pappas was the best pitcher every year for a 10 year stretch (hypothetically) as Alomar was then he would deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.
I'm surprised McGriff got so little support
"A D+ Grade? That must have been a Wittardo grade"- @73_MC
“I didn’t vote for anybody in the baseball hall of fame this year. Ya know why? To me…the first ballot is sacred. I think Roberto Alomar is an eventual Hall of Famer, not the first time. Edgar Martinez, designated hitter, eventually, but not the first time. Same goes for maybe Fred McGriff. As far as Blyleven and Dawson…if they haven’t gotten in for years and years I cannot vote them in now. Ripken, Rickey Henderson and Gwynn. They are true first ballot Hall of Famers, but I didn’t vote for anybody, throw me out of the Baseball Writers. I don’t care.”
Pretty much stupid
The writers created this ridiculous division, is a player suddenly more deserving on the 8th ballot than the 7th? I don’t get it at all, it’s completely illogical but since the writers came up with it they defend it. If someone else had they’d rip on it.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
Well,
I’m sure it makes Bert Blyleven feel better to know that standards are lower on the 14th and 15th ballots.
That's all I've got for you today, unless you're interested in some Chris Capuano/Tom Haudricourt Fan Fiction.
I mean look how flawed his logic is
Edgar Martinez, designated hitter, eventually, but not the first time.
As far as Blyleven and Dawson…if they haven’t gotten in for years and years I cannot vote them in now.
What even is that.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
by Jordan M on Jan 6, 2010 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
You really want to debate the merits of Mariotti's logic?
I mean, dead horse, meet beating.
"That's not a weird stat. Rickie is a run-scorer," Yost said. "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter," Yost told reporters. "See, you guys have no concept. He's a run-scorer. So there's nothing weird about it. That's what he does."
Actually his logic is quite simple. I can demonstrate his logic using recursive functions.
The number in parentheses represents the year of HOF eligibility, 1 being the first ballot.
f(1) = NO, unless player is “First-ballot caliber”.
f(2) = f(1), in case I (Jay Mariotti) voted YES in the first year, but he was not selected, I will vote yes once again.
f(x) where x > 2 = NO
Either I never thought he was good enough to be a hall of famer, or I voted yes twice and “they haven’t gotten in for years and years” (years and years is defined here to be 2 years, because I said years twice!) and I can assume the other writers who voted no have more intelligence than myself, and vote no. “I cannot vote them in now.”
Really, it’s easy logic to follow. That doesn’t make it right, but it’s easy to follow.
Applying Simpsons and Star Wars quotes to Brewers discussions since 2009.
Why Dawson?
He hit for average, but only .300 for 5 of hit 21 seasons, and never higher than .310. He hit a lot of home runs, but only once did he lead the league, and topped 30 HRs only 3 times. He made it to the postseason, where he hit .186 with no HRs and no titles.
He didn’t get 3000 hits. He didn’t hit 300 HRs. But he did play a long time, and being rookie of the year, winning an MVP, being ‘one of six players in the 300-300 club’, being an all-star 8 times and winning 8 gold gloves is enough to get you elected in spite of that. I guess that’s HoF criteria?
Surprised about Raines
Arguments have been made for him being one of the best 4-5 leadoff men of all-time. 30% support surprises me. I know he is probably a borderline guy by most objective measures, but again, he isn’t even close right now in terms of the vote.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
NL Central Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chicago
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Cincinnati
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Houston
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Milwaukee
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
St. Louis
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
(updated 2.13.2012 at 7:02 PM CST)
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise’
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
