User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 1.8249 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Ugh.
Rice (64.8%)
Gossage (64.6%)
Dawson (61%)
Blyleven (58.3%)
Not-so-bold prediction: all will make it eventually. I filled -- as in voted for 10 -- on a ballot for our mock voting, and Sutter wasn't on it. And he wasn't even the best guy left off. I'd rank him #12 at best of the eligible group. Of the other four guys, I have no real problem with all of them making the HOF, like I do with Sutter.
I'm willing to bet that the percentages for the others will be a high water mark for many, tho
I am impressed by Blyleven's increase. When is the next predicted window of opportunity for
these guys?
I'm willing to bet that the percentages for the others will be a high water mark for many, tho
I am impressed by Blyleven's increase. When is the next predicted window of opportunity for
these guys?
D1ckheads.
It also grinds my gears that on the same ballot that Bruce Sutter is elected, Will Clark drops off the ballot.
Clark would be a more defensible choice.
Sutter was probably the fourth- or fifth-best player on that ballot.
Stay out of earshot and crowbar range of Gossage for the next few days.
There's nothing wrong with not electing anyone. Although there is something wrong with not electing Blyleven.
What if they don't think anyone deserves to be voted for?
2005 results
Bruce Sutter 344 66.7
Jim Rice 307 59.5
Rich Gossage 285 55.2
Andre Dawson 270 52.3
Bert Blyleven 211 40.9
Blyleven went up 18%. That's huge. Everyone else went up about 5-10%.
Yep. Would you trade Clark, at his peak, for Sutter, at his? I sure wouldn't. And Clark, even though he didn't have a long career, had a longer career than Sutter.
I'm not sold on Clark as a HOFer, which should then give you a sense of how I feel about the selection of Sutter.
/shakes head
1. Sutter is clearly Hall Worthy. Nolan Ryan is generally recognized as the greatest pitcher of all time despite racking up a paltry (in comparisson) 5700 strikeouts. Sutter, by comparisson, racked up nearly 7 times this many strikeouts. And unlike Ryan, who needed 5386 Career innings to accomplish his feat, Sutter was able to far exceed Ryan's career total while pitching in over 4000 fewer innings. Ryan is in the Hall, I think Sutter belongs as well.
2. Sutter accomplished his remarkable Strikeout feat in an era where closers were frequently asked to go 2, 3 or even 4 innings at a time. This was back in the days when Closers had lots of facial hair and great, burly nicknames (and physciques to match)like Goose, Rollie, or the Mad Hungarian. No left handed releif specialists, no 8th inning set-up men, just starters and finishers. If the game was on the line, Sutter was the go-to guy day in and day out.
3. Sutter's 39,561 Strikouts in 1024 innings comes out to over 40 strikeouts per inning. By comparison, Randy Johnson, the so-called "Big unit" because of his "mythical" dominance has averaged just over 1 strikeout per inning over his career. This leads us to a few simple conclusions. Randy "myth of dominance" is just that....a myth! Secondly, Sutter's split-finger fastball must have been absolutely devastating. He struck out nearly 40 batters per inning. The devastating pitch had so much movement, that few catchers could track it coming to the plate, resulting in lots of passed ball third strikes, and lots of embarrassed strikeout victims, made to look like whiffle-ballers by the devastating force that was the Sutter Split-finger!
Fixed
Blyleven went up 18%. That's huge. Everyone else went up about 5-10%.
Actually he went up 13%. There's a typo on the HoF's article, but if you link to the chart you can see it's 53.3%, not 58.3%. Still an impressive leap up though.
Repoz's 90+ man poll vs. actual results:
Poll.................Reality
72.8%- Gossage........64.6
71.7%- Sutter.........76.9
60.8%- Dawson ........64.8
55.4%- Rice...........61.0
48.9%- Blyleven.......53.3
44.5%- Lee Smith......45.0
40.2%- Morris.........41.2
22.8%- T.John.........29.6
15.2%- Trammell.......17.7
14.1%- CMNZC..........26.0
10.8%- Belle..........7.7
8.7%- Murphy..........10.8
6.5%- Mattingly.......12.3
5.4%- Parker..........14.4
4.3%- Hershiser.......11.2
3.3%- Concepcion......12.5
1.0%- W.Clark.........4.4
1.0%- McGee...........2.3
I'm willing to bet that the percentages for the others will be a high water mark for many, tho
I am impressed by Blyleven's increase. When is the next predicted window of opportunity for
these guys?
Jim Rice.....337.....64.8................307.....59.5Rich Gossage.....336.....64.6................285.....55.2
Andre Dawson.....317.....61.0................270.....52.3
Bert Blyleven.....277.....53.3................211.....40.9
Lee Smith..........234.....45.0................200.....38.8
Jack Morris........214.....41.2................172.....33.3
Tommy John......154.....29.6................123.....23.8
Steve Garvey.....135.....26.0................106.....20.5
Alan Trammell.....92.....17.7................87.....16.9
Dave Parker........76.....14.4................65.....12.6
Dave Concepcion..65.....12.5................55.....10.7
Don Mattingly........64.....12.3................59.....11.4
Dale Murphy........56.....10.8................54.....10.5
Sutter +10.2
Rice +5.3
Gossage +9.4
Dawson +8.7
Blyleven +12.4
Smith +6.2
Morris +7.9
Alan Trammell, the one of the top 7 shortstops of all-time continues to receive less than 20% of the vote. Jim Rice, one of the top 7 Red Sox leftfielders of all-time continues to be one of the top voted hitters.
Now Will Clark ranks as one of the most underrated players of all-time after having been overrated most of his career. Astounding.
Clark ranks only behind Lou Whitaker and Ted Simmmons IMO as most stupifying to fall off the ballot first year- in recent times.
these guys?
I'm not sure if this is totally accurate, but I think these are some of the future additions to the ballot. 2007 will be tough, but there's a chance after that.
2007 - Gwynn, Ripken, McGwire, Harold Baines, Chuck Finley
2008 - Tim Raines, David Cone
2009 - Rickey Henderson, Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, McGriff
2010 - Edgar Martinez
Will Santo become eligible for a VC induction next year?
Indeed. Has the VC balloting already taken place for 2006?
Next year's induction includes two locks, Gwynn and Ripken, as well as McGwire and a number of marginal candidates, which may cut into the gains made this year by players in the 50-70% bracket.
Agree that Clark deserved to stay on the ballot, although I don't think he is really a HOF or even especially close, so it's not gonna keep me up nights.
9 players had an all-time high percentage of the votes: Sutter (obviously), Rice, Gossage, Dawson, Blyleven, Smith, Morris, John, and Trammell
6 holdovers did not have an all-time high percentage of the votes: Garvey, Parker, Concepcion, Mattingly, Murphy, and, of course, McGee
I do think this likely means Gossage goes in fairly soon, either in '07 or '08.
Jose Canseco made steroids popular. Maybe he'll get some Sutter-like momentum.
2007: Harold Baines, Derek Bell, Dante Bichette, Bobby Bonilla, Jeff Brantley, Jay Buhner, Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, Eric Davis, Tony Fernandez, Tony Gwynn, Darryl Hamilton, Pete Harnisch, Charlie Hayes, Glenallen Hill, Ken Hill, Stan Javier, Wally Joyner, Ramon Martinez, Mark McGwire, Paul O’Neill, Gregg Olson, Cal Ripken Jr., Bret Saberhagen, Jeff Shaw, Kevin Tapani, Devon White, Bobby Witt
2008: Shawon Dunston, Travis Fryman, David Justice, Mike Morgan, Tim Raines, Randy Velarde
2009: Mark Grace, Rickey Henderson, Dean Palmer, Dan Plesac, Matt Williams
2010: Andres Galarraga, Edgar Martinez, Robin Ventura
The only automatic in the 2008-10 group would seem to be Rickey, and he's only automatic if he can't convince someone to give him another Major League job. Raines should be automatic, but... If McGwire makes it on the first ballot, 2008 should be clear for one or two of this year's runners-up. I'm guessing Gossage makes it in 2008, Rice in 2009. Goose just seems to have more momentum, and the comparison with Sutter will only help once they really look at it.
2007 - Santo
2008 - Dawson
2009 - Smith
2010 - McGriff
2011 - ???
2012 - Raffy(retires after 2005)
2013 - Sosa(retires after 2006. Could swap with Raffy)
2014 - Maddux(retires after 2007)
I guess Rice is just going to be on the ballot until 2009 if he never gets elected?
Then don't send in your ballot. I understand that it is legitimate to send in a blank ballot, but it's still a d1ck move.
Free donuts for baseball writers!
Wait...no. No it didn't.
I bet Dusty Baker will talk him out of retirement before then.
Why? If you don't think any of these guys should be in the HOF, what's wrong with submitting a blank ballot? Not submitting a ballot does not penalize them (I assume, otherwise I don't know why you're complaining) - and a voter doesn't think they should be in it should be recorded as such. I don't understand where you're coming from.
This was about the worst result possible (if they had pushed Andre Dawson in too, I would have been absolutely besides myself right now).
Actually, I think it will not be lonely at all, as the Special Negro League Committee is likely to elect at least 10 more for induction this year...
No, that's the 75% threshold.
You couldn't be more wrong.
if you don't send in your ballot, it doesn't count as a ballot, and the number of votes one needs to get elected is changed.
what if one person votes for walt weiss, and 519 people don't bother to send in their ballots? WALT WEISS!! 1st to ever get 100% of the vote! huzzah!
He gets selected for changing the game of baseball rather than his statistics.
Weiss gets more votes than DiSarcina? Oh, the humanities!
Jefferies? Is there a minor league hall of fame?
How can anyone look at Sutter and Gossage and think Sutter was better? Hell, how could anyone look at Sutter and Quisenberry and think Sutter was better?
I think Blyleven's bump over 50% means it's quite likely he'll be elected. Very few people that get to 50% don't eventually get in.
i look forward to seeing the corpses of cristobal torriente and frank grant wheeled up on the dais with Sutter.
Like I said, I'm not arguing about the legitimacy of submitting a blank ballot. I just see it as vindictive. It changes the process from being proactive (whoever has the most support) to a process where voters are actively working against candidates.
Then Herman Franks should be the one they are elected. Sutter didn't change anything.
Call me when that happens.
Speaking of dick moves.....
Because it's ridiculous to think that no one on ANY ballot deserves to be elected when you look at the actual population of the Hall of Fame, not some mythical "Small Hall Utopia" of in Never, Never Land. If you can't find one player to vote for, your ballot should be revoked.
There are 3 legitimately great players on this ballot, which is a weak one (Blyleven, Trammell and Gossage) and at least half a dozen other players that are well above where the line has been drawn (I'm talking about the line above the mistakes, even if you threw out 60 guys who shouldn't have been elected).
See, but there's two ways to submit a blank ballot:
1) You don't feel that any of the candidates is qualified, and therefore don't vote for any of them. But you submit your blank ballot because otherwise your opinion (which is as valid as everyone else's who has a ballot) doesn't count.
2) You submit a blank ballot just to make each vote worth less and make it harder for someone to get in.
The latter is vindictive, but I don't think it ever really happens. The former is a perfectly valid vote, and I think it is what you should do if you don't think anyone should be in. Otherwise it's not a real poll of the writers.
I disagree. mommy was a little hyperbolic, but essentially correct. Suppose one year, the best candidates are (the equivelant of) Mo Vaughn, Greg Vaughn, and Bob Welch. None of those players are HOFers, but all will get at least a few votes. Should they be elected simply because they are the best candidates?
I guess it depends on what you think the voting process is trying to accomplish.
If the purpose of the vote is to elect people into the Hall, then yes, turning in blank ballots works counter to that.
But if the purpose of the vote is to decide Hall-worthiness of individual candidates, then turning in blank ballots is completely appropriate.
I wouldn't be shocked, either. The steroid backlash will certainly depress his vote totals, along with the presence of Ripken and Gwynn.
I will also bet that Ripken will *not* surpass the all-time high percentage of votes (Tom Seaver).
-- MWE
Tommy John should be in, too, or Dr. Frank Jobe.
Absolutely not. A "no" vote is as legitimate as a "yes" vote.
That way, someone would actually be accountable for voting for Sutter instead of Goose, or Morris instead of Bert. Heck, I'd like to know who the schmuck is who doesn't take this thing seriously and voted for Weiss (and I'd like to see who else he voted for).
Also, I know Blyleven went up 13% or whatnot, but after this big push online and by several high profile writers, I'm convinced that there are voters who just don't read anything that they haven't written themselves, and as such, have no business being part of the voting process.
Say what you will about Jayson Stark, but he at least admitted that he had changed his mind about Blyleven.
Has there ever been a ballot like this? When there is (don't worry, there won't be, ever), submitting a blank one would be appropriate - until then it is inexcusable.
If I believed this were possible, I would probably grant your point. However, I think Joe covers this pretty well. Never in the history of the game has this been the case. Even in the years that no one got elected, there are players on the ballot that eventually did.
If you think no one is deserving, you need to look a little harder.
Unless it's a vote on the USA PATRIOT Act. Then you're a terrorist.
There's a third way, which is not quite either of the two listed:
3. You feel that someone on the ballot is deserving, but he's a first-time eligible and you don't feel he deserves to be put in his first go-round (IIRC, Murray Chass submitted a blank ballot for this reason once).
-- MWE
I'm with those who think it's perfectly OK to submit a blank ballot. The 75% standard is not supposed to be "75% of those who think there is at least one inductable candidate this year." It's 75% of those who vote -- which includes both those who think there is one (or more) who should be in, and those who think none should be.
This year, it would be entirely rational to think none of the candidates is deserving. Blyleven might be better than a lot of HOFers, but he's certainly not inner circle; a small-Hall voter might be taking a legitimate stand for exclusivity by saying no to him. Same with Trammell, Gossage, etc. I would vote for all three of those guys, but I certainly wouldn't say that someone who disagrees with me should have his ballot revoked.
I don't know - if I had a vote with this ballot, I'd have strongly considered handing in a blank ballot. I don't think pure relief pitchers should be in the Hall, I think Blyleven's case is borderline, and none of the hitters are hall-worthy, IMO.
Small-Hall voters deserve a vote just as much as the guy who filled his ballot to vote for Walt Weiss.
Trammell's case
Also, I'm a huge Dawson fan (growing Dawson/Raines/Righetti/Randolph were my favorite players), and I think he was a legitmately great player from 1980-83, and very good from 1987-91. He's got a very good combo peak/career argument, and is a clear yes vote to me. But if it's Trammell or Dawson, I don't think it's all that close, Trammell clearly had the more valuable career.
Then we could also see if someone who turned in a blank ballot one year votes for someone on that ballot in a subsequent year.
Submitting a blank ballot is intended to prevent anyone from getting the 75% necessary for induction this year. This clearly conflicts with the Hall of Fame's goal of having a ceremony which draws huge numbers of people to spend money in Cooperstown. Thus, anyone who submits a blank ballot is a communist who deserves to lose their vote in future elections for blocking the Hall's noble capitalist intentions.
Who wouldn't vote for Ripken?
How is it legitimate to take a small Hall stance when there is no such thing as a small Hall? Such an animal does not exist. Why should the modern player be subject to tougher inclusion standards? The whole Small HallTM thing is ridiculous.
I would suggest that the vast majority of Hall of Fame voters don't look at the HOF as a whole. They use a concept for a "Hall of Famer" - a better player than probably half of the players who are actually there - and vote accordingly. The Lloyd Waners and Freddie Lindstroms of the world don't enter into this equation.
-- MWE
I wouldn't, but that's just out of blind bias. I can't frickin' stand Cal Ripken.
You're certainly not lacking in pretentiousness.
I understand that 10 more years and 750 more innings is more valuable than an ERA difference of 0.18, but I think would be a fool's errand to try to explain it to some of the writers we excoriate here.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main