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 1.1105 seconds
42 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.
Probably not.
Pedro Gomez voting Jay Bell but not Tim Raines is pretty bizarre (but Knisley's ballot, overall, is more bizarre than Gomez's).
Brendan Robert's has the best ballot IMO...I've never heard of the guy though.
Maybe the thinking is, "elect two," one position player and one pitcher, it's obvious who the best position player is, so who's the best pitcher on the ballot? The starters are not ultra-distinguished, so I'll try a closer.
I dunno, I'm just trying to be charitable :)
Well, it's highly unlikely that his ballot is liquid. If by solid, you meant good, then no, it's not.
how about a literacy test to make sure that baseball writers have a clue about their sport before voting for the Hall?
He has Rice, but no Dawson. I don't think either should be in the HoF, but certainly Dawson before Rice.
Gomez only voted for Bell. As a first-ballot Hall of Famer?? Shouldn't he have his children taken away?
The Jay Bell vote might just be a pity vote. As a group, not exactly the best looking of ballots.
I am curious. Do people like Law/neyer get to talk to these other ESPN reporters? Does any proselytising go on?
And thats wrong how? This is the Hall of Fame. And the players who are being discussed are very good players ( probably from the voter's youth ). If in doubt, vote yes is a reasonable policy. if you can see no reason to vote No, then don't vote No.
My criteria is simple:
1) Did they get all the right names? In my mind, that's Rickey!, Blyleven, Raines, and Trammell. Only three of these ballots nailed all of those.
2) How many extraneous votes were cast beyond those 4? Gammons voted for six total (Caple eight, Kurkijan nine), so his ballot is the best by my criteria.
Well, just vote him right in then!
He'll vote yes, if only because it will help with job security.
Precisely. Trophies for everyone! That way, nobody has to feel left out and feel bad about himself, like poor Mr. Rice.
I'd give demerits for Morris and less so for Rice. I don't like it when they vote for McGwire, but I don't want to have that discussion. As such, none of them stand out individually as particularly strong ballots. But as a group, they're reasonable.
Jerry and I have talked HoF ballots in the past. I wouldn't initiate that kind of conversation, though; he called me.
You should've sent them all notes that say "Vote for Raines...OR ELSE" and included a severed toe in the envelope.
-Henderson
-Blyleven
-Raines
-Trammell
I scored the 11 ballots using +1 if the writer included one of these players on their ballot, -1 if the writer excluded one of these players on their ballot, and -2 for each "extra" player.
Scores were as follows:
-BO: -10
-BR: -1
-HB: -4
-JCa: -4
-JCr: -3
-JSt: -8
-MK: -4
-PGa: 0
-PGo: -9
-TK: -6
-TQ: -6
So, in my crude little system, Peter Gammons had the best ballot. He included all four of my picks, but negated the positive value with two superfluous picks (Rice and Morris). Brendan Roberts had the second best ballot.
Buster Olney had the worst. We only agreed on Henderson. He excluded Blyleven, Raines, and Trammell, while inlcuding Rice, Dawson, Morris, and McGwire.
Pedro Gomez and Jason Stark also had really bad ballots, IMHO.
Whose?
Thanks
A human toe?
The person who is going to be promoted over you.
So I grab him by the collar, I take him out of the seat, I get behind the wheel, and now I'm driving the bus!
What's the argument for Morris over John, again?
"Hey Pedro, Keith Law here, calling about your Hall of Fame Ballot"
"Who the #### are you?"
"Keith Law, I work with you at ESPN"
"As what? a coffee boy? Don't call me"
you obviously have him confused with Roy White
He used to write for TSN Fantasy Baseball site, and it looks like he moved to ESPN a little over a year ago. Profile
I always liked his stuff. Doesn't surprise me he has a good ballot. I think considering his roto bent, it's not surprising Smith gets a nod from him.
No, Roy White's significantly better than either Jim Rice or Jay Bell.
The "Big Hall" Ballot:
Henderson
Raines
McGwire*
Blyleven
Trammel
Dawson
Rice
Smith
John
(essentially Robothal and Kurkjian's ballots)
The "Small Hall/Big Milestones" (3000 hits/500 HR/300 wins/etc.) ballot:
Henderson
McGwire*
Smith
(Knisley's ballot)
The "SABR-friendly" ballot:
Henderson
Raines
Blyleven
Trammel
McGwire*
(essentially Pos and Davidoff's ballots)
The "we knew one when we saw one!" (count the MVPs, Cy Youngs, All-Star Games, etc.) ballot:
Henderson
McGwire*
Dawson
Rice
Morris
(Olney's ballot)
*of course, there's the "ethical" subsection to each of these possibilities...
I might think Olney's ballot is bat-#### crazy, but at least there's some of kind of consistency to it (even if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny).
What baffles me is when people mix and match. Clearly, there's no excuse not to vote for Henderson. (And only one excuse--but to my mind it's incredibly hypocritical one if you were covering baseball in the mid-90s and didn't speak up--not to vote for McGwire.) But how does someone vote for Rice and/or Morris but not Dawson? It's the same damn argument. Except Dawson was better. (Gammons' ballot really doesn't make sense to me unless you accuse him of currying favour with Epstein and Henry.)
Sometimes it really depresses me to share a surname with that guy. Bleh.
Also, zero votes for Tommy John?
(1) Rickey? All time stolen base leader! All time runs scored leader!
(2) Smith? All time saves leader! Or at least he was!
(3) Raines? What the hell is he the all time leader in? Nothin'. Besides, I'm not even sure I remember, where did he play, Yukon or something?
(4) I am certainly not an idiot, and I am definitely well informed and knowledgeable about this subject!
The thought process is stupid, yes, but not "bizarre" - in fact, it's probably somewhat common, and easily explainable.
WHOM! WHOM!
You'd be surprised what sticklers for grammar those Insiders are.
He voted no on McGwire.
The point is that someone can think that Smith clearly deserves to be in the Hall, merely because he was the all-time saves leader, and clearly more than someone like Tim Raines or Bert Blyleven or whoever. That such people may often also think that Raines and/or Blyleven also deserve to be in is neither here nor there, with respect to the main point.
And, of couse, it's not merely that people can think Smith clearly deserves to be in the Hall, merely because he was the all-time saves leader; lots of people do think Smith clearly deserves to be in the Hall, merely because he was the all-time saves leader. For example, uh, virtually everybody who's voting for him.
So, again, "bizarre" doesn't seem, to me, to be an appropriate description for someone who thinks that the all-time runs guy and the all-time saves guy deserve in. "Stupid", probably; "ignorant", sure; "facile", definitely. "Bizarre"? I don't think so.
I get what you're saying, and if you replace Morris and Rice with Murphy (and maybe Parker), I'm totally there. But Morris, ugh.
Jesse Haines: 3208 IP, 108 ERA+
Catfish Hunter: 3449 IP, 104 ERA+
Jack Morris: 3824 IP, 105 ERA+
So Morris actually won't be the worst pitcher in the Hall of Fame, or even the worst pitcher elected by the writers, but he's right there in the club. Certainly strengthens the arguments of about 50 different Tom, Dick and Orels.
2009 - David Cone, Tommy John (15th year)
2008 - Chuck Finley
2007 - Bret Saberhagen, Orel Hershiser
2006 - Dwight Gooden
2004 - Dave Stieb, Dennis Martinez
2003 - Jim Kaat (15th), Luis Tiant (15th)
2002 - Frank Viola, Ron Guidry
1999 - Frank Tanana, Mickey Lolich (15th)
1997 - Rick Reuschel
Any of those guys except those who ran out of years could and probably should still be eligible.
It's odd, but I do appreciate any attempt to keep the HOF as exclusive as possible. And sure this is a stretch, but according to "HOF Monitor" over at Smith's bb-ref page was the following: HOF Monitor: Pitching - 135.0 (52) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Anyone voting for Jay Bell has got to have the most bizarre ballot ever though...
also, what #53 said.
Also, looking back over Saberhagen's record I'm reminded of two things. First, he was really a monster of a pitcher. It's really a shame he couldn't hold it together in the second half of his career. Growing up in the late 80s he just screamed HOF-track. It's also a fair warning to the stars of today (your Johans or Sabathias and what have you) how quickly a HOF-targeted career can get derailed. Despite continuing to pitch quite well, he never broke 200 innings again after age 25 and ended up nowhere close to an actual HOF career.
Second, remember that crazy odd-numbered year thing where he would be the best pitcher in baseball half the time and just mediocre in even-numbered years? It's amazing how long that held true. It took until that 1994 resurgence to break the cycle
That's one of the many beauties of baseball -- you can actually believe your eyes. If what you think you are seeing is unbelievable, then chances are it is. It's the reality of the steroids era and something all Hall voters will have to grapple with now and in the coming years. ...
Again, the basic beauty of baseball is that you can trust your eyes. For many of us, our eyes told us something was wrong with what McGwire was accomplishing late in his career.
Which makes his Jay Bell vote even more bizarre. Jay Bell had one great year - at age 33 in 1999 (as opposed to McGwire's 1998 at age 34), which was at the height of the steroid era.
How good was his 1999?
1. His 38 home runs were 17 more than his second best career year.
2. His 112 RBI were 20 more than his second best year.
3. His SLG was 116 points higher than his second best year.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main