“How could people not vote for the best second baseman of the last quarter-century?”

Dick Young wrote, after Willie Mays did not get a unanimous vote "These guys wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ--after all, he dropped the cross three times"

I don't think he's complaining about voters who follow baseball and then vote, even if their votes aren't the greatest. He's complaining about John Smith who writes about College Football all year never watches a baseball game and then turns in a half-assed ballot based on which side of bed he got out of that day.

I’m still trying to figure out why 143 voters failed to endorse Alomar

Put it all together, and it’s easy to understand why he might have lost small pockets of support. But 143 “no” votes? Sorry, that number is too high to make sense.

3) The cliff-diving once he joined the Mets.

He then enunciates the following reasons:
1) The First-Ballot honour - he 'respects' the view that maybe Alomar isn't inner-circle.
2) The spitting incident - yes, people should move on, and they've got 14 more years to do so. Penance involves a penalty.
3) The cliff-diving once he joined the Mets.

Having then described three sound reasons for not voting for Alomar the first time round, Rosenthal appoints himself judge and jury to say

Put it all together, and it’s easy to understand why he might have lost small pockets of support. But 143 “no” votes? Sorry, that number is too high to make sense.

I think that just means that he was done as an effective player at age 33. I don't think where it happens mattered much.

That's really the stupidest one of all, though. I believe it's been shown that there really isn't a voting bias for players that starred in NY, but would anyone even remember his rapid descent into crapiness if it had happened in Florida (Dawson), Atlanta (Sutter), or Tampa (Boggs)?

But, if it's starting 9, then I've got Ted Williams and Stan Musial outside the inner circle with Barry Bonds playing leftfield.

I would. I don't see it as particularly close. Bonds is one of the Big Three.

Although he *didn't* play CF (a lot), and those guys did. the consensus was he could have.

Noble appeared on MLB Network last night claiming Alomar was actively disinterested, not merely that he lost all his talent. Whether this is actually true, it's a different argument from other career nosedives.

Wait, does the BBWAA do anything else besides vote for the HOF?

I think that just means that he was done as an effective player at age 33. I don't think where it happens mattered much.

Either Noble needs a dictionary for Christmas or you're paraphrasing him unfairly; YM uninterested, not disinterested.

(Or it's a stranger complaint than I've seen in a while.)

Possibly not, but you should also realize that the last year where Mantle's range factor was above the league average was 1961, when he was 29.

Possibly not, but you should also realize that the last year where Mantle's range factor was above the league average was 1961, when he was 29.

Good list as is, though I might leave Dimag just outside.

Incidentally, how did the all-time CF discussion become Bonds vs. Mantle? Where did Mays and Cobb go?

It's stuff like post 80. that make me want to become a small-hall guy. At least then I can say "both out!"

When Bonds was capable of playing centerfield, he didn't hit as well as Mantle. When Bonds hit better than Mantle, he couldn't play centerfield... or even left field, to be honest.

Makes more sense to me to make it Bonds Mays Ruth and use Williams as DH.

I think if you're going to include Mays and Speaker in CF, you need to include DiMaggio. Distinguishing among them comes down to things like defense, era and war credit, so I think there's enough uncertainty to have them all.

I think all three are a fair bit behind Mantle and Cobb, though.

I think I am still right when I say there are no DHs in the HOF.

But Rivera is a different category. It's hard to imagine anybody, including Alexander, Grove, Koufax, Pedro, who could really have done any better than Rivera's 2.25 ERA in 1000+ innings or, especially, that insane 0.74 in 133-1/3 postseason innings. Alexander and Grove were excellent relief pitchers in actual fact, but still, could they really have outdone what Rivera has achieved? He's so great that to keep him out of an inner circle is more a matter of not considering "closer" to be a position (a completely valid philosophy, of course) than of preferring anyone else in his role.

Taking 10 year primes, from 1955-64 Mantle put up a 188 OPS+ while playing at least an average CF. Bonds, from 1990-99 (when you could argue he was a good enough LF to play CF, or be better than Mantle in LF) put up a 179 OPS+.