BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Baseball Ink: Mariotti volunteers to be thrown out of the BBWAA

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Baseball Ink: Mariotti volunteers to be thrown out of the BBWAA

Some Like it Blank. Mariotti/Fanhouse Ballots.

Jay Mariotti, hypocrite former print writer, from Yahoo Sports and ESPN appeared for the umpteenth time on ESPN’s Around the Horn today and volunteered to be thrown out of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA), who vote for induction into the Hall of Fame. Quoting from the January 5th Podcast from ESPN:

Now, the baseball gods can strike me down, Reali, but guess what? 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.

...So he changes his voting strategy from one year to another? This is how BBWAA members should vote? Dawson and Blyleven were good enough for him to vote for last year, but not this year? What changed? Their stats got worse for him? They deserved his sacred vote one year but not the next?

I believe the Baseball Writers Association of America should take him up on his offer and kick him out. He deserves it.

Repoz Posted: January 06, 2010 at 12:09 PM | 76 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: hall of fame, history

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.

1. Jose Is An Absurd Balladeer Posted: January 06, 2010 at 12:23 PM (#3429391)

This feels like Mariotti jumping up and down screaming "look at me! Look at me! I'm still somebody dammit!" His position is stupid but it's hardly unique, there are plenty of guys who don't vote for first timers and I would assume there are always a few blank ballots each year.

2. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: January 06, 2010 at 12:23 PM (#3429392)

Further evidence (were any needed) that Mariotti is a jackass.

If only he would volunteer to be thrown out of something else, like an upper-floor window.

3. Eugene Freedman

Posted: January 06, 2010 at 12:37 PM (#3429394)

The celebrity sportswriter is just a creation. They create a persona in order to become a celebrity because covering sports celebrities makes them jealous. The truly great writers don't need to create a persona. They write. And people enjoy it. They have no need to make themselves the story. Throw him out and let's move on. He'll set his pants on fire next. At least that won't harm an institution bigger than himself.

4. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 12:48 PM (#3429396)

Do submitted blank ballots get counted?

I would hope the BBWAA would not count blank ballots, so that prima donnas like this don't get a chance to torpedo candidates.

5. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 06, 2010 at 01:00 PM (#3429401)

Three writers submitted blank votes following the Pete Rose banishment, and the ballots were counted. It's the reason Tom Seaver's percentage was 98.8% instead of 99.5%.

Chicago's Paul Ladewski just sent one in about two years ago to protest "the steroid era."

6. BrianBrianson Posted: January 06, 2010 at 01:00 PM (#3429402)

Do submitted blank ballots get counted?

Yes. You can vote for nobody. What is all the candidates are hosers?

7. flournoy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 01:27 PM (#3429415)

His thought process was clearly not, "Who on this ballot deserves my vote?" It was, "How can I create the biggest stir with my ballot?"

8. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: January 06, 2010 at 01:30 PM (#3429416)

His thought process was clearly not, "Who on this ballot deserves my vote?" It was, "How can I create the biggest stir with my ballot?"

I agree. There should be some process to discipline fools who abuse their voting privilege this way.

9. Gamingboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 01:48 PM (#3429432)

There is a word in german , Backpfeifengesicht, which means, roughly, "Face badly in need of a fist" or "Face that needs to be slapped".

Gentleman, Mariotti is a Backpfeifengesicht.

10. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: January 06, 2010 at 01:50 PM (#3429433)

Yes. You can vote for nobody. What is all the candidates are hosers?

There has been a future Hall of Famer on every single BBWAA ballot. Ever.

As someone previously said here, if you look at your ballot and can't see a Hall of Famer, look harder, because you're wrong.

11. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:10 PM (#3429443)

There should be some process to discipline fools who abuse their voting privilege this way.

I viewed you saying this in a Darth Vader voice and I liked it.

Force choke Mariotti!

12. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:13 PM (#3429445)

I viewed you saying this in a Darth Vader voice and I liked it.

I viewed you saying this in a Katy Perry voice and... I autotuned it.

Then I thought of Katy Perry's breasts and I liked it.

13. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:16 PM (#3429446)

There is a word in german , Backpfeifengesicht,

there's also scheißkopf

(and fucktard, which transcends language)

14. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:20 PM (#3429449)

(and ########, which transcends language)

And the nanny, apparently.

If he's volunteering to be thrown out, can I do it? Bodily? Or perhaps with a catapult?

15. Rally Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:20 PM (#3429450)

Next year he won't vote for Alomar because if he wasn't good enough this year, how can you vote for him next year?

16. BrianBrianson Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:21 PM (#3429453)

There has been a future Hall of Famer on every single BBWAA ballot. Ever.

Which isn't remotely like "Every voter should vote for at least one candidate on every ballot."

17. Rally Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:21 PM (#3429454)

I do think blank ballots should be ignored as a matter of process, and not count against somebody hoping to get 75%.

18. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:21 PM (#3429456)

If he's volunteering to be thrown out, can I do it? Bodily? Or perhaps with a catapult?

The Mariotti Defenestration could be celebrated yearly

19. John DiFool2 Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:30 PM (#3429468)

Yes. You can vote for nobody.

"I'm forsaken and in agony," roared Bertbehomebyeleven.

"Whose fault is it?" they shouted back.

"Nobody's," said Bertbehomebyeleven.

20. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:32 PM (#3429470)

Then I thought of Katy Perry's breasts and I liked it.

Me too!

21. Cooperstown Schtick Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:37 PM (#3429474)

As someone previously said here, if you look at your ballot and can't see a Hall of Famer, look harder, because you're wrong.

Wait, are they supposed to be voting or predicting?

I do think blank ballots should be ignored as a matter of process, and not count against somebody hoping to get 75%.

Totally disagree. Blank ballots are a totally legitimate vote. They aren't terribly surprising this year, and would have been even less so in 2006 when the most likely candidates were all borderline.

22. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:46 PM (#3429479)

It's really sad just how many unqualified people are given the privilege of voting for the HOF and the Heisman Trophy award.

23. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:48 PM (#3429482)

There's nothing wrong with a blank ballot as general matter. There's something wrong with a blank ballot when Blyleven, Raines, Alomar, Larkin, et al. are eligible. This is far from a weak class.

24. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 02:49 PM (#3429483)

Blank ballots are a totally legitimate vote, and I'm not saying they should be discounted per se.

What I am saying is that they shouldn't be counted for purposes of the final tally.

I've been an electoral observer in a couple of countries, and pretty much in all countries that I've been to, blank and null votes are counted, and are part of the absolute vote total.

In practical terms, however, they are not used when doing final tallies (*): you never hear Candidate X got 54%, Candidate Y got 44%, Blank votes got 1% and Null votes got 1%.

You hear - Candidate X got 55% and Candidate Y got 45%.

(*) I've never witnessed an election in a country with "ballottage" or second round voting, where the top two vote-getting candidates face off against each other (Chile, France and Argentina come to mind regarding that system). It's possible than in those countries, blank and null votes are counted in a manner that would preclude candidate X from getting over the 50% hump.

25. BrianBrianson Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:01 PM (#3429495)

Discounting blanks ballots would just result in throwaway votes for obviously terrible candidates which would be bad for everyone. Some writers are going to have stricter standards than others, it's not like admission requires unanimity or anything. While Alomar, Larkin et al. are quality Hall of Famers, that a few writers would disagree is not some big sin. (And I say this as someone who was a ten year old boy living in Toronto in 1992, whose opinion on Alomar is unreasonably biased in a positive direction.)

There's no player on the ballot you can't make arguments against. It's not the weakest ballot one can imagine, but it ain't the strongest neither.

(JRVJ - the 1995 Quebec Independence referendum was decided by a margin smaller than the number of rejected ballots. One might imagine how that would've gone over if both sides were reported as less than 50%, eh?)

26. Cooperstown Schtick Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:05 PM (#3429504)

An advocate for a small hall shouldn't be shut out by not allowing his voice to influence the outcome of the election. All of the candidates on this ballot have blemishes and a reasonable argument can be made for submitting a blank ballot. That a blank ballot can also be used in the way that Mariotti appears to be using it is an issue with Mariotti, not with the ballot process.

You can't argue that the writers have a responsibility to maintain a standard of achievement for the Hall and take away their right to say, with influence, that nobody on the ballot meets the standard.

On edit: Or, you know, what Brian said.

27. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:05 PM (#3429505)

Yes, that buttresses my point.

28. Jose Is An Absurd Balladeer Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:07 PM (#3429508)

Blank ballots are a totally legitimate vote, and I'm not saying they should be discounted per se.

What I am saying is that they shouldn't be counted for purposes of the final tally.

I've been an electoral observer in a couple of countries, and pretty much in all countries that I've been to, blank and null votes are counted, and are part of the absolute vote total

By not including a blank ballot you are discounting it. The vote in this situation isn't Blyleven vs. Larkin it is Yes or No on Blyleven, Yes or No on Larkin, etc... A blank ballot isn't "blank", it is a series of "No" votes.

Edited for clarity

29. lar @ wezen-ball Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:09 PM (#3429515)

I was looking into something about older HOF votes last week (I think it was when I writing my "Your Hall of Fame Vote is Wrong" post), and I discovered that in 1988 nine different writers submitted blank ballots. They were independent gestures meant as a protest against the "reduced standards of the Hall". One of the writers who did it was Phil Pepe, a member of the HOF screening committee and VP of the BBWAA. He said he purposely didn't want to be considered as an abstention.

The problem with this was that it kept Jim Bunning from getting elected that year. He received 74.2% of the vote (he missed by 4 votes). Without the 9 blank ballots, he would've made it by 3 votes. Here's the article from the LA Times.

30. attaboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:10 PM (#3429516)

Just curious, what is the argument against Raines? There must be one since he won't make it but he truly was a great and underappreciated player! Now, I am asking seriously what the argument is against him since little is written about him due to the Blyleven/Morris overabundance of material...Looks really good next to Brock (yes, I know, that isn't a valid argument for someone).

31. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:16 PM (#3429523)

Just curious, what is the argument against Raines? There must be one since he won't make it but he truly was a great and underappreciated player! Now, I am asking seriously what the argument is against him since little is written about him due to the Blyleven/Morris overabundance of material...Looks really good next to Brock (yes, I know, that isn't a valid argument for someone).

I suppose there are better arguments against Raines, but reflexively, some see him as 'not Rickey Henderson' a contemporary peer and dismiss him, which of course is absurd.

32. Jose Is An Absurd Balladeer Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:18 PM (#3429526)

I would vote for him but the argument against Raines I think centers on a sub-.300 batting average from a guy who was not a power hitter or a great defensive player. Eyeballing a list of Hall of Famers with an average < .300 and < 200 HR you get a list of VC guys, borderline candidates and especially middle infielders. As an outfielder Raines was not enough of a power hitter/run producer to meet the standards.

Like I said, I would vote for him in a heartbeat but I suspect that is roughly the argument someone voting against him would use.

33. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:21 PM (#3429529)

Wow, Phil Pepe had voted for the HoF 20 or 21 times by 1988 (22 years ago). Since you have to have covered a team for at least 10 years to get a vote, that means that this joke of a reporter has been around for at least 52 years.

IF that's not the Peter Principle at play, I don't know what is.

34. Craig in MN Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:22 PM (#3429531)

By not including a blank ballot you are discounting it. The vote in this situation isn't Blyleven vs. Larkin it is Yes or No on Blyleven, Yes or No on Larkin, etc... A blank ballot isn't "blank", it is a series of "No" votes.

Exactly, a blank ballot in that case would effectively become a 3/4 vote for everyone, since it decrements the denominator of the tally ratio. Imagine a case where there are absolutely no qualified candidates and every voter agrees but one. In that case everyone submits blank ballots, except the one doofus, whose votes are then all voted in to the Hall based on his one opinion. Blank ballots should be counted as blank ballots.

35. Randy Jones

Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:27 PM (#3429539)

Just curious, what is the argument against Raines?

As other have noted, there are some arguments against Raines. They are all terrible arguments, but they do exist.

36. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:27 PM (#3429540)

Exactly, a blank ballot in that case would effectively become a 3/4 vote for everyone, since it decrements the denominator of the tally ratio. Imagine a case where there are absolutely no qualified candidates and every voter agrees but one. In that case everyone submits blank ballots, except the one doofus, whose votes are then all voted in to the Hall based on his one opinion. Blank ballots should be counted as blank ballots.

While theoretically possible, I think the system would be even worse off than it is today if every voter (or almost every voter) submitted blank ballots.

37. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:28 PM (#3429541)

There's no player on the ballot you can't make arguments against. It's not the weakest ballot one can imagine, but it ain't the strongest neither.

By "arguments," you mean "argument," and that argument has to be "I think that the HOF should be a radically different institution than it is and have only inner circle people from the modern era even though it has never in history been limited to those sorts of people."

Moreover, any writer who has been doing that better not have voted for Rice, Gwynn, Gossage, Sutter, Molitor, Ozzie (and that's just among the ones who went in recently); their ballots better not have contained any names in recent years other than Rickey, Cal, Boggs... Do you really believe that these writers are actually submitting blank ballots year after year? I don't.

38. Tracy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:30 PM (#3429543)

There is a word in german , Backpfeifengesicht,

there's also scheißkopf

There's also Mittelschmerz...

39. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:38 PM (#3429552)

Blank ballots are a totally legitimate vote, and I'm not saying they should be discounted per se.

What I am saying is that they shouldn't be counted for purposes of the final tally.

No, that doesn't make any sense. A player's percentage is the number of ballots he's named on / total ballots submitted.

So if Raines is on 75 ballots, and 101 ballots are submitted, then he gets 74.25% of the vote. It wouldn't make any sense to say that if one of those ballots (let's call it "Mariotti's") contains just Morris's name, then Raines gets 74.25%, but if Mariotti's contains no names, then Raines gets 75%. Why would you want voting for some other candidate to affect Raines's vote?

I've been an electoral observer in a couple of countries, and pretty much in all countries that I've been to, blank and null votes are counted, and are part of the absolute vote total.

In practical terms, however, they are not used when doing final tallies (*): you never hear Candidate X got 54%, Candidate Y got 44%, Blank votes got 1% and Null votes got 1%.

That's because there's no "not elect anybody" possibility, so it's moot. You're not trying to get X%; you're trying to get more than the other guy.

40. BrianBrianson Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:42 PM (#3429555)

Raines is definitely better than Brock, but Brock's one of the lousiest outfielders in the Hall of Fame. I can't fault anyone who didn't vote for Brock, so there's no extension there.
Raines played a corner outfield position, and baseball-reference's defensive stats have him about average over his career. A 123 OPS+ corner outfielder with average defence isn't exactly historic. Yeah, it's OBP heavy, but it's still what it is. Baserunning adds a lot of value, which is necessary to any argument. More like, how deviant are your standards from the norm to not vote for Raines? One standard deviation smaller hall than average? Two? Being one or two sigma away from the average is pretty normal, not particularly defective. Telling Raines that in your personal opinion, he's close, but not quite good enough is not exactly a mortal sin or an unjustifiable opinion. I'd rather save up my vitriol for whoever doesn't vote for, say, Greg Maddux. 'cause someone won't, and I'll need all the vitriol I can find.

41. flournoy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:48 PM (#3429560)

Corky Simpson won't vote for Maddux. "I was never really a Maddux guy. I'll vote for him next year."

42. Adam S

Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:53 PM (#3429564)

Move along here - nothing to see. Please don't feed the ESPN trolls.

I think we can all defend the principle of the blank ballot without defending Mariotti. If he did vote for Dawson and Blyleven last year, as TFA states, then this is attention seeking behavior of the kind my toddler daughter would not stoop to.

43. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:53 PM (#3429566)

No, that doesn't make any sense. A player's percentage is the number of ballots he's named on / total ballots submitted.

So if Raines is on 75 ballots, and 101 ballots are submitted, then he gets 74.25% of the vote. It wouldn't make any sense to say that if one of those ballots (let's call it "Mariotti's") contains just Morris's name, then Raines gets 74.25%, but if Mariotti's contains no names, then Raines gets 75%. Why would you want voting for some other candidate to affect Raines's vote?

What's your position on null votes? (for example, if somebody voted for 15 or 20 candidates).

Should null votes be part of the denominator in that case?

44. BrianBrianson Posted: January 06, 2010 at 03:56 PM (#3429568)

David

Your argument presupposes that each voter's responsibility is to try and discern whether a player meets the established standards of the Hall of Fame (whatever that means). I'll suggest that it's the responsibility of the collective of voters to do this, which includes a distribution of standards among individual voters (or at least, allows for it in a completely natural way). It certainly isn't the case that the voters are charged with trying to approximate the historical standards for the Hall. I don't think it's the case that every ballot "should" come in with an identical list of names, even in the ideal case, and there's no reason to suppose otherwise.

Corky Simpson won't vote for Maddux. "I was never really a Maddux guy. I'll vote for him next year."

Exactly, I have to save all the hate I can generate for Corky. It's not like phlogiston, I can only make so much hate. Though it's true that Mariotti seems to be the kind of kid who can't distinguish good attention from bad attention, and his reasons for sending in an empty ballot are probably dishonest. Someone's probably going to do it honestly, and it's not the worst thing in the history of hyperbole.

45. Cooper Nielson Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:03 PM (#3429572)

Like most of us here, I would put Raines on my ballot, but I think there are some pretty easy (on the surface) reasons to justify not voting for him, if you were so inclined:

1. Didn't get to 3000 hits or any other "milestone" numbers, and doesn't hold any major records.
2. Never hit with much power; never hit 20 HR, never had 100 RBI (high was 71).
3. Career average below .300. (If you don't hit HR, you are expected to have a high average. And his solid .385 career OBP, while more representative of his value, is only 134th all time.)
4. Compared to other left-fielders (a very strong position), he doesn't stand out. He's clearly worse than Williams, Musial, Bonds and Henderson and probably a few other guys.
5. Not known as an especially good fielder despite playing an easy position. No Gold Gloves.
6. No MVPs (highest finish was 5th), fairly low number of All Star Games (7) and only one Silver Slugger suggest that he wasn't "considered" a superstar when he played.
7. Only four HOFers on his ten Similar Batters list (Brock, Carey, Clarke, Slaughter), and none of them were really slam dunks. (Well, Brock was, but shouldn't have been.)
8. There's a perception (not entirely true) that for fully half of his career he was a part-time player. (After turning 30, he only topped 600 PA twice, after doing it seven times in his 20s.)
9. Did not distinguish himself in the postseason (.270/.340/.349, 3 SB, 3 CS, 1 HR, 6 RBI, 18 R in 34 games)

Keep in mind these are not my reasons. I see the runs and walks and stolen bases and I specifically remember him being an amazing force during his mid-'80s peak.

46. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:05 PM (#3429574)

What's your position on null votes? (for example, if somebody voted for 15 or 20 candidates).

Should null votes be part of the denominator in that case?

I'd say no. With a blank ballot, the voters have followed the instructions, and found no one worthy. An unreturned ballot, however, should not be part of the denominator.

A null vote should be excluded becasue the voter specifically didn't follow the instructions, disqualifying that ballot entirely.

I don't have a problem with the voter who sends back an empty ballot because he doesn't believe anyone's qualified (though I'd probably disagree with the judgment). I don't like a blank ballot protesting something, and think the BBWAA leadership should discourage them, but I don't think they warrant removing the privilege. But the BBWAA really should consider removing Mariotti's voting privileges, as his blank ballot does seem like nothing more than an effort to draw attention to himself.

47. attaboy Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:06 PM (#3429575)

Well, if we go with Brock not being hall worthy, then I understand but he wasn't just elected on the 13th time on the ballot, he was a first ballot vote! Now we all know that first ballot vote means something to lots of these guys so to say that Brock doesn't belong means that there is a chasm of difference between those voters and anyone who says that Brock doesn't belong in the hall at all. Looking over the two players (everyone's favorite exercise):

Games: 2616 (brock) 2502 (Raines)
BA 293 294
OBP 343 385
SLG 410 425
SB 938 (75.3%) 808 (84.6%)
cSB 307 (24.7%) 146 (15.4%)
Runs 1610(.615/g) 1571(.628/g)
RBI's 900 980
HR's 149 170

One is a first ballot HOF and the other doesn't not make it at all!?!?!

I know, I am preaching to the choir!

48. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:15 PM (#3429579)

but there are a few other categories that the voters counted:

number of times with 7 SB in a world series Brock 2 Raines 0

number of times hitting > .400 in a World Series Brock 2 Raines 0

number of careers achieving 3000 hits Brock 1 Raines 0

Brock WAS considered a superstar when he played, and Raines was not

silly but true

49. Lassus Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:16 PM (#3429580)

Brock WAS considered a superstar when he played, and Raines was not
silly but true

Are you being serious here? I can't tell.

50. SoSH U at work Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:21 PM (#3429587)

Brock was an obvious Hall of Famer. It's fine to keep him out of the Hall of Merit, but a guy who was the all-time and single-season stolen base champion and starred in postseason play and had 3,000 hits was a no-brainer choice for Cooperstown.

51. BrianBrianson Posted: January 06, 2010 at 04:22 PM (#3429589)

4. Compared to other left-fielders (a very strong position), he doesn't stand out. He's clearly worse than Williams, Musial, Bonds and Henderson and probably a few other guys.

Position is probably key to any argument against Raines. "Average fielding left fielder" has to be key to any sensible argument against him.

Attaboy - On a personal level I'm not entirely convinced "component" voting isn't unjustifiable. Smith, Mazeroski, Maranville, whoever, getting elected because they're the best defensive player ever at their position, say, Brock getting elected as the best basestealer, - these things don't bother me, even though they don't necessarily reflect straight value. But - uh - on value along, Brock is a bad choice for the Hall of Fame. Raines certainly provided more value to his team than Brock.

I dunno. I'd probably vote for Alomar, McGwire and Blyleven without hesitation, and at least think over the rest (at least, I might vote for Larkin, Raines, Martinez, Trammell, in that order of likeliness). That probably means I just have very high standards compared to the field, but if I could vote, I'd be offsetting the Mattingly-Parker-Whoever crowd, hopefully.

52. Greg Pope Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:02 PM (#3429683)

If somebody doesn't want their vote counted, they can just not turn in their ballot, right? Then it wouldn't be in the final total in any way.

53. Morty Causa Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:28 PM (#3429721)

Raines is definitely better than Brock, but Brock's one of the lousiest outfielders in the Hall of Fame. I can't fault anyone who didn't vote for Brock, so there's no extension there.

Raines shouldn't be evaluated by comparing him to Brock or to players way out of his time. He should be judged in comparison to his peers. That's his value, or lack thereof.

I see very little of that done, here or elsewhere, other that those who say he is as good as Gwynn (is he really?) and the second best leadoff man of his time. But, really, how does he stand among the corner outfielders of his generation?

If Raines goes in, who then can't you keep out?

This really applies to Dawson, too. The line just keeps getting lower. Yeah, yeah, I know they aren't electing very many, but they're not electing the right guys. The right guys are the eligibles not in who are BEST qualified to be in. That ain't Raines and Dawson.

54. Kiko Sakata

Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:31 PM (#3429728)

The right guys are the eligibles not in who are BEST qualified to be in. That ain't Raines and Dawson.

Who do you think is better than Raines? What eligible non-HOF outfielders are better than Tim Raines? I'm having trouble thinking of one.

55. My guest will be Jermaine Allensworth Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:33 PM (#3429731)

The city of Chicago benefited massively when the Sun-Times called Mariotti's bluff. C'mon, BBWAA...

56. adamadkins Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:49 PM (#3429753)

I fondly remember Roger Ebert tearing Jay Mariotti apart after he burned the bridge at the Sun-Times. Mariotti's worthless, and I don't think BTF should even link his insane dribble anymore, even if it's funny to joke on him.

Let's wash our hands of Jay Mariotti.

57. Mike Emeigh

Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:50 PM (#3429756)

By "arguments," you mean "argument," and that argument has to be "I think that the HOF should be a radically different institution than it is and have only inner circle people from the modern era even though it has never in history been limited to those sorts of people."

If the vox populi (or vox BBWAA) decides that it's time to tighten the standards for selection, why is that wrong? I understand that "it's not fair" to the current generation of players, but I don't see any reason why fairness should necessarily be a criterion for entry.

-- MWE

58. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:52 PM (#3429758)

Let's wash our hands off Jay Mariotti.

"Of" moreso than "off."

59. adamadkins Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:54 PM (#3429765)

Yes, fixed.

60. TOLAXOR Posted: January 06, 2010 at 06:58 PM (#3429771)

"throw me out of the Baseball Writers. I don’t care."

WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED??!!! THE MAN DOESN'T VALUE HIS VOCATION, HE DOESN'T VALUE BASEBALL, HE ONLY VALUES HIMSELF

61. base ball chick Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:04 PM (#3429802)

good riddance to bad rubbish

as my granma would say

too bad the BBWAA won't take him up on it like the chicago news did when he resigned.

62. rfloh Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:07 PM (#3429823)

If the vox populi (or vox BBWAA) decides that it's time to tighten the standards for selection, why is that wrong? I understand that "it's not fair" to the current generation of players, but I don't see any reason why fairness should necessarily be a criterion for entry.

-- MWE

What's wrong? In the end, the writers don't really matter much at all to the HoF. It's the fans who pay the money, and the players who matter. The BBWAA can raise the standards all they want, if the (majority of) fans don't like it, the HoF isn't going to like it either.

I don't see any reason why the vox BBWAA should necessarily be a criterion for entry. If they want to be idiotic, ala Mariotti, the HoF can take the voting away from them.

63. Dan Szymborski

Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:16 PM (#3429880)

I understand that "it's not fair" to the current generation of players, but I don't see any reason why fairness should necessarily be a criterion for entry.

People like fairness. Fairness is a feature of every honor that continues to be important and honors that are perceived not to be fair lose their importance to the people who care.

64. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 07:57 PM (#3429937)

Your argument presupposes that each voter's responsibility is to try and discern whether a player meets the established standards of the Hall of Fame (whatever that means).

It does indeed. And I stand by that; I can't think of any other defensible position. This isn't Congress; people aren't supposed to be horse-trading. They're supposed to vote based on whether they think each person on the ballot belongs in the HOF

---

If the vox populi (or vox BBWAA) decides that it's time to tighten the standards for selection, why is that wrong? I understand that "it's not fair" to the current generation of players, but I don't see any reason why fairness should necessarily be a criterion for entry.

In addition to the responses in post 62 and 63, which I adopt, I'd say your analogy ("vox populi") is flawed. The theory of democracy is that it's a good for its own sake; that is, the fact that people want something is in and of itself a reason to choose that thing. But the HOF writers aren't being asked for their personal opinions; they're being asked for their expert judgment. When a writer votes that only Willie Mays belongs in the HOF, he's confusing the former for the latter.

65. zenbitz Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:12 PM (#3429966)

His HOF ballot should be taken away... and given to his children.

And vice-versa.

66. esseff Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:26 PM (#3429979)

throw me out of the Baseball Writers. I don’t care.

"This is either a threat to be ignored or an offer to be accepted."

67. OCF Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:30 PM (#3429989)

I see very little of that done, here or elsewhere, other that those who say he is as good as Gwynn (is he really?) and the second best leadoff man of his time. But, really, how does he stand among the corner outfielders of his generation?,

Here's my ranking of corner outfielders with peaks in the 1970's or later, not including those not yet eligible for the HoF (or not eligible at all):

1. Rickey Henderson
2. Reggie Jackson
3. Carl Yastrzemski (really, a 60's peak)
4. Tony Gwynn
5. Tim Raines
6. Willie Stargell (I see 4-5-6 as close)
7. Roberto Clemente (more defense but less offense)
8. Billy Williams (also a 60's peak)
9. Dave Winfield (long career but not high peak)
10. Dwight Evans
11. Reggie Smith (both Smith and Evans have significant defensive value)
12. Larry Walker (first eligible in 2011)
13. Jack Clark

Some others at the edge of this list

Heavy bats, not so much defense: Frank Howard (also 60's), Ken Singleton, Darryl Strawberry, Pedro Guerrero (for peak), Albert Belle

Sui generis: Lou Brock

A little more defensive value: Bobby Bonds,

Dawson wasn't on this list because I classify him as a CF.

I can assure you that Raines does not open the chute on any slippery slope, even if he's nowhere near Aaron/Robinson territory.

68. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: January 06, 2010 at 08:47 PM (#3430008)

Force choke Mariotti!

A bit late, but I couldn't let this comment pass by without sharing.

Force-choke the chicken!

69. Zonk Will Be Reinstated in August Posted: January 06, 2010 at 09:32 PM (#3430080)

www.takeawaymarriottisballot.com is still available.

I'd be willing to plunk down the sawbuck for hosting if someone wants to provide the content.

70. Foghorn Leghorn Posted: January 06, 2010 at 10:00 PM (#3430119)

There has been a future Hall of Famer on every single BBWAA ballot. Ever.

As someone previously said here, if you look at your ballot and can't see a Hall of Famer, look harder, because you're wrong.

So at least one great player ends his career each and every year?

71. Davo Posted: January 06, 2010 at 11:17 PM (#3430216)

There has been a future Hall of Famer on every single BBWAA ballot. Ever.

As someone previously said here, if you look at your ballot and can't see a Hall of Famer, look harder, because you're wrong.

I would say that it would not be completely unreasonable to cast a blank ballot in 2000.

Newcomers were Goose Gossage, Jack Morris and dreck. Carlton Fisk and Tony Perez were actually elected; picks 3-6 were eventually voted in, but none were slam dunks (Rice, Carter, Sutter, Gossage).

By BBTF standards, the voting would go (I'm assuming)

1. Fisk
2. Blyleven
3. Carter (?)
and that's it.

If you were a real small-Hall guy.... well? None of the new candidates were even close. And Fisk--on his second try--didn't even get 80% of the vote. Carter still had another 3 years to wait.

It's possible, is all...

72. OCF Posted: January 06, 2010 at 11:33 PM (#3430235)

2000 Hall of Merit ballot: we had elected Fisk in 1999 and Carter and Blyleven earlier than that, but had Nolan Ryan left over from the stacked 1999 class. In our actual voting, we elected Ryan nearly unanimously, Gossage overwhelmingly, and Willie Randolph as the top of our own backlog. Other than Gossage, the rest of the newcomers were very nearly shut out, with Morris drawing one 11th place vote and Charlie Hough one 13th place vote.

The BBTF standards HoF vote would have had Fisk, Blyleven, and Carter with 90% or better each, and Gossage about 80% - certainly Gossage well ahead of Sutter. Whether anyone else would have been close depends on who else was still on that ballot. Randolph? Stieb? Reggie Smith? Staub? Perez was pretty high up in our backlog at the time; he might have done OK.

Newcomers were Goose Gossage, Jack Morris and dreck.

Here's the full DanG list: Hough, Morris, Gossage, Hrbek, Willie Wilson, Viola, Welch, McReynolds, Lonnie Smith, Brunansky, Reardon, Sutcliffe, Hurst, Dave Henderson, Gullickson, Harold Reynolds, Redus, Higuera.

73. BrianBrianson Posted: January 06, 2010 at 11:47 PM (#3430255)

It does indeed. And I stand by that; I can't think of any other defensible position. This isn't Congress; people aren't supposed to be horse-trading. They're supposed to vote based on whether they think each person on the ballot belongs in the HOF

It can be all voters' responsibility to determine this, rather than each voter's responsibility. Indeed, having 500+ voters suggests to me that they're not looking to have each voter try to enforce some specific standard on their own, but get a collective consensus.

But, really, how does he stand among the corner outfielders of his generation?

If Raines goes in, who then can't you keep out?{/quote]

Somebody has to be the best looking in, this applies especially hard for corner outfielders, who're generally overrepresented among Hall of Famers (at least, I think so). One could reasonably be a "All positions should have roughly equal representation (apart from pitchers)" kind of person and defend that position. I might even go further, and say I think premium defensive positions should be a little overrepresented. That may be harder to defend, but it might influence how I'd vote. I'm not worried about a slippery slope with Raines, I think he's a perfectly good choice to vote for, I just don't think he's an unavoidable choice to vote for.

74. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 07, 2010 at 04:37 PM (#3430785)

But the Hall of Fame got the way it is by writers deciding whether or not players were "Hall-worthy" by any random criteria they came up with. If writers continue to vote that way, it seems perfectly consistent to me. As opposed to what it seems like you're saying, where we reach a point where the voters are now supposed to decide whether players meet the established standards instead of their own.

Yes.

We don't need writers to tell us that Willie Mays is a HOFer; we don't need writers to tell us that Willie Mays Aikens isn't a HOFer. (Now, Wilie Mays Hayes, I'm not so sure about...) We want their judgment about Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven and the like. If all a writer is doing is telling you that Dawson isn't Mays, well, what exactly do we need him for for that?

----

It can be all voters' responsibility to determine this, rather than each voter's responsibility. Indeed, having 500+ voters suggests to me that they're not looking to have each voter try to enforce some specific standard on their own, but get a collective consensus.

Setting aside the literary abomination that is the phrase "collective consensus," I don't see how it suggests that at all. They're casting individual votes, not collective ones. Obviously out of those individual votes we can see what the writers collectively think, but that doesn't mean that they're casting their votes that way. We're asking for their independent judgment as to whether someone belongs in the Hall.

75. Downtown Bookie

Posted: January 07, 2010 at 06:31 PM (#3430989)

They're supposed to vote based on whether they think each person on the ballot belongs in the HOF....[T]he HOF writers aren't being asked for their personal opinions; they're being asked for their expert judgment. When a writer votes that only Willie Mays belongs in the HOF, he's confusing the former for the latter.

Just so I can clarify the two in my mind, how does personal opinion differ from expert judgement re: the HOF? For example, to borrow from your further elaboration:

We don't need writers to tell us that Willie Mays is a HOFer; we don't need writers to tell us that Willie Mays Aikens isn't a HOFer. (Now, Wilie Mays Hayes, I'm not so sure about...) We want their judgment about Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven and the like.

How does one after deciding that, say, Andre Dawson is or is not a HOFer, substantiate that they have made their decision (and their vote) via the use of expert judgement, rather than from their personal opinion? How is one different from the other?

I ask this because it strikes me that, without solid objective standards (i.e., Top X% in such-and-such category; among the Top Y at this-or-that position; accumulate Z in one-or-the-other counting stats) the decision yeah or nay re the HOF on a player such as an Andre Dawson must ultimately boil done to opinion. But again, I say this without knowing how you are defining the two terms, and how you are differentiating one from the other.

DB

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Baseball Ink: Mariotti volunteers to be thrown out of the BBWAA

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics