BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: The Singular Rick Carpinello HOF Ballot

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

Monday, January 09, 2012

The Singular Rick Carpinello HOF Ballot

This baseball nation is divided, because of attitudes like this!

I know that a lot of you guys don’t give a rat’s tail about other sports, but I like to tell youse what I’m up to. Today is a big day in another sport. The Baseball Hall of Fame announces its Class of ‘12. I’m a voter.

This might be the last year I vote because of the steroid/PED issue. I might change my mind over the years, but right now, I don’t think any juicer should be in the Hall of Fame. And we know who most of those are. But we also know that, starting next year, there are going to be some high-profile known users on the ballot, and also some who have certainly had rumors about drug use connected to their names.

My problem is this. If I decide I’m not going to vote for juicers, and then we (the Baseball Writers Association of America) put in a player who’s never been known to juice, and it turns out later on that he did juice, well, then what do we do? Do we go back and put Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez into the Hall?

I also have a major problem with these guys being allowed in, but Pete Rose not being allowed in. That’s a different story for another day.

So my ballot, on which you can vote for as many as 10 players, went in this year with one name checked: Don Mattingly. I know he’s not going to get in because a lot of voters think his career body of work wasn’t good enough. But when he played, in his prime, he was the best player in baseball. And there are guys in the Hall, and guys on the ballot now, who were never that. Never considered dominant, or among the top two or three players in the game at any point in their career. And I’m pretty sure Donnie Baseball didn’t juice.

So that’s how I voted. Thought you might be interested. I could be wrong.

Thanks to Got Melky.

Repoz Posted: January 09, 2012 at 12:46 PM | 32 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. The District Attorney Posted: January 09, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4032204)

TFA makes it clear that this guy is a hockey writer now. Hopefully he covered baseball in the past; anyone know the details? Anyway, it sounds like he's long past caring about baseball at this point, and just knows that Pete Rose was scrappy, a lot of these guys used steroids, and Don Mattingly was good and I'm from New York so let's vote for him.

Guess it beats the political cartoonist from Montreal. Sigh.

2. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: January 09, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4032208)

TFA makes it clear that this guy is a hockey writer now. Hopefully he covered baseball in the past; anyone know the details? Anyway, it sounds like he's long past caring about baseball at this point, and just knows that Pete Rose was scrappy, a lot of these guys used steroids, and Don Mattingly was good and I'm from New York so let's vote for him.

Guess it beats the political cartoonist from Montreal. Sigh.

How dare you criticize him. He's a writer, and only his opinion matters, not yours.

3. Dale Sams Posted: January 09, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4032215)

'interesting' is one word.

4. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: January 09, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4032227)

IIRC Carp was/is a columnist for the Journal News for many years. He took on the hockey beat when the former beat writer left to become an editor at one of the golf magazines. No idea how columnist =BBWAA voter, as I don't recall him ever being on the Yankees or Mets beat. His hockey stuff is normally good, but this......yeesh.

5. attaboy Posted: January 09, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4032228)

If Mattingly deserves to get in becase he was the 'best player in the game' for a short period, I think Gooden gets in for being the best pitcher from 1984-1985. He was sooo good for those two years! And if not for Clemens in 1986, maybe the best for three years.

6. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: January 09, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4032248)

If Mattingly deserves to get in becase he was the 'best player in the game' for a short period, I think Gooden gets in for being the best pitcher from 1984-1985. He was sooo good for those two years! And if not for Clemens in 1986, maybe the best for three years.

All snark aside, given his reasoning, how he can vote for Mattingly and only Mattingly, and not also for Dale Murphy, makes his ballot even worse (if that is possible). Mattingly had 4 excellent and 2 other pretty good years. Murphy had 3 great (better than Mattingly's best), 3 other excellent (about equal to Don's peak). Neither contributed much outside of those years.

7. Rally Posted: January 09, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4032255)

He's not trying to justify voting for Mattingly on any merits. He's voting for Don because he's reasonably certain that few other people will. He's probably afraid to turn in a blank ballot because he's not sure it will be counted.

He doesn't want anyone going in the HOF, ever again. Because you never know if somebody you vote for might someday turn out to have, god forbid, used steroids.

This is good. This is the anti-steroid position taken to extreme. Seeing the lunacy exposed is a step in the eventual direction of overcoming it.

8. Bob Evans Posted: January 09, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4032258)

If Mattingly deserves to get in becase he was the 'best player in the game' for a short period

He's in the conversation, but Wade Boggs and Cal Ripken have a better claim IMO for that time period. Trammell has at least as good a case. That's just the AL.

Some of those other guys are HOFers.

Sounds like this guy is saying he's just trying to throw away his vote anyway, might as well vote for Charlie Kerfeld or Joe Charboneau or whoever.

9. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 09, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4032261)

I could be wrong.

Yup, he is wrong.

10. Randy Jones

Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4032267)

If Mattingly deserves to get in becase he was the 'best player in the game' for a short period

He's in the conversation, but Wade Boggs and Cal Ripken have a better claim IMO for that time period. Trammell has at least as good a case. That's just the AL.

Rickey > Mattingly, Boggs, or ######## Cal

11. phredbird

Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4032270)

I also have a major problem with these guys being allowed in, but Pete Rose not being allowed in.

aaargh.

12. JJ1986 Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4032274)

He's not trying to justify voting for Mattingly on any merits. He's voting for Don because he's reasonably certain that few other people will. He's probably afraid to turn in a blank ballot because he's not sure it will be counted.

He could vote for Vinny Castilla then to make his point more clear. There are plenty of people who think Mattingly is deserving.

13. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4032280)

So that’s how I voted. Thought you might be interested. I could be wrong.

wrong about how you voted? or wrong about us being interested?
(or all of thee above)

14. Zonk Can Sell Culture Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4032281)

The plaintiff rests in the case of Everyone Else vs. Murray Chass' High Priests of the BBWAA.

I hate to paint with such a wide brush, because there are BBWAA members who put plenty of thought, time, and careful consideration into their ballots, but clearly here, it's not a matter of the fact this guy came up with what would be objectively the wrong answer.... it's that this dumbass clearly doesn't care enough to do more than come up with column fodder with his ballot.

15. Sean Forman Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:26 PM (#4032297)

I suspect there will be more than a handful of blank ballots returned next year.

16. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4032314)

Sean

If so then those voters are simply being difficult, stupid, or both.

Because there are candidates on the ballot beyond reproach.

17. SoSH U at work Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4032324)

I wish the BBWAA (or the Hall, though self-policing would be better) would convey to guys like this that they really shouldn't be voting on the award just because. If they're not really interested in following the sport in any meaningful way, then they ought to pass on voting for the time being.

18. Rally Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4032325)

There are plenty of people who think Mattingly is deserving.

Yeah, but plenty is only 10% of the voters so far. Mattingly's chance of going in on the 2011 is zero, for all intents and purposes. Same as Castilla. If I thought like this guy did I'd vote for only Tim Salmon.

19. Stevens Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4032331)

"If Mattingly deserves to get in becase he was the 'best player in the game' for a short period, I think Gooden gets in for being the best pitcher from 1984-1985. He was sooo good for those two years! And if not for Clemens in 1986, maybe the best for three years."

Right! Plus Hard Hittin' Mark Whitten was the best player in baseball for one day. Same for Mike Cameron. Oooh, and Shawn Green!

But seriously, it's sad to see a real HOF vote so ill considered.

20. Rally Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4032334)

Right! Plus Hard Hittin' Mark Whitten was the best player in baseball for one day. Same for Mike Cameron. Oooh, and Shawn Green!

Too bad that day wasn't game 7 of the world series. Or else they'd have as good a case as Jack Morris.

21. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4032343)

Kevin Elster was the best player in baseball for an entire week. And that was WELL past his prime.

22. Fanshawe Posted: January 09, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4032350)

On April 13, 2002, for one inning, Jason Isringhausen was as good as a pitcher can be. Where I come from, that's a little thing called "perfection," and it's earned him a voucher good for "one hall of fame vote." That voucher will be valid beginning five years after he retires. And it has no expiration date. Just like Jason.

23. Howie Menckel Posted: January 09, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4032388)

Rick has decades of NHL experience.

Baseball, he mainly has filled in at times on Mets and Yankees games in the summer between Rangers seasons, iirc.

24. I Am Not a Number Posted: January 09, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4032477)

Rick has decades of NHL experience.

I wonder if he has ever speculated on the potential steroid use by the much bigger athletes that are professional hockey players. I'm just hoping he's consistent with his sanctimony.

25. Brian

Posted: January 09, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4032700)

Murphy had 3 great (better than Mattingly's best), 3 other excellent (about equal to Don's peak

I am not completely sold on boiling down all baseball value to WAR. It's just not that cut and dried. Without completely hanging it on WAR it is an argument if Murphy ever had a year that was better than Mattingly's best?

26. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: January 09, 2012 at 08:40 PM (#4032712)

I am not completely sold on boiling down all baseball value to WAR. It's just not that cut and dried. Without completely hanging it on WAR it is an argument if Murphy ever had a year that was better than Mattingly's best?

Well, let's see. 1983 Murphy. GG CF with 149 OPS+, 30/34 SB. Leads the league in games, RBI, SLP, OPS. Mattingly 1986 GG 1B with 161 OPS+ 0/0 SB, leads the league in PA, H, 2B, SLP, OPS, OPS+, TB. I'll take the CF, as offensive prowess is much more rare at that position. As an offensive player, Murph is just a hair behind Mattingly. For defensive value, he's comfortably ahead.

27. Brian

Posted: January 09, 2012 at 10:21 PM (#4032789)

Having seen the goofy choices for GG over the years and having watched a lot of both of these guys at the time I'm not ready to call Murphy the better defender, even with the position edge. He wasn't an obvious GG defender to watch as was Mattingly. One also has to wonder why the Braves gave him 30 starts in LF/RF and put Butler in CF. Because Murphy was the best CF in the NL? I don't think so. Not enough to account for the offensive difference to me. While this is arguable, Murphy certainly didn't have 3 seasons better that Mattingly's 1986.

28. Bob Evans Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:03 AM (#4032860)

Rickey > Mattingly, Boggs, or ######## Cal

Career, sure. For Mattingly's golden four-year period, NFW.

29. Howie Menckel Posted: January 10, 2012 at 12:18 AM (#4032870)

Yes, on the narrow "who has the better 'best' season," Mattingly has a pretty even case.

No one ever had Keith Hernandez's preposterous killer instinct on bunt forceouts, but Mattingly dazzled in many areas of 1B defense. Of course an equally adept CF for his position is far more valuable, but that's a fun overall debate there.

I'd rate Murphy's career ahead of Mattingly's, though. Neither is a Hall of Famer, though both were fun to watch in too-short peaks/primes.

30. Ron J Posted: January 10, 2012 at 08:48 AM (#4032990)

#24 For the longest time the NHL's position was that hockey players don't do steroids because well they're mostly small town Canadian boys.

More seriously they pointed out that the NHL players were tested at various events (IIHF or the Olympics) and that only two players have ever failed a test. And one of those was for enhancing hair growth (propecia).

The other positive test was by a one-eyed American. No idea if the significan part of the positive result is that he was an American or that he'd lost an eye, but it didn't invalidate the NHL's position on steroids in either case.

31. zack Posted: January 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM (#4033060)

In fairness to Carp, the Hockey Hall of Fame is basically a joke, so maybe he thought the baseball hall is too.

#30: the NHL definitely has a close your eyes and pray nobody does something stupid policy on steroids. There are almost certainly players who are using, I wonder if fan reaction would be NFL or MLB-like if it came out that it was widespread.

32. Randy Jones

Posted: January 10, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4033158)

Rickey > Mattingly, Boggs, or ######## Cal

Career, sure. For Mattingly's golden four-year period, NFW.

I assume you mean 84-87, in which case, yes Rickey was clearly better during that time.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Monday, January 09, 2012

The Singular Rick Carpinello HOF Ballot

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics