Dawson the only Hall electee

[norva13x]

Okay, who was the idiot who voted for David Segui!?
I mean, really..?

[Jason Moyer]

You know, I almost wonder if the writers picked the wrong guy by accident. Maybe they though they were voting for the best outfielder on the 80's Expos instead of the second best?

Best outfielder on the Expos:

1982 - Dawson
1983 - Raines
1984 - Raines
1985 - Raines
1986 - Raines

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by norva13x

Okay, who was the idiot who voted for David Segui!?
I mean, really..?

The same guy that voted Miguel Cabrera for AL MVP this year?

[TribeFanInNC]

Baseball writers are idiots. Didn't they read our forum poll? We managed to get it right at least.

[LivnLegend]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I am biased and I don't care. Life long Tiger fan. That being said he pitched his most memorable game for your Twins. That game against Smoltz was incredible. I just loved to watch the guy pitch.

I can't blame a guy for that but outside of being a diehard Tigers fan, I can't see compelling reasons for the support Jack Morris gets. I just can't look at Morris' body of work and say he's a Hall of Fame player. If you examine some of the star pitchers from his era, outside of his post-season wins, Morris' stats are pretty comparable to guys like Dennis Martinez, Dave Steib, Jim Kaat. El Presidente had more innings pitched, less walks, more shutouts, a lower ERA, a perfect game (against the Dodgers ), comparable win and strikeout totals to Morris yet he was one and done on the HoF ballot.

I know people really get hung up on the arbitrary "most wins in the 80s" stat but Morris' 3.90 ERA is just too high.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by EMSoccerCoach

How Dawson gets in and Larkin and Alomar don't, not to mention Blyleven, blows my mind.

I think you are not familiar with the process. Dawson only get 45.3% of the vote first time on the ballot. Larkin and Alomar are getting much more respect than Dawson from the voters.

[David Watts]

Like I say, I am biased. Do you think Curt Schilling belongs in the Hall?

[Skipaway]

Ryne Sandberg is somewhat similar to Alomar, and he only got voted in on the third ballot. Alomar will get in on the second try. I think the voters are more or less consistent.

[LivnLegend]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Like I say, I am biased. Do you think Curt Schilling belongs in the Hall?

I get that. I grew up the biggest Steve Garvey fan in LA. Well, me and about three million other fans who used to think Garv was the best first baseman of his generation. Just because I grew up and learned otherwise doesn't mean I wouldn't have been disappointed if he had been voted in

I'm not sure if you mean to compare Schilling to Morris or not. A couple of things Curt has a huge edge against Morris are ERA+ and strikeout to walk ratio (neither are even close). Voters who judge his stats to be borderline HoF will probably be swayed by 11 postseason wins, 3 rings, and a bloody sock. It might take several years for momentum to build and it will be interesting to see if Schilling's outspoken rep will help or hurt.

[EMSoccerCoach]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

I think you are not familiar with the process. Dawson only get 45.3% of the vote first time on the ballot. Larkin and Alomar are getting much more respect than Dawson from the voters.

Nah, I'm familiar with the process, flawed as it is. I realize being contrarian can be fun for some people, but that Dawson was voted in and those guys weren't is absurd.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by EMSoccerCoach

Nah, I'm familiar with the process, flawed as it is. I realize being contrarian can be fun for some people, but that Dawson was voted in and those guys weren't is absurd.

But those guys obvious will be voted in, and through a faster process than Dawson.

In no way the process is showing the voters consider Dawson better than Alomar or Larkin. It's the opposite.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

But those guys obvious will be voted in, and through a faster process than Dawson.

In no way the process is showing the voters consider Dawson better than Alomar or Larkin. It's the opposite.

It is stupid no matter what the voters reasoning is that they put Dawson in over Larkin or Alomar.

What is the purpose of making them wait a year? You would think with all of the new innovations in baseball stats that the voters would get smarter.

It might end up costing Bert the HOF because the nominations are getting stronger in the near future and now they still have to get Larkin and Alomar in because apparently they cant make it on the 1st vote.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

It is stupid no matter what the voters reasoning is that they put Dawson in over Larkin or Alomar.

What is the purpose of making them wait a year? You would think with all of the new innovations in baseball stats that the voters would get smarter.

It might end up costing Bert the HOF because the nominations are getting stronger in the near future and now they still have to get Larkin and Alomar in because apparently they cant make it on the 1st vote.

The purpose of making them wait is pretty simple. That's the only way for the voters to kind of express how one Hall of Famer is better than another. Since precedents were set, it just kind of became a routine.

It has nothing to do with innovation in baseball stats. It also doesn't look like Blyleven's Hall of Fame chance is hurt because of that at all. By all means, it looks like his induction is all but guaranteed.

Next year it will be Blyleven and Alomar.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

The purpose of making them wait is pretty simple. That's the only way for the voters to kind of express how one Hall of Famer is better than another. Since precedents were set, it just kind of became a routine.

It has nothing to do with innovation in baseball stats. It also doesn't look like Blyleven's Hall of Fame chance is hurt because of that at all. By all means, it looks like his induction is all but guaranteed.

Next year it will be Blyleven and Alomar.

Well that sounds about right that they think they are important enough to get to decide when someone gets in. It just bothers me that they can mess around like this and have their own agenda.

What happens if too many people decide "well I will keep Alomar off because I dont want him in until year 4" and he doesnt even get enough votes to stay on the ballot the next year? Its seems pretty silly to me to take that chance simply because some of them dont feel Alomar is first ballot worthy.

It should be simple enough but most of them have limited brain capacity so I can understand how it could be difficult for them. Vote for who deserves to be in the HOF among these candidates should be easy enough instructions.

Most fans dont care if a player got in on the 1st or 10th ballot. As far as I know they just want the right players in. Does anyone really remember if Kirby Puckett or Willie Stargell made it on the first ballot or not?

[kq76]

Maybe they should make it that players are on the ballot for one year and one year only. He's either a HoFer or he's not. Enough of this silly, well, so and so was a 1st ballot guy and this other guy was a 3rd ballot guy so obviously the former was better than the latter. That's a load of horsedung.

I just don't like that they make these guys through this, "will I get in or won't I?" every year. Take the vote and then move on. After that the only way you can get in is after you're dead. Maybe many players would feel differently, but if I were Bert, for example, I'd just tell them to screw off.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Well that sounds about right that they think they are important enough to get to decide when someone gets in. It just bothers me that they can mess around like this and have their own agenda.

What happens if too many people decide "well I will keep Alomar off because I dont want him in until year 4" and he doesnt even get enough votes to stay on the ballot the next year? Its seems pretty silly to me to take that chance simply because some of them dont feel Alomar is first ballot worthy.

It should be simple enough but most of them have limited brain capacity so I can understand how it could be difficult for them. Vote for who deserves to be in the HOF among these candidates should be easy enough instructions.

Most fans dont care if a player got in on the 1st or 10th ballot. As far as I know they just want the right players in. Does anyone really remember if Kirby Puckett or Willie Stargell made it on the first ballot or not?

But that's why eligibility lasts so long. There really isn't a chance for Alomar not to get in, since people who took the chance not to vote for him this year would still have a lot of years to vote for him.

And if fans don't really care if a player get in on which ballot, then why are people complaining about Alomar not getting in this year? Unless a person doesn't understand the process at all, it's very easy to see how Alomar is guaranteed a place in the Hall after you see this voting result.

People do care, and so do voters.

[Skipaway]

More importantly, we all know there are tons of writers who would put their votes in their columns and talk about it for weeks. So basically writers can easily peek at each other's votes.

That makes it easy for a voter to play the game of witholding votes without taking a chance of seeing a player falling off the ballot.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

And if fans don't really care if a player get in on which ballot, then why are people complaining about Alomar not getting in this year? Unless a person doesn't understand the process at all, it's very easy to see how Alomar is guaranteed a place in the Hall after you see this voting result.

People do care, and so do voters.

People are complaining because he's not in right now. If in 5 years he gets in you wont hear people complaining about why hes not in anymore. Thats just the way it is.

Like I said people just want the right players in. They dont want to Alomar and Larkin get passed over for a less deserving player that was previously a pawn in the voters games. Right now Alomar and Larkin are not in so obviously some fans are not happy.

At times I wonder if that fans couldnt handle this process better than the voters do.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

You know, I almost wonder if the writers picked the wrong guy by accident. Maybe they though they were voting for the best outfielder on the 80's Expos instead of the second best?

Best outfielder on the Expos:

1982 - Dawson
1983 - Raines
1984 - Raines
1985 - Raines
1986 - Raines

Thank you, that's why I came here.

[Splitter24]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

You know, I almost wonder if the writers picked the wrong guy by accident. Maybe they though they were voting for the best outfielder on the 80's Expos instead of the second best?

Best outfielder on the Expos:

1982 - Dawson
1983 - Raines
1984 - Raines
1985 - Raines
1986 - Raines

Actually...

1981 - Dawson
1982 - Dawson
1983 - Dawson
1984 - Raines
1985 - Raines
1986 - Raines

You left off 1981, and I don't agree with 1983.