Gwynn, Ripken win on Hall of Fame ballot
McGwire gets a shockingly low 128 votes, 23.5 of the total, probably assisted in no small part by the “people won’t vote for McGwire” publicity drive. I’ll link to some McGwire is and isn’t a Hall of Famer pieces I read the last couple of weeks. We had a good discussion around here last time this came up (which, essentially, was dw asking me if I’d gone mad over and over), back when I was most sympathetic to the “maybe he isn’t even without considering the steroids allegations” and the more arguments I’ve read, I came back around to “he is unless you leave him off because you believe he was on steroids and you believe that’s a valid reason not to vote for someone” side.
Bert Blyleven took a step back this time, dropping from 53.3% of ballots (277/520) to 47.7% (260/277)
Jay Buhner gets one vote.
Comments
73 Responses to “Gwynn, Ripken win on Hall of Fame ballot”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
USSM uses and recommends
Looking at that list…one vote is probably about right.
But Buhner gets the quote of the day, discussing former Mariner teammates’ chances:
“And, of course, A-Rod. For him, the biggest decision will be who will let him wear their uniform.”
If Witt had received a vote, now that would have been a travesty.
I would have voted for at least 6 guys on this ballot. Ripken, Gwynn, Gossage, Blyleven, McGwire, and Albert Belle.
How does an idiot like Paul Ledowski even get a ballot?
I think that perhaps the most interesting guy on the ballot is Andre Dawson. His JAWS score puts him slighly below average for the Hall, but that’s based on FRAA, which puts him as an average fielder for his career, and we all know that if you bring FRAA anywhere near Dave, he might chew his arm off or something.
I can’t say I’ve ever seen Dawson field, but his reputation certainly is that of a fielder who was better than average. Of course, Torii Hunter’s reputation has netted him probably two more Gold Gloves than he deserves, so it’s also tough to go much with reputation.
To me, it looks like Dawson is probably a legit Hall of Famer, but he’s tougher to analyze because you have to really look at his value as a fielder to push him above or below where his hitting takes him.
How does an idiot like Paul Ledowski even get a ballot?
Yeah, his argument for leaving his ballot blank was completely lame. All eight voters that didn’t vote for Ripken should be relieved of their duties. There’s no legitimate argument against him.
You guys didn’t know I had a HOF vote, did ya?
[snerk]
I wonder who did give him the vote…. Jim Street?
I assume that Gossage gets in next year. But probably not wearing an M’s cap.
I feel bad for Goose Gossage, who was as dominating a reliever as there has been. Perhaps his upward trend in votes means he’ll be elected before he dies.
I don’t know if I’d call McGwire’s 23.5% “shockingly low”.
In a survey of 101 voters done by ESPN last week 26.1% said they’d vote for McGwire this year. That fits pretty close.
Also, of the ESPN “experts”, 33% said they’d vote for him. Seems pretty clear he had no shot this year. No real surprises.
It’s not shockingly low in light of the survey. It’s shockingly low in light of his career. If his career was entirely controversy free, I think he’d have at least gotten 60%
True.
#5 I agree that the most interesting guy on the ballot was Dawson. I watched him play many times and before his kness went south he could really play C/F. Even at the end he wasn’t bad. I wonder if all those years on bad teams isn’t hurting him a little bit.
DMZ, Maybe Big Mac received a low vote total because he cried at the hearing and as we all know, THERE IS NO CRYING IN BASEBALL!!!!! (Sarcasm)
Dawson’s “comps” from baseball reference. An asterik represents a HoFer. Kind of a mixed bag. (And yeah, I know there’s more to it than this.)
Billy Williams (892) *
Tony Perez (886) *
Dave Parker (865)
Al Kaline (859) *
Harold Baines (851)
Dwight Evans (834)
Ernie Banks (829) *
Dave Winfield (827) *
Vada Pinson (810)
Fred McGriff (797)
If his career was entirely controversy free, I think he’d have at least gotten 60%
I don’t know if this is just residual sentiment from your dalliance with the maybe-he-isn’t line of thinking, but that’s a pretty weak statement of the case. If McGwire’s career was controversy-free, he’d be in on the first ballot, no question.
Consider that relatively uninspiring (by Hall of Fame standards, whatever those are) cases like Kirby Puckett, Eddie Murray, and Reggie Jackson have all gotten in on the first ballot. I don’t see any non-steroid-related reason McGwire would have come out any differently.
Did Blyleven micturate in the crab bisque at an annual BBWAA conference or what?
Edgar Martinez: HOF material or no?
So… will McGwire be voted in next year? Heh.
What I mean by that is, well, with all the speculation and annoying media coverage that’s gone on, I’m not sure I would vote McGwire in on the first time. Does he belong in the hall of fame? Sure.
That and voting him in would bring on Media Field Day Part II, which I’m not sure is necessary, in the best interests of baseball, or whatever else. It may be just as well to give Gwynn and Ripken their day in the sun first and give McGwire the knowledge that his day’s coming too, but that unfortunate circumstances have caused him to sit in purgatory for a while.
Did Blyleven micturate in the crab bisque at an annual BBWAA conference or what?
No, Blyleven just took a step back because voters focused on Ripken and Gwynn at the top as the obvious candidates. Basically everybody else on the ballot fell, at least in percentage terms.
The only exceptions were Gossage, who clearly benefits from everyone’s inability to say what would make him not a Hall of Famer now that Sutter is, and lower down Concepcion, who presumably picked up a few votes now that somebody’s actively campaigning for him. Gossage next year is a pretty easy prediction.
Kind of a mixed bag.
I dunno, rearrange it by WARP3 and it looks like this:
133.1 — Al Kaline*
131.6 — Dave Winfield*
127.4 — Ernie Banks*
119.1 — Dwight Evans
117.0 — Billy Williams*
109.5 — Tony Perez*
109.5 — Andre Dawson
104.6 — Fred McGriff
102.4 — Harold Baines
88.6 — Vada Pinson
86.3 — Dave Parker
If anything, that list of comps is probably a bit generous. WARP isn’t the only tool to pass judgement with, but it makes it pretty clear that in terms of career value, Kaline, Winfield, Banks, Pinson, and Parker don’t really belong in a discussion about Dawson.
The list also makes it look like Dawson is borderline. Of course, if he deserves extra credit for his fielding, then that pushes him into the group that is in the Hall. I guess that’s why I think he’s interesting, because he’s on the border and the discussion revolves more around performance evaluation than how he medicated himself.
(Also, I totally missed Dwight Evans getting passed over. Did everyone play the “not flashy enough” card on him? Off hand, he seems to be a lot more deserving than, say, Jim Rice.)
Did Blyleven micturate in the crab bisque at an annual BBWAA conference or what?
From what I understand, Bert wasn’t the nicest guy as a player. I’m sure that plays a role in how the writers vote on him. And even if he was a nice guy, all it takes is an unwillingness to give lots of fun quotes to the media to turn them against you.
Evans/Rice is basically a longevity/peak-value debate. Reordering the list based on a career value metric shows your predilection there, I suppose, so it’s not surprising you’d come out that way when comparing those two particular players.
19…in my mind, no. I’m not convinced by the argument that Edgar was the best at his position (DH), therefore, he belongs in the HOF. He may have been the best DH, but his numbers are weak in many areas, compared to both the men inducted and some of those (Andre Dawson, for one) who haven’t been.
Evans/Rice is basically a longevity/peak-value debate. Reordering the list based on a career value metric shows your predilection there, I suppose, so it’s not surprising you’d come out that way when comparing those two particular players.
But look at Evans/Rice in their 5 best seasons:
Evans/Rice
11.9/10.4
10.6/9.4
9.3/9.1
9.3/8.2
7.8/7.4
So if we look at their 5 best seasons in any order, Evans is up on Rice by about 4-5 wins. If you want to look at five best consecutive seasons, that’s pretty easily ‘81-’85 for Evans, who was worth 45 wins over that period. For Rice, it’s a toss-up between ‘77-’81 (37.2 WARP) and ‘81-’86 (37.6). Either way, Evans looks like the player with a stronger peak, and it’s not especially close.
(Also, I generally prefer JAWS, which gives a bonus to players based on their peak, but JAWS isn’t readily available for all the players on that list. Peak matters, I just don’t think it helps Rice here.)
All eight voters that didn’t vote for Ripken should be relieved of their duties. There’s no legitimate argument against him.I think there’s a legit arguement against him being a first ballot guy. If voters feel a need to differentiate between first balloters and others, I could see not voting for Ripken.
He’s a HOF’er for sure, but clearly overrated by the general public.
For fun, here’s Edgar’s “comps”. (Currently) one HoFer. O’Neill just got 12 votes and dropped off the ballot.
Will Clark (902)
John Olerud (886)
Bernie Williams (859)
Bob Johnson (857)
Ellis Burks (856)
Moises Alou (854)
Paul O’Neill (851)
Luis Gonzalez (845)
Orlando Cepeda (839) *
Larry Walker (837)
Early in his career, the Hawk was an excellent fielder. But his knees didn’t survive the rock-hard turf of Olympic Stadium, and he became a very sub-par fielder later on.
I can see how that adds up to a FRAA near zero.
God damnit, how is Jim Rice slipping? The most feared hitter of his generation and he can’t get in. Curse these modern power hitters.
He’s a HOF’er for sure, but clearly overrated by the general public.
Ripken’s best seasons by WARP: 17.0(!), 15.0, 13.9, 12.5, 10.9. That’s a huge peak value. Babe Ruth’s 1923 season is the only season I can find that’s better than Ripken’s 17-win ‘91 campaign. Not even Bonds’ 2001 was more valuable than Ripken’s ‘91. For his career value, Ripken was worth something like 170 wins, which probably puts him in the top 5% or 10% of guys who are already in the Hall. Ripken’s JAWS makes him the 2nd-most deserving Hall of Fame SS amongst all eligible SS.
Additionally, Ripken was a true star that everyone in the country knew and many liked. As a tall SS, he was a pioneer at his position, paving the way for guys like Alex Rodriguez. He had a large peak value and had a really long career. He was recognized during his career as a great player with two MVPs, multiple All-Star selections, and two Gold Gloves. He also holds a prominent record in baseball history. If Ripken doesn’t deserve to go in on the first ballot, you might as well not have a first ballot.
Kind of a mixed bag.
I dunno, rearrange it by WARP3 and it looks like this:
133.1 — Al Kaline*
131.6 — Dave Winfield*
127.4 — Ernie Banks*
119.1 — Dwight Evans
117.0 — Billy Williams*
109.5 — Tony Perez*
109.5 — Andre Dawson
104.6 — Fred McGriff
102.4 — Harold Baines
88.6 — Vada Pinson
86.3 — Dave Parker
The problem is that bb-ref’s comps aren’t adjust for era or park, and when you get below 900 you’re talking about players who aren’t very comparable, but are the closest you can get. Looking at Dawson’s comp list, you have two HoF outfielders who spent their best years in a much more pitching friendly era, another HoFer who spent his best years at shortstop in the same era, and another HoF outfielder who’s comp score was relatively low (and packed more in a slightly longer career). I like the Tony Perez comp, but even he was a borderline HoFer who took several years to get in with the benefit of playing for a better teams (personally, I’d vote for neither Dawson nor Perez),
think there’s a legit arguement against him being a first ballot guy. If voters feel a need to differentiate between first balloters and others, I could see not voting for Ripken.
Ripken is probably one of the top 5 shortstops in baseball history. Only Honus Wagner, Arky Vaughan, and possibly Alex Rodriguez (when his career is finished) and Negro Leaguer Pops Lloyd have an argument to better. Ripken may have been mediocre after ‘91 and overrated due to the streak (and a lack of knowledge of baseball history), but to limit 1st ballot HoFers to the top 5 at each position seems silly to me.
Early in his career, the Hawk was an excellent fielder. But his knees didn’t survive the rock-hard turf of Olympic Stadium, and he became a very sub-par fielder later on.
I can see how that adds up to a FRAA near zero.
That certainly seems reasonable, but that’s not really the way it worked out if you look at his FRAA year by year. There were really only four years he got credit for being much above average (’80-’82, and ‘92(?)), and there’s not really any pattern for the years he was credited as being much below average (’79, ‘83, ‘90, ‘95).
It could be one of those cases where it winds up reaching the right conclusion in the end despite the fact that all of the details are pretty wrong.
Jay’s line was: “I’ll get a courtesy vote, like a courtesy golf clap”
Consider that relatively uninspiring (by Hall of Fame standards, whatever those are) cases like Kirby Puckett, Eddie Murray, and Reggie Jackson have all gotten in on the first ballot. I don’t see any non-steroid-related reason McGwire would have come out any differently.
I can understand calling Puckett’s case uninspiring, but Reggie Jackson and Eddie Murray?
Can we drop all this “first ballot” HOFer garbage, yet? If that reasoning were valid, then all voters should follow it. Of course, that means 95% (or more) of all worthy Hall candidates would be out on the first vote under the 5% rule, but who the hell cares when I can be the member of the BBWAA who can say, I’m the one who didn’t vote for Nolan Ryan, and thus upheld the virtue of the institution and avoided sullying the heroes of our vaunted past who didn’t get all the votes, or some such other garbage. If a player is worthy, he should be voted in. The only reason vote totals should change is new voters coming in and old voters realizing they missed the boat with Blyleven and the like.
The comps are significant as far as this goes: There’s a reason that all of Willie Mays’ eligible comps are in the HoF, but none of Ron Cey’s are. If 2 or fewer of your 10 comps are in the HoF it’s a good bet you don’t belong there either. And it goes the other way too.
Also, like Bill James said: Uniqueness is an indicator of quality.
When Roger Clemens is eligible in 2022, will he be the first person to be voted in with 100% of the ballot?
Is there any good reason Ricky Henderson shouldn’t get 100% of the vote in 2009 (barring another comeback)?
Clemens won’t get 100% because I think there’s more than a few people who think he may have had some “assistance.” (Though this is getting very close to off-limits subjects. I’m not commenting either way.)
No – for the same reason that Ripken failed to get it: some writers feel that they can’t vote for anyone who played in the steroid era. Along the same lines, even though he has never tested positive for anything, I’d be shocked if there wasn’t a single writer out there who had some suspicions.
Clemens won’t get 100% because I think there’s more than a few people who think he may have had some “assistance.”
Even disregarding that, I could see some Boston scribe feeling slighted (the way that, say, Bill Simmons does) about the way that Clemens left Boston, and thus leaving Clemens off on the first ballot. I’m sure there are probably other meaningless excuses that writers could come up with.
The comps are significant as far as this goes: There’s a reason that all of Willie Mays’ eligible comps are in the HoF, but none of Ron Cey’s are. If 2 or fewer of your 10 comps are in the HoF it’s a good bet you don’t belong there either. And it goes the other way too.
As long as the players you pick are actually comparable, then sure. But the way that Baseball Reference comes up with comparable players is not very good for historical comparison since it doesn’t look at era or park adjustments. Just looking at Dawson’s list it’s pretty easy to see that some of those guys actually resemble Andre Dawson, but others are pretty far off.
Feeling like you can not vote b/c of the steroid era is a cop out. There will always be an excuse, and who knows what that will be in the next 5-10 years…maybe by then it will come back to the juiced ball era, or the new and improved bat that balls rocket off era.
Take the facts as they are presented to you and vote. If you can’t do that then give up your vote. The steroid era is not over, so writers using that excuse will have many mnay years left to use it.
I never saw Blyleven pitch. I just read about him and look at his numbers and can’t for the life of me see how he’s not a in the hall of fame. What’s the argument against him?
He was never quite spectacular enough? He only amassed all those numbers becuase of longevity, but was never the best pitcher on any team he played for? That sort of thing?
I mean, why not? Plus he recently swore out loud on television. That has to count for something.
If only I could type and spell….
If Andre Dawson isn’t in the HOF by 2010 I will never
ever
watch another baseball game.
Why would you choose not to watch another baseball game just because a bunch of writers disagree with you about the merit of Andre Dawson?
Two reasons. First, Blyleven played primarily on lousy teams, so despite being a brilliant pitcher, he didn’t rack up many wins. In this respect, he’s the exact opposite of Jack Morris, a durable pitcher who played on great teams so he managed a whole bunch of wins he didn’t really warrant.
Also, Blyleven wasn’t very nice. People didn’t like him, he was widely viewed as a guy who padded his strikeout totals instead of winning games (something over which, of course, he had very little control).
McGwire got just about what I expected. He’s not really HOF material.
But … check this out:
What I don’t get is this, why do these writers say that McGwire is not Hall worthy because of the “steroids era” and not vote for the guys of the 80s? If you think Mac and all these others cheated, shouldn’t the accomplishments of Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, and (forgive me I am biased because he was my hero as a kid) Dale Murphy be rewarded?
I am not saying they are right to not vote in “steroids era” guys, but they can’t have it both ways.
#39, Rickey won’t get 100% because some consider him arrogant, or they just never liked him.
55 – you’re right Rickey won’t get 100%, but I never knew likeability (or charisma) was a qualification for the HOF.
I didn’t imply that was best or correct, it’s just the way it is.
I’ve generally reacted to arguments for BBWAA screening or qualification testing with a roll of the eyes, but if any of them doesn’t vote for Rickey Henderson when presented with the choice they should undergo immediate pyschiatric evaluation and have their vote given to someone with some measurable brain activity.
I can’t wait to hear the rationale from the writers who don’t vote for Henderson as soon as he’s eligible. That will be even more entertaining than the spin from this year’s blank balloteers.
48
Because.
It would make more sense never to read another baseball article because the writers (as a group) didn’t vote for your favorite player.
This would, of course, not apply to the Cheater’s Guide to Baseball because Derek is not a HOF voter.
Jay is to be on KOMO’s Hot Stove show tonight, after apparently spending the day snow boarding with his kids
No – for the same reason that Ripken failed to get it: some writers feel that they can’t vote for anyone who played in the steroid era. Along the same lines, even though he has never tested positive for anything, I’d be shocked if there wasn’t a single writer out there who had some suspicions.
I recall Ripken stopped playing before there was steroid testing, as did Gwynn.
Ah, but steroids entered baseball in the late 1980s. So the “steroid era” is loosely (and badly) ~1990-~2004
“Also, Blyleven wasn’t very nice. People didn’t like him, he was widely viewed as a guy who padded his strikeout totals instead of winning games (something over which, of course, he had very little control).”
Where on earth does this come from? He is and has been one of the funniest guys in baseball for years. Jack Morris used to routinely hit people and knock them down. Explain how you pad your strikeout totals and not win games?
Reggie Jackson not worthy of a first ballot vote was mentioned too. Does anyone know about baseball in the 70s and 80s?
I’m glad Buhner was on the ballot and got one vote. It’s appropriate. To my mind, if a guy spends pretty much his whole career with one team and does as well as Buhner – 170 home runs in a five year period with good OBP at his peak, but clearly not a HOFer – his home-town HOF voters should probably get together and agree that one of them will give the guy a vote. Kind of a last trophy.
McGuire should be in the HOF. If steriods was the primary issue for voters, he certainly couldn’t have been the only person using them (if he did). The pitcher throwing 5 MPH faster? The outfielder running faster to the fly ball? The coach throwing the base farther (kidding!)
Just put him in the hall.
That’s kind of my point. It’s a baseless claim, but apparently it was made (when he was in Texas, I think).
Indeed, and at least one voter turned in a blank ballot due to what I had posted above – they feel that they can’t vote for anyone who played in the ’steroid era’. I’m not sure where you’re disagreeing with me. Someone asked if Clemens would get 100%, I said no for the same reasons that Ripken and Gwynn failed to do so.
Does anyone know if ANY of these few moron voters who didn’t vote for Cal or Tony on this 1st ballot get called on it?
I mean does anyone EVER get any answers as to specifically who didn’t and why they wouldn’t vote for them this time?
Fwiw, Gossage not being in just doesn’t seem to make sense. He was feared beyond belief, in the WS on two different franchises as the closer (so it wasn’t like he wasn’t a winner) and certainly played long enough.
I don’t see how Sutter gets in and Gossage doesn’t. Help me out here.
Kevin Hench takes on Paul Ladowski, who turned in the blank ballot….
#71– FWIW, Paul White was saying last night that he thinks Gossage goes in next year, when it is a really thin ballot (David Justice & Tim Raines, anyone?)
Jerry Crasnick on Edgar’s chances in 2010:
“Martinez, universally admired as a hitter, has a combined career on base-slugging percentage of .933. That’s better than Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson, among others. Unfortunately, it also puts him in a dead heat with Albert Belle, who dropped off the ballot this year for failing to receive the requisite 5 percent of the vote.
Martinez, of course, is burdened by the perception that a pure DH must go above and beyond statistically to make it to Cooperstown. While his “rate” stats (e.g., a .418 on-base percentage) are terrific, his “counting” stats (2,247 hits and 309 homers) aren’t exactly overwhelming for a one-dimensional player. And Harold Baines’ meager 5.3 percent haul this year certainly didn’t help his cause.”
and Jim Caple on McGwire & the voting…