SB Nation Hall of Fame Ballot Results

by Jim McLennan on Jan 4, 2010 11:42 PM EST in Randomness Comment 21 comments

With the Hall of Fame ballot results due to be announced on Wednesday, here are the results of the first SB Nation Hall of Fame balloting. In this, we took the same players eligible for Cooperstown, and up to two voters from each blog - in our case, that was myself and 'Charmer - were able to submit a ballot, following the same rules as the "regular" ballot. After the jump, you'll find the results: if this is any indication of what to expect from the "real' ballot, it's going to be quite a short induction at Cooperstown this summer, since only one player reached the necessary 75% of votes to qualify. Though another one fell just a single vote short... Click the 'Continue reading this post' link to find the names concerned, and also details of who was on my ballot.

Player	% Vote	Total Votes
Bert Blyleven	92.3%	48
Roberto Alomar	73.1%	38
Barry Larkin	63.5%	33
Tim Raines	53.8%	28
Mark McGwire	51.9%	27
Edgar Martinez	48.1%	25
Alan Trammell	40.4%	21
Andre Dawson	32.7%	17
Lee Smith	26.9%	14
Fred McGriff	25.0%	13
Dale Murphy	17.3%	9
Jack Morris	13.5%	7
Don Mattingly	11.5%	6
Harold Baines	7.7%	4
Dave Parker	3.8%	2
Kevin Appier	3.8%	2
Ellis Burks	1.9%	1
Ray Lankford	1.9%	1
Shane Reynolds	1.9%	1
Not receiving votes: Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, David Segui, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile

My ballot was short, with only Blyleven and Alomar listed. The former was an almost universal choice, and one wonders if this augurs well from him, in his lucky thirteenth year on the official ballot? He reached 62.7% approval in the 2009 balloting, his best-ever number, and it's been a long climb for Bert from the 17.5% he received in his debut year. Always strikes me as kinda weird the way that works: you're either a Hall of Fame player or you're not, but it seems that almost half the entire electorate have changed their minds on this since 1998. I think it would just be cool to have someone born in the Netherlands get inducted.

Alomar should also get in, by most objective standards. According to baseball-reference.com, he scores as follows:
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 194 (46), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 57 (43), Average HOFer ≈ 50
12 All-Star Appearances, 10 Gold Gloves, five times in the top six of MVP voting. While his career OPS+ of 116 is not stellar, it was dragged down significantly by his last three seasons. In the decade 1992-2001 he was arguably the best at his position, hitting .315 with an OPS+ of 127, excellent numbers for a second-baseman.

Looks like 'charmer's ballot was a good bit longer than mine, but I'll let her provide an explanation for that.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Who knew Shane Reynolds’ mom had a vote.

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Jan 5, 2010 12:06 AM EST reply actions

I don’t envy those who have to vote. I think it’s a very difficult task. I think you were safe with your votes. I’d be very surprised if those two didn’t make it this year.

The next 8 (25-63%) are tougher. I think my standards might be a bit looser than most. I’d vote for:
Bert Blyleven
Roberto Alomar
Barry Larkin
Mark McGwire
Alan Trammell
Fred McGriff

And you could talk me into voting for Lee Smith and Tim Raines on a good day… and I wouldn’t be strongly opposed to Martinez making it (although my anti-DH bias would never allow me to vote for him personally).

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Jan 5, 2010 12:13 AM EST reply actions

Where's the love

For Andrew Dawson?

Wear your own fur.

by Sprankton on Jan 5, 2010 6:13 AM EST up reply actions

Sans

The first ‘w’.

Wear your own fur.

by Sprankton on Jan 5, 2010 6:13 AM EST up reply actions

My thought as well

I think he’s got a good chance to get in.

"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."

by kishi on Jan 5, 2010 10:49 AM EST up reply actions

Dawson

Dawson will probably get in, but his .327 OBP will be the worst by far of any OF in the Hall of Fame. I think Lou Brock at .347 is the closest. For me, a player who is actually below average (compared to the league as a whole) in a key stat like OBP, and so much worse than every other Hall of Famer, should not be inducted into the HOF.

by Amit on Jan 5, 2010 12:10 PM EST up reply actions

Here's a few challengers

Bill Mazeroski OBP .299
Leo Durocher OBP .299
Joe Tinker OBP .308
Luis Aparicio OBP .311
Rabbit Maranville OBP .318

I don’t think a single stat (albeit an important one) should be used as a disqualifier. He is among only three players with 400 HR and 300 SB. He also received the MVP while playing for a last place team which is pretty special.

Outside of his OBP his stats are outstanding and when you consider the offensively depressed era he played in it makes it all the more impressive.

Wear your own fur.

by Sprankton on Jan 5, 2010 7:17 PM EST up reply actions

Granted

None of the aforementioned players were outfielders, the point still remains that OBP should not determine eligibility.

Wear your own fur.

by Sprankton on Jan 5, 2010 7:19 PM EST up reply actions

Outfielders

Like I said, he’s the worst among outfielders by a lot. Outfield is an offensive position, and it is difficult to be a great offensive player if you are below average at OBP.

by Amit on Jan 5, 2010 9:13 PM EST up reply actions

But part of what he was known for was his defense

Even if outfield is largely an offensive position, I think you have to take into account the fact that he was one of the best defenders in the league.

"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."

by kishi on Jan 5, 2010 10:47 PM EST up reply actions

Sure

Sure, everything matters. When you add it all up, Dawson ends up with around 57 Wins Above Replacement, which puts him behind Raines, Larkin, Trammell, McGwire, EMartinez, and Alomar.

If the threshold is lowered as far as Dawson, that opens up the Hall for lots of players who probably contributed more than him.

by Amit on Jan 6, 2010 12:28 AM EST up reply actions

I can't think of too many players

That have “contributed more” than Andre Dawson.

He joins Willie Mays and Barry Bonds as the only three players to have 400 homeruns, 1,500 RBIs, and 300 stolen bases. He has more career hits than Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, and Reggie Jackson. He won eight gold glove awards, an MVP, and even the Hutch in 1994.

It’d be a shame to disregard all of that due to an average OBP which was largely due to a regression in his last few seasons.

Wear your own fur.

by Sprankton on Jan 6, 2010 4:38 AM EST up reply actions

Agree to Disagree

I guess we will have to disagree on this. I do think Dawson was a very, very good player. But exclusive “clubs” can be made for almost every legitimate candidate.

For his career, Dawson’s line is .279/.323/.486, for an 806 OPS. Do we really want the standards to be that low for a HOF corner outfielder?

by Amit on Jan 6, 2010 11:57 AM EST up reply actions

I’m with you, Amit. 57 WAR just ain’t enough.

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Jan 6, 2010 7:29 PM EST up reply actions

well mine would look a tad different

I would have no issues with Alomar and Blyleven.

I would have added Raines, Larkin, Trammell and Appier (who reminds me a LOT of Blyleven, good to great numbers for a lot of fugly teams). McGwire has to wait a bit simply because he never came clean with the public. I know the stuff that he said that he was using wasn’t illegal but his candidacy is somehow intertwined with Bonds in such a fashion that I would have problems with him getting in on the first ballot.

I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....

by piratedan7 on Jan 5, 2010 12:34 AM EST reply actions