2007 Hall Of Fame Announcement Day

by Al Yellon on Jan 9, 2007 1:04 PM CST in Chicago Cubs News

Let's use this thread for discussion of the 2007 Hall of Fame announcement, which will be on MLB.TV live beginning at noon CT.

That means, incidentally, that you'll get an hour of blather, because the actual names won't be announced until 1 pm CT.

Discuss, as they say, amongst yourselves.

UPDATE [2007-1-9 13:02:11 by Al]: The announcement has just been made... Cal Ripken 98.5%, Tony Gwynn 97.6%. That's it. Andre Dawson was fifth, 56.7%.

Tweet Comment 86 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I saw

That the guy from the Daily Southtown giving a blank ballot has been picked up by the MSM. Wonder if he did that just to get some recognition, and not for his "real' reasons.

My predictions:
Ripken
Gwynn
Gossage
Rice

Dawson barely misses the cut (hope I'm wrong on this).

McGwire gets only 25 percent.

I very excite about this upcoming season! Jenqui!

by nextyearcub on Jan 9, 2007 8:26 AM CST reply actions

He was on ESPN radio this morning and the "real" reason also came out. He has never voted for a player in their first year of eligibility because "Ruth et al was not unanimous". The steroid claim was an attempt to hide from this indefensible position with a slightly less indefensible position. And he tried to argue that all of the ballots not sent in are really blank ballots as well. Uh. No. Lots of organizations forbid their employees from voting in these elections.

And perhaps this is the best approach to take out Ladumbski from future elections. Pressure of the Daily Southtown to make them prohibit their employees from voting in the HOF elections.

by frustratedfan on Jan 9, 2007 9:05 AM CST up reply actions

Yeah,

He's certainly getting his 15 seconds. I can't stand writers like that, they give journalists a bad name.

I very excite about this upcoming season! Jenqui!

by nextyearcub on Jan 9, 2007 9:13 AM CST up reply actions

The bigger issue (IMHO)....

is that all of the "journalists" who are on their high horse are the same folks who turned a blind eye to the steroid use.

I do not remember more than a few articles even addressing steroids in baseball.

The voting press should be ashamed of themselves.

It is good to be home again!!!!!!

by timeforachange on Jan 9, 2007 9:13 PM CST up reply actions

Veterans Committee

Does anyone know when the Veterans Committee will announce their results? I looked around the MLB site and couldn't find an exact date. Two years ago it was in February.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Jan 9, 2007 8:38 AM CST reply actions

It is February...

... for some reason, the date February 27 sticks out in my memory, though I have no specific cite for that.

by Al Yellon on Jan 9, 2007 8:39 AM CST up reply actions

you're right

its the 27th

keeping mediocrity at bay

by flyball on Jan 9, 2007 8:59 AM CST up reply actions

Pat Hughes

I just heard Pat Hughes on WGN radio talking about the HoF announcements coming today. Towards the end of the discussion, which I found informative and interesting, Hughes was asked why he wasn't allowed to vote players into the HoF. Hughes then proceeded to give probably a good example of why broadcasters, team employees, are not voters as he shilled for a list of Cub players.

The Cubs players Hughes listed may very well belong in the HoF. Hughes of course listed first Ron Santo, a fan favorite. If as I assume that team broadcasters are not generally HoF voters I think one key reason they are not is that they'd merely shill for the players on their team, as Hughes did.

by DrCrawdad on Jan 9, 2007 8:48 AM CST reply actions

Not all..

... broadcasters are team employees, are they?

The point is valid, but you'd think that at least those broadcasters who have won the Frick Award, and have made speeches at HoF inductions (though they are not officially Hall "members"), should get a vote.

by Al Yellon on Jan 9, 2007 8:52 AM CST up reply actions

I think

the Frick winners vote with the Veterans Committee

keeping mediocrity at bay

by flyball on Jan 9, 2007 8:56 AM CST up reply actions

You're right, they do.

I'm thinking maybe they should get a REGULAR vote instead. They certainly are at least as qualified, if not more, than certain sportswriters who write for the Daily Southtown.

by Al Yellon on Jan 9, 2007 9:02 AM CST up reply actions

broadcast announcement

I thought all broadcasters were team employees. However I certainly could very well be wrong.

IMHO ballots should continue to be confidential as even writers are probably concerned about their popularity with the public. Broadcasters have to please their bosses and if those bosses are the teams that's reason enough to block them as voters and then of course broadcasters have to please the public.

Popularity contest or merit based? I'd choose merit but with the knowledge that popularity is often a factor, for or against players.

by DrCrawdad on Jan 9, 2007 9:04 AM CST up reply actions

Broadcasters

It likely varies slightly by team, however technically I believe that the broadcasters are employees of the TV or radio stations. However the teams have some control over the hiring and firing. For example, when Bob Brenly was hired, it was up to the Cubs, even though he is under the employment of WGN.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 9, 2007 12:11 PM CST up reply actions

Brenly

This might be a unique example only because the Trib owns both WGN and the Cubs, so it wasn't too much of a stretch to have one organization (the Cubs) have the decision about who another outfit (WGN) would hire to comment on them. We may not like this because of the objectivity concerns, but that seems like a plausible explanation. I'm only speculating here, of course.

by gauchodirk on Jan 9, 2007 12:25 PM CST up reply actions

Santo

Of all the occasions to push Santo for the HoF I guess days like today are probably appropriate. But does anyone think that the perpetual promoting of Santo for HoF is counterproductive?

I am not opposed to Santo getting in the HoF. On the other hand, I'm not for Santo either. Some here would no doubt say that the latter is because I'm a Sox fan and that actually I'm opposed to Santo because of his Cub connection. As Al probably remembers from previous discussions, many Sox fans feel Santo belongs in the HoF.

I just have to wonder though if the constant promoting of Santo for the HoF works against him.

by DrCrawdad on Jan 9, 2007 9:10 AM CST reply actions

It might be.

... especially considering who's doing the voting. Some of those people (current HoF members) might be resentful of the publicity. I don't think they should be, but that is human nature.

Has this voting already occurred and is simply awaiting an announcement? Or does the VC meet next month to vote?

by Al Yellon on Jan 9, 2007 9:16 AM CST up reply actions

the Veterans

don't meet like they used to, they get their ballots and return them in January

keeping mediocrity at bay

by flyball on Jan 9, 2007 9:23 AM CST up reply actions

Ballots

Were sent out this month and are to be returned no later than Jan. 31.

I very excite about this upcoming season! Jenqui!

by nextyearcub on Jan 9, 2007 9:24 AM CST up reply actions

Veterans Committee

As I've said before, if the Vets don't put anyone in this year, my belief is that the process will once again change. This is the third vote under the new veterans committee format...and no one yet has been voted in.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 9, 2007 12:12 PM CST up reply actions

Simply put

Ripkin and Gwynn

Any other plyyers will never see the inside of the HoF wrong or right.

I hate the HoF pompus voting process. A no vote means you lose the pervilage period!

It takes 2 to lie. One to lie and one to listen! HJS

by Scott G F on Jan 9, 2007 10:30 AM CST reply actions

Who's got MLB.tv?

Any word yet?

HENDRY!

by cubbiejulie on Jan 9, 2007 12:26 PM CST reply actions

I'm watching now.

And so can you -- this webcast does not require a subscription, it's free. Go to mlb.com and click on the link on the front page.

by Al Yellon on Jan 9, 2007 12:48 PM CST up reply actions

For those at work,

they're showing great HOF speeches: Willie Mayes, Yogi Berra, Earnie Banks, Ted Williams, and Ryno (sob!)

HENDRY!

by cubbiejulie on Jan 9, 2007 12:58 PM CST reply actions

the Ryno one

was awesome, I don't think anyone expected it (especially after the lunatic ramblings of Boggs), but it was just great

keeping mediocrity at bay

by flyball on Jan 9, 2007 1:04 PM CST up reply actions

Gwynn & Ripken

that's it.

HENDRY!

by cubbiejulie on Jan 9, 2007 1:02 PM CST reply actions

Terrible

No respect for the Hawk.

D-LEE!

by airweino on Jan 9, 2007 1:05 PM CST reply actions

Vote totals

2007 BBWAA Hall of Fame Voting Results

Candidate
Votes

% of Votes
Cal Ripken Jr.    537    98.5
Tony Gwynn    532    97.6
Rich Gossage    388    71.2
Jim Rice    346    63.5
Andre Dawson    309    56.7
Bert Blyleven    260    47.7
Lee Smith    217    39.8
Jack Morris    202    37.1
Mark McGwire    128    23.5
Tommy John    125    22.9
*Steve Garvey    115    21.1
Dave Concepcion    74    13.6
Alan Trammell    73    13.4
Dave Parker    62    11.4
Don Mattingly    54    9.9
Dale Murphy    50    9.2
Harold Baines    29    5.3
Orel Hershiser    24    4.4
Albert Belle    19    3.5
Paul O'Neill    12    2.2
Bret Saberhagen    7    1.3
Jose Canseco    6    1.1
Tony Fernandez    4    0.7
Dante Bichette    3    0.6
Eric Davis    3    0.6
Bobby Bonilla    2    0.4
Ken Caminiti    2    0.4
Jay Buhner    1    0.2
Scott Brosius    0    0.0
Wally Joyner    0    0.0
Devon White    0    0.0
Bobby Witt    0    0.0

I very excite about this upcoming season! Jenqui!

by nextyearcub on Jan 9, 2007 1:05 PM CST reply actions

That's a low total...

... for McGwire... some said he'd get as much as 40%.

by Al Yellon on Jan 9, 2007 1:06 PM CST up reply actions

I was pretty close

By saying 25 percent. 40 percent, those guys were smoking rock.

FYI, anybody who got less than 5 percent is out for next year. So bye-bye Canseco! See ya on Surreal Life 33!

I very excite about this upcoming season! Jenqui!

by nextyearcub on Jan 9, 2007 1:09 PM CST up reply actions

Peter Gammons...

...voted for McGuire but not Dawson.

What an insult to the Hawk. I just lost a lot of respect for Gammons.

Chicks dig the long ball

by Will23 on Jan 9, 2007 1:12 PM CST up reply actions

really?

That's a shame. Just shows that even tne best in the biz screw up from time to time.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Jan 9, 2007 2:22 PM CST up reply actions

Rice and Dawson

Both saw their vote totals fall from last year. Not a good sign for their getting into the Hall, perhaps ever. IMO Gossage is close to a shoe-in next year.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 9, 2007 1:08 PM CST up reply actions

Actually...

... next year might be a good shot for all of them, as the only new candidate will be Tim Raines.

Raines should get in, but won't, because he never had a dominant season, never led the league in anything but SB (OK, runs, twice), and didn't get to 3000 hits. The writers tend to ignore people like that, unfortunately.

by Al Yellon on Jan 9, 2007 1:16 PM CST up reply actions

Perhaps...

... and time shall tell. However as I've pointed out below, the vote changes from last year to this is interesting to me and I don't totally understand this...if its a trend, an aberation from one year to the next, or what.

If players like this see their numbers constantly going up, then down, then up again, then down, then back up as they edge towards HoF induction, the Hall needs to take a serious look at the process. HoF enshrinement should not be subject to the quality of other players on the ballot. This all smacks of the BCS, and voters looking to create an event.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 9, 2007 1:29 PM CST up reply actions

I forget

Where I saw it, but I remember reading an article on vote fluctuations, and explaining a one-year downturn in an otherwise rising HoF candidate's votes as most likely resulting from a strong class.

Now, the fact that only 2 here made it (Ripken and Gwynn) doesn't detract from the idea that this was a strong class, and some voters just believe in only voting for an arbitrary number of candidates per year (2, 3, 4, whatever). So it's possible that Andre and Jim Rice had votes reduced because some voters who previously voted for them chose to go with other candidates (Ripken, Gwynn, Baines?, McGwire?) on their personally-limited list instead. Next year, they'll probably swing back to Dawson, Rice, and Gossage.

by Chadnudj on Jan 9, 2007 1:36 PM CST up reply actions

Vote Comparison - 2006 to 2007

For those who care, here are the vote totals for 2006 and 2007 for players who didn't get in and were eligable both years

Player 2006 - 2007
Jim Rice     64.8 - 63.5 (-)
Rich Gossage     64.6 - 71.2 (+)
Andre Dawson     61.0 - 56.7 (-)
Bert Blyleven     53.3 - 47.7 (-)
Lee Smith     45.0 - 39.8 (-)
Jack Morris     41.2 - 37.1 (-)
Tommy John     29.6 - 22.9 (-)
Steve Garvey     26.0 - 21.1 (-)
Alan Trammell     17.7 - 13.4 (-)
Dave Parker     14.4 - 11.4 (-)
Dave Concepcion 12.5 - 13.6 (+)
Don Mattingly     12.3 - 9.9 (-)
Orel Hershiser     11.2 - 4.4 (-)
Dale Murphy     10.8 - 9.2 (-)
Albert Belle     7.7 - 3.5 (-)

First, of note, is that Orel Hershiser and Albert Belle both are off the ballot as they did not get the requisite 5%.

Secondly, usually, year after year, players see their vote totals rise, not fall. There is a clear trend here as only 2 player saw their vote percentages rise, while several guys who were thought to be on the verge of HoF entry saw their numbers fall. This may be a product of a percieved weak 2006 class while this class had two locks. I've never seen how someone becomes a HoFer a few years into voting. I certainly don't understand how someone is a HoFer, then no longer is, then becomes one again.

Bottom line: next year is a weak class (Raines being the only debatable HoFer), Gossage looks to be on the verge of entry, but after that, Rice, Dawson, Blyleven and others took steps backwards this year.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 9, 2007 1:23 PM CST up reply actions

Weak class times 2

After next year with Raines as the only real candidate, the following year has shoo-in Rickey Henderson and no one else.

by rlpete on Jan 9, 2007 2:29 PM CST up reply actions

Phil Rogers

I'm not one to pile on Phil Rogers, however I just think his column today is completely idiotic. He pines about the fact that so much attention is paid to McGwire and not to the other HoFers...yet he proceeds to write most of his column about McGwire.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-070108rogers,1,1616798.column?coll=c s-cubs-headlines

According to ESPNews, here are the vote numbers for the three who were closest, yet fell short.
Gossage: 71.2 (21 votes short)
Rice: 63.5
Dawson: 56.7

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 9, 2007 1:06 PM CST reply actions

Congrats to Ripken & Gwynn...

...to bad Dawson couldn't make it three. Still, good to see two of the classiest players make it.

by ryno HOF 2005 on Jan 9, 2007 1:13 PM CST reply actions

That;s it

We all need to start applying for any and all baseball writing positions. Let's get the Hawk in there. I'll go first, and I'm going after Muskat's job.

HENDRY!

by cubbiejulie on Jan 9, 2007 1:14 PM CST reply actions

Hmmmm

I'd probably have a better shot if I didn't include semi-colons in the middle of my words.

I'll work on it.

HENDRY!

by cubbiejulie on Jan 9, 2007 1:15 PM CST up reply actions

That wouldn't work...

not for purposes of voting Hawk in. She says she votes for him every year. And her job wouldn't get you into the BBWAA.

But I'd still rather have you in her place.

TOWEL DRILL!

by tyger1147 on Jan 9, 2007 1:20 PM CST up reply actions

Actually...

I would say you're right on track!

by raalic17 on Jan 9, 2007 1:21 PM CST up reply actions

Re:

Should I put semi-colons in the middle of my words? No. Will that preclude me from getting Muskat's job? Most likely not. Would I quit being a lawyer to write for MLB.com? Absolutely.

See? I can totally handle this.

HENDRY!

by cubbiejulie on Jan 9, 2007 1:22 PM CST up reply actions

i think

if you are willing to lose your opinions and independent thought process, mlb.com would be willing to overlook your typos.

maybe you could run for office instead, that way you can have opinions and a voice.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Jan 9, 2007 1:27 PM CST up reply actions

hawk

is one of my top 5 favorite cubs, but i'm not sure he deserves to be in. he's kind of fringe. but i would vote for him, because i like him. that's why i don't deserve a vote.

but i probably deserve one more than that daily southtown nimrod. can you take someone's vote away? he is making a mockery of the voting process, and if i was the hall i would be insulted that some low-rent writer was using his hall vote for his own publicity.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Jan 9, 2007 1:17 PM CST up reply actions

Another vote to take away

The guy who voted for Jay Buhner should be banned from ever voting again. What, he felt that Scott Brosius wasn't more clutch in the post-season??

Sheesh.

by Invalid User on Jan 9, 2007 5:47 PM CST up reply actions

damn!!!

I knew I should have been a journalism major instead of a CS major. I could be well on my way to getting a vote and righting past wrongs.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Jan 9, 2007 2:25 PM CST up reply actions

Trustme

CS major, you're probably more happy with, at least in the bank.

Not that money's everything, but one of my first jobs was at a six-days-a-week newspaper, and I swear the cashier at McDonald's made more than I did.

I very excite about this upcoming season! Jenqui!

by nextyearcub on Jan 9, 2007 2:57 PM CST up reply actions

I am happy with the job

I was more just joking about getting a vote for the HOF.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Jan 9, 2007 3:57 PM CST up reply actions

Come on, Veterans...

...while Tony and Cal are no-doubt worthy, the two of them won't make for any great speeches.

The Veteran's gotta spice up the ceremony a little bit, and the only way to do that?

SANTO!

Ronnie crying, Ronnie bravely standing to speak on his prosthetic legs (a reminder he played the game with a disease that arguably stole from him some peak years that would have put his numbers in a top category), Cubs fans going nuts, Pat Hughes introducing him perhaps, and maybe, just maybe, the Cubs on their way to a pennant as he delivers his speech....

We gotta see it....make it happen, Veteran's committee. Don't listen to the rantings of Joe Morgan - start letting them in.

And while you're at it, as a strike against the McGwire's of the world, it may be time to consider Roger Maris again. And Buck O'Neil (albeit tragically posthumously).

by Chadnudj on Jan 9, 2007 1:32 PM CST reply actions

For what its worth...

... morgan has at leat publically said that he things that Santo should be in and has voted for Santo. I dislike Morgan as much as anyone, but lets not pile on him.

As for Santo, lets dump the sympathetic ramblings. He should be in or not...its got nothing to do with his prosthetic legs, etc.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 9, 2007 1:36 PM CST up reply actions

Well..

....I agree sentiment shouldn't play a roll in it - I was just talking there about how emotional that would be for a lot of fans to see that speech.

However, the effect diabetes had on his career longevity and numbers should be a factor in his favor - the fact he was playing at all, the fact he put up the numbers he did in the time he played despite diabetes, and the fact his overall numbers would have hit the so-called Hall "benchmarks" if he hadn't had his career shortened all serve as compelling arguments as to why he should be enshrined, apart from sentimentality.

It's like Ted Williams - sure, he was going to make the Hall of Fame anyways. But in arguments that he was one of the best hitters of all time, it is always brought up that parts of his prime years were lost as he served in WWII and Korea. I think the same "effect on numbers" considerations should be applied to Santo in regards to diabetes.

by Chadnudj on Jan 9, 2007 1:40 PM CST up reply actions

Diabetes

I disagree 100%. One's disabilities and/or other health issues should not make one more or less Hall worthy. You reach the benchmarks or you don't. You put up the numbers or you don't. Its the Hall of Fame.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 9, 2007 2:31 PM CST up reply actions

The "Puckett syndrome"

I disagree strongly that players should get HOF bonus points due to overcoming injury or illness or by having their career cut short. It should be based on what they actually accomplished on the field not what they would have or could have accomplished.

I think Santo should be in because he was one of the top 3rd basemen of his era. The fact that he played with diabetes should have nothing to do with it.

If we start considering what might have been, Ron needs be second in line behind Cecil Travis who just died a month ago. Very interesting story for those unaware of his story. He was on a sure HOF path until WWII where he had frostbite. On his return, he was never the same but look at his pre-war numbers.

by rlpete on Jan 9, 2007 2:43 PM CST up reply actions

interesting that

he had a slugging percentage of .520 over a full season in 1941 and only hit 7 home runs.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Jan 9, 2007 2:50 PM CST up reply actions

One reason

Griffith Stadium

by rlpete on Jan 9, 2007 3:03 PM CST up reply actions

Right, but...

I agree - Ron should be in based solely on his numbers, and being according to Bill James, I think, the 6th best 3B of all time.

But you can't ignore the diabetes and the toll it took both on his career while playing and in shortening his career.

I guess my rule would be look at the guy's numbers. If he's close in most of the big ones (or, as Ron does, has them), then taking that disability into account would be legitimate in assessing them as a hall of famer.

For example, if it was Jim Abbott who won 287 or whatever it is games like Tommy John, I think the fact that he was a one-armed pitcher who performed at that high (although not 300 win) level should play a roll in considering his candidacy. Not the defining roll (the 287 wins would play that roll), but a small roll in putting him over the hump.

The big point, though, is Ron should be in.

by Chadnudj on Jan 9, 2007 3:10 PM CST up reply actions

Furthermore...

...you're exactly right. "It is the Hall of Fame." The Hall of Fame is designed to celebrate the best of baseball - certainly overcoming disadvantages such as diabetes to play at an all-time great level deserves to be celebrated.

by Chadnudj on Jan 9, 2007 3:12 PM CST up reply actions

Disabilities

But you can't ignore the diabetes and the toll it took both on his career while playing and in shortening his career.

Why not?

You can ignore it and you should ignore it when it comes to inclusion into the Hall of Fame. When it comes to the story that is Ron Santo's life, this is a very pertinant issue to consider. But when you start down this road when it comes to HoF inclusion, it is a very slippery slope.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 9, 2007 3:39 PM CST up reply actions

Blyleven with 47%

This really ticks me off, just how ignorant are these writers?

by VS on Jan 9, 2007 1:37 PM CST reply actions

Obviously...

... pretty darn ignorant.

Fifth in career strikeouts. Had sixty shutouts. Won 287 games, mostly for mediocre teams.

I suspect his somewhat prickly personality while playing is working against him. Which is ridiculous -- the personal feelings of sportswriters should NOT enter into it.

by Al Yellon on Jan 9, 2007 1:39 PM CST up reply actions

Hmmm...

I disagree, Al. If we're going to have people be put "over the top" because they were likable, good guys that were model players, then I think we should allow that people might be (whatever the opposite is of "over the top") kept out becuase they were jerks or what-not.

I'd love to see Dawnson and Santo get in, and if it's their likable character that gets them in, great. But I'll also understand if it's Sammy's prickly nature (amid the steroid allegations) that keeps him out. Same with Blyleven I suppose.

Since, IMO, the two biggest names left off are two Cubs who were/are "great" guys, I'll make the trade off.

TOWEL DRILL!

by tyger1147 on Jan 9, 2007 1:58 PM CST up reply actions

It makes absolutely no sense

for writers to keep rejecting one of the greatest pitchers of all time just because he might not have been overly friendly and given them as many quotes for their little columns as other players did. The way I see it, there's only two reasons why Blyleven is not in the Hall:

Ignorance
Self-serving Writers on a power trip

The whole system sucks.

by VS on Jan 9, 2007 2:04 PM CST up reply actions

VS

You're dead on. The whole system does suck and I've lost most, real interest on who gets elected to the HoF years ago. The only reason I opened this diary is to see if Blyleven got elected, not that I expected him to. It's a ridiculous designation and really a popularity contest rather than being any acknowledgement of a baseball career that was above and beyond one's peers.

Of course, I've also felt that way about the MVP after Albert Belle was denied it.

by NO100 on Jan 9, 2007 3:35 PM CST up reply actions

The Hall...

... ought to come down off its pedestal and realize that it's we the fans who keep the institution going, and look at the debates that have been going on over the last few days here and elsewhere about who should or shouldn't be in...

... and find a way to include fans in voting. One suggestion that's been made is to have some sort of vote from SABR. I think that'd be a great idea.

by Al Yellon on Jan 9, 2007 3:46 PM CST up reply actions

Well...

... I'm not so sure that I agree with this. Shouldn't the institution do what it feels is the right thing and not cave into what might be a demand from the public based on various influences of the time?

I'm not saying that certain players should or shouldn't be in. I'm also not saying that the voting process isn't ricidulous. But I do like the fact that its hard for former players to get into the Hall of Fame.

It seems to me that some people here would like to see the Hall relax their standards so that Santo and Dawson can get in. The problem is that Dodger fans say this about Maury Wills, Yanks fans say it about Don Mattingly, Tigers fans say it about Alan Trammel and so on.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 9, 2007 4:05 PM CST up reply actions

Reply

It seems to me that some people here would like to see the Hall relax their standards so that Santo and Dawson can get in.

I've said this before but when it comes to Santo, the Hall does not need to relax its standards. He is one of the greatest 3b in history and is easily a mid-tier HOF. There's no comparison between him and Wills, an earlier version of Pierre.

by VS on Jan 9, 2007 5:37 PM CST up reply actions

I'm not saying...

... that Santo is or isn't up to the HoF standard...Frankly I don't know if he is. But fans seem to be so pro-Santo or pro-Dawson or pro-(fill in the blank) that they'd be okay with standards being relaxed for the sake of their player.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 9, 2007 6:00 PM CST up reply actions

Santo

The problem with excluding Santo is that he only should be excluded from much smaller Hall of Fame. If the standards are the members of the current Hall of Fame, then Santo and Blyleven should be very easy choices. The problem is two-fold. Neither Santo nor Blyleven made a big impact in major media market New York. During their playing careers, neither were particularly popular with the media and, at least in the case of Santo, he was actually disliked by large parts of the country because he was someone who fought against the "Lovable Loser Mets and their Miracle". (In the rest of the Country, the story isn't the Cubs fading, its the "Miracle Mets" and their feel-good story). Statistically, if Santo and Blyleven are not in the Hall of Fame, then it has to be cut in half in size. And this is really not a point open to debate. And it is an insult to Santo to suggest that the standards should be "relaxed" to admit him.

by frustratedfan on Jan 9, 2007 6:19 PM CST up reply actions

First off...

... you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not making this about Santo persay. I'm making it about the bigger issue, which is that for every group of fans for a particular team, there is a Ron Santo. Every team has a player that they feel should be in the hall. I am not saying that they are better or even as deserving as Santo. I just wish fans would stick to the legitiate arguments based on numbers and comparisons, rather than emotion and such. For example, saying that OBP is immaterial when it comes to Andre Dawson is just plain foolish. This is not to say that there aren't relavent numbers on the positive side of the ledger, but you cannot just overlook the negatives.

As to the "cut the HoF inhalf" argument, thats a pretty dangerous area to go to. What I'll say is that simply because an undeserving player got in doesn't mean that other undeserving players should also be allowed entry (AND I AM NOT SAYING SANTO IS NOT DESERVING!!!!!). There may be players who we could look at and say that they shouldn't be in the Hall, but that isn't gonna actually happen. However I don't believe that the presence of such players should effectively lower the standards for the Hall.

DmL

by dmlichte on Jan 9, 2007 6:37 PM CST up reply actions

Standards and the Hall

The Hall does not have any "objective" standards. The only "standard" therefore, is based on who is in the Hall and who is not in the Hall. This does not mean that any player who is better than any player in the Hall should get in. That's a bad standard because it essentially makes the standard that of the mistake (or a member of the New York Giants with certain guys that were on the old Veteran's Committee). But when you have a player who is demonstrably better than half of the players at his position, who at the time he retired was in the top three in his position all time (which is where Santo falls), his non-inclusion in the hall is a joke. Santo's shouldn't be in because he's better than Pie Traynor, Santo should be in because he's as good as Brooks Robinson (albeit without the World Series Rings).

Another problem, although this mostly impacts Blyleven and not Santo, is that the distribution of writers is not even with that of baseball teams. Take Laduski, for example. He is a Hall of Fame voter who writes for the fourth or fifth most important paper in his area (at best). Now the list of voter's isn't public, but when you add in the known 9 Tribune voters, the likely 6 or 7 Sun Times voters, the 2 or 3 Daily Herald Voters, the 2 or 3 Daily Southtown Voters, the 2 - 3 Northwest Indiana Paper voters and any number of retired writers with Chicago affiliations, and you likely have 10% or more voters with Chicago affiliations. In contrast, Minneapolis, for example, likely has far fewer voters.

The list of voters is not public. The geographic spread of these voters is not known, but clearly the failure to adjust for this creates at least some of the problem.

by frustratedfan on Jan 10, 2007 10:35 AM CST up reply actions

Sosa...

... is a different case now, with the steroid allegations, not proven of course.

What I'm saying about Blyleven is that his stats should put him in despite his nature. If his numbers weren't any good, then it wouldn't matter how "nice" he was.

Hope that makes some more sense.

by Al Yellon on Jan 9, 2007 2:06 PM CST up reply actions

It does...

I don't have a great historical perspective for numbers.

If a guy's numbers mean he should be in, then I think he should be in. Same for the opposite. So I guess I will agree then.

And I'm guessing you'd agree to my point: if borderline cases are made FOR nice guys, then we should allow that they will be made AGAINST mean guys. For borderlines, that is.

TOWEL DRILL!

by tyger1147 on Jan 9, 2007 2:09 PM CST up reply actions

Yes, I would absolutely agree in those cases.

n/t

by Al Yellon on Jan 9, 2007 2:53 PM CST up reply actions

Blyleven

The real interesting stat is that he had several seasons where he had more complete games than wins. That is a real message that a team is incapable of scoring enough runs to get the pitcher the win. If he wins only 60% of those complete games over wins (and one has to assume that some of his wins in those years were not complete games) he has more than 300 career wins. Sometimes it evens out (a pitcher plays for a team with better offense in some years) but for Blyleven it sure looks like it didn't.

(Another stat, one year he had an ERA more than one run below league average and yet had a .500 record.)

by frustratedfan on Jan 9, 2007 3:43 PM CST up reply actions

For once

I agree with everything Frustrated Fan and Various Styles have to say!

(But imagine the uproar today if a young pitcher threw 325 innings and 25 complete games, as Blyleven did in 1973)

"Eighty-five percent of the $#@&$ world's working! The other 15 come out here! A %&$&# playground for the $&&*@!"

by danimal15 on Jan 9, 2007 9:15 PM CST up reply actions

Two very deserving players, but no one else??

Congrats to Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, two easy first-ballot Hall of Famers. But no real surprise. I am amazed at the rack of respect given to Andre Dawson. Just amazed. His numbers are so easy. I still think he'll get in, but it's going to have to be a year where there are no shoo-in first-ballot guys. For some reason, any time there are easy first-ballot guys, the writers don't seem to want them to share the stage with anyone that there might have been some debate about. Gossage will be in next year, but it might be a good chance to the Hawk to be a sleeper. But it would be tough to jump from 56% to 75% in one year. Gossage might have his own day in the sun next year. What a ho-hummer that would be.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Jan 9, 2007 2:18 PM CST reply actions

interesting

that cal got 98.5 and gwtnn got 97. i would like to hear from those 1.5% who thought cal was hall-worthy, but gwynn (on of the greatest contact hitters in baseball history) isn't.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Jan 9, 2007 2:40 PM CST reply actions

Agree!

Gwynn, IMO, is considerably better than Ripken. As you said, one of the greatest contact hitters in history.

by VS on Jan 9, 2007 5:44 PM CST up reply actions

I'm glad Dawson didn't make it

I just saved a lot of money now that I don't
have to go to Cooperstown this year. Nice of the HOF
to take my financial situation into account when deciding
these things.
WHEN Andre makes it I will go whatever it takes

I love the ballpark. I love the city. I love the fans. Aside from how we've played this year, there's nothing not to like about Chicago." Greg Maddux 7/29/06

by jessica on Jan 9, 2007 5:32 PM CST reply actions

Painfully obvious

It has become painfully obvious that My two favorite Cubbies (Santo and Dawson) are never going to get in. I feel cheated. I can't understand why they are not in.

http://theantigoatjournal.blogspot.com/

by theantigoat on Jan 9, 2007 6:55 PM CST reply actions

Santo

I agree with you, but especially regarding Santo. I am an unabashed Santo fan. I watched him play when I was a kid and always liked the way he played. And anyone who saw the CD that Joe Mantegna produced about Santo's 1st HOF foray cannot help but root for the guy.

wccubfan

by wccubfan on Jan 10, 2007 1:01 PM CST up reply actions

Celebrity? Jeopardy

Welcome to HOF voter Jeopardy.

Voter:I'll take colors that end in urple for 1000, Alex

Alex:It's between violet and plum.

Voter: I have no idea.

Can you say.....clueless?

by theantigoat on Jan 9, 2007 9:53 PM CST reply actions

how in the heck

did Paul O'Neil get 12 votes, while Brett Firecracker-Throwin, Bleach-Shooting only got 7?!?!?!?

this is an outrage!

www.royalsreview.com

by Freneau on Jan 9, 2007 10:47 PM CST reply actions

same old, same old

Nothing suprises me anymore. Hershiser and Saberhagen fall off the ballot, what a joke. When will the BBHOF realize the old crony crew of sportswriters that probably don't even watch, or care about baseball need to be balanced out in the voting process by announcers and current sportswriters that have seen a lot of these players play?

What makes Goose more HHOF worthy this year, but still not in, as opposed to last year? It's not like he's suddenly played more games or done more for his career. How does Jime Rice and Andre Dawson both lose votes in 1 yr, or where they getting votes simply because Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. weren't on the ballot? It's a joke.

Andre Dawson deserves to be in the Hall. He was arguably the best NL outfielder in the late 70s early 80s with the Expos. He continued to put up decent numbers as a Cub with little support in the lineup at times and his defense was outstanding in a very difficult Wrigley right field (don't forget he played 2 seasons virtually before the lights came on in August of '88). I've read the arguments that he didn't walk enough, well when you don't have other bats in the lineup it's your job to swing away, and I'm sure he took his fair share of strikeouts for doing so. I've read that the OBP isn't up to par with some of the other HOF players, well compare him to his generation and see where he sits. I hate when people get caught in comparing eras that can't logically be compared. The Dead Ball era vs. The Juiced Era; the 70s vs. the 80s. These debates can't really logically be solved when different eras produced different results. There are far too many factors that can account for changes that no amount of equalizers mathematically can properly adjust for a players numbers across time. All we have is the raw stats in the time frame in which they occurred, and that should be the ultimate indicator. Yes, certain benchmarks are fine, but ultimately how you played and were viewed by your peers should dictate whether you belong in the HOF, and Dawson by most accounts, both teammate and opponent, was one of the best in his era. [rant over]

by cubby23 on Jan 10, 2007 7:28 AM CST reply actions