The Baseball Hall of Fame Post
The results of this year's Hall of Fame voting were announced by the BBWAA at 3pm this afternoon. To be elected, a player must be named on 75% of returned ballots. The only player who will be inducted based on this year's vote is former Cincinnati Reds shortstop Barry Larkin, who was named on 86% of ballots. This year was Larkin's third on the ballot; he went from being named on 51.6% of ballots in 2010, when the BBWAA elected only Andre Dawson, to 62.1% of ballots in 2011, when the BBWAA elected Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven. Among Larkin's other merits as a player, across his 19-year career he batted .295/.371/.444. That spans a little over 9000 plate appearances. The Orioles, for instance, have not had any players with higher than a .371 OBP in any one year since the 2008 season.
Former O's on the ballot this year were Rafael Palmeiro, Lee Smith, Javy Lopez, and I guess we can count Tim Raines' four-game stint in 2001. Smith was the O's closer in strike-shortened 1994 and apparently came in 5th in Cy Young voting with 33 saves despite a 3.20 ERA. In his tenth year on the ballot, he managed 50.6% of the vote. Raines, whose HOF cause is the poster for those who want the value of OBP to be recognized, received 48.7% in his fifth year. He reached base at a .385 clip across a 23-year career. Palmeiro went from 11% to 12.6% in his second year. Lopez will not appear on the ballot again, failing to reach the 5% threshold to remain. One person actually gave Lopez a HOF vote.
The top two players who weren't inducted were Jack Morris, who went from 53.5% of ballots last year to 66.7% this year, and Jeff Bagwell, a cause celebre for those writers who don't feel that it's fair to have vague, unsubstantiated steroid suspicions be the reason to keep a player out of the Hall of Fame. Bagwell got only 41.7% of the vote last year, but went up to 56% in the 2012 voting. The cases for and against both Morris and Bagwell have been hashed out across the entire baseball-focused corner of the Internet. Both are on an upward trajectory and perhaps both will end up being elected in the future. A full list of results can currently be found on the BBWAA website, with a partial list of ballots - 69 of the 573 returned - being located here. No sign of the mystery Javy voter on this list, but a source familiar with the situation can confirm that Camden Chat editor-in-chief Stacey does not have a HOF vote, so we can cross her name off the list of suspects.
Hall of Fame voting starts getting interesting next year as more of the star names from the 1990s and early 2000s, some of whom have had their names linked to PEDs and some have not, work their way onto the ballot. Next year's first time eligibles include Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling and Craig Biggio. Schilling and Sosa are not the only ex-Orioles joining the ballot next year; also eligible will be Steve Finley, Jeff Conine and Tony Batista. I'm not making that up about Batista. He's really going to be on the ballot. Those who vote for many players will have crowded ballots in a hurry, as writers are limited to naming only ten players.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Next year should be really interesting
I’m surprised to see Bagwell get such a big bump while Palmeiro barely moves. Can’t wait to see what these guys do with Bonds/Sosa.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
Palmeiro has the positive test dragging him down.
I think that makes him a lot harder to defend. Bagwell definitely got a lot of positive press from newer-age BBWAA members – guys who are in but maybe don’t have the ten years – and randomly across the internet. Bagwell’s name didn’t show up in a BALCO investigation or in the Mitchell Report and he never tested positive for anything. Excluding him based on vague and unsupported suspicion just because of when he played was unfair.
Personally, I think I would vote for all the steroids guys who were among the best players. The story I would tell to my future kids about baseball when I was growing up or in my teens and early 20s wouldn’t be complete without them.
"So I said, 'Looks like they've finally got Ogea in the pen. I wonder if the glove fits.' I thought I was going to get fired." - Mike Flanagan, RIP
by Eat More Esskay on Jan 9, 2012 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
Oh I agree about Palmeiro
but I sort of figured a gradual relaxing of views about steroids in general would impact both of their vote totals.
I’m with you on voting the steroid guys in. Unless you can absolutely know for certain who used and who didn’t it’s silly to elect some and not others.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
for comparison...
the needle didn’t really move on mcgwire either and as the hardball talk article in bd was saying this am, a lot of views on him have softened b/c he’s back in the trenches and was seen as a positive force on a world series team.
"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition,from Moses to Sandy Koufax,YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I'M LIVING IN THE FUCKING PAST!"- Walter Sobchak
I wouldn't
vote in steroid guys. Might as well give Landis the Tour de France trophy then, or Ben Johnson his Olympic Gold, or so many examples of cheaters “winning” due to cheating.
Guerrero, Griffey Jr, Ichiro, those are candidates I can back in the future.
I wouldn't have figured you for a guy who follows the Tour de France.
"So I said, 'Looks like they've finally got Ogea in the pen. I wonder if the glove fits.' I thought I was going to get fired." - Mike Flanagan, RIP
by Eat More Esskay on Jan 9, 2012 8:53 PM EST up reply actions
How do you know that Guerrero, Griffey, or Ichiro weren't steroids guys?
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
well, you don't of course
I know I’m something of an antisteroid fascist, but I think if there is actual evidence of steroid use like with Bonds and Raffy (and AROD), then I would vote No. Since there is no evidence on Bagwell (that I’m aware of at least) then he would be eligible. I understand that “evidence” means different things to different people, but there is no perfect, fair system IMO. Allowing these guys in diminishes all hall of famers. I know the greenie argument, but I’m not sure how comparative greenies and steroids are.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
by dfa on Jan 9, 2012 9:33 PM EST up reply actions
i agree with you 100%
"End of season like this, to make Boston go home sad, crying, I’ll take it all day."—Robert Andino
That last sentence says it all to me - you just don't know so how can you judge?
And any body that already has some of the biggest cheaters in history in the mix doesn’t need any further diminishing. Bonds and Clemens (and Palmeiro) and their like were the greatest players of their generation. The HoF has always accepted the greatest players of the generations prior regardless of whether they were cheaters (as long as you weren’t gambling). I don’t get why now all of a sudden the hall of fame is some sacred society.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
the world is an imperfect place,
there is not going to be any way of ever knowing how much better steroids made Clemens and Bonds and the rest. So really either you are ok with letting them all in, however artifically enhanced, or you aren’t.
Growing up 61 homers meant something. McGwire, Bonds and Sosa dirtied that number for Maris and many others. Maybe it doesn’t matter because I don’t how many homers Bonds would have hit with or without the roids. But he is the one that should suffer, not me. So you are right, I don’t know. And I never will. But I’m not willing to give any of them the benefit of the doubt. Why are you?
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
But what you're really saying
is that you’re ok with letting them in as long as they didn’t make headlines about it.
The benefit of the doubt has been given for the entire history of the hall off fame – why are we adding this new criteria for admission randomly at this point? It makes absolutely no sense. Gaylord Perry is arguably the biggest and most direct cheater in MLB history and he’s in the HoF, so how can you hold guys out who maybe, might have, are rumored to have done something that maybe, might have, is rumored to have enhanced their performance?
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
well, it's more than the headlines,
If I were a HOF voter, I would be certain to perform due diligence on these guys. If Perry was cheating than I would not have voted for him either.
The idea that the HOF is going to be perfect and free of any of cheaters is laughable, but I think it’s a worthy goal. Letting in Raffy because Perry is there I think is pretty weak and a disservice to the legacy of other hall of famers.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
Due dilligence would get you what exactly?
And I’m just confused why that would be a worthy goal all of a sudden? That’s never been a goal int he past, so why are we moving the goal posts? It’s not like everybody realized Perry was a cheater after he was already int he HoF.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
did 61 homers really mean anything though?
when it came in an expansion year with an expanded number of games?
Your cannonball trajectory, it always gave me hope
the perception is that meant something
maybe substantively it didn’t though.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
I thought lots of people thought it was pretty meaningless at the time
given the reasons that Andrew named. I thought lots of journalists, players, fans were diminishing it as it was happening and immediately afterward.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
I suspect there's a generational divide.
Among young fans, 61 held a lot less weight. But among older fans, journalists, and players, I suspect 61 meant a great deal.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
Younger fans that were around at the time?
I was talking about journalists, players, and fans at the time regardless of age. There was lots of dismissal of it.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
no, i'm talking about current day
younger people don’t care about 61. older people do. that’s my only point.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
well, shoot
sorry, i didn’t know andrew was only talking about the past not the present when i responded to him.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
Well, it wasn't artificially inflated by anything Maris did
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
just artificially inflated by the era he played in?
Your cannonball trajectory, it always gave me hope
Sure, I mean lets say CARGO hits 62 homers with 40 of them at Coors next year,
his record is as legit as Bonds’ 73?
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
Edgar
I continue to be discouraged with how far Edgar Martinez is. Not sure why he is being penalized for being a DH.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever

by 



















