Andre Dawson - lone HoF inductee

http://bbwaa.com/hof/

Code:

---

Name        Votes        Pct.
Andre Dawson        420        77.9%
Bert Blyleven        400        74.2%
Roberto Alomar        397        73.7%
Jack Morris        282        52.3%
Barry Larkin        278        51.6%
Lee Smith        255        47.3%
Edgar Martinez        195        36.2%
Tim Raines        164        30.4%
Mark McGwire        128        23.7%
Alan Trammell        121        22.4%
Fred McGriff        116        21.5%
Don Mattingly        87        16.1%
Dave Parker        82        15.2%
Dale Murphy        63        11.7%
Harold Baines        33        6.1%

---

Disappointing that Blyleven and Alomar were so close, but they're basically locks to make it in next year. Larkin's vote total is also disappointing. It's encouraging that Trammell and Raines saw an increase in votes, but they've still got a long way to go....Jack Morris also seems to be gaining traction...another disappointment.

Can't say I'm pleased here. Dawson isn't a terrible selection....he's better than Jim Rice and borderline overall...but I wouldn't vote for him. I'd be more pleased with this if Blyleven and Alomar made it over the hump.

Edgar should have made it. :(

Edgar getting such a low vote total is an outright disgrace. Just another reason why the HOF is just an awful thing that I couldn't care less about.

That sucks, I am hoping Bly and Alomar do make it, i honestly thought they would this year.

It's pathetic that Morris is ahead of Larkin....at all.

I don't really see Dawson as a hall of famer, I see him as a borderline at best hall of famer.

He was a solid player who had a very elite seasons...I don't see that as a hall of famer personally.....

Edgar actually polled higher than I thought he would. He's not in a bad spot for eventual induction.

Is Tim Raines only not in it because he didn't have "Rickey numbers?"

This is all wack.

Apparently, from what I saw on another site five voters turned in blank ballots. That seems annoying to me that none of those voters would at least think of Blyleven or Alomar as being Hall of Famers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Is Tim Raines only not in it because he didn't have "Rickey numbers?"

---

It's more than likely that it's because he hung on a while has a solid roleplayer and that's the image people have in their mind...not his outstanding 1980's peak. Also, his value comes from places that are underappreciated...like walks and baserunning. If you change 1,000 of Raines' walks into 400 singles and 600 outs, he becomes Lou Brock and with 3,000 hits sails in first ballot....despite being a much worse player.

Once again, the writers like to harp about how statheads don't "appreciate the little things", yet they're the ones that fall in love with HR and RBI and ignore the players that do the little things outstandingly or do a little bit of everything very well (like Barry Larkin).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBest21

Apparently, from what I saw on another site five voters turned in blank ballots. That seems annoying to me that none of those voters would at least think of Blyleven or Alomar as being Hall of Famers.

---

I know Jay Mariotti sent in a blank ballot...I don't know about anybody else, but if that's true that 5 did, that's a shame...Blyleven was 5 votes short of induction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

http://bbwaa.com/hof/

Code:

---

Name        Votes        Pct.
Andre Dawson        420        77.9%
Bert Blyleven        400        74.2%
Roberto Alomar        397        73.7%
Jack Morris        282        52.3%
Barry Larkin        278        51.6%
Lee Smith        255        47.3%
Edgar Martinez        195        36.2%
Tim Raines        164        30.4%
Mark McGwire        128        23.7%
Alan Trammell        121        22.4%
Fred McGriff        116        21.5%
Don Mattingly        87        16.1%
Dave Parker        82        15.2%
Dale Murphy        63        11.7%
Harold Baines        33        6.1%

---

Disappointing that Blyleven and Alomar were so close, but they're basically locks to make it in next year. Larkin's vote total is also disappointing. It's encouraging that Trammell and Raines saw an increase in votes, but they've still got a long way to go....Jack Morris also seems to be gaining traction...another disappointment.

Can't say I'm pleased here. Dawson isn't a terrible selection....he's better than Jim Rice and borderline overall...but I wouldn't vote for him. I'd be more pleased with this if Blyleven and Alomar made it over the hump.

---

The Hawk and Ryno were two of my favorites growing up so I'm pleased he's been voted in. I think he'd be a surefire HOF'er if not for lingering knee injuries throughout his career but agree he's borderline. I'd vote for him.

Larkin IMO should be in. He was the games best SS for quite a period, was a great ambassador to the game.

I can't understand Alomar...maybe his spitting incident is holding votes back???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I can't understand Alomar...maybe his spitting incident is holding votes back???

---

I'd say his abrupt jump off a cliff from the best season of his career to pretty terrible to out of the game in his mid 30's has more to do with it than the spitting incident....but neither are good reasons.

I'm more confused as to how Larkin only got 50% of the vote. These same writers always point to a lack of things like All Star Games and such as excuses to not vote for deserving players, yet then they don't vote for a guy like Larkin who has ASG appearances in spades, a few Gold Gloves and Silver Sluggers and an MVP.

There's little hope in trying to explain some of these things. They're standards are ridiculously inconsistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Is Tim Raines only not in it because he didn't have "Rickey numbers?"

---

I think if there never had been a Henderson, Rock would be in, but having Henderson as your contemporary.........

The results aren't what I would have chosen, but people are making way too big a deal out of this. If there were 5 blank ballots, then there were 5 people that thought none of them belong in the Hall of Fame. It is one thing to complain about someone voting for Morris and not voting for Blyleven, it is another to complain about someone choosing to say "None of the above". That seems to me to be a perfectly defensible vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I'd say his abrupt jump off a cliff from the best season of his career to pretty terrible to out of the game in his mid 30's has more to do with it than the spitting incident....but neither are good reasons.

I'm more confused as to how Larkin only got 50% of the vote. These same writers always point to a lack of things like All Star Games and such as excuses to not vote for deserving players, yet then they don't vote for a guy like Larkin who has ASG appearances in spades, a few Gold Gloves and Silver Sluggers and an MVP.

There's little hope in trying to explain some of these things. They're standards are ridiculously inconsistent.

---

and a ring.

Larkin did everything in his career, stole bases, hit homers, batted for an average, drew walks, played a very difficult position well....

he literally did everything, his career isn't lacking anything....maybe not enough career homers? haha, i mean come on!

and I have to admit, as a young fan, I didn't like Larkin, because he was taking over at the nl all star game shortstop position from my fav player Ozzie....and he was on a rival team....but you gotta respect the guy..

I don't see how Larkin is left off, and how Bly could have been ignored....Alomar the same.

...and really, How is it that Lee Smith keeps on NOT getting in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

The results aren't what I would have chosen, but people are making way too big a deal out of this. If there were 5 blank ballots, then there were 5 people that thought none of them belong in the Hall of Fame. It is one thing to complain about someone voting for Morris and not voting for Blyleven, it is another to complain about someone choosing to say "None of the above". That seems to me to be a perfectly defensible vote.

---

How about when you defend it by saying that since Blyleven and Dawson haven't been voted in yet, they don't belong at all....yet you voted for both the year before? Because that was one of the blank ballots.

I'd also be willing to wager that of the other 4 blank ballots, 2 or 3 of them were "protest" ballots against...whatever...steroids or some nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

and a ring.

Larkin did everything in his career, stole bases, hit homers, batted for an average, drew walks, played a very difficult position well....

he literally did everything, his career isn't lacking anything....maybe not enough career homers? haha, i mean come on!

and I have to admit, as a young fan, I didn't like Larkin, because he was taking over at the nl all star game shortstop position from my fav player Ozzie....and he was on a rival team....but you gotta respect the guy..

I don't see how Larkin is left off, and how Bly could have been ignored....Alomar the same.

---

Larkin didn't do any one particular thing very great. Players that do everything well but no one thing exceptionally well are criminally underrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robinhoodnik

...and really, How is it that Lee Smith keeps on NOT getting in?

---

He was a solid reliever for a long time but only had one or two seasons that were themselves "HoF-worthy." Rusty Staub is a comparable position player to Smith, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robinhoodnik

...and really, How is it that Lee Smith keeps on NOT getting in?

---

I am not really sure he deserves to be in, I personally wouldn't be voting for him....he was simply the first to be successful as a closer and gained career stat numbers simply by being allowed to do it the most. His career pales in comparison to the closers already in the hall....I think Hoffman and Rivera are hall of famers, but I feel Smith didn't do what they each did for long enough and as well.

If he got in, it wouldn't be a travesty, I just wouldn't vote for him....and he was a Cardinal in my lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

he was simply the first to be successful as a closer

---

He wasn't. He was just one of the first "one inning" closers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

He wasn't. He was just one of the first "one inning" closers.

---

that's really what i should have said.....he did post a career sub 3 era...but I see Jason Izzy's career to be somewhat similar to Smith's...just Smith did it first.....same with Franco

In fact, I think the only reason Smith is discussed as a possible hall of famer is because he had the most career saves for awhile.

Taking another look at Franco, I'd vote for him before I'd vote for Smith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Larkin didn't do any one particular thing very great. Players that do everything well but no one thing exceptionally well are criminally underrated.

---

I don't necessarily agree with this. Again, he was..for a short time..the best SS in the game. I can't recall a SS during Larkins prime that was comparable. I'm sure there's likely one or two...but its a short list and Larkin was atop it on many of occassions. Sure, when compared to all positions he may have done nothing "great" but looking merely at SS of his time he was great on all accounts as far as I recall. He harbored in the era of great hitting SS's that followed with Nomar, Tejada, Jeter, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I don't necessarily agree with this. Again, he was..for a short time..the best SS in the game. I can't recall a SS during Larkins prime that was comparable. I'm sure there's likely one or two...but its a short list and Larkin was atop it on many of occassions. Sure, when compared to all positions he may have done nothing "great" but looking merely at SS of his time he was great on all accounts as far as I recall. He harbored in the era of great hitting SS's that followed with Nomar, Tejada, Jeter, etc.

---

I agree that he was a great shortstop. The sum of a player that does everything well is an exceptional player. The thing is...he doesn't have one particular skill you can point to and say "He was great at this." He was good defensively, had some pop, good on the basepaths, a good overall hitter, etc. But he doesn't have one skill that stands out...like say, Tim Raines on the bases, Mark McGwire's power, Randy Johnson's strikeouts, etc. and players like that are generally underrated compared to players with one standout skill.

Larkin was probably, as Bill James once said, one of the ten most complete players in the history of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I agree that he was a great shortstop. The sum of a player that does everything well is an exceptional player. The thing is...he doesn't have one particular skill you can point to and say "He was great at this." He was good defensively, had some pop, good on the basepaths, a good overall hitter, etc. But he doesn't have one skill that stands out...like say, Tim Raines on the bases, Mark McGwire's power, Randy Johnson's strikeouts, etc. and players like that are generally underrated compared to players with one standout skill.

---

i dunno...as a SS of his era, I think pretty much ALL of his stats stand out as exceptional. When I look at a HOF'er, i compare him to those of his position. Of course there are exceptions...but thats how I look at it in general. And Larkin was IMO exceptional compared to his contemporaries of his era. He may not have been the best defensive SS of his era (oz of course) but he was amongst. He was the best offensive SS of his era hands down while providing great defense, baserunning and just as important the guy was as great an ambassador of the game as anyone.

Larkin also suffers in comparison with the shortstops around him - he follows Ozzie Smith and Cal Ripken, and then sort of precedes Jeter and A-Rod, and isn't rated as high as any of those players. Being the 5th best shortstop of the past 30 years isn't a bad thing - but it means that he becomes slightly forgettable. (He might rank ahead of Ozzie, but that is the difference between being good at everything and being ridiculously good at one thing.)

I think Rice and Dawson are bad picks. I think if you are going to put those two in then, how come Albert Belle got like only 5 votes and quickly fell off the ballot years ago. Despite his short career I think Belle was still better than both Rice and Dawson. I understand the part of him being a d-bag, but still. Alomar, Larkin, Raines, Blyleven & Trammel should all be in. Another player who fell off the ballot too fast was Lou Whitaker. I'm not sure if he's HOF worthy. But he deserved a longer look than what he got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

Larkin also suffers in comparison with the shortstops around him - he follows Ozzie Smith and Cal Ripken, and then sort of precedes Jeter and A-Rod, and isn't rated as high as any of those players. Being the 5th best shortstop of the past 30 years isn't a bad thing - but it means that he becomes slightly forgettable. (He might rank ahead of Ozzie, but that is the difference between being good at everything and being ridiculously good at one thing.)

---

ugh lol...i knew there was another SS of that era i was forgetting. How could I forget about Ripken lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

i dunno...as a SS of his era, I think pretty much ALL of his stats stand out as exceptional. When I look at a HOF'er, i compare him to those of his position. Of course there are exceptions...but thats how I look at it in general. And Larkin was IMO exceptional compared to his contemporaries of his era. He may not have been the best defensive SS of his era (oz of course) but he was amongst. He was the best offensive SS of his era hands down while providing great defense, baserunning and just as important the guy was as great an ambassador of the game as anyone.

---

I don't disagree with any of this (except the part about him being the best offensive SS of his era "hands down"...if you limit that to the NL then I would agree, but his "era" spanned the careers of Cal Ripken and then A-Rod/Nomar/Jeter). Larkin is probably one of the top 10 shortstops of all-time and a more than deserving Hall of Famer. I'm just stating one of the likely reasons that he's underrated by the average fan and the voting populace. His value was spread out across the five tools rather than being largely concentrated in one or two of them. Such players do tend to be underrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichelleWie

I think Rice and Dawson are bad picks. I think if you are going to put those two in then, how come Albert Belle got like only 5 votes and quickly fell off the ballot years ago. Despite his short career I think Belle was still better than both Rice and Dawson. I understand the part of him being a d-bag, but still. Alomar, Larkin, Raines, Blyleven & Trammel should all be in. Another player who fell off the ballot too fast was Lou Whitaker. I'm not sure if he's HOF worthy. But he deserved a longer look than what he got.

---

I'd rank Dawson ahead of Belle because of defense and baserunning, but Belle is clearly and obviously better than Jim Rice.

And Lou Whitaker is a deserving HoFer imo. It's a shame that Jack Morris is getting the most support of the players of the great 1980's Tiger teams when Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker were a fantastic DP combination for over a decade and both are deserving HoFers....and Jack Morris surely owes a portion of his success to their solid defensive presence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichelleWie

I think Rice and Dawson are bad picks. I think if you are going to put those two in then, how come Albert Belle got like only 5 votes and quickly fell off the ballot years ago. Despite his short career I think Belle was still better than both Rice and Dawson. I understand the part of him being a d-bag, but still. Alomar, Larkin, Raines, Blyleven & Trammel should all be in. Another player who fell off the ballot too fast was Lou Whitaker. I'm not sure if he's HOF worthy. But he deserved a longer look than what he got.

---

Belle didn't exactly have friends in the media...and his career was shortened due to injury.

but when you look at career numbers, you are exactly right.

Has Corky Simpson's choices been posted online yet?

Where is the crime dog :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenFink

Where is the crime dog :(

---

I greatly Challenge the Crime Dog's worthiness for hall votes.

1) Although more deserving players missed it, I can't get mad that a pretty deserving guy made it in. This isn't a Jim Rice pick, or a Freddie Lindstrom pick, or a Tony Perez pick.

2) Franco is eligible next year, correct?

3) Who was the 1 person that voted for Kevin Appier?

My votes:
Andre Dawson 420 77.9%
Bert Blyleven 400 74.2%
Roberto Alomar 397 73.7%
Jack Morris 282 52.3%
Barry Larkin 278 51.6%
Lee Smith 255 47.3%
Edgar Martinez 195 36.2%
Tim Raines 164 30.4%
Mark McGwire 128 23.7%
Alan Trammell 121 22.4%
Fred McGriff 116 21.5%
Don Mattingly 87 16.1%
Dave Parker 82 15.2% Not based on any rationale besides emotion.
Dale Murphy 63 11.7%
Harold Baines 33 6.1%

I'm trying to explain to my brother and my dad why Jack Morris is not a hall of famer. I guess a 105 ERA+ is legit HOF numbers, in which case we'll have to add about a hundred other pitchers like Jamie Moyer, Kenny Rogers, Frank Tanana, etc.

Jack Morris gets on my list of "maybes". Quite the bulldog, I wouldn't disapprove if jhe made the Hall though

It's so disappointing that Bert Blyleven wasn't selected this year - so damn close. I really hope next year is his year.