Bad Day for Seaver?

[Guest Edgy DC]

If I recall correctly, Tom Seaver stands as the Hall of Famer with the election as close to unanimous of any electee. I'm checking now and he received 425 out of 430 possible votes (98.84%).

Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn, whose enshrinement is expected to be announced today by Dale Petroskey, also augmented their strong cases with the sort of Seaverian air of professionalism that makes old men vote. Will one of them displace Seaver as the most perfect electee?

(No, I don't really think that would make it a very bad day Seaver. At least, I hope it wouldn't.)

[Frayed Knot]

"Will one of them displace Seaver as the most perfect electee?"

I'm betting no.

There's always some voter who decides that he's not going to elect ANYONE on the first ballot. I also heard a story about one writer who has apparently decided not to vote for anyone who played in the steroid era - whether there are suspicions about him specifically or not - until we have more facts about that era.

At least one of the Seaver blank votes (IIRC) was a similar "protest" type vote - in that case it was about Rose's absence from the ballot.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm betting no, because (1) of the steroids thing and the fact that Ripken has been mealy-mouthed about criticizing steroids users, and (2) neither one is a truly perfect candidate --- with Gwynn lackng power and Ripken controversially carrying on with that streak through some poor seasons.

But will there ever be two more genial dudes going in together?

[metirish]

I don't think any player will better Seaver's % any time soon,with the amount of voters it's hard to imagine them all on the same page.

[seawolf17]

According to ESPN Radio this morning, at least one guy left his ballot completely blank this year, so we know it won't be unanimous.

[metirish]

Good,cos no one fucks with Seaver...

[metirish]

George Brett on Seaver and the voting system

] �Why is Tom Seaver the guy with the most?� Brett says. �Is he the best player ever to play? He was good, but he wasn�t that good. He was Hall of Fame material, but is he (98.8) percent? And how�d I get 98? I have no clue because I didn�t go out of my way to be nice to people. �I�m sure some of them didn�t vote for me because I was a (jerk) to them. All I know is it brought tears to my eyes when the guy told me I was on 98 percent of the ballots.�

[Willets Point]

metirish wrote: Good,cos no one fucks with Seaver...

Except Nancy.

[Guest ABG]

Ripken fell just short of Seaver.

McGwire got less than 25%.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

2006 Hall of Fame voting results

545 ballots, 409 needed for election)

Cal Ripken 537 98.5%
Tony Gwynn 532 97.6%
Rich "Goose" 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
Wally Joyner 0
Devon White 0
Bobby Witt 0

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

So 8 people didn't vote for Ripken, and 13 didn't vote for Gwynn.

Two ballots were left completely blank.

Me, I would have voted for both of them, and they would have been my only two votes.

[metirish]

ABG wrote: Ripken fell just short. McGwire got less than 25%.

When I read this I thought Ripken didn't get in at all...

[Farmer Ted]

1 person voted for Jay Buhner. 3 for Dante Bichette? Pull those voting credentials NOW!!

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

I'm glad that Seaver keeps his record. Any recognition for Tom is good in my eyes.

But really, how can any of the people who did not vote for Ripken or Gwynn justify that? If those two don't belong, then who exactly does?

And two blank ballots? That's just shameful. Strip them of their ability to vote because it's clear that these people can't be trusted with something so important.

And even worse -- 12 morons voted for Paul O'Neill! As if there weren't enough Yankee taint in that building!

[Guest ABG]

metirish wrote: ="ABG"]Ripken fell just short. McGwire got less than 25%. When I read this I thought Ripken didn't get in at all...

Yeah, I just realized that. I'll correct it.

[seawolf17]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Jim Rice 346 63.5%

BOOOOOOOO.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think it's a waste of time to get upset about (1) the few who didn't vote for guys who were overwhelmingly elected, or (2) the few who did vote for guys who were overwhelmingly rejected. Outlying votes are inconsequential.

[Guest sharpie]

Saberhagen wins the former Met vote with 7 besting Tony Fernandez's 4 and Bobby Bonilla's 2.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Hershiser actually wins that one with 24..

And he fails to become the new starting pitcher on the "All-Eliminated on the First Ballot Team."

[Sandgnat]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: But really, how can any of the people who did not vote for Ripken or Gwynn justify that?

One of the voting writers was on MLB on XM this morning. It is the guy who has been referred to in other threads and responses. Besides the steroid issue (which according to him, anyone who played between 1993 and 2004 does not deserve a first ballot vote) he said he will never vote for someone on their first ballot because 11 writers didn't vote for Babe Ruth in 1936 and Cy Young wasn't even elected on his (the) first ballot and 48 people didn't vote for him in 1937 when he was enshrined.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

The guy's an idiot then.

The only reason not to vote for someone is if you don't think he belongs.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I wouldn't have elected Cy Young on his first ballet either. Have you seen the guy dance?

[Frayed Knot]

This whole notion about not wanting modern players to go in unanimously or on the 1st ballot because it would somehow disrespect older (and presumbably better) players who didn't is ridiculous. The voting process isn't even the same today as it was way back when. The 5-year waiting rule, for instance, wasn't always in place and it is the main reason why DiMaggio wasn't elected his 1st time. Everyone knew he was destined to get in but many writers simply weren't sure that he was even going to stay retired (he was only 36) and there just wasn't the sense of urgency that he be elected NOW!!!!

[Frayed Knot]

]And even worse -- 12 morons voted for Paul O'Neill!

Or, as Yanqui fans would put it, 'ONLY twelve votes for Paulie'!!!!

I once listened to an entire afternoon of talk radio listening to NYY fans talk about how Barry Bonds wasn't a fraction of the player O'Neill was. And that was before the steroid scandals began.

[Sandgnat]

Edgy DC wrote: I wouldn't have elected Cy Young on his first ballet either. Have you seen the guy dance?

Guess you missed the Fantasia segment "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor"

[stevejrogers]

="Frayed Knot"] ]And even worse -- 12 morons voted for Paul O'Neill! Or, as Yanqui fans would put it, 'ONLY twelve votes for Paulie'!!!! I once listened to an entire afternoon of talk radio listening to NYY fans talk about how Barry Bonds wasn't a fraction of the player O'Neill was. And that was before the steroid scandals began.

I thought it was Bernie Williams?

I have heard a comparasion of how O'Neill was a better, ummm, "gamer" based on O'Neill playing THE DAY HIS FATHER FREAKING DIES! And Barry took about a month off after the death of Bobby Bonds.

[stevejrogers]

="Sandgnat"] metsguyinmichigan wrote: he said he will never vote for someone on their first ballot because 11 writers didn't vote for Babe Ruth in 1936 and Cy Young wasn't even elected on his (the) first ballot and 48 people didn't vote for him in 1937 when he was enshrined. You can easilly pooh-pooh that by saying that first vote was so brand new, it was surprising ANYONE got as much as 90%. The Ruth thing goes back to the old Cobb-Ruth debate that really was a hot issue back in the day, so the older writers felt that Cobb's brand of ball was the better way of playing baseball and wanted THAT to be the standard that all others were judged. The BWAA were still just hammering out exactly WHO they should be honoring. I'm also going to suggest that since Matty and Big Train were just recent (comparativly speeking) that they were fresher in the minds of voters over who the best hurlers in the game's history were. Plus I doubt anyone was pulling out Cy's 511 wins as the ultimate argument settler back then. Could also be a good chunk of Young's work was done in the nebulous (at the time) 19th century which really wouldn't be explored for another 5 years or so. Yes Wagner and Lajoie played a decent amount in the 1890's as well, but a better case can be made that they were heads and shoulders better than many who came after, while Young you really can debate against the top pitchers of the following decades (Matthewson, Johnson, Alexander)

Nymr83 Jan 09 2007 10:08 PM

I don't think Young compares well to any of those guys. But to talk more about you're real point, I agree that the hall was new then and basing your vote now on what went on then is pretty foolish. As far as I'm concerned you should either vote for a guy or you shouldn't. The only reason for multiple years of eligibility is to prevent a guy from getting the shaft if he's on the ballot the same year as 3 or 4 "automatic" guys or to allow people more time to study him when they see he got 50% (for example) of the vote, this especially matters since I'm sure some of the voters are "old school" AL/NL guys who really don't know enough about players in the other league.

[nymr83]

I don't think Young compares well to any of those guys.
But to talk more about you're real point, I agree that the hall was new then and basing your vote now on what went on then is pretty foolish. As far as I'm concerned you should either vote for a guy or you shouldn't. The only reason for multiple years of eligibility is to prevent a guy from getting the shaft if he's on the ballot the same year as 3 or 4 "automatic" guys or to allow people more time to study him when they see he got 50% (for example) of the vote, this especially matters since I'm sure some of the voters are "old school" AL/NL guys who really don't know enough about players in the other league.