It's Dawson. Just Dawson

[G-Fafif]

When Andre Dawson would glare in at a Mets pitcher, his bat seconds from furiously swinging and lethally connecting, I felt no fear. Sure, I thought, he might hit a homer here, but at least he isn't very likely to walk. When Dawson went deep, I was relieved because his sorry-ass on-base percentage only went up as a result of his poor batting eye.

We may have lost the battle, but we won the WAR.

SC Score = 77.9

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Sure did make a load of outs, though, didn't he?

Speaking of subjective impressions, though... I remember as a little kid being really, really annoyed by Tim Raines because he always ended up getting a hit or something, and then he wouldn't stop stealing, in a uniform that looked like my friggin' pajamas. Dawson-- and Tim Wallach-- may have been kinda scary, but Raines cheesed off 7-year-old LWFS something fierce.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Deadspin presents its Worst HOF Voter of the year. Mariotti makes second runner-up; his vote's even worse in the context of his previous ballots:

... look at his bizarre statement that if someone hasn't been elected yet, they're not good enough and aren't deserving of a vote. This is also acceptable, if it's a principled stand. Yet Mariotti voted for Jim Rice last year, on his 15th try. Want to know who else he found deserving last year? Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven.

First R-U is a swing-and-miss. But your winner is a doozy: Philly Daily News' own Bill Conlin. In his own words:

"I voted for Tim Raines his first year of eligibility. But when he failed to get 25 percent of the vote, he was moved to the back burner. Sorry, that's just the way it has to be. Maybe more eligible ballwriters should have measured the Rock's career numbers in all phases against those of analog basestealer and first-ballot inductee Lou Brock. Try it, you'll be amazed. Good news for Raines, however. Yesterday, in one of the most bizarre elections in a bizarre process, he collected 30 percent and is now back on my radar."

So... he likes him for the HOF-- and, in fact, is "amazed" by his credentials-- but leaves him off because everyone else did.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

There is apparently no minimum IQ required to join the BBWAA.

[A Boy Named Seo]

This one's a doozy, too

[Valadius]

I was watching MLB Network online in the hours leading up to the vote announcement, and something the analysts said made a lot of sense - that because of cutbacks and changes in the newspaper industry, fewer writers get to interact and watch the players in the same fashion as they once did. However, radio and TV broadcasters see more games than anybody. Therefore, the thinking goes, the voters should include the radio and TV broadcasters. What do you all think?

[A Boy Named Seo]

Games also cannot be seen when heads are shoved stubbornly up asses. Guys and gals amongst the writers shouldn't have to see every out to know one dude's better and more deserving than another. I'm sure there'd be just as many good and shitty voters amongst the TV and radio folk.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Valadius wrote: I was watching MLB Network online in the hours leading up to the vote announcement, and something the analysts said made a lot of sense - that because of cutbacks and changes in the newspaper industry, fewer writers get to interact and watch the players in the same fashion as they once did. However, radio and TV broadcasters see more games than anybody. Therefore, the thinking goes, the voters should include the radio and TV broadcasters. What do you all think?

Even then, those voters are missing up to 15/16 of the games going on at any given time. Would that there were some kind of unbiased numerical way to track player performance-- numbers that could be treated to normalize the effects of park and era and league-- to allow for an even, relatively objective comparison.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I never saw Walter Johnson pitch in person.

[G-Fafif]

Marty Noble articulates HOF voting rationale here.

Now people on the radio and television who never have been around the game on a daily basis are calling for a change in the voting because this year merely 73.7 percent of 539 ballots cast included checks for Alomar. The best second baseman I ever saw received 395 votes and came closer to election than any other first-time candidate who feel short. And the ripple effect of that vote ought to be that the system be overhauled? Now I will ask the question. Are you serious? So if eight others had voted for Alomar, the system would been deemed acceptable and allowed to remain in place to determine whether Blyleven, Tim Raines, Barry Bonds, Derek Jeter and Johan Santana are Hall of Fame worthy. Eight more votes would have made all of us look so much wiser? Are you serious?

[Gwreck]

I had little problem with Marty's explanation re: Alomar (that he held off a first ballot vote because he felt Alomar's actions were a disgrace to the game) but he comes off a little too defensive at times "And those who have their noses pressed against their computer screens and think VORP is a valid means of measuring a player's performance ought to get a life and a credential that would allow them to see and hear the game up close."

[metirish]

I hate when writers like Conlin above use the Sorry, that's just the way it has to be. line to explain why they leave guys off....

[nymr83]

Marty should be fired for breaking out the tired (and untrue) old writer's argument that people who use their brains (look at stats newer than batting average) must not watch enough games.

[Centerfield]

Marty should also be brought to task for creating sub-levels in the Hall of Fame that do not exist.

I have no problem with him excluding Alomar from the Hall for spitting at an umpire. As Marty points out, the ballot instructs the voter to consider integrity and character. If he feels that the spitting incident, and his occasional lack of motivation, is enough to keep him out of the Hall, so be it. That is why they vote. It's a subjective determination.

My problem is the following:

I will vote for him next year, not because I've been persuaded by the harsh outcry of those without voting privileges (and some with), but because that has been my intention since I received the last ballot.

Marty fails to see that he cannot have it both ways. Either he is a Hall of Famer or he isn't. There is no "not a first-ballot" criteria, even if it's based on character, instead of accomplishments. If the spitting is not enough to keep him out of the Hall, the vote should be yes. Noble is quick to point out the instructions on the ballot, but fails to explain this arbitrary line of thinking.

So what terrible wrong has been perpetrated on him by the band of fools who chose not to ignore his transgressions? He has to wait a whole year? Joe DiMaggio waited, and all he did was kick the dirt near second base when Al Gionfriddo denied him an extra base hit in the '47 World Series.

There is no terrible wrong. But the DiMaggio argument demonstrates that Noble is not following instructions. And we would hope that voters for the Hall could follow simple instructions. (Instructions that Noble is aware exist)

Why should Alomar be treated as Joe Morgan, Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, and Ryan Sandberg were, as Derek Jeter will be, when he has fallen short of the standards they have established/maintained? Or should we create a special corridor within the Hall for players without rap sheets?

If he feels he has fallen short, he should vote no, and stick to it. But Noble says in this article that Alomar is worthy of the Hall. So he is contradicting himself. It's funny that he asks his critics if a special corridor should be built, because that is exactly what Noble is attempting to do. The Hall does not ask whether a candidate is as good as every member in the Hall, simply whether they have reached a minimum level of excellence warranting induction.

Which is not to say that you can never change your mind. I have no problem with people changing their minds from year to year. I think one of the great aspects of Hall voting is that it allows candidates to stay on the ballot, which allows for a review of the player as their place in history starts to form. Player A may not seem like a Hall of Famer 5 years after retirement, but looking back 15 years later, with a new perspective, it may be that he looks much better. But that is not what Noble is doing here.

He is deliberately voting against a candidate that he admits is Hall-worthy based upon arbitrary, self-created criteria. Forty years around the game, you would hope he understood the criteria on which players are to be judged, and respected his privilege enough that he would follow instructions.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Centerfield wrote: Forty years around the game, you would hope he understood the criteria on which players are to be judged, and respected his privilege enough that he would follow instructions.

I think it's more likely that his forty years in the game leads him to follow (and sadly, defend) the tradtions of voting that he inherited from his predecessors, which include resisting voting for any but the very best players in their first year of HOF eligibility, and resisting voting for pitchers in MVP competition.

His position, while incorrect, is nonetheless the culturally conservative one. No shock that old guys defend it.

[Centerfield]

Absolutely. And I understand the degree of difficulty in asking people to change how things that are done, especially in a "that's the way it's always been" arena like baseball. But it's a shame that intelligent writers out there like Noble fall into these traps.

[G-Fafif]

Fundamentally, Marty is right about the act of voting. It's his vote. He checked off the players he thought deserved to go in this time and didn't check off the others. All are free to disagree with his choices and methodology, but what got me in the aftermath of the HOF announcement was the level of offense taken (not just with Marty but with others who didn't vote for the guys who came close). I listened to him on XM and saw him on MLB Network wherein he was asked "why, Marty?" He told them. And the responses were, essentially, "No, your opinion is wrong." So why'dya ask him if all you were going to do was tell him not going along with their decision was a terrible mistake? Shoot, just prescreen all voters to make sure they're going to go along with the preferred decision and give only approved voters ballots.

[Centerfield]

On what point is Marty right?

I have no idea what the critics were complaining about, or how that discussion went, but if they were upset that Noble didn't vote for Alomar, they should be. Noble, himself, admits that Alomar is worthy of Hall induction. If that is the case, he should have voted for him. When Noble fails to vote for a candidate he feels is worthy, he has strayed from the Hall's instruction to the player's detriment. Alomar, or his fans, have a right to be angry.

It's not as if he didn't feel Alomar didn't belong. I mean, if Marty really felt that Alomar felt short, that's his opinion. Neither Roberto nor Blyleven are in that "no-brainer" category. I think you can make a justifiable argument that he isn't good enough.

But that isn't the case here. He voted no based on his own made-up criteria. As Edgy said, it's certainly understandable why he votes that way. But if he's challenged, I really wish he'd take a look at himself and realize what he was doing.

[G-Fafif]

Marty is right that he gets a vote and he can use it as he sees fit. He considered the names on the ballot, he chose the names he thought were worthy in this election, he opted to forego the others. The reasoning for his votes may have sprung from contradictory beliefs -- Alomar was a great second baseman; Alomar's behavior was an affront to the game -- but he made a decision to which he's entitled and he shared his reasoning, no matter how sound or how addled it may have come off.

Noble isn't doing himself (or the Hall) any favors by dismissing different ways to measure a baseball player's effectiveness. Those who promote different ways to measure a baseball player's effectiveness aren't doing themselves (or the Hall) any favors by dismissing the perspective of someone who doesn't automatically go along with their thinking or conclusions.

All criteria beyond "played ten years, retired five years" and whatever else it says when they send out the ballots is made up. It's up to each of the voters to decide why someone's a Hall of Famer in a given election. Marty Noble saw a Hall of Famer in Barry Larkin. Somebody else who voted for Larkin may have done it for different reasons from Noble. Somebody who didn't vote for him may have applied the same standard as Noble but decided Larkin didn't meet it.

[Frayed Knot]

Plus I think Noble's larger point is that just because you disagree with the outcome, or even with some elements of how the outcome was reached, that shouldn't necessarily send out a call to blow up the entire process - and, this year in particular, seems to have generated an awful lot of noise about doing just that.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I certainly agree with that.

The funny thing is that --- Dawson aside --- for all the contempt expressed for individual members of the BBWAA --- as a body, they've more or less done the job well.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Woody Paige votes for those who'll be nice to him and remember his name, as do a number of others. Mariotti does... what he does. And dozens of other writers retired from baseball may or may not follow, much less cover, baseball at all during the tenure of the players they vote up or down (which is, after all, the entire justification for their expertise in the matter, no?).

The gub'ment takes away voting rights from felons. Why doesn't the BBWAA take away voting privileges from those who've proven themselves unfit to hold them... and publicly, pridefully announced it?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Voting aside, that's a heck of an indictment from Noble.

His performance when the Mets played in his homeland of Puerto Rico early in '03 showed he hadn't lost his skills. Those four games in San Juan showed he still was a terrific second baseman. He showed little of his once-remarkable flair for the game in the games that followed and preceded his trade to the White Sox on July 1 that year. His manager with the Mets, Art Howe, was befuddled by the player he inherited. The staff was stunned by Alomar's effort. One coach contacted Alomar's father, Sandy, and urged him to have a talk with his son. Teammates wondered which Robbie would show up for a given game.

Of course, I would've loved to have seen him pound out some features on this back in 2002-2003. Maybe he did and I misremember.

[Centerfield]

G-Fafif wrote: Marty is right that he gets a vote and he can use it as he sees fit. He considered the names on the ballot, he chose the names he thought were worthy in this election, he opted to forego the others. The reasoning for his votes may have sprung from contradictory beliefs -- Alomar was a great second baseman; Alomar's behavior was an affront to the game -- but he made a decision to which he's entitled and he shared his reasoning, no matter how sound or how addled it may have come off. Noble isn't doing himself (or the Hall) any favors by dismissing different ways to measure a baseball player's effectiveness. Those who promote different ways to measure a baseball player's effectiveness aren't doing themselves (or the Hall) any favors by dismissing the perspective of someone who doesn't automatically go along with their thinking or conclusions. All criteria beyond "played ten years, retired five years" and whatever else it says when they send out the ballots is made up. It's up to each of the voters to decide why someone's a Hall of Famer in a given election. Marty Noble saw a Hall of Famer in Barry Larkin. Somebody else who voted for Larkin may have done it for different reasons from Noble. Somebody who didn't vote for him may have applied the same standard as Noble but decided Larkin didn't meet it.

We are going to have to agree to disagree here.

I think there is a huge distinction to be made between declining to vote for someone because you don't think they are Hall-worthy (acceptable) and declining to vote for someone despite the fact that you acknowledge that they are Hall-worthy.

All of this "he's not a first-ballot guy but I'll vote for him next year because he belongs" crap, whether based on accomplishments or character, is completely arbitrary. It is outside the instructions given by the Hall, and it is for that reason that I think people who complain about Noble's logic are justified.

To illustrate this, think of a scenario where I, a baseball writer, instead of instituting Noble's criteria, decided I am not going to vote for players whose names start with "A" their first time around. Be it Alomar or Aaron, no "A" people get my vote that first year.

Imagine further that I explained, when challenged, that I fully acknowledge that Alomar should get in the Hall, but his name starts with A, so he'll have to wait until next year. It would be maddening to Alomar supporters to hear such randomness.

My logic would be no more justifiable than Noble's. Both Marty and I weighed the criteria set forth by the Hall (character, record, etc.) and determined Alomar was worthy. Both Marty and I declined to vote for him, despite this worthiness, based on criteria not delineated by the Hall (Letter A, not as classy as DiMaggio). Both Marty and I intend to vote for him next year, so we ask, "What's the harm?"

Plenty I say.

As to FK's point, I do think it's dumb to overreact and blow up the process. I'm with Marty on that. But I would like for him to realize that random criteria, like his, are one of the best arguments that can be given to support that argument.

[Guest Edgy DC]

And Dawson will join Gary Carter as a Hall of Famer with a big curly M on his hat.

[Fman99]

I remember as a kid trying to figure out what the letters JL had to do with Montreal or Expos. Stupid logo.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think it's great. I think Washington should occasionally take the field with old Montreal uniforms with the M inverted to become a W.

[metirish]

I like it a lot , Dawson for what it's worth wanted to wear a Cubs cap.

"The Hall clearly stated their major concern is the history of the game, and that's what really played into their decision," Dawson said. "I'm disappointed. I can probably say that, because Chicago was my preference.

.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Carter felt the same way.

Their post-career careers largely based on their associations with the still-extant franchises that they moved on to, and they prefer to see that association underscored whenever possible.

There's comparatively not much money in the fanbase of a dead team.

[metirish]

yeah of course , Dawson should take a cue from Carter on how not to alienate your favored team .