I hate to go off the Hot Stove format but please let me vent for a moment. Let me just say that the Hall Of Fame voting format needs work. Let's take Andre Dawson for example. It has taken him 8 years to gain eligibility into the Hall. What did Dawson do on the field to gain admittance? Well of course nothing. My point is that if you are a Hall Of Fame player you are the same player the first time through the process as you are on the 8th. Take Roberto Alomar for example. Alomar came just short of the Hall needing only 1.5% more votes which comes to about 7 more votes. Without a doubt Alomar will be a Hall Of Famer in next years class but the only reason he wasn't nominated is because enough voters have the thought process that Alomar is a Hall Of Famer but not a first ballot player. What the hell ever.
To me you are or you aren't. Look at the numbers take into consideration a players prime years in comparison of his peers and either vote yes or no. It's that simple. To correct this issue simply make the ballot a one and done scenario. After five years out of the game your name is put on the ballot and the voters decide yes or no. This would make voters much more open minded and you would see more deserving players not have to sweat it out for years and years such as Dawson. Players who don't make the cut are added to the player pool for the Veteran's Committee to decide. While your at it you may want to investigate some of the people who vote. For Tim Tebow's sake Pat Hentgen, Kevin Appier and David Segui actually received votes. I would be happy to take ownership of a Hall vote.
As for the offseason moves in a very slow week.
Justin Duchscherer re-ups with the A's. After a great 08 in his first year as a starter, Duch paid the price for the increased workload missing all of 09 with arm issues. It is unclear at this point if he will return to the rotation or revert back to a MR role. Should Duch earn a rotation spot he could be a low risk big reward player more than likely available sometime after the 20th round.
Kelly Johnson signs with D'Backs. Johnson appeared to be the Braves 2B of the present and future going into last season but 09 was miserable for Johnson who lost his job last season and was non-tendered this offseason. Johnson looks to be a good rebound player for the 2010 season. With a BABIP of .249 last season expect Johnson to be in the .280 range for 2010. Johnson is a good MI than can be picked up late or a serviceable UTIL is desperate.
Marlon Byrd signs with Cubs. I hope as a Cub fan that this isn't the highlight of the Winter for the Cubs. Byrd is coming of a career best season but his Home/Road Splits are evident. On the bright side he will be reunited with Rudy Jaramilo his hitting coach from last season and one of the best in the business. Byrd looks to be batting in the middle of what should be a good lineup. All the underlying indicators would show that Byrd is due for a setback this season. For my sake I hope that's not the case. Do not touch until after the 20th Rd.
Adrian Beltre signs with Red Sox. Beltre had a miserable 09 campaign dealing with both ineffectiveness and injury. Beltre posted only 8 HR's in nearly 450 AB. This signing has been criticized in Red Sox Nation but I happen to really like it and it is a huge upgrade over Mike Lowell and the move will put Youklis over at 1B where he belongs. Beltre is entering his 12 season but many forget that he will only be 30 during the season which is often a players prime in Baseball. Beltre's underlying indicators show that 09 was more than likely an aberration and Beltre should return to the 20 plus HR player with the potential to drive in 80+ Runs. Owners who draft Beltre as a 4th UTIL player will be rewarded.
Matt Holliday signs with Cardinals. Holliday cashed in on his post trade performance from last year as he hit .353 with 13HR in 235AB. Holliday was a bust in Oakland hitting .286 with 11HR in 346AB. Holliday career numbers are inflated due to the Coors Field effect. But a field can't make a hitter as good as he was so I feel as though Holliday is a better player than he was in Oakland but not the .353 hitter he was during his brief stint in St. Louis last year. Batting behind Pujols will increase his value but Holliday will once again be a Top 20 Player in most drafts and I don't see him as worthy of that lofty a pick. The interesting part of the signing is what will the Cardinals due with Pujols? Should they resign him then the Cardinals will have the majority of their payroll with two players. Should they not resign Pujols then they would have in effect chosen Matt Holliday over Albert Pujols.
6 comments:
Josh,
Addressing the HOF voting stance.
It seems you have overlooked the significant facts that:
- There is not a set criteria for acceptance in the HOF, only a set criteria for eligibility.
- The voters change, so their preference for who makes it and who doesn't changes. Hence, if someone hates Andre Dawson for whatever reason, he still has a legit chance of getting into the hall of fame at a later date.
- There are many factors to consider when analyzing someone's career and it may not be as easy as looking at the numbers as you have explicitly stated.
"To correct this issue simply make the ballot a one and done scenario. After five years out of the game your name is put on the ballot and the voters decide yes or no. This would make voters much more open minded and you would see more deserving players not have to sweat it out for years and years such as Dawson. Players who don't make the cut are added to the player pool for the Veteran's Committee to decide."
You contradict yourself within this paragraph. You say "one and done" and then a few sentences later state that the players that didn't make it be put in a pool for the VC to be voted on again after the player has been retired for 21 years. The re-vote violates the one and done scenario.
Finally, what did Andre Dawson do on the field to gain acceptance? How about
- 8 time All Star team member
- 8 time golden glove recipient
- 4 time silver slugger recipient
- 1977 Rookie of the Year
- 1987 NL Most valuable player
Maybe I'm not sure what your point is.
Please clarify.
Jesse
Let us not forget that The Hawk did all of that on two bad knees.
Jesse,
Let me guide you through this again. First off I am a huge Dawson Fan and I feel his HOF honor is deserving. Addressing the "what he did on the field" quote, it was reffering to the fact that Dawson did nothing to to cement his career from the first time on the ballot to the 9th time. SO my point is if he is a HOF then he should be a HOF on the first vote. Secondly the writers and Veterans Committee are two seperate institutions that are currently in place so the process would go unchanged the canidates would get one year on the ballot instead of 15 before they would be voted on the the Veterans Committee. The HOF voters do change upon occasion but the turnover is minimal. HOF voters currently feel that it is a distinct honor to be a first ballot HOF so Alomar for example was excluded from this years class because enough people felt that he wasn't a First Ballot type guy. Next year he will get about 90% of the vote. If you went to a One time vote it would eliminate this issue and I feel the Star Players would still get in while the fence players like a Tony Perez wouldn't which would make for a better quality product and overall process in my opinion.
Best Dawson Stat: One of only 3 Players with 400 Career HR and 300 career SB. Mays and Bonds are the others.
If they are denied the first year, and then go to the VC, then that isn't really a one and done is it? It's more like a one and indefinite.
Furthermore, exactly what would be the advantage of your system and why?
How would it make voters more open minded?
And does any of your system matter since now they rejected players can just be voted in by the VC?s
I'm failing to see your point.
Make you should guide me through it.
Thanks.
This is my last comment on this subject. I found and article that helps express my claims.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sports/baseball/11hall.html?ref=sports
Please review at your leisure.
FYI. I had a private meeting with some baseball analysts that includes some professional baseball players. These authorities thought you ideas were ludicrous for all and more of the reasons I have previously stated.
Thanks.
Jesse
Yes, I understand this is an appeal to authority but these authorities desputed your views as well, thus the appeal is relevant.
Thanks.
Jesse
Post a Comment