The all things HOF 2008 thread

[DrungoHazewood]

There are stories behind most, if not all, of those guys. For all but Berra and Killebrew, the story was that there was still a glut of guys essentially "waiting their turn." The Hall was still young, even in the mid-50s when DiMaggio was waiting.

I'm not sure what happened to Yogi other than to say that maybe people weren't yet looking at offensive value at different positions yet, so his contributions didn't look as good and he didn't look like a first ballot guy.

Killebrew was basically a repeat of DiMaggio. He waited and watched Gibson, Robinson, Aaron, Robinson, and Marichal go in first.

The real issue is less that voters don't want to honor people on the first ballot and more that they don't want to have more than two or three guys go in at one time.

That says it a little better than I did. The glut of candidates up until the Vet's Committee went hogwild in the 60s and 70s meant that a lot of players who were obvious HOFers ended up 6th or 10th or 15th in line in any one year. And very few writers were willing to give baseball's highest honor to 15 people at a time. There may have even been a rule limiting how many could get in at once.

Another factor was that until 1969 when the MacMillan Encyclopedia was first published it was darn near impossible to get a good accounting of someone's numbers. There were a few obscure books floating around, with varying completeness and accuracy, but you couldn't just go to the library or the 'net and look up Mel Ott's numbers. An oft-told, possibly apocryphal, story is that Lloyd Waner went into the Hall because someone passed out his stats to the voters but got them mixed up with his brother Paul's. Nobody noticed.

[Moose Milligan]

Drungo, I'm not sure if you know this but has someone like Raines ever scored so low in the voting and then been elected later on?

I wouldn't know where to go to find the voting history or else I'd do it myself but it seems like Gossage started off in the 50%'s and worked his way up, finally getting in on a year when there wasn't a Ripken or a Gwynn to deter him.

[TGO]

Drungo, I'm not sure if you know this but has someone like Raines ever scored so low in the voting and then been elected later on?

I wouldn't know where to go to find the voting history or else I'd do it myself but it seems like Gossage started off in the 50%'s and worked his way up, finally getting in on a year when there wasn't a Ripken or a Gwynn to deter him.

Just read message #24 in this thread.

I don't know what the record is, but Bruce Sutter got 23.9% of the vote in 1994, his first year.

[DrungoHazewood]

Drungo, I'm not sure if you know this but has someone like Raines ever scored so low in the voting and then been elected later on?

I wouldn't know where to go to find the voting history or else I'd do it myself but it seems like Gossage started off in the 50%'s and worked his way up, finally getting in on a year when there wasn't a Ripken or a Gwynn to deter him.

My problem is the apparent dichotomy in the voters. I saw maybe half a dozen impassioned cases made for Raines over the past six months or so. Everywhere from ESPN to more obscure saber sites. There's heaps of evidence that he's someone who'll improve the standards of the Hall.

But yet three-quarters of the voters just said no. That's a massive gap to bridge. Maybe some part of the tally was people who make a habit of not voting for inner-inner-circle guys in their first year. But I'd guess that's not anywhere near 50% of the voters.

This may sound harsh, but Raines' eventual election may hinge on the rate that old sportwriters retire or die between now and 2023. This is a gap between the old HR/RBI crowd that votes for Andre Dawson and the folks who realize the importance of the things Raines did.

[Moose Milligan]

Just read message #24 in this thread.

Sorry man, I missed your post. I'm assuming he's the lowest?

[DrungoHazewood]

Sorry man, I missed your post. I'm assuming he's the lowest?

With the changing standards over the years he might not be. There are players who got only a handful of votes when eligible on the BBWAA ballot (maybe even a few who got no votes) who later went in via the Veteran's Committee.

Raines may have some hope if he can get friendly with Frankie Frisch's ghost or somebody on the 1928 NY Giants.

[BaltimoreTerp]

With the changing standards over the years he might not be. There are players who got only a handful of votes when eligible on the BBWAA ballot (maybe even a few who got no votes) who later went in via the Veteran's Committee.

Raines may have some hope if he can get friendly with Frankie Frisch's ghost or somebody on the 1928 NY Giants.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/oracle/link.cgi?n1=4746&n2=11605

He has a link (kind-of)...

[Ruzious]

Raines at 24.3% is pure, unvarnished madness. Raines almost equal to a guy who 50% of the voters won't touch because of PED suspicions is crazy. Raines with fewer votes than Dawson shows a fundamental misunderstanding of value in baseball.

Whoever voted for Stottlemyre, Fryman, Duston, and Beck needs to have their heads examined. They all need to be beaten about their heads and necks with cardboard tubes if they didn't have about 15 names on their ballots. A vote for Shawon Dunston is either a joke vote for somebody's favorite player, or an endorsement for a 3000-player Hall.

Raines deserved far more, but to knock Dawson means you didn't watch him in his prime, because he was the best all-around player in the NL for a while - I don't care that his OBP was Brooks Robinsonesque. He was a great CFer before the knee injuries - as well as a great base runner.

But back to Raines, he has 2 things going against him that were out of his control - comparisons to Rickey Henderson and playing for small market teams. Without Henderson, he was arguably the top leadoff man of the era.

[DrungoHazewood]

Raines deserved far more, but to knock Dawson means you didn't watch him in his prime, because he was the best all-around player in the NL for a while - I don't care that his OBP was Brooks Robinsonesque. He was a great CFer before the knee injuries - as well as a great base runner.

I didn't watch him in his prime, at least not much. But I remember his reputation. Unfortunately, I better remember his ridiculous 1987 MVP award.

I think he has a better case than Rice, but he's well short of Raines. 65 points of OBP takes a ton of other stuff to make up for. So does 500 extra steals with only 50 more caught. There's only so valuable you can be when you're hitting .270 and you never once walk 50 times in a season.

In '87 Raines was worth three extra wins compared to Dawson, and that was with missing 20-some games because of the owners' collusion.

Dawson has many of the same problems that Rice and Mattingly have - they were all really good for about six seasons, but the rest of their careers they were just average players padding their counting stats.

But back to Raines, he has 2 things going against him that were out of his control - comparisons to Rickey Henderson and playing for small market teams. Without Henderson, he was arguably the top leadoff man of the era.

I think the top three leadoff hitters of all time are probably Henderson, Raines, and Sliding Billy Hamilton.

[RShack]

My problem is the apparent dichotomy in the voters. I saw maybe half a dozen impassioned cases made for Raines over the past six months or so. Everywhere from ESPN to more obscure saber sites. There's heaps of evidence that he's someone who'll improve the standards of the Hall.

But yet three-quarters of the voters just said no. That's a massive gap to bridge. Maybe some part of the tally was people who make a habit of not voting for inner-inner-circle guys in their first year. But I'd guess that's not anywhere near 50% of the voters.

I think a big part of the problem is that guys just mail in their votes. The each sit in their own little vacuum and decide whatever the decide. I bet it would instantly get better if they did just 1 thing: Have a less-than-2-day conference that the voters go to. Fly in Friday evening. Spend all day Saturday listening to each other opine at the mic about each candidate. Eat dinner together Sat nite while they BS about it (and whatever else). Meet Sunday morning for a recap and a vote, then fly home Sunday afternoon. I bet that would fix it, right there. It's the friggin' HOF, no reason why they can't have a day-and-a-half meeting about it. It would stop 90% of the Moron Factor, which is mostly based on ignorance. People diss meetings, but sometimes they're the best thing to do.

[Moose Milligan]

I think a big part of the problem is that guys just mail in their votes. The each sit in their own little vacuum and decide whatever the decide. I bet it would instantly get better if they did just 1 thing: Have a less-than-2-day conference that the voters go to. Fly in Friday evening. Spend all day Saturday listening to each other opine at the mic about each candidate. Eat dinner together Sat nite while they BS about it (and whatever else). Meet Sunday morning for a recap and a vote, then fly home Sunday afternoon. I bet that would fix it, right there. It's the friggin' HOF, no reason why they can't have a day-and-a-half meeting about it. It would stop 90% of the Moron Factor, which is mostly based on ignorance. People diss meetings, but sometimes they're the best thing to do.

I might be wrong, but I think the football writers do this. I've heard of people getting up and campaigning for Art Monk (who, across all sports, is the biggest Hall injustice ever).

It's a good idea. It'd be also pretty cool if it were televised or something.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I might be wrong, but I think the football writers do this. I've heard of people getting up and campaigning for Art Monk (who, across all sports, is the biggest Hall injustice ever).

It's a good idea. It'd be also pretty cool if it were televised or something.

Yeah, that's what they do for football.

It has it's advantages, but also it's disadvantages: its where the Cleveland writer gets up every year and makes an impassioned plea about how electing Art Modell would cause the Apocalypse AND the immediate death of every kitten on the planet.

Plus, we're assuming some of the writers even are willing to listen in the first place.

[RShack]

I might be wrong, but I think the football writers do this. I've heard of people getting up and campaigning for Art Monk (who, across all sports, is the biggest Hall injustice ever).

I didn't know that. Good for them. When you do that, you always have to listen to a couple guys going on and on about their pet obsession. Sometime they will be good obsessions, other times they'll be goofball obsessions, but that's just how it goes. It doesn't hurt anything, just put a clock on everybody. Then you only have to suffer the fools for 15 minutes (or whatever the time budget is).

It's a good idea. It'd be also pretty cool if it were televised or something.

I never thought about that. It would be cool to watch it. ESPN sure has time to fill. On the other hand, they'd all start preening for the TV, but that's the price you'd have to pay to see it. (Just like what C-SPAN did to Congress.)

[RShack]

Yeah, that's what they do for football.

It has it's advantages, but also it's disadvantages: its where the Cleveland writer gets up every year and makes an impassioned plea about how electing Art Modell would cause the Apocalypse AND the immediate death of every kitten on the planet.

Plus, we're assuming some of the writers even are willing to listen in the first place.

The occasional rant doesn't hurt anything, at worst it's just annoying. Not nearly as annoying as some of the stupid opinions the ignoramuses have. As for not everybody being willing to listen, that doesn't matter, really. Most people will listen (and submit to peer pressure to please not be a moron). There will be a few stubborn hold-outs, but a few ignoramuses are less-bad than having a whole bunch of them casting senseless votes.