28 Idiots

Among those members of the BBWAA that vote on Hall of Fame inductions, there are 28 complete idiots.

28 people did not include Rickey Henderson on their Hall ballots.

Of course, Rickey made the Hall anyway.

And I don’t buy the argument “they thought he was worthy, they just didn’t want it to be 100%, because he wasn’t unanimous worthy,” because that’s idiotic reasoning.

Someone like Rickey Henderson, who absolutely redfined a position (leadoff hitter) and did it better than anyone, maybe ever, deserves to get into the Hall, and on the first ballot.  That should be the only decision these people have to make.  Not some amorphous guess at what the percentage should be.  That’s way too stupid, meta-voting, navel gazing if you ask me.

Hey, moron, stop worrying about what everyone else will do, stop worrying about percentages and whatnot, and just vote yes or no.  Anyone that votes no on Rickey in the Hall is an idiot that should have his voting rights removed.

Advertisements

12 responses to “28 Idiots

  1. Noyam: If you were a voter, would you distinguish between whether a player was a hall of famer vs. a first-ballot hall of famer?

  2. No, I wouldn’t.

    Not exactly.

    See, as a voter, I might keep, for myself, some limit on the number of players I voted for. That means, in any given year, I would cap myself at, say, five players. If there are more than five eligible players who I thought should get a Hall vote, then I would rank them, and take the “Top 5.” If there were fewer than five that I deemed “worthy” then anyone so deemed would get my vote. Maybe the number isn’t five, but that’s the general idea. More likely, the number is 2 or 3, but whatever.

    In essence, “first balloting” would be dependent on class, not on player.

    In this instance, Rickey Henderson might be the only person in his class that I would vote for. It would make no difference to me whether this was his first or tenth ballot (same with Jim Rice, if I intended on voting for him). He either deserves it or he doesn’t, and if he does, he either makes it or blocked by more deserving people.

    There would be no thought or concession to who else was voting for him; no pretense that Ty Cobb should have a higher percentage, etc.

  3. Personally, I like the fact that the writer distinguish between hall of famer and first-ballot hall of famer.

    But you also have to consider that voters don’t vote solely on talent or statistics. Rightly or wrongly (personally, I like it), voters weigh in human and personal factors. I’m sure Henderson lost some votes there.

    Best example is Albert Belle, who probably is hall-of-fame-worthy, but was so monumentally hated that he failed to garner enough votes to even keep him eligible.

    What I find interesting is that some people voted for Jesse Orosco and Jay Bell. Probably a personal favor from somebody.

  4. Personally, I like the fact that the writer distinguish between hall of famer and first-ballot hall of famer.

    That’s an arbitrary distinction that’s been foisted on people by the very writers who defend their idiotic choices with random reasoning that makes no sense.

    Does it say on the plaque what ballot he got it? Or is Phil Rizzuto in the same Hall as Babe Ruth?

    But you also have to consider that voters don’t vote solely on talent or statistics. Rightly or wrongly (personally, I like it), voters weigh in human and personal factors. I’m sure Henderson lost some votes there.

    It may be true, but that doesn’t make it valid.

  5. I disagree. I don’t think it’s arbitrary at all. There’s a higher honor to making the Hall on your first ballot as opposed to subsequent ballots, just as there’s a higher honor to being inducted with a higher percentage.

    I think that what bothers you more is not that it’s arbitrary, but that it’s subjective. It’s a fair argument that the writers are each weighing candidates based on different sets of criteria, and that this process therefore isn’t fair. (Because, after all, what rational, objective person could possibly say that Rickey Henderson doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame? Only a person who uses different measures than I do.)

    Well, I agree with you that it’s subjective, and I agree with you that some people get held to a higher measuring stick than others, and I agree that the process isn’t standardized at all. I’m just stating that, as a fan, that’s exactly how I prefer it. I like it that way.

  6. Well, we can name one idiot: Corky Simpson, who posted his ballot online. He chose Matt Williams over Henderson.

    Oh, and two people voted for Jay Bell. JAY BELL! Who on earth can justify voting Jay Bell as a hall of famer?!

  7. Personally, I want to know what Jim Rice has accomplished in the past year that all of a sudden renders him HOF worthy.

    I’m not saying he should or shouldn’t be in…but given that for 14 yrs it didn’t happen and all of a sudden it does? How does that work exactly for those who changed their minds?

  8. I don’t think Rice did anything in particular this year to get in. There was a very weak class, so more voters felt inclined to put his name on the ballot. Getting into the hall depends sometimes on who you go with, whether it’s fair or not.

    I hoped this would be Mattingly’s year with the weak class, but it was not to be.

  9. On that I say ‘feh!’…’feh!’, I say!

    Either you’re a hall of famer or you’re not. Could you get caught in a crowded group for a year or two, perhaps. For fourteen years!, abso-freakin-lutely not

  10. Didn’t say it was fair. But that’s how a lot writers approach it.

  11. Jim Rice was no HOFer. Look at his road stats. I ran the numbers and he was basically 1 standard deviation from every other modern-era HOFer that played a corner OF position. Ill post it later. He was a monster at fenway and very much nothing special on the road.

    And I completely agree with Noyam. You can’t make someone’s subjective or arbitrary decision into something meaningful about a players skill.

    And Albert Belle definitely deserves to be in, if you don’t want to put too much emphasis on longevity. But that’s a seperate matter.

    Do u think robbie alomar gets in next year?

  12. Note: I exlcuded guys that didn’t really play the corner OF and guys like Tony Gwynn, who played the corner but made the HOF for a complete different area of dominance.

    Name AVG OBP SLG OPS
    Rice 0.277 0.33 0.459 0.789

    Murray 0.286 0.356 0.482 0.838
    Winfield 0.289 0.356 0.485 0.841
    Jackson 0.268 0.362 0.499 0.861
    Stargell 0.274 0.35 0.515 0.865
    Musial 0.298 0.376 0.464 0.84
    Clemente 0.31 0.351 0.468 0.819
    Aaron 0.307 0.372 0.556 0.928
    Kaline 0.289 0.368 0.458 0.826
    Robinson 0.283 0.376 0.504 0.88

    AVERAGE 0.289333333 0.363 0.492333333 0.855333333

    STDEV 0.013946326 0.01034408 0.030581857 0.03342155

    1 STDEV 0.275387008 0.35265592 0.461751476 0.821911783
    2 STDEV 0.261440682 0.342311839 0.431169619 0.788490233

    So Rice is 1 STDEV on AVG, about 3 STDEV on OBP (!), 1.5 STDEV on SLG (his only real reason for being in the HOF in the first place!), and 2 STDEV on OPS.

    Ouch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s