- Thread starter
- #1
Topnotchsy
Featured Contributor, The best players in history?
- Aug 7, 2008
- 9,452
- 181
I've been a member of these boards for a long time, but never felt any reason to share the fact that I have a HOF vote. With all the negative comments about how 16 ballots left off Greg Maddux, I figured I would share my rationale.
As everyone knows, the ballot this year was jam packed and there was a lot to think about. There were first timers, 'roiders, locks etc. There was Jack Morris, on his last time "around the block" as well as some guys whose inclusion seemed more for kicks than anything else.
Here was the break-down of my ballot:
The 'Roiders:
This list included Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro. 5 players who based on numbers alone should be absolute locks. Now I am still unsure what the appropriate way to deal with the steroid era is, but in my mind I think we are too close to the situation to render a reasonable judgment. Do we view everyone who used as pariah's? Should we start trying to determine who would have been worthy even without having taken steroids? I did not assume that any would make the HOF but I wanted to make sure that none of them fell off the ballot. With the history of voting showing that public opinion can change so dramatically over a few years it most important to keep them on the ballot.
The 80's and one last chance:
I've started to feel like the 80's deserve to be viewed as its own era similar (but in the opposite way) that people look at the 90's and 00's. It seems like practically every player who played in the era falls into the "Hall of Good" category but falls short of the Hall of Fame. In my mind it is time to examine the numbers in context. Combine that with the fact that it was Morris's last chance and I could not justify leaving him off in favor of someone else (who might have deserved it more, but would be on the ballot the next time around). I considered Mattingly and Trammell for similar reasons but did not have the space.
On the edge of the cut-off:
The 5% cutoff and changing perceptions over time was the impetus behind two players: Larry Walker and Mike Mussina.
Larry Walker: While it is undeniable that Coors played a role in his success, many writers have done a great job highlighting other players who benefited from their home parks. We never penalize pitchers for pitching in great pitcher's parks. If I had known Walker would definitively get more than 5% of the votes I may have left him off, but being unsure I felt it crucial to include him since in my mind he deserved to be enshrined.
Mike Mussina: With Mussina I was concerned the crowded ballot might squeeze him out. It's a shame since Moose was one of the best in baseball for close to a decade. He was never the best pitcher in baseball, but he was on a very short list for many years and that consistency (plus his career totals) made his worthy in mind. Was he the most worthy player on the ballot? Of course not. But along with Walker, not too many risked never having another shot.
Needing momentum:
It seems like on some level HOF voting is a momentum game. Some players build momentum over a few years and ultimately get in. Others languish for seemingly no good reason. While I have no interest in wishy-washy voters, I understand that this is a reality. For me this meant putting my votes behind Tim Raines and Edgar Martinez, two players who I feel should have been close to no-brainers, but seem to be lacking some public support. If Henderson had not overshadowed him we'd be talking about Raines as one of the great lead-off hitters ever, and Edgar Martinez was one of the greatest hitters of our generation and a man, who unlike some of his peers, recognized he did not need to hurt his team by playing poorly in the field.
In conclusion
And that my friends, is 10. Where does that leave me? Well it left me with a ballot that did not include Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Craig Biggio or Mike Piazza. This was not because none were worthy of my vote. If I had to rank all the players eligible in order of worthiness I would have Maddux, Thomas and Piazza 1, 2 and 3, but simply out of pragmatism I left them off. While I know that breaking voting records is important to some, I could not justify leaving any of my guys off the ballot. Each one deserves to be enshrined in my mind, and I knew the rest of the guys would be fine without my vote. It is unfortunate that Biggio will have to wait another year, but we all know that for him it's just a matter of time.
(For the record I do not have a HOF vote and don't believe that Morris deserves to go to the Hall of Fame. I've not sure I feel that Walker deserves to go either. Finally, I'm not sure whether it would be better for people to be highly calculated with their votes, or if people should simply vote for the 10 best players. I do think the 10 player limit is silly. Get rid of the limit and if you think voters are abusing the process strip them of their voting rights. That said, I do think that there are reasonable ways that one might have left Maddux off his ballot, and the above could easily be the reason in the case of a few voters.)
As everyone knows, the ballot this year was jam packed and there was a lot to think about. There were first timers, 'roiders, locks etc. There was Jack Morris, on his last time "around the block" as well as some guys whose inclusion seemed more for kicks than anything else.
Here was the break-down of my ballot:
The 'Roiders:
This list included Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro. 5 players who based on numbers alone should be absolute locks. Now I am still unsure what the appropriate way to deal with the steroid era is, but in my mind I think we are too close to the situation to render a reasonable judgment. Do we view everyone who used as pariah's? Should we start trying to determine who would have been worthy even without having taken steroids? I did not assume that any would make the HOF but I wanted to make sure that none of them fell off the ballot. With the history of voting showing that public opinion can change so dramatically over a few years it most important to keep them on the ballot.
The 80's and one last chance:
I've started to feel like the 80's deserve to be viewed as its own era similar (but in the opposite way) that people look at the 90's and 00's. It seems like practically every player who played in the era falls into the "Hall of Good" category but falls short of the Hall of Fame. In my mind it is time to examine the numbers in context. Combine that with the fact that it was Morris's last chance and I could not justify leaving him off in favor of someone else (who might have deserved it more, but would be on the ballot the next time around). I considered Mattingly and Trammell for similar reasons but did not have the space.
On the edge of the cut-off:
The 5% cutoff and changing perceptions over time was the impetus behind two players: Larry Walker and Mike Mussina.
Larry Walker: While it is undeniable that Coors played a role in his success, many writers have done a great job highlighting other players who benefited from their home parks. We never penalize pitchers for pitching in great pitcher's parks. If I had known Walker would definitively get more than 5% of the votes I may have left him off, but being unsure I felt it crucial to include him since in my mind he deserved to be enshrined.
Mike Mussina: With Mussina I was concerned the crowded ballot might squeeze him out. It's a shame since Moose was one of the best in baseball for close to a decade. He was never the best pitcher in baseball, but he was on a very short list for many years and that consistency (plus his career totals) made his worthy in mind. Was he the most worthy player on the ballot? Of course not. But along with Walker, not too many risked never having another shot.
Needing momentum:
It seems like on some level HOF voting is a momentum game. Some players build momentum over a few years and ultimately get in. Others languish for seemingly no good reason. While I have no interest in wishy-washy voters, I understand that this is a reality. For me this meant putting my votes behind Tim Raines and Edgar Martinez, two players who I feel should have been close to no-brainers, but seem to be lacking some public support. If Henderson had not overshadowed him we'd be talking about Raines as one of the great lead-off hitters ever, and Edgar Martinez was one of the greatest hitters of our generation and a man, who unlike some of his peers, recognized he did not need to hurt his team by playing poorly in the field.
In conclusion
And that my friends, is 10. Where does that leave me? Well it left me with a ballot that did not include Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Craig Biggio or Mike Piazza. This was not because none were worthy of my vote. If I had to rank all the players eligible in order of worthiness I would have Maddux, Thomas and Piazza 1, 2 and 3, but simply out of pragmatism I left them off. While I know that breaking voting records is important to some, I could not justify leaving any of my guys off the ballot. Each one deserves to be enshrined in my mind, and I knew the rest of the guys would be fine without my vote. It is unfortunate that Biggio will have to wait another year, but we all know that for him it's just a matter of time.
(For the record I do not have a HOF vote and don't believe that Morris deserves to go to the Hall of Fame. I've not sure I feel that Walker deserves to go either. Finally, I'm not sure whether it would be better for people to be highly calculated with their votes, or if people should simply vote for the 10 best players. I do think the 10 player limit is silly. Get rid of the limit and if you think voters are abusing the process strip them of their voting rights. That said, I do think that there are reasonable ways that one might have left Maddux off his ballot, and the above could easily be the reason in the case of a few voters.)
