Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Will the august Hall call upon Robbie?

A few years ago, we might have relished a day like today. We would have anticipated sitting by the computer, waiting anxiously to hear the news from the Hall of Fame on the possible induction of Roberto Alomar.

These days, the anticipation devolves into a full day of neurotic self-flagellation, as we start telling anyone who'll listen how we don't even really care about these things anyhow, because it is all governed by a bunch of out of touch writers and goofballs, and it's all a sham.

Maybe this year will be different, seeing as how Alomar is generally considered to be at the top of his class, and has a reasonably good shot at getting in. Setting ourselves up for disappointment, we have already started to envisage the classic Blue Jay logo as it might appear on a bronzed plaque.

There's been plenty written about why Robbie belongs in the Hall, so we'll spare you our fumblings around his career numbers. We take the legitimacy of Alomar's candidacy as an article of faith, and as such, we'd look like a fool trying to explain our rationale. (Not unlike the vast majority of Hall voters...but we digress.)

If you're interested, I'd instead recommend two other articles, which do a pretty good job of making Alomar's case. Stephen Brunt's piece in yesterday's Globe was typically excellent and established Alomar's crucial place in the team's history (it all got great when he arrived, and went to hell after he left, although not solely because of him). Neate Sager at Out of Left Field broke down Alomar's candidacy using the Keltner test, and makes a better case than we ever could. He also makes a great case for Tim Raines on a regular basis, which has thus far been for naught. (Ouch...we just felt our stomach tighten.)

The announcement comes this afternoon at 2 PM. Govern yourselves accordingly. We'll probably be jumping for joy or weeping in sorrow somewhere on the internets shortly after the announcement.

Our Ballot, If We Had One
There was a time when we might have been a total hardass about the Hall of Fame balloting, and we would have worked hard to discredit just about everybody's candidacy. As Brunt quite rightly noted, the voting for the Hall has taken on an "air of high moral dudgeon" in recent years.

So being the jovial and generous sort that we are, here's who we would have included on our ballot this year: Alomar, Mark McGwire, Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, and Edgar Martinez. We'd think long and hard about Fred McGriff, Barry Larkin and Andre Dawson, and we'd feel bad about excluding Dale Murphy.

We'd also cast a thought towards Pat Hentgen, who doesn't have the numbers for Cooperstown enshrinement, but should probably get his name up on the Rogers Centre facade. (Sometime after Jimmy Key is put up there...but again, we digress.)

UPDATE! 2:06 PM! With Post-Announcement Outrage!
What a fucking load of horseshit. Andre Dawson gets in, and Alomar doesn't. Suddenly, I hate the stupid Hawk. Not even the best former Expo on the ballot.

Can't wait to hear the explanation for this from bloated turds on why Robbie was left off their ballots.

53 comments:

Drew - LtB said...

I'm with you but Larkin gets in if I had the choice. Which I don't.

As we discussed at Walkoff Walk yesterday, the museum part of the Hall is much more interesting than the busts anyhow. The keepers of the Hall fluff up its meaning meaning to boost the value of their influence, me thinks.

eyebleaf said...

Alomar's getting in. There will definitely be jumping for joy. He hit a more important home run than Joe Carter's World Series shot, and that picture is a bloody beautiful thing.

Tao of Stieb said...

Funny about Larkin, because in my initial cursory look, I had him in.

I think that my prejudice against stolen bases and the fact that he rarely drove in many runs probably put me off of him.

Having said that, he does fit into the qualification of being amongst the elite at his position for the majority of his career. Back in the 90's, Larkin was the shit. (So was Dale Murphy in the 80's...but maybe not for enough years.)

Maybe I'd be one of those guys who adds people to their ballot in subsequent years.

Ian H. said...

If Robbie gets in, I will have to strongly consider going to Cooperstown to see the induction ceremony.

Mark said...

From 1930-2009 with 60% or more games played @ SS and 7000 PA, Larkin is the 6th best SS by OPS+. The guy was also an MVP award, and won a GG. Yeah, GG are meaningless, but not having seen him play I'm under the impression he's at least average, if not above average.

He's a HoF as far as I'm concerned.

Mark said...

Sorry that should say he won an MVP award**.

Stedron said...

Though I'm a Jays fan, Reds games have always been a part of my life seeing how they're 45 minutes away. I'd go to 15 or 20 a summer from the time I was 5 (1983) until I was 20-ish and started to broaden my horizons. I would rarely root for the Reds, but instead went to see all the guys on other teams that I could only see on tv. With all that being said, (and it pains me because he went to Michigan,) I have to say Barry Larkin is a H.O.F'r.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why so many people support the inclusion of noted juicer Mark McGwire. Steroid use should exclude anyone from consideration.

Stedron said...

Excluding Bonds would be idiotic, so the rest of them have to get a pass as well. I leave McGwire out based on the horrid stretch in the middle of his career, but not because of PEDs.

Tao of Stieb said...

Steroid, schmeroid. There are lots of different "cheaters" in the Hall at this point, some of whom transgressed against actual rules as opposed to rules which the moral majority has imposed post facto.

Anyone want to start rooting out scuffers and spitballers? Anyone want to look at amphetamine users?

McGwire had a pretty exceptional offensive career, and was even a top tier defender early in his career. His numbers rank amongst the greats. He belongs.

Anonymous said...

The fact that there are other cheaters in the Hall of Fame does nothing for your argument. Past mistakes do not justify future ones.

McGwire not only cheated, but helped permanently taint the image of baseball. I can guarantee you that steriod poster boy A-Rod will NEVER see the Hall of Fame except on a guided tour.

Oh, and Robbie didn't make it.

Anonymous said...

McGwire got under 30% of the vote.

He will never be in the Hall of Fame.

eyebleaf said...

McGwire will get in once all this stupid steroid hand-ringing is done with. Like Tao said, he won't be the first cheater in the Hall, and he won't be the last.

Alomar was robbed. It's not surprising. He'll get in eventually. He's another victim of the outrageous BBWAA.

Stedron said...

Ok just for fun because I hate they way he's hid from the steroid accusations (and I'm bored.)

The case against McGwire:

-0 MVPs.
-.217 career postseason avg.
-Only had 100 RBI in 7 of his 16 seasons.
-There isn’t a Hall of Fame position player with 6000 At Bats that has fewer than McGwire’s 1626 Hits.
-Only averaged about 15 doubles a season
-I hated the A's in the late 80's early 90's, and you should have too.

Anonymous said...

I strongly believe that no infamous steroid user will ever be inducted.

The "hand-wringing" is justified. Steroids nearly destroyed the game. They certainly turned it into a joke for the better part of a decade.

Nobody wants to be reminded of this era. McGwire, Arod, Bonds - their names are synonymous with cheating, lying and unsportsmanlike behaviour. They deserve to be punished. They certainly don't deserved to be honoured. Pete Rose was banned from baseball for placing a few bets. What these clowns did is incomparably more damaging and shameful.

The Hall of Fame is not solely there to honour stats. And, as the vote today proves, I am certainly not in the minority of people who feel this way.

Stedron said...

Anon, you're using some selective memory.

A FEW bets? You're talking to an Ohio guy here, Rose had some serious problems, and gambling was just the root of it. (With that being said, I believe he should be in.)

The game was never close to being destroyed. Attendance has gone up every year since the strike (except maybe last season.)

If Bonds doesn't get in, then the HOF becomes a farce. He was on his way to being (arguably) the best player ever before there was any thought about steroids.

Ty Cobb is probably hanging out with Hitler and Ted Bundy right now, and he's in the hall. The Hall is not for great people, it's for great ballplayers.

Stedron said...

And because McGwire didn't get in, doesn't mean they share your opinion on steroids. They are just as likely to share my opinion that his numbers, as a whole, are unworthy. His exclusion proves nothing.

Anonymous said...

Proof or not, there is nothing to suggest that their decision was not influenced as much by steroid use as it was by numbers.

Bonds is a joke. The epitome of a liar and a cheat. The HOF would be a farce if he is admitted.

If he was so great, why did he feel the need to use steroids? The fact that he was supposedly so talented only compounds the egregiousness of the offense.

Again, past indiscretions do not justify future ones.

Comparing juicers to players like Ty Cobb means nothing. If Ty Cobb was playing today... well, he wouldn't be playing today. He would probably be in jail, not in the Hall of Fame.

Just because ethical standards can't be retroactively applied does not mean that they shouldn't be applied at all.

Stedron said...

Ethics have nothing to do with sports. Sports are entertainment. The Hall of Fame is the equivalent of the Walk of Fame in Hollywood. Do you want to start keeping actors and actresses out of movies based on ethics? Do you like music? Uh-oh, we better keep all the musicians that use drugs off the airwaves. you're going to find yourself in a very gray world before you know it.

The only remotely valid argument is that kids idolize ballplayers. However, and I speak as a parent, if you're worried about a ballplayer (or a musician, or an actor) negatively influencing your kid, you're not doing your job as a parent.

It's a museum, get over it.

Gil Fisher said...

We should reward good ethics in all people whether they be in sports, movies or law firms. And we should discourage bad ethics at each turn.

It's a societal duty.

Stedron said...

Well then John McDonald is a future Hall Of Famer because he's a real class act.

F9book said...

Promote your site or blog on f9book.com

Anonymous said...

It's fairly common knowledge that Bonds started using steroids after McGwire and Sosa exploits in 1998. If you look at his stats from 1986-1998 they're pretty mind blowing. In thirteen seasons he had terrific counting stats like 411 HR, 1917 hits, 1216 RBI and 445 stolen bases. Even better is a line of .290/.411/.556, which is an OPS of .966 and OPS+ of 164.

If he continued at the pace he was going for the rest of his career without steroids he may not have hit 762 home runs or had that 73 home run season but he still would have made the Hall of Fame.

Gil Fisher said...

Well that doesn't make sense.

Jdoug said...

I'm just as surprised as anyone about alomar. But Blyleven too? Does anyone know how many more chances he has at the hall?

Tao of Stieb said...

Here's what doesn't make sense: I would vote for McGwire, but not for Bagwell.

Figure that one out.

(Yeah, I suppose I am a total and complete hypocrite.)

Anonymous said...

I don't think that Stedron understands the concept of "ethics." Perhaps we should just replace the word with "rules." It's a much simpler concept for you to understand. If you replace the word "ethics" with the word "rules," you will see how asinine you sound.
"Ethics (RULES) have nothing to do with sports."
Does sporstmanlike behaviour mean nothing to you? Fair play? Level playing field? All that jazz?
"Do you want to start keeping actors and actresses out of movies based on ethics (RULES)?"
Man, this is a terrible analogy. First of all, no MLB team would ever employ a player known to be using steroids. There is no debate here. Just to indulge your absurd comparison, however, what was the last Mel Gibson movie you saw? Michael Richards? Ethics matter.
"Do you like music? Uh-oh, we better keep all the musicians that use drugs off the airwaves. you're going to find yourself in a very gray world before you know it."
Are you actually comparing recreational drug use among musicians to performance enhancing drug use among professional athletes? Oh, wow, you are. I don't think I even need to explain how nonsensical this is. Suffice it to say, professional sports have explicit rules against performance enhancing drugs. Drugs like steroids create an unfair advantage for their users. Smoking weed or shooting up dope isn't going to give you a leg up in the Grammy nominations.

"The only remotely valid argument is that kids idolize ballplayers."
The implication there is that athletes you use steroids are not admirable. Tell me then, why are we inducting them into a so-called "Hall of Fame?"
They are cheaters, they don't belong - get over it.

Anonymous said...

"Well then John McDonald is a future Hall Of Famer because he's a real class act."

This just in, talent and class are not mutually exclusive.

Gil Fisher said...

I like mentally discounting stats for Steriod users as Anon above has. I also like the idea of holding off on the voting for one (like a McGuire) until as many facts come out as possible, so that my discounting can be well informed. I'm not sure McGuire didn't start the junk in the eighties in Oakland. I'm not sure he was ever clean.

I also don't mind if bad boys are made to wait. I would like to see a postumous vote for particularly bad people like Jackson and Rose, so that they don't get the gratification of election during their lifetime, but they do eventually go where they belong based on their on-field achievements.

Anonymous said...

"It's fairly common knowledge that Bonds started using steroids after McGwire and Sosa exploits in 1998."

Nothing can prove that.

If it is true, it just compounds the stupidity of tainting those terrific thirteen seasons.

Gil Fisher said...

Dawson had 438 HRs and 318 SB (75% success rate).

Other members of the 400/300 club:

Mays
Bonds

That is all.

Anonymous said...

"I would vote for McGwire"

The only reasonable explanation is that Tao sympathizes with the cheater's plight. Why settle for being good when you could be abnormally, freakishly, suspiciously amazing?

If McGwire discovered that eating baby hearts boosted his performance, he probably would have been making monthly trips to Calcutta orphanages.

Stedron said...

Were you in a coma in the 90's? If not, can you at least go pick up a Thesaurus and see if you can connect the dots between ethics and rules? Save your time, because you can't. If you want, I suppose you could try the Bible.

Anyway, here we go:

"Rules" Oh, you must be talking about the rules right now, as opposed to the rules when these individuals were actually competing. Silly me to try and use the rules under which these players were governed.

"First of all, no MLB team would ever employ a player known to be using steroids. There is no debate here" You're telling me that gm's weren't turning the other cheek to this behavior? You're telling me that no one knew? Hilarious.

Do you own a television? There's a Mel Gibson movie being whored out right now. Something about darkness? Edge of Darkness maybe? It's irrelevant unless you really want to make the argument that actors and musicians are denied work based on ethics. (you're going to have an easier time if you understand that ethics are closer to morals than rules." If you really want to get pantsed in a debate about that, let me know.

"Are you actually comparing recreational drug use among musicians to performance enhancing drug use among professional athletes?" Absolutely. Maybe not as much in this generation, but if you don't think marijuana and lsd had a profound effect on music as we know it, well I just don't know what to say to you other than you're in denial.

"The implication there is that athletes you use steroids are not admirable. Tell me then, why are we inducting them into a so-called "Hall of Fame?"" I'll take a stab here because your statement doesn't really make sense. It's simple. Hall of FAME. Since you have your reference books out from earlier, check out words associated with fame....like FAMOUS. We wouldn't be talking about these guys if they weren't.

Anonymous said...

"It's fairly common knowledge that Bonds started using steroids after McGwire and Sosa exploits in 1998."

Nothing can prove that.

---

If you want to "prove" something, show me proof that Barry Bonds has used steroids.

Stedron said...

"I also don't mind if bad boys are made to wait. I would like to see a postumous vote for particularly bad people like Jackson and Rose, so that they don't get the gratification of election during their lifetime, but they do eventually go where they belong based on their on-field achievements."

Gil....seriously....you just said that you want to deny someone the satisfaction of getting in, BUT YOU'RE OK WITH IT IF THEY'RE DEAD!!! Holy crap dude, self-righteous much?

And really, if you want to contribute, at least spell McGwire right. Are you still bummed the Jays traded Holliday?

Sorry Tao, I'm cranky today.

Anonymous said...

"Rules" Oh, you must be talking about the rules right now, as opposed to the rules when these individuals were actually competing. Silly me to try and use the rules under which these players were governed."

They are rules that establish the framework in which the current crop of potential Hall of Famers is evaluated. They are the rules that will see players like McGwire, Bonds and Arod perennially rejected until the day you die.


"First of all, no MLB team would ever employ a player known to be using steroids. There is no debate here" You're telling me that gm's weren't turning the other cheek to this behavior? You're telling me that no one knew? Hilarious."

I am in no position to speculate as to what GM's did or did not know during that period. All I am saying now is that if there was concrete proof of a player using steriods, he would not be hired by any MLB team today.


"Do you own a television? There's a Mel Gibson movie being whored out right now. Something about darkness? Edge of Darkness maybe?"

I asked you the last Mel Gibson movie you saw. Not which one is currently being advertised after several years as an industry pariah. Regardless, there is no comparison between actors and athletes who use steroids. An actor's behaviour off the set does not influence their performance in front of the camera. Steroid use directly affects an athletes performance and creates an unfair advantage compared to the players who are not engaging in cheating and deception.

"Are you actually comparing recreational drug use among musicians to performance enhancing drug use among professional athletes?" Absolutely. Maybe not as much in this generation, but if you don't think marijuana and lsd had a profound effect on music as we know it, well I just don't know what to say to you other than you're in denial."

Maybe you don't understand the practical consequences of steroid use. There is nothing stopping any musician from using drugs. Nobody would ever contend that a musician who uses drugs is "cheating." I don't think that musicians who don't use drugs are resentful towards the ones who do. Perhaps you should have a conversation with one of the baseball players who weren't cheating. The simple fact is that


"The implication there is that athletes you use steroids are not admirable. Tell me then, why are we inducting them into a so-called "Hall of Fame?"" I'll take a stab here because your statement doesn't really make sense. It's simple. Hall of FAME. Since you have your reference books out from earlier, check out words associated with fame....like FAMOUS. We wouldn't be talking about these guys if they weren't."

Are you saying that the only metric for Hall of Fame admittance is "Fame?" Are you being deliberately obtuse or can you not conceptualize any other degree of merit besides what is literally spelled out in front of you?

I'm sorry, but I really can't understand how anyone can advocate the inclusion of cheaters into the Hall of Fame. Ethics, morals, rules. Call it whatever you want.

Stedron, if you actually were able to somehow reproduce, I hope you raise your child with a little more character than what you espouse here.

Anonymous said...

"The simple fact is that..."

Sigh... I'm clearly too stoned to be having this debate.

I am just surprised that the condemnation of McGwire, Arod, Bonds, et al. has not remained near-universal.

I thought that was something that could unite humanity.

Stedron said...

IT'S NOT ABOUT CHARACTER!!!! I'm not defending any of these actions, but as a fan of the game, I believe this MUSEUM should represent all aspects of the game. Warts and all. To strive for anything else is akin to sticking your head in the sand. Put Rose's transgressions on his plaque, put the speculation about Bonds on his plaque. Let people think for themselves. IT'S ENTERTAINMENT! IT'S JUST A GAME! Inclusion into the hall of fame doesn't bring with it god-like status, or immortality. It's a bust in a museum! Excluding exceptional players based on factors outside the game (Rose) or questions of morality (Bonds) is - if nothing else - censorship.

Thinking that these fictitious "rules" that you're making for inclusion should only be applied in the present and not retroactively is hypocritical.

Great players should be included in the story of baseball. Currently, that story is told in the Baseball Hall Of Fame MUSEUM! I can't stress that last word enough. It's right there in the title. This voting shenanigans is just a way for a bunch of old curmudgeons to feel important.

Really, if you honestly think that Bonds won't get in, I question if you even watch baseball, and thus, I question why I'm wasting my time having this discussion with you. He was the best player for a generation steroids or not, and while people like you will try to make a statement from your tower and not vote him in on the first ballot, I guarantee you he gets in (along with McGwire, eventually.) You're so adamant in your stance, what are you going to do when/if one of these dirty-birdy no good cheaters does get in? Are you going to boycott the game? Are you going to cry about it?

Your point about players that didn't use would be valid if they were without representation. They could have gone to their union at any time and put a stop to PEDS, but the problem went on for a decade before there was any movement that direction (after the court of public opinion was coming down on everyone in the sport.) So either A) they didn't mind, or B) the majority was using. Either way makes your stance pretty moot.

eyebleaf said...

Steroids/drugs are bad, mmmkay.

Gil Fisher said...

Gil....seriously....you just said that you want to deny someone the satisfaction of getting in, BUT YOU'RE OK WITH IT IF THEY'RE DEAD!!! Holy crap dude, self-righteous much?

And really, if you want to contribute, at least spell McGwire right. Are you still bummed the Jays traded Holliday?


Get a grip, child.

Gil Fisher said...

Apparently Stedron stayed up all night unable to contain his excitement over his idol being voted into a Hall he feels has no legitimacy. Go figure.

Anonymous said...

Like it or not, "character" (or whatever you want to call it) is obviously a factor among the current voters.

Personally, I am a big fan of Pete Rose and would have no problem with his admission. His numbers were awesome and it's hard to say they were augmented by his bets.

Clearly, the HOF induction method is not without flaws. Unless it changes to a purely stats-based system, these sort of personal beliefs will, rightly or wrongly, affect who gets in.

For many people, it does not matter if Bonds was the greatest player to ever step on the field. They just don't like him. Unreasonable or unfair as it may be, it could keep him out of the HOF forever.

Maybe we should just plug stats into a computer and it could determine who gets in. Obviously, I would not stop watching baseball if a noted juicer was inducted. That said, I will not deny the schadenfreude that would come with Bonds, McGwire and Arod continued rejections.

Maybe I am not a true baseball fan and just like those spiteful old curmudgeons doing the voting. I apologize for any previous ad hominem attacks, but I really do enjoy this interesting debate.

KL said...

The question regarding McGwire (and eventually Sosa and Bonds) will be answered next year, when Palmeiro is eligible. Going by his numbers (10th all-time in total bases, 500+ homers, 3000+ hits, 1300+ walks, 1600+ runs, and two/three Gold Gloves), he's a big, immediate yes.

Buuuuut, he failed a drug test.

Gil Fisher said...

Palmeiro also pointed while lying to the Senate. Pointing is a big no-no with BBWAA.

Robbie pointed before he spat, you may remember. The BBWAA remembered.

Tom Dakers said...

I don't know how much month the Cardinals have left to sign Albert Pujols, you'd have to think the Cards wouldn't pay this much for Holliday if it meant they wouldn't have enough money for Pujols.

Crazy BJS said...

Alomar deserves to be in the hall!!!


Randy Ruiz deserves a look at DH in 2010!!!

Anonymous said...

But won't Pujols command at least $8m per season more than Holliday? Is it possible that they signed Holliday because they knew they couldn't afford Pujols?

Stedron said...

The story I heard is that they had to lock up Holliday to show Pujols that they were committed to winning. It was spun as if the signing was a step toward resigning Pujols. That's a huge commitment to Holiday though.

Gil, you continue to make no sense to me. I have no idea who you think my idol is. I also don't see why it's too much to ask that you spell a player's name right if your input is to be taken seriously. I'd like a little reassurance that you have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Anon, I 100% agree that the voters just not liking Bonds will delay his induction, but I still think he has to get in.

I also agree that Rose should be in, but if you're talking about integrity of the game, the fact that he wagered on his team while he was the manager can't be ignored. He claims he always bet on them to win, but his track record for honesty is well chronicled.

In summation, I believe that you can't have a generation where your inductees are Griffey, Randy Johnson, Maddux, and that's it. It will just leave a giant void in the story. You have to keep the criteria to greatness on the field, and do your best to pass on the stories of who these people were. In 70 years people can look at Bonds the same way many people look at Cobb. Players like Griffey can be thought back upon fondly because they did things the right way. I'm just not comfortable with pretending some players and feats never occurred. My opinion is that no one will forget about Roger Maris or Hank Aaron regardless of the fact that those records are no longer theirs. Their names will come up every time someone talks about McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds, and hopefully the whole story is told consistently and people will be left to come to their own conclusions. Were Bonds and McGwire juicing? Almost certainly. Were the pitchers they were facing juicing as well? To some extent, it appears so. Is it still incredibly difficult to hit a baseball? Sure it is. Weighing all these factors will be a great discussion for future generations (hell, it's a great discussion for our generation,) and any thought-provoking nuances regarding the game will be great for the game's future. I wonder how many young baseball fans would know about Shoeless Joe if Field Of Dreams wasn't made? It's that doubt that makes me strongly believe that the Hall of Fame has a responsibility to baseball fans to tell the whole story.

Anonymous said...

Stedron, why is okay to invoke ethics on Rose betting on sports, but not Maguire using steriods, or Alomar spitting on unpires? I agree that the repurcussions don't have to be the same, but you can't say ethics have no place in sports in one post and then say that you agree Pete Rose is rightfully suspended for gambling.

Stedron said...

That was my point. I was just pointing that out to you since you say Rose should get in. I say they should all be in.

McGWIRE!!!!!!!!!!!! ARRRRGHH!!!!

brainiac said...

Help me out here...when did steroid officially become illegal in the MLB?

Gil Fisher said...

That last anon was me Stedron. And i was messin' with you on the McGwire spelling.

I've never been able to spell his name with a "w" before, but I'll probably never forget now.

I won't apologize for not being up in arms over the voting process. I think we'd agree on who should be in and who should be out, but would disagree on the validity of the process.

Overall, I acknowledge that Dawson should probably be amongst those just on the outside of the Hall based on contributions on the field as we are able to currently measure them. But I will not begrudge a voter for giving the Hawk a few points for intangibles - I believe they matter even though they can't be measured.

I'm also very happy that, for the first time, it looks like Blyleven will be successful in his journey to the Hall. It leaves hope for Raines and others who's accomplishments are unheralded.

I'm also satisfied with 74% of the electorate voted for Alomar and I'm quite sure he'll be enshrined next year.

I know you want an "in or out" vote, but I'm not fussed and I'll accept the system as it is.

I wish there were less idiots out there voting, but everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people so why should we expect the BBWAA to be any different - hell they think BaseBall is two words apparently.

I'll apologize now for any spelling mistakes in this post.

Stedron said...

I don't know that you completely get my stance. I'm totally ok with Dawson. He's one of the handful of players I distinctly remember from my early youth, which makes him "famous" enough for me. Along with winning an MVP for a last place team, is enough in my mind.