How does Tim Raines only get 30% of the vote? That is even more ridiculous than Alomar not getting in on the 1st ballot.

 

I like Raines, don't get me wrong. But here's my problem with him:

 

He had a great career for about 7 years (1981-1987), then he was just kinda there for the rest of his career. Not really close to being one of the best players in baseball after that.

 

I just don't think the flame was lit long enough. If he extended that greatness for about 3-4 more years, he would be more of a slam dunk.

I just feel like the hall of fame writers come across as really snobbish and arrogant, not really just huge fanatics of baseball. They just seem impressed by their privelege as writers.

 

 

I'm not convinced former players would do a good job voting for the HOF.

 

I'm certainly not convinced the writers are doing a good job.

He spit in an umpire's face. I don't agree with it, but his appearance to the media is the reason.

 

 

Heard on the radio that spitting in an umps face is in fact the very reason that he didn't make it on the first ballot. Eh... I don't know if he actually did it on purpose though. Oh well... he'll get in next year won't he?

Heard on the radio that spitting in an umps face is in fact the very reason that he didn't make it on the first ballot. Eh... I don't know if he actually did it on purpose though. Oh well... he'll get in next year won't he?

 

Blyleven and Alomar are locks next year unless Alomar shows up on a list. And no, I don't think he juiced.

Full List:

 

Andre Dawson 420 77.9%

Bert Blyleven 400 74.2%

Roberto Alomar 397 73.7%

Jack Morris 282 52.3%

Barry Larkin 278 51.6%

Lee Smith 255 47.3%

Edgar Martinez 195 36.2%

Tim Raines 164 30.4%

Mark McGwire 128 23.7%

Alan Trammell 121 22.4%

Fred McGriff 116 21.5%

Don Mattingly 87 16.1%

Dave Parker 82 15.2%

Dale Murphy 63 11.7%

Harold Baines 33 6.1%

Andres Galarraga 22 4.1%

Robin Ventura 7 1.3%

Ellis Burks 2 0.4%

Eric Karros 2 0.4%

Kevin Appier 1 0.2%

Pat Hentgen 1 0.2%

David Segui 1 0.2%

Mike Jackson 0 0%

Ray Lankford 0 0%

Shane Reynolds 0 0%

Todd Zeile 0 0%

 

Someone voted for Pat Hentgen?

 

I'm fine with Dawson, but Blyleven and Alomar should have been in before him. I'm pretty pissed about Bly, WTF? How is he not in>

 

Murphy and Morris deserve more respect as well.

 

Baines stays in with 6.1%, Ventura fails to make the cut. Edgar Martinez that far ahead of Baines? I'm not sure about that.

 

Blyleven and Alomar are locks next year unless Alomar shows up on a list. And no, I don't think he juiced.

Bagwell and Palmeiro are the big names added in 2011, so I'd agree, I bet those two get in next year.

 

Baines stays in with 6.1%, Ventura fails to make the cut. Edgar Martinez that far ahead of Baines? I'm not sure about that.

There's been some serious debate about Edgar this year. It's entirely possible he could start moving up from there, esp. if Thomas goes in as mostly a DH at some point.

Who the hell gave David Segui a vote? That's the reason these votes should be made public, because that person obviously needs his privilege revoked.

I can't believe Bly and Alomar didn't get in. Wow. Even Larkin I had ahead of Dawson.

Who the hell gave David Segui a vote? That's the reason these votes should be made public, because that person obviously needs his privilege revoked.

Ellis Burks go two.

 

You could combine these bizarro votes:

 

Ellis Burks 2 0.4%

Eric Karros 2 0.4%

Kevin Appier 1 0.2%

Pat Hentgen 1 0.2%

David Segui 1 0.2%

 

And get Blyleven in.

 

Ellis Burks go two.

 

That's at least excusable as Burks was a pretty good player for several seasons.

That's at least excusable as Burks was a pretty good player for several seasons.

Anyone who is actually on the ballot fits that description.

 

But... Pat Hentgen? He had one good season in 1996, and was otherwise a pretty much mediocre pitcher.

 

Anyone who is actually on the ballot fits that description.

 

But... Pat Hentgen? He had one good season in 1996, and was otherwise a pretty much mediocre pitcher.

 

Meh, these votes are surely just guys giving a friend or favorite player a courtesy vote. They don't really matter.

 

30% for Tim Raines is a f***ing joke.

I like Raines, don't get me wrong. But here's my problem with him:

 

He had a great career for about 7 years (1981-1987), then he was just kinda there for the rest of his career. Not really close to being one of the best players in baseball after that.

 

I just don't think the flame was lit long enough. If he extended that greatness for about 3-4 more years, he would be more of a slam dunk.

 

eh?

 

Raines stole bases at an 84.7% clip throughout his entire career (808 out of 954), had a career line of .294/.385/.425/.810, and between 1981 and 1998 - 18 seasons - he had an OPS+ below 100 once, though did miss some time in both 96 and 97 with the Yankees. Raines was a great player his entire career, and a career OBP of .385 is fantastic.

 

He was a great player during the 80s and a very good player during the 90s. He is very much Hall of Fame worthy, even if he did like cocaine.

Who the hell gave David Segui a vote? That's the reason these votes should be made public, because that person obviously needs his privilege revoked.

 

I can bet that person voted for Mark McGwire too, cause they are probably oblivious to the whole "steroid era"

There are at least 5 guys on that list more deserving than Dawson. Alomar, Bly, Larkin, Raines, and Martinez. Hell even Lee Smith should be in.

The Segui/Karros/Hentgen type votes are from the people who dont want the Alomars and Blylevens in the hall of fame. They are excuse picks.

 

 

Is there full disclosure about who votes for who? If there isnt and this is entirely secretive, then it should be exposed, because these hacks need to have their vendettas and politics thrown back in their faces.

The Segui/Karros/Hentgen type votes are from the people who dont want the Alomars and Blylevens in the hall of fame. They are excuse picks.

 

 

Is there full disclosure about who votes for who? If there isnt and this is entirely secretive, then it should be exposed, because these hacks need to have their vendettas and politics thrown back in their faces.

 

One doesn't have to do with the other. Voters can vote up to 10 players, I believe. If they aren't allowed to vote for Segui, Karros, Ventura, etc., then why were they put on the ballot in the first place? I'm not saying the process and who votes is perfect, because it's not. But the guys that get one or a handful of votes, I really don't think it's a big deal. They get a little nod from a friend, and then they're off the ballot next year. No big deal.

Jay Mariotti came out publicly on Around the Horn and said he didn't vote for Alomar on the first ballot because "no one belongs on the first ballot" or some spewing bulls***, and I'm pretty sure he didn't vote for Blyleven because he said something like "if it's been this long then he obviously doesn't deserve it."

 

I hope that man is sterilized.

Woo-hooo Robin with 7 votes!!!!!

Jay Mariotti came out publicly on Around the Horn and said he didn't vote for Alomar on the first ballot because "no one belongs on the first ballot" or some spewing bulls***, and I'm pretty sure he didn't vote for Blyleven because he said something like "if it's been this long then he obviously doesn't deserve it."

 

I hope that man is sterilized.

 

I'm not defending Mariotti, but on the Blyleven thing...it's interesting where he was in the voting early in his eligibility:

 

1998- 17.5%

1999- 14.1%

2000- 17.4%

2001- 23.5%

 

It wasn't until his 5th year when he got over 25% of the votes. It's an obvious sign that the criteria to get in the Hall has loosened over the years. I think in this new era, you can just look at his 287 wins and 3700 K's and automatically say YES, but if you did a little deeper, you could say he falls just short of Hall status.

 

They say it's the top 1% of players that get in the Hall. I think we're getting to the point where it's the top 1.5-2%, and I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. We all know who are all-time greats even with the current guys in the Hall. If more players are recognized, I don't have a huge problem with that. I mean, we're coming off an era of baseball that just s*** all over the record book. The Hall of Fame is almost becoming irrelevant anyway.

I'm not defending Mariotti, but on the Blyleven thing...it's interesting where he was in the voting early in his eligibility:

 

1998- 17.5%

1999- 14.1%

2000- 17.4%

2001- 23.5%

 

It wasn't until his 5th year when he got over 25% of the votes. It's an obvious sign that the criteria to get in the Hall has loosened over the years. I think in this new era, you can just look at his 287 wins and 3700 K's and automatically say YES, but if you did a little deeper, you could say he falls just short of Hall status.

 

They say it's the top 1% of players that get in the Hall. I think we're getting to the point where it's the top 1.5-2%, and I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. We all know who are all-time greats even with the current guys in the Hall. If more players are recognized, I don't have a huge problem with that. I mean, we're coming off an era of baseball that just s*** all over the record book. The Hall of Fame is almost becoming irrelevant anyway.

 

Yep, agree all the way around. I think with the way technology and ways to communicate evolving, people have become much more aware of how good a lot of these guys are. It wouldn't surprise me if 10 years ago people didn't realize how good Blyleven was.

 

I do think it's nice that a player can be an all-star like 5 times or even more can be completely snubbed from the Hall though too. The Hall of Fame is still reserved for the all-time greats, but as you said, they are just letting more of them in because more of them may well be deserving. I'll argue till I'm blue in the face that a guy like Miguel Tejada has been a great player throughout his career, but he's not a Hall of Famer.