Hall-of-Fame: Dawson In; Alomar Must Wait

The National Baseball Hall-of-Fame, class of 2010, was revealed on Wednesday afternoon amid the usual controversy. In a delightful surprise for anyone that witnessed virtually every game the Hawk played in Montreal from 1975 through 1986, former Expos star Andre Dawson (77.9%) was the only player selected. Poised for election next year are Bert Blyleven (74.2%) and Robby Alomar (73.7%).

It's good news all around on Hall-of-Fame announcement day. Even though Dawson was the only player selected for Cooperstown in 2010, Alomar, in his first attempt, is so close he can smell it and Blyleven is five votes shy. Each should be a mortal lock for baseball immortality in 2011.

However, there are those in the local T.O. media and fandom who lament the fact Alomar did not enter in the first year he was eligible. That's a wrongheaded look at Wednesday's results.

The fact of the matter is that once you are enshrined as a Hall-of-Famer, whether it's on the first, second or 15th ballot, you are a Hall-of-Famer, equal with the Babe, Willie and the rest. It's a process and with the rules the way they are currently and into the foreseeable future. The only right or wrong is if a player fails to get in after his 15-year eligibility expires.

I defy anyone off the top of his or her head to take a list of players voted into the Hall-of-Fame in the decade of the '90s and tell me what year of their candidacy they made it.

Thus, when Alomar is voted in next year, it will be a recognition of his accomplishments that should be celebrated as much in the long-run as if he had made it in his first try. The thing that annoys me the most about the online baseball public and some local media is the sense that if those critics of the process have their opinion (the FAN's Mike Wilner among them) then they are the only ones who are right and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Meanwhile among earnest, eligible voters, there is always discussion and very often respectful disagreement — with the emphasis on respectful.

There is a voting process that has been in place for years and years, back to the start of BBWAA voting for the Hall. The writers take it seriously. The rules are there and they allow for the fact that voters understand that it's not necessarily a first-year thing where it means more than anything else. In fact I'm sure there were eligible BBWAA voters this year that believe because of Alomar's spitting incident with umpire John Hirschbeck and maybe some other things that have marred his personal life off the field that he should be made to wait. That is their right as part of the process.

Alomar in his first try garnered more than 73 per cent of the BBWAA votes cast. That's pretty damned good and for someone to say that writers don't know what they are doing and to ask "how could the writers leave him out while Dawson with his lousy on-base percentage is in" (on his ninth try) is silly.

Whatever happened to reasonable discussion on baseball issues and the ability to disagree without writers being vilified as a group of village idiots? I'm tired of the stats arguments as be-all-and-end-all without personal issues being considered. If you want a Fantasy Baseball Hall-of-Fame, then start one.

And to suggest that writers make their Hall-of-Fame decision and fill out their ballot in five minutes is ridiculous and insulting. I have been a member of the association for 15 years and have been involved in more sensible and well thought out discussions about Hall-of-Fame status at World Series, winter meetings and on road trips than anything else.

Dawson is in and I am delighted for him. Blyleven is poised on the doorstep after 13 years and I am delighted for him. Alomar will be in next year and I am delighted for him. Alomar of all people should understand why he was made to wait a year. He is not perfect as a human being (who is?), but as a second baseman he was as good as it gets. He will be celebrated in the Class of 2011 and in time no one will care whether it was in his first year or his second.

Congratulations to Dawson and here's hoping that in collaboration with the Hall-of-Fame, they decide that on July 25 at Cooperstown he should go in as a member of the Montreal Expos.

.

Comments

[Robert Schuerger]

I agree with you article whole heartedly. If I had been betting on it, I would have bet on exactly what happened with Robby; close but not quite enough.

[Thane]

I agree. Although I would have loved to have seen a Jay and an Expo in the same class, there's no doubt that Alomar will make it. (as an aside, how many more years of eligibility does Morris have? There's somebody who'll be life or death).

For me though, the biggest surprise (rather, disappointment) was in McGriff's poor showing. If memory serves, this makes him the un-asterisked eligible player with the most HRs who isn't in the Hall. If that was his only stat, I could understand, but he was a great all around player, and truly somebody deserving of the honour.

I know you didn't vote for him (nor did 400 other writers), but I hope you reconsider in 2011 and onward.

[Stanley]

Sorry Richard, but if more than 25% of the voting writers don't think Blyleven and Alomar are Hall of Famers, they *are* "village idiots" (and I know you voted for both Blyleven and Raines). I am still perplexed how guys like Andre Dawson and Jim Rice are in when Tim Raines (who was better than either of them) is *significantly* below them in voting.

[Jay Kent]

You say it is the voters' right to keep Alomar out for whatever reason they want -- that is their right of the process. Yet you take exception when voters are criticized for their decision. Well, guess what? That is part of the process, too.

I'm not a Blue Jays fan and have never been an Alomar fan. But it is ridiculous to suggest there is a valid reason he was not voted in. Sorry, personal issues don't cut it. Unless it's egregious, that's not a reason to exclude a player. I doubt the writers have the knowledge or the moral authority to make judgments on another human being like that.

Lastly, you never stated whether you voted for Alomar or not.

[2nd Guess]

I must confess to being inundated by a flood of Andre Dawson memories today after hearing that he's now a Hall of Famer. It's easy to forget that until his knees took a permanent turn for the worse in 1984, the Hawk may have been the most complete player in baseball. It seemed like he made the catch of the year in centre field every night from 1979 to '83 -- and until Tim Raines arrived, I believed Dawson to be the fastest man in the NL, albeit from 1st to 3rd (the knees compromised his acceleration).

Any valid arguments about keeping Dawson out of the Hall evaporated after Jim Rice got in. Rice may have had marginally better hitting numbers, but played much of his career without a glove -- and never could run.

I caught Wilner's sorry act on The FAN this afternoon -- he didn't think Dawson deserved to get in, and couldn't understand why the BBWAA voters didn't overlook Alomar's blemishes to make him a 1st-ballot Hall of Famer. He also made a pitch for Raines, calling him (not without merit) the 2nd-best leadoff hitter in history, claiming he had the misfortune of being overshadowed by Rickey Henderson for most of his career. Part of Raines's problem was he was also overshadowed to a degree by Dawson (and Gary Carter, for that matter).

Finally (I see I'm rambling), as a transplanted Montrealer, I hope MLB -- and Dawson -- look past the Expos' departure and induct him with the tri-coloured cap. Apparently, it's no longer up to Dawson alone to decide (did he really say he wanted a Marlins cap?), and he did play 10 full seasons in Montreal -- compared with 6 in Chicago and 2 each in Boston and Florida.

[BJ Allenby]

who did you vote for?

[Jack]

I have no problem with how the BBWAA votes (well, I do, but...) I would just like to see a little more transparency. I think all should at the very least have their votes made public. And personally, I think they should provide their rationale for their votes, either way and at least once, to give us, the fans and readers (and the players and others in the game) a better sense of how and why they vote the way they do.

As the "keepers of the flame", so to speak, I think that the BBWAA owe it to the fans and to the game of baseball to let us know how they vote so that we can determine if we think they're truly the right voice to speak on our behalf.

People who make inexplicable votes either way should have to explain themselves - like Corky Simpson of the Green Valley News omitting Rickey Henderson but yet voting for Matt Williams and Don Mattingly and later admitting he made a mistake - or lose the honour and privilege of a HOF ballot. I don't care that he admitted his error, but at least he was brave enough to post his picks. Many others don't, and to me that diminishes the process for the fans and baseball establishment and makes the entire voting system flawed if not questionable.

On that topic, does anyone know of a site that compiles all of the ballots that BBWAA voters have made public/online?

[Steve Cooney]

I've always regarded you as thoughtful and knowledgeable when it comes to baseball, Richard...a true lover of the game. I've believed that ever since I first met you when you were still working with the Expos, and the primary focus related to this column hasn't done anything to change my mind. That said, your underlying message here seems to be that you believe you're right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. While your opinion is certainly valid, and might even reflect the majority, that doesn't mean it's the only one that's valid...even if you are a member of the BBWAA and Mike Wilner is not. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing any evidence of that 'respectful disagreement' you alluded to. Quite the contrary!

[Kevin Myles]

Forget stats...Alomar changed the game. He did things no one ever saw before and that are now standard plays. Watch Jeter, Alomar was better than him at the little things that win games...

Include stats, and it is a joke that he was excluded ( almost 500 more hits than Sandberg...15 points higher avg.).

There is a cache to being a first ballot Hall of Famer...Alomar deserved it...his family deserved it.

[Kevin]

One of the criteria is that old intangible, "character". Well, I remember only three things about Alomar's character. First, the infamous Hirschbeck spitting incident. It doesn't matter that they've made up - it happened, and at the time he didn't show remorse - he actually had the nerve to defend his actions. Second, when David Cone was traded away, Alomar sulked and sat out, because he thought the team had given up. If anything, that was the day that I said he wasn't a hall-of-famer. The third was his final day as a Blue Jay. He was heading into free agency, and was carrying a .300 average. He decided to sit out the last game, and protect his average, because a bad day at the plate would have lowered his average, and in his mind, made his bargaining position as a free agent that much weaker. In my mind, Alomar was always about "me". If I had vote, he would never get mine.

[R. Clark]

Richard,

I think your ballot was well-thought out, and, though I may not agree with all of your decisions, it is clear that you did your due diligence (I would have included Martinez, but I can understand the rationale to omit him.)

However, I respectfully disagree with your justification that the year in which a player is elected is superfluous. I understand that the 539 writers have earned their right with nothing short of decades of hard work and determination - those are the rules, and they get the vote. But to leave a ballot blank with the expectation of voting for some of those players the following year is irresponsible and selfish. What satisfaction does that writer get from withholding his vote? I can only assume it is for the adherence to an archaic "unwritten rule" that no player should be elected in his first year. If you consider the player a Hall of Famer this year, vote for him THIS YEAR.

You say it makes no difference to the player once he is enshrined. Let's assume Kirby Puckett was voted in in his seventh year as opposed to his first. The magnitude of this difference on Puckett's life is monumental, as Puckett would have been deceased for a year and never have been able to enjoy this incredible honour. That's also 15 fewer years that Jim Rice can enjoy his legacy (and let's not forget the monetary considerations lost in those years). All because someone has a "code" to their voting. Selfish.

The online community (Wilner included) are not some sort of fantasy baseball nerds that only adhere to statistics. We do appreciate statistics; we, however, realize the importance of newer metrics. Let's face it - the counting stats such as RBI and Wins are almost totally - but not completely - indeterminate in evaluating an individual's performance. Many of the established writers - perhaps set in their ways - are unable to change and adapt to these new understandings. I did five years of Mathematics at the University of Waterloo, including several statistics courses. If we do not change to new information and discoveries we are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past. We now know that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice-versa. Knowledge evolves.

The fans are outraged at the system. The writers say nothing is wrong. Perspective is everything. Seeing these results today only devalues the Hall of Fame. By no means am I suggesting to let the fans vote; but those on the outside see a heavily flawed system.

The Hall of Fame is for the fans, not the writers.

[jabalong]

If the writers collectively aren't a group of village idiots, when it comes to the Hall of Fame they sure vote like it. If this kind of wild inconsistency between votes and obvious lack of objectivity were on display in sports judging, the spectators would rightly be in an uproar. This voting has become a farce and the Baseball Hall of Fame ought to find a better way.

[Brad Teel, Zhongshan PRC.]

Not sure I understand the process Richard. How can a guy be elected on "the 15th ballot" and not on the first. This seems like an obvious attempt by the baseball writers to determin the rank of players elected into the hall.

Alomar will have no more hits next year than he did this year...the same for Dawson. What changes over time that affects the voters?

It seems as though the writers are on some sort of power trip enjoying letting players stew/stress.

Please enlighten me.

Thanks,

Brad

[kafkaesque]

Some voters may take it very seriously, but others clearly don't. Someone voted for David Segui. They voted to put David Segui in the Hall of Fame. Someone voted for Pat Hentgen, two people voted for Eric Karros, and two people voted for Ellis Burks. All fine players - I was a huge Pat Hentgen fan - but these players are in no way qualified for the Hall. There's no sensible or well thought out explanation for voting for them.

And if, as you say, no one remembers whether a player went in on their first or third ballot, why do some voters make this distinction? If a player is a cheater or a bad sport in their first year of eligibility, aren't they the same thing a year later?

[sandy]

The BBWAA is entrusted with a job, and that is to vote the very best baseball players into the Hall of Fame. It is not their job to decide whether a person's personal life meets with their approval. Was Alomar one of the very best 2nd basemen to ever play the game? Of course, so the voting should have been done on that basis alone. How do writers possibly justify voting in players that were not good enough on their first 13 tries to qualify for the Hall, but all of a sudden their qualifications have improved? Either they are the best or they are not.
As far as writers taking this job seriously, perhaps you should take this up with the 5 writers that turned in blank forms. That must have taken a lot of thought.

[imloulo]

I'm not baseball writer and I'm not old enough to know the history of the BBWAA, so I maybe be less qualified in determining who and when a player should get in. I can respect that different people will have different opinions on a player and that's fine. That is the beauty of sports and all the discussion and debates us fans have with each other. The biggest issue I have as a fan and as an outsider is this: from year to year, a player does not improve his career numbers of performance after he's retired. What changes from year to year? You either are a HOF'er or you're not. There isn't anything a player can do once he's eligible to make him 'more qualified'. If you don't vote somebody in the first year, what has changed in the second year to vote him in? That's what I don't get with the baseball hall of fame.

[Braden]

Just the other day you wrote that Alomar and Dawson "belong at the top" of any HOF ballot. Now you argue that Alomar must wait despite being worthy? Now, I'm not an "earnest, eligible voter" so I may be missing something but isn't it a wee bit egotistical for a writer to say, "I know this guy's worthy but not just yet"?

But sure, keep on believing that the reason people vilify print journalists is because we're all fantasy geeks....

[Greg]

I've never really seen such a clear double standard as with those who would string up Alomar for the spitting incident. Kick dirt on an umpire like Earl Weaver when you think he's made a mistake within the course of his job and it's a great thing and you're a colourful character. Spit on an umpire when when he gets personal, goes completely outside of his duties and responsibilities and calls you a... well, we all know what Hirschbeck called him, and you're made out to be the devil incarnate.

[Lou J. Vottero]

As usual the great baseball experts sitting behind mikes or other equipment who think they the world's greatest fans and therefore can do no wrong in their assessment. I wonder how many of these have been to Cooperstown or for that matter any other stadium to see a ball game. I believe their horizon could be expanded to become real fans of a great game.

[Neil]

"And to suggest that writers make their Hall-of-Fame decision and fill out their ballot in five minutes is ridiculous and insulting"

Does that include Jay Mariotti who apparently last year voted for Dawson and Blyleven but this year supposedly submitted a blank ballot or the guy on TSN Off the record last night who said he's never vote for Alomar on moral grounds but said he voted for McGwire.

Some of these guys should have their ballots removed.

[Joel Jansen]

This is why baseball as fallen from Grace with the fans..There is already enough problems with baseball and the fans and the bad rep, and the writters don't seem to be helping the problem. While watching Off the record last night they interviewd one of the voting members who did not vote for Alomar. The writter said he did not vote for Alomar for moral reasons because of the spitting which is fine, he then said that he was surprised Alomar didn't get voted in (which makes you wonder, because he clearly must think he is good enough) THEN he says he voted for McGuire!!!! Saying he doesn't see anything wrong with players taking steriods...and would vote for Bonds and the rest of them...so yes some of these writers are idiots...when you hold 1 incedent over a players head yet over look a lifetime of cheating...cheating which has pretty much destroyed the game and the league...then ya there is a deffinite problem with the system...

[R. Clark]

From one of your own and most respected, Ken Rosenthal:

"Our membership is too bloated, too riddled with voters who do not take the process seriously enough to educate themselves properly."

...

"To vote for the Hall, a writer must be a 10-year member of the BBWAA. But one sports editor from each outlet also is eligible, and so are feature writers and current or former columnists who rarely attend games."

...

As I commented earlier, baseball knowledge, as does any other facet of life, evolves. It appears many writers are failing to adapt. Hence, their ridicule does not seem inappropriate to me.

[Doug]

Alomar did not get in on first ballot because of his character and the spitting incident. If this is the criteria - a few bad days and some selfishness then I suppose we have to be thankful that these same criteria are NOT used for electing hockey hall of famers.

"Professional" hockey players and presumably "role models" routinely: scream profanities at referees in harmony with their coaches on the bench; some "follow" instructions to go out onto the ice to "even the score" with dirty play - not goals. MANY of the goons in the hockey hall of fame make Alomar look like a choir boy!

[William]

I'm so glad the hawk is finally in, the only people that were keeping him out were these new age stat geeks that can crunch numbers but have no idea of how the game has changed over time and the history of the game. When I was a kid (when the hawk was in his prime) OBP was a fringe stat that wasn't even on the back of most baseball cards, you rarely ever heard that stat mentioned at all. It was the steroid era that ushered in the reliance on OBP b/c teams crunched the numbers and found that if you constantly have guys on base the homers will be a whole lot more valuable. The hawk was a GG outfielder, a cannon for an arm, had great power and speed and was a class guy........that's a HOF no matter what the stat geeks say.

[William]

as far as alomar goes I disagree that it doesn't matter when they get inducted. Fans, media and even players seperate a first ballot hall of famer from the rest, just this past week when randy johnson retired I can't tell how many times I heard and read that he's a 'first ballot' hall of famer. The first ballot guys usually go in a special category in the minds of fans and is a place reserved for the best of the best. These writers that bring up the spitting incident forget all the good charitable work alomar did while in toronto, one moment of poor judgement in the heat of the moment and 13 years later people are still punishing you for it..........just ridiculous !