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

[Ian]

What I don't like about the voting process is why a player stays on the ballot for so long. It seems really unfair to keep someone on it year after year after year and then finally voting them in after 13 or 14 years. Yeah it must be rewarding to finally get in after all that time, but every year the media says it might be (Bert for example's) turn this year so the player starts thinking about it again only to be possibly disapointed again.

Limit it to 5 years then let the veteran's committee take over. That way once the 5 years are up the player knows he probably won't make it and can put it out his mind and accept it. To keep a player in suspense for over a decade seems to me to be cruel. It also saves guys from having to repeat themselves every year with comments like "it''s sad, but maybe next year".

[Dunsmore]

Andre Dawson has to go in to the Hall of Fame as a Montreal Expo. Simple reason is his greatness as an Expo player made the Cubs pick him up (bad knees and all) . Second reason: baseball has to have an Expo in the Hall.
2011 will have a Blue Jay (Roberto Alomar)

[Josh]

Richard, just FOUR DAYS before this post, you wrote that Alomar "deserves" to go in on the first ballot. So clearly you felt just 96 hours earlier that it did matter - to some extent. Now you're saying that it doesn't matter when he goes in.

How about just a smidgen of consistency? Really.

[MP44]

I read the guidelines provided to the eligible BBWAA voters for the HOF and I am very confused. I don't see anywhere that says the voters should consider whether a player has waited the appropriate amount of time before being deemed worthy of their vote.
The fact that voters (and apparantly Griffin and Perkins are in this category) feel it is their additional duty to determine the timeline for election to the HOF despite the fact there is already a mandated 5 year waiting period is an abuse of their position.
To try and justify this by saying once they are "in" it doesn't matter how many rounds of voting it took is just another way of admitting they know what they are doing is wrong but they'll make up for it later.
I will concede there are some players that require extra debate (Blyleven) but a player like Alomar?
Nonsense.

[R. Clark]

From a BBWAA giant, Buster Olney:
...
"And now I'm convinced that the baseball writers shouldn't be involved in the selection of Hall of Famers at all -- a belief I've written about before, a belief reinforced by the most recent round of voting."

[Daniel Robb]

Richard, you write a very insightful column, combining a respect for the game of baseball with a willingness to challenge prevailing wisdom when necessary. I'm a big fan and have learned a great deal about baseball and my beloved (and beleaguered) Blue Jays from your column.

However, as a baseball fan for the past 25 years, it's always seemed to me that first-ballot HOF does carry a lot of prestige. For example, if I learned that Ted Williams or Lou Gehrig were not first-ballot, I would be very surprised. (I don't believe either is the case, although I've read that Joe Dimaggio was not inducted on the first ballot.) It seems that the number of years it takes a player to get into the HOF, even if it cannot be called to mind immediately, does serve as some sort of ranking -- albeit unofficial and imperfect -- of that player in the pantheon of the HOF.

At the very least, I think there are writers who wait to vote for certain players because they don't think that they are worthy of the label "first ballot", and probably even "second ballot" or "third ballot". I just don't see how else to explain how a player garners more and more votes during his years of eligibility. It seems that just enough writers made this decision this year for Robby Alomar not to get in his first year.

I could be mistaken, though. Would you consider writing a post in which you explain how the process of players "gathering" votes over time works, and what meaning or significance if any you think it has? Also, are there any reforms of the current HOF voting system you would advocate?