You Always Remember Your First Time

[batmagadanleadoff]

Well, by that logic, if every player is a Hall of Famer or he isn't, then every player that earns election should earn 100% support.

That's right.

I get it when a player doesn't get 100% of the vote because a voter isn't sure if that player is a HOFer. And some voters come around. They believe, initially, that the player isn't HOF worthy but are persuaded over time that he is. But what's the logic for not voting for Warren Spahn? Or Rickey Henderson? Or Hank Aaron? Or Ted Williams?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Well, by that logic, if every player is a Hall of Famer or he isn't, then every player that earns election should earn 100% support.

That's right.

I get it when a player doesn't get 100% of the vote because a voter isn't sure if that player is a HOFer. And some voters come around. They believe, initially, that the player isn't HOF worthy but are persuaded over time that he is. But what's the logic for not voting for Warren Spahn? Or Rickey Henderson? Or Hank Aaron? Or Ted Williams?

In the entire history of baseball, Mariano Rivera was the only player who deserved to go in unanimously on his first ballot?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Well, by that logic, if every player is a Hall of Famer or he isn't, then every player that earns election should earn 100% support.

That's right.

I should've written "for the most part" instead of "that's right". On occasion, the HOF worthiness of a candidate is in reasonable doubt or question. So it's understandable when some players are inducted into the HOF with less than 100% of the vote.

But there's no reasonable argument for withholding a vote from Seaver. Or Mays. Or Mantle. Or dozens and dozens of other players. Including Ichiro. You just fabricated some standards out of thin air to rationalize Ichiro's non-vote.

[Edgy MD]

The voters who voted against many of those figures can speak for themselves, and many have. To me, it doesn't matter, because when you're in, you're in, and the percentages don't matter to me. Others feel otherwise. All people are flawed, so if you're pedantic enough, or want to distinguish yourself with a "Look at me!" minority view, no matter how strained, you can make a case against anybody.

In Ted Williams' time, the notion of distinguishing between "Hall-of-Famer" and "First-Ballot Hall-of-Famer" — which is still a distinction plenty of people still make even though nothing in the voting instructions suggests it should be there — was even more pronounced. Beyond that, there wasn't the five-year waiting period for a stretch, so players like Joe Dimaggio would lose votes from some writers based on the notion that he might un-retire, as if somehow an actual Hall-of-Famer on the field playing would be farcical.

I, actually, would love to date a person's eligibility as something like 20 years from the start of his or her professional career. That way we would occasionally have a few Hall-of-Famers still taking the field late in their careers, with a nice little patch on the sleeve to show off.

[MFS62]

I, actually, would love to date a person's eligibility as something like 20 years from the start of his or her professional career. That way we would occasionally have a few Hall-of-Famers still taking the field late in their careers, with a nice little patch on the sleeve to show off.

LOL!
Interesting idea that would have traditionalists clutching their pearls.
My view is that there are some players you look at and say "That guy's going to be a Hall of Famer". It is that obvious. But for them, no patch is needed.
The others? Let them wait.
Later

[Edgy MD]

I didn't expect that to be particularly LOL funny.

[MFS62]

I didn't expect that to be particularly LOL funny.

I know.
But my mental picture of the reaction of the traditionalists was funny (to me).
Later

[G-Fafif]

If you had Ichiro crossing paths with Kelvin Torve…BINGO!

Kelvin Torve, ex major leaguer and Orix Blue Wave teammate (1992-1993) – “I get to the ballpark and go down to the field to stretch. Ichiro’s standing in center field by himself. He’s got his hat over his heart and he’s facing the center field stands, screaming at the top of his lungs for 5, 10 minutes.

I asked our interpreter, ‘What’s gotten into Ichiro?’ And he said that yesterday there was a fly ball behind second base. Ichiro and our second baseman ran into each other.

So, what Ichiro was screaming was ‘My name is Ichiro Suzuki and I’m learning to use my voice.’ It was a punishment.

I coach American Legion baseball in South Dakota now and I use that story with my outfielders – that if you don’t talk, I’d hate to do what did to Ichiro. It was a teaching lesson for him and a coaching lesson for me.”

Mark Simon amasses an oral history on the Hall of Famer’s defense…

https://www.sportsinfosolutions.com/202 ... ve-legacy/

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

That's great. Torve told me in an interview that Ichiro was so young when they were teammates that he used to ride his bicycle to the stadium.

[Cowtipper]

Well, by that logic, if every player is a Hall of Famer or he isn't, then every player that earns election should earn 100% support.

That's right.

I should've written "for the most part" instead of "that's right". On occasion, the HOF worthiness of a candidate is in reasonable doubt or question. So it's understandable when some players are inducted into the HOF with less than 100% of the vote.

But there's no reasonable argument for withholding a vote from Seaver. Or Mays. Or Mantle. Or dozens and dozens of other players. Including Ichiro. You just fabricated some standards out of thin air to rationalize Ichiro's non-vote.

On man's "fabrications" are another man's "hypotheticals."

[Cowtipper]

Well, by that logic, if every player is a Hall of Famer or he isn't, then every player that earns election should earn 100% support.

That's right.

I get it when a player doesn't get 100% of the vote because a voter isn't sure if that player is a HOFer. And some voters come around. They believe, initially, that the player isn't HOF worthy but are persuaded over time that he is. But what's the logic for not voting for Warren Spahn? Or Rickey Henderson? Or Hank Aaron? Or Ted Williams?

In the entire history of baseball, Mariano Rivera was the only player who deserved to go in unanimously on his first ballot?

No one is deserving of anything.

If I had a hunch that someone might push 100%, I'd probably not vote for him, just to be the counterpoint.

Groupthink and conformity are terribly dangerous.

[batmagadanleadoff]

If I had a hunch that someone might push 100%, I'd probably not vote for him, just to be the counterpoint.

Groupthink and conformity are terribly dangerous.

Sure. Especially if everyone were to think that Hank Aaron deserved to be inducted into baseball's Hall of Fame. How dangerous!

That's your rationale? That it's dangerous for every HOF voter to believe that Hank Aaron or Stan Musial or Willie Mays belongs in the HOF? That makes no sense whatsoever. Is it also dangerous for everybody to believe that two plus three equals five? Or that the Earth isn't flat?

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

The whole focus on a unanimous vote is about the writers making this about the writers. Used to be making it on the first ballot was the biggest thing. Someone was "a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer." Now it must be unanimous, or the player is slighted. As long as you are above 75 percent, it doesn't matter. It's not like there is a difference between Ralph Kiner's 75 percent and Ichiro's 99.7. They're both Hall of Famers. Should everyone vote for the obvious players? Of course they should. Does it really matter? Not as long as they reach 75 percent.

Buster Olney's podcast this week was all about the voting and there was much venting about seeking out the one holdout and doing Lord knows what to him or her. When we start demanding unanimous collective thought, that's a problem. "We need to all think the exact same way and outliers will be ostracized" is a bad way to go. Celebrate the 99.7 percent who got it right.

Olney also went off on a rant about making all the ballots public and how sports journalists should demand transparancy. Sure. Sports journalists are by far the largest group that won't name sources - "a person familiar with the Mets' thinking..." -- so there's no way they'll want transparency.

I did notice that ARod, Manny and the other juicers are going nowhere in the voting.Wonder if at some point the Hall will convene a committee and look at that era and figure out what to do with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Clemens, Arod and the like.

[Buck4Prez]

Buster Olney's podcast this week was all about the voting and there was much venting about seeking out the one holdout and doing Lord knows what to him or her. When we start demanding unanimous collective thought, that's a problem. "We need to all think the exact same way and outliers will be ostracized" is a bad way to go. Celebrate the 99.7 percent who got it right.

Olney also went off on a rant about making all the ballots public and how sports journalists should demand transparancy. Sure. Sports journalists are by far the largest group that won't name sources - "a person familiar with the Mets' thinking..." -- so there's no way they'll want transparency.

Nobody's demanding unanimous thought, but we've had a spat of bad-faith detractors over the last few decades that use that same argument to justify a lot of attention and time to batshit crazy things. We demand unanimous collective thought in plenty of places, deciding on where to do for dinner, juries, we should all drive between the lines and stop at stop lights, etc. But taken even the hall, they kept Piazza out for years because one batshit crazy blogger mouthed off about bacne and enough people gave that attention. Sometimes the .3% is the guy that decides the stop sign is optional, and we shouldn't applaud his not falling into groupthink or whatever.

Also the BBWAA voted to make ballots public, it's the Hall itself that's the holdup.

[batmagadanleadoff]

When we start demanding unanimous collective thought, that's a problem. "We need to all think the exact same way and outliers will be ostracized" is a bad way to go.

So it's OK for many people to think that the way to stave off Covid is to shoot bleach up your ass and to take horse medicine. Because their President, your President, told them so. It's also OK for some people to think that one plus one equals three and that the Earth is flat. Let's let those people build our bridges and highways.


There's no rational argument or justification for withholding a HOF vote from baseball's very-most elite players --- players who punched their ticket into the HOF five, six, seven, maybe even ten years before they retired. Any voter who doesn't think that Hank Aaron deserves a HOF vote doesn't deserve to have a vote in the first place. It's a litmus test --- as it should be. Just like if you wanna pass your college math test, you have to provide the proper, precise, exact answers to the questions asked. If you think that two plus two equals five, then yes, you are an outlier and you will be ostracized -- you will receive a failing grade.

[Edgy MD]

Chasing down that last holdout will always, always be done in frustration. There will always be holdouts, if only to draw attention to themselves as contrarians, and putting energy into chasing them down only raises their profiles and amplifies their positions, while having no effect on the outcome.

[Bob Alpacadaca]

You guys proved his point.

[Edgy MD]

¿Quién demostró qué punto?

[Bob Alpacadaca]

¿Quién demostró qué punto?

The two posts ahead of yours.

[Edgy MD]

I guess I'm still not sure what has been proven, but yeah, Mike Piazza didn't fail to gain election in 2013, 2014, and 2015 because one guy didn't vote for him, but because 42.2%, 37.8%, and 30.1% of the electorate failed to vote for him in those respective years. And if we can't respect those outcomes, I don't think there is any process we are going to accept.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Buster Olney's podcast this week was all about the voting and there was much venting about seeking out the one holdout and doing Lord knows what to him or her. When we start demanding unanimous collective thought, that's a problem. "We need to all think the exact same way and outliers will be ostracized" is a bad way to go. Celebrate the 99.7 percent who got it right.

Olney also went off on a rant about making all the ballots public and how sports journalists should demand transparancy. Sure. Sports journalists are by far the largest group that won't name sources - "a person familiar with the Mets' thinking..." -- so there's no way they'll want transparency.

Nobody's demanding unanimous thought, but we've had a spat of bad-faith detractors over the last few decades that use that same argument to justify a lot of attention and time to batshit crazy things.

Exactly. It's not about forcing unanimous thought. The guy's equating absurd, irrational ideas with legitimate debate and disagreement. Some things are just not up for debate.

[stevejrogers]

Happy for Wagner , goes in as an Astro? Or no team cap ?

I suspect an Astro. I was hoping that Sabathia would go in with Cleveland's logos, but he actually spent more time in the Bronx and I'm not sure he never wore a Cleveland cap with the C.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Happy for Wagner , goes in as an Astro? Or no team cap ?

I suspect an Astro.

I don't see how this is even an issue. I don't see how the HOF even lets Wagner have a a say in the matter. Nine years with the Astros. Two with the Phillies. A little more than three with the Mets. What am I missing?

[Centerfield]

Ichiro is a Hall of Famer. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that doesn’t deserve to vote.

I disagree with so much of the HOF process/voting that I try not to lose any sleep over it. But some things are just dumb.

I remember a few years ago some idiot writer tried defending his non vote. I think it was Rickey? The stupid logic applied made me regret giving him the attention.

[roger_that]

Well, isn't it true that each voter can vote for no more than ten players? If someone is a big-Hall advocate (I'm not), isn't it perfectly legitimate to assume that certain players will get their 75%, so why not neglect those players in order to include another player who you think is deserving of an HoF vote, if only to keep him on the ballot for another year?

This is a justification for gaming the system (another thing I'm not a big fan of) but it's certainly an arguable way to approach a flawed system.