Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Hall of Popularity

Can we change the name of the "Hall of Fame" to what it actually is at this point?? Given yesterday's pathetic voting results it is clear that the Hall of Fame has become more of a 'Hall of Popularity' or a 'Hall of Baseball-Politics.'

This year's chosen one is Andre Dawson. I've got nothing against 'The Hawk,' he was a great player and is very deserving of the honor that has now, after 9 previous years of eligibility, been bestowed on him. My only question is this: if he's a Hall of Famer now, in 2010, why wasn't he a Hall of Famer in 2001? For that matter, Roberto Alomar, a player with no-doubt-about-it Hall of Fame credentials does not get elected because certain writers feel that he does not deserve the honor or being a first-ballot Hall of Famer. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?? A HOFer is a HOFer is a HOFer. Yeah, I would agree that there is a small distinction in being elected when you're first eligible, but it's not that substantial.

Another case which is personal to me because he played for the Twins, is Bert Blyleven. Bert is going to get in the Hall. I thought it was going to happen this year but he fell a painful 5 votes short. With 287 career victories, he deserves to be in. Alan Trammell deserves to be in. Jack Morris, on the strength of his 1991 Game 7 performance alone, deserve to be in (hyperbole there folks).

Anyway, as you can see, I'm kinda sick of the whole thing. I was talking with Domedog yesterday and he jokingly said that we should have a computer decide. Since baseball lends itself more heavily to statistics than other sports, I don't think it's all that bad of an idea. Baseball Reference already has a sort of rubric towards the bottom of every players' page that projects their chances at the Hall of Fame. Why not use a system? Why not have an actual rubric for the voters to follow instead of leaving it up to the individual writers to come up with their own criteria? I leave you with Bert.

No comments:

Post a Comment