Gossage in; Rice close

[Trey]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080108&content_id=2341502&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[Houston]

Mark McGwire got 23.5% of the vote this year. He got 23.6% last year.

[Trey]

Mark McGwire got 23.5% of the vote this year. He got 23.6% last year.

The new internet guys must not like him.

[ValpoCory]

Mark McGwire got 23.5% of the vote this year. He got 23.6% last year.

A last minute vote moved him back up.

The vote:
Rich "Goose" Gossage 466 (85.8%), Jim Rice 392 (72.2%), Andre Dawson 358 (65.9%), Bert Blyleven 336 (61.9%), Lee Smith 235 (43.3%), Jack Morris 233 (42.9%), Tommy John 158 (29.1%), Tim Raines 132 (24.3%), Mark McGwire 128 (23.6%), Alan Trammell 99 (18.2%), Dave Concepcion 88 (16.2%), Don Mattingly 86 (15.8%), Dave Parker 82 (15.1%), Dale Murphy 75 (13.8%), Harold Baines 28 (5.2%), Rod Beck 2 (0.4%), Travis Fryman 2 (0.4%), Robb Nen 2 (0.4%), Shawon Dunston 1 (0.2%), Chuck Finley 1 (0.2%), David Justice 1 (0.2%), Chuck Knoblauch 1 (0.2%), Todd Stottlemyre 1 (0.2%), Brady Anderson 0, Jose Rijo 0.

[Froback]

A last minute vote moved him back up.

The vote:
Rich "Goose" Gossage 466 (85.8%), Jim Rice 392 (72.2%), Andre Dawson 358 (65.9%), Bert Blyleven 336 (61.9%), Lee Smith 235 (43.3%), Jack Morris 233 (42.9%), Tommy John 158 (29.1%), Tim Raines 132 (24.3%), Mark McGwire 128 (23.6%), Alan Trammell 99 (18.2%), Dave Concepcion 88 (16.2%), Don Mattingly 86 (15.8%), Dave Parker 82 (15.1%), Dale Murphy 75 (13.8%), Harold Baines 28 (5.2%), Rod Beck 2 (0.4%), Travis Fryman 2 (0.4%), Robb Nen 2 (0.4%), Shawon Dunston 1 (0.2%), Chuck Finley 1 (0.2%), David Justice 1 (0.2%), Chuck Knoblauch 1 (0.2%), Todd Stottlemyre 1 (0.2%), Brady Anderson 0, Jose Rijo 0.

Going on memory here, but that means from Beck on down, these guys are done for voting.

Who were the big risers this year other than Goose?  I know Rice is now in that realm of "when they get here the always get voted in eventually" type area.  What about Dawson and Blyleven?

[Houston]

Here are last year's vote totals:

Ripken, Jr., Cal 537 98.5%
Gwynn, Tony 532 97.6%
Gossage, Rich 388 71.2%
Rice, Jim 346 63.5%
Dawson, Andre 309 56.7%
Blyleven, Bert 260 47.7%
Smith, Lee 217 39.8%
Morris, Jack 202 37.1%
McGwire, Mark 128 23.5%
John, Tommy 125 22.9%
Garvey, Steve 115 21.1%
Concepcion, Dave 74 13.6%
Trammell, Alan 73 13.4%
Parker, Dave 62 11.4%
Mattingly, Don 54 9.9%
Murphy, Dale 50 9.2%
Baines, Harold 29 5.3%
Hershiser, Orel 24 4.4%
Belle, Albert 19 3.5%
O'Neill, Paul 12 2.2%
Saberhagen, Bret 7 1.3%
Canseco, Jose 6 1.1%
Fernandez, Tony 4 0.7%
Bichette, Dante 3 0.6%
Davis, Eric 3 0.6%
Bonilla, Bobby 2 0.4%
Caminiti, Ken 2 0.4%
Buhner, Jay 1 0.2%
Brosius, Scott 0 0%
Joyner, Wally 0 0%
White, Devon 0 0%
Witt, Bobby 0 0%

[Froback]

So based on that, we have

Goose +14.6%
Rice +8.4%
Dawson +9.2%
Blyleven +14.2%

The others are too low to worry about just yet.

I seem to recall some article in the last 5 yrs or so about handicaping guys who didn't make it in for future votes, I think the big carrot is your actual %, as in get to this level and you almost always get in.  But I also recall something about big risers, but I think that also tied into some actual % level too...

Stupid work, keeping me from actually doing some searches to find that article!!!

[Amy]

Well, I believe I read next year will be Rice's last year on the ballot, so the writers will have to make up their minds once and for all.  They sure are making that poor guy sweat it out.

[Ron Brand]

Next year is Rickey Henderson's first year of eligibility.  It'll be interesting to see if his candidacy has any impact on the marginal ones like Rice.

Nice to see the memory of Rod Beck getting a little love too.

[Trey]

Next year is Rickey Henderson's first year of eligibility.  It'll be interesting to see if his candidacy has any impact on the marginal ones like Rice.

Nice to see the memory of Rod Beck getting a little love too.

It'll probably hurt Raines, as they're pretty much direct compares (speedy leadoff hitters, good defensive LF) with Rickey obviously being far superior to Raines.  'Tis a shame, as Raines should be in.

[Taras Bulba]

It'll probably hurt Raines, as they're pretty much direct compares (speedy leadoff hitters, good defensive LF) with Rickey obviously being far superior to Raines.  'Tis a shame, as Raines should be in.

I heard a fairly forceful argument of just that on some roundtable I was listening to on ESPN radio this afternoon.  Essentially, a travesty that Raines wasn't way up there in that he was characterized as one of the all time greatest leadoff hitters in the NL.

I'll admit to being a real casual observer to the process, but the baseball writers who vote on this are largely way in over the heads when it comes to any kind of critical thought process and the silliness factor has been off the charts for some time.  The inequities in the college football championship playoffs pale in comparison to HOF voting.  Any association that contains the words "baseball writers" that then also houses even one member of the Houston Chronicle sportswriting department and/or Peter Gammons should be disbanded outright without further discussion.

[ValpoCory]

I heard a fairly forceful argument of just that on some roundtable I was listening to on ESPN radio this afternoon.  Essentially, a travesty that Raines wasn't way up there in that he was characterized as one of the all time greatest leadoff hitters in the NL.

I'll admit to being a real casual observer to the process, but the baseball writers who vote on this are largely way in over the heads when it comes to any kind of critical thought process and the silliness factor has been off the charts for some time.  The inequities in the college football championship playoffs pale in comparison to HOF voting.  Any association that contains the words "baseball writers" that then also houses even one member of the Houston Chronicle sportswriting department and/or Peter Gammons should be disbanded outright without further discussion.

Did JdJO get to vote this time, or is next year his first year?

[Randy Watson]

Blyleven should be in.

[Waldo]

Ortiz voted this year.

[Andyzipp]

Ortiz voted this year.

Well, his readers did, anyway.

[Arky Vaughan]

I wonder what the highest percentage achieved is for someone who never made it in.

[Arky Vaughan]

The HOF now has annual vote totals, which is kind of neat:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/voting_year.jsp?year=2008

Anyway, nobody in the last 35 years who ever got at least 70% of the vote (like Rice did this year) has failed to get in eventually (although it sometimes took the Veterans Committee to do the trick).

What's interesting looking at voting going back to the '70s is how guys like Eddie Matthews and Harmon Killebrew took multiple votes to get elected.

[HudsonHawk]

I heard a fairly forceful argument of just that on some roundtable I was listening to on ESPN radio this afternoon.  Essentially, a travesty that Raines wasn't way up there in that he was characterized as one of the all time greatest leadoff hitters in the NL.

I'll admit to being a real casual observer to the process, but the baseball writers who vote on this are largely way in over the heads when it comes to any kind of critical thought process and the silliness factor has been off the charts for some time.  The inequities in the college football championship playoffs pale in comparison to HOF voting.  Any association that contains the words "baseball writers" that then also houses even one member of the Houston Chronicle sportswriting department and/or Peter Gammons should be disbanded outright without further discussion.

I wholeheartedly disagree.  I think the writers do a fabulous job of HOF voting.

[HudsonHawk]

The HOF now has annual vote totals, which is kind of neat:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/voting_year.jsp?year=2008

Anyway, nobody in the last 35 years who ever got at least 70% of the vote (like Rice did this year) has failed to get in eventually (although it sometimes took the Veterans Committee to do the trick).

What's interesting looking at voting going back to the '70s is how guys like Eddie Matthews and Harmon Killebrew took multiple votes to get elected.

A lot of people will argue that Killebrew doesn't belong, so it's not surprising at all that he didn't go in on the first ballot.

[MusicMan]

I wholeheartedly disagree.  I think the writers do a fabulous job of HOF voting.

I think this is due to the large numbers involved.  I also think we pay a disproportionate amount of attention to the numbskulls like Heyman and JdJO who mistake the ballot for the connect-the-dots on the back of their lunch menu.

[MikeyBoy]

... numbskulls like... JdJO

but he speaks so highly of you.

[Andyzipp]

I wholeheartedly disagree.  I think the writers do a fabulous job of HOF voting.

As a group, but only by the grace of the large amount of voters participating.  Otherwise, John Lopez's vote would actually count.

[HudsonHawk]

I think this is due to the large numbers involved.  I also think we pay a disproportionate amount of attention to the numbskulls like Heyman and JdJO who mistake the ballot for the connect-the-dots on the back of their lunch menu.

Of course there are a few idiots.  But I think as a whole, the writers have done a great job of populating the HOF.  There will always be borderline candidates to argue for inclusion or exclusion, but overall, the BBWAA has done their job well.  The VC is another story, however.

[Andyzipp]

Of course there are a few idiots.  But I think as a whole, the writers have done a great job of populating the HOF.  There will always be borderline candidates to argue for inclusion or exclusion, but overall, the BBWAA has done their job well.  The VC is another story, however.

Just thank (insert the deity of your choice) that it's not a fan vote. Fans are fucking idiots.

[HudsonHawk]

As a group, but only by the grace of the large amount of voters participating.  Otherwise, John Lopez's vote would actually count.

Agreed.  I don't know the individual votes of every writer who ever voted.  I can only evaluate the results of their collective total.  I think they've done well.

[Froback]

Just thank (insert the deity of your choice) that it's not a fan vote. Fans are fucking idiots.

AMEN to that!  While I may not always agree with the Writers, I almost never understand the fans when it comes to votes for things.

[Limey]

Just thank (insert the deity of your choice) that it's not a fan vote. Fans are fucking idiots.

See Game, All Star.

[MusicMan]

but he speaks so highly of you.

I took a shower after that.

[strosrays]

A lot of people will argue that Killebrew doesn't belong. . .

Just out of curiosity, on what grounds?

I don't generally have a problem with the writer's vote, except every once in awhile I wonder just how broad their historical perspective is.  For example, Tim Raines.  I am guessing many of those who passed on him this time did so because A.) they only really remember the last 5 years or so of his career (Raines hung on too long), or B.) they heard he got caught up in a cocaine-related mess at one pont.  I assume anyone who watched him play on a regular basis for the first 15 or so years of his career would have voted him in straight away.  He was clearly a better choice that almost all of the guys who finished ahead of him this year.

[HudsonHawk]

Just out of curiosity, on what grounds?

I think some view him as a one-trick pony.  He didn't hit for a high average, he was a plodding baserunner, he wasn't a great fielder.  His OBP wasn't even particularly high for someone with so much power.  He did have power though.  In spades.

I don't generally have a problem with the writer's vote, except every once in awhile I wonder just how broad their historical perspective is.  For example, Tim Raines.  I am guessing many of those who passed on him this time did so because A.) they only really remember the last 5 years or so of his career (Raines hung on too long), or B.) they heard he got caught up in a cocaine-related mess at one pont.  I assume anyone who watched him play on a regular basis for the first 15 or so years of his career would have voted him in straight away.  He was clearly a better choice that almost all of the guys who finished ahead of him this year.

I agree that there are cases where you can argue for inclusion or exclusion.  Raines is one of them.  But he's a borderline candidate.  I tend to agree that writers view him as someone who held on too long, and did so without achieving any particular milestone.

[HudsonHawk]

See Game, All Star.

I don't have a problem with the ASG, it's strictly about the fans.  The fans are the sole reason it exists.  It's not a player reward.  The HOF on the other hand, is a museum, and should be an ACCURATE objective historical representation of the movers and shakers in baseball through time. 

[Limey]

I don't have a problem with the ASG, it's strictly about the fans.  The fans are the sole reason it exists.  It's not a player reward.  The HOF on the other hand, is a museum, and should be an ACCURATE objective historical representation of the movers and shakers in baseball through time. 

I don't have a problem with it either.  However, it does show you what weirdness can result from a fan-filled line up.  Of course it was all just meaningless fun until Bud started fucking with it to make it "count", at which point the fans' choices started to have meaning and started to piss me off.  But that's Bud's fault, not ours.

[Arky Vaughan]

Of course there are a few idiots.  But I think as a whole, the writers have done a great job of populating the HOF.  There will always be borderline candidates to argue for inclusion or exclusion, but overall, the BBWAA has done their job well.  The VC is another story, however.

I agree wholeheartedly. Whatever the faults of the writers, as a group their collective judgment has been pretty sound, while the Veterans Committee, because it doesn't have the tyranny of the majority to temper its actions, has resulted in train wreck after train wreck in its selections.

[Arky Vaughan]

See Game, All Star.

I don't think fans make selections to the All-Star team that would be significantly worse than those of the writers, the players or the coaches.

[Arky Vaughan]

I think some view him as a one-trick pony.  He didn't hit for a high average, he was a plodding baserunner, he wasn't a great fielder.  His OBP wasn't even particularly high for someone with so much power.  He did have power though.  In spades.

He finished in the top 10 in the league in OBP nine times and in walks 13 times. He's 14th all-time in walks.

What did him in, as you note, was his batting average. There's a lot of writers who don't believe someone who batted .256 should be in the Hall of Fame.

[otterjb]

AMEN to that!  While I may not always agree with the Writers, I almost never understand the fans when it comes to votes for things.

For the most part, fans seem to vote in direct relation to what is presented to them in the media.

[Amy]

For the most part, fans seem to vote in direct relation to what is presented to them in the media.

There is probably some truth to that.  The fans also realize that the purpose of their vote is to determine who they get to see in the ASG, which is supposed to be an exhibition purely for their benefit.  If they want to see Derek Jeter, regardless of whether he is currently playing like one of the top two or three shortstops in the league, they can vote for him.  The fans are not charged with being objective and they know that, regardless of how seriously some fans choose to take it.  If it was really supposed to be that serious, MLB wouldn't have the voting system they have.  Bud's Folly is another matter.

[HudsonHawk]

He finished in the top 10 in the league in OBP nine times and in walks 13 times. He's 14th all-time in walks.

His career OBP was .376.  Other big sluggers of his era include Mantle (.421), Mays (.384), and Robinson (.389).  A more recent simimlarly viewed pony, Mark McGwire's, was .394.  .376 is damn good, I'm not saying his wasn't good.  I'm just saying people didn't look back at him and say "wow, he was an on-base machine".  People looked at him and said "wow, he can hit home runs".  That's pretty much it.

[otterjb]

There is probably some truth to that.  The fans also realize that the purpose of their vote is to determine who they get to see in the ASG, which is supposed to be an exhibition purely for their benefit.  If they want to see Derek Jeter, regardless of whether he is currently playing like one of the top two or three shortstops in the league, they can vote for him.  The fans are not charged with being objective and they know that, regardless of how seriously some fans choose to take it.  If it was really supposed to be that serious, MLB wouldn't have the voting system they have.  Bud's Folly is another matter.

Yep. I think that the principle applies to actual voting as well.

[Arky Vaughan]

His career OBP was .376.  Other big sluggers of his era include Mantle (.421), Mays (.384), and Robinson (.389).  A more recent simimlarly viewed pony, Mark McGwire's, was .394.  .376 is damn good, I'm not saying his wasn't good.  I'm just saying people didn't look back at him and say "wow, he was an on-base machine".  People looked at him and said "wow, he can hit home runs".  That's pretty much it.

True, he was certainly no Mantle (first ballot, 88.2%), Mays (first ballot, 94.7%) or Robinson (first ballot, 89.2%).

McGwire is a good comparison, but it's worth noting that had McGwire not been implicated with PED use, he likely would have been inducted on the first ballot.