HoF voter Corky Simpson didn't vote for Rickey Henderson [Archive]

Mike90

01-07-2009, 03:31 PM

Ok, except nobody ever played the game with more intensity than Matt Williams, nor with more reverence for the sport. Can the same be said for Rickey?...

I wish he had given some reasoning for Rickey. I have to believe he confused Rickey with someone else because it makes no sense leaving him out while having a reasonable, if somewhat inclusive, ballot otherwise.

AstrosFan

01-07-2009, 03:33 PM

And the Dawson quote screams Hall of Famer more than:

Matty played 17 seasons for the Giants, Indians and Diamondbacks. Nobody ever played the game with more intensity, nor with more reverence for the sport.

He was the inspirational leader of the 2001 World Series champion D’backs."

I always wondered who the all-time leader in each category was.

Mike90

01-07-2009, 04:34 PM

I always wondered who the all-time leader in each category was.

:laugh I think Simpson is correct in saying that Williams is the all-time leader in reverance with 178.92 reverance points (although some estimates place that number around 150; reverance can be surprisingly subjective). Williams is only 4th in intensity while Pete Rose is the all-time leader, although Rose's lack of reverance has kept him out of the Hall.

DoubleX

01-07-2009, 04:49 PM

Wasn't the revered Matt Williams named in the Mitchell Report?

EdTarbusz

01-07-2009, 05:41 PM

:laugh I think Simpson is correct in saying that Williams is the all-time leader in reverance with 178.92 reverance points (although some estimates place that number around 150; reverance can be surprisingly subjective). Williams is only 4th in intensity while Pete Rose is the all-time leader, although Rose's lack of reverance has kept him out of the Hall.

I don't remember Willaims showing much reverance or intensity during his short tenure with the Indians. I remember him moaning about having to live in a different state than his kids did.

CROM

01-07-2009, 06:59 PM

I had to leave him a comment. That is just ridiculous.

henrich

01-07-2009, 07:19 PM

Henrich enjoyed the read. (Perhaps his 3rd person talk got on his nerves)

The Commissioner

01-07-2009, 07:33 PM

Even Rob Neyer has gotten in on the act: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3816473&name=Neyer_Rob

Could Simpson have done this intentionally just to draw attention to himself?

STLCards2

01-07-2009, 07:53 PM

[QUOTE=The Commissioner;1395434]Even Rob Neyer has gotten in on the act: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3816473&name=Neyer_Rob

Could Simpson have done this intentionally just to draw attention to himself?[/QUOTE/]

In that blog, I saw for the second time the "he must have gotten Rickey mixed up with Dave " idea. If that is the case, that is just as bad as doing it out of some agenda or attention getting scheme. Not knowing who is on the ballot (much less confusing the great Rickey with the solid Dave) is unfathomable.

Cougar

01-07-2009, 07:57 PM

As deserving as Raines is, voting for him and not Rickey is the part that really blows my mind.

EDIT: I see that was Neyer's knee jerk response as well.

STLCards2

01-07-2009, 07:59 PM

As deserving as Raines is, voting for him and not Rickey is the part that really blows my mind.

Voting for Matt Williams and not Raines is what blows my mind. I know it seems wierd to take the second best leadoff hitter over the best leadoff hitter, but I am more struck by taking a nowhere near HOF 3B over the best leadoff hitter.

But hey, I guess we could spend all day talking about which makes less sense...:crazy

Cougar

01-07-2009, 08:03 PM

STLCards2

01-07-2009, 09:13 PM

Voting for Matt Williams and not Rickey, you mean, right?

Yeah, I am so befuddled, I can't think straight!:laugh

Captain Cold Nose

01-08-2009, 09:00 AM

Dan Plesac and Jay Bell, who were both fine players, had to smile at the thought that they "may well be voted into the Hall of Fame."

At least he voted. I'd take an almost full ballot to all the blank ballots turned in because none of these players were as good as Musial or Williams.

RuthMayBond

01-08-2009, 09:09 AM

I'd take an almost full ballot to all the blank ballots turned in And thus you get Pennock, Hunter, not to mention the VC doozies. There are enough deserving players that we don't need a ballot full of headscratchers.
Is Corky's middle name "-brained"?

Captain Cold Nose

01-08-2009, 09:19 AM

And thus you get Pennock, Hunter, not to mention the VC doozies. There are enough deserving players that we don't need a ballot full of headscratchers.
Is Corky's middle name "-brained"?

The VC doozies are entirely different animals. The writers who vote for too many or not enough have zero to do with them.

If there are enough deserving players, and I don't disagree with you, then there should never be an excuse to have a short ballot. What's worse, undeserving HOFers or ignored deserving players? Pick your poison, but there's more of the latter than the former.

RuthMayBond

01-08-2009, 09:22 AM

What's worse, undeserving HOFers or ignored deserving players? Pick your poison, but there's more of the latter than the former.Well, you can eventually correct the latter, but you can't the former

Captain Cold Nose

01-08-2009, 09:30 AM

Well, you can eventually correct the latter, but you can't the former

Right, but the George Davis and Cristobal Torriente elections are few and far between.

RuthMayBond

01-08-2009, 09:38 AM

Right, but the George Davis and Cristobal Torriente elections are few and far between.Assuming you feel they're deserving, Gordon, Hilton Smith, McPhee, Foster Willis, Newhouser, Lazzeri, Schoendienst, Doerr, Lombardi, Slaughter, Vaughan, Ferrell, Reese, Mize, Joss, Rusie, Sewell, Connor, Averill ..., the VC Negro League picks (and we'll hope the Negro League Committee does better)

Captain Cold Nose

01-08-2009, 10:03 AM

Assuming you feel they're deserving, Gordon, Hilton Smith, McPhee, Foster Willis, Newhouser, Lazzeri, Schoendienst, Doerr, Lombardi, Slaughter, Vaughan, Ferrell, Reese, Mize, Joss, Rusie, Sewell, Connor, Averill ..., the VC Negro League picks (and we'll hope the Negro League Committee does better)

I don't really have a problem with any of those and some were glaring misses on the part of the writers (Mize and Vaughan especially come to mind) there's still a long way to go.
But remember, it took the writer's ignoring them for the VC to correct those mistakes in the first place. Voters actually voting instead of crying how no one is Ted Williams would leave less chance for others on the outside still looking in. I'm for voting for worthy candidates, basically. And there's always somebody for the most part.

KCGHOST

01-08-2009, 03:42 PM

Doesn't much matter in Rickey's case but Dawson or Blyleven might ending up just needing one vote.

Cougar

01-08-2009, 07:56 PM

You can only argue it's a strategic omission if Corky used all 10 slots...he didn't.

OleMissCub

01-08-2009, 11:49 PM

1st All-Time in Runs
1st All-Time in Stolen Bases
2nd All-Time in Walks
4th All-Time in Games
3,000 Hit Club
MVP Award Winner
10 Time All-Star
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/2418/hofnazrd3.jpg

Los Bravos

01-09-2009, 12:12 AM

Reached for comment, Mr. Henderson said "Rickey doesn't want some guy named Corky voting for Rickey, anyway."

Captain Cold Nose

01-09-2009, 09:18 AM

We knew he wasn't going to be unanimous. No one ever has been.

I'm not going to assume anything about Simpson's motivations. He did vote for some very deserving players. Just not the most deserving for some reason. A head scratcher, sure, but I think there'll be a couple of dozen at least.

mtortolero

01-09-2009, 01:25 PM

Williams is a homer vote, most likely.

Looks more like Corky Simpson is the uncle of Homer.

rsuriyop

01-09-2009, 01:43 PM

Well apparently it turns out it was all just an honest mistake:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11412160

highpockets

01-09-2009, 01:56 PM

I hope for Corky's sake some anonymous voters have left Ricky off the ballot too. Lots of us mess up from time to time, and not a few have risen well above our level of competence. But no one deserves to go down in history as the writer who wrecked the first unanimous HOF selection by mistake.

jjpm74

01-09-2009, 02:52 PM

beemax

01-09-2009, 06:31 PM

I don't remember Willaims showing much reverance or intensity during his short tenure with the Indians. I remember him moaning about having to live in a different state than his kids did.

Maybe you forgot that he hit 32 Home runs, drove in 105 runs, and won a Gold Glove while helping the Indians into the World Series his only year there.

God forbid a father wanting to be closer to his kids.

beemax

01-09-2009, 06:34 PM

Voting for Matt Williams and not Raines is what blows my mind. I know it seems wierd to take the second best leadoff hitter over the best leadoff hitter, but I am more struck by taking a nowhere near HOF 3B over the best leadoff hitter.

But hey, I guess we could spend all day talking about which makes less sense...:crazy

I would have no problem with him voting for Williams if he voted for Henderson as well. He said he only gets 10 votes. He only listed 8 guys. He didn't spurn Henderson with the Williams vote, he just didn't vote for him.

IMO 'nowhere near HOF 3B' is off the mark. Compare his numbers with other HOF 3B and he is right in the mix.

OleMissCub

01-09-2009, 06:34 PM

Whichever dummy voter doesn't vote for Greg Maddux on the first ballot should be executed immediately.

gwynnfan

01-10-2009, 03:02 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynnfan View Post
Corky Simpson, a retired Tucson (Ariz.) Citizen columnist, told the Bay Area News Group on Thursday that unlike the bold stand he took in the 1992 AP college football poll, he "simply goofed" by leaving Henderson off his Hall of Fame ballot and wishes he had a chance to vote again."If I had properly researched the situation, I would have voted for Rickey Henderson if for no other reason than he played for nine ball teams," he said. "Imagine that. He'll be the first Hall of Famer to have a bronze bust with nine caps stacked on his head.

"Seriously, he was a wonderful player and I simply goofed. I voted for eight deserving men. I could have picked two more — and I wish to heck I had."

Simpson created a national sensation in 1992 when he was the only voter who voted for Alabama over Miami for the entire season in the Associated Press college football poll. He was vindicated when the Crimson Tide won the national championship and served as grand marshal of the celebration parade in Tuscaloosa.
He voted for 8 guys but not Ricky! If he "properly researched it"? " for no other reason than he played on 9 teams" are you kidding me! Mike Morgan played on 12 teams, if he was on the ballot would have he got Corky's vote?

Hall of Fame voting needs to be change. Some voters wont choose a first time guy because their idol did not get 100% vote so nobody should. DUMB,DUMB,DUMB,DUMB,DUMB!!!!!

Cougar

01-10-2009, 11:02 AM

He wasn't dumb in 1992...he was prescient.

This time...it seems intentional to me, actually; there's a lot of sarcasm in his reply.

If so, that's his right, but if he's going to go so far as to write a column about his ballot, he needs to explain why he left Henderson off, or he's going to get motives imputed for him, and very few of them will be flattering.

jjpm74

01-10-2009, 11:15 AM

Whichever dummy voter doesn't vote for Greg Maddux on the first ballot should be executed immediately.

I'm sure there will be t least a few guys who don't vote for him citing his 2006-2008 performance even though he could have retired in 1996 and still been a 1st ballot HOFer.

EdTarbusz

01-10-2009, 11:46 AM

Maybe you forgot that he hit 32 Home runs, drove in 105 runs, and won a Gold Glove while helping the Indians into the World Series his only year there.

God forbid a father wanting to be closer to his kids.

Then maybe this father should have picked a career where he would have been closer to home.

He was just another less than impressive part of a less than impressive team.

beemax

01-10-2009, 12:54 PM

Then maybe this father should have picked a career where he would have been closer to home.

Spoken like someone who has no idea about professional baseball.

He was just another less than impressive part of a less than impressive team.

Are you serious?

Again, you forget that he won the Silver Slugger and a Gold Glove the year he was there and helped the Indians to the World Series, where they haven't been since he left. If that is 'less than impressive,' I would sure like to see you think is 'impressive.'

He was a clubhouse leader who Mike Hargrove called "The leader of that team."

If you knew Matt Williams you wouldn't be so quick to judge him.

EdTarbusz

01-10-2009, 01:22 PM

Spoken like someone who has no idea about professional baseball.

Are you serious?

Again, you forget that he won the Silver Slugger and a Gold Glove the year he was there and helped the Indians to the World Series, where they haven't been since he left. If that is 'less than impressive,' I would sure like to see you think is 'impressive.'

He was a clubhouse leader who Mike Hargrove called "The leader of that team."

If you knew Matt Williams you wouldn't be so quick to judge him.

Look at the 1997 Cleveland Indians regular season. Very unimpressive. Being the leader of a team with no competitive fire doesn't say much to me.

beemax

01-10-2009, 02:32 PM

Look at the 1997 Cleveland Indians regular season. Very unimpressive.

Again, spoken like someone who has never played.

I look at winning your division by 6 games, beating the defending World Champs in the playoffs, and being a Tony Fernandez error from winning the World Series as a pretty good year. But hey, that's just me.

Being the leader of a team with no competitive fire doesn't say much to me.

How do you quantify 'competitive fire?'

Does winning your division and losing the World Series in seven games mean that a team lacked competitive fire?

The more you talk, the more apparent it comes that you have never been a part of a team or played at a high level.

EdTarbusz

01-10-2009, 02:52 PM

Again, spoken like someone who has never played.

I look at winning your division by 6 games, beating the defending World Champs in the playoffs, and being a Tony Fernandez error from winning the World Series as a pretty good year. But hey, that's just me.

How do you quantify 'competitive fire?'

Does winning your division and losing the World Series in seven games mean that a team lacked competitive fire?

The more you talk, the more apparent it comes that you have never been a part of a team or played at a high level.

Did you ever watch that particular team, which won less than 90 games in the regular season? All they had going for them was being in the weakest divison in the Majors and had no business being anywhere near the post-season, let alone the World Series. That team (along with several Hargrove led teams) was the poster child of taking it easy in the regular season and turning it up a notch for the post season. The Indians post-season record in the 90s shows that that wasn't the best approach.

Competive fire is like pornography. I know it when I see it. The Cleveland Indians of 1997-2001 didn't have much of it. With the talent they had they should been able to approach the success of the Yankees in that era. The Yankees were a team with some competitive fire.

EdTarbusz

01-10-2009, 02:53 PM

Again, spoken like someone who has never played.

I look at winning your division by 6 games, beating the defending World The more you talk, the more apparent it comes that you have never been a part of a team or played at a high level.

I admit, I've never played Major League baseball.

beemax

01-10-2009, 03:15 PM

Did you ever watch that particular team, which won less than 90 games in the regular season? All they had going for them was being in the weakest divison in the Majors and had no business being anywhere near the post-season, let alone the World Series.

Yet they got there, and damn near won it.

Would you have this opinion had they won the Series?

Do you feel the same about the 2006 Cardinals? Or the 1987 Twins?

That team (along with several Hargrove led teams) was the poster child of taking it easy in the regular season and turning it up a notch for the post season. The Indians post-season record in the 90s shows that that wasn't the best approach.

Hargrove won 5 straight division titles (winning 100 games once, 99 in '96 and 97 in '99) and took the Indians to the World Series twice. I guess they were just taking it easy though.

He had a 27-25 record in the postseason during that time. I guess being over .500 playing the best teams in baseball in the most important games of the season doesn't mean anything to you.

Competive fire is like pornography. I know it when I see it. The Cleveland Indians of 1997-2001 didn't have much of it.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.:crazy

EdTarbusz

01-10-2009, 03:26 PM

Yet they got there, and damn near won it.

Would you have this opinion had they won the Series?

Do you feel the same about the 2006 Cardinals? Or the 1987 Twins?

Hargrove won 5 straight division titles (winning 100 games once, 99 in '96 and 97 in '99) and took the Indians to the World Series twice. I guess they were just taking it easy though.

He had a 27-25 record in the postseason during that time. I guess being over .500 playing the best teams in baseball in the most important games of the season doesn't mean anything to you.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

My opinion of the 1997 Indians would probably be the same if they won the World Series. They had no business being there. I would say the same about the 1987 Twins and 2006 Cardinals.

I guess you had to be there in the early Jacobs Field. The Indians were an underachieving team. The had the talent, but aside from 1995 they never seemed to be playing as well as they could have. After 1995 they werte 16-19 in the post-season under Hargrove including two losses in the Division Series, including 1999. It doesn't look as good if you take 1995 out of the mix.

Ubiquitous

01-10-2009, 03:30 PM

The Cleveland Indians had Jim Thome, Albert Belle, Manny Ramirez, and Kenny Lofton. Along with that they had great defense at SS and C.

The Indians had a great lineup. One of the greatest of all time. What they didn't have was a great pitching staff. They had a good one but not an all time great one.

The 1995-96 Lineup is two of the greatest lineups of all time. Matt Williams wasn't on either one of those teams but I don't care.

beemax

01-10-2009, 03:36 PM

My opinion of the 1997 Indians would probably be the same if they won the World Series. They had no business being there. I would say the same about the 1987 Twins and 2006 Cardinals.

Well, the Twins and Cardinals have the rings so I guess they'll take it.

I guess you had to be there in the early Jacobs Field. The Indians were an underachieving team. The had the talent, but aside from 1995 they never seemed to be playing as well as they could have. After 1995 they werte 16-19 in the post-season under Hargrove including two losses in the Division Series, including 1999. It doesn't look as good if you take 1995 out of the mix.

You are changing your timeframe to fit your opinion. You can't speak of Hargrove and his record in the 90s and then take out 1995 so the record looks worse and better for your point. That's a joke.

I'd like you to see how many managers not named Torre or Cox who had as many postseason wins during that time.

Ubiquitous

01-10-2009, 03:39 PM

A strike against Hargrove was that he simply he didn't fully realize what he had. Then again when you are winning a ton of games you can make more mistakes.

He had Carlos Baerga batting third until he got traded and both Manny and Thome buried in the lineup for a long time.

Fuzzy Bear

01-10-2009, 03:49 PM

As deserving as Raines is, voting for him and not Rickey is the part that really blows my mind.

EDIT: I see that was Neyer's knee jerk response as well.

I wouldn't have objected to Corky's ballot if he had included Rickey AND Mac.

Corky lost me with his nauseating moralism about Mac and PEDs. Mac took PEDs that were within the rules at the time (Creatine). He played by the rules. This ex post facto penalizing of McGwire is one of the most nauseating events in HOF voting history, and Corky increases the collective demand for Pepto Bismol with his pseudo-moralistic garbage.

beemax

01-10-2009, 03:55 PM

Corky lost me with his nauseating moralism about Mac and PEDs. Mac took PEDs that were within the rules at the time (Creatine). He played by the rules. This ex post facto penalizing of McGwire is one of the most nauseating events in HOF voting history, and Corky increases the collective demand for Pepto Bismol with his pseudo-moralistic garbage.

Creatine is not a PED...it is still allowed. I think you meant to say Andro.

Fuzzy Bear

01-10-2009, 04:07 PM

Creatine is not a PED...it is still allowed. I think you meant to say Andro.

Yes.

I've posted this before, so I'm being repetitive, but this "Spanish Inquisition" on PEDs borders on modern-day McCarthyism. "Are you now, or have you ever, used PEDs, or associated with PED users?" This whole issue has gone so far overboard that we are doing injustices to both individual players and to baseball history.

PEDs were a condition of the time. It wasn't like the guys using PEDs were a secret few with the golden pill or injection that the other guys didn't have access to. ALL MLB players had the opportunity to use PEDs, and the majority did. Those who didn't made that choice freely, weighing the consequences, and not because of some sort of moral superiority. (If moral superiority were the case, it wouldn't have taken Jose Canseco to blow the whistle.) PED usage occurred with the knowledge and consent of management; they were OK with it as long as they had plausible deniability.

Guys who took PEDs weren't "cheaters"; they were guys trying to be all they could be. That's what being a pro athlete is all about; being all that you can be. I agree that PEDs are a health hazard, and that MLB has an obligation to end the "plague". But the "plague" is a HEALTH issue, not a MORAL issue.

Let's stop the hypocrisy. Let's stop it now. Let's make the adjustments for era that steroids require, just as we would for .300 hitters in 1925, but let's stop the McCarthyistic sanctimony. It's nauseating. It's downright un-American. And the way in which this problem is being addressed is harmful to baseball as an institution, and an injustice to the unique sense of history that baseball possesses, a sense of history that is unparalleled by any other sport.

RuthMayBond

01-10-2009, 04:16 PM

The Indians had a great lineup. One of the greatest of all time. What they didn't have was a great pitching staff. They had a good one but not an all time great one.
The 1995 Indians had a team ERA+ of 122. Better than the
1902 Pirates, 1942 Yanks, 1927 Yanks, 1998 Yanks ...

EdTarbusz

01-10-2009, 09:33 PM

Well, the Twins and Cardinals have the rings so I guess they'll take it.

You are changing your timeframe to fit your opinion. You can't speak of Hargrove and his record in the 90s and then take out 1995 so the record looks worse and better for your point. That's a joke.

I'd like you to see how many managers not named Torre or Cox who had as many postseason wins during that time.

There is a huge difference between 1995, and to a certain extent 1996, and the rest of the 1990s for the Indians. 1995 is on the short-list for greatest Indians overall season. The Indians in those years had some good veteran leadership on the club. By 1997, guys like Murray, Pena, Lofton and Belle were gone. Lofton returned in 1998, but he a much lesser player in his second go around with the Indians.

In 1996, Hargrove and Murray had an ugly disagreement over Murray's position which led to Murray publicly calling Hargrove a liar. After the season was the over one of the beat writers from the Plain Dealer reported that this was a major disruption in the clubhouse, and the clubhouse was breaking down along racial lines. I think this followed Hargrove for the rest of his time in Cleveland.

EdTarbusz

01-10-2009, 09:35 PM

Pine Tar

01-10-2009, 11:59 PM

Well apparently it turns out it was all just an honest mistake:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11412160

If you read the article, it doesn't sound to me like he made and honest mistake. It sounds like he is sorry he is getting so much slack for not voting for Rickey, and that is why he wants to be able to vote again. I guess we can't be too critical of this guy. ESPNs Pedro Gomez voted for Jay Bell but not for Tim Raines. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof09/news/story?id=3819625

Silver Blaze

01-11-2009, 06:57 PM

"I'm not a Rickey guy."

No, you are a selfish idiot who needs to learn it is not about you. Why does it seem like every year there is one writer out there who feels the need to make the headlines instead of just honestly doing their job? To add insult to injury, the guy actually voted for Matt Williams but said he didn't vote for McGwire because of the spectre of drugs. Williams was named in the Mitchell report. This guy has ZERO credibility and is a disgrace to his profession.

Biggtone23

01-11-2009, 07:19 PM

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86259&highlight=simpson

DownUnderDodger

01-11-2009, 08:48 PM

Jack Curry of the NY Times seems confident Henderson will be elected.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/sports/baseball/11henderson.html?_r=1&em

sturg1dj

01-12-2009, 07:38 AM

one should have to pass a test to get a HOF vote.

but overall when it comes to Rickey, it doesn't bother me. He is in, no problem. No player ever got 100% of the vote and we always assumed it was because people want to mess with precedent...but it turns out it is also because morons vote.

J W

01-12-2009, 08:02 AM

Threads merged.

...and you wonder why intelligent conversation from established (well, younger) writers sometimes doesn't seem to have an effect on voting results.

spark240

01-13-2009, 05:29 AM

If there are enough deserving players
...
then there should never be an excuse to have a short ballot.

Did I read this right? Are you saying that there are always ten or more players worth electing to the Hall of Fame?

I would say that, among players in their normal eligibility period, there has never been more than half that.

Captain Cold Nose

01-13-2009, 05:59 AM

Did I read this right? Are you saying that there are always ten or more players worth electing to the Hall of Fame?

I would say that, among players in their normal eligibility period, there has never been more than half that.

Oh, no, not at all. I admittedly wasn't expressing myself as well as I should have. I don't really think of Simpson's 2009 ballot as a short ballot. A short ballot to me is three or less.

There are always arguments to be made for so many players that have some legitimacy to them. If a person is turning in blank ballots, then they're too strict. I think that's worse than someone turning in a full ballot or near to it, because arguments can be made for a lot of the players. I don't agree with a lot of them, I'm a moderate HOF guy, but I can see them being made and not thinking a guy's an idiot for voting for someone. It's worse to not vote for someone who's deserving. IMO, mind you.

spark240

01-13-2009, 06:10 AM

I don't really think of Simpson's 2009 ballot as a short ballot. A short ballot to me is three or less.

There are always arguments to be made for so many players that have some legitimacy to them.

Okay, I understand.

I have heard voters criticized simply for failing to use all ten slots, as if it were just mean to withhold a vote that one "could have" cast.

I think all arguments that are based on the recognition that does or doesn't accrue by being a first-ballot election or not, or by getting so much support but not being elected, are a damaging distraction. It seems to me that a HOF voter's responsibility is to vote for those players that are genuinely deserving of election and equally to not-vote for those who are not. Neglecting a deserving candidate (for any reason) or supporting an undeserving (same) are equally abrogations of the responsibility.

Mike90

01-13-2009, 09:47 AM

RuthMayBond

01-13-2009, 09:52 AM

Mike90

01-13-2009, 10:36 AM

Rickey was no Phil Rizzuto

The writers seem to agree: Rizzuto retired in 1956 and wasn't elected until 1994.

RuthMayBond

01-13-2009, 11:27 AM

The writers seem to agree: Rizzuto retired in 1956 and wasn't elected until 1994.Aparicio didn't have to wait that long, if you're going to imply that that's the major factor

Captain Cold Nose

01-13-2009, 11:32 AM

Aparicio didn't have to wait that long, if you're going to imply that that's the major factor

He still waited a bit longer than Henderson and was elected with a much lower percentage.

I think Aparicio greatly benefitted from a general call to induct more shortstops. I'm not saying he's derserving or not here (I think he belongs based on what he was when he was it.) but comparing a VC case and a guy who had to wait a few years to a guy who did draw 94.5% is a :shrug:

RuthMayBond

01-13-2009, 11:34 AM

He still waited a bit longer than Henderson and was elected with a much lower percentage.
Snider and Mize (no to mention others) had to wait and I'm not sure what they were lacking

ipitch

01-13-2009, 11:35 AM

Corky was only one of 28 not to vote for Rickey. I wondered how those 28 guardians of the gate justify not voting for him. Was it Rickey's habit of refferring to himself in the 3rd person? His mediocre triple-crown stats (.279 BA, 297 HR, 1115 RBI)? Fear that he would be the first unanimous winner?

Colin Cowherd said that one writer didn't vote for Rickey because he dogged it too much. He said he would have voted for him next year.

RuthMayBond

01-13-2009, 11:38 AM

Colin Cowherd said that one writer didn't vote for Rickey because he dogged it too much. He said he would have voted for him next year.Crap, now I guess Rickey doesn't have to hustle on the field in the next year like he was going to have to.
I'm hoping he didn't vote Reggie first ballot

Captain Cold Nose

01-13-2009, 11:47 AM

Snider and Mize (no to mention others) had to wait and I'm not sure what they were lacking

So we shouldn't be surprised when someone doesn't become unanimous or even waits a while? Some players have far more to debate than others? What's the Rizzuto comparison to Henderson about?

Snider came up at time when they weren't really electing players first-year unless they were first-tier players, and when other greats like Spahn, Mantle, Banks, Mathews and Mayscame up later, he kind of got lost in the shuffle. His election was way overdue. And Mize is probably the most overdue of the VC selections (worst writer's snubs later elected)considering he was eligible within the normal time frame and passed up time and time again. He did come up at a time when they were hardly electing anyone.

RuthMayBond

01-13-2009, 11:57 AM

So we shouldn't be surprised when someone doesn't become unanimous or even waits a while? Some players have far more to debate than others? What's the Rizzuto comparison to Henderson about?Rizzuto got in with less than stellar triple crown stats

<Snider came up at time when they weren't really electing players first-year unless they were first-tier players,>

Maybe, but Early Wynn got in pretty quickly

<and when other greats like Spahn, Mantle, Banks, Mathews and Mayscame up later, he kind of got lost in the shuffle.>

It doesn't explain pre-1977

<His election was way overdue. And Mize is probably the most overdue of the VC selections (worst writer's snubs later elected)considering he was eligible within the normal time frame and passed up time and time again. He did come up at a time when they were hardly electing anyone.>

True, although I think he could have edged past Appling & Ruffing

Captain Cold Nose

01-13-2009, 12:09 PM

Rizzuto got in with less than stellar triple crown stats

<Snider came up at time when they weren't really electing players first-year unless they were first-tier players,>

Maybe, but Early Wynn got in pretty quickly

<and when other greats like Spahn, Mantle, Banks, Mathews and Mayscame up later, he kind of got lost in the shuffle.>

It doesn't explain pre-1977

<His election was way overdue. And Mize is probably the most overdue of the VC selections (worst writer's snubs later elected)considering he was eligible within the normal time frame and passed up time and time again. He did come up at a time when they were hardly electing anyone.>

True, although I think he could have edged past Appling & Ruffing

Koufax and Berra 1972. Spahn in 1973. Mantle and Ford in 1974. Snider was stuck in the queue behind long-timer Kiner, Bob Lemon and Robin Roberts in 1975 and 1976. Like the NCAA in-season polls, attrition is involved in spots. Snider got in line where he did and waited. And waited. And finally got in.

Wynn had the shiny (if you can call dragging along trying to get that last win shiny) 300 wins and was a big part of both teams breaking up the Yankees pennant stranglehold. I guess the writers put more toward that than it's actually worth.

Your guess about what happened with Mize and why some got elected ahead of him (Maybe it was attrition. That's just a theory.) is as good as mine. That's why I think it ranks as one of the top VC choices, even if lesser deserving players like Wilson and Klein got elected first. I think he was first VC eligible in the late 70's, so it can't be blamed on the Frisch folk.

Mike90

01-13-2009, 02:31 PM

Aparicio didn't have to wait that long, if you're going to imply that that's the major factor

What am I implying is the major factor? Triple-Crown stats? Batting average, home runs, and RBI aren't exactly Rickey's claim to fame, but he was better than Rizzuto at each of those categories. He hit for a higher average (.279 to .273) with a lot more home runs (297 to 38) and RBI (1115 to 563). I don't think those stats are the best measures of a player's worth, but Rickey was certainly better than both Aparicio and Rizzuto in those areas.

Mike90

01-13-2009, 02:40 PM

Snider and Mize (no to mention others) had to wait and I'm not sure what they were lacking

I'm not really sure why Mize wasn't elected. He didn't win an MVP or reach any major statistical milestones -- only 359 HR and 1337 RBI -- but he was considered a huge star in his day -- 8 all-star teams, finished 2nd in MVP voting twice and in the top-10 four other times -- and retired with a BA above .300. Maybe he just got lost in the shuffle.

Ubiquitous

01-13-2009, 03:00 PM

I'm not really sure why Mize wasn't elected. He didn't win an MVP or reach any major statistical milestones -- only 359 HR and 1337 RBI -- but he was considered a huge star in his day -- 8 all-star teams, finished 2nd in MVP voting twice and in the top-10 four other times -- and retired with a BA above .300. Maybe he just got lost in the shuffle.

Mize had no milestones, was a platoon player his last 5 years, at the time the Hall was only voting every two years for the first 8 years of eligibility, and finally in 1960 the hall was much much smaller and thus the standards were much much higher.

Nowadays when we compare players to the HoF standard we include guys like Mize or Snider or Marquard and so on. The baseball writers by the time Mize came up for election had only voted in 35 players.

Mike90

01-13-2009, 03:07 PM

Mize had no milestones, was a platoon player his last 5 years, at the time the Hall was only voting every two years for the first 8 years of eligibility, and finally in 1960 the hall was much much smaller and thus the standards were much much higher.

Nowadays when we compare players to the HoF standard we include guys like Mize or Snider or Marquard and so on. The baseball writers by the time Mize came up for election had only voted in 35 players.

Thanks. Were those high standards the same reason why Arky Vaughn, rated as the 2nd greatest shortstop ever by Bill James, wasn't elected by the writers?

Eastvanmungo

01-13-2009, 04:07 PM

Yet another example of why all BHoF ballots should be made public.

jalbright

01-13-2009, 07:57 PM

I'm not really sure why Mize wasn't elected. He didn't win an MVP or reach any major statistical milestones -- only 359 HR and 1337 RBI -- but he was considered a huge star in his day -- 8 all-star teams, finished 2nd in MVP voting twice and in the top-10 four other times -- and retired with a BA above .300. Maybe he just got lost in the shuffle.

Other than the issue Ubi mentioned, Mize 1) missed three years to WW II, which hurt the counting stats and probably cost him some more all-star years, and so forth; and 2) a significant part of Mize's value came from his plate discipline. Unfortunately, back then, walks were something pitchers gave up, so hitters got little or no credit for drawing numerous walks. Even today, guys who walk a lot are often underrated because there are many people who don't give enough (in some cases any) credit for walks drawn by batters. Fortunately, it's a minority today whereas in the past it was a sizeable majority, but the effect is still there.

Captain Cold Nose

01-14-2009, 05:11 AM

Yet another example of why all BHoF ballots should be made public.

Why? This is still just a museum, an essentially private venture the public has paid access to. This is not something the public "needs" to know.

jalbright

01-14-2009, 08:04 AM

CCN, I agree with what you say, but I think there would be a significant advantage in making the ballots public--the voters would have to answer for their votes. Now, if they so choose, they can hide behind anonymity. IMHO, that anonymity makes them feel more comfortable making idiotic choices--or at least voting without doing their homework.

RuthMayBond

01-14-2009, 08:09 AM