Throwing you a bender because I just thought you should know…
Since it is January, with the NBA, NHL, and NFL in full
swing…..I was thinking about baseball.
Of course, the recent Hall of Fame voting and Barry Larkin’s election
prompted me to go back and review the voting process as his achieving 86% of
the vote (75% needed for election) seemed to be unusually high compared to some
of the other members and their totals. Yet it was not unanimous….which makes
sense on Barry Larkin…but got me thinking….
This is a pretty select group of players and not one of them
received a unanimous endorsement upon being voted to the Baseball Hall of Fame!
While there are criteria for being eligible regarding career
length, retirement, etc…we will stick to #5 from the BBWAA Election Rules for
the purpose of investigating this phenomenon!
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability,
integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which
the player played.
Each writer can vote for up to 10
candidates, there are not any points or places awarded, it is simply placing a “yes”
vote for a player to be elected to the Hall. This makes the process very
individual and precise. No player’s chances are diminished by a vote for
another player.
These rules have governed thousands of writers/voters
through the years. While different voters have come and gone, the requirements
have remained and applied to each voter through the different eras. Therefore,
with integrity, sportsmanship and character in place throughout the voting,
there is definitely room for any individual writer to leave any player off his
ballot based on his interpretation of the rule. But in review of the voting
totals from years past, this Bender is astonished at the results and wonders
how those three elements can outweigh the record, playing ability and
contribution!
A quick glance of some players and voting results starting
back in 1936 does not reveal any unanimous elections, even for these icons of
the game! It even goes so far as to show how Cy Young was left off of 115
ballots cast in 1936. A pitcher with 511 career wins could not get a vote from
over half the writers?
Year
|
Ballots Cast
|
Player
|
Votes
|
%
|
1936
|
226
|
Ty Cobb
|
222
|
98.2
|
|
|
Babe Ruth
|
215
|
95.1
|
|
|
Honus Wagner
|
215
|
95.1
|
|
|
Christy Mathewson
|
205
|
90.7
|
|
|
Walter Johnson
|
189
|
83.6
|
|
|
Nap Lajoie
|
146
|
64.6
|
|
|
Tris Speaker
|
133
|
58.8
|
|
|
Cy Young
|
111
|
49.1
|
1937
|
201
|
Nap Lajoie
|
168
|
83.6
|
|
|
Tris Speaker
|
165
|
82.1
|
|
|
Cy Young
|
153
|
76.1
|
1966
|
302
|
Ted Williams
|
282
|
93.4
|
1969
|
340
|
Stan Musial
|
317
|
93.2
|
1979
|
432
|
Willie Mays
|
409
|
94.7
|
1982
|
415
|
Hank Aaron
|
406
|
97.8
|
Without listing the stats for some of these all time greats
(trust me, they are mind boggling and incredible), I just wonder how writers
can leave players off a ballot on what must solely be based on integrity,
character and sportsmanship. Cobb was hated, Ruth had his moments, and
unfortunately, even race could play a part of it. But Cy Young, Stan Musial,
and Christy Mathewson were very respected and generally well liked. I
understand media members have a job to do and certain players made that harder,
unpleasant or even impossible to perform. But part of the job for any voting
member of the BBWAA is to recognize the Hall of Fame for what it is and the
players that deserve to be enshrined. So shouldn’t there be at least ten, if
not a few more, unanimous selections since 1936?
How do you receive a ballot and see that Babe Ruth, Ted
Williams, Cy Young, Nolan Ryan, Hank Aaron and Stan Musial are eligible but not
select them? At that point, regardless of your personal opinion or relationship
with a player, that type of achievement says you have to vote for election of a
player with such significant statistics. It is even beyond the normal duty of
analyzing and detailing all aspects of their career and statistics in order to
make a valid and educated vote (or non-vote).
It basically has crossed over into plain old common sense.
It also seems like a trend that is likely to continue. If
baseball’s all time greats are not elected unanimously, are any of today’s
stars capable of being the first?
So while you review every player in the Hall, read each
acceptance speech since 1936 and return to looking at every statistic (or is
that just me?), remember that a few voters on each Hall member did not think
they should be there.
All this because I know more about nothing…
No comments:
Post a Comment