Skip to content

What they're saying about the Hall of Fame results

Jan 6, 2010, 6:36 PM EST

Let’s see what the blogosphere is saying about Andre Dawson’s selection — and everyone else’s exclusion — from the Hall of Fame:

  • Jonah Keri: “Yes, it’s ridiculous that worthy inductees like Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Bert Blyleven, Edgar Martinez, Alan Trammell, Mark McGwire and of course Tim Raines didn’t get in. But still: Expo #2, Andre Dawson, is going to the Hall of Fame! I’m buying first round of beers at Ommegang. See you at the Coop!”
  • Goat Riders of the Apocalypse: “[Dawson’s] 867 games as a Cub are dwarfed by his 1,443 games in Montreal.  And
    although he hit only 51 fewer homeruns in 2,366 fewer at bats, despite
    having the best years of his career in Chicago, Cooperstown will put an
    Expos cap on his plaque. I’m okay with that.  I’m just glad he’s there.  And hopefully come
    this summer I will be in Cooperstown too, along with thousands of other
    Cub fans, bowing to Dawson again and chanting his name.”
  • Drunk Jays Fans: “Today, Andre Dawson was considered by people whose job it is to cover
    baseball, to be more deserving of the greatest honour a baseball player
    can receive than Roberto Alomar,
    Bert Blyleven and Mark McGwire. This is fu**ing dumb.”
  • Rob Neyer: “After all these years, I shouldn’t be surprised anymore by Hall of Fame voters. Today I was.
    I didn’t know how many players would be elected. I figured at least one, but probably two and possibly three.
    Well, it was one. And not the one I would have guessed.”
  • Amazin Avenue: “The failure of the BBWAA to recognize the value of actual performance
    while masking their own smug ignorance — and in some cases bitter
    intransigence — behind the blustery veil of tired rhetoric and logic
    fallacies never ceases to amaze me.”
  • Pete Abraham # 1: More BBWAA embarrassment . Our system is broken. Too many dopes who don’t really cover the game vote.
  • Pete Abraham # 2: “The BBWAA has
    issues, no doubt. Too many people vote. But many of those ripping it
    today either begged to get in or are still begging.”
  • Charles Pierce: “The only good thing about this year’s election is that the sole
    inductee, Andre Dawson, only had a OBP as high as .360 once in his
    career. Any defeat for the sports-as-math-homework crowd is a good one.
    Elsewhere, well, let’s just all agree that Bert Blyleven has about the
    same chance of ever getting in as Mark McGwire and I do. The reasons
    why are murky, which is another reason why this whole process–and many
    of the participants in it–needs a high-colonic. And anyone who sent in
    a blank ballot should be a subject of mockery and derision all the days
    of their lives. What, these guys couldn’t find a bartender who wanted
    the job?”
  • Big League Stew: “I mean, c’mon. Can’t the BBWAA just round up on Blyleven? If he were a
    car or a house and we were buying him, sure, we’d want to knock a
    percentage point off the interest rate because it would be in our best
    interest as a consumer.”
  • Josh Wilker: “But let’s face it, today for baseball fans is a day set aside for
    outrage, more or less. It’s the day when the game itself is in some
    ways defined, and those who didn’t get to participate in the defining
    (and plenty who did) get to rail against the parts of the definition
    that veer so widely from their own.”

I’m sure they’ll be no shortage of additional praise for Andre Dawson in the next day or so.  And no shortage of additional outrage for the BBWAA and the process.  Of course, we get that every year, and nothing ever changes, so try not to get too wrapped up in it, OK?

  1. Fan for 45+ years - Jan 6, 2010 at 7:25 PM

    All this commotion for election into………a museum…. that is not even associated with Major League Baseball. Hmmmmm…. come to think of it…. is that bad or good ?!?

  2. Peter Earl - Jan 6, 2010 at 7:51 PM

    This current generation of sportswriters are a bunch “self-important narcissists” to borrow the above commenter’s expression. I cannot wait until these guys are ushered out. I think in 10-15 years we will have a BBWAA that is more rational and technical and not so pompous, coinciding with the demise of the old newspaper media.
    To bad you can’t vote on the voters, somebody needs to clear out this BBWAA.

  3. Bert - Jan 6, 2010 at 8:01 PM

    If there was anyone I agreed with in these quotes it would be Charles Pierce.

  4. Bert - Jan 6, 2010 at 8:08 PM

    I agree with Charles Pierce and Pete Abraham #2 in their comments about the BBWAA vote. Baseball Fans.

  5. Bert - Jan 6, 2010 at 8:15 PM

    I have to agree with Pete Abraham comment #2 and Charles Pierce.

  6. Adam Adkins - Jan 6, 2010 at 9:49 PM

    Gee thanks for including my blog, Craig. :)

  7. Mike - Jan 7, 2010 at 1:46 AM

    The whole baseball writer’s fascination with the “first-ballot Hall of Famer” is beyond me. The reasoning for anyone to intentionally leave someone off of the ballot in the first year, then vote for them after that is inane. What is your greatest fear, that Roberto Alomar or Barry Larkin will be blessed with the all powerful “First Ballot Hall of Famer” tag? The phrase is nothing but a means to start arguments; perfect writer-speak.
    Writers- vote for who deserves to go in. Your personal opinion on the level of the players’ worthiness changes nothing about the fact they will make the Hall of Fame. Stop trying to insert yourself into the process by perverting the little bit of power you have been graced with. It is not only an honor to become a member of the Hall of Fame, it’s an honor to be given the chance to decide who makes it in. Start treating it that way, and leave the bullshit for the back pages.

  8. The D - Jan 7, 2010 at 2:13 AM

    The stupid voting bothers me as much as everyone else, but if we want to get technical, the BBWWA has been making mistakes since the very beginning. Whoever did not vote for Babe Ruth (or any number of other ‘best players of all-time’ but mostly Ruth, since he was in the 1st Induction) should have been shot.

  9. Wouter - Jan 7, 2010 at 2:47 AM

    Gee Bert, you couldn’t find a fourth way to say you agree with Charles Pierce? In my opinion it’s the most inane comment in the list. To applaud the fact that Dawson made a lot of outs? To say that Blyleven virtually has no chance of getting in (after coming up 5 votes short)? That’s moronic.
    Look, I like Dawson. For me, he can go in. But his OBP isn’t the reason, and it keeps him from being among the best in the hall. Also, to assume that stats people ONLY care about OBP is oversimplifying and stereotyping.

  10. Josh - Jan 7, 2010 at 8:24 AM

    I am thrilled for Dawson, but to my mind he sets a minor but important precedent: it’s perhaps OK now to give a little extra credit to a player with chronic, performance-limiting injuries. I don’t think anyone voted for the Hawk because of his superior OF defense (though I believe it was ignored altogether in past years), nor because he was awesome before the Steroids Era. I think there was some extra credit handed out.
    But Wouter, I did want to second your post: to say that stats people only care about OBP is as stupidly simplistic as saying people check the weather forecast just for the wind speed!

  11. smokehouse - Jan 7, 2010 at 8:56 AM

    As I have said many times, as long as Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson are not in the HOF it will remain a joke.

  12. Stuart Bedasso - Jan 7, 2010 at 11:32 AM

    Any voter who claims a player should not be voted in on the first ballot should automatically have his voting rights taken away. Is the guy a hall-of-famer? Yes? Then you vote him in, end of story.
    When these guys pull this “he’s a second or third ballot guy” crap, it just shows that the writer is a failed, wannabe athlete who trying to show up someone famous.
    Dudes, you’re voting on baseball. What you do has no real consequence to society. Get over yourselves.

  13. Bert - Jan 7, 2010 at 6:49 PM

    I didn’t mean to make more than one posting but was having one heck of a hard time getting one on. “Inane”, not even close. OBP counts walks, which can be good, but are not near as desirable as base hits, homers, etc. A good OBP is something usually most effective for leadoff hitters. A lot of weight is given to this particular stat, for whatever reason I don’t know. How about checking more into how many times a player hits into a double play, how many times he goes from first to second on a base hit or second to home. There are a lot of stats flying around out there, so why get hung up on just one. The simpler way of checking a players offensive contributions is to just check his runs scored and his RBI totals. That’s all they check at the end of a game, how many runs you scored.

  14. Adam Adkins - Jan 7, 2010 at 10:05 PM

    I agree with Stuart #12. The idea of some players being ‘first-ballot’ and others not is simply insanity, the kind of drivel that sportswriter spew to give themselves some faux-authority.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. W. Myers (4169)
  2. M. Kemp (3715)
  3. M. Cabrera (3403)
  4. M. Morse (2592)
  5. J. Upton (2388)
  1. J. Kang (2370)
  2. J. Lester (2329)
  3. C. Headley (2207)
  4. A. Rios (1997)
  5. M. Scherzer (1901)