Cooperstown results raise questions
Posted: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:17 AM
Five quick hits on the Hall of Fame voting:
1. Justice was served for Goose Gossage, but Jack Morris failed to gain traction. It’s striking that 57 percent of the voters feel Morris unworthy. And it’s equally striking to me that Bert Blyleven garnered nearly 100 more votes than a year ago. I think Blyleven is a Hall of Famer, but on what basis could there possibly be that kind of vote discrepancy from one year to the next?
Blyleven won 33 more games than Morris, but it is rarely recognized that Morris started 158 fewer games than Blyleven. Here are the career winning percentages for four pitchers hoping to get to Cooperstown: Morris .577, Tommy John .555, Jim Kaat .544, and Blyleven .534. It is heartening to see Blyleven creep closer to election, but perplexing that Morris was sixth in the balloting in his ninth year of eligibility with 233 votes (42.9 percent).
2. Is Jim Rice to hitting as Orel Hershiser is to pitching? Now Orel fell off the Hall-of-Fame map while Rice will likely win election next year -- his final year on the ballot. Hershiser had a brief period of dominance combined with a memorable postseason, but his quality can’t overcome the lack of a Hall-of-Fame quantity number of wins. He had 204 victories.
Looking at Rice’s career, I was shocked to have my memory refreshed that he only played as many as 100 games in the field nine times. He lived on his bat, which makes his lack of benchmark Hall-of-Fame totals more important.
3. I still can’t understand or accept quota voting. Gossage fell 21 votes short last year and cleared the hurdle by 58 votes this year. How did that happen? I understand some voters can change their views or opinions over time, but that many in one year? It is impossible to dismiss the notion that many voters, in a year without a slam-dunk newcomer, decided they had to vote for at least one player likely to be inducted.
There should be no quota in the voting, either by means of a cap or a ceiling. Rather it should be standards that determine one’s vote. If someone reaches Hall-of-Fame standards one year, how can they not maintain that position in years to come? And the same is true for one who falls short.
4. Whither Tim Raines? His first year on the ballot brought a vote total (24.3 percent) that shocked many. I am trying to find a solid stat on which to base Raines’ case. Others have cited his .385 OBP as compared to Tony Gwynn's .388 and Rickey Henderson's .401, but I have trouble using that as a divining rod. Gwynn has the hits (3,141) as well as eight batting titles and five Gold Gloves. Henderson has 12 stolen base titles and 12 top-five OBP finishes. Raines has one batting title and four stolen base crowns as his “quality” numbers, but no other major awards. Could he be a case of what a prominent Hall of Fame candidate once told me of himself -- that he was a very good player, but Cooperstown is for great players?
5. Is personal bias still a factor? A longtime sportswriter suggested such to me after this year's results were released. Citing Morris and Rice as examples of players who the majority of writers just didn’t like (with some reason I am sure), he opined that those grudges still hold. Is the same true with Dave Parker, a candidate I emphasized last year?
Parker’s career arc bears much similarity to Rice's -- an early blast followed by a late resurgence, with the fielding edge to Parker. Yet, Parker is merely a blip in the voting. It’s hard not to think about my friend’s view when I see how little voting respect Parker has gained.
