AJC > Sports > Columnists > Archives > 2008 > January > 10 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USHall voters designate one position out
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Furman Bisher
This is from the same guy who thinks the American League ought to join major league baseball and ditch the designated hitter. The DH: a sort of an obtuse intrusion in the box score. The Hall of Fame hasn’t flung open its doors to the bullpen performers, but another edged through the voting process the other day. Hoyt Wilhelm was more than a relief pitcher, as was Rollie Fingers. It was Bruce Sutter, with five seasons of just over 100 innings, a losing record and one-third as many blown saves as saves, who really sneaked in, a mystery to most of us who have the purity of the game at heart.
Goose Gossage made a quantum leap at the ballot box. He was more than one of those one-inning wonders, the closers. Still, with Bert Blyleven to vote for, a record of 287 wins, fifth all-time in strikeouts among other credentials, I could see Gossage going in, but only flying in on Blyleven.
The point here today is, since relief pitchers have crossed the bar, is there some conspiracy against the DH? (Ugh, I have to swallow hard when I say that.) To date, only one player registered as a designated hitter has crossed the barrier, Paul Molitor, voted in four years ago. Not that I’d care to be found guilty of launching a campaign opening the way for such half-players, but Harold Baines does come to mind here.
Baines became eligible in 2007 and barely aroused a whisper of support. Same again this year. He barely cleared the 5 percent barrier to stay eligible. Those rejects you read of more often are Jim Rice, Andre Dawson and Dave Parker, and those with heart refer to Dale Murphy — who, sorry to say, is never going to make it.
Baines hit more home runs than Rice and Parker, drove in more runs than Dawson, Rice — and Murphy, had more hits than Dawson and Rice and a higher batting average than Dawson and Murphy. Yet, this fellow, 22 seasons in the major leagues, drew only 18 votes while Dawson and Rice soar.
This was Baines’ record: 384 home runs, 1,628 runs batted in, .289 batting average — 27 points better than incumbent Reggie Jackson, by the way — and he barely scratches the surface of voter interest. Main flaw in his dossier is, it seems, that he was a DH in more than half the 2,830 games he played, l,644 exactly. I heard one of those panels dissecting the candidates the other day, and Baines was mentioned one time, negatively.
Now, I’m not beating the drums for more borderline delegates to Cooperstown. Matter of fact, it’s getting rather crowded up there anyway. Some years, candidates get votes because there’s “no one else to vote for,” as they say. So it was in Sutter’s year. And to a lesser extent this year with Gossage, though the Goose had a long career, won 124 games, spent some time as a starter, pitched in three World Series and struck out 1,502 batters in 1,809 innings. He had a case going for him. Sutter didn’t.
Rarely will we have the kind of overwhelming slate of candidates that we had last season. Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn had places in Cooperstown dusted off and waiting for them, both popular with fans everywhere — never has an induction attracted such a sprawling crowd — and not a cynic to be found. It happens once in a while. Heaven forbid one of those years when “there’s no else to vote for.”
Not that this is intended or expected to arouse a supporting electorate for Harold Baines. I’d say, offhand, that after two years of barely squeaking over the 5 percent line, there’s no hope down the line. No room in the inn for DHers. Sort of sad, especially if they’re clearing the way for “one-inning wonders.”
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Braves / MLB, Furman Bisher
Comments
By Mighty Casey
January 11, 2008 12:22 AM | Link to this
Mighty Casey was in the locker room after striking out he heard the town weeping as it walked out down on his luck and craving fame and a buck he decided to stick a needle in his butt
The ‘roids built up his mighty frame zits ran over his back his anger scared away his wife however he hit 500 homers and made the Hall of Shame
By Gene
January 11, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
The DH was a big mistake, but once something is in place, it is hard to remove it. I liked the excitement when Smoltz occasionally put one over the fence or got a clutch hit. Same for Glavin and Maddux. And, no one ever accused those three of using steroids.
By krf
January 11, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
I agree with Mr. Bisher on all the points raised in this article, especially the worthiness of Bert Blyleven for the Hall of Fame. I also believe that Tommy John and Jim Kaat deserve that honor.
By MikeC
January 11, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
To me, there are different levels of players. There are the super super stars such as Ruth, Cobb, Aaron, DiMaggio, etc. There are the super stars such as Kaline, Jenkins, Yaz, etc. Then there are the stars, players who were better than their peers but not all-time greats. This group includes Sutter, Murphy, Bunning, Aparicio, Kiner, etc. I don’t believe that any of the last group belong in the Hall of Fame. Like everything else in sports today, the Hall has changed, and not for the better.
By Russell B.
January 11, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this
The Designated Hitter isn’t all that bad except that a DH can’t win the AL MVP, probably can’t get into the Hall-of-Fame, or possibly has to sit on the bench in NL ballparks in Interleague games. An AL team does not have to use the DH as stated in Rule 6.10 paragraph 3 part (b) of the Rule Book.
By Damien DuPont
January 11, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
Harold Baines career totals explain exactly the problem with DH’s. As you say, Baines played for 22 years, 2830 games, and had 384 home runs and 1628 RBIs.
He had 3 years of 100 RBIs 1982, 1985 and - somehow - 1999 (age 40). (Funnily, he also hit 23 points above his career average that year. I guess Baltimore is a hitter’s park). But my point is that Baines had only 3 100 RBI years out of 22, whereas Murphy had 4 in a row and 5 total. Each of those seasons Murphy was in the top 5 and 2 of those he led the league. Baines was in the top 5 just once.
Baines’ Best home run total was 29, good for 9th in the league in 1984 - his only top 10 finish. Murphy had a string of 6 straight years with 29 home runs or better including leading the league twice and finishing in the top ten every year between 1980-1988, including leading the league twice and 7 total top 5 finishes.
Baines 4 times finished in the top 20 in MVP balloting. Murphy won twice and finished in the top 20 another 4 times (and finished #21 once).
The case is no better for Baines against Dawson. Dawson had 3 years over 29 home runs including leading the league once, had 4 100 RBI seasons including leading the league once and finishing second once. And he won an MVP and finished in the top 20 7 times (and finished #21 once).
In the end, Murphy and Dawson were premire hitters who also won gold gloves at fielding, which lets face it, is kind of a big deal. Everyone knew they were the best of the best.
Baines was a good hitter who was able to save his knees and focus exclusively on his stats. But no one ever thought Harold Baines was any more than that.
By Ken Stallings
January 11, 2008 7:31 PM | Link to this
The DH was a mistake and should be corrected. But in my view a worse mistake is allowing the members of the Baseball Writers Association of America to continue voting for the Baseball Hall of Fame.
The stinginess of the elections has gotten absurd. Worse, it seems there are many members who feel it is their duty to never vote of a Hall of Fame candidate. Wouldn’t surprise me that there are some who haven’t checked a ballot for a candidate once in their career!
There is no hall of fame more stingy than the one for MLB. If there’s a concern about space for the plagues then we could build a wing!
Harold Baines — yes. Jim Rice — yes. Jack Morris — yes. Bert Blyleven — yes. Dale Murphy — yes. Andre Dawson — yes.
In any other professional sport, athletes of this caliber would already be voted in their respective halls of fame. Only in baseball have we created such a pathetic climate of exclusion.
Personally, the hall of fame balloting should not be a secret ballot. The ballots should be recorded and released after ten years. Further, any BBWAA member who fails to vote in the affirmative for any candidate in a five-year period should be removed from the voting membership.
If you don’t want anyone in the hall, then you shouldn’t participate in the process.
No logical, consistent, and fair yardstick can deny of the players I mentioned from election in the hall. The only hurdle is a group of arrogant sports writers who have a hyper inflated sense of their own worth.
The commissioner should let the current members of the Hall of Fame elect the members. And in the future, only members who make the hall should have voting rights.
By Michael Seale
January 11, 2008 8:19 PM | Link to this
During an era in which Nicole Ritchie is considered a celebrity simply for going to a lot of parties and hanging out with rich people like herself, we need to re-evaluate what “fame,” truly is. These days, a guy puts together three good seasons and the media touts him as a “Hall of Famer.”
Because these days, when every baseball game can be found on television somehow, and there are 50 different sports channels that show highlights all day of every player all the time, we are so quick to get star-struck, the players now have a much better chance at fame than the players of, say, 20 years ago even.
Every era has great players. And those players may just be that: great players for their era. But certainly not among the greatest of all time. If not for Sportscenter and Baseball Tonight and Fox Sports and the other three dozen shows and channels devoted to showing highlights, Manny Ramirez would be just another Jim Rice. Jeff Bagwell another Steve Garvey. Pedro Martinez another Blyleven. Gary Sheffield another Dave Parker. Mariano Rivera another Dan Quisenberry.
At the time that Steve Garvey was playing, I considered him to be the best. But as time has gone on, we start to compare him to the best of all time. And he is not one of them. But today, five years flies by quickly, and we still have that image of Kirby Pucket pumping his hand in the air in Game 6 of the 1991 World Series. So he gets in the HoF on the first ballot. Huh? And come on, when I watched Dennis Eckersley pitch, I wasn’t thinking to myself, “I am watching the greatest of all time.”
When I watched Rickey Henderson, or Tony Gwynn, or Nolan Ryan, I knew I could tell my kids about getting the chance to see the best of the best. But are there going to be granddads sitting on the porch talking to their grandsons about watching the “Great Dennis Eckersley?” Unless they are A’s fans, I doubt it.
We have cheapened the Hall of Fame because our attention spans are so short these days that we see greatness in simple things. We don’t want to take the time to put it into perspective. What exactly makes Curt Schilling a Hall of Fame pitcher? Nothing except that he has been a great pitcher in an era when greatness is elevated to an unreasonable level. The bloody sock, ending the Red Sox curse. That is all well and good. But is Schilling deserving of being mentioned in the same breath as Carl Hubbell? Walter Johnson? Bob Gibson?
When we discuss the greatest pitchers of all time, will we mention Nolan Ryan, Warren Spahn, Bob Feller, Sandy Koufax, and then Pedro Martinez? Certainly not.
For this reason, I believe we need to change the eligibility for players to 10 years after retirement. That way, the highlight reels, the talking heads, all the hype will have died down and voters can actually vote based on what these players did in regards to the history of the game. Not just how many more “Web Gems” they had on Baseball Tonight.