Blog Entry

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Posted on: January 6, 2010 2:28 pm

Absolutely stunning.

That's all I can say about Roberto Alomar falling short in the Hall of Fame voting, which was announced Wednesday afternoon. Andre Dawson was the only player elected by the Baseball Writers' Assn. of America, and for me, there's no question he's a Hall of Famer. Dawson was a five-tool player, he could beat you with his bat, his arm, his legs (before they went bad) and his glove.

But no Alomar, who was every bit the wizard at second base that Hall of Famer Ozzie Smith was during his years at shortstop?

During several radio interviews this week talking about the Hall election, my prediction was that Alomar definitely would get in, there was a pretty good chance of Alomar and Dawson being elected and a very, very outside chance that Alomar, Dawson and Bert Blyleven would get in.

I never imagined a scenario in which Alomar, the best second baseman I've ever seen, would fall short.

He'll eventually get in, and probably next year. He checked in with 73.7 percent of the vote this year, just short of the required 75 percent.

Probably, a year from now, we'll be talking about Alomar's election.

For now, this year, we're talking Dawson.

It's as surprising a Hall of Fame election as I can recall.


Since: Feb 15, 2007
Posted on: January 8, 2010 5:52 am

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

You bring up something very interesting. When Vizquel is up, if inside-baseball people had a vote he'd get in first-ballot. Probably the best defensive SS ever. But will the sportswriters have the intellect to vote him in? Doubtful.

Since: May 7, 2007
Posted on: January 6, 2010 8:48 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

That was directed towards somebody talking about henderson being a first ballot hof'er not Alomar.

Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: January 6, 2010 7:35 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

I am so sick of  Baseball Letting these  Media Idiots decide who gets in there Hall of Fame...................It shold be decided by Current and Fellow Players only..................Or if you are going to let the media vote then let the fans who pay there salaries vote...........

It should go as Follows:

Media Must get 25%  of there Votes

Fans you Must Get 10% of there Votes

Current and Former Players you must get 50%  of there Votes............

This way you slap the media down and give it to the Players and Us Fans who pay there Salaries........

You think the media doesn't deserve to vote because they never played? Apparently, you never learned to add. 50+25+10 is 85, not 100. You're 15 percent short. By the way, you don't have to play the game to know what you're talking about, and for those who think ex-players are the only knowledgeable ones in the media, I present Joe Morgan and Tim McCarver.

Usually, ex-players are among the worst in the baseball media.

Since: Oct 26, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 7:02 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

If these threads and replies are any measuring stick then we don't want fans voting.

The Hall Of Fame welcomes people who throw Spitters--Gaylord Perry et al, and they welcome water, seed, and saliva spitters, but they draw the line at accepting spitters who spit spit at others--umpires, fans, opponents, teammates, photographers, and bat boys.

We don't know the extent of Alomars deviousness, spit-wise, but we can guess that the Hirschbeck spitsassination was just the tip of the spit.  In an age when nearly everyone on the diamond and in the dugout is spitting 6.7 times per minute you can bet an offender like Alomar, who spit right in the face of an umpire, a guy like Roberto sprayed so much wet stuff that there are bumper stickers that read: "Honk if Roberto Spit on You."  He was the inspiration for SPIT HAPPENS.

He was not welcome at more than one mass.

Why I even think Mary Pierce got splattered and perhaps even pierced by enough spit that she was unable to win the French Open a few years ago.  Mary has French citizenship, you remember, and that dunderhead Alomar thought the French Open was an especially wet kiss in which a player..well, you get the picture. 

Dawson was cool and he is in.  Alomar was a jery and he is out.  No doubt he will be voted in on another ballot.  Let's hope  they place his plaque near the water cooler so his "fans" can fire a wet one back at him.

Since: Nov 15, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 6:51 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

I'm sick of people using "there" when they should be using "their". Your random usage of capitilization sickens me as well!

Since: Jan 2, 2010
Posted on: January 6, 2010 6:51 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

2010 - Dawson
2011 - Alomar, Palmeiro, Blyleven,
2012 - Smith, Morris, McGwire
2013 - Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Piazza, Sosa
2014 - Maddux, Glavine, Thomas
2015 - Johnson, Thome?, Sheffield?
2016 - Griffey, Jr.?, I. Rodriguez?, Vizquel?
The last fourteen are all "First ballot Hall of Famers". they can't all be and won't be first ballot hall of famers. 
We're lucky if the BBWAA votes one in, let alone two, the last time thee was voted in was Ryan, Brett and Yount. 
How is any player remaining going to wade through those names if they are not elected by 2012? With this amount of players Alomar may get flushed right off the ballot after that.
Whoare the First Balloters? Who gets their First Ballot status revoked for actions other than on-field achievements?
Who sneaks through in a weak First Ballot year? Who's a Veterans pick? And, who has no shot whatsoever? 
Griffey, Maddux, Johnson, yes. At least 26% of the BBWAA has a problem with the others for some reason other than their on-field achievements. Alomar should have been a First Ballot Hall of Famer. 
To compare this era with "Elections to the for 1945 included the first regular election conducted in three years and a strong response to criticism of the slow pace of honors. The Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) voted by mail to select from recent players and elected no one. The Old Timers Committee responded by electing the biggest class yet, ten people: , , , , , , , , , and ."
Looks to me like there's gonna be a need for a class like this. But it has to be the Hall of Fame to hold this vote with their income, er their visitors and hope to be visitors...the fans. Not the BBWAA nor the Veterans Committee.  
You get @2750 hits, @470 HR's, 1500 RBIs, 300 wins, get 3000 strikeouts, 450+ saves. ets... You're Hall of Fame material. 

Since: Dec 14, 2007
Posted on: January 6, 2010 6:18 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Great call Gator!  The fans could absolutely not be trusted in voting for HOF.  Gatorade would promote some player like Bo Jackson in commercials and fans would blindly vote for him.

Since: Jan 30, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 6:14 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Are you kidding??  Isn't the annual ALL-STAR Game voting debacle enough evidence that fans are just as (or more) biased than writers?
While I appreciate the sentiment that fans pay their salaries, the concept of fans voting for the HOF scares me more. It would be a popularity contest and just about every retired NYY player would make the Hall based on the fan base alone. BAD IDEA!!  
And I'm a Bronx-born, life-long Yankee fan!

Since: Dec 14, 2007
Posted on: January 6, 2010 6:12 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

c'mon big blue balls, take it easy!  we get the point, he wasn't great as a met.  beat a dead horse much?

don't trash the guys career because he didn't excel for a year and a half in NY.  he was the best defensive 2B ever.  when he played with vizquel, those guys were acrobats on a daily basis.

as for steroids, i don't think his power numbers or his size point to any steroid use.  that is out of bounds to make that accusation.

Since: Aug 25, 2006
Posted on: January 6, 2010 6:09 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Well, I guess it depends upon what you mean by "broken." Is there some absolutely objective manner by which Hall Of Famers might otherwise be chosen? And, if there were, wouldn't it probably leave out players who fall slightly short statistically, but whose leadership and other intangibles lend themselves to HOF worthiness?

I would postulate that there is no perfect system. And, besides, what would we have to kvetch about if there were? That's half the fun of it!

As to Ricky Henderson not being a unanimous selection: There are those writers who simply must be curmudgeonly in their voting patterns. It's not necessarily that they felt he wasn't worthy; it's that, since no player has been a unanimous first-ballot selection, they weren't about to allow a douchebag like him to become the first.

Jesus, calm down and enjoy the process. It's not life-and-death.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or