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.

Comments

Since: Jan 12, 2007
Posted on: January 6, 2010 6:07 pm
 

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

you know its people like you who also think Pete Rose shouldnt be in there.

The baseball hall of fame is about a players ability to play the game, and Alomar was one of the best second basemen the game has ever seen (by FAR the best all around in the last 50 years). The spitting incident was no indication of how well alomar could play baseball




Since: May 23, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 5:38 pm
 

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Not only was his defense not spectacular it was horrid, putrid, that stiff never dove for a ball. He had a weak arm, legs and bat an all at age 32 not 38. I know he was great before he came to the Mets but when he had a chance to shine in a real ballpark without drugs he stunk up the field. He was worse the Luis Lopez and his attitude was the worst. He was an all me guy all the time. Any true Met fan would hate him. You must be a Yankee fan or an Indian fan in disguise you jerk off. I would vote Sandy Alomar in over that over rated roid rage bitch.

Why does EVERY Met fan have to hate him? He is loved by all the other fans from everywhere else he played.

 

And Barry Bonds had a great bat at age 40. And he was a roider. Wouldn't it make more sense for him to have taken more roids in New York (why would he just stop because he was in New York) in order to make more money for another contract? I just don't see any logic in your allegations that only YOU seem to have.

 

Nevermind the fact you are trying to judge his HOF career based on the last couple years of his career. He didn't dive for a ball? He basically invented sliding to grab the ball in order to be in position to make a strong throw to 1st. And Why is Shea  a "Real" ball park but Jacobs field and Camden Yards are not? Skydome was state of the art when Alomar played there. Obviously a bitter Mets fan. I hope you hold this grudge against Mo as well. And everyone else that went to the Mets and sucked. Maybe it wasn't the players but the atmosphere of the clubhouse and that "real" stadium. With fans like you I wouldn't put out a full effort either.




Since: Mar 27, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 5:35 pm
 

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

The Mets picked up Ellis Valentine and he too stunk it up however the mets were terrible at the time. He had an absolute cannon for an arm. I think he once threw out Omar Moreno tagging from third and he was near the track.



Since: Mar 27, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 5:32 pm
 

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Ok. that was a little rough, lol. I will freely admit that I am much more a met fan than a Baseball Fan, but I do love Baseball. The fact that cheater Bonds broke the all-time Home Run Record still makes me upset. Roberto Almoar was supposed to be the final piece to a championship team. His time with the Mets was nothing short of awful. What I said about him being worse than Luis Lopez is true. Those guys that cant hit for average, power, play bad not ok,,,not eh but bad defense, can't run and are cancers in the clubhouse leave a bad taste in my mouth. I should not have cursed or used the B word. Thats just stupid.



Since: Mar 27, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 5:27 pm
 

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Not only was his defense not spectacular it was horrid, putrid, that stiff never dove for a ball. He had a weak arm, legs and bat an all at age 32 not 38. I know he was great before he came to the Mets but when he had a chance to shine in a real ballpark without drugs he stunk up the field. He was worse the Luis Lopez and his attitude was the worst. He was an all me guy all the time. Any true Met fan would hate him. You must be a Yankee fan or an Indian fan in disguise you jerk off. I would vote Sandy Alomar in over that over rated roid rage bitch.




Since: Aug 26, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 5:27 pm
 

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Andre Dawson, YES!!. It's about time. My favourite all-time Expo.
One of 3 players with 400 homers and 300 steals. Thats an exclusive club.

Back in the late '70s the Expos had 3 promising youg outfielders: Dawson, Warren Cromartie and Ellis Valentive.
Nobody dared to take an extra base against those guys.



Since: Aug 25, 2009
Posted on: January 6, 2010 5:20 pm
 

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

My last comment was directed at bigbluemangroup, by the way, not Scott Milelr



Since: Aug 25, 2009
Posted on: January 6, 2010 5:16 pm
 

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I had the pleasure of seeing Alomar at his prime and I have never seen a better infielder, and that includes both Ozzie Smith AND Joe Morgan. He made plays which took your breath away and was a superb clutch player. His talents did erode quickly at the end, but that takes nothing away from the twelve or thirteen unbeleivable years he had.
As for the steroid allegations, I have never heard even a hint that Alomar took steroids from anyone who knew anything about what they were talking about, and your suggestion that he must have because "everyone" on his team did is not only totally baseless but offensive.



Since: Mar 27, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 5:12 pm
 

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Yes it was poorly written. Thank you for the compelling argument quote though.



Since: Mar 27, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 5:10 pm
 

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

In person would you talk to someone like that? Have some respect dipshit. Are you such a big Robbie Alomar fan that you personally attack anyone saying he should not be in the hall? Who cares if Hirshbeck forgave him..your the idiot for thinking that makes everything ok. It certainly does not make it ok. A punch is one thing, a push a shove a tackle but to spit at another man? Thats disgusting. Yes he had a great career but he retired before they started testing hard for steroids. He was doing them and therefore I don't care what he did. Once he stopped doing them and went to a ballpark with some grass in it he was terrible. All his bouncers up the middle became outs. He did have a great career and he should probably be in but no way should he be in on the 1st ballot. He will probably be in next year. As for your distaste for NY thats your problem.


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