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: May 15, 2009
Posted on: January 6, 2010 4:04 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

I can appreciate you explination but ever year we are talking about how the Media screwed up anddidn't vote for this Guy and did vote for this Guy................Enough is enough..................It should  be decided by Players(Current and Former) and Fans............Since most media we're nerds who didn't even ever play the game.........Most should not have a say.....................Unless they are ex-players turned Media.................But the media should get wrapped under the fan vote and it should only count as 25%, Players counting as 50%..............This way no self rightious media nerd can shot down a competitive guy because he wasn't a nerd but a jock...........

Since: May 15, 2009
Posted on: January 6, 2010 3:55 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........

Since: Aug 30, 2006
Posted on: January 6, 2010 3:49 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Unless I have misunderstood the voting process, the writers (and I'm not sure how many there are) get to vote for ten players that qualify to get into the hall. When you consider how big an assortment of players that consists of, for a player to get his name on 75% of all the ballots is quite an accomplishment. You also have to consider the players that will fall off the ballot when voting, so that makes it even harder. Yes, I agree Roberto Alomar was a great player, but to say the writers are stupid because he didn't get in on the first ballot is unfair and I doubt the spitting episode had as much to do with it as many suspect, it's probably more the logistics of the balloting.

Since: Oct 21, 2006
Posted on: January 6, 2010 3:40 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Yeah I am somewhat suprised but somewhat not surprised. I mean, yeah, it was inappropriate, but so was Ty Cobb beating the HE** out of a quadrapelegic (or parapelegic I forget) heckler but that didn't stop him from being voted in. And the spitting thing is NOTHING compared to steroid use and everything like that.

Since: Dec 17, 2006
Posted on: January 6, 2010 3:28 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Maybe too many voters that only saw him play with the Mets!!!!

Since: Jan 6, 2010
Posted on: January 6, 2010 3:25 pm

Dale Murphy

Put him in ... these voters are nuts.

Since: Jul 28, 2007
Posted on: January 6, 2010 3:22 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

To the genius spewing about how horrible Robbie Alomar was with the Mets: Aside from the part of one year (72 games of 2003) he played for the Mets for all of one full season: 2002.  His fielding percentage that year was 0.983, or 0.001 lower than his career average of 0.984.  Eleven total errors in 2002, or 0.4 more than in an average year for him (181 total over 17 years).  He won the gold glove in 2000 with the Indians committing 15 errors.  So there’s all that.  Additionally, in 2002, Robbie Alomar batted 266 with 11 home runs, so yeah, no power at that point.  However, in a 162 game season, the guy was averaging 14 homers per year, so big deal.  He was also averaging 185 hits per year, and that dropped in 2002 to 157.  In a New York Met lineup that included Mike Piazza (BA of 280, 134 hits and 33 HR), Edgardo Alfonzo (308 BA, 151 hits, 16HR) and Timo Perez (295 BA, 133 hits and 8 HR), you can’t really make the argument that his bat was completely necessary all the time either.  Alomar’s lifetime BA of 300 is great.  2724 hits.  Also great. 

The 2002 campaign was so bad (79-82, 5th in the NL East) because the Mets’ pitching sucked.  When a 36 year-old Al Leiter is your ace, going 13-13, there are going to be problems.

Since: Apr 27, 2009
Posted on: January 6, 2010 3:11 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

That incident should keep him out until his last year of eligebility.  Not something to be proud of and I don't want my kids thinking you can do that kind of thing with no concequences.

Ok cj...just the type of comment one should expect from some guy who knows nothing about sports probably.  He had consequences you moron.  He got fined and suspended, and a lot of ppl disliked him after that incident.  He apologized to Hirshbeck, and Hirshbeck accepted the apology.  Isn't that what you should be teaching your kids...if you screw up, own up to it and make ammends and learn from it?  Maybe you shouldn't be teaching them that if they make a mistake they'll be punished for it for the rest of your life. 

Since: Jun 27, 2007
Posted on: January 6, 2010 3:06 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

You're probably right.  But if Hirschbeck has forgiven him... which he has, publicly and privately, why would the writers care?  Alomar was amazing on the field, could hit, had speed and owns 2 World Series rings which he played a very big role in the Blue Jays winning.  This is why I feel that baseball should change their method of how players are inducted.  I feel it should be a 3 part system.  The first part would be an accumalation of points a player earns during their career.  For example, for every 100 homeruns you get x number of points.  The same would go for all the other stats that are tracked.  At the end of the players career, they will have earned x number of points based on their performance.  The second part would be sports writers votes (as it currently works).  The third part would be a collection of retired baseball players who vote.  Once you add the 3 parts together, you must meet or exceed a score.  If you do, you're in, if not, you're not.  That's my 2 cents.

Since: Jan 30, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 3:06 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

No surprise really...!
Clue 1: No player has ever received 100% of the ballot.  Reason: There are a number of idiots in the BBWAA pool whose voting defies logic.
Clue 2: First ballot Hall of Famers are relatively rare (only 39).  Reason: Probably a combination of the above idiot factor in the pool plus that some writers base their voting on non-baseball incidents (bad media relations (Jim Rice), spitting at an ump (Alomar), small market (Dawson)) rather than on demonstrated baseball skills. 

Alomar's day will come! As will Bert's and McGwire's and Raines' and McGriff's and Larkin's and Smith's and Morris'...

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