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: Apr 27, 2009
Posted on: January 6, 2010 3:05 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

geeze you Mets fans are a bitter bunch...maybe you New Yorkers need to get your heads out of your @sses and realize there's a lot more to baseball than just you.  He had an incredible career and you can say what you want about steroids, but the entire league was on them during that time so why should he be the only one you are considering for punishment?  and him and Hirshbeck made up after the spitting incident and that should be the end of it.  If the guy getting spit on can shake his hand and accept his apology, then no other person has the right to hold it against Alomar.  He should be in the Hall today, but he'll have to wait til hopefully only next year.

Since: Nov 8, 2006
Posted on: January 6, 2010 3:03 pm

Hall voting broken

I agree with s_kirkness

In the history of the Hall-of-Fame, no player has ever been a unanamous selection.  How the hell can that happen?  Multiple voters thought that the greatest leadoff hitter in the history of baseball (Ricky Henderson) didn't belong in the Hall.  How the hell can that happen? 

Yeah, its broken.

Since: Jan 6, 2010
Posted on: January 6, 2010 3:00 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.

Since: Oct 8, 2006
Posted on: January 6, 2010 2:55 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Poorly-written but a compelling argument nonetheless.  His drop-off with the Mets wasn't a gradual decline, it was a complete reversal of production.  This is not the decline we saw in Ripken or Smith, this was something only explicable if you consider that Cleveland clubhouse.


Since: Mar 27, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 2:47 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Many times certain aspects or small parts of your career play a huge role in whether you get into the hall or not. Roberto Alomar spit at an Umpire and was an all around bad guy in the game. Once he stopped doing a tremendous amount of steroids when he came to the mets (they were all juicing on that cleveland team from Manny to Carlos Baerga) he all of a sudden became the worst second baseman in the game. Do you realize that when he came to the mets he was terrible..not just not quite his old hall of fame previous 10 yrs stretch. Terrible..he couldn't hit for average or power and couldn't run or play defense. He slid head first into first base many times and it never helped him much to the chagrin of his manager. People who didn't see that dont realize how he ruined the mets. Your comparison between him and Ozzie Smith almost made me spit up my after lunch pretzel. He was abyssmal defensively as a met. Even at his best defensively he was great but please don't say he was every bit as good as Ozzie Smith becuase you sound like a moron when you do. I am very happy a jerk and steroid abuser did not get in on the first ballot. May good sense keep him off of it forever.

All of a sudden when he got off the quick track at cleveland those sseeing eye steroid guided ground balls were outs and his 320 foot blasts were warning track fodder at shea. He is a bad guy, steroid head who when he had a chance to shine in NY his career was over. Save your being upset for the guys that earned it more than he. Blyleven would be one of them.

Since: Oct 11, 2007
Posted on: January 6, 2010 2:44 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

Im sure you are right about that, and it is a shame, since they did make up.

What drives me crazy is the whole way the players are elected.  What, Dawson wasnt a hall of famer last year?  and how in the hell did Babe Ruth not get in unanimously?  hogwash!  the BBWAA is a strange group, and why do they vote anyway

I am basically tired of debateing all of these things every year

Since: Oct 23, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 2:42 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

I completely agree.  I never really felt the same way about him after that whole ordeal.  It probably shouldn't keep him out of the Hall though.

Since: Sep 15, 2008
Posted on: January 6, 2010 2:39 pm

Dawson yes, but no Alomar?

As bad as it may sound, I would imagine the "spitting" incident with John Hirschbeck played a little role in him not getting in.  It's a shame that someone would hold that against him for not getting in the Hall.  But I wouldn't be surprised if that incident kept people from writing his name down.

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