2006 BBWAA Election

[Chadwick]

In the above poll are the names of those former players listed on the 2006 BBWAA ballot.

Please vote for no more than 10 players whom you believe are most deserving of induction to the Hall of Fame.

[538280]

I voted for Bert Blyleven, Will Clark, Rich Gossage, Dave Parker, Lee Smith, and John Wetteland. This really is a weak class this year. Hopefully Parker, who I think is one of the best players outside the HOF, can capitalize and get himself elected.

[sweaver]

Bert Blyleven and Alan Trammell are the best players on this ballot. But I'll take ten. Belle, Blyleven, Clark, Dawson, Gossage, John, Mattingly, Murphy, Rice, and Trammell.

[pesky6]

I voted for Bert Blyleven, Will Clark, Rich Gossage, Dave Parker, Lee Smith, and John Wetteland. This really is a weak class this year. Hopefully Parker, who I think is one of the best players outside the HOF, can capitalize and get himself elected.

No offense, but John Wetteland? Do you honestly think that he belongs with the likes of Mantle, Ruth, Williams, Mays, etc? This is the same line of thought that causes writers to vote for the likes of Danny Tartabull and Rick Honeycutt year after year.

Personally, I don't think any of them belong. The HOF already has a slew of players that shouldn't be there in the first place--why add to it?

[Chadwick]

No offense, but John Wetteland? Do you honestly think that he belongs with the likes of Mantle, Ruth, Williams, Mays, etc? This is the same line of thought that causes writers to vote for the likes of Danny Tartabull and Rick Honeycutt year after year.

Pesky6...while you are correct that we ought not use the mistakes of previous selections as the standard for future ones, I have to point out that Mantle, Ruth, Williams and Mays aren't exactly the standard, either. Just as the bottom 10% of Hall of Famers isn't the standard, neither is the top 10% of Cooperstown's inductees. The standard is somewhere in between.

Furthermore, John Wetteland's credentials should first be measured against other eligible relievers outside the Hall of Fame. Where does he measure up against Henke, Nen, Quisenberry, Smith or Sutter? Once someone has "ordered" that group of candidates from most worthy on down, the next step is to start with the first guy on the list - Sutter? - and compare him to the relievers who are Hall of Famers. So the question then becomes, is Wetteland the best eligible reliever not already in the Hall? And if he is, how does he compare to Dennis Eckersley, Rollie Fingers and Hoyt Wilhelm?

Of course relief pitchers are unique in that the Hall really hasn't elected enough relief pitchers to have "established" standards yet. So there's that to consider, too.

Whatever your opinion of Wetteland, moreover, he's far closer to Hall of Fame relief pitchers than, say, Danny Tartabull is to Hall of Fame rightfielders. And Tartabull received a single vote in his sole year on the ballot (2003); it amounted to one-fifth of one percent of the ballots in that election. Honeycutt received two votes that same year, about two-fifths of one percent of the ballots. While, like you, I am left to wonder what those 2-3 voters were thinking to possibly cast a vote for either of those men, voting for legitimate candidates (like Wetteland) is far from "the same line of thinking" that results in votes for Honeycutt and Tartabull, men who more than 99.5% of the voters felt were undeserving of election.

What baffles me is why include players like that (or, like Gary DiSarcina for example, on the 2006 ballot) in the first place?!?

[BoofBonser26]

What baffles me is why include players like that (or, like Gary DiSarcina for example, on the 2006 ballot) in the first place?!?

I have started my own personal award (began last year), for the person least deserving to even be on the ballot. I've named it the Bob Tewksbury Award.

After considering this year's ballot, I gave the honor to DiSarcina.

[Chadwick]

I have started my own personal award (began last year), for the person least deserving to even be on the ballot. I've named it the Bob Tewksbury Award.

After considering this year's ballot, I gave the honor to DiSarcina.

Dare I ask who won the award last year? Otis Nixon would have received my vote.

Actually, there seems to be some stiff competition for the Tewksbury Award in every BBWAA election of recent years.

[BoofBonser26]

Actually, there seems to be some stiff competition for the Tewksbury Award in every BBWAA election of recent years.

Indeed there does. When I have more time to kill I think I'll retroactively hand out the award.

Before someone points out that it's an honor to be named on the HOF ballot and that DiSarcina was better than I'll ever be, I agree. There's no harm in anyone like Tewksbury getting named because they won't be elected. He should be congratulated. Still, I think that for guys like these, everyone can agree that putting them on the ballot is silly. My award is just some light-hearted fun.

[History Of Baseball Fan]

the players on that list are not HOF worthy. we're really running out of good players to elect. before, only the GOOD players made it, now it seems like its just a decent player making it. sure, some gus have 3000 hits, but with a career average of like .260's or .270;s, alot of the just reached 3000 hits simply because of the large number of at bats.

[Transplanted Fan]

the players on that list are not HOF worthy. we're really running out of good players to elect. before, only the GOOD players made it, now it seems like its just a decent player making it. sure, some gus have 3000 hits, but with a career average of like .260's or .270;s, alot of the just reached 3000 hits simply because of the large number of at bats.

What are you talking about? The only two players with 3,000 hits with batting averages under .280 are Rickey Henderson (.279) and Cal Ripken (.276). I'd cut them some slack in future balloting, considering that Rickey is the King of Speed and Cal is the Iron Man.

Yes, this is a lean year. But Ripken and Tony Gwynn are eligible next year, two can't-miss first ballot inductees. Plus, it will be fun to see how many writers take apologist stances toward Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco. 2007 will be much more interesting.

[pesky6]

Pesky6...while you are correct that we ought not use the mistakes of previous selections as the standard for future ones, I have to point out that Mantle, Ruth, Williams and Mays aren't exactly the standard, either. Just as the bottom 10% of Hall of Famers isn't the standard, neither is the top 10% of Cooperstown's inductees. The standard is somewhere in between.

Furthermore, John Wetteland's credentials should first be measured against other eligible relievers outside the Hall of Fame. Where does he measure up against Henke, Nen, Quisenberry, Smith or Sutter? Once someone has "ordered" that group of candidates from most worthy on down, the next step is to start with the first guy on the list - Sutter? - and compare him to the relievers who are Hall of Famers. So the question then becomes, is Wetteland the best eligible reliever not already in the Hall? And if he is, how does he compare to Dennis Eckersley, Rollie Fingers and Hoyt Wilhelm?

Of course relief pitchers are unique in that the Hall really hasn't elected enough relief pitchers to have "established" standards yet. So there's that to consider, too.

Whatever your opinion of Wetteland, moreover, he's far closer to Hall of Fame relief pitchers than, say, Danny Tartabull is to Hall of Fame rightfielders. And Tartabull received a single vote in his sole year on the ballot (2003); it amounted to one-fifth of one percent of the ballots in that election. Honeycutt received two votes that same year, about two-fifths of one percent of the ballots. While, like you, I am left to wonder what those 2-3 voters were thinking to possibly cast a vote for either of those men, voting for legitimate candidates (like Wetteland) is far from "the same line of thinking" that results in votes for Honeycutt and Tartabull, men who more than 99.5% of the voters felt were undeserving of election.

What baffles me is why include players like that (or, like Gary DiSarcina for example, on the 2006 ballot) in the first place?!?

Fine, how about comparing them to Ozzie Smith, Joe Morgan, or Ralph Kiner? Are they middle-of-the-line enough for you?

[Ubiquitous]

Wetteland is most assuredly not a HOF reliever. Gossage, Sutter, Fingers, Quiz, Eck, Riviera, Hoffman and many others pitched many many more innings. He doesn't even have 800 innings pitched in his career. And it isn't like his peak was very long or shut down the opposition great. He was a very good reliever for 5 or 6 years and thats about it.

Dawson, I never thought he should make it. I wrote this the first time he came up for election:

If Andre had stayed a centerfielder I think his chances at the hall would have been greater. Dawson gets support I think because of his reputation more so then his actual playing stats.

He did not hit for average, he did not get on base, and for a slugger his slugging is mediocre. Andre played in a day when a .500+ slugging made you a "slugger" . Andre finished with a .482 SLG despite the fact that he got to play in Wrigley and Fenway for 8 seasons. Out of 18 full seasons he only crosses the .500 plateau 5 times. The only time he hits more then 32 home runs is in the flukish home run year of 1987 when he hit 49 homers. That year for whatever the reason everybody was hitting home runs.

This is something I wrote awhile back on the Cubs section:
Personally I don't think he should go to the hall of fame but I don't have a vote. So my opinion really doesn't matter.

Since this is a Cubs section and most of us are Cub fans and a little bias to our Cubbies. I believe though that when you talk about national awards such as MVP, Cy Young, or HOF you should put your local favoritism aside and look at it with open eyes. Having said this and knowing what I am going to say next. Let me state that I loved watching Dawson play and was glad he was on our team.

Dawson was a good player not a great player. In fact I believe his best seasons were with the expos not with the Cubs. If you look at his 1987 MVP seasons it isn't all that great. In fact he had better season with the expos then that year. The reason he won the award is because he led the league in HR and RBI's two stats that voters love. Even though those two stats might not be the best indicators of importance. That year he crushed 49 HR's (which is a mind-boggling number back then in the 80's) but only slugged .568 and had a on-base percentage of .329. He couldn't even get on-base a third of the time (also his career OBP is .327). In fact he isn't even in the top five in slugging that year.

Lets look at the traditional stats that most people look at when evaluating players. He only top 100 RBI's 4 times in his 21 seasons. He only tops 100 runs twice. He only hits 30 or more HR's three times. In fact he only avg 21 hrs a season. He only hits over .300 4 times. True he did bat .299 one year, but to credit that then you have to discount the years he batted .301 and .302. He never topped 200 hits, he topped 180 twice. Andre did have a stretch of seven seasons where he did top 20 SB's. Everybody likes to look at his low home run total and say "well he played in a different era. Players didn't hit as many HR's. You have to factor that in." And they are right in saying that. Unfortunatly they don't factor his era in when looking at his SB's. Andre played in an era where it was common for the SB leaders to have 60, 70, 80, 90, or even over 100 SB's in a season. In fact Andre was never in the top 5 in SB's any of those 7 years. In fact we was only slighly above average in SB's those years. To me just looking at the traditional stats reveals nothing truly great about Dawson.

Looking at the non-traditional stats like OBP, Slugging, and BB/K ration reveals even further that Dawson doesn't deserve to go into the hall. From what I understand .500 Slugging is the benchmark for above average hitter. Dawsons career avg is .482, he only tops .500 4 times. His career OBP is .327 he only has 2 seasons above .350. His career BB/K is close to 1/3. Which means for every walk he strikes out three times. Which any stat head will tell you is unacceptable.


To me Dawsons numbers look good or I should say better than they really are because he played long after he should of retired. I personally think he should of retired after the 1990 season. Yeah the next season he hit 31 homers but that was basically all he did. He hung around for six more seasons basically as a spare part or being a name. You take away those six years of padding and he would lose 93 homers and something like 370 RBI's. Granted if you like we can subtract his 91 from that list and say he should of retire after 91 not 90 but still he would padding. Dawson in my view was an all or nothing guy. He would either hit one over the wall, off the wall, into a mitt, or strike out. He was not a complete hitter and it shows in his stats much more than in the retelling of his legend.


Basically this is what I believe to be true. Andre Dawson was a great Cub Player because of his leadership and his persona. He was not however a great Major League Ballplayer worthy of the HOF. A good ballplayer yes, great one no.

[Chadwick]

Fine, how about comparing them to Ozzie Smith, Joe Morgan, or Ralph Kiner? Are they middle-of-the-line enough for you?

(1) A relief pitcher shouldn't be compared to any position player.

(2) If you think Joe Morgan is a "middle-of-the-line" Hall of Famer, then you've just disqualified anything else you have to say about the Hall of Fame from carrying any weight whatsoever.

[DoubleX]

(2) If you think Joe Morgan is a "middle-of-the-line" Hall of Famer, then you've just disqualified anything else you have to say about the Hall of Fame from carrying any weight whatsoever.

Time for a Morgan/Hornsby debate?

[Barnstormer]

Time for a Morgan/Hornsby debate?

Hey, don't leave out the Jackson brothers (Joe and Reggie).