Published ballots for 2006

[Chadwick]

Each year a number of BBWAA voters publish their Hall of Fame ballot in the local paper or online. I thought this thread would be a good clearing house for collecting those published ballots. Please feel free to add to this list as you come across any. Please also provide a link, or citation to the source, if possible.

Thanks!

[Chadwick]

Ken Rosenthal, FOXSports.com
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Rich Gossage
Jim Rice
Lee Smith
Bruce Sutter
Alan Trammell

Here's the link to his explanations, primarily centered around why he's added Jim Rice back to his ballot after a long absence.

Rosenthal has been a Hall of Fame voter since 1997.

[Chadwick]

Bruce Markusen, Cooperstown Confidential
(Bruce works for the Hall of Fame, but is not a BBWAA member.)
Bert Blyleven
Rich Gossage
Dale Murphy
Jim Rice
Alan Trammell

Markusen is a noted author, historian and baseball researcher. He notes that he would vote, were he able, for "at least" the five listed.

A link to the article.

[Chadwick]

Bob Matthews, Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat and Chronicle
Linked through Cincinnati Enquirer
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Rich Gossage
Tommy John
Jim Rice
Bruce Sutter

Most of Matthews' article is spent bemoaning the lack of quality candidates this year (by way of comparison to the following year's ballot.)

[J W]

Thanks for the thread and the links, Brad!

Here's one from Gene Collier of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Andre Dawson
Lee Smith
Bruce Sutter

Collier makes Mathews look like an inclusionist... and he's a voter. I can understand his point of view, put elegantly by several members of our board--but I would say this article, which goes all over the place, isn't very good. I almost didn't catch his actual ballot and originally had Jack Morris posted (who earlier in the article Collier says he's voted for in the past).

Two points: 1) If you didn't vote for Eckersley or Molitor, why are you including Smith and Dawson? 2) If you go through a big routine about an epiphany, why are you sticking with last year's ballot? Is it sarcasm? If it is I can't tell.

[J W]

If anyone's an ESPN insider, I'd like a link to Rob Neyer's article. Neyer is noted in both jounalistic and sabermetric circles... and is one of the leaders of the anti-Jim Rice crowd.

All I know from the tidbit on this link is:

- 14 holdovers are worth looking at (everyone but Willie McGee)
- 2 of the newcomers (Belle, Clark) are worth discussion
- The top five left from last ballot (Sutter, Rice, Gossage, Dawson, Blyleven) have the best shot this year
- Rice should rank behind Will Clark

[J W]

Here's an interesting link from a player's perspective:

Wade Boggs & Ryne Sandberg

First off, it talks chiefly about Boggs and Sandbergs' desire to have Pete Rose in the HOF. Boggs feverishly supports it--Sandberg is more reserved but says "it's a matter of time before baseball excuses him". Well, Rose didn't make his last chance ballot with the writers.

They also mentioned six names, and wouldn't you know it:

Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Goose Gossage
Jim Rice
Lee Smith
Bruce Sutter

...the six closest to election.

[yanks0714]

Of those mentioned so far Jim Rice is the least deserving. Dale Murphy nor Andre Dawson either although Hawk b4 Murph if either gets elected.

I have little or no trouble with the others although to be honest about it I don't see Blyleven and John although I won't bemoan the fact.

I like Trammell, Sutter, Smith, and Gossage. I think Wil Clark deserves close attention.

[538280]

Wow, I'm unpleasantly surprised that none of the sportswriters' whose ballots have been given include Dave Parker. I'd think his two batting titles along with great power would impress the voters. Perhaps that dicey press relationship is too much too overcome. Doesn't seem to hurt Rice though. He's gotten far more support than he should be getting.

I sincerely hope Dave Parker can get in. His peak is truly fabulous and career value isn't so bad either. Him and Bobby Bonds are two RFers who don't get the respect they deserve. The writers are too busy giving that support to guys like Rice and Dawson h

[J W]

Well Dawson would be my first choice among them, but I agree with you #s about Parker (who hit much like Dawson) and particularly Bonds, who I'm high on for his ability to do everything but hit for average. Unfortunately they just don't get much attention--Parker with the BBWAA, Bonds with the Vets.


Rice was primarily a LFer and somewhat of a different story... but with all the corner outfielders already in the Hall I can see quite a few I'd take Rice or any of these others over.

[yanks0714]

Wow, I'm unpleasantly surprised that none of the sportswriters' whose ballots have been given include Dave Parker. I'd think his two batting titles along with great power would impress the voters. Perhaps that dicey press relationship is too much too overcome. Doesn't seem to hurt Rice though. He's gotten far more support than he should be getting.

I sincerely hope Dave Parker can get in. His peak is truly fabulous and career value isn't so bad either. Him and Bobby Bonds are two RFers who don't get the respect they deserve. The writers are too busy giving that support to guys like Rice and Dawson h

I would think The Cobra deserves it more than either Rice, Dawson, or Murphy.
I think Parker's press relationship is kind of like what Rice had in Boston. But Rice never had the coke scandal on him like Parker did. I think the coke thing hurt Keith Hernandez too.
Funny, it was okay to be drunk and/or an alcoholic during Prohibition and still get elected but drugs are a no-no. I guess it ws because almost everyone opposed Prohibition.

[DoubleX]

Here's a link to Scott Miller's ballot and explanations and cbs.sportsline.com.

The sampling is very small, but so far, I'm very glad to see Bert Blyleven showing up on most ballots I've seen. I doubt he'll get in this year, but I'm hoping he continues his forward momentum and gets in the 55-60% range. I think that could be enough to make election inevitable one day.

[538280]

Well Dawson would be my first choice among them, but I agree with you #s about Parker (who hit much like Dawson) and particularly Bonds, who I'm high on for his ability to do everything but hit for average. Unfortunately they just don't get much attention--Parker with the BBWAA, Bonds with the Vets.

Parker and Dawson were similar hitters (sluggers without much plate discipline), but Parker was better. His career OPS+ is two points higher, and his peak OPS+ are way better-Parker had 5 years of OPS+ over 140 while Dawson had only two. And Dawson's best OPS+ year (1981) came in limited time due to a strike. Remember, it's easier to post high quality if you have a lack of quantity. Look at their top 10 OPS+ seasons:

Dawson-157, 141, 137, 136, 136, 132, 129, 124, 115, 115,
Parker-166, 149, 148, 144, 141, 132, 118, 117, 116, 113

Parker's way better at the beginning and still better in the middle, though he does drop off towards the end. But, Parker still has just as good longevity and good seasons.

Bill James defines a season of 30 or more Win Shares to be an MVP candidate type season. Parker had 3 such seasons while Dawson never even had one. How can a corner OFer be a HOFer if he never even had one MVP candidate type season? I know Dawson did win the MVP in 1987, but that was probably the worst MVP selection ever. He only had 20 Win Shares and played for a last place club.

Parker was also a way better contact hitter (109 rel. BA to 105-4 points of rel. BA is a big deal).

[J W]

I'll buy that argument about Parker's peak years being better. Suffice to say, both of them would make my theoretical ballot.

They both obviously had arms, perhaps among the top dozen of all time. Dawson gets my extra points by playing a more-than-capable center field in Montreal for seven seasons. I must admit that I'm too young to vividly remember those years (I certainly remember his Chicago years)... and defense is hard to quantify... but what I see is enough to push Dawson ahead in my book.

It should also be noted that I don't count peak years quite as much as some others, though I certainly don't ignore them.

It does seem like the two are tied together... and Parker's image, or lack of sustained greatness, or whatever that has kept him from Cooperstown is probably a big anchor on Dawson.

[538280]

I'll buy that argument about Parker's peak years being better. Suffice to say, both of them would make my theoretical ballot.

Parker's peak years weren't just better-they were worlds better. Dawson didn't even really have a peak. The Win Shares system says he didn't even have one MVP candidate type season. Their top three WS seasons:

Parker-37, 33, 31
Dawson-29, 28, 26

Not even remotely close. Dawson's best year was about equal to Parker's 4th best. Considering they have similar career value (327 career WS for Dave, 340 for Andre), I don't see this as being close.

Parker was one of the best players on the great Pirates of the late 1970s, and probably the best player on the 1979 squad. Andre spent most of his career with bad teams in Montreal and Chicago

Parker did way in leading the league. He had 26 Black Ink to Dawson's paltry total of 11.

It does seem like the two are tied together... and Parker's image, or lack of sustained greatness, or whatever that has kept him from Cooperstown is probably a big anchor on Dawson.

The real thing that's keeping Parker out of the Hall is his part in the cocaine scandal. I guess that may be a legit complaint for Hall standards, since the HOF does talk about integrity of its members. But, if Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby and Heinie Manush can be in, then I don't see how Parker can be left out because he wasn't the nicest man. He was easily one of the best in baseball in the late 1970s.