04/19/24
June 29, 2004
Roberto Alomar and the Hall of Fame: A "couple thousand words" on why Robbie Alomar deserves your vote. If you had one. Of course, if you did you wouldn't be here reading this, you'd be out making stuff up.
Why do people keep trying to determine Hall of Fame worthiness by numbers? Because HoF voters used to (and the Veterans Committee still does) use your subjective criteria exclusively and it resulted in additions and ommissions that are ridiculous.
posted by yerfatma at 08:57 AM on June 29, 2004
here's an example of a "Keltner List" that was mentioned in the article.
posted by goddam at 09:02 AM on June 29, 2004
Alomar should be a shoo-in for the HOF. His numbers AND his dominance at the position for an extended period of time should be enough to get him in. However, I thought that Ryne Sandberg was going to get into the HOF. He's still out, so maybe there is some 2B bias going on. BTW, I remember when there was a serious discussion in baseball on who the best active 2B was: Alomar, Knoblauch or Baerga. Nowadays you wouldn't even THINK of comparing those other two stiffs to Alomar.
posted by grum@work at 10:04 AM on June 29, 2004
Alomar's bb-ref page is here. His HoF Monitor is at 193.4 (likely HoFer >100) and his HoF Standards number is at 54.9 (avg HoFer = 50.0). Both are better numbers than Sandberg. But who knows with the writers. Anyone read Bill James' The Politics of Glory?
posted by mbd1 at 10:32 AM on June 29, 2004
I think baseball (most sports) make it far too easy to get into their HOF. "dominance at the position" is not near good enough for me, I would suggest the player must be an all time great and if a few years go by with no inductees that's just fine.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:41 AM on June 29, 2004
Whatever you think the standards should be, it's way to late to change the standards by a significant amount. That doesn't mean that we have to keep repeating the mistakes, but if f 95% of players who have reached a certain level of achievement have gotten in, we can't all of a sudden tell players at that level they can't get in (and I'm not talking about individual statistical achievements, such as 3000 hits, since it is possible for mediocre playes to reach those. I'm talking about overall quality of play). In fact, the baseball hall has been at least a bit too tough on post 1950 players, in my opinion, since so many mediocre 1900-1945 players in the Hall.
posted by spira at 12:49 PM on June 29, 2004
"dominance at the position" is not near good enough for me, I would suggest the player must be an all time great Ah, the Great Contrarian viewpoint. No one is good enough for the Hall of Fame except those dead long enough that no one alive ever saw them. How is someone an all-time late great without having been dominant at their position? You suggest that one subjective measure (dominance at the position) is not good enough but that another subjective measure (all time great) is. Yet you never quantify what you see these measures meaning. And what's the point of a Hall of Fame except for the fans? An empty HoF serves no one who cares about the game.
posted by yerfatma at 02:27 PM on June 29, 2004
I have no problem with contemporary players going in after retirement (Bonds, RJohnson, for instance) but Alomar? Not good enough. And just because the hall selection gets a higher barrier does not mean it's empty.
posted by billsaysthis at 02:59 PM on June 29, 2004
That's still subjective. Given the preponderance of evidence in the article, what is it you think should keep him out?
posted by yerfatma at 03:24 PM on June 29, 2004
what is it you think should keep him out? I hope it isn't because he spit on the ump. Because if we keep every ballplayer who ever disrespected an ump out of the hall, it's going to be one empty hall. /devil's advocate
posted by lilnemo at 03:36 PM on June 29, 2004
Given the preponderance of evidence in the article, what is it you think should keep him out? Are you suggesting Alomar is in the class of Randy or Barry?
posted by billsaysthis at 06:08 PM on June 29, 2004
Randy who? Johnson? Sure. Barry Bonds is the best hitter the game has ever seen. If we're going to restrict the Hall to the best player ever, they have way too much space. And you've still yet to provide an actual metric beyond your own preferences. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a sport you don't even like, right?
posted by yerfatma at 08:14 PM on June 29, 2004
randy and barry aren't even in each other's classes. that's why looking at dominance in a position is important. you're not going to compare a pitcher like johnson and a hitter like bonds and determine who is more worthy of the hall. they are both worthy because they both dominate in their respective roles. and you can't compare a player like alomar to either of them because a gold glove middle infielder who puts up good numbers at the plate is yet another type of ballplayer.
posted by goddam at 08:49 PM on June 29, 2004
If Brooks Robinson can make the Hall primarily on the strength of his glove, that Alomar should be able to on the strength of his glove and bat. I just hope he's able to get to 3000 so this silly debate can end. This guy was the best glove second baseman ever.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:54 AM on June 30, 2004
Better than Mazerowski? Hard to say at a glance, but Alomar never had a range factor above 6. Which in no way belittles his gifts in the field.
posted by yerfatma at 06:55 AM on June 30, 2004
Yerfatma, you are correct that I don't care for baseball but I would point out that in my original comment I tried to expand this thought to "most sports." Also, am not comparing Randy Johnson and Barry Bonds to each other but holding them up as Hall-worthy examples of current players in response to a comment about only dead guys belonging. I haven't thought enough about this to give you quantitative measures for what I consider appropriate standards for induction but would be happy if there were only 3-6 inductees every, say, five years rather than that number every year.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:34 AM on June 30, 2004
OK... Second to Maserowski.... Maybe. I don't trust 'range factor' that much. All I'm saying is his combined abilities; bat and glove are more than impressive enough. Comparitively he is among the elites of his generation, and the all-time elites at his position - therefore, Hall worthy. Not a first ballot, perhaps, maybe even a squeaker (If he retires with Clemens or Johnson or a few others than spots get taken quickly), but it seems relatively clear to me.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:09 PM on June 30, 2004
Why do people keep trying to determine Hall of Fame worthiness by numbers? This makes no sense to me. Instead, simply ask yourself the following question: Was Roberto Alomar a dominating player at his position for a significant portion of his career? If the answer is yes, he goes. If not, he stays out. And the answer is an easy yes, in my mind. It pains me to say that too. I think the guy is a selfish prick who I wouldn't let play for my company softball team. I would scribble out is autograph. I would pee on his rookie card. Hall or no, Alomar is an all-time great. It's a shame a tantrum in 1996 and a lousy end of his career may ruin the way he's remembered. He did that to himself. He tarnished his own record. He's the one who spit on that ump. He's the one who cashed checks while playing the most consistently lazy brand of baseball I have ever seen from a man in a Mets uniform(!). He's the one who insisted on sliding into first base despite, you know, laws of physics and all that garbage. The shame is his and his alone.