2009 Hall of Fame Voting – Wtf?January 12, 2009 at 2:27 pm | Posted in My opinions | 6 Comments
Another year, another vote, another disappointment for fans of “The Hawk”.
Seriously, what do you have to do to get in?
Be one of the most dominant and feared players of your era – Check
400+ home runs – Check
1500+ rbi’s – Check
300+ stolen bases – Check
Rookie of the year – Check
MVP – Check (for a last place team to boot) - Double Check
8 gold gloves – Check
8 time all-star – Check
4 silver sluggers – Check
20+ MLB seasons – Check
Call me a homer if you want to, but the HOF voting is skewed, and I’m pissed. Seriously, if he never got in before, how suddenly is Jim Rice a better player in his 15th year of elegibility? This is one of the biggest things that irks me about the BBWAA. It’s the same guys voting every year. This year Dawson improved in the vote total by 1.1%, which means there were 3-4 writers who decided Andre is a better player this year than he was last year. I didn’t see him take any at-bats last season, did you? Either a player is a HOFer or he isn’t. Players don’t get better after they retire.
Now the case can be made that guys get worse as years go on when you consider McGuire, Palmeiro, et al. That, however, is a different post entirely. As far as I know, Dawson has done nothing in the last 8 years to damage his credentials.
I suppose the only bright side to this is a selfish one. As a player collector, I haven’t picked up much lately because all of the HOF talk has given a boon to secondary market prices for “my guy”. Hopefully now, some of this will die down and give me another year to add to my collection on the cheap.
All in all, I’d rather see The Hawk in the Hall where he deserves to be. If I was never able to afford another card because of it, so be it. It’d be worth it to see one of the most deserving players of our life-time ensrined as he should be.
Just my .02 – what do you think?