THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Friday, January 08, 2010

The formula for not voting for Tim Raines

Take it away, Bill Conlin:

WHAT ABOUT Tim Raines? How could you not have put him on your 2010 Hall of Fame ballot? When I wrote a column Dec. 30, revealing my ballot and praising the quality and depth of the first-timers up for election, the e-mail reaction I received the most involved why there has been so little support for one of the greatest leadoff men of all time.

My answer was formulaic. And I apologize for that. However, with the number of deserving carryover players each year, the annual flood of newcomers and the unique 15-year format, there has to be a winnowing process. It is simply not fair to keep placing your bet each year on candidates who simply have not been as highly regarded by your BBWAA colleagues as a man you consider worthy of a vote.

I voted for Tim Raines his first year of eligibility. But when he failed to get 25 percent of the vote, he was moved to the back burner. Sorry, that’s just the way it has to be. Maybe more eligible ballwriters should have measured the Rock’s career numbers in all phases against those of analog basestealer and first-ballot inductee Lou Brock. Try it, you’ll be amazed.

Good news for Raines, however. Yesterday, in one of the most bizarre elections in a bizarre process, he collected 30 percent and is now back on my radar.

Wow.  I’m trying to follow the logic.  Bill Conlin, to his credit, voted for Raines the first time through.  He has, for some reason, a threshhold so that a player must get at least 25% support of his peers for him to keep the player on his radar.  Apparently, there are so many new eligibles that he can’t reconsider someone he already considered worthy.  So, rather than keeping whoever he voted on last year, and adding to it this year any new eligibles or old holdouts that he reconsidered on, he instead DROPS a guy he voted on, in favor of… well, I’m not sure in favor of what because he says:

Anyway, despite the lack of a catcher and outfield scarcity, this is one of the most talented groups of HOF ballot first-timers ever. And therein lies the peril. You can only vote for a maximum of 10 players. I checked six names on my ballot and have never voted for more than six. Three are guys who have been knocking on the door and need to be affirmed by the BBWAA before they wind up being passed onto a dazed and confused veterans committee that last year honored World War II second baseman Joe Gordon. I voted for two pitchers, Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris, whose numbers look a lot better now that the 300-game winner is being excised from history by the pitch-countniks, and The Hawk, wonderfully talented rightfielder Andre Dawson.

From the impressive list of ballot virgins, I voted for Alomar, Martinez and McGriff. I’m already feeling guilt for not giving a nod to Gallaraga. Next year.

So, in an insane way, he makes sense.  Sort of.  Instead of relying on the fact that he CAN vote for ten players, he instead decides that it’s better to stick to six.  And, if that means that Raines and Galaragga is out for him, then so be it.  He simply will agonize himself to death to make sure he doesn’t exceed his self-imposed limit of six.  And so, he’s simply betting on the winners.  Bill Conlin is not voting for the best players necessarily.  He’s trying to push guys along who deserve more of a push at this particular point in time.  He’ll get to Raines eventually (as long as 25% of his peers think so), but he wants to make sure all the other little old ladies are crossing the street too.

Colin is going to have a heart attack when he sees the list coming up in 2013.

And sorry Bill, but The Big Cat did not get to 25%.  So, you actually have zero chance to vote for him next year, even if you have 4 empty slots to fill in.

***

Over/under as to when the BBWAA gets out of the HOF voting?  I’ll say the first year Neyer is eligible.