You can vote for Dale Murphy for the Hall of Fame. Just do it for the right reasons, OK?

37 Comments

Tim Kawakami of the Mercury News just submitted his first-ever Hall of Fame ballot.  Included on that ballot was Dale Murphy.

I’m cool with that. I don’t think I’d vote for him myself because I really do like to see a mix of elite peak — which Murphy had — and longevity, which Murphy didn’t.  Your mileage may vary, and I will make some exceptions, but for the most part I think those non-MVP but still superior years helping teams win are important.

But that’s just me. I can totally get on board with people differing in that regard, and frankly, it would make me kind of happy as a fanboy to see Murph in the Hall.

But one thing I do believe: if you’re going to vote for Dale Murphy, at least make sure you’re accurate about his merits, OK?  Don’t say stuff like this:

During 1980-1987, Murphy was the BEST PLAYER IN BASEBALL, I’m pretty sure. I remember thinking that throughout that time, and I don’t believe I was wrong … I think the HOF is about GREATNESS–about guys who affected every bit of every game they played in their primes. –That’s Murphy, to me. Most HRs in the ’80s, by the way. Most RBIs, too.

People can believe different things when it comes to “THE BEST PLAYER IN BASEBALL,” but if you’re going to look at 1980-87 and conclude that Mike Schmidt wasn’t that, well, you need to show more work than Kawakami does here.

Oh, and you also need to not get things simply wrong.  Murphy did not have the most home runs in the 1980s, Schmidt did.  Nor did he have the most RBI, Eddie Murray did. I’m a stats moron but even I can figure that out fairly quickly.

Oh well. At least he votes for Jeff Bagwell and Alan Trammell. I just hope it’s not because Bagwell led baseball in saves in the 1990s and because Trammell hit in 57 consecutive games.

The Hall of Fame rejected the BBWAA vote to make ballots public

Getty Images
Leave a comment

Last year, at the Winter Meetings, the BBWAA voted overwhelmingly to make Hall of Fame ballots public beginning with this year’s election. Their as a long-demanded one, and it served to make a process that has often frustrated fans — and many voters — more transparent.

Mark Feinsand of MLB.com tweeted a few minutes ago, however, that at some point since last December, the Hall of Fame rejected the BBWAA’s vote. Writer may continue to release their own ballots, but their votes will not automatically be made public.

I don’t know what the rationale could possibly be for the Hall of Fame. If I had to guess, I’d say that the less-active BBWAA voters who either voted against that change or who weren’t present for it because they don’t go to the Winter Meetings complained about it. It’s likewise possible that the Hall simply doesn’t want anyone talking about the votes and voters so as not to take attention away from the honorees and the institution, but that train left the station years ago. If the Hall doesn’t want people talking about votes and voters, they’d have to change the whole thing to some star chamber kind of process in which the voters themselves aren’t even known and no one discusses it publicly until after the results are released.

Oh well. There’s a lot the Hall of Fame does that doesn’t make a ton of sense. Add this to the list.