The Day is Finally Here

I have been anticipating this day for a long time. It is my 1 year blog-o-versary at Home School Dad. Head over there for a celebration.

Today also happens to be the day they announce who is going to Baseball's Hall of Fame via the writer's election process. I have spent the last 7 posts here preparing for today's announcement.

Today I'd like to recap who I would vote for given a ballot, give my predictions for who I think will get in and also some general remarks.

There are many scientific ways to determine who should be in the hall of fame. This year I attempted to develop one of my own. I call it the BILYNM index. What I did was on Christmas Eve took the list of HOF candidates and read them to my BIL Mike. Mike is a writer, a baseball nut (not to be confused with the seasonal 31 flavor's ice cream variety of the same name) and a pretty nice guy.

I asked him to respond yes, no or Maybe to whether the players should be enshrined in Cooperstown. I will admit that I omitted Mike Jackson from the list just because of the double Mike factor.

Here are the results:

Andre Dawson: Y
Bert Blyleven: N
Lee Smith: Y
Jack Morris: M
Tim Raines: N
Mark McGwire: N
Alan Trammell: N
Dave Parker: N
Don Mattingly: N
Harold Baines: N
Roberto Alomar: N
Kevin Appier: N
Ellis Burks: N
Andres Galarraga: N
Pat Hentgen: N
Eric Karros: N
Ray Lankford: N
Barry Larkin: N
Edgar Martinez: N
Fred McGriff: Y
Shane Reynolds: N
David Segui: N
Robin Ventura: N
Todd Zeile: N

Mike's Summation: If Lee Smith doesn't get in, no one should get in.

Speaking of which, the last time that any player on the ballot failed to get the 75% of the vote needed for election was 1996. I think there's a chance that no one will be elected this year.

If I was a 1o year member of the BBWAA I would vote for 7 players this year. Roberto Alomar, Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy, Tim Raines, Lee Smith and Robin Ventura.

I Predict

I think there will be 1 player elected to the Hall this year and I think that player will be Andre Dawson

I think the top 3 vote getters will be Dawson, Roberto Alomar, and Bert Blyleven

Along with Alomar I think 3 other first ballot players are likely to get more than 5% of the vote and stay on for 2011. They are Barry Larkin, Fred McGriff, and Edgar Martinez

So this end my build up to the hall of fame announcements. I will be be back today or tomorrow with an HOF recap.

The New Year in Review

I posted this a few days ago. But I just decided the word I want to get out, might get out well as a half dozen words. So, here is a subtitle for this post, Six Word Saturday Style . . .

I need your book reviews, Please

It may seem a little early in the year to review it. But it is never too early to review some books. On January 17th I will be hosting the 35th edition of the book review blog carnival. The 34th edition is now up at Book Dads. It's just skipping from one Dad to another when I take the helm of the fortnightly carnival later this month. In the mean time I am looking for submissions. If you have reviewed a book on your blog recently and have not submitted it to a previous book review blog carnival edition, now is your chance. I know a lot of my followers review books at their place from time to time, this would be a great time to share with the class. You can submit a post by linking here .

Next Time: 1 year ago today ...

My Official Unofficial Hall of Fame Ballot

For the past number of posts I have been fixated on the BBWAA election that will be announced this Wednesday. In previous posts I have reviewed the players returning to the ballot and the progress they have made over the years. I have also reviewed the players who are appearing on the ballot for the first time this year. The writers are allowed to vote for as many as 10 players on the ballot. In my last post I began to reveal who I would vote for if I was instructed to vote for 10 players. I ended my post at #8 as if I was given a ballot this year I would only vote for 7 players.



Today I will tell you the 7 players I would vote for if I was given the opportunity.



The 7th on my ballot would be Dale Murphy.



Why I voted for Him: There are several things that set apart Murphy from the other players who I did not vote for. Murphy was a back to back NL MVP winner in 1982, 1983. He was also the heart ans soul of the Braves teams of the 1980's Besides the back to MVPS in 1984 and 1985 he led his team in the following 4 categories: Hits,Homers, Runs Batted In, and Batting Average in 1986 he led the braves in all those categories but homers where he was second. One writer explaining in 2001 why he did not support Murphy's hall of fame bid had to admit his amazing run in the 80's and his other worthy achievements but countered with "I can't recall the last time I said to myself 'I miss seeing Dale Murphy play baseball'" 1



The thing is I do miss seeing Murphy play ball. I remember he played with a style that said he enjoyed playing the game that made me enjoy watching him play.



Why he's not higher on my list: He doesn't really stand head and shoulders above the rest of the possible inductees. Murphy was one of them. He was only listed one time in the top 5 of any offensive statistical category among position players on the ballot and that was a fith place showing in career homers. The MVPs and his 80's dominance did get him on my ballot but his inability to standout statistically in the crowd of challengers keep him entrenched in 7th.


If I was limited to 6 votes I would use the 6th for Lee Smith.

Why I voted for him: There are only 5 relief pitchers in the Hall of Fame (Goose Gossage, Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers, Bruce Sutter, and Dennis Eckersly) Smith has more than 100 saves than any of them. He had 25 or more saves in every season from 1983 to 1995.

Why he's only 6th: The concept of relievers in the Hall took a little time to grow on me. But the recent inclusions of Eckersly, Sutter and Gossage have convinced me of his hall worthiness that being. Perhaps that previous bias helped me make stronger cases for the players in front of him.

Now is the point of my discourse than I am apt to lose all credibility. But before you put your fingers in your ears and started shouting blahcetera, blahcetera, blahcetera, I urge you to hear me out.

If I had only 5 votes I would use my fifth on Robin Ventura.

Why I voted for Him: Let me be clear. I don't think Robin Ventura belongs in the Hall of Fame. I do believe that he merits some consideration. I have noticed there is a bit of local cooking when it comes to hall of fame voting. Certain players only get votes from the reporters who covered the team he was on. I see that as a trust that the local writer has to opening the eyes of the rest of the media. As someone who is a life long fan of Chicago baseball, I do feel that trust even though mine is just a hypothetical one.

I believe that Robin deserves to be part of the conversation for more than just 1 year. Ventura splayed an excellent 3rd base and deserved each of his 6 gold gloves. A fierce competitor with a keen batting eye (5th in walks among this years hopefuls) and a clutch hitter as attributed by his 18 grand slams which ties him for 3rd all time.

Why I didn't vote for him higher: Putting him ahead of Smith and Murphy who have much brighter hall 0f fame prospects than Ventura was foolhardy enough. I can justify it by saying that if I had only 5 votes I would want Robin in more than the other two. As we get to the final 4 on my ballot, I can't bring myself to score Ventura over any of them.

Before I reveal my top 4 I want to say a bit about the list of 12 statistical categories I have been talking about. I made this chart after I decided who I was going to vote for to see if my voting pattern meshed with the player career numbers. The 12 categories are two Bill James Stats: Hall of Fame Monitor and Hall of Fame Standards and then 10 traditional stats: Games, At Bats, Runs, Hits, Home Runs, RBI, Stolen Bases, Walks, Batting Average and Slugging Percentage. I was glad to see that the three of the 4 players I have left to reveal appeared most frequently on those top 5 lists, two 7 times and 1 8 times. I felt that lended a little credibility to my selections.

If I was allowed to vote for 4 players to the Hall of Fame. My 4th vote would be for Roberto Alomar.

Why I voted for him: Alomar seems to me the most Hall of Fame worthy of anyone on the ballot for the first time this year. He had the highest scores of anyone on the ballot in terms of the Hall of Fame Monitor and Hall of Fame Standards metrics. He is second in runs and stolen bases and 3rd in 3 other categories including his career batting average of .300. He was an All Star every year from 1990 to 2001 and won gold glove awards in all but 2 of those seasons.

Why He was not higher: I have Alomar rated ahead of all the other first timers on the ballot. Even though Alomar's accomplishment are stellar it would take an even more special player than him to overtake the 3 returners remaining on my ballot.

If I was told that I only had 3 votes for the Hall of Fame my 3rd vote would be Harold Baines.

Why I voted for Him: While Harold was only listed in the top 5 4 times in the statistical categories referenced above he is on the top of more lists than any other candidate. Baines played more games, got more hits and batted in more runs than anyone else up for consideration this year and He had the second most at bats. Granted those are longevity records and longevity is often dismissed when it comes to the Hall. What can't be dismissed is the quality of effort Baines put out on the field. He was a fan favorite with the White Sox and the Orioles having 3 stints with each team. After his first stint with the White Sox the owner retired his number while he was still playing! Baines missed a game as coach for the White Sox this past year to be honored by the Orioles at a special Harold Baines night.

Why he's not higher: some of the things I said about Edgar Martinez in my last post are true about Harold to a degree. He spent more than 1/2 his career as a Designated Hitter and isn't always one of the first two players you think of in those White Sox teams in the 80's. To be fair though he led the team in both hits and Rbis 4 times between 83-88 and was just 1 RBI behind Ron Kittle from doing it a fifth time. That being said he just doesn't have the numbers to compete with my top two.

If I only had 2 votes for the Hall of Fame my second vote would be for Tim Raines.

Why I voted for Him: If Tim Raines ever makes it to the Hall of Fame which I believe he will, he will have Rickey Henderson to thank for it. In my opinion Hendersons enshrinement last year will force voters to reevaluate Raines who is much like Henderson. Raines had more stolen bases, runs scored and walks than anyone else on the ballot. He appeared on 5 more top 5 lists for a total of 8. Again more than any other player on the ballot.

Why I don't have him higher: Out of respect for the career of who I have # 1.

If there was a rule that you could only vote for 1 player a year for the hall of fame, that player would definitely be Andre Dawson.

Why I have him #1: My best memory of Dawson is in his years with the Cubs in his batting stance with the brick wall behind him at Wrigley field. It is a beautiful memory and to me it resonates baseball. Of all the candidates for the Hall no one is as deserving as Dawson. Of those on the ballot this year he ranked 1st in at bats, second in games and RBI, third in hits and home runs and fourth in stolen bases. I mentioned in phase 1 that Dawson is 1 of 6 players with more than 300 homers and stolen bases. He is one of only 3 players that has 400 + homers and 300 + swiped bags. The other 2 are Willie Mays and Barry Bonds.

So there it is my official unofficial hall of fame ballot. The results of the official balloting will be announced Wednesday. I will check in Wednesday with some final thoughts on the selection process.

addressing the President

In planning my 1 year blog-o-versary which takes place later this week, my mind has become a virtual university of blogging theory. I am reviewing what worked in the past year and what didn't. What new ideas I have for the blog and what old ones never quite materialized. One idea I had has to do with the fact that many people in the blog-o-verse talk about hot topics. Chasing headlines has not been what I did here in year 1. In fact, I have been thinking for a while that blogging about cold topics would be nice .

The problem however is that some hot topics are cyclical and even though one issue had cooled considerably by this summer, in early fall it reached another boiling point. What I am referring to is President Obama speaking to students. The students I was planning on writing about was the Notre Dame graduating class of 2009. However, on the day after Labor Day, Obama addressed school children and was met with controversy, once again.


I decided I would wait a few more months and let the memory of the angst that preceded the latter speech die down. Like the Cold Topics idea, I have also wanted to have a segment in this blog called "Dave handles the tough issues". Now this may not seem like a tough issue to you, but in a moment you will see why it is one to me. It has to do with my relatives.

The University of Notre Dame invited President Obama to address the graduating class of 2009 and to receive an honorary degree. Many people were in an uproar because of the obvious disparity between their views on many issues, specifically those on abortion.


It may seem that this is a tough issue because of the divisive nature of the abortion debate. What really makes it hard for me is that issue seems to pit Notre Dame against President Obama. This is where my relatives come in.


My Mother is the biggest Notre Dame fanatic in the universe. So much so that Lou Holtz thinks she needs to tone it down. My Dad and sister both went to Notre Dame (that's how they met) but she takes it much more seriously than those 2 combined. If I am planning some party for my kids (2 of which had the gall to be born during football season), I check the ND website for the football schedule before sending her an invitation. If you don't believe that? look at my folks cars replete with Notre Dame banners, and vanity plates.


Speaking of cars, let's speak of my my Mother in Law. A nice Irish lass herself. Whose families hail from the lands of Cork and Kerry thus her maiden name of Corkery. Unlike, my mother, my MIL has actually lived at Notre Dame, when my FIL attended grad school there. But Golden Domer paraphernalia does not hang off her car, what does is the 2008 Election slogan: Hope. Not Fear. Obama 2008.


My mother in law loves Obama and my mother loves Notre Dame. So How do I tight rope this issue to make sure that my family has places to dine on the Holidays? I will tread gently, beginning by telling you my opinions before I watched Obama address the graduates and then some thoughts after watching it.


I do not agree with Obama's views on abortion. I have not voted for him in some part because of these views. I have written him and shared my opinions on the issue with him. However, I agree with Notre Dame inviting him to speak. I would gladly have President Obama address my children (which is why my children "attended" his speech to grade school students via the internet in September.) He is my president, not because I want him to be, but because God ordained it. I have enough respect for the position to know even being in the audience to hear him say things I disagree with would be a great honor.


Now as for the speech, now that I have viewed it. (Here is a link if you have not and desire to do so). I feel that I benefited from listening to hearing him speak at Notre Dame. Here is the President of the United States admitting to making changes in campaign policy due to the heartfelt letter of someone who disagreed with him. Here is a staunch supporter of abortion advocating less pregnancies and more adoptions. Perhaps he was just telling them what he wanted them to hear, it wouldn't be the first time a politician that. I think when you can have any sort of agreement from both sides of a divisive issue that this is a good thing.



Now quickly on to his address to students to kick off this 09-10 school l year. I was shocked at all the negative attention it received. While I disagreed with the stir the Notre Dame invite garnered, I at least understood it. This school flap, I did not get. Imagine this conversation:





A: I have an idea let's impeach the president.


B: Why should we do that? What high crimes and misdemeanors has he done?


A: He spoke to school children? What did he tell them, deface public property, slaughter sheep dogs, root for the White Sox?


B: No, stay in school.


Now, I understand that there was some objections to the teaching points that his staffers wrote for his speech. I also understand that the context of those questions was much easier for me to understand once I saw the speech.

Almost one year into the Obama presidency there may be legitimate reasons for his detractors and even his supporters to be concerned. His advisers may need to get him a new dictionary because it doesn't seem he understood the meaning of the word stimulus. He had only the support of his party on health care reform after portraying himself as a unifier. I am sure that many other people could you tell you what they think is wrong with the Obama Presidency, I am just saying speaking to students should not be on that list.

Next Time: The New Year in Review