We have long wondered about some of the voting patterns displayed by the "knights of the keyboard" (as Ted Williams used to refer to the baseball writers) in the annual Hall of Fame elections. And the results of this year's election, announced Wednesday, are no different.

We have no qualms with Andre Dawson finally securing admission to the Hall on his ninth try. "The Hawk" was as state-of-the-art as they come from the late '70s thru to the early '90s, and one of the last superstars of the game to precede the steroid era. Besides his noteworthy hitting stats, Dawson also played defense, had a wicked arm, and could run the bases. Congrats to The Hawk.

But we have always wondered about some of the others and their vote totals, especially some truly deserving sorts that haven't tallied enough to get included in future balloting, or those that consistently come up short.

Like Dale Murphy.

I was hoping that at least on this year's ballot, Murph would get a little more respect and rise above the 10% range. Not much...just 11.7% of the votes, slightly down from last year's 11.9%, and I remain perplexed. For a period between 1982-86, and maybe '87, Murphy was the premier player in the game. Shouldn't that be the ultimate definition of greatness, and HOF worthiness? A couple of MVPs, five Gold Gloves, seven All-Star selections. Versatility. All-around player. Numerous league-leading stats throughout his career (comparing favorably with some HOFers). In those prime years, Murph was at or near the top in every meaningful NL category, including hits, runs, OBP, OPS, runs created, power/speed, etc. Not to mention being something of an ironman in his prime years (played in all 162 from '82-86, and 160 in '87). He also spearheaded the only back-to-back Braves contending teams (his MVP years of 1982-83) between 1965-92.

Advertisement

Like always, I don't know that Murph gets in (his .265 career BA probably doesn't help, too many Ks, and his 398 HRs probably don't get the writers very interested, either), but to see him continue to get such little respect from the writers is blasphemous. And not playing on a championship team shouldn't hurt Murph that much; after all, Jim Rice wasn't on a World Series-winner, either (maybe the writers forgot that the Sox hadn't won the Series in 80+ years until '04, and never did when Rice was playing), and Rice did not play much defense, either, yet was elected a year ago. Let's also not forget that Murph was "clean" and preceded the steroids era, although his best years compare favorably with several "juiced" stars in subsequent seasons. And, for what it's worth, we think that Murphy's clean image and LDS affiliation might in a strange way have worked against him with many writers, who for whatever deluded reason, seem to downgrade those characteristics while elevating anyone who ever got in some trouble or caused the same.

For the record, as far as all-around players are concerned, we rate Murphy over Rice and on a par with Dawson.

Lee Smith continuing to get more respect from the voters than Murphy? Give me a break! That Smith continues to get over 40% of the vote (47.3% this time, up from 44.5% a year ago) should almost disqualify the writers who seem to keep voting for him every year. Smith was never great, he was simply in the right place at the right time, when the save was bastardized and closers were no more than three-out specialists, not firemen. We still blame Smith for blowing the '94 All-Star Game for the AL, too. Smith had nowhere near the impact that a true fireman such as Goose Gossage (elected two years ago) had in his heydays out of the pen. Present-day closers should get less consideration than full-time DHs.

It also perplexes how Fred McGriff (on 21.5% of the ballots in his first try this year) gets almost twice as much respect as Murphy. McGriff posted superb power numbers and deserves to stay on the ballot, but was suspect with the glove at 1B (especially in his last few years with the Rays), struck out an awful lot, and was not a truly feared clutch hitter. Like Murphy, McGriff will garner enough votes to stay on the ballot for the next 15 years, but I doubt he ever gets the call. Dave Parker (15.2%) also continues to get more respect from the voters than Murph, which is also a bit of a shame considering how Parker basically disappeared in the early '80s, and helped wreck the Pirates franchise for several years with his drug use. Parker, who has never received more than 24.5% of the vote, will be on the ballot for the last time next year. Murphy, by the way, stays on thru 2013.

Middle infielders continue to be underappreciated in the voting. Dave Concepcion, whose HOF eligibility has expired and now must await a call from the Veteran's Committee, had more range than Ozzie Smith (if not the acrobatics), plus speed, reach, a gun arm, and more power than Ozzie as well. Willie Randolph was an outstanding leadoff man who never got the proper respect in the voting. Neither did Frank White, who was a glove wizard with the Royals and hit with occasional power when the Royals needed it. Tony Fernandez never played a full season on a team with a losing record, and his teams were in constant contention with him at SS. The fact Roberto Alomar didn't get in on his first try this year was a bit of a surprise; perhaps the New York writing contingent stuck it to him for his mostly-disappointing work late in his career with the Mets. But at 73.7% on his first try, Alomar likely gets in as soon as next year. Like Alomar, Barry Larkin (on 51.6% of the ballots in this, his first year) figures to get in soon enough, but maybe not for a few more years.

I am glad Alan Trammell continues to get some respect from the voters and has a sizable number of votes (22.5% this time), but I have always wondered why Sweet Lou Whitaker never made ANY impact with the writers, who didn't give Sweet Lou enough votes to even stay on the ballot when he became eligible! Whitaker's numbers are all comparable to Trammell's: hits, LW's 2369 vs. AT's 2365; homers, 244 vs. 165; RBIs, 1084 vs. 1003; OBP, .363 vs. .352; games, 2390 vs. 2292; Gold Gloves, 3 vs. 5; All-Star Games, 5 vs. 6. Trammell made better showings in the MVP voting, and deserves the respect he gets from the HOF voters, but that doesn't explain why Sweet Lou was so overlooked. I could someday see the Veteran's Committee correcting this egregious wrong by the writers. Don Mattingly (on 16.1% of this year's ballots) might be getting a bit short-changed like Murph, as the writers are probably forgetting he also won nine Gold Gloves in his career.

As for pitchers, Bert Blyleven is getting very close, just five votes shy of making it this time around; expect him to finally make it in 2011 along with Roberto Alomar. Blyleven was a dominant starter for much of the '70s, and ended up playing for two World Series winners. Jack Morris (on 52.3% of this year's ballots) has similar credentials to Blyleven and like Bert will probably eventually make it, although he's going to have to wait a few more years.

Other random thoughts on the voting. Tim Raines, the best leadoff man after Rickey Henderson in the past fifty years, should have gone in the first ballot a year ago, because he did what a leadoff man should do. Get on base and score runs, and he fielded above average, and stole a ridiculous number of bases, too. At 30.4% this time around, Raines is going to stay on the ballots and gradually climb up the ladder, but we're not sure he will eventually make it. Really, he was a better player than Lou Brock, who lost fly balls in the moon, struck out too much and was Brock was the worst fielder on many Cardinal teams he played upon, although his ignition factor was special. Indeed, Raines was a much better situational hitter than Brock or Henderson, which is why the White Sox and Yankees batted him third to drive in runs in many first-place seasons. Edgar Martinez, on 36.2% of the ballots in his first go this time, will remain an interesting test case for many years, doing most of his damage as a DH. We are perplexed, however, why Martinez gets more votes than Raines.

Then, of course, there's Mark McGwire, whose steroid suspicions continue to keep him in the non-threatening range (23.7%of ballots this time) and likely provide a road map for other suspected abusers in the near future, including Rafael Palmeiro, eligible for the first time next year. Don't expect Palmeiro to fare any better than McGwire. Of the first-year candidates next year, the one who figures to have the best shot on his initial try is Jeff Bagwell, although that is not a certainty. Larry Walker figures to have some solid support as well and will present another interesting test case as the first candidate to have played the majority of his career in Denver at Coors Field, which likely inflated his numbers. Both Bagwell and Walker (the only two likely future HOFers from next year's first-year class), as well as John Olerud and John Franco, likely get more support in 2011 than either Palmeiro or Juan Gonzalez, another suspected cheat who might not even get the required 5% to stay on future ballots.