Alomar gets into the Hall of Fame, and it's about time.

Yesterday, Roberto Alomar was awarded his rightful place in the Baseball Hall of Fame, after being snubbed the year before by the Baseball Writers of American (BBWAA), and he'll be entering as a Toronto Blue Jays. Let's first take a quick look at Alomar's numbers over his career:

• Career .300 average, .371 OBP, .443 SLG
• 210 home runs, 1134 RBI, 1508 runs scored, 2724 base hits
• 474 stolen bases
• Selected to 12 All-Star teams, starting 9 of them at 2B
• 10 Gold Glove awards
• 2 World Series Championship with the Toronto Blue Jays

Looking at those numbers, there's no way Alomar shouldn't have been a first ballot Hall of Famer. Which leads me the general argument of this entire post - that hall of fame voting is ass-backwards. For one thing, the Baseball Writers are around the players more often than anybody else. While it's a good thing for the voters to be well-informed about the players they're voting on, at what point do their personal opinions of the players influence their ability to objectively vote on whether or not they deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

Admittedly, Alomar wasn't always a model citizen. He spat in the face of umper John Hirshbeck and had unprotected sex with his girlfriend while supposedly knowing he was HIV positive (that one's up for debate). But the fact of the matter is, his baseball numbers are more than adequate to have been elected to the Hall on his first go, and those are the only factors that should be taken into account.  

There are writers out there who have taken this opportunity to compare Alomar's shortcomings to those of players who have taken steroids. The problem with that argument is that for all of Alomar's faults, none of them were directly related to his ability to play the game at a high level. Steroids on the other hand play a large part in the numbers a player puts up over his career. I don't believe, however, in the Baseball Writers (BBWAA) taking it upon themselves to grandstand about players who are suspected of using steroids (ie. Mark McGuire). It is not their job to punish players based on allegations rather than proof, and until proof is obtained, any player suspected of using steroids should have just as much of an opportunity as someone who is not.   

A couple last points about it taking Alomar two tries to make it to Cooperstown:  If personal feelings had nothing to do with Alomar not being a first ballot Hall of Famer, how is it possible that Andre Dawson was elected last year while Alomar was not? Dawson's career line is .279/.323/.482, he had 8 gold gloves and 8 all-star appearances. Aside from SLG%, Alomar's numbers are better across the board. 

Last year, Alomar received 73.7% of the votes (75% is required to enter the Hall). That equates to 428 of a possible 581 votes. This year, he received 90%, or 523 votes. For the sake of this entire blog post and argument, wouldn't it be fucking great to hear what changed for the 95 voters who decided Alomar was more deserving of entering the Hall of Fame this year as opposed to last? His baseball numbers didn't change, so I think it's safe to assume that after the prestige of being a first ballot Hall of Famer was taken away from Alomar, those voters felt like they did their part in punishing Alomar for his past, and that was now worthy of entering the Hall. As if it was their responsibility.   

For more on the subjectivity of Hall of Fame voting, check out this article over at fangraphs. I'd love to hear the BBWAA explain this one.

Jerry Howarth - as usual - says it best. If you are a fan of the Jays, a fan of Roberto Alomar and a fan of nostalgia listen to this interview.

Last thing: People are awesome.