In my opinion (as my ballot at TheMirl says), Albert Belle should be recognized for his accomplishments. He'll lose out on sportsmanship. But is it fair to penalize him for being an intense man? I'm not so sure. There are worse human beings in the Hall of Fame.

That debate will rage for a while though.

Poor sportsmanship is something different from being
intense. The rules state that character & sportsmanship
must be considered. Charles Manson could also be
considered intense. So could John Olerud. Different thing.

Looks like you guys got it in about the right order...

I don't think there is anybody on the ballot whose presence the hall of fame would really be lacking without. On the other hand, the to 5 or 6 on the list at The Mirl are probably at or above the standards set by precedent at the Hall.

Belle will probably get in before his eligibility runs out... whether I like that or not, I'm not sure. But I don't see how you can vote for Jim Rice and not Belle.

i think we might be short changing lee smith a little bit...they guy is the all time saves leader (until hoffman passes him) . just an opinion.

i would vote for belyven and belle before him though, in that order.

"all-time leader" is a bit misleading for a stat that didn't really have any meaning until the 1970's, and has been grossly inflated by managers since then. Personally, I'd vote for Gossage ahead of him, though I really think Trammell should be getting more ink.

I like your choices.

Why the dislike for Garvey?

He was an over hyped baseball player. He was good, but he wasn't great. Plus, he appears to be a horrible human being.

David - kudos on your inclusion of Trammell. I have a hard time being objective about him, as he was my absolute favorite player when I was a kid, but I think he and Whitaker have been unfairly ignored by the writers (and Whitaker isn't even on the ballot anymore). I don't understand how so many can swear by Jack Morris while completely ignoring his Tiger teammates (I know he threw a great 10-inning ballgame one day in 1991, but that's just not sufficient).

But Susan: How do you define poor sportsmanship? Belle never was a poor sport ON the field. Sure, he was intense, but he played hard every day. He may have been greedy; he may have been hostile toward reporters. But he came to play. If character and sportsmanship are so important, how can Ty Cobb, the biggest racist in the history of the game, be given such a free pass?

I don't think that Belle quite has the credentials, even had he been possessed of sterling character (and I think Benjamin nails the "sportsmanship" thing...being likeable is different from playing hard, and non-essential to HOF voting...for example, if MLB made him eligible, does anyone think that Pete Rose wouldn't be voted in?). Anyway, Belle's peak was truly outrageous, but his career was just too short-lived. He just didn't have enough staying power. Yes, worse players have been voted in, and it certainly wouldn't be a travesty if he made it in, but he's marginal.

David...I'm surprised...no Blyleven for you?

Benjamin:

I think that corking one's bat like Belle did qualifies you for being a bad sport on the field. Should that keep him out of the Hall of Fame? No way. Unfortunately, Belle's lack of a decline phase leaves him short of the counting stats he needs.

After 92 ballots (a few partials)...these are the results

72.8%- Gossage
71.7%- Sutter
60.8%- Dawson
55.4%- Rice
48.9%- Blyleven
44.5%- Lee Smith
40.2%- Morris
22.8%- T.John
15.2%- Trammell
14.1%- Garvey
10.8%- Belle
8.7%- Murphy
6.5%- Mattingly
5.4%- Parker
4.3%- Hershiser
3.3%- Concepcion
1.0%- W.Clark
1.0%- McGee

3.2%- P. Rose (write-ins)

Also,
While Belle and Cobb may be comparable based on off-field attitude issues, saying Cobb made it so Belle should leaves out the fact that you could argue Cobb made it in spite of his off-field crap, as his on-field body of work leaves no question he is a HOFer, while Belle is borderline without factoring in his attitude.

"I think that corking one's bat like Belle did qualifies you for being a bad sport on the field."

Maybe. But we want to be careful about letting an incident of bat tampering have too much effect on Hall of Fame status... are we to leave George Sisler out? There is anecdotal evidence he put nails in his bat (to what effect I'm not sure). What about Babe Ruth? At least one game used Ruth bat has been found to be corked. There was also an incident of Ruth piecing together a bat from multiple pieces in hopes of gaining some advantage, this was shortly before--and presumably part of the reason--this became illegal. Certainly Cobb’s habit of going in nails up is more representative of poor sportsmanship than any bat tampering incident…

And Kabak, it may not be fair to characterize Cobb as the worst racist in the history of the game… there were a lot of other racists in early baseball and it is safe to assume that many of them compared to Cobb. More accurately, Cobb is the most well known racist in the history of the game, which is an entirely different concern when we are talking about sportsmanship.

Just beating a dead horse here...David...you said that Blyleven had one great year in 1973 and was otherwise consistently good for his career...from 1970 to 1975 he made 213 starts, averaged 7 2/3 innings per start, compiled a 2.78 ERA...threw 97 complete games and 24 shutouts...and with shockingly bad run support compiled a record of 95-85(!). [The great 1973 you refer to saw him compile a 20-17 record; he recorded 9 shutouts that year, so his record when he didn't toss a complete game shutout was 11-17...amazing] His career record of 287-250 was achieved in spite of this dismal performance by Blyleven's teammates, especially at this early stage in his career. Had he achieved 300 wins, he'd be a shoe-in, and had his Minny teammates been able to cross the plate a little more, he'd have been there. His reputation as a washed-up or middling journeyman by the end doesn't undo the astonishing start of his career.