2021 BBWAA Baseball Hall of Fame Results

Michael Cuddyer didn't get elected to the Hall of Fame. Neither did anyone else.

Well, the results of the 2021 BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot were announced yesterday. No player was named on 75% of the ballots, so no one was elected. I was a little surprised, as I predicted Curt Schilling would make the jump to 75%. There were 14 blank ballots, the highest total ever. Those blank ballots made up 3.5% of the total ballots. 401 ballots were returned, up slightly from last year’s total of 397.

The New York Times had an article the other day about Hall of Fame voting concerns, and essentially made the point that writers are sick of the heavy task of sorting out who should be in the Hall of Fame and who shouldn’t be. I’ll gladly volunteer to take their ballot and vote for the Hall of Fame! Am I member of the BBWAA? Nope! Just a baseball fan who loves the game! I can understand the complaints of the writers to some degree, but at the same time, I hate them wanting to abstain from making judgements. That’s what voting for the Hall of Fame is all about! You can justify your vote however you want to, but ultimately, you’re making the call for which players should be enshrined. You want to vote for people who are widely suspected of using steroids? Go ahead! You want to vote for only players you think were clean? Go ahead! You also have the platform now to write as many words as you want defending your vote.

I like that the Baseball Hall of Fame is selective. I like that the basic premise—sportswriters vote for retired players, if you get 75% of the vote, you get in—has remained basically unchanged for 85 years now. They haven’t had to say, “No one’s getting 75%, we have to lower it to 50%.” Derek Jeter got voted in the same way Babe Ruth did. The historian in me appreciates that. And I will restate that I feel like, for the most part, the BBWAA does a very good job. Yes, there are great players they’ve missed, but if you look at the worst HOF selections, they almost all come from various iterations of the Veterans’ Committee. The system seems to work pretty well.

Okay, speechifying over. For now. Let’s move down the ballot.

Curt Schilling: Only moved up 1.1% from last year, Schilling fell 16 votes short of induction. I think as a player, Schilling deserves to be in. As a human being, however, he doesn’t measure up. In my preview of the ballot in November, I suggested that Schilling should mute Twitter until after the voting. He didn’t take my advice. In January, after the ballots were all mailed in, Schilling tweeted support for the attack on the U.S. Capitol. Ugh. What do you do with someone like Schilling? He’s an intolerant idiot, but he was very good at baseball. Should Schilling’s idiotic opinions in his post-baseball life affect whether or not you vote for him? It’s a hard question, and I don’t have an easy answer for it. Maybe the BBWAA will just punt Schilling to the Era Committees.

Barry Bonds/Roger Clemens: I always discuss them together because their case is the same. Their totals have always moved in lockstep, and this year was no exception. Clemens gained 5 votes, moving up from 242 to 247, 61% to 61.6%. Bonds gained 7 votes, moving up from 241 to 248, 60.7% to 61.8%. I don’t think there’s any way Bonds and Clemens get elected next year, their last year on the ballot. I’m sure the BBWAA will be happy to kick them into the Era Committees—it will be interesting to see how their peers judge Bonds and Clemens.

Scott Rolen: Gained more than 17% in his 4^th year on the ballot, moving up from 35.3% in 2020 to 52.9% in 2021. Getting over 50% is a huge deal, as almost everyone who has gotten over 50% on the BBWAA ballot gets elected, eventually. I think Rolen should be in, so hopefully next year he’ll get even closer to election.

Omar Vizquel: I did not think that Omar Vizquel would be a source of controversy. I was wrong. In mid-December, Vizquel’s wife accused him of domestic abuse. Vizquel denied the allegations, but they’re probably the reason why he dropped from 52.6% last year to 49.1% this year. After 2020’s strong showing, I thought Vizquel would gain more votes this year and move closer to election. I didn’t hear about the abuse allegations until yesterday. I believe Vizquel’s wife—these are multiple allegations, the police have been involved, it’s not good. This may permanently damage Vizquel’s candidacy.

Billy Wagner: An impressive gain, from 31.7% to 46.4%. I don’t have strong feelings about Billy Wagner, but geez, if he didn’t use steroids, and he isn’t a wife beating QANON troll, let’s put him in.

Todd Helton: A 15% jump, up to 44.9% this year. Helton was a great hitter, and I don’t really have a problem with him getting in, but I’m still skeptical of Coors Field numbers from the 90’s and early 2000’s. (See Larry Walker, who hit like Ty Cobb at Coors.)

Gary Sheffield: Another impressive gain, from 30.5% up to 40.6%. Does that mean the question will finally be answered: what hat would Sheffield possibly wear on his Hall of Fame plaque? Sheffield’s not my favorite player—terrible defender, steroid allegations. He’s got 3 years left on the ballot, and as we now know from Larry Walker, huge surges are very possible, so he could get in.

Andruw Jones: Another nice gain, up from 19.4% to 33.9%. Jones has now established himself as a serious Hall of Fame candidate, and not just someone hanging out on the edge of the ballot. He’s a fascinating candidate—if elected, he would be the first player in the Hall of Fame with fewer than 2,000 hits in the post-1961 era. If you like peak performance type of players, Jones is your guy.

Jeff Kent: In his 8^th year on the ballot, Kent got 32.4% of the vote, a modest increase from 27.5% in 2020. I think Kent should be in the Hall of Fame—he was one of the best offensive 2^nd basemen ever. I’m really surprised that he’s never received more support. Maybe the Era Committee will vote him in one day. Or maybe he’ll see a Larry Walker-like sudden ascent to 75%.

Manny Ramirez: 28.2%, the exact same as last year. Just Manny being Manny. Great hitter, but steroids tarnished him. And then there’s that atrocious defense.

Sammy Sosa: 17%, one more year on the ballot. I’m looking forward to these guys aging off the ballot.

Andy Pettitte: 13.7%, in his 3^rd year on the ballot. Like I always say, take your 4 shutouts and go, please. Claude Osteen pitched 10 times as many shutouts!

Mark Buehrle: 11%, pretty good debut. For me, getting over the 5% to stay on the ballot is in some ways asking, “Can we have a conversation about this guy?” If the answer is yes, then they should get over 5% and stay on the ballot. If the answer is no, they shouldn’t get 5% and should drop off the ballot. I think we can have a conversation about Mark Buehrle. I’m not convinced he should get 75% of the vote, but I’m fine if he stays on the ballot.

Torii Hunter: 9.5%. Personally, as a Twins fan, I’m really happy that Hunter got more than 5% of the vote. I’m not going to say he should be a Hall of Famer, but he had a really nice career and was an excellent player. I’m happy that more than 5% of the writers think we should have a conversation about Torii Hunter.

Bobby Abreu: Moved up to 8.7%, and I’m just happy he’s staying on the ballot another year. I think Abreu deserves serious consideration and should stay on the ballot. He’s an odd player, with a very specific set of skills. An underrated player.

Tim Hudson: Just squeaking in at 5.2% of the vote! I think Hudson was good enough to have a conversation about. I don’t think he’s a Hall of Famer, but he had a good career.

Below 5%:

Aramis Ramirez: 4 votes, 1%. He’s not a Hall of Famer, but man, he had a very good career. 2,303 hits, 386 home runs, 1,417 RBIs. Solid numbers. And as I wrote in my preview, the quietest 386 home runs anyone ever hit.

LaTroy Hawkins: 2 votes, 0.5%. I love that LaTroy Hawkins got 2 votes. Not just 1, but 2. As I wrote in my preview, as a Twins fan, I have a soft spot for Hawkins. I love that he was able to pitch for 21 seasons—definitely a player who got the most out of his talent.

Barry Zito: 1 vote, 0.2%. Nice career, seems like a cool guy.

No votes:

Michael Cuddyer: One of my favorite Twins, and an unlikely batting champion. He’s in the Twins Hall of Fame, and deservedly so.

A.J. Burnett, Shane Victorino, Dan Haren, and Nick Swisher all drop off the ballot.

We’ll see you in November when the Era Committee ballot is released.

Movie Review: Eye of the Devil, starring Deborah Kerr, David Niven, and Sharon Tate (1967)

 

Original poster for Eye of the Devil, 1967.

The 1966 horror thriller Eye of the Devil marked the screen debut of actress Sharon Tate. During her lifetime, Tate was known for starring in 1967’s Valley of the Dolls, as well as for her marriage to Polish director Roman Polanski. Ultimately, however, Sharon Tate became much more famous for how she died. In August of 1969 Tate was gruesomely murdered, along with four other people, by followers of Charles Manson.

Over the past few years, there’s been a resurgence of interest in Tate’s life and career. An auction of Tate’s clothes and other memorabilia took place in 2018—her wedding dress, a gorgeous white mini-dress, perfectly evocative of the swinging 60’s, sold for more than $50,000. Tate was portrayed by Margot Robbie in Quentin Tarantino’s 2019 film Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. While Robbie doesn’t get as much screen time as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt, it is Tate’s spirit that is the driving force behind the film’s storyline. And ultimately, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is an attempt to make us see Sharon Tate as something other than merely a murder victim.

Sharon Tate in Paris, 1968.

I’ve known who Sharon Tate was since I was about 12 years old. That was back in 1993, and as a newly converted Beatles fan, I soon learned about Charles Manson’s twisted reading of the White Album, and how his followers had murdered Tate. Until 2 or 3 years ago, I had only seen about 5 pictures of Sharon Tate. Back in the 1990’s, before the internet had really taken off, it was hard to find pictures of famous people. There was a picture of Sharon Tate in my Chronicle of the 20^th Century book, so that became my image of her. I thought to myself, “Oh, she’s cute,” but really didn’t think any more about her. But now, after watching Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and scouring Instagram, I’ve seen a ton of pictures of Sharon Tate. And one day, as I looked at a picture of Sharon Tate, one of the pictures of her taken in Paris in 1968 by Jean Claude Deutsch, it struck me: she was more than just cute, she was incredibly beautiful. Eventually I realized: oh, she looked amazing in pretty much every outfit she wore, and in all kinds of different styles. In addition to her beauty, pretty much everyone who worked with Sharon Tate spoke about what a fantastic person she was as well. She was beautiful on the outside and the inside. I understood more about what people saw in Sharon Tate. Sharon Tate has now become a key style icon of the 1960’s, and there are numerous accounts on Instagram that are tributes to her life and fashion style.

I fully realize this might all sound shallow: “Oh, hey, this one actress who died super tragically was also really gorgeous!” And maybe it is shallow to admire the fashion style of a gorgeous young woman from the 1960’s. But I’d argue that anything that focuses on Sharon Tate’s life rather than her death is positive, as it makes you consider her as a person, and not just a victim. And if you’re interested in cultural history, Sharon Tate is more than just a cute actress who appeared in 6 films before she was murdered. She’s a symbol of the swinging 60’s, married to a hip young director, her life cruelly snuffed out by the dark underside of the hippie dream. Sharon Tate is a link to so many things that are still front and center in American pop culture: the bizarre Charles Manson cult, which continues to be a subject of fascination in the mass media, and Roman Polanski, himself a figure of great controversy who inevitably resurfaces in the media every year or so, as someone or other advocates either for his absolution, or for his extradition to the United States. Sharon Tate’s mother and sisters all became powerful advocates for victims’ rights, and they have made a significant impact on the legal system in the United States. Sharon Tate’s impact continues to be felt down the years, even more than 50 years after her tragic death.

All of this is a prelude to say that I finally decided I need to watch all of Sharon Tate’s 6 movies. I did see The Wrecking Crew during high school, when I was going through my Dean Martin phase. Actually, my Dean Martin phase might still be going on, as I continue to think that he’s one of the coolest guys to have walked the planet. I suppose I feel like I owe it to Sharon Tate to see her movies, so I know her as more than just a pretty face I see on Instagram.

Eye of the Devil was produced by Martin Ransohoff, who had discovered Sharon Tate and signed her to a management contract. Ransohoff’s company was Filmways, Inc., which produced many hit TV shows during the 1960’s: The Beverly Hillbillies, Petticoat Junction, Mister Ed, Green Acres, and The Addams Family. By the time Eye of the Devil started shooting in late 1965, Filmways had branched out into film production as well. Notable movies the company had produced by that point were The Americanization of Emily, starring James Garner and Julie Andrews, The Sandpiper, starring Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, and The Cincinnati Kid, starring Steve McQueen.

The cast of Eye of the Devil was quite distinguished: the leading man was British actor David Niven, and his leading lady was Kim Novak, one of my favorite actresses of that era. David Niven was the perfect English gentleman, on screen and off. If you look up “charm” in the dictionary, I’m pretty sure you’ll find his picture. I’ve never heard a bad word said about David Niven. He charmed everyone he met, and he was known for being one of the best storytellers in Hollywood. David Niven was just cool. Niven had a humorous quip for every single situation imaginable—as when he hosted the Oscars in 1974 and was interrupted by a streaker. The unflappable Niven then ad-libbed, “Well, ladies and gentlemen, that was almost bound to happen. But isn’t it fascinating to think that probably the only laugh that man will ever get in his life is by stripping off and showing his shortcomings.” Brilliant.

Niven’s large blue eyes gave him an expressive face, and it’s a face that photographed extremely well. Niven also wore clothes very well—his wardrobe in Eye of the Devil is outstanding: an excellent example of the phrase, “clothes make the man.”

Also, David Niven has perhaps the greatest name ever. It’s easy to remember, it rolls off the tongue, and it has almost perfect symmetry. 5 letters in the first name, 5 letters in the last name. First name starts and ends with the same letter. Last name starts and ends with the same letter. There’s a V in the middle of both names. It’s really a fantastic name.

A couple of directors were attached to Eye of the Devil before the veteran British director J. Lee Thompson was chosen, just before filming was due to begin. Among Thompson’s most famous films are two excellent early 1960’s movies: The Guns of Navarone, with Gregory Peck and Niven, and Cape Fear, with Peck and Robert Mitchum.

After the struggle to find a director, Eye of the Devil suffered additional bad luck, as Novak was seriously injured in a fall from a horse two months into filming. Novak couldn’t continue filming, so she had to be replaced. Fortunately, her replacement was one of the greatest actresses of the era: Deborah Kerr. It would be fascinating to compare Novak’s footage with the finished film starring Kerr. But I don’t have a time machine, so we can’t do that. Because Novak and Kerr’s character is the central one in the movie, almost everything would have had to be re-shot with Kerr, which must have added considerably to the cost of the film. (I would assume the movie went over-budget because of this, but I haven’t found any figures for what the final cost was.)

David Niven and Deborah Kerr in Eye of the Devil, 1967. In the lower left-hand corner, we have another clue that the movie's original title was 13, as this picture is noted 13-23. You can see this often on old movie still or lobby cards-they're usually marked with an abbreviation of the movie's title. If Eye of the Devil would have been the original title, this photo would be marked EOTD-23.

The film opens with David Niven in his natural habitat: wearing a tuxedo at a fancy dinner party. Niven plays Phillippe, a French marquis who owns a castle and a vineyard. (Thankfully, no one in the cast attempted a French accent.) At the dinner party, Phillippe receives the bad news that the crops have failed for the third year in a row. This sends Phillippe into a dark mood. Phillippe and Catherine (Deborah Kerr) have two young children, but Phillippe insists on going to the castle, Bellenac, alone. (At 55, Niven was perhaps a bit old to play a character with two children under the age of 8.)

Phillippe hops in his E-type Jaguar convertible and drives off to Bellenac. Oh, to be as cool as David Niven driving an E-type Jaguar through the French countryside towards your chateau! The rest of us can only dream. There’s a beautiful shot from the interior of the chateau as Niven parks the Jag in the courtyard, and the car stops between two windowpanes.

Catherine brings the children to Bellenac anyway, and when she shows up it’s clear that everything at Bellenac is quite off-kilter and weird. No one answers her questions about what’s going on. There’s a weird brother and sister who skulk around the chateau dressed in all black. (David Hemmings and Sharon Tate) There’s a creepy priest. (Donald Pleasance) If I were Deborah Kerr, I’d pack up the kids in the Mercedes and split back to Paris.

Eye of the Devil is an excellent example of how a movie can set an eerie tone with very little work—so much of the work is done with camera angles, lighting, music, editing, etc., rather than anything hitting you over the head.

Tate’s character, Odile de Caray, seems to have magic powers, as she amazes the children by turning a frog into a dove. This sets up a line I found unintentionally funny, as Kerr chastises David Hemmings’ character for having killed a dove, he shrewdly points out, “My sister created a dove.” Well, there you go.

Odile lets the children play on the castle’s parapet, and there are some shots of the boy on the parapet that are quite terrifying to those of us who suffer from a fear of heights. (I’m not sure I want to know if there were any safety precautions in place or not.) This angers Catherine, and Odile then hypnotizes her and seems quite content to just let Catherine stroll off the edge to her death, but Catherine snaps out of her trance just in time.

When Philippe learns what Odile has done, he punishes her by beating her with a riding crop. It’s difficult to say if the punishment had the desired effect, to judge by the satisfied look on Tate’s face when Niven finishes beating her. Interesting.   

Sharon Tate as Odile de Caray. I don't care how many doves you've created, Odile, you're not supposed to let the children play on the parapet!

Unfortunately, Odile doesn’t get much to do during the second half of the movie. (Maybe she’s recovering from her punishment?) Tate plays her role with very little affect, which makes Odile come off as quite creepy. Odile is stunning because of her physical beauty, but then when you hear her speak, you can’t really figure out if she’s good or bad, or just super weird, so she’s quite unsettling. Tate’s main costume as Odile is very sexy: tight black sweater, tight black pants, and knee-high black leather boots. Tate’s hairstyle is perfect mid-1960’s Hollywood starlet—her hair is perfectly tousled, teased, and back-combed—it’s very 1965, so the emphasis is on body and volume, unlike the long, straight hairstyle that Tate wore in 1968-69.

I’ll leave the plot summary there, so no spoilers for a movie that’s more than 50 years old. Eye of the Devil is an excellent little thriller, and Niven and Kerr both give excellent performances. It’s a curio today, but it’s well-worth your time if you’re interested in any of the main actors, or if you’re really into French chateaus.

An original poster for Eye of the Devil, then called 13. Again, this is an indication of how late the title switch came. Sorry for the Getty Images watermark, but I'm not going to pay $200 to use this image. Can you tell the studio is pushing Sharon Tate? Her eyes are the main image, she's the subject of the tagline, we have a drawing of David Niven whipping her-this scene was featured a LOT in the trailer-and we have a little drawing of her by the box with her name in it.

Eye of the Devil was based on the novel The Day of the Arrow. The film was originally titled 13, and, indeed, the end credits of the movie call the movie “13, presented by MGM.” The title switch must have happened late in post-production, and I even found a poster where the title is listed as 13. Personally, I think The Day of the Arrow would have been a much better title for the movie. I don’t think 13 is a good title, and while Eye of the Devil isn’t a bad title, it doesn’t seem to be the right title for this movie. Oddly enough, Sharon Tate’s last movie was a version of The Thirteen Chairs, and was originally released under the title 12+1.

Filming of Eye of the Devil presumably wrapped up in early 1966, and, according to IMDB, the film premiered in Milan, Italy, on November 18, 1966. Throughout 1967, it rolled out throughout Europe, before finally having its American premiere on September 6, 1967, in Wisconsin. Wait, what? That doesn’t make a lot of sense, but that’s what IMDB says. Maybe it was a test screening? On December 6, 1967, Eye of the Devil premiered in New York City. It’s curious that the film wasn’t released in the US in late 1966. Maybe MGM didn’t know what to do with it? Eye of the Devil was meant to be Sharon Tate’s film debut, but by the time anyone in the US saw it, two of her other films had already been released: The Fearless Vampire Killers and Don’t Make Waves. Tate’s breakthrough 4^th movie, Valley of the Dolls, premiered in New York City just a week after Eye of the Devil.

After watching Eye of the Devil, you should watch All Eyes on Sharon Tate, a 10-minute short film meant to build more buzz around Tate. All Eyes on Sharon Tate was filmed at the same time as Eye of the Devil. I wonder where All Eyes on Sharon Tate would have been shown in 1966? Would it have been shown on TV, or in movie theaters before the main feature? You can find it on YouTube, and it’s quite interesting. It opens on Sharon in a nightclub, dancing with David Hemmings. She’s wearing a fantastic black dress highlighted with sparkly sequins. You’ll have to be quick with the pause button to see a newspaper photo of Sharon and Kim Novak that’s briefly glimpsed in a montage of publicity photos and articles.

Sharon Tate and David Niven share a laugh on the set, 1965.

Sharon Tate and David Niven, 1965.

There’s an interesting part in All Eyes on Sharon Tate where Sharon talks about David Niven: “When I was younger, I thought, this is the man I’m going to marry.” She also describes Niven as “so suave, and elegant, and handsome, and witty.” I have no doubt that David Niven had a witty rejoinder when Sharon told him of her crush on him. We get to see some behind the scenes footage of Tate and Niven together, and we see them holding hands and hugging each other as they walk side by side in the vineyard—there’s more than a little natural chemistry there. Given Sharon’s interest in comedy, it’s too bad that she and Niven didn’t have the chance to make a comedy together. Unfortunately, Niven doesn’t mention Tate in either of his memoirs, which focus more on his early years in Hollywood.

Eye of the Devil gives the viewer a chance to see the beauty and star quality of Sharon Tate, which still shine brightly today.