My thoughts on the 2011 Hall of Fame ballot
I feel very strongly about the hall of fame and who should get in. As I have said, I think the Hall of Fame should be reserved for the very best ever to play the game. I do not want to go to Cooperstown to see the plaques of guys like Jim Rice who are there for some reason made up by sportswriters trying to create a story. People would classify me as a "small hall" guy.
So anyway, here are my thoughts on the 2011 ballot:
The one and dones:
Carlos Baerga
My favorite player for a brief time in the early nineties. He seemed to be on a Hall of Fame track in his early twenties: a switch hitting second baseman with power he was a big part of the Indians Renaissance which also included the elite near HOF caliber talents of Sandy Alomar, Kenny Lofton, Albert Belle, Jim Thome, and Manny Ramirez. He basically fell off a cliff in 1997 when he was only 27. Questions about his living habits and work ethic were brought into question, Cleveland shipped him out of town (for Jeff Kent among others) and he was never the same player.
Brett Boone
A very odd career path. He sucked for most of his twenties only keeping a regular role because his managers liked his professionalism and quality glove. Then out of nowhere he had one of the best 3 year runs I've ever seen from a second baseman with OPS+'s of 153, 114, and 140. Then he went back to sucking. Could never figure any of it out. Put the best of him and Baerga together and you come close to a Hall of Famer. Separate though, no.
John Franco
A closer, and not an especially great one. He is first all time in saves among lefties. I don't put any stock into saves and being a lefty gets him no bonus points. Solid career, not a hall of famer.
Juan González
I hate Juan González. He got a lot of undeserved accolades due to the RBI statistic and playing in Texas. He also always seemed like a me first guy. Turned down a 10 year $140M contract from the Tigers because he did not like hitting in Comerica Park. The Hall has no place for him.
Marquis Grissom
Grissom seemed to have 2 entirely different careers. The first was as a burner who stole more than 70 bases twice in the early 90s. The second was as a solid centerfielder who had speed and power but did nothing outstanding. I remember him being compared to Lofton when they were both coming up. The comparison made a lot more sense back then when I took stock in batting average and stolen bases, but now it seems a bit absurd. Lofton was a better hitter and baserunner, took walks and was an outstanding lead off man. Grissom was not at Lofton's level and was out of place at the top of a lineup mainly due to his lack of walks. Good player, not a Hall of Famer.
Lenny Harris
I could not remember Harris ever being a regular player so I looked. He wasn't. He never got 500 plate appearances in any season of his career. He played for a very long time, for a lot of teams, all of them in the NL where he could pinch hit. He was not an especially good hitter, but was better than a pitcher, I guess. Not sure why he got as many PAs as he did, not sure why his career lasted so long, not sure why he's on the ballot. I'll be surprised if he gets any votes.
Bobby Higginson
I remember Higgy most for his absurd contract that crippled the Tigers of the late 90s/early 2000s (though not as bad as Juan Gonzalez would have). He was a good hitter, but not great for a corner outfielder for most of his 20s, but he fell off very quickly in his 30s and was done at 34 (but still raking in the cash!).
Charles Johnson
I remember him as a good defensive catcher with power and he was for a period of time. He dealt with numerous injuries and was done in his early 30s. Never truly outstanding, and not a long enough career to make much of a hall of fame case.
Al Leiter
I remember Leiter most for being very very wild. I used to call him Leiter fluid for his penchant of walking numerous batters in a row which started a fire. But during his time with the Mets around the turn of the century, he actually had pretty good command as he kept his BB/9 in the low 3s and his WHIP in the 1.20 range. During this time he was one of the better pitchers in the game and had he been more durable, he may have worked his way into a Cy Young race or two. He faded rather quickly as a few MPH meant everything with his mediocre stuff. Great career on guts and guile and has since become a very good broadcaster. Entertaining player, but not HOF level.
Tino Martinez
A first baseman who could hit. This is something that may be a rare commodity on the Pirates of the last two decades, but in baseball as a whole, it is pretty common. I was surprised that he has been out of the game for five years because it seems like he was with the Cardinals a season or two ago. Anyway, no seasons over 150 OPS+ and no OBPs over .400. Tough to make a HOF case for a 1B without either.
Raúl Mondesí
Mondesi was certainly a HOF talent. One of the few "5 tool" players to actually possess all 5 tools, but for whatever reason, he had trouble putting it all together and never became the superstar everyone expected when he was the NY rookie of the year in 1994.
John Olerud
Another player who seemed to have multiple lives. First he was an up and comer with the elite Blue Jay teams of the early 90s. Then after a few down years, he resurfaced as a member of the slick fielding Mets infield of the late 90s. Then he was an important cog in the Ichiro led Mariners team that won 116 games in 2001 and finally he was the first baseman on the 2004 Yankees when Boston came back from a 3-0 deficit to win the ALCS. He is the best of the one and dones and perhaps he deserves a longer look. Not a HOF to me, but he was certainly very good for quite some time. Lifetime OBP of .398. I will most remember him for the Rickey Henderson story.
Kirk Rueter
I remember 2 thinks about Rueter. First that he was nicknamed Woody because he looked like Woody from Toy Story. Second that he was a very effective pitcher despite almost never striking a batter out. In 2002 he threw 204 innings with a 3.23 ERA while striking out only 76 batters. He did this despite not having a very high ground ball rate. It's rather remarkable, but certainly not HOF caliber.
Benito Santiago
He had a very long career donning the tools of ignorance and hitting with some pop. His name will forever be tarnished due to his connection with the BALCO scandal, but he had a long, productive career.
B. J. Surhoff
BJ had a long career lasting 19 seasons and he was productive for much of it, especially with the Orioles of the mid to late 90s. He also ever to play all 8 positions on the field (he never pitched).
The annual No's
Lee Smith
Ok, so he was the saves leader when he retired and some of his contemporaries have also gotten in... So? He only had a few years where he was an absolute stud fireman and my stance on relievers as a whole is basically if they aren't Mariano, and were never a stud starter, they probably don't belong in the Hall.
Fred McGriff
Good hitting first baseman, for a long time. As I said for Tino Martinez, there is a long list of these. Had McGriff done his damage primarily in the 70s or 80s, he'd probably be in, but in the 90s, he doesn't stand out among contemporaries such as McGwire, Bagwell, Thome and Thomas. Will Clark and John Olerud have cases that are just as strong.
Don Mattingly
John Olerud with more power, less plate discipline, and a shorter career. Oh, and he played his entire career in the Bronx. Had he played for the Royals, he may have been one and done.
Dave Parker
Can't figure out why this guy is still on the ballot. He was an out making machine who did not compile great counting totals, only had a few outstanding seasons at the plate, and has a cocaine addiction in his past. Not a hall of famer.
Dale Murphy
One of the annuals I support more than the others, but he fell off a cliff at 32, stuck around too long, and doesn't have the longevity or the peak to merit inclusion.
Harold Baines
The definition of a compiler. Good hitter for a very long time, but never great. No years with an OPS+ over 150 and only one piece of black ink on his player card: slugging percentage in 1984. With no fielding value at all, I feel like no matter how long you were productive, you need at least a few years at the top of the league.
Jack Morris
Ah, my favorite debate for last. Why is Jack still here? Well it essentially boils down to arbitrary designations, mathematical gymnastics and game 7 of the 1991 World Series. Here are the arguments for Jack:
New guys to think about
Jeff Bagwell
149 career OPS+. .408 career OBP, .540 career SLG. Had the dignity to walk away when his arthritic shoulder had gotten the best of him. As a result he falls short of 500 homers and 3000 hits, but his peak is excellent especially 1994 when he posted a 213 OPS+! He walked a lot, hit lots of homers and doubles, and was a surprisingly good base stealer, swiping over 200 bases with over a 70% success rate. To me he's right at the edge. I think I would wait a year, but I could easily see putting him in.
Edgar Martinez
There are only two reasons why Edgar is even up for debate: first that the Seattle Mariners were stupid enough to keep him in the minors until he was 27 even though he tore it up at AAA, and second a horrific injury at the age of 30 that limited him to DH duties for most of his career. Still, he posted a career OPS+ of 147, .418 OBP, and .515 SLG. His peak is even better than Bagwell's posting a line of .329/.446/.574 from 1995-2001 for a 163 OPS+. Alas, much of his value came from the walk which the MSM still doesn't fully appreciate. I think he and Bagwell are a package deal and one has to go with the other. I'd like to see both of them in, but I'm going to wait a year on both.
Kevin Brown
Okay. KJB was an asshole. We get it. Everyone knows it, and his lack of longevity robs him of gaudy counting stats: only 211 wins, under 300 Ks, and no Cy Youngs. By my count, Brown is either the 7th or 8th best pitcher of his era. He clearly trails Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, Johnson and Glavine. Which leaves Smoltz, Schilling, and Mussina. I put him almost right on par with Mussina and a touch behind Schilling. He doesn't have Moose's longevity or Curt's peak, but he's right in there. From 1996-2001 he had a 2.53 ERA for a 163 ERA+ while averaging 221 innings a year and this was during the peak of the steroids era. Not saying he 100% belongs, but he's certainly more deserving than Jack Morris. Brown dominated for a solid 5 year period.
Larry Walker
Walker is going to be hurt by the fact that his best years were in Coors field at the height of the steroids era. His numbers will be dismissed as a product of his surroundings and he will likely never get into the hall. But Walker was good before and after his time in Coors and its pretty hard to ignore is outstanding run from 1994-2004 where he hit .33/.422/.614 for an OPS+ of 147. He was also a good fielder with a great arm and an excellent baserunner. Walker is another guy who I can certainly see voting for, but I probably would not. At least not this year.
I'm leaving them out for steroids, but they have HOF numbers
Mark McGwire
Mark admitted it. Good for him (though he says they didn't help). Still, McGwire had two real skills as a ballplayer. He hit homers and took walks. He didn't hit for much of an average (.263 lifetime), he wasn't much of a base runner, or a fielder, and even if we say steroids didn't help him walk more, they definitely helped him hit more homers, and even if that was only the difference between 40-50 and the 60s/70s he was getting to in his peak, he still would likely be under 500. I don't think he'd be in without them. He just wasn't well rounded enough.
Rafael Palmeiro
Palmeiro was a much better all-around player than Big Mac. He could run a bit, he was a very good first baseman for a while, he took walks, struck out little, and hit for a good enough average. But Raffy holds one thing that Mac doesn't and that no one in the Hall does: a positive drug test (that he later blamed on someone else). I cannot in good conscious endorse this man for the hall of fame. He does belong in the hall of fame for the best bold faced lie on capitol hill this side of Bill Clinton.
These guys should be on every ballot:
Bert Blyleven
This is Bert's 15th and final time on the ballot, and it is an absolute crime it has taken this long. I still have yet to see a good reason for this. He has a 3.31 lifetime ERA pitching almost 5000 innings. He is 3rd all time in strikeouts, he has a lifetime WAR of 87.1 (easily the most of anyone on the ballot), and he has better post season numbers than Jack Morris. What exactly is keeping him out? Oh yeah, he has low win totals because he never had great run support. This is a horrible reason to not vote for him.
Roberto Alomar
Alomar is, in my opinion the best second baseman since Joe Morgan, and the second best since WWII. He may have been a bit overrated in the field by his 10 gold gloves, but you sure couldn't tell by watching him as he always seemed to make the play. His 1999 and 2001 seasons are some of the best I have ever seen for a second baseman. He inexplicably fell off a cliff in 2002 at the age of 34 and that prevented him from reaching 3000 hits and being a slam dunk first ballot guy. Still can't understand how anyone could vote for Dawson and not him last year, but someone must have because Dawson got in and he did not. He will this year.
Barry Larkin & Alan Trammell
Larkin and Alan Trammell have very similar cases (in fact they are the #1 comparison for each other on similarity scores) so I'm going to combine them rather than essentially writing the same thing twice. They were excellent all around shortstops at a time when shortstop was becoming more of an offensive position. They both lack the power of Ripken, the flash of Ozzie Smith, and the consistency of Jeter, but in many ways they were comparable in value to those three. Yet those guys will sail in on the first ballot and I wonder if Larkin or Trammell will ever get in. Lou Whitaker also merits consideration here albeit as a second baseman, and he was one and done. There's no question that Ripken had the best career of these five shortstops, but a large part of that was his incredible Iron Man ability to play all the time. Here's how they stack up in total WAR: Ripken 89.9, Jeter 70.1, Larkin, 68.9, Trammell 66.9, Smith 64.6. Closer than many might think. Both Trammell and Larkin were good hitting shortstops and above average fielders with Larkin being better offensively and Trammell better defensively. Both were good baserunners with Larkin having the edge. Both had near MVP caliber seasons 84, 87, and 90 for Trammell, 1996 (and maybe 1995 when he actually won) for Larkin. Both were stars on World Series winners. Neither has gaudy counting stats because they had trouble staying healthy once they reached their mid 30s (but this is normal). I cannot understand how Jeter and Smith can sail in on the first ballot when comparable players like Larkin and Trammell are left out in the cold. Jeter will get in the high nineties when eligible. I'm not sure if Larkin and Trammell will ever combine to reach the 90s and all things considered, they were just as good.
Tim Raines
I've saved perhaps my favorite hall of fame case for last. While it is ridiculous that Blyleven and Alomar are not yet in the Hall, I feel that will change this year. Raines's exclusion however, is equally ridiculous but I do not see him getting in any time soon as he got just 30.4% of the vote last year. The Raines is very clearly the 2nd greatest lead off hitter ever, and argument can be made that Raines is the greatest base stealer ever. He's only fifth all time with 808, but he was only caught 146 times, a success rate of nearly 85%, far better than Lou Brock (75.3) or Rickey (80.8). He took walks at an incredible rate placing him 35th all time and his walks led to him being on base more times than Tony Gwynn despite having more than 500 fewer hits in roughly the same number of plate appearances. People seam to remember Raines mostly for his 90s years when he was a good but not great part time player for the White Sox and Yankees. He still put up good per game numbers, getting on base and running the bases well, but he rarely played enough to even qualify for the batting title making it very hard to stand out. However, during his peak years with the Expos from 1983-1987, Raines averaged 186 hits, 71 steals, 10 triples, 87 walks and a 6.1 WAR per year. Very few players in history have had a peak that good. Raines career totals are essentially the same as Tony Gwynn's with a lot better baserunning and 500 walks instead of 500 singles. Both had injury problems, both were average fielders, both were excellent offensive players. Gwynn sailed in on the first ballot, Raines is still trying to get half way to 75%. It doesn't make sense, but it is the power of high batting averages and 3000 hits.
So anyway, here are my thoughts on the 2011 ballot:
The one and dones:
Carlos Baerga
My favorite player for a brief time in the early nineties. He seemed to be on a Hall of Fame track in his early twenties: a switch hitting second baseman with power he was a big part of the Indians Renaissance which also included the elite near HOF caliber talents of Sandy Alomar, Kenny Lofton, Albert Belle, Jim Thome, and Manny Ramirez. He basically fell off a cliff in 1997 when he was only 27. Questions about his living habits and work ethic were brought into question, Cleveland shipped him out of town (for Jeff Kent among others) and he was never the same player.
Brett Boone
A very odd career path. He sucked for most of his twenties only keeping a regular role because his managers liked his professionalism and quality glove. Then out of nowhere he had one of the best 3 year runs I've ever seen from a second baseman with OPS+'s of 153, 114, and 140. Then he went back to sucking. Could never figure any of it out. Put the best of him and Baerga together and you come close to a Hall of Famer. Separate though, no.
John Franco
A closer, and not an especially great one. He is first all time in saves among lefties. I don't put any stock into saves and being a lefty gets him no bonus points. Solid career, not a hall of famer.
Juan González
I hate Juan González. He got a lot of undeserved accolades due to the RBI statistic and playing in Texas. He also always seemed like a me first guy. Turned down a 10 year $140M contract from the Tigers because he did not like hitting in Comerica Park. The Hall has no place for him.
Marquis Grissom
Grissom seemed to have 2 entirely different careers. The first was as a burner who stole more than 70 bases twice in the early 90s. The second was as a solid centerfielder who had speed and power but did nothing outstanding. I remember him being compared to Lofton when they were both coming up. The comparison made a lot more sense back then when I took stock in batting average and stolen bases, but now it seems a bit absurd. Lofton was a better hitter and baserunner, took walks and was an outstanding lead off man. Grissom was not at Lofton's level and was out of place at the top of a lineup mainly due to his lack of walks. Good player, not a Hall of Famer.
Lenny Harris
I could not remember Harris ever being a regular player so I looked. He wasn't. He never got 500 plate appearances in any season of his career. He played for a very long time, for a lot of teams, all of them in the NL where he could pinch hit. He was not an especially good hitter, but was better than a pitcher, I guess. Not sure why he got as many PAs as he did, not sure why his career lasted so long, not sure why he's on the ballot. I'll be surprised if he gets any votes.
Bobby Higginson
I remember Higgy most for his absurd contract that crippled the Tigers of the late 90s/early 2000s (though not as bad as Juan Gonzalez would have). He was a good hitter, but not great for a corner outfielder for most of his 20s, but he fell off very quickly in his 30s and was done at 34 (but still raking in the cash!).
Charles Johnson
I remember him as a good defensive catcher with power and he was for a period of time. He dealt with numerous injuries and was done in his early 30s. Never truly outstanding, and not a long enough career to make much of a hall of fame case.
Al Leiter
I remember Leiter most for being very very wild. I used to call him Leiter fluid for his penchant of walking numerous batters in a row which started a fire. But during his time with the Mets around the turn of the century, he actually had pretty good command as he kept his BB/9 in the low 3s and his WHIP in the 1.20 range. During this time he was one of the better pitchers in the game and had he been more durable, he may have worked his way into a Cy Young race or two. He faded rather quickly as a few MPH meant everything with his mediocre stuff. Great career on guts and guile and has since become a very good broadcaster. Entertaining player, but not HOF level.
Tino Martinez
A first baseman who could hit. This is something that may be a rare commodity on the Pirates of the last two decades, but in baseball as a whole, it is pretty common. I was surprised that he has been out of the game for five years because it seems like he was with the Cardinals a season or two ago. Anyway, no seasons over 150 OPS+ and no OBPs over .400. Tough to make a HOF case for a 1B without either.
Raúl Mondesí
Mondesi was certainly a HOF talent. One of the few "5 tool" players to actually possess all 5 tools, but for whatever reason, he had trouble putting it all together and never became the superstar everyone expected when he was the NY rookie of the year in 1994.
John Olerud
Another player who seemed to have multiple lives. First he was an up and comer with the elite Blue Jay teams of the early 90s. Then after a few down years, he resurfaced as a member of the slick fielding Mets infield of the late 90s. Then he was an important cog in the Ichiro led Mariners team that won 116 games in 2001 and finally he was the first baseman on the 2004 Yankees when Boston came back from a 3-0 deficit to win the ALCS. He is the best of the one and dones and perhaps he deserves a longer look. Not a HOF to me, but he was certainly very good for quite some time. Lifetime OBP of .398. I will most remember him for the Rickey Henderson story.
Kirk Rueter
I remember 2 thinks about Rueter. First that he was nicknamed Woody because he looked like Woody from Toy Story. Second that he was a very effective pitcher despite almost never striking a batter out. In 2002 he threw 204 innings with a 3.23 ERA while striking out only 76 batters. He did this despite not having a very high ground ball rate. It's rather remarkable, but certainly not HOF caliber.
Benito Santiago
He had a very long career donning the tools of ignorance and hitting with some pop. His name will forever be tarnished due to his connection with the BALCO scandal, but he had a long, productive career.
B. J. Surhoff
BJ had a long career lasting 19 seasons and he was productive for much of it, especially with the Orioles of the mid to late 90s. He also ever to play all 8 positions on the field (he never pitched).
The annual No's
Lee Smith
Ok, so he was the saves leader when he retired and some of his contemporaries have also gotten in... So? He only had a few years where he was an absolute stud fireman and my stance on relievers as a whole is basically if they aren't Mariano, and were never a stud starter, they probably don't belong in the Hall.
Fred McGriff
Good hitting first baseman, for a long time. As I said for Tino Martinez, there is a long list of these. Had McGriff done his damage primarily in the 70s or 80s, he'd probably be in, but in the 90s, he doesn't stand out among contemporaries such as McGwire, Bagwell, Thome and Thomas. Will Clark and John Olerud have cases that are just as strong.
Don Mattingly
John Olerud with more power, less plate discipline, and a shorter career. Oh, and he played his entire career in the Bronx. Had he played for the Royals, he may have been one and done.
Dave Parker
Can't figure out why this guy is still on the ballot. He was an out making machine who did not compile great counting totals, only had a few outstanding seasons at the plate, and has a cocaine addiction in his past. Not a hall of famer.
Dale Murphy
One of the annuals I support more than the others, but he fell off a cliff at 32, stuck around too long, and doesn't have the longevity or the peak to merit inclusion.
Harold Baines
The definition of a compiler. Good hitter for a very long time, but never great. No years with an OPS+ over 150 and only one piece of black ink on his player card: slugging percentage in 1984. With no fielding value at all, I feel like no matter how long you were productive, you need at least a few years at the top of the league.
Jack Morris
Ah, my favorite debate for last. Why is Jack still here? Well it essentially boils down to arbitrary designations, mathematical gymnastics and game 7 of the 1991 World Series. Here are the arguments for Jack:
- He was the winningest pitcher of the 1980. Ah, mathematical gymnastics! Jack's peak corresponded almost perfectly with the 1980s. 1980 was his first full year and he only fell short of 200 innings in 2 seasons: the strike year of 1981 and 1989. He made a ton of starts with very good Tiger teams. Giving him the chance to rack up wins. If we draw the line one year either north or south of the 80s, he is not the leader.
- He was the ace on three world series winners! Correction, he was the ace on one world series winner.: the 1984 Tigers. And actually the argument can be made that Dan Petry was statistically the superior pitcher that year with a better ERA, better WHIP and only 11 fewer innings. In 1991 Kevin Tapani was clearly the regular season ace, and in 1992 both Jimmy Key and Juan Guzman had better years. His postseason 1984 and 1991 is commendable, but it ignores that he was shelled in the postseason in 1987 and 1992.
- He pitched to the score. There has never been evidence to back this up. It is generally said about pitchers with high win totals despite their high ERAs. There is another explanation though: good run support.
- He was a big game pitcher. Bill James did a study last year that concluded that no pitcher beat up on weak teams more in the last 30 years than Jack Morris. Another arbitrary definition that isn't necessarily true.
- Game 7. Okay, this was a bad ass start that today perhaps only Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee could realistically make today. Morris threw a 10 inning shutout to win 1-0 in what has to be one of the 5-10 greatest games ever pitched. One game however, does not make you a hall of famer or Don Larsen would be in.
New guys to think about
Jeff Bagwell
149 career OPS+. .408 career OBP, .540 career SLG. Had the dignity to walk away when his arthritic shoulder had gotten the best of him. As a result he falls short of 500 homers and 3000 hits, but his peak is excellent especially 1994 when he posted a 213 OPS+! He walked a lot, hit lots of homers and doubles, and was a surprisingly good base stealer, swiping over 200 bases with over a 70% success rate. To me he's right at the edge. I think I would wait a year, but I could easily see putting him in.
Edgar Martinez
There are only two reasons why Edgar is even up for debate: first that the Seattle Mariners were stupid enough to keep him in the minors until he was 27 even though he tore it up at AAA, and second a horrific injury at the age of 30 that limited him to DH duties for most of his career. Still, he posted a career OPS+ of 147, .418 OBP, and .515 SLG. His peak is even better than Bagwell's posting a line of .329/.446/.574 from 1995-2001 for a 163 OPS+. Alas, much of his value came from the walk which the MSM still doesn't fully appreciate. I think he and Bagwell are a package deal and one has to go with the other. I'd like to see both of them in, but I'm going to wait a year on both.
Kevin Brown
Okay. KJB was an asshole. We get it. Everyone knows it, and his lack of longevity robs him of gaudy counting stats: only 211 wins, under 300 Ks, and no Cy Youngs. By my count, Brown is either the 7th or 8th best pitcher of his era. He clearly trails Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, Johnson and Glavine. Which leaves Smoltz, Schilling, and Mussina. I put him almost right on par with Mussina and a touch behind Schilling. He doesn't have Moose's longevity or Curt's peak, but he's right in there. From 1996-2001 he had a 2.53 ERA for a 163 ERA+ while averaging 221 innings a year and this was during the peak of the steroids era. Not saying he 100% belongs, but he's certainly more deserving than Jack Morris. Brown dominated for a solid 5 year period.
Larry Walker
Walker is going to be hurt by the fact that his best years were in Coors field at the height of the steroids era. His numbers will be dismissed as a product of his surroundings and he will likely never get into the hall. But Walker was good before and after his time in Coors and its pretty hard to ignore is outstanding run from 1994-2004 where he hit .33/.422/.614 for an OPS+ of 147. He was also a good fielder with a great arm and an excellent baserunner. Walker is another guy who I can certainly see voting for, but I probably would not. At least not this year.
I'm leaving them out for steroids, but they have HOF numbers
Mark McGwire
Mark admitted it. Good for him (though he says they didn't help). Still, McGwire had two real skills as a ballplayer. He hit homers and took walks. He didn't hit for much of an average (.263 lifetime), he wasn't much of a base runner, or a fielder, and even if we say steroids didn't help him walk more, they definitely helped him hit more homers, and even if that was only the difference between 40-50 and the 60s/70s he was getting to in his peak, he still would likely be under 500. I don't think he'd be in without them. He just wasn't well rounded enough.
Rafael Palmeiro
Palmeiro was a much better all-around player than Big Mac. He could run a bit, he was a very good first baseman for a while, he took walks, struck out little, and hit for a good enough average. But Raffy holds one thing that Mac doesn't and that no one in the Hall does: a positive drug test (that he later blamed on someone else). I cannot in good conscious endorse this man for the hall of fame. He does belong in the hall of fame for the best bold faced lie on capitol hill this side of Bill Clinton.
These guys should be on every ballot:
Bert Blyleven
This is Bert's 15th and final time on the ballot, and it is an absolute crime it has taken this long. I still have yet to see a good reason for this. He has a 3.31 lifetime ERA pitching almost 5000 innings. He is 3rd all time in strikeouts, he has a lifetime WAR of 87.1 (easily the most of anyone on the ballot), and he has better post season numbers than Jack Morris. What exactly is keeping him out? Oh yeah, he has low win totals because he never had great run support. This is a horrible reason to not vote for him.
Roberto Alomar
Alomar is, in my opinion the best second baseman since Joe Morgan, and the second best since WWII. He may have been a bit overrated in the field by his 10 gold gloves, but you sure couldn't tell by watching him as he always seemed to make the play. His 1999 and 2001 seasons are some of the best I have ever seen for a second baseman. He inexplicably fell off a cliff in 2002 at the age of 34 and that prevented him from reaching 3000 hits and being a slam dunk first ballot guy. Still can't understand how anyone could vote for Dawson and not him last year, but someone must have because Dawson got in and he did not. He will this year.
Barry Larkin & Alan Trammell
Larkin and Alan Trammell have very similar cases (in fact they are the #1 comparison for each other on similarity scores) so I'm going to combine them rather than essentially writing the same thing twice. They were excellent all around shortstops at a time when shortstop was becoming more of an offensive position. They both lack the power of Ripken, the flash of Ozzie Smith, and the consistency of Jeter, but in many ways they were comparable in value to those three. Yet those guys will sail in on the first ballot and I wonder if Larkin or Trammell will ever get in. Lou Whitaker also merits consideration here albeit as a second baseman, and he was one and done. There's no question that Ripken had the best career of these five shortstops, but a large part of that was his incredible Iron Man ability to play all the time. Here's how they stack up in total WAR: Ripken 89.9, Jeter 70.1, Larkin, 68.9, Trammell 66.9, Smith 64.6. Closer than many might think. Both Trammell and Larkin were good hitting shortstops and above average fielders with Larkin being better offensively and Trammell better defensively. Both were good baserunners with Larkin having the edge. Both had near MVP caliber seasons 84, 87, and 90 for Trammell, 1996 (and maybe 1995 when he actually won) for Larkin. Both were stars on World Series winners. Neither has gaudy counting stats because they had trouble staying healthy once they reached their mid 30s (but this is normal). I cannot understand how Jeter and Smith can sail in on the first ballot when comparable players like Larkin and Trammell are left out in the cold. Jeter will get in the high nineties when eligible. I'm not sure if Larkin and Trammell will ever combine to reach the 90s and all things considered, they were just as good.
Tim Raines
I've saved perhaps my favorite hall of fame case for last. While it is ridiculous that Blyleven and Alomar are not yet in the Hall, I feel that will change this year. Raines's exclusion however, is equally ridiculous but I do not see him getting in any time soon as he got just 30.4% of the vote last year. The Raines is very clearly the 2nd greatest lead off hitter ever, and argument can be made that Raines is the greatest base stealer ever. He's only fifth all time with 808, but he was only caught 146 times, a success rate of nearly 85%, far better than Lou Brock (75.3) or Rickey (80.8). He took walks at an incredible rate placing him 35th all time and his walks led to him being on base more times than Tony Gwynn despite having more than 500 fewer hits in roughly the same number of plate appearances. People seam to remember Raines mostly for his 90s years when he was a good but not great part time player for the White Sox and Yankees. He still put up good per game numbers, getting on base and running the bases well, but he rarely played enough to even qualify for the batting title making it very hard to stand out. However, during his peak years with the Expos from 1983-1987, Raines averaged 186 hits, 71 steals, 10 triples, 87 walks and a 6.1 WAR per year. Very few players in history have had a peak that good. Raines career totals are essentially the same as Tony Gwynn's with a lot better baserunning and 500 walks instead of 500 singles. Both had injury problems, both were average fielders, both were excellent offensive players. Gwynn sailed in on the first ballot, Raines is still trying to get half way to 75%. It doesn't make sense, but it is the power of high batting averages and 3000 hits.
Labels: Hall of Fame, tim raines
posted by Andrew Manning at
12:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home