The Unfounded BBWAA Love for Jack Morris

Jack Morris once again failed to gain entrance to Cooperstown today. He finished with 53.5% of the vote, about 150 shy of admission. He probably won't make the jump in one year, and the ballot gets overloaded in 2013 and his last year of 2014, so he's probably going to become a VC hopeful.

Still, Morris finished with the 4th most votes of anyone on the ballot finishing ahead of the far more deserving: Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Edgar Martinez, Alan Trammell, Larry Walker, and Kevin Brown among others.

Brown is an interesting case because he got less than 5% of the vote making him a one-and-done player. But if you look at it, Brown was a vastly superior pitcher to Morris. Lets look at it, shall we?

Brown threw 3256.1 innings with a 3.28 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 901 walks, and 2397 strikeouts for a 64.8 WAR and a 127 ERA+. Morris threw 3824.0 innings with a 3.90 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, 1390 walks, and 2478 strikeouts for a 39.3 WAR and a 105 ERA+threw d. In order for Brown to match Morris's innings, ERA, strikeouts, and walks, he would need to make a comeback and throw 568 innings with a 7.48 ERA, walk 489 and only strikeout 81. He would have to be pretty damn awful. Morris also put up lesser stats while pitching in a much easier era. I have tried to find a good article defending Morris, but the best may be Jayson Stark's piece:

"if we look back on Morris' career, it sure looks as though the teams he pitched for, and the people he played with and against, were trying to tell us something.

This man started on Opening Day 14 years in a row (1980 to 1993) -- for three different teams. The only pitcher to start more openers than that since World War II was Tom Seaver (16). Just real aces are allowed to do that. Don't you think?"

He goes on to say that Morris started 3 all star games, and 6 playoff series game ones. His argument seems to be that since Morris's teams/peers viewed him as the man, that he must have really been that good. This is akin to people basing their vote on past Cy Young/MVP/Gold Glove results which are obviously flawed. Yet, this is the BEST argument I've found for Morris. Morris's streak of opening days began in 1980, mostly due to a lack of options. He had a solid, but not spectacular 1979 and was clearly the best starter the Tigers had. Over the next 11 seasons with Detroit, while he did nothing to lose his role as opening day starter, he also didn't do a whole lot to cement the role. The Tigers just didn't ever have anybody jump up and take it from him especially after a great postseason in 1984 when he helped lead the Tigers to a World Series title. After his time with the Tigers, he was a veteran who would have been unhappy with not getting the ball on opening day. Even so, this is not a good way to judge his Hall of Fame merits.

Some writers even had the audacity to vote for Morris over Bert Blyleven. Jon Heyman was one of these. Like Stark, I respect Heyman as a writer. He is great at getting inside information and reporting it. But I flat out disagree with him here. His argument is basically that Morris was perceived as great while he was playing, but Bert was not. While he doesn't come out and say it, his arguments are largely predicated on the flawed statistic of pitchers wins. He talks about pitching to the score and how Blyleven "didn't win all that many more games than he lost".

To me, you either have to have great career totals or several great individual seasons. Preferably both. Morris has neither and thus Heyman champs his career impact, but does not go into career totals or individual seasons. With the exception of the 1984 and 1991 postseasons, Morris was never elite for a distinguished period of time, nor was he good-to-great for a long enough time to build up great career totals. Again, we can't put guys in the Hall of Fame for having a great run or two in the postseason. That's what postseason awards are for. No matter how much you were in awe with game 7 of the 1991 series, it does not make Morris a Hall of Famer.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
   

Morris is clear cut hall of the very good, but he should not be in Cooperstown, especially not so long as Bert Blyleven remains out.

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.

The aftermath of McGwire's admission

Ever since McGwire admitted his steroid use, I have been reconsidering my whole outlook on performance enhancing substances, records, and the hall of fame. First of all, I am among the vast, vast majority who was not in the least bit surprised that Mac used illegal steroids. What does surprise me is the length of time he took them. I always assumed that he was clean during the early to mid 90s and bulked up with them from 96-00 when he had his home run explosion. I don't buy for a second that his home run totals were not substantially aided by the drugs, nor do I think McGwire should be in the hall of fame. McGwires hall of fame case is built on his massive home run, walk, and slugging totals, all of which were blown up with steroids. He has no chance without them and was barely an all star level player. My take is as it has always been: the old standards do not apply to players from the steroid era. You'd better have crazy off the charts numbers, or 10-15 very good years to get in in my book. So guys like Sheffield, Thome, Delgado, Guerrero, Kent, Sosa, Palmeiro, and a few others who would have been locks in the past just don't quite make it for me.

All that being said, the thing that pisses me off about the whole thing the most is how guys like Ken Griffey Jr. get painted as saints. Look, I don't know if Griffey used steroids. He has never been linked to it, or tested positive, or had a season where he just blew up or anything. But to totally dismiss it as impossible and treat the guy like the golden boy of the era doesn't make sense. I think it's very likely that playing in the era he did, Griffey used some sort of performance enhancing substance. That substance could have been a steroid, HGH, amphetamine, or supplement, but in any case, its not entirely natural. And thats ok. In this day an age athletes do anything they can to get an edge as in can be the difference in hundreds of millions of dollars. Anyone who says that they would not have taken drugs that were not banned at the time in order to stay in the majors or make themselves a star is either lying or very stupid. Look at McGwire: he was a good first baseman and a good hitter when he came into the league (emphasis on good) but he could not stay healthy and his career would probably have come to an end much sooner had it not been saved by drugs. Once he started taking the drugs, he probably felt much better and began to see more and more success. Without the possibility of consequences looming, why would he not continue? Ok, it was probably quite bad for his health, we'll find out later on that, but seriously, ask yourself or anyone you know if they would take 50-100 million dollars today in exchange for 10-20 years of your life later. Just about everyone, at least the younger people would say yes even if they won't admit it.

Now, maybe Griffey was a rare breed who was so talented that he could dominate a league full of juiced players based on talent alone. I like to think that Griffey and Bonds were both like this until about 1999. At this point, the paths diverge. Hands down, Griffey and Bonds were the two best position players of the 1990s and its not particularly close. Most people would put Griffey slightly ahead of Bonds, a position I do not share, but for this purpose, it's not important. Here's how I see the situation and where I make my point: Griffey and Bonds were hands down the two most talented players in the league, and along with Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Alex Rodriguez, two of the top 5 most talented players of all time. The difference is Griffey was amazing from day 1 whereas Bonds had to work his way up to stardom. Bonds' workout regime was well documented and it was intense. It was said that he was the only one who could handle what he did. Griffey on the other hand was never know as a workoutaholic. Sure, he'd work on his game: take batting and fielding practice, baserunning drills ect. but as far as I know, he was never much of a weight room or physical conditioning guy the way Bonds was. I think this is a large reason for his injuries in his early 30s. I could be wrong, but I have a lot of experience with athletics and I can tell you that the guys who kept themselves in great shape were much less likely to get injured than those who didn't.

Let's zoom to 2000: Griffey was dealt to Cincinnati and had his last really good full season at the age of 30. 30! Bonds has yet another monster season setting a career high in homers as well as leading the league in OPS+ and walks at the age of 35. Bonds goes on to blow up the next 4 seasons, putting together the greatest 4 year run in the history of baseball. Griffey basically falls off a cliff as he cannot stay healthy, and even when he's on the field, he's not the player he was in his 20s. So my question is which is the greater tragedy? They had essetially equal careers after the year 2000, when Bonds, by any means necessary sought to make himself the most dominant force in the history of the game. And he succeeded. Griffey, after years of getting by on pure talent could not keep himself healthy and in shape to stay successful as he aged. In 2000 if you had asked me which current player has the best chance to break Hank Aarons home run record, my answers would have been Griffey and Sosa. Bonds would not have crossed my mind. Bonds of course was the one who broke the record.

Let's stop making Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens and the rest out to be monsters. They took illegal drugs. It was bad. We get it. But the drugs alone did not make them great players. Steroids really only help you get strong and stay healthy when supplemented with physical fitness. These guys were all workout gurus. Ken Griffey was not. He was a great talent. He wasted some of it. He was not the player he could have been. Not all of this can be blamed on steroids.

If you want to make a player out to be the golden boy of the era, for god sakes, pick Greg Maddux. He is probably the one player who got the most out of his talent in the history of baseball. He was a stand up guy. He was great for 20 years. He may have been the best pitcher ever to live. And he, not Ken Griffey, should be the first unanamous HOF inductee. He won't be, but how can you possibly construct an argument against him?

What to do about the hall of fame.

I grow increasingly disgusted after each HOF article I read in this season of HOF voting. It seems that more and more stupid people have votes and they all seem to be taking the "Political correctness" stand. That is, the lets let everyone in stand. Look, just because people are stupid enough to put player X (cough Jim Rice cough) into the hall of fame doesn't mean you need to put player Y (Andre Dawson) in. Things are getting so watered down in recent years and I've been trying to think of a way to return mystique to Cooperstown.

As you know, I am a "Small Hall" guy meaning that I think it should be reserved for the truly deserving: guys who legitimately dominated the game for a number of years. Not guys who just accumulated counting stats, had a great moment, or were on great teams. I think I have come up with an idea. It's a modified version of Bill Simmons Pyramid Scheme.

Here's how it works: The hall consists of four levels each with their own requirements for enshrinement. The base would of course be the largest and least prestigious. Likewise the top would be reserved strictly for the best of the best of the best: basically the best pitcher for each generation.

The top level (level 4)
The top level of the Hall will be the most exclusive club in sports. One player can be elected every ten years and the player must pass through each of the three lower levels first. Baseball has been around for approximately 150 years which means we can put 15 players into the top level right now. Starting in 2010, we can put in one per decade. It doesn't matter which year the election is held, but elections must be 10 years apart and only one player can go in each time. Anyone in level 3 is eligible to be elected to level 4, and in the year of election everyone on the panel gets one vote, no more, no less.

Level 3
The third level will serve as a sort of waiting room for the top for some players and as a nice resting place for others. This is still an exclusive club, but not near to the level of #4. One player can be elected to this club every five years, and one additional player will be elected every ten years to replace the player headed to level 4. Therefore, the level will grow by one every five year and will start at 30 today. Players from level two are eligible here and committee members may vote for one player for each open spot during level 3 election years.

Level 2
A rung in the ladder for some, a final resting place for others. This is the level where most of the great players who were never at an all time great level will be. One player can be elected to this level every two years and an additional player every five years to replace the player departing to level 3. Anyone in level one is eligible for level two and committee members may vote for one player during each election year. This level will begin with 75 players

Level 1
The level where it is determined if a player is a Hall of Famer or not. This is the easiest level to gain addmitance, but is still limited in members. This level will admit one player per year as well as any other player getting at least 97% of the vote. Basically to get in, you had better be the best in your class or overwhelmingly good (8 players have gotten 97% or more). Level 1 is where all current hall of famers not in one of the upper levels will be dumped. My pick for this year: Bert Blyleven.

The case for Curt Schilling and Mike Mussina

In previous posts I have discussed which current players I see as HOF locks, who's on the bubble and who is out. This week, one of my bubble guys, Mike Mussina, has retired leading to numerous articles making the case for or against him as a HOFer. Another pitcher, Curt Schilling, whom I see as a HOFer has indicated that he may come back and pitch a partial season.

There are four current (depending on your definition of current) pitchers that are absolute locks for the Hall: Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, and Tom Glavine. The first 3 rank 2, 4, 7 on my all time pitching rankings while the third has 300 wins and 2 Cys making him a lock. Roger Clemens was also a lock until the Mitchell Report, and is now a question mark. That leaves John Smoltz, Mariano Rivera, Schilling, Mussina, and Trevor Hoffman as question marks. I can't see any good reason to leave Smoltz off with his unprecedented starter-closer-starter dominace plus 1 CY, 1 WS ring, a great playoff record, and 3000 Ks. If there was ever a reliever who deserved it more than Rivera, I have never heard of him so we are down to Schilling, Mussina and Hoffman. Therefore, I will compare the cases of Schilling, Mussina, and Hoffman using the Keltner List:

Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
No. None of them were ever considered to be the best player in baseball or even the best pitcher. Though Schilling came the closest.
Schill: 0
Moose:0
Hoffman:0

Was he the best player on his team?
Both starters were for a few years. Schilling with the 97 and 98 Phillies, and Moose with the 92 and 94 O's. Hoffman was not IMO.
Schill: 1
Moose:1
Hoffman:0

Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
No, but you see there were these two guys: Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson who were. That would have been the case for just about anyone in history. If you consider closer a seperate position from pitcher, Hoffman may have been at least the best in the NL if not all of baseball for a few years. I don't consider closer to be a seperate postion though.

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Schilling definitely did. 93 Phillies, 01 and 02 DBacks, 04 and 07 Red Sox. Mussina, not so much. We'll give Hoffman credit for 1998 although most of that should go to Kevin Brown.
Schill: 2
Moose:1
Hoffman:1

Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
All had good to great seasons in their late 30s, so yes.
Schill: 3
Moose:2
Hoffman:2

Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No

Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
More of Mussina's comparables are in including Marichal and Palmer, but Schilling compares better to his HOF comparables. Only Sutter was for Hoffman and his HOF merit is debateable. We'll chalk up a yes for both of the starters and no for Hoffman.
Schill: 4
Moose:3
Hoffman:2

Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Both starters make it on 3 of the 4 Bill James HOF numbers. Mussina makes in on Monitor, Career Standards, and Grey Ink, while Schilling makes in on Monitor, Grey Ink and Black Ink. The only large difference between the two is Schilling's huge lead in black ink where he has almost 3 times the points. Hoffman only passes the Monitor. This is a definite for Schill, and close enough for Moose, but no for Hoffman.
Schill: 5
Moose:4
Hoffman:2

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Mussina's wins may be a bit affected by playing on so many good teams, but probably not quite enough to count it against him. I believe some of Schilling's ERAs are much higher than his actual performance. This is due to playing his best years in the BOB which yielded large amounts of home runs. Playing for a lot of bad Philly teams also hurts his career W-L record. We'll give him a yes. Hoffman played the last few years of his career in the best pitchers park in baseball for a team in one of the worst divisions in baseball. He was also rarely used for more than 1 inning once he turned 30 I'm going to take away .5 points for this.
Schill: 6
Moose:4
Hoffman:1.5

Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
All not eligible. All not as good as about 5-7 other not eligible pitchers.

How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
Mussina had none where he was close. Schilling had several, but did not get a lot of votes because: a. writers don't vote for pitchers and b. he was never the best pitcher in the league. He does have 4 runner up finishes for CY Young all lost to probable HOFers. Mussina has one. Schilling also has twice the career CY share. Mussina has 1 more first place vote, but that is due entirely to who he was up against, not how he pitched. Hoffman has 2 Cy runner ups and a bigger share than Mussina but thats stupid as 1 inning pitchers should not win the Cy Young or MVP.
Schill: 7
Moose:4
Hoffman:1.5

How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
Schilling had 6, Moose had 5 both pitched in 3. Hoffman had 6, pitched in 6, took the loss in one. Not a good indicator either way.

If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
Mussina/Hoffman: No. Schilling basically was the best on the 93 Phillies that did win the pennant though cases could be made for John Kruk, Darren Daulton and Lenny Dykstra. Schilling was the NLCS MVP and there's no way they win the series without him. Schilling was also a vital player on the WS winners in 2001, 2004, and 2007, but I don't think you can call him the best player on any of them.
Schill: 8
Moose:4
Hoffman:1.5

What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
Again a no on Mussina. Schilling can be given a lot of credit for ending the Yankees 1990s dynasty and for breaking the curse of the Bambino. He is the last pitcher to go 1-4-7 in a world series, and may be the last ever to complete 15 games. His bloody sock will be an image shown in October for the rest of time. Hoffman can be given a lot of credit for popularizing the change up as it is used today. Credit can also go to Pedro, but it has lead to the change being used as a legit out pitch for guys like Cole Hamels and Johan Santana. This is similar to Sutter with the splitter.
Schill: 9
Moose:4
Hoffman:2.5

Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Both starters have been perceived as cocky and smug at times, especially Schilling. Schilling has also been very outspoken about steroids and players who he believes used them. I don't think there is a credit or demerit to hand out here. Hoffman gets sizable a boost as he is a renowned good guy.
Schill: 9
Moose:4
Hoffman:4

I think the case for Schilling is better because he was clearly more dominating at his peak. He is IMO the best playoff pitcher ever, and there is no one I would rather have on the mound in game 7 of the world series. 3 WS rings all of which I don't think there's a chance his team would have won without him. 2 post season MVP awards, 3116 strikeouts (15th all time), and first in the modern era with 4.38 K/BB. A Hall of Famer in my book.

Mussina's got a case, no doubt about it, but it all boils down to him being the 8th best starting pitcher of the ERA, and 9th best if you count Rivera. Is there a class of 9 contemporary pitchers in the Hall?

Hoffman also has a case, although I think its even worse than Mussina. Back to my feeling in general of closers: if they are so good, why don't they start?

The Top Five Hitters Over the Past 20 Years

Someone recently asked who I thought have been the top 5 hitters over the past 20 years. I thought, wow, that's a good question. 20 years encompasses basically when this era began: all rotations were 5 man, complete games were rare, 1 inning relief specialists became increasingly more common and ball parks got smaller. We will ignore the steroid guys because except for Bonds, none would make the list anyway, and there is no way Bonds wasn't as dirty as can be imagined.

Here we go concentrating purely on hitting ability:

*averages based on per 162 games.

1. Albert Pujols - Only 8 years, but seriously the guy has been fantastic every year and has had an unprecedented first 8 years: .334/.424/.623. Averaging 45 doubles, 42 homers, 91 walks a year. His worst year consisted of a line of .314/.394/.561, 34 HRs, more walks than strikeouts. Career almost 10 RC/27. Best hitter since Ted Williams.

2. Frank Thomas - 1991-1997 was a better stretch than even Pujols has put together. Frank has gotten hurt by the fact he was mostly a DH, and that his career year was 1994 when he might have won the triple crown had the season played out. OPS+ during those years: 180, 174, 177, 211, 179, 178, and 181. Wow 174 for the low! Only 3 of Albert's years have been better than that. Maybe I should rethink my Frank in the HOF thoughts, but then I remember that other than his bat he contributed absolutely nothing.

3. Manny - .314/.410/.592 career line, an average of 41 hrs, 93 walks. He was absolutely robbed for the MVP in 1999 when he somehow managed to finish T-3rd. WTF??? He always gets punished for having good teammates which makes at least a little more sense than punishing someone like Pujols for having bad teammates.

4. Chipper Jones - Also one of the most unappreciated. The best switch hitter since the Mick, he has been a hitting machine since he came up with a line of .310/.407/.548. What hurts him is his inability to stay healthy, this is his 5th straight year with a significant amount of time missed. If he can keep it together for a few more years, he should end up with 3000 hits, 550 homers, and a lifetime average over .300.

5. Alex Rodriguez - Sure he's an A hole, but he can sure hit. Line of .306/.389/.579, and likely will break a whole bunch of records: HR, RBI, R, and a very slim chance at H.

Most underrated:
1. Mike Piazza - .308/.377/.545 for a catcher! And there was a 6 or 7 year stretch where he hit like .330 with 30-40 homer power. Imagine what he might have done as a 1st baseman without the wear and tear of catching.

2. Jones

3. Jim Thome - Should never have left the CLE where he absolutely raked every year: lowest OPS of 132 during those years, 30 HRs, 100 walks every year he was healthy. Career year in 2002 - .304/.445/.677 when he somehow managed to finish 7th in the MVP voting despite out producing 6 of the guys in front of him.

4. Edgar Martinez - Yeah, he was a DH, but a career line of .312/.418/.515, and from 1995-2002 he was as good as anyone on my list. OPS+ of 185, 166, 165, 158, 152, 157, 160. And he had the decency to walk away when he was done

5. Brian Giles - Talk about underrated, 4 absolutely amazing years with Pit. Career line of .294/.404/.510. A little lacking on BA and HRs but he makes up for it with a lot of walks and a lot of doubles.

Most overrated:
1. Ichiro - basically just a singles hitter. Not much in the way of power or walks. Career OPS just .808. Somehow won MVP in 2001??? Great fielder/baserunner, but not hitter.

2. Alfonso Soriano - basically just power, not much in the way of average or on base, and a lot of Ks.

3. Ken Griffey Jr. - Don't get me wrong, KGJ was great, but he "only" hit .300 in 8 of his 20 seasons, only has a lifetime .288 AVG and .373 OBP and even when he was healthy wasn't much once he left Seattle. Never had 100 walks, never had 200 hits, never hit over .330, never OBPed over .410, never OPS+ed over 175. His career highs aren't as good as Albert's averages.

4. Tony Gwynn - considered one of the best hitters ever by some, but he was really just a singles hitter. If he had the same numbers except 500 less singles and 500 more walks, would he even be in the HOF? No, he'd be named Tim Raines, and really what's the difference between a single and a walk?

5. Craig Biggio - Had some great years, but really hurt himself by hanging on too long and has a very pedestrian line of .281/.363/.433 for his career. He really does not belong in the HOF.

Mike Mussina: Hall of Famer?

Now that the disasterous and largely unwatchable Beijing Olympics are over, I can once again devote all my sports attention to baseball - which is what I should have done during the olympics.

Anyway Jonah Keri thinks all Mike Mussina needs to become a hall of famer is a 20 win season. The article is actually well written and Keri has written other good articles like this one on KRod and the MVP, but come on. First of all Mussina's career is not over and based on his terrific resurgence in the 2008 season, I doubt it will be after the season. Also, lack of a 20 win season is not going to be what keeps him out of the playoffs - lack of domination will.

In addition to no 20 win seasons, Mike Mussina has zero: Cy Youngs, World Series rings, seasons with an ERA under 3.00, and seasons with a WHIP under 1.00. He has only been a league leader six times in any standard statistical category, and only 3 times in what I consider to be important ones (Innings, Wins, Winning %, WHIP, Ks, K/BB, and ERA).

Keri stresses the importance of comparing Mussina to his peers so we'll do just that. We'll skip Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, and Pedro as they are worlds better and focus on Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, Rogers, and Wells.

Wells and Rogers have considerably worse numbers despite having individual seasons and playoff successes that would put them in his league. But no one is advocating for either of them to get in, so it was probably not a good comparison.

Smoltz and Schilling, despite not having Moose's career win total have had better careers. They both have better per innings numbers (ERA, ERA+, WHIP, K/9), they both have had incredibly dominant individual seasons that crush anything Mussina has put up, and they have been arguably the two best postseason pitchers of the era, so I really don't think Mussina stacks up to these two who are considered to be fringe Hall of Famers at best by many.

That leaves Glavine who has pitched longer, has a lot more wins, and a lot more postseason success than Mussina, but his per season and per inning numbers are close to Mussina's. Glavine has the edge in ERA, but much of that may be due to playing in the NL for so long as Mussina has the edge in just about every thing else. But Glavine has had the dominating seasons that the Moose hasn't. He has two Cy Youngs to go with 4 more top 3 finishes, 6 seasons with an ERA uner 3.00, 5 20 win seasons, and most importantly: the world series MVP in the 1990s Braves only championship.

Mussina just doesn't stack up to his peers who will be in the Hall. He has been very good for a long time, but he has never been truly dominant, nor does he have the career totals that should put him in. I don't like the hall of arbitrary numbers argument, but I think Mussina needs either a dominating playoff run, or to hold on for 290 or 300 wins in order to cement his candidacy for the hall.

The Future of Cooperstown Part two

Relievers heavily populate the HOF Monitor list between Smoltz and Santana: Hoffman, Franco, Mesa, Wagner, Hernandez, Percival, Todd Jones, Benitez, and Mike Stanton. I'm going to go ahead and ignore everyone here except Hoffman and Wagner because if anyone seriously thinks these guys belong in Cooperstown they are either a close personal friend to the player or very stupid.

Wagner and Hoffman have been the second and third best closers in baseball for the past ten years racking up tons of saves and great numbers in the process. However they have combined for a grand total of zero games started, zero 100 inning seasons, and zero world series rings. Bruce Sutter is the only player in the hall who did not start a single game his entire career. There is no pitcher in the hall that did not have at least two 100 inning seasons, including those who were primarily relievers. I believe Sutter is in for the sole reason that he popularized the use of the splitter something neither Wagner nor Hoffman did. Although you could make a similar argument with Hoffman's change up.

Wagner has been a much more dominant pitcher than Hoffman for much of his career. Wagner has much better career averages for H/9, K/9, and ERA, and has three seasons better than Hoffman's best with his 1999 season standing as one of the best for a closer in recent history. Hoffman and Wagner's accomplishments however pale in comparison to Rivera's. Rivera has been incredibly consistent and dominant since 1996 only once posting and ERA above 3 during those years and only three times above 2.35. And then there's the post season. With a 0.77 ERA and a 0.75 WHIP in 117.1 innings Rivera is arguably the greatest post season pitcher ever. And that's why he's the exception to the closer rule and Hoffman and Wagner are good, but just not good enough.

Moving to tough position players namely guys who played 2nd, short, centerfield, and catcher. This argument has worked well recently to get players like Ozzie Smith, Ryne Sandberg, and Gary Carter into the Hall none of whom really belong. It will be tried in the future for Biggio, Bernie Williams, (Dr.) Jeff Kent, Larkin, Tejada, Nomar, Vizquel, and Andruw Jones. All seem to be either retired or past their primes and unlikely to improve their state much if at all. Tejada will be hurt by the drug accusations and I cannot possibly fathom anyone voting for Jones, so we will focus on the other six.

Craig Biggio
Craig Biggio is considered a lock by many because he has an arbitrary number of hits that is considered a career milestone. Hits is a stupid counting stat in the first place because the all time hit leaders list reads almost identical to the all time at bat leaders list. Biggio is no exeception to this rule as he had to hang on for six painful years after his prime ended just to get the number. From 1993-1999 Biggio was the second best 2nd baseman in baseball behind Alomar, hewas the spark plug on some very good Astro's teams, and he was a decent fielder. During this time he put up Hall of Fame quality numbers. Once his run ended however, Biggio fell quickly striking out more and more, walking less and less and hitting for a much lower average. His speed was also gone and rather than hitting line drives for singles and doubles as he had, Biggio began to swing for the fences and it really killed his numbers. I'll file him under the 10 years of goodness 10 years of mediocrity category even though it was more like 8 years of goodness, 12 years of mediocrity. Very good player, even better teammate, just not hall of fame caliber.

Bernie Williams
Williams was arguably the most important position player during the Yankees dynasty of the late 1990s. He was a very good centerfielder, solid hitter, and great post season performer. In many ways he was superior to Derek Jeter, but Williams just doesn't quite have Jeter's longevity. It took Williams almost four years to blossom into a star whereas Jeter did it almost immediately, taking ROY honors at 22. Jeter also appears to have several more decent years ahead of him to improve on his numbers that are already better. Williams is a better HOF candidate than Biggio, but he is just one or two of his peak productive years shy of getting in.

Barry Larkin
Larkin was the best shortstop in the NL during the 90s and the best in baseball until the "Big Three" (Jeter, Rodriguez, Garciaparra) showed up. He was an MVP, a postseason star, and a 12 time all star yet he was never appreciated as he should have been. He was much like another team leading, world series champion, under appreciated shortstop who is not in the Hall: Alan Trammell. Trammell is not surprisingly Larkins #1 similar batter on baseball reference as the two put up almost identical career numbers. Trammell despite playing in a relatively poor offensive era is not in the Hall, and until that happens Larkin cannot justifiably be elected. Larkin does however deserve to be in before Williams or Biggio, neither of whom dominated their position like Larkin did.

Nomar Garciaparra
Nomar is one of the most interesting candidates in a long time. In just his third full season, Nomar was arguably the best player in all of baseball. He remained their for two years putting up terrific numbers in 1999 and 2000 while playing great defense and separating himself a bit from the other two thirds of the big three. Just as quickly Nomar fell back to earth battling injuries, the fans, and his own head. He eventually fell so far out of favor with Red Sox nation that he was dealt for Orlando Cabrera and Doug Mientkiewicz, two players who would help the Sox end their 86 year 'curse' the same year. Needless to say, Nomar was not missed. His post Boston career has never been close to what it was. His numbers are down, he can't stay healthy, and he's not a shortstop anymore. Because he was so great early on, he still has very good numbers, but not Hall worthy.

Omar Vizquel
Though Vizquel is one of my all time favorite players, the argument for him is weak. It is based either on the hope that he will get the almost 400 hits he needs for 3000, or the belief that he was superior to Ozzie Smith and/or Luis Aparicio both of whom are in the Hall. Since it appears that I have the same chance of getting another 400 hits in the big leagues as he does, we'll focus on the Smith/Aparicio comparisons as these are his top two comparisons on baseball refence. Smith: it's hard to argue that Vizquel was a superior offensive player to Smith who put up similar numbers in a tougher era. The fielding argument has more merit. Vizquel was the most sure handed fielder I have ever seen and is the all time fielding percentage leader at short. Smith is said to have had the best range in history, a fact that is difficult to measure. Smith could also do a back flip and played in St. Louis - things Vizquel did not do. Aparicio on the other hand was clearly not close to the player Omar was both at the plate and in the field. What hurts Omar is he came along at the same time as the offensive shortstop: Ripken, Larkin, Rodriguez, Jeter, Garciaparra, and Tejada among others were superior hitters. Though none could pick it like Omar, I don't think you can justify putting a guy into the hall that was not one of the top 5 players at his position for the majority of his playing years.

Jeff Kent
The Dr. really has no business being in this conversation as he only is due to the fact that he has good numbers for a second baseman. Here's the thing: he shouldn't be a second baseman. He isn't a good second baseman, and never really was. He should have been a third baseman for most of his career, and a first baseman for the last few, but that would push him out of the Hall conversation. At least Piazza handled his pitchers well. The Dr.'s greatest contribution was to the humor end of baseball with highlights being the quote that led to me calling him the Dr. and reports that he once broke his wrist crashing his motorcycle in the offseason. I have made peace with the truth that, despite the fact that they might not absolutely belong, some of the guys on this list will make the Hall. But if Jeff Kent gets into the Hall of Fame, I will officially disown Cooperstown and never set foot into the town again. There is nothing Hall of Fame about him, and if the writers are dumb enough to elect him, they deserve him.

The Future of Cooperstown Part one.

A little over a decade ago at a time when I still thought that batting average and wins were important stats I visited the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown New York for the first time and I loved it. I had never seen anyone who was in the Hall play and looked mainly at the plaques of players I had heard of such as Ruth, Williams, Aaron and Mays. I was in awe of all the great players, the legends I had never seen.

Well a lot of time has past and I have not been back. Part of that is the location of the hall, but another is the shear volume of undeserving players that have been admitted. I have gotten to see most of the players admitted in the last ten years and with the exceptions of Ryan and Eckersley I haven't been very impressed. I feel like they are watering down the hall.

In my opinion, the hall should be reserved for the top 1-2% or so of players, so of the 1200 players currently on 40 man rosters, about 20 of them should make the hall. I don't believe in "magic numbers" and I think that 5 years of greatness should count more than 15 years of goodness, but 15 years of goodness should count more than 10 years of goodness and 10 years of mediocrity. For a long time i thought closers didn't belong in the hall, but I have made an exception for Mariano Rivera who is the best I have ever seen and has left no doubt in my mind that he could have been a solid starter.

There are 11 current players I see as absolute locks for the hall (suspected drug use makes Clemens and Bonds question marks): Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro, Glavine, Smoltz, Rivera, Griffey, ARod, Jeter, Pudge, and Manny. These 11 all had great peaks and great longevity and are in unless they Bonds or Rose their way out. There are also __ guys who have retired but are not yet eligible that should be locks: Piazza, Robbie Alomar, and Rickey Henderson arguments can be made against all of them but all will really be flawed and should not be listened too. At this point the debate can begin.

Curt Schilling actually ranks higher on Bill James's HOF Monitor list than Smoltz does. He doesn't have Smoltz's starter-closer-starter dominance, his unprecedented 150 saves/200 wins, or his one Cy Young, but other than that they are basically equal. Innings, starts, wins, strikeouts, era, and whip are all within a few percent of each other. I think that Schilling has to be in. He's certainly got the great peak and his longevity while not as good as some of the pitchers of his generation isn't bad. He's been great in the regular season, money in October, and in an era of relief specialists, he has thrown a ton of innings and complete games.

I'm a little less enthusiastic about Frank Thomas who ranks the highest of all remaining hitters on the monitor. Thomas was basically the best hitter in baseball for about 5 years in the mid 1990s, but he did it exclusively as a 1st base/DH type and after the run ended in 1997 Thomas struggled with injuries year in and year out and I just don't know if he had a dominant enough career at the plate to balance out his complete lack of skill in the field.

After Schilling and Thomas I don't think anyone has done enough to get into the conversation should their career end today. Obviously Pujols, Guerrero, and Chipper are well on their way as far as hitters go, and Mussina, Pettitte, and Santana are close on the pitcher side, but they aren't there yet. And David Wells and Kenny Rogers were very good, but not Hall of Fame material.

This leaves the relievers and guys who play difficult fielding positions, but don't have the hitting numbers to get in. Lets start with relievers. My thought has always been that relievers who never succeeded as starters should not be in the hall because if they were so good, why weren't they starters? Guys like Smoltz and Eckersley succeeded as starters, and Rivera was so incredibly dominant, especially in the post season, and often for multiple innings that it's likely he could have succeeded as a starter if given the chance. We shall continue with relievers in part two.