Some Thought By Actual HOF Voters

 

By Blaidd Drwg

This will be my last HOF related post, I promise, well my last one until the voting is announced.

One of the great things about technology is that we have access to all sorts of information that we never have before – I need to look up the stats from the catchers from the 1914 Braves, I no longer have to drag out my copy for “The Baseball Encyclopedia” or “Total Baseball” (BTW – I still have both sitting on my bookshelf), I can just hop online and get all the information I need from baseball-reference.com.

We also now have writers willing to share who they are voting for before the Hall of Fame results are announced.

Two things I read today, one in the Seattle Times and one in the Chicago Tribune that are worth commenting on.

In the Times today, Larry Stone wrote about his ballot. I have to admit, I applaud most of his selections (his votes cast look very similar to mine) and the only one that I might have any real quibble with is Edgar Martinez, who, in reality wouldn’t be the worst selection for the HOF. He gets extra points from me for voting for Larry Walker. My one real problem is his argument against Rafael Palmeiro:

After much deliberation, I finally determined where I would draw my steroids line, at least on this ballot: I draw it with Palmeiro, who failed his test after MLB had finally come out of its hazy netherworld of tacit allowance of the steroids culture. By 2005, an anti-steroids policy had been codified in the Basic Agreement, and the penalties were spelled out. Every player knew the consequences. And still Palmeiro — after wagging his finger at Congress — tested positive for a steroid.

I am sorry, I don’t buy the argument. Palmeiro got caught cheating and he served the penalty prescribed by MLB. Let me ask you, if Palmeiro had been caught say doctoring his bat or scuffing a baseball, which would obviously give a competitive advantage to himself and his team, would you preclude him from the HOF?

Stone’s article was well written and thoughtful and really the Palmeiro exclusion was the only fault I could find. The ballots published today in the Chicago Tribune were another issue. Most of the voters flat out said they would not vote for anyone linked to steroids. Here are some of my favorite notes:

Pat Sullivan:

I also couldn’t find my way onto the growing Bert Blyleven bandwagon, though I suspect he will get in at last, and I ignored some very-good-but-not-good-enough players such as Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Jeff Bagwell and Juan Gonzalez, who made a cameo appearance in the Mitchell Report.

This was probably one of the weakest ballots in years, with no slam-dunks. The only four players who made my cut all had Chicago ties: Harold Baines, Tim Raines, Lee Smith and Roberto Alomar.

Yes Pat, you ignored some very-good-but-not-good enough players, but you voted for Harold Baines, who had inferior numbers to Martinez, McGriff, Bagwell and Gonzalez and is significantly less deserving of election than Bert Blyleven. I understand casting the sentimental vote for a guy like Baines, but you can’t do that when you argue that someone like Bagwell shouldn’t make the hall. At least Raines gets a vote from Sullivan, although I suspect that it would not have happened if Raines had not played for the White Sox in his career.

Phil Rogers:

I’m not going to vote for Bagwell, but that’s because I feel his resume isn’t quite strong enough, not because of steroid suspicion. And if I’m not voting for Bagwell, I can’t keep voting for Harold Baines (most hits of any eligible player not in the Hall) after four years of support, so he’s off my ballot.

Ok, Phil, you feel Bagwell’s resume isn’t strong enough, but yet, you are voting for Larry Walker, who was never the dominant player Bagwell was during the same era, and you are voting for Jack Morris, who was never dominant, period. Another vote for Raines though, so I can sort of give you a pass.

Dave van Dyck:

So the question becomes: Who is deserving? This year’s ballot is especially tough because of the number of “borderliners.” And if you have to think long and hard about a yea or nay, the vote probably should be “no.”

So this year’s ballot included only three names.

Second baseman Alomar and closer Lee Smith helped define their positions in their era. And Jack Morris was a more dominant pitcher than Blyleven.

It was agonizing leaving off Blyleven and those for whom statistical arguments can be made such as Jeff Bagwell, Barry Larkin, Don Mattingly, Tim Raines and Larry Walker. Oh, and Alan Trammell, who should be more than an afterthought. But the Hall should be reserved for the very best of the best, not the best of the rest.

Lee Smith, who I love, was likely only the 3rd or 4th most dominant reliever of his era and probably gets the homer vote again. Morris more dominant than Blyleven, I would love to know the argument that backs that statement up. If the hall should be reserved for the very best of the best, how do you not make the argument that Bagwell and Raines don’t fit that bill?

Fred Mitchell:

I also voted for 12-time All-Star shortstop Barry Larkin (.295 with .975 fielding percentage) and big-game pitcher Jack Morris (254 victories) to move up the charts in the balloting. Morris was a member of three Series champions and had a 4-2 Series record.

I don’t understand how you can vote for Larkin and not Trammell, but that might be splitting hairs. Morris as a big game pitcher, HAH! He makes no mention of why he didn’t vote for Bagwell, Palmeiro or McGwire at all. He did at least vote for Blyleven.

Philip Hersh:

My ballot does include seven of the nine players I voted for a year ago (one was inductee Andre Dawson). I dropped Lee Smith and added Tim Raines (fifth all-time in stolen bases); Dave Parker (an exceptional all-around player); and first-year candidate Larry Walker (.313 career average, seven Gold Gloves).

Good for him for adding Raines and dropping Smith. I don’t understand Parker (maybe he is voting for Cobra because it is his last year on the ballot). He votes for both Larkin and Trammell but inexplicably votes for Mattingly and not for Bagwell. No reason is given for not voting for Bags, but I do think it is probably because of steroid suspicion.

Should be interesting to see the results on Wednesday.