Jeff Bagwell
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Mark McGwire
Rafael Palmeiro.
Jeff Bagwell: Sure, why not. It’s not Bagwell’s fault, but I’ve always thought it was lame the BBWAA handed out individual awards for the 1994 season. Since the season was not completed, it in effect meant nothing, and so individual awards for what amounted to exhibition games struck me as being silly.
Juan Gonzalez: How many players have won two MVP Awards they didn’t deserve? Juan Gone and Maris, anyone else? No.
Barry Larkin: Yes.
Edgar Martinez: I’m always on the fence on Edgar. While it’s worth noting that you can be a HoF-calibre player without playing defense, Edgar’s got a few other shots against him; his career wasn’t super long and his numbers are a bit inflated by context. He didn’t dominate his league in hitting stats or anything. I’m going to leeeeean yes but I don’t think it’s a huge insult if he doesn’t make it.
Don Mattingly: Just wasn’t great enough long enough.
Fred McGriff: A very good player for a long time but he was never really great; buried under a lot of similar players, so for now I’ll say no.
Mark McGwire: Yes. Maybe he did roids, but he was a great player.
Jack Morris: Effectively the pitching version of Fred McGriff. Morris gets a few points for his 1991 World Series, but he was never really a dominant pitcher. Not once in his career did Morris have an ERA under 3. So no.
Dale Murphy: Sort of like Don Mattingly in that he was excellent for 6-7 years but not so much the rest of the time. He just completely dropped at age 32; I wonder if he wasn’t hiding an injury. No.
Rafael Palmiero: I wouldn’t vote for Rafael Palmiero for the HOF if you paid me. It’s partially an emotional thing - I always disliked him - but his case is this way/that way anyway so to hell with him.
Tim Raines - An excellent, underrated player. Yes all the way.
Lee Smith - No way. I really don’t think Smith is a Hall of Famer or close to it, but then I thought the same of Rollie Fingers and Bruce Sutter, and even more so in Smith’s case. A guy with 1289 career innings just cannot be that valuable a player unless he is absolutely flat-out unhittable the entire time. Smith was very good, but not that good.
Alan Trammell - I think I’ve said yes to Trammell before but I’ve always been “meh” about it. I guess I should stay consistent and vote yes.
Larry Walker - I don’t know, to be perfectly honest, how you could vote for Edgar Martinez for the Hall of Fame, but not vote for Larry Walker, who by any objective analysis was just as good a player. Even accounting for the effects of Colorado, Walker was damn near the same hitter, in a career of the same length, and while Martinez offered nearly no defensive value, Walker was an absolutely first-rate defensive outfielder, one of the best in the business. Surely Walker’s outstanding defense makes up for the difference between a 147 and a 140 OPS+? What else did Martinez have going for him? It wasn’t speed.
Bernie Williams - According to the WAR method Williams is one of the worst defensive outfielders who ever played baseball. I think I’ve mentioned this before but I don’t believe it for a second, and I think there’s a flaw somewhere in the methodology that really misses the boat sometimes on a team’s defensive value, and I think it’s especially harsh on the Yankees of Williams’s era. According to WAR, the Yankees were effectively a Triple-A defensive ballclub during the time they were absolutely dominating the AL. That’s just total horseshit. I guess what I’m building up to here is that I think Williams has a really good case - not a slam dunk, but geez, he was a great player on one of the greatest teams ever and if that’s not a Hall of Famer I think you kind of have to make a case AGAINST him.
The Other Guys:
Jeromy Burnitz: At some point late in his career Burnitz got picked up by someone and I made a gag about it, and a friend of mine was like “you know, he’s hit 300 home runs.” I was floored. I guess it caught me by surprise because he hit so many of them in Milwaukee.
Vinny Castilla: I’ve always liked Vinny because he’s the only player I can think of to play two consecutive full seasons and put up precisely the same batting average, homers, and RBI.
Brian Jordan: I totally forgot, until I copied this list off MLB.com, that Jordan had played in the NFL. In another shot agaisnt defensive WAR, according to baseballreference, Brian Jordan is the 18th most valuable defensive player in the history of the major leagues.
Javy Lopez; Lopez was a hell of a player at his best but made the terrible, terrible mistake of going to Baltimore, which is where baseball dreams go to die.
Bill Mueller: Didn’t this guy win a batting title? (Looking it up) Why, yes, he did. Mueller and Vinny Castilla were both third basemen and Castilla’s stats are superficially way way better, but in truth they’re pretty close in value; the differences are made up for by context and Mueller’s better glove.
Terry Mulholland: Obviously Mulholland shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame but you have to be impressed a guy could last that long and do what he did despite being unable to throw the ball harder than a soft lob.
Phil Nevin: Nevin was a huge big fucking deal when he arrived but obviously never became a superstar. Here’s a question for you; is Phil Nevin a failed prospect? He was the #1 overall draft pick, and didn’t become a superstar. But he did become a reagular MLB player, made an All-Star team once with a huge 2001 season. Do you classify him as a disappointment because he never became George Brett, or do you consider anyone who at least becomes a solid MLB regular a successful pick? Remember, a lot of first rounders never even make the bigs.
Brad Radke: Radke was just as good a pitcher as Jack Morris but his arm blew out at 33 and he never played for the great offenses Morris did.
Tim Salmon: Salmon was a pretty awesome player for awhile. We tend to think of good baseball players as lasting into their 30s and think nothing of a guy being, say, 33, but look at Salmon’s carer path; a really good hitter, Salmon started declining at 32 and was done by 35. That’s actually pretty good for a player of his skill. Most players do NOT last much past 30.
Ruben Sierra: Did more to help his teams win in the first 5 years of his career than in the last 15.
Tony Womack: I can’t believe this guy made the ballot. I hope someone votes for him.
Eric Young: Something Eric and I have in common is we both once stole six bases in a single game. Now, granted, I did it in a rep league game in Kingston, Ontario when I was 14, but come on, it was rep, those catchers could throw. Anyway, Young is one of those guys who I always wonder if he could’t have been a much greater player if his teams hadn’t screwed around with him. Young was a pretty good hitter; he batted .283 and would take a walk, and of course the guy could fly so you’d think someone would let him be a leadoff man for ten years. But he was dicked around a lot early in his career in terms of what position he was playing and then moved from city to city a lot. Maybe if he’d been in one place, and been asked to play one position, he could have put up more numbers. He also didn’t make the majors until he was 25, which seems weird to me for a player of his talent. Anyway he’s doing pretty well for himself so it’s not a tragedy or anything, but you have to wonder, is greatness preordained or does it have a lot to do with how a young player is handled?
Is the argument for 1961 that Mantle should have won? If so, I’m not so sure it’s fair to say Maris didn’t deserve it. Mantle has a significant advantage in a few key stats (SLG; OPS; OPS+) but some of that comes down to having 32 more BB than Maris. On the other hand, Maris struck out 45 less times than Mantle. Given how he performed under the pressure he was faced with, I think Maris was deserving. Just my opinion.
ETA: My choices:
Raines
Larkin
I hope Dale Murphy makes it. Always liked him.
PR, in TGAN, but I’m still not your friend, Elvis.
This is going to be pretty similar to last year for everyone, unless there are big Bernie William fans out there.
The really this is a question division
Jeff Bagwell
The no-brainers
Larken
Mcgwire
Raines
Borderline but yes
Palmeiro
Borderline but no
Martinez
Trammell
Williams
Adam Dunn is causing me to reconsider Martinez though. Well not Dunn specifically, but rather the fact that players preform noticeably worse when dhing/pinch hitting than playing the field.
My objection to Martinez is that being able to dh was too big advantage in allowing him to stay healthy. Martinez didn’t dh because he was a terrible fielder, but because he was often not healthy enough to play the field. Many other players could have used the DH to deal with/avoid injuries, but didn’t have that advantage. Take someone like Chipper Jones and imagine how much better his career numbers would be if he had the benefit of the DH. Martinez offensive performance wasn’t good enough for me to ignore that advantage.
However, if we take the DH penalty into account, then perhaps Martinez was even better offensively then I give him credit for. Perhaps, Martinez was just the rare hitter that was fully comfortable dhing. How much credit should we give that?
RickJay makes an excellent case for Larry Walker, who I feel didn’t get near the share of the vote he deserved last year. Here’s hoping he gets a big bump this year, with no new good candidates.
Walker had every skill you’d want in an outfielder - power, average, speed, fielding, arm, a decent batting eye - except one: health. Only topped 143 games played once - in 1997, when he won the MVP. Being able to take the field is a big part of the game, but in my opinion it’s not enough to keep Walker out of the Hall.
Larkin, Raines, Martinez, Biggio and Smith for me.
McGwire and Palmeiro I’d be fine with, but fine without. Their baseball credentials are good enough even if you knock off some points for steroids, but the bald-faced lying…
Does the BBWAA get another chance to vote “no” on Santo? Man, I hate the Veterans’ Committee.
No; he’s in, albeit too damn late.
If I had a ballot, I’d be voting for Bagwell and Raines, but I’m still betting the writers vote no one in this time. I’d write in Gofannon, too. The Patriot League has gone unrecognized long enough.
I’d vote for
Jeff Bagwell
Barry Larkin
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Looking back at that upcoming-years list:
Absent the steroids thing, has there ever been a better Hall of Fame class from a single year (not counting the early years when they were electing everyone from the first half-century of the sport)? Craig Biggio is my favorite player ever, and I think he’s an eventual lock for the Hall, but I can’t say he’s better than fourth on that list.
Answering my own question, the best I can do is the group that retired in 1983, who include Carl Yaztremski, Johnny Bench, Gaylord Perry, and Ferguson Jenkins. And two of those guys had their own ethics issues.
Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, and Billy Williams all retired in 1976, but there aren’t any HOF pitchers from that year.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Dale Murphy: Sort of like Don Mattingly in that he was excellent for 6-7 years but not so much the rest of the time. He just completely dropped at age 32; I wonder if he wasn’t hiding an injury. No.
[/QUOTE]
I was positive I had seen an article/interview about/with Murphy talking about some degenerative injury that destroyed the end of his career, but I can’t find a darn thing.
Tom Scud:
I’ll offer 1999, when George Brett, Robin Yount and Nolan Ryan were elected, and Carlton Fisk (eventually elected) and Dale Murphy (not yet, very possibly not ever, but certainly at least a borderline case) came on the ballot for the first time.
That would be, by retirement year, 1993.
I think Edgar really was dominant. HOF voters talk about dominating your position for a good period of time. Edgar is the best DH of all time. I know you said you’re not necessarily holding the DH against him, but he was superior at his position for a decade.
As for Lee Smith and closers, would you put Goose Gossage on your list of those unworthy? Would you agree Smith is at least as worthy as Gossage, Sutter or Fingers?
:smack: Totally whiffed on including Walker in my original list. Great five-tool player, with a cannon of an arm – on a couple of occasions, he threw slow runners out at first base who had hit ground balls to right field. And, as far as I could tell, a class act, as well.
I guess he was, but how many regular DHs were there during his career?
I think there’s a difference between “dominating” a position regularly used by only half the majors and which many of those teams use as a placeholder for hitters with minor injuries, old guys, and the like, and “dominating” an actual position used by all baseball teams. If that’s unfortunate for the qualifications of Edgar Martinez, then so be it. Not all roles are equally valuable.
I again return to the Larry Walker comparison. Why Martinez and not Walker? Walker perhaps did not “dominate” right field the way Martinez did, but that’s because there are 25-26 regular right fielders and a lot of great, great players play out there, and not many players worth much are regular DHs.
I’d say Smith is about even with Fingers and Sutter and behind Gossage. Fingers and Sutter are pretty awful HoF picks, in my humble opinion, and so aren’t very good arguments in Smith’s favour.
I think both these arguments come down to my belief that just because someone’s really good at a role doesn’t change the fact that some roles are not instriniscally as valuable as others. A DH is not as important as a shortstop, and a “closer” isn’t as important as a starter. I really, honestly believe the only “closer” who’s clearly a Hall of Famer, ever, is Mariano Rivera, and then only because Rivera’s level of supremacy is so ridiculously higher than anyone else.
Wait, are you saying you don’t think Santo should be in the Hall of Fame?
It’s long overdue, IMO.
Relatively short career, though, and he only got 20% last time out.
You make a good case, but he won’t get in this year or next. If we see >40% either year, we might see him in the Hallowed Halls one day.
markdash:
I’ve never seen Santo play. I can look up Santo on baseball-reference.com and I might think his stats look worthy. But, those who feel Santo should be in the Hall of Fame are standing against:
A BBWAA vote in his first year of eligibility (1980)
14 subsequent BBWAA votes after some players who were dropped for non-support got another chance (1985 - 1998)
4 Veterans’ Committee votes (2003 - 2009, odd numbered years)
How many chances does one guy deserve? Do you get to ask the same question infinite times until you get the answer you want? Why does one final “yes” mean more than 19 “noes”?
I have nothing against Santo specifically. I dislike all of these Veterans’ Committee choices that override 15 years of “noes” from the BBWAA. Is it possible for people to make a mistake? Sure. Is it likely that a consensus of 400 people is mistaken? Less so. Is it possible that the same consensus 15 times from 400 people, with the group changing somewhat from year to year, is mistaken? Even less so than that. And even then, he had four chances with the Vets before this year. Don’t like the BBWAA? Fine, then tell me, why is this group of a dozen insiders more correct than those four groups of a dozen insiders?
Was Santo very good? I’m sure he was, even to get the level of support he did before this year. Is he a Hall of Famer? 19 bodies say no, and 1 said yes, and somehow that 1 is the one we listen to. Ridiculous.