My 2011 Major League Baseball Hall Of Fame Ballot (Not That It Counts)

Last week, Major League Baseball produced their yearly Hall Of Fame nominees. The group of players included on the list represent a smattering of no doubters, three confirmed steroid juicers, and--by my count--better than ten borderline candidates.

So, before we get to my list of the most deserving candidates, let's do a little housecleaning.

First, the baseball writers list can include no more than ten candidates. This means that I had to leave off two deserving players off my ballot. I firmly believe that long time reliever, Lee Smith, and all-time greatest designated hitter, Edgar Martinez are deserving of enshrinement. But the rules are the rules, and only ten can make the list.

Secondly, I would have no problem voting for the three most prominent steroid users on this year's group of nominees. 1st time nominees, Rafael Palmeiro and Juan Gonzalez have great statistical arguments as does hold over, Mark McGwire. That being said, on my list I will favor those that have not been proven guilty of using performance enhancers, and because I know that these three are not likely to get anywhere near enough votes to get close to election, I will not waste a vote on them...this year.

Many would argue that those unholy three should not be considered at all. That they "cheated" and are "dirty." True enough, but were they worse people than vicious racists (and Hall Of Famers), Ty Cobb and Cap Anson? Nope. Did they cheat any more than noted spit baller (and HOFer), Gaylord Perry? I would argue no again. But my biggest frustration with those that don't think these statistically and physically inflated former superstars deserve enshrinement is simply this: You can't say a thing that happened didn't happen. Someone hit all those home runs and won all those games. As distasteful as the steroid era was, it is a part of the game's history. And for most of that time, it wasn't even against the rules. That is baseball's fault and baseball's shame. And I don't see the logic behind holding the players responsible for the sport's lack of due diligence. So, put them in the Hall Of Fame, establish a separate wing, and put their transgression on their plaques. If those that oppose this opinion do so because they think it shames and embarrasses the game, well, the game has earned it.

There are also three "close but no cigar" candidates on the ballot this year. I would love to vote for Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly. But the truth is, they were great for a very short period of time, and did not add enough good years on top of those admittedly dominant ones. Also, former Mets and Reds reliever, John Franco, would miss my ballot on his first year of eligibility. He may have been the greatest lefty closer ever though, and I reserve the right to reconsider him in the future.

Now, the last bit. My vote doesn't count, caries no weight, and effectively means nothing. But that's never stopped me before.

So, here is my completely inconsequential ballot. My candidates are ranked in order of merit.

1) Roberto Alomar (second year on the ballot)
The Numbers: 2724 hits, 1508 runs, 210 home runs, 1134 RBI, .300 batting average
The Awards: 12 time all star, 10 gold gloves, 4 silver sluggers, 1992 ALCS MVP

Quite simply, the greatest modern second baseman this side of Joe Morgan. Aside from all the great personal accolades listed above, he was also a great clutch player. His career playoff batting average is .313, and includes two World Series victories with the Toronto Blue Jays. A great hitter, slick fielder, and a winner. So why didn't he get in last year? Because of one terrible incident in his career. Once, after being called out on strikes, Alomar spat on home plate umpire, John Hirschbeck. It was ugly and awful--and completely out of character. Eventually, Alomar not only apologized to Hirschbeck, but contributed regularly to Hirschbeck's cancer foundation, set up in honor of his departed son. Which of course means that the Hirschbeck could forgive him but the baseball writers could not. Ridiculous. Alomar was only 1.3% short of the 75% required for enshrinement, and now that he has served his one year of "punishment" from the writers, I do not expect to be writing about this silliness next year.

2) Jeff Bagwell (1st year)
The Numbers: 449 home runs, 1529 RBI, 1517 runs, .297 batting average, .408 on base %, .540 slugging %
The Awards: 1991 Rookie Of The Year, 1994 MVP, four time all star, 3 silver sluggers, one gold glove

Bagwell is a sabremetrician's dream. The new breed of statistical over analyzers who have created stats like OPS, WAR, and TZR, love Bagwell. As well they should. Bagwell was one of the most complete players of his era. He was a tremendous hitter, a good fielder, and a surprisingly good base runner (202 career stolen bases). The only argument against Bagwell is that he didn't accumulate--due to a career ending shoulder injury--the "slam dunk" milestones (3,000 hits, 500 homers) that typically guarantee enshrinement. I also get the feeling that some writers may hold the steroid era against him. While there is no proof or even a great deal of suspicion around Bagwell, his peak era stats and a body frame that was similar to other users, may be held against him. Which of course, is unfair. To me it's as simple as this: In two years, Bagwell's Houston Astro teammate Craig Biggio will likely be a first ballot hall of famer (3,000 career hits all but guarantees it). And Biggio was probably 90% of the player that Bagwell was. Bags is easily the best Astro of all time. That should be enough.

3) Barry Larkin (2nd year)
The Numbers: 2340 hits, 1329 runs, 198 homers, 960 RBI, 379 stolen bases, .295 batting avg.
The Awards: 12 time all star, 9 silver sluggers, 3 gold gloves, 1995 MVP

For more than a decade, Larkin was the gold standard of Major League shortstops. He did everything exceedingly well. He hit for average and power, fielded his position with aplomb, and ran the bases as well as anyone who has ever played the game. The one knock on Larkin was his health. When Larkin played he was great. Unfortunately, his body often let him down, resulting in a lot of missed games and holding his career statistical accumulation down. However, most baseball historians rank the former Red great between 4th and 9th on the list of the greatest shortstops to ever play the game. There are more than nine shortstops in the Hall Of Fame already. I rest my case.

4) Alan Trammell (10th year)
The Numbers: 2365 hits, 1231 runs, 185 homers, 1003 RBI, .285 batting avg.
The Awards: 6 time all star, 4 gold gloves, 3 silver sluggers, 1984 World Series MVP

The argument for Trammell is almost the exact same one that I made for Larkin. Trammell didn't steal as many bases (236), hit as many homers or for as high an average as Larkin, but he was his equal in all other categories. For my money, he was also the 1987 MVP, despite the voters giving the award to George Bell in what can only be considered a colossal misjudgement. Like Larkin, most historians rank Trammell in or near the top ten of all Major League shortstops. Yet somehow, Trammell has never even received a vote on 25% of the writer's ballots. A real crime. My final argument for Trammell (and Larkin for that matter), is that if I were a General Manager and I had Trammell on my team, and another team offered me Ozzie Smith straight up for Trammell, I would decline. Conversely, if I had Smith and were offered Trammell I would emphatically say yes without hesitation. Smith was a (deserving) first ballot hall of famer and Trammell can't get within shouting distance. Like I said, a crime.

5) Bert Blyleven (14th year)
The Numbers: 287 wins, 3.31 ERA, 242 complete games, 60 shut outs, 3701 strike outs
The Awards: 2 time all star, finished in the top ten in Cy Young voting four times

One of the most undervalued starting pitchers in the history of baseball. A great pitcher on predominantly bad teams over his 22 year career, Blyleven was seldom considered a "dominant" pitcher. But a deeper dive into his career numbers tells a different story. His 3701 strike outs are 5th all time. His 242 complete games are 91st. And most tellingly, he is 9th all time with 60 shut outs. 9th! That's 14 more than Roger Clemens, 23 more than Randy Johnson, 25 more than Greg Maddux, and 35 more than Tom Glavine. So I would ask voters, what is more dominant than a shut out? Blyleven just missed last year by 0.8%. This should finally be his year.

6) Jack Morris (12th year)
The Numbers: 254 wins, 175 complete games, 28 shut outs, 2478 strike outs
The Awards: 5 time all star, 1991 World Series MVP, 7 times in the top ten for Cy Young award

The frustrating candidacy of Jack Morris revolves around one rather silly statistic, ERA. Were it not for his 3.90 career earned run average, I think Morris would already be in. It's the same argument most had against Andre Dawson (only with him it was his on base average). However, I know what I saw with my own two eyes. And hands down, Jack Morris is the toughest S.O.B. I have ever seen. If I had to choose one pitcher to win one game for me and I could pick amongst all the guys I've ever seen, I would take Morris. All you really need to know about Morris is that while pitching for the Minnesota Twins in the 1991 world series, Morris clinched the World Series by throwing 10 shut out innings against the vaunted Atlanta Braves. One word describes this performance: Typical.

*It should also be mentioned at this point that there seems to be a prejudice against the great Tiger teams of the eighties. The only person affiliated with those squads in the Hall Of Fame is manager, Sparky Anderson. By my count, Trammell, Morris, and the criminally overlooked Lou Whitaker should all be in the Hall Of Fame. And a decent case could also be made for Lance Parrish as well.

7) Tim Raines (4th year)
The Numbers: 2605 hits, 1571 runs, 170 homers, 980 RBI, 808 stolen bases, .294 batting avg., .385 on base percentage
The Awards: 7 time all star, one silver slugger, one batting title

Raines exemplary career was largely overshadowed by the greatest lead off hitter ever, Rickey Henderson. Which is only somewhat fair. Sure, Henderson was the best, but Raines was pretty damn great too. The former Expo great is 5th all time in stolen bases and sports an ungodly success rate of 85%. Most writers argue that Raines was not dominant enough. Here's what they are missing: In his career, Raines was intentionally walked 148 times (good for 46th all time). That means that Raines was so feared that pitchers preferred to walk him even though they knew that a free pass to first would probably equal a double after Raines came out of his slide into second base after frustrating another poor catcher.

8) Larry Walker (First year)
The Numbers: 383 homers, 1311 RBI, 1355 runs, .313 batting average, .400 on base %, .565 slugging %,
The Awards: 5 time all star, 7 gold gloves, 3 silver sluggers, 3 batting titles, 1997 MVP

Like Bagwell, Walker is also sabremetrician's dream. His batting average, on base percentage, and slugging percentage all scream Hall of Famer. However, I don't expect Walker to make it in his first year on the ballot for two reasons. For one, Walker missed a lot of games in his career with injuries depressing his statistical accumulation. More significantly to voters however, will be where he played, the launching pad of Coors Stadium in Colorado. Which is exceedingly unfair. Do we hold it against Ted Williams that he could take aim at the green monster in Fenway? Or how about all the Yankee greats that had that "short porch" in Yankee stadium that clearly increased their career home run totals? Or, how about all of the players in the Hall of Fame that played prior to integrations and therefore never faced Satchel Paige or any other of the great Negro League players? Walker couldn't help where he played, but he could help his level of production. Which was fantastic. Lost in large part--due to his batting average and power numbers--was how great of an all around player Walker was. He was a feared canon armed right fielder and stole 230 bases in his career as well. It should also be said, that Walker was a terrific hitter in Montreal (before moving to the Rockies), and an effective one at the tail end of his career in Saint Louis. He was not simply a Coors Field wonder.

9) Dave Parker (15th--and last--year)
The Numbers: 2712 hits, 339 homers, 1493 RBI, .290 batting average, .471 slugging %
The Awards: 7 time all star, 1978 MVP, 3 gold gloves, 3 silver sluggers, 2 batting titles

Also known as my lost cause. If Dave Parker is overlooked in his final year on the ballot, then he will likely never get in to the Hall Of Fame. Just looking at his career numbers and accomplishments, it's clear that Parker would by no means be the "worst" player (Hello Bill Mazeroski!) to be enshrined, yet still, his support is terribly weak (only 15.2% last year). Why? Because Dave Parker used cocaine and largely gave away three of his peak seasons while suffering from addiction. But here's the thing, Parker did come back from that addiction to average 108 RBI over the next 4 years with the Cincinnati Reds. He also packed on a 97 RBI season with Oakland and a 92 RBI season with Milwaukee in his next to last year. When you couple his late career surge with his first 6 full seasons with the Pirates (where he was often considered the best player in the National League), there is a lot to look at here, and most of it is choice. Besides winning the 1978 MVP with the Pirates, he also finished 2nd in 1985, 3rd in 1975 and 1977 and 5th in 1986. Still, all my verbage here is largely wasted. This year, I started a Facebook page called Dave Parker For The Hall Of Fame Dammit!!, and thus far the page has only garnered 14 fans. Parker has never gotten the sort of ground swell of support that eventually carried Jim Rice and Andre Dawson to the Hall Of Fame. Two players that Parker compares favorably too. Such is life.

10) Fred McGriff (2nd year)
The Numbers: 2490 hits, 493 homers, 1550 RBI, 1349 runs, .284 batting average, .509 slugging %
The Awards: 5 time all star, 3 silver sluggers, 2 home run titles

Perhaps no other player on the ballot is more affected by the steroid era than Fred McGriff. Not that McGriff was ever suspected of using performance enhancers (on the contrary he was thought of as a Mr. Clean). But the inflated numbers that his contemporaries put up make his numbers look comparatively modest. However, I do expect his support to increase over the years as voters will begin to look over McGriff's clean career and find he was only a little behind the juicers of the day. What McGriff may have lacked in eye-popping numbers, he more than made up for with consistency. In his 19 season career, Mcgriff hit 30 or more home runs 10 times (he was in the 20s 5 times). He knocked in 100 runs 8 times. 90 another 4 times, and 80 3 times. I would also say that if McGriff would have hit just 7 more home runs (to hit the magical 500 mark), he would be a shoo-in. With all that McGriff did do, should 7 measly homers make such a difference? I think not.

So there it is, that's my list. If I were a wagering man, I would bet on Blyleven and Alomar getting in for certain, and Larkin, Bagwell, and Morris getting close. All told, I think we'll see three new inductees this year from that group of five. Next year's ballot should see at least one more player from this list getting in as the most prominent new nominee will be Bernie Williiams. After that, Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa will be on the ballot and the arguments will get very, very interesting.

Sumo-Pop
December 5, 2010