This marked my second Hall of Fame ballot, as you have to serve 10 years in the Baseball Writers Association of America before you are eligible to vote, and I made some changes from my first ballot. I voted for some players last year about whom, this year, I felt less enthusiastic. And vice versa.
I beleve this is a product of time - of another year of baseball changing perspectives, and of whatever baseball knowledge I've accrued in the same period.
So here we go, in alphabetical order:
Brady Anderson: No.
Harold Baines: Would've been interesting if he had reached 3,000 hits, but he didn't (2,866), so No.
Rod Beck: No.
Bert Blyleven: I was baseball-conscious for the majority of his career, and never did I think, "Bert Blyleven will be in the Hall of Fame some day." But look at his numbers. He's a remarkable fifth all-time in strikeouts (3,701), ninth in shutouts (60) and 13th in innings pitched (4,970). There's too much great stuff to ignore. Yes.
Dave Concepcion: He's a favorite among the Big Red Machine fans, but I can't support someone with a career .322 on-base percentage and .357 slugging percentage. No.
Andre Dawson: A very tough decision. That .323 OBP is brutal. Still, there are 438 homers in the (mostly) pre-steroids time, 314 stolen bases, strong defense and a high-impact career that featured three top-two finishes (second in 1981, second in 1983 and first in 1987) in the National League Most Valuable Player voting. For now, he's a Yes.
Shawon Dunston: No.
Chuck Finley: No.
Travis Fryman: No.
Rich Gossage: It is confounding how it has taken Goose this long, but this should be his year, after he tallied 71.2 percent of last year's vote (you need 75% to gain induction). Gossage and the already-inducted Rollie Fingers and Bruce Sutter were far more valuable than today's closers, because they routinely pitched multiple innings. Yes.
Tommy John: Sorry, but no extra points for the surgery, and the numbers just aren't there. No.
David Justice: No, and not because of the Mitchell Report.
Chuck Knoblauch: Just like Justice, he was a No prior to last week, anyway.
Don Mattingly: Sorry, Yankees fans, but when you break it down, there were four brilliant years (1984-87), two very good ones (1988-89) and two decent ones (1992-93), and not much else. No.
Mark McGwire: On the merits of his career, he'd be a Yes. But here's the evidence that he cheated: 1) In Februay 2005, he issued a flat-out denial that he ever used illegal, performance-enhancing drugs. In March 2005, he refused to repeat that, under oath, during his Congressional testimony; 2) Congressman Tom Davis, then the Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, divulged that McGwire attempted, on the day before the infamous hearing, to admit to steroid usage in return for immunity. That's evidence that we'll allow into the court of public opinion. No.
Jack Morris: His numbers might not stand out among the all-time greats, and this is a vote on which I could change in the future. Right now, I view him as the best of his time period (1977-94). The last starting pitcher to get voted in on the BBWAA ballot, interestingly, was Nolan Ryan in 1999. Morris deserves it, in my mind, because his innings pitched (3,824) back up his reputation as a workhorse; because his 254 wins reflect the fact that he hung around games for so many decisions; and because of his postseason excellence. Yes.
Dale Murphy: An interesting career, featuring back-to-back NL MVP awards in 1982-83, but not strong enough for the Hall. No.
Robb Nen: No.
Dave Parker: He was a Yes for me last year, but I just wasn't feeling him this year. His 339 homers fell short of Dawson and Jim Rice, for instance, as did his .471 slugging percentage. Maybe I'll flip back the other way on him next year, but he's a No for now.
Tim Raines: My only Yes among the first-year candidates. He was one of the best leadoff hitters all-time, but he happened to be Rickey Henderson's contemporary, which overshadowed his accomplishments. I agree with Newsday alumnus Tom Verducci.
Jim Rice: A few more strong years would have helped, but check out his first 12 full years in the major leagues. He was dominant. Yes.
Jose Rijo: No.
Lee Smith: I voted Yes last year, but the more intelligent analysis you read about closers, the less you tend to appreciate them. Smith didn't even average 1 1/3 innings per appearance. No.
Todd Stottlemyre: No.
Alan Trammell: I went the other way on him: No last year, Yes this year. If his contemporary shortstop Ozzie Smith is in, then Trammell should be in, too. Trammell may not have been the defensive wizard that Ozzie was, but his offensive superiority more than makes up for it.
Comments (56)
Ken, I agree with most of your selections...just wondering, will next year's ballot be amended by the BWAA so that voters have the option of indicating an X or an Rx ?
I am almost in agreement - Dave Parker does not make my list and I am on the fence regarding Jack Morris and Blyleven.
I remember Morris on the Tigers in 1984 and that great 10 inning World Series going 10 innings, but all that strikes me about Blyleven is the great curve ball - I do not have a career defining moment.
Hey Ken.
I know this is not directly related to this blog but, I wanted to bring it up. To me, it seems glaringly obvious that the Mitchell Report fingered at least six players on the 2000 Yankees team that won the world series who were taking steroids. Doesn't it seem that some sort of acknowledgement should be made toward this end? I am not necessarily saying that the WS should be awarded to the second place team that as far as I can tell did not have any players fingered in the Mitchell Report as taking steroids but, how about at the very least, an asterisk or something more satsifying like removing the title from the Yankees. What are your thoughts.
~Howard
The Hawk certainly belongs in the Hall. Look at his career of 21 years vs that of Carl Yastrzemski (23 years). They are comparable in HRs (Yaz 452, Dawson 438), career BA (Yaz .285, Dawson .279), and MVP Awards (1 each). Yaz was an 18 time All-Star, Dawson made it 8 times playing his best years in Montreal. A solid guy, and if not for playing on the concrete of Olympic Stadium, which ruined his knees, may have put up some more monster years.
Other than going over 500 home runs what other major accomplishments does McGwire have ? He wasn't a good first basemen. Not a high average guy. Regularly injured. Was lucky enough to hang around to get 500 home runs. What he even be on anyone list if he didn't get to 500 home runs ?
Howard, you know you're my boy, but no, no, no on the 2000 Yankees. Remember, the Mitchell Report reflects the bust of one dealer. Who knows how many dealers are still out there? And perhaps one of them dealt to the 2000 Mets.
If you want to talk about how the 2000 Yankees have been tarnished, go right ahead. But there can't be any official notation, because there's so much we don't know.
By the way, the 2000 Mets did not completely escape the Mitchell Report. Matt Franco and Todd Pratt are in there.
Don mattingly's statistics are identical to Kirby Puckett. he did nopt have the supporting cast the Puckett did. Also, Luis Tiant
has the identical numbers as Catfish hunter. Again Tiant played early with the Indicans and Hunter has the atletics. Both should be in
Keith Hernandez belongs in the Hall. 11 straight gold gloves. Co-MVP of the National League in 1979. 2 world series titles. Just a shade below a career .300 hitter. Terrific clutch hitter, and what a leader on the field! Great RBI guy. What do you say, Ken?
Why no to McGwire. Shouldn't stats be enough? Compare him to everyone during that time. If you vote no to McGwire, then you should not vote anyone in from the "steroid" era since we will never know who did and who didn't take them. Especially since they were not illegal in baseball until the early 2000s. Hold your morality toward baseball and not just the players.
Ken
I agree on all your "No" votes and for basically the reasons you listed. I don't agree on all your "Yes" votes. Some of your reasoning doesn't hold water, in my opinion. More later.
John, to respond backwards, 1) As you saw, Luis Tiant isn't even on the ballot, and 2) The bar is set higher, offensively, for a corner player like Mattingly than a middle-of-the-diamond player like Puckett. And yes, undoubtedly, Puckett's two World Series rings and his strong postseason play helped his cause.
Gary, as you and I have discussed, I agree that Hernandez deserved more support when he was on the ballot. He would've been a close call for me, personally.
Randy, many voters agree with your philosophy. I disagree. I think, if we've got evidence on someone that he cheated _ and I listed the evidence on McGwire above _ then don't let him in. If someone gets in, and we find out post-induction that he cheated, I can live with that.
Ken
I would no on:
Bert Blyleven: He lost 250 games (only 37 less than he won), gave up 50 homeruns in 1986, threw 13 wild pitches in 1987, surrendered a staggering 4,632 hits in his career, had an ERA over 4 in 5 of his last 6 years, won 20 games once in 22 yeas and only won more than 17 games twice in his entire career. He’s not a Hall of Famer.
Jim Rice: Hit only 382 HRs in 16 seasons and had only one 30 homerun season in his last 10 years. Banged out at least 30 doubles only twice in his last 10 years. A .298 average when combined with everything else just doesn’t get it done. Had a nice string of very good years, but not enough. He’s not a Hall of Famer.
Jack Morris: Lifetime 254-186 is solid, but his ERA of 3.90 is on the high side for a HOF member. ERA over 4 in 8 of his 18 seasons. ERA below 3.94 only once in last 7 seasons. Threw 206 wild pitches. Borderline at best.
Andre Dawson: Lifetime BA of .279 with 2774 hits and 438 HRs. I think he needed either 500 HRs or 3,000 hits. He has neither. Batted as higher than .277 only once in last 8 years. Reached 100 RBIs only 3 times in last 13 years. Hit 30 HRs only once in last 9 years. He’s not a HOF member.
Tim Raines: Not much power and only 2,605 hits. Obviously a good base runner. Hurt too much. Only scored more than 80 runs only twice in last 9 years. Lots of poor numbers for year-after-year due to injuries. No way is he a HOF member.
Alan Trammel: No way should he be elected to the HOF. Had 2,365 hits with a .285 average, no power (reached 15 HRs once in last 9 years) and drove in at least 100 RBIs once in his entire career. He missed lots of games throughout his career, and played in less than 100 games four times in his last six seasons (the other two he played in 101 and 112 games) and never even drew 70 walks in a season in his career. Not a particularly spectacular fielder either.
Ken,
I agree with just about all of your assesments but I have a question regarding Mark McGwire. Why are you ok with finding out about cheating post induction? Aren't we then just punishing the ones that didn't cheat well enough to not get caught? Thats like saying "As long as you are an expert cheater you can still get in the Hall and if we find out later no big deal." And how many homers did some eligible known cheaters hit off of unknown cheating pitchers? Where do you draw the line? Go with the numbers and clutch performances.
Jim: Wow, so you would only vote for Gossage on this year's ballot? You are obviously entitled to your opinions. Of the six you negged, the only ones on which I strongly disagree with you are Blyleven and Rice. I have very mixed feelings on the other four.
As for McGwire, I just think that's part of life, no matter if you're a steroid-using baseball player or bank robber: We try to catch as many as we can, but we're never going to catch all of them. To lose sleep over that reality is not productive.
Ken I vote, too, and I agree with you on Goose and Rice.
However, I also went for Mattingly and Baines. That was it.
I find little argument for Blylven based on a few items, but most notably:
1) if you take the 1973 season out of his numbers (only 20 win season of his career, 9 of his 60 shutouts) he was a 2nd tier pitcher the rest of his career
2) he was only selected for an all-star team twice in his long career (1973 and 1985) -- indicating opposing managers simply didn't feel he was all that terrific/dominating for much of his career
Al Oliver
Mark McGwire was the Dave Kingman of the PED era.
I say Tommy John AND his doctor should go in for being such a sucessful test case for the ligament surgery that bears his name. He had his best years after the operation and if he had refused to have it or didnt come back with such great results, there may have been several hundred players who never make the majors or whose careers would have been cut drastically short without it.
His career stats by itself make him a borderline case, but this contribution definately puts him over the top.
Good choices all.I really think that this will be Jim Ed Rice's year.His stats really must be looked at now since the release of the Mitchell Report.The era that played in could very well be the last "clean" one.If it doesn't happen this year,next year is his last shot.
Ken,
I have to agree with you on almost all and your reasoning as well. Blyleven for sure, he played for some pretty mediocre to bad teams. Morris, Dawson and Rice too. Disagree with Raines and would like to see Murphy. Admitting steriods or not, McGwire is a no. Other than the HR's there was nothing great about him. Not too sure about Trammel.
"(Blyleven) was only selected for an all-star team twice in his long career (1973 and 1985) -- indicating opposing managers simply didn't feel he was all that terrific/dominating for much of his career"
Or, indicating that he consistently pitched better in the second half of the season compared to the first. How does a guy who finished in the top 5 in his league in ERA 7 times and top 5 in strikeouts 13 (!) times only make 2 all-star teams? Some examples:
* 1971 (5th in ERA, 4th in Ks). 1st half: 7-11, 3.13 era. 2nd: 9-4, 2.36.
* 1974 (4th in ERA, 2nd in Ks). 1st half: 3.10 era. 2nd: 2.00 era.
* 1975: (15 wins, 2nd in Ks, 5th with 3.00 ERA). 1st half era: 3.72. 2nd half era: 2.33.
* 1984: (3rd in ERA, 2nd in wins, 4th in Ks; 3rd in Cy Young voting). 1st half: 7 wins, 3.54 era. 2nd half: 12 wins, 2.34 era, 10 complete games!
Some of his other exclusions are just bizarre. In 1989 Blyleven finished 4th in the Cy Young voting, on the basis of a 17-5, 2.73 year. At the break he was 8-2 with a 2.15 era... but missed the All-star game, over the likes of journeyman reliever Mike Hennman (45 innings with a 4.17 era) and Tony Fernandez (.259/.292/.360, 5 homers).
For his career, he posted a 3.47 ERA before the All-star break, and a 3.12 ERA after it. His lack of all-star appearances was simply bad luck.
Shawn writes:
"Other than going over 500 home runs what other major accomplishments does McGwire have ?"
He brings up a good point. Beyond his ability to crush the living hell out of the ball, what else was he good at?
On similar notes, Nolan Ryan was only good at striking batters out, and Peyton Manning is only good at throwing touchdowns.
Ken - Just for the record, I am the "Jim" that wrote the laundry list of why I disagree. Not the "Jim" that followed me who questioned your reasoning on McGwire. I agree with you 1,000% on McGwire and your reasoning that if a guy like him admits to being a cheat prior to the vote, obviously you cannot support him for the HOF. If the guy is already voted in and then it comes out, we can't do a thing. Yeh, I know I would only support one guy (Gossage) this year but I think we have lowered the bar in the past 10 years, including when a .260 hitter got in. (Hint: He played for Pittsburgh and beat the Yankees in the 1960 World Series.) I guess I have to start using my initials to distinguish myself from others with the same first name.
RMT writes: "Mark McGwire was the Dave Kingman of the PED era."
Dave Kingman's career on-base percentage: .302.
Mark McGwire's career on-base percentage: .394. (78th best in the history of baseball... better than guys like Derek Jeter, Rod Carew, Ichiro Suzuki, Hank Aaron, Pete Rose, and Willie Mays). In careers of roughly the same length, McGwire drew over twice as many walks as Kingman.
Dave Kingman's career slugging percentage: .478. (Behind all-time greats like George Selkirk, Zeke Bonura, Glenallen Hill and Joe Adcock).
Mark McGwire's career slugging percentage: .588. (Number 9 all-time... ahead of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and Stan Musial).
Now, if we combine the two together, and adjust for era (OPS+), we get...
Dave Kingman's career OPS+: 115. (He's tied for 457th all-time, with legends like Bob Fothergill, Solly Hemus and Kevin Millar).
Mark McGwire's is 12th all-time... ahead of Joe Dimaggio, Frank Robinson, and Manny Ramirez).
So... yeah. Mark McGwire is to Dave Kingman as Manny Ramirez is to Kevin Millar.
I loved the Jim who posted that he would only vote for Goose Gossage this year--his reasoning was hilarious! Let's see if I can top it!
I would No on:
Willie Mays: Batted over .300 only once in his last 10 seasons. Hit fewer than 30 home runs in his last seven seasons. Banged out at least 30 doubles only once in his 11 years. Over 1,500 strikeouts, and was caught stealing more than 100 times.
Mickey Mantle: He missed lots of games throughout his career. Lots of poor numbers for year-after-year due to injuries. Banged out at least 30 doubles only once...in his entire career! (What a schmuck!) 8 seasons with more than 100 strikeouts. Hit below .250 his final 2 seasons. Hit more than 30 home runs only once in his final 7 years.
Frank Robinson: Hit just .294 with only 2,943 hits. I think he needed either a batting average of .300 or 3000 hits. Drove in over 100 runs only once in his last 11 seasons. Not a particularly spectacular fielder either.
Cal Ripken: No way should he be elected to the HOF. Had 1,129 walks and a .276 average, no speed and no power (reached 25 home runs once in last 10 years) and drove in at least 110 RBIs once in an entire career. Drew over 100 walks only once in an entire career. Not a particularly spectacular fielder, either, with 294 errors.
Dave.
Your comments are hilarious and the list can go on and on.
On a personal note, I would love to see Keith Hernandez elected into the Hall. Rumor has it, Mr. Davidoff has 'special' powers to get Mex up to Cooperstown.
~Howard
Sorry for the Jim confusion there. Non-McGwire Jim, you should get to be "Jim," since you're on here all the time. The other guy should change his handle.
Jim, the Veterans' Committee election of Bill Mazeroski led to an immediate renovation of how the Veterans Committee works. I don't think it's fair to refer to that when citing examples of how the BBWAA has "lowered the bar."
Ken:
Fair enough on Mazeroski and a good point.
I took another look at Blylevan and he's a closer call than I originally thought. Those 60 shutouts and the 3,701 K's are impressive. For some reason, I can't get by the 250 losses. Should someone get in that has only 37 more wins than losses? I don't know. As I said, it's a tough call, taking into consideration some of the teams he played on.
On Rice: He certainly had some monster years, but did he have enough of them to warrant HOF induction. I personally think he just misses. He was good. No, make that very good - but lacks the really impressive numbers that I think an HOF member should have. I wouldn't be upset if he was elected, but I also wouldn't think it was an injustice if he didn't make it.
Jim, I have to admit: I'm surprised that you're so wrapped up in wins and losses. You know how those are as much a product of the game as a product of the pitcher's performance. It's quite evident to me that Blyleven is more deserving than 300-game winners like Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton.
This is great stuff! With the injection of Tim Raines into the mix, we're really getting to the sweetspot of my baseball card collection. Thanks for switching on Trammell this year. I should have dumped my Parkers, though. Too late.
Seems like there's a lot of 95th percentile guys on the ballot this year, and they can't all get in, so I'm guessing only Gossage actually makes it to Cooperstown this summer, thanks to the 'stache.
Ken,
I know HOF voting is subjective, which makes the debate about who gets in endless, but I can't see how anyone who watched baseball in the 70's, 80's & 90s can't see how dominant players like Gossage, Dawson and Jim Rice were. To me, these guys should be no brainers.
Gossage was the first of the intimidating closers, and was basically a lock to save the game once he came in. Right handed batters didn't stand a chance against him, and lefties faired only slightly better. His presence and impact on the game and the way it is played today is worthy of the Hall.
Dawson and Rice were some of the most dominant RBI men of their time. Do their stats compare to that of Ruth & Gehrig? Of course not, but in their time, they were just as feared.
I'm probably biased about these guys because I was a young teenager when most of them were in their prime. I remember watching Dawson do EVERYTHING, a true 5 tool player. Rice was a hitting machine, a Manny Ramirez in his day. Gossage was the most dominant reliever in baseball, and even as he aged and lost a little on the fastball, was still a intimidater.
"I remember watching Dawson do EVERYTHING, a true 5 tool player."
Do you remember watching him get on base more than 32% of the time? The following players were better at avoiding outs than Andre Dawson:
Brad Ausmus
Ozzie Smith
Tony Graffanino
Coco Crisp
Aaron Boone
Hogwash! If McGuire's career merited his entrance to the Hall of Fame -- he should be there. The "court of public opinion" is not the determining factor of entrance -- performance is. Are you really going to believe a POLITICIAN, Tom Davis, who CLAIMS that McGuire "attempted to admit steroid usage in return for immunity"?
Politicians have less credibility than so called "Sports Journalists". Politicians are, by and large, liars, cheats and egomaniacs. Members of the Baseball Writers Association of America should not be allowed to determine who gets into the Hall, itshould be the managers, coaches and owners the players against whom the nominees competed. Members of the BWAA are just a bunch of sanctimoneous, baseball player wannabes who couldn't hit a slow curve much less a high hard one.
Big Mac's homerun battle with Sammy Sosa is generally credited with "saving baseball" after the strike. If there is one bad thing that came out of the McGuire/Sosa summer of swat, it is that they also saved the job of a lot of baseball writers.
Dave - my point is that McGwire was a 1 tool player.
The difference between the two is that McGwire actually hit .263 (vs. .235 for Kong) and walked 1200 more times.
But stats are ancient history, and I am not here to talk about the past.
Golfer, you're fired up! I assure you that I am not a baseball player wannabe, although your argument that the BBWAA should not be voting on the Hall has merit nonetheless.
I have confirmed Davis' story on McGwire with a second source, and McGwire and his people have never denied it. It's accurate.
Alan Trammell for the HOF but Donnie not?
Get real. Guys who change their minds on who should belong in the hall or just base it on stats (as it seems you do both) are sissy fancy boy bloggers who dont know baseball.
Donnie does NOT belong, not enough great years, sorry.
Gary coming to my defense? It must be the holiday season.
Dave made some interesting observations and put a nice spin on my write-ups on the players I couldn't support for the HOF by bringing up four of the all-time greats. If only the players I don't support had stats like the players Dave mentioned:
Willie Mays: Batted .302 lifetime despite having a sub .300 average for his last 8 seasons. Played 22 years and appeared in 24 All-Star games (at one time there were two games a year), banged out 3,283 hits, drove in 1,903 runs, scored at least 100 runs for 12 straight years, won two MVP Awards, hit 660 HRs, had a .557 slugging average and is regarded as one of the greatest players ever.
Mickey Mantle: Batted .298 lifetime with 536 HRs and a .557 slugging average (yes, the same as Mays). Scored at least 100 runs for nine straight years during one stretch, won the 1956 Triple Crown, made 16 All-Star teams, played on 12 pennant wiiners and 7 World Series champions, a three-time MVP.
Frank Robinson: Batted .294 lifetime with 586 HRs in 21 years. Won the MVP in both leagues. Won the Triple Crown. First permanent African America MLB manager. Had 1,812 RBIs, 2,943 hits, a .537 lifetime slugging average an even managed in both leagues.
Cal Ripken: Played in 2,632 consecutive games, breaking Lou Gehrig's streak. A 19-time All-Star in 21 seasons. Hit 436 HRs and had 3,184 hits. Regarded as one of the best shortstops ever.
These players had incredible statistics despite the normal drop-off as they neared the end of their careers. I don't think any of the players on my no list have stats in the ballpark with these four.
Maybe it is time to somehow get a vote going for Gil Hodges. His stats deserve it and so does he as a true representative of what a major league Hall of Famer should be.
Chuck, Gil Hodges had his 15 years on the writers' ballot and didn't make it. He now gets consideration on the Veterans Committee's ballot.
Don Mattingly's numbers aren't good enough? Compared to what, steroid and HGH enhanced numbers of the 90s? When you strip away all of the inflated stats of the last 20 years his numbers are good enough. Imagine what numbers he could have had if he had HGH or used steroids.
You know, you writers get on your high horse when it comes to Bonds and Big Mac, but when you're confronted with a guy who is on the bubble, but did everything the right way what do you do, you punish him.
Classy.
Mark McGwire has always been known as mainly a power hitter. If you consider McGwire a 1-tool hitter, then you should also be amazed that this 1-tool hitter impacted the game of baseball like no other hitter in the last 30 years. It's not how many tools a player has that matters, it's what he does with the tools he has. Like a carpenter once told me, you can't build a mansion with just a hammer. Well ... apparently Mark McGwire did just that.
Roger, I don't see what McGwire and Bonds have to do with Mattingly. In my mind, Mattingly isn't even on the bubble. He just didn't do enough.
I love Don Mattingly but agree with Ken: He's not a Hall of Famer.
Ken, I always appreciate when voters share there decisions and thoughts on this matter. But when guys flip flop it drives me insande. How many more victories has Blylevin pitched in the last year? Did Alan Trammel hit 10 more HR's in 2007?? You're either a HOF or not. Maybe I'm wrong, I dont have a ballot, but do they give you instruction and say, if someone is alltime great he's first ballot, if he's just great 2nd ballot, and if he's not great but pretty good and the media likes him 13th year ballot?
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you either are or aren't and unless the guy comes back and pulls a Jose Rijo or Guy LeFleur, then your decision should remain constant. Or else its not really that big a deal. And unfortunately, for me, its not that big a deal. No one ever was scared of Bert Blylevin pitching! Or Don Sutton. But people feared Jim Rice. And Albert Belle. But I guess you have to be liked to be inducted. (Please dont give me Carlton and Murray because of course they were just too good to ignore). But if Don Mattingly had Albert Belle's stats, he'd be a first ballot. And Belle was disregarded before the steroids scandal hit.
Ken two more things, I re-read and didn't like my tone. I hope I'm not considered a kiss-ass-to-the-sissy-boy-blogger but I do appreciate the discussion.
But the funny thing is, if everyone had the he's not first ballot worthy, he'd have 0% of the vote and be eliminated. Which I think is actually the way it should be. They should be on for one year, or actually make a criteria for first-15 year eligible candidates.
Richie, I have received a good amount of flack for flip-flopping on guys. Here's my explanation: A year's time hopefully brings with it increased perspective and knowledge. The more I learn about baseball, the less appreciation I have for a closer like Lee Smith. Similarly, another look at Dave Parker's numbers convinced me that he wasn't a Hall of Famer. And on the other side, I changed my mind from no to yes on Alan Trammell because I developed a greater appreciation for his career.
I believe it's better to be open-minded, even at the risk of being called a flip-flopper, than to pick one side and stick with it.
As for personalities being involved, I won't sit here and tell you that no voter considers personalities. But I don't. I know Don Mattingly better than I knew anyone else on the ballot, because I'm based in New York, but I never seriously considered voting for him.
Ken, thanks again for your response. I am new to these blogs and love that Newsday does it.
My only beef with anyone that flipflops is you had their whole career to judge them, and then 5 more years. Why would anyone need anymore time? All people who have this awesome responsibility, should do their homework and research whenever a new player comes aboard (or when they're first allowed to vote). It just doesn't seem fair and I dont blame guys like Harry Carson who get annoyed with the process and threaten not to come when they're enshrined.
Admitting mistakes is a good thing, not making them is better.
Richie, I truly see where you're coming from. But whether we're talking history, politics, entertainment, what have you, time is always going to increase your perspective on things, I believe. Look at how the perspectives of individual presidencies evolve, for instance.
Let's take Lee Smith's case. I try to read Baseball Prospectus regularly, and with it stats like VORP and WARP. When you look at those stats, you develop a greater appreciation of how UNvaluable closers are, and how only the creme de la creme of the closers should be in the Hall of Fame. I fully familiarized myself with those stats in the last year. Perhaps another new statistic will come into play that will shed light on another player or position.
OK Ken...I understand. A lot of the close ones like Lee Smith, Trammel, Concepcion, Gossage you probably weren't a media member yet during their prime, so I guess flipping on those guys is sorta ok (Though still not a fan of it). But as you cover the guys that become eligible, I hope you use your gut more than the stats.
I still would like your take on Albert Belle. I think only three people voted for him and he's gone for good now. I mean look at this guys stats...he was beyond dominant! Better than Griffey.
Richie, I'm sorry, but I'm going to promise you (and anyone else still reading at this point): I will never use my gut more than the stats. Why in the world would I do that? Statistics are concrete. Gut feelings are abstract and are born of a moment without context and perspective. If we want the Hall of Fame voting to be taken seriously, then we can't be going on guts. There has to be substance to the argument.
As for Belle, he had a hell of a prime. But it was only a 10-year prime. Junior has significant edges in longevity and defense over him.
I'm not saying Belle is better than Griffey, I'm saying he was better than Jr. in Griffey's prime when Griffey was widely considered the best. But to me, I'd take a 10 year run of dominance over no dominance but 20 good years.
As for gut, what I mean is baseball isn't played on CBS Sportsline. If I had a vote, my gut would tell me if the player is a HOF or not more than stats. I mean Derek Jeter is an obvious first ballot guy. His stats are definitely worthy, but when you think of Jeter do you think of stats, or the intangibles? A-Rod is also a first ballot guy. But when you vote for him, it will be for the stats, not the intangibles. A-Rod needs the stats, where Jeter probably doesn't...and shouldn't. (Not a Yankee fan here)
Intangibles wins games also. It's why I'd probably vote for Keith Hernandez, even though his stats aren't worthy (Though I was young, so I may not have the right perspective on the matter). But I remember growing up a Mets fan, I'd much rather have Hernandez up than Strawberry in a clutch situation. And that meant a lot to me, still does.
You don't think Junior was a dominant player in his prime? Look at 1993 through 2000, and remember that he played awesome defense, too.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, Richie. Intangibles are nice in the moment - as you put it, whom you would want up in a clutch situation. But I think intangibles should play only a supplementary role in a Hall of Fame candidacy. Raw numbers stand the test of time. Intangibles don't.
OK Ken, good discussion. But for the record, I never saw Jr. wasn't dominant. I just said Belle was more. Griffey certainly was awesome.