My Hall of Fame ballot

The MLB hall of fame announcement is tomorrow so I thought I would give my take...I know it's hard to believe but I actually don't have a vote.

This particular ballot is a tough decision. There are a number of players on the fence (which is a red flag). I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about baseball so when I have to think about whether a given player is a hall of famer or not than that's not a great initial sign for that given player. Most hall of famers are of the no-doubt-about-it variety.

I'd say that there is only one player on the ballot that I didn't even have to think about...that is Goose Gossage. For a ten year stretch ('75-”85) Gossage was one of (if not the best) reliever in baseball. He had four seasons of an ERA under 2.00 (including a ridiculous .77 in the strike shortened year of 1981). Minus the one year he had as a starter (don't understand that) his worst ERA season was 2.90. During that stretch he finished in the top ten in saves (in his league) every season while winning 3 save titles and finishing second two other times. He was simply dominant. He was also a 9-time All Star.

As for the other two pitchers who have gained some support (Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris)...I'm not sold on either of them. I know Blyleven has won 287 games but he never won a Cy Young award and he only made two All-Star games. If it wasn't for game 7 of the World Series...I'm not sure if Morris would even be in the discussion. He's kind of like his era's Curt Schilling only not as good. Like Blyleven, Morris never won a Cy Young and his career ERA of 3.90 would be the highest of any starting pitcher in the Hall of Fame.

This is where it get dicey...and I've spent way to much time looking at this. There are several OF's on the ballot (Rice, Dawson, Murhpy, Paker) that deserve a serious look. And I have even thought that Rice and Dawson should have already been in. I've looked really hard at the outfield position during the '70 and '80's and wondered what it was that was keeping these guys out. Furthermore the only new candidate to the ballot that deserves (some) consideration is Tim Raines and since he played out field as well I felt I should look into this phenomenon of players that I grew up with not making the cut of getting into the hall.

I've been reading Jayson Stark's latest book The Stark Truth: The Most Overrated and Underrated Players in Baseball History. (Rest assured that there will be future posts concerning this book). But in the book he uses the stat-geek stat of OPS+ to make several of his arguments. Regular OPS is simply on-base % plus slugging %. OPS+ is regular OPS but adjusted to the era that a player played in and to the ballpark that a player hit in. An OPS+ of 150 is generally accepted as being 50 percent better than the average player and constitutes what he calls a great season. An OPS+ of 125 is 25 percent better than the average player and constitutes a good season.

First I'm not saying that this stat is the “gospel” of whether a player is a hall of famer or not. It doesn't constitute defense. But overall it is a stat that I put a lot of weight in because it factors in the era that a given player played in.

Here's the candidates:

Dale Murphy...18 seasons played...2 good seasons...4 great seasons (although 2 of those were 149)

Jim Rice...16 seasons played...5 good seasons...2 great seasons.

Andre Dawson...21 seasons...6 good seasons...1 great season.

Tim Raines...23 seasons...6 good seasons...2 great seasons (one of those at 149).

Dave Parker...19 seasons...3 good seasons...3 great seasons (two of those at 149)

Let's compare those to some of their peers (outfields) who are already in the hall of fame or will be (Rickey Henderson)

Carl Yastrzemski...23 seasons...6 good seasons...4 great seasons.

Reggie Jackson...21 seasons...8 good seasons...7 great seasons.

Dave Winfield...22 seasons...7 good seasons...4 great seasons.

Tony Gwynn...20 seasons...8 good seasons...3 great seasons

Rickey Henderson...25 seasons...11 good seasons...4 great seasons.

My first reaction to all of this...is that during this era there were not a lot of hall of fame (or hall of fame worth) outfielders playing. It was a pitching dominated era with 6 (Carlton, Seaver, Ryan, Sutton, Niekro & Perry) pitches who pitched during this era that went on to win 300 games. There were only 3 players (Reggie, Mike Schmidt and Eddie Murray) during this time that hit over 500 homeruns. The game of baseball goes in cycles and this period was not overly friendly to the hitter.

My mantra for whether a player is a hall of famer or not is...that whether that given player was one of the best (if not the best) at his position for a number of years.

What I'm seeing (by looking at the OPS+...relative to other HOF's) is that Murphy, Rice, Dawson & Parker just simply didn't put together enough good to great years to qualify for the hall of fame. Murphy won back to back MVP awards but he only had 6 truly good to great years. Rice, who is earning more and more support, is a borderline candidate at best. And when you think that one his teammates (Dwight Evans) had the exact same number of good and great years that he did...than that shows how a “name” can propel a person more than what they actually did on the field (it also shows that Evans, who isn't even on the ballot anymore is pretty underrated). I was really surprised by Dawson's lack of productivity. I struggle with his candidacy more than any other's in this discussion (mainly because I actually watched him play when he was on the Cubs). He won one MVP award and finished second two other times. But other than those three years he was only a slightly above average ball player. And I just don't think that cuts it.

As for Raines...I mean...he started out his career like it was headed towards Cooperstown. In his first seven seasons he made the All-Star team every year and by far had the best seasons of his career. But after his stint in the National League...Raines just became an average ballplayer. But he does have the best stolen base success rate of all time. He's 51^st all time in “Runs Created” (tied with Tony Gwynn)...so that is in his favor...especially when you see that he is well ahead of Dawson and Rice. The more I type...the more I'm liking Raines as a hall of famer. When one considers that Raines is one of the best leadoff hitters of all time as well as one of the best base-stealers of all time than those two notions go along way in helping Raines's cause. One isn't just saying that he's one of the best (leadoff hitters or base-stealers) of his era. He's one of the best of all time of those two ideas. I'm sold for him. I would vote for him.

I have learned (or maybe re-learned) that not every era in baseball history has hall of fame caliber players at every position. Dawson was one of the better outfielders in the National League during the '80's but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is a hall of famer.

Ultimately I'm going to have to change my hall of fame mantra...that a player has to be one of the best (if not the best) at his position for a number of years...too...that a player has to be consistently one of the best (if not the best) at his postion for a number of years. My biggest issue with guys like Dawson, Rice and Murphy is that they were just not consistently good (to great) for most of their career.

Goose...Rock Raines...the both of them get my vote.

We'll see what happens. The hall of fame announcement will be Tuesday at 1:30 PM.