Disclaimer.
Yesterday, in my first part of the 2012 Hall of Fame voting trilogy, I alluded to what I thought was the strangest Hall of Fame ballot that I could find. Well, I believe Bob Smizik has it (although Jon Heyman's, from yesterday's post, was pretty out-there).
The link to his original column can be found here.
Take it away, Bob.
Sitting in front of me, literally, is my 2011 (MLB) Hall of Fame Ballot, which I will shortly begin to fill out.
Adding the word literally did nothing to your sentence, literally.
There are 27 names on the ballot and a voter can select as many as 10. I don’t believe I’ve ever voted for more than four, and even that many is rare. Other people, whose opinion I respect, often vote for 10.
That is correct. And although I personally am in favor of a large Hall, the other viewpoint is perfectly valid.
A couple of things about how I vote:
* Unlike many voters, I do not eliminate players tainted by or actually found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs. My stance on their eligibility is quite simple: If MLB does not want a player in the Hall of Fame, it should do what it did with Pete Rose and ban him from eligibility. It's my job to vote on enshrinement, not determine eligibility. When a player has worthy credentials, I vote based on his ability. Yes, Mark McGwire used PEDs. But maybe half or more of the pitchers throwing to him also did? There are players I suspect of using PEDs who couldn’t hit .250.
* I will not vote for a players because he’s better than someone in the Hall. I may think, for example, Jack Morris is better than Bert Blyleven, who was voted in last year. But I didn’t vote for Blyleven and I don’t think he belongs. I will not allow him to be a barometer.
These are two very, very good points, and I want to give him credit for that. That being said, Bert Blyleven absolutely belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Don't worry, the fun part starts soon.
The first thing I do is eliminate the players who are on the ballot as little more than a courtesy for a nice career, but who don't begin to approach Hall of Fame standards. These are players whose records I don’t even have to check to know they don’t belong.
Ok, yeah, seems fair enough. There are a bunch of guys who automatically qualify for the Hall of Fame that no one thinks should actually be there. You can weed out a significant number of people on the ballot this way.
So it’s goodbye to, in alphabetical order, Jeromy Burnitz, Vinny Castilla, Brian Jordan, Javy Lopez, Edgar Martinez, Bill Mueller, Terry Mulholland, Phil Nevin, Brad Radke, Tim Salmon, Ruben Sierra, Bernie Williams, Tony Womack and Eric Young.
*scrolls through* Let's see...yep, yep, yep, yep, yeOH MY GOD WHAT ARE YOU EVEN.
*composes self*
Okay, okay, calm down, it's just baseball...
Okay. Edgar Martinez is one of the best handful of hitters of his era. He led the league in OBP three times, was in the top six in the league 11 times, and ranks 22nd all-time for OBP. He was in the top ten in SLG in the league six times, despite playing in a pitcher-friendly park during his peak, and is 44th all-time in adjusted OPS+. He's 70th all-time in WAR for position players. To summarize: HE WAS REALLY FREAKING GOOD AT BASEBALL.
His inclusion was not "little more than courtesy for a nice career." This is a guy whose record you clearly need to check if you don't think he "doesn't begin to approach Hall of Fame standards.
Look, it's one thing if you don't think DHs belong in the Hall of Fame. It would be a ridiculous position to take, but AT LEAST THAT'S A REASON. Please explain why this man does not even deserve consideration.
[Some readers left comments asking for the same thing. Here is the complete collection of Smizik's replies to those comments.]
Highly regarded DH but with under 309 HRs, 1,261 RBIs. Not even close.
Take a look at the career numbers of E. Martinez. They will surprise you.
309 HRs, 1,261 RBI, 312 BA. Career wise, those numbers rank 120th for HRs, 121st for RBIs, 95th for BA. A good one-dimensional player, but not, in my estimation, Hall worthy.
Batting average, home runs, and RBIs. To put it bluntly: Those career stats are about as useful in determining how good a player was as career triples, the amount of times he was caught stealing, and his jersey number. But I guess his use of those stats shouldn't surprise me, given his conclusion.
[Back to original article now.]
The 27 names have been reduced to 13.
It should be 14, but I mean, whatever.
The next step isn’t much harder because many of these players have been on the ballot before. But they require some thought before elimination.
"Unlike Edgar Martinez, because, seriously, screw that guy."
[Skipping ahead a bit]
Alan Trammell: A really outstanding shortstop for a number of years. Four Gold Gloves. Just a tad short.
"Had he won five Gold Gloves, he'd be in! But the voters decided on somebody else one year. Too bad for Trammell!"
Larry Walker: A five-tool guy, who oozed talent. But 383 HRs and 1,311 RBIs don’t cut it.
THERE ARE MORE THAN JUST THREE BASEBALL STATS.
There are seven names remaining. Now it becomes difficult.
Compared to giving the first 20 names a basic thought and/or looking up his career numbers in batting average, home runs, and RBI? I guess it would get more difficult after that.
Jeff Bagwell (42 percent of the vote last year): There’s a natural bias, which can go both ways, against/for familiar players, and Bagwell is that. He was a dominant presence in the Houston Astros lineup for many seasons. That memory says yes. His 449 home runs and 1,529 RBIs fall a shade behind Willie Stargell. Yes to Bagwell.
Bob Smizik Hall of Fame Barometer categories: dominance in Astros lineup, proximity to Willie Stargell.
Juan Gonzalez (5 percent): He hit 434 home runs, drove in 1,404 runs and had an OPS of 1.004. That’s good. It’s not great. No to Gonzalez.
Smizik just blew my mind by using a FOURTH BASEBALL STAT. Unfortunately, it's also one without much value. And I have to say this before we get any further: career numbers are useless. Any baseball player would get to 500 home runs or [however many Smizik wants] RBI eventually. Why reward only the ones who actually did?
In other words, counting stats for a career = doodoo.
Barry Larkin (62 percent): My Cincinnati friends swear by him. An outstanding offensive shortstop with three Gold Gloves. No to Larkin.
"Why did I say no to Larkin? Well, he does have a very impressive Hall of Fame resume, BUT- and this is a big "but"- my Cincinnati friends have ****ing AWFUL taste. Like, one time I really wanted to go see Sherlock Holmes 2, because we all liked the first one and I thought we would enjoy this one too, but NOOO, they wanted to see J. Edgar! And they kept saying "it'll be a great historical film with lots of interesting information," so I was like "okay, fine, let's go to J. Edgar." And guess what! It sucked! Nothing freaking happened for two and a half hours! You just can't trust those guys. Anyway, that's why I didn't vote for Barry Larkin."
Fred McGriff (20 percent): The statistical case can easily be made for McGriff: 493 home runs, 1,550 RBIs.
THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR BASEBALL STATS.
But his OPS is under .900. No to McGriff.
THAT'S your reason for keeping him out of the Hall of Fame? That one stat? Well, I guess since you only know four, that's somewhat excusable...
Mark McGwire (20 percent): A no-brainer by my standards. Second best single-season home run number, 10th best career. He is first in home runs per at bat (10.65), well ahead of Babe Ruth (11.76). Yes to McGwire.
Okay, good, we agree on something. For vastly different reasons, sure, but at least it's agreement.
Rafael Palmiero (11 percent): Over 500 home runs and 3,000 hits. Nothing more need be said. Yes to Palmiero.
YES THERE IS MORE TO BE SAID CAREER NUMBERS FOR COUNTING STATS ESPECIALLY IN THINGS AS MEANINGLESS AS HOME RUNS OR AS TEAM-BASED AS RBI ARE VIRTUALLY USELESS IN DETERMINING A PLAYER'S VALUE
*starts breathing heavy*
...that felt kind of good.
Tim Raines (38 percent): He’s getting a lot of support as a Rickey Henderson clone. But, sorry, Tim, you’re no Rickey -- not in stolen bases, not in power, not in on-base percentage.
Bob Smizik Hall of Fame Barometer categories: dominance in Astros lineup, proximity to Willie Stargell, proximity to Rickey Henderson.
An outstanding leadoff hitter,
Only, like, the second-best ever. Not a big deal or anything.
but not a Hall of Famer. No to Raines.
"This Raines fellow wasn't as good as the best leadoff hitter ever and one of the twenty best position players in baseball history? KEEP HIM OUT FOREVER."
This man actually has a Hall of Fame vote.
-Tucker Warner
What do you think? Comment on this post or send any and all questions, comments, or insults to FirstTeeMulligan@yahoo.com. Tucker Warner likes poetry and a nice pair of slacks. You can find him on Twitter at @twarner50.
No comments:
Post a Comment