Operation Zero: The 2013 Hall of Fame Class

I’ve resisted writing about the 2013 MLB Hall of Fame candidates up until this point. Before detailing why it is insane that no players were elected to the Hall of Fame this year, I thought I would simply cut and past some of my tweets from the BaseballGuys’ Twitter feed over the past few days.

So hypocritical – people are busted weekly in NFL for steroids, no one cares. Merriman made the Pro Bowl year he got popped.

We have the Mitchell Report and what else? There’s no way to know what someone did 15 years ago.

Everyone can think what they want, I just think it’s extremely cynical just to assume everyone who is good is guilty.

Did some players use drugs to enhance their performance? Absolutely they did. Do we know everyone who did/didn’t? There is no way to know.

We have to judge players against others in their era. I’m so sick of Everyone accusing Every player of cheating w/o proof.

My point is that we have NO idea who used PEDs and who didn’t. In USA you’re innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Players in the 1970′s all used “greenies” – do we then say everyone in the 70′s is a cheater and should be downgraded?

Can’t we just say the era is tainted and move on? This PED stuff is soooo played out.

Newsflash people – players have cheated since the game was invented.

And this from Dustin Swedelson, a producer at SiriusXM (@dustinswedelson)

Remember when the writers who vote for baseball HOF’s jobs mattered again because of the steroid era? Didn’t hear them investigate then

Here’s my bottom line. We don’t know who did PED’s. We will never know. Baseball needs to decide how it will handle this. (A) We say everyone who played baseball for 15 years can’t be inducted into Cooperstown. (B) We admit that players cheated, compare them against their contemporaries, and judge them based upon their on the field merits. It’s really as simple as that folks. Without evidence, EVIDENCE, we can’t choose to exclude or include this person or that person because of a feeling. Well people can, but it’s grossly misguided and absolutely nonsensical for people to do so. So stop the madness folks. Decide everyone is out or everyone will be judged based on their performance. Short of irrefutable proof that a player cheated it’s an assault on common sense to exclude players simply because you have a “feeling” they cheated. Preposterous.

Here are the actual results of the 2013 vote.

Here are my thoughts on all the players who received at least 10 percent of the 2013 vote.

Craig Biggio (68.2 percent – 75 percent is needed for election): One of the scrappiest player of the last 30 years, Biggio came up as a catcher, won four Gold Gloves at second base, and then moved to the outfield later in his career. Other than a guy like Pete Rose, who has done that at the level of Biggio? Craig is 15th all-time in runs scored, 21st in hits (3,060) and fifth in doubles. Heck, he even went deep 291 times in his career. He should be enshrined.

Jack Morris (67.7 percent): His support continues to grow, but it’s revisionist history. The guy may have thrown a ton of innings and come up big in some big games, but my HOF has no place for a pitcher who never led the league in WHIP or ERA, and only once led his league in strikeouts (232 in 1983). Heck, he was never even the runner up for the Cy Young Award.

Jeff Bagwell (59.6 percent): My thoughts can be found in The Case for Bagwell.

Mike Piazza (57.8 percent): How in the world can the greatest hitting catcher of all-time not be in the HOF? From 1993-2002 an average Pizza season was a .322 average, 35 homers, 107 RBIs, 85 runs scored and an OPS of .969. How many elite level players ever have a season that good once? – and he did it for a decade. While catching.

Tim Raines (52.2 percent): A travesty he’s not been elected. See HOF: Tim Raines.

Lee Smith (47.8 percent): I gave my thoughts on closers in What is a HOF Closer? The 478 saves are amazing, and his longevity is impressive (13-straight years with at least 25 saves from 1983-95). I’m not overly impressive by guys that throw one inning though. I’m even less impressed by a guys save total as saves are a result of opportunity (we all know some teams use their “better” pitcher in a setup role). A 8.73 K/9, 2.57 K/BB, 3.03 ERA and 1.26 WHIP just don’t do it for me.

Curt Schilling (38.8 percent): He was dominant in the post-season going 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA and 0.97 WHIP and that’s great, but someone shouldn’t be in or out based on 133.1 playoff innings. Won “only” 216 games but had a solid .597 winning percentage, and for his career his ERA+ was 127 meaning his 3.46 raw ERA was 27 percent better than the league average, an impressive number. He also struck better than 8.5 batters per nine, and for his career his 4.38 K/BB ratio is elite (it’s the best ever for a pitcher who threw 3,000 innings). He’s in – barely.

Roger Clemens (37.6 percent): One of the 10 greatest pitchers of all-time if you judge base on the numbers. An MVP award, seven Cy Young’s, 9th all-time in wins, 3rd in strikeouts and his ERA+ was 143, forty three percent better than the league average (his raw ERA was 3.12, his WHIP 1.17). The case against him is certainly there, but I’m still putting him in.

Barry Bonds (36.2 percent): There may be no more conclusive case about PED use for a player than the case with Bonds. Fourteen All-Star games, eight Gold Gloves, seven MVP awards – separated by eight years (his last of the ‘first’ cycle was in 1993 and his first in the ‘second’ cycle was 2001). First all-time in homers, 3rd in runs, 4th in RBIs, 6th in OBP, 6th in SLG and 4th in OPS. Oh yeah, he also stole 514 bags. One of the three greatest offensive forces the game ever saw. He’s out, and it’s a shame, but honestly, this call is more an indictment of baseball than Bonds.

Edgar Martinez (35.9 percent): See the argument in Is There Room for a DH?

Alan Trammell (33.6 percent): A really good player who had four Gold Gloves and six All-Star games nods. Still, he only finished as a top-5 MVP vote getter once, only had two 20 homer seasons, only one 100 RBI effort and just three seasons of more than 85 runs scored. Really good, but the Hall of Fame is for great – even if he was a very good fielder.

Larry Walker (21.6 percent): My best guess is that he will never be voted in, not because of PED use, but because people hold Coors Field, pre-humidor, against him. He finished his career with more homers than Joe DiMaggio (383 to 361), had more RBIs than Roberto Clemente (1,311 to 1,305), had more runs scored than Barry Larkin (1,355 to 1,329), a better batting average than Manny Ramirez (.313 to .312) and a better OPS than than all but 15 other men who played the game (.965). He’s also the only man since 1930 to have three straight seasons of hitting .360 (1997-99). Based upon the numbers he’s gotta be in, but with only a handful of huge run producing seasons, only four 140 games seasons, and the Coors Field effect, he’s as close as you can get for me without being included.

Fred McGriff (20.7 percent): See the discussion Is McGriff Hall Worthy?

Dale Murphy (18.6 percent): My favorite player as a kid, and even better than his work on the field is the fact that he is an amazing human being who never once had a hint of scandal. From 1980-89 here are Murphy’s ranks among all players: 2nd in extra base hits, 2nd in HRs, 2nd in RBIs and 4th in runs. He also won 2 MVPs, was named to the All-Star team seven times and he won five Gold Gloves. One other plus. In 1980 Murphy was catcher eligible in fantasy baseball (27 games at C in ’79). He went .281-33-89-98-9. Just barely outside without a key to the door. He will have to hope the Veteran’s Committee votes him in as his 15 years on the regular ballot are up.

Mark McGwire (16.9 percent): An admitted cheater. From 1987 through his final year in the big leagues (2001), here is how McGwire ranked in a myriad of categories for that 15-year stretch: McGwire hit 580 homers, the most in baseball (Barry Bonds had 551). McGwire had 1,405 RBI, third most in baseball (Bonds had 1,494). McGwire had a .590 SLG, the third best mark in baseball (Bonds and Manny Ramirez led the way at .594). McGwire had a .985 OPS, fourth in baseball (Bonds at 1.017). I’ll leave him out since he admitted cheating, but even so, I’m inclined to cast my vote in favor of his election given his work on the field. Being honest actually works against McGwire… does that seem right to you?

Don Mattingly (13.2 percent): Mattingly had a very short peak as an elite hitter (before his back went bad), but from ’84-’89 here are his big league rankings: 3rd in AVG, 1st in 2B, 1st in EBH, 1st in RBI, 6th HR, 5th OPS. Mattingly also won nine Gold Gloves for his work at first base. A great player but he’s on the outside looking in cause his elite performance didn’t last long enough.

Sammy Sosa (12.5 percent): Everyone “knows” he cheated, but unlike McGwire he never admitted it (famously Sosa acted like he couldn’t speak English when he was called in front of Congress). From 1994-2003 here is what an “average” Sosa season looked like: .290-47-122-104-13 with a .958 OPS. Since we don’t have “proof” that he cheated, he goes in on my ballot. Remember, I’m not voting people out because we “know” a guy was dirty.

Finally, two articles.

A very informative piece from the NY Times entitled Hall of Fame Has Always Made Room for Infamy.

Jayson Stark’s Take on what the HOF has become.

By Ray Flowers

The 2011 Hall of Fame Class

The Hall of Fame vote for 2011 was released today, and unsurprisingly there were two names listed highlighted by the the name of Roberto Alomar, a year after he was denied entry (to all the voters who withheld their vote for Alomar because of the spitting incident, get off your flipping high horse. I’m sure none of you ever did something of questionable moral value). You can read my reasons for having not a scintilla of doubt about the inclusion of Alomar in the Hall of Fame in Who am I? The other player selected was Bert Blyleven who was finally chosen for the Hall in his 14th year on the ballot. Here are the results of the top-5 from this year’s balloting (a player needs to be named on 75% of the ballots to be awarded a spot in the Hall).

Roberto Alomar: 90.0%
Bert Blyleven: 79.7%
Barry Larkin: 62.1%
Jack Morris: 53.5%
Lee Smith: 45.3%

* For the complete results you can visit The Baseball Writers’ Association of America.

Two of my personal favorites failed to reach 45 percent of the votes in Jeff Bagwell (41.7%) and Tim Raines (37.5%). You can find my reasons for supporting Bagwell in HOF: The Case for Bagwell. As for Raines, I wrote a report titled simply HOF: Tim Raines. However, I’ve never written much about Blyleven, so I thought I would share some thoughts on his election. Some facts on Blyleven.

He was named to three All-Star teams.
He won a Cy Young Award.
He won 133 games in his first 10 seasons.
He owns a career winning percentage of .542.
He was top-10 in complete games eight times including four seasons in which he led the league.
He has an ERA+ mark of 1.14 (14 percent better than the league average).

Are you ready to have your mind blown like the first time you saw The Sixth Sense? Those aren’t numbers that belong to Bert Blyleven, they belong to Barry Zito. I’ll give you a moment to comprehend what we are working our way up to here by giving you Blyleven’s real numbers.

Blyleven was named to two All-Star games, one less than Zito.
Blyleven never won a Cy Young Award (he was 3rd in 1984-85).
Blyleven won 148 games his first 10 years, an average of 1.5 wins a year more than Zito.
Blyleven owns a career winning percentage of .534, .008 less than Zito.
Blyleven was top-10 in complete games 12 times but led the league only once.
Blyleven has an ERA+ mark of 118, slightly better than Zito’s 114 mark.

I think my point should be evident, should it not? I’m not saying Barry Zito should be in the Hall of Fame, but I think it’s rather poignant to think that Barry Zito has been the equal of Blyleven for the first 10 seasons of his career. So I ask, is there anyone out there that thinks Zito will one day deserve to be in the Hall of Fame even if he has another 10 years like his first 10? I mean really, Bert Blyleven was inducted into the Hall of Fame for being a very good pitcher for an awfully long period of time, but when did the Hall of Fame became the domain of very good ball players?

Let me hit on Jack Morris before I leave you today. Let’s compare Morris to Blyleven in some major categories and see if there are real differences between the two.

Blyleven: Two All-Star games
J.Morris: Five All-Star games

Blyleven: 0.45 career shares in Cy Young voting
J.Morris: 0.73 career shares in Cy Young voting

Blyleven: 287 wins, top-10 in wins six times
J.Morris: 254 wins, top-10 in wins 12 times

Blyleven: .534 winning percentage, ERA+ of 118
J.Morris: .577 winning percentage, ERA+ of 105

Blyleven: Hall of Fame Monitor (120), Hall of Fame Standards (50)
J.Morris: Hall of Fame Monitor (122), Hall of Fame Standards (39)

Maybe it’s just me, but I certainly don’t see a hell of a lot of difference between those two other than the fact that Blyleven does have a sizable strikeout lead (6.7 K/9 to 5.8 K/9). My point is that maybe all those Morris supporters will just have to remain patient as it appears that, with time, the voting body will eventually install him in the Hall of Fame.

ADDENDUM

I love the passionate response by everyone below in the Comments section (below). Love it. Wish everyone would share their thoughts more to make things interesting. My point was to cause everyone to get engaged with the topic, and they certainly did.

Let me be clear.

1- Zito is NOT a Hall of Fame pitcher. Period.

2- Zito is NOT as good as Blyleven when you take into count the overall performance of Blyleven over the course of 22 years.

I was merely stating that Zito had more Cy Young’s and All-Star appearances, a better winning percentage, a better K/9 mark and was tougher to get a hit off of than Blyleven. Those are facts, and you can read whatever you would like into them, but I was just pointing out that Blyleven’s efforts weren’t vastly different in many respects. I never said Zito was a better pitcher.

As for Blyleven’s accomplishments, they are historically substantial in terms of his overall workload which was immense (nearly 5,000 innings). The question continues to be – should we reward durability, or should the Hall of Fame be for the best players?

Think of it. Blyleven NEVER led the league in wins or ERA. He only led the league in strikeouts once and only once did he lead in WHIP. In addition, despite all his innings, he only led the league in that category twice. If I add that all up, I don’t know if that’s good enough for the Hall of Fame.

By Ray Flowers

HOF: The Case for Bagwell

With the Hall of Fame vote coming up (the results will be released on January 6th), I thought it might be nice to link to the pieces I wrote last year regarding a handful of players that were up for consideration but who failed to be enshrined. Here are those links.

Edgar Martinez – Is There Room for a DH?
HOF – Tim Raines .
Is McGriff Hall Worthy ?
HOF: Mammoth McGwire Misunderstood ?
HOF: Who am I ?

In addition, here is my recap on how the voting actually turned out last year in HOF: What Should Have Been.

As for the vote this year, there seems to be growing support for the candidacy of Jeff Bagwell. Should be be enshrined in the Hall of Fame?

PRO

(1) Bagwell spent his entire 15 year career with the Astros. I know this really doesn’t matter, but in the world of money grubbing by players you have to tip your hat to Bagwell for this accomplishment of staying with one club.

(2) He was the 1991 NL Rookie of the Year, and in 1994 he was named NL MVP. He also finished in the top-10 in MVP voting five times on his way to 2.89 Career MVP Shares, the 35th highest mark in league history.

(3) He was named to four All-Star teams.

(4) He had 1,529 RBI – 45th all-time – and he also scored 1,517 runs, good for 62nd all-time. No player eligible for the Hall of Fame with 1,500 runs and 1,500 RBI isn’t in the Hall.

(5) He finished his career with a .408 OBP, the 40th best mark ever.

(6) He finished his career with a .540 SLG, the 35th best mark ever.

(7) He finished his career with a .948 OPS, the 21st best mark ever. This is a simply stupendous accomplishment for a guy who spent so much of his career hitting in the Astrodome.

(8) Bagwell led the league in runs three times – with a high of 152. In fact, he scored 143 and 152 runs in 1999-2000, and amongst first basemen only he and Lou Gehrig ever had back-to-back seasons of 140+ runs in the history of baseball.

(9) Bagwell hit .297 with 449 homers, 1,529 RBI, 1,517 runs and an OPS of .948. In the history of baseball, only 10 men have reached each of those totals in their career, and oh what a list it is: Stan Musial, Barry Bonds, Mel Ott, Alex Rodriguez, Babe Ruth, Manny Ramirez, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams and Mr. Bagwell.

CON

(1) He spent his entire career with the Astros. Did anyone notice how great he was since they never saw him play in person or on television?

(2) The strike in 1994 ruined what was shaping up to be a historic season. Bagwell hit .368 with 39 homers, 116 RBI and 104 runs scored… in 110 games. Along the way he led the league in RBI and runs, not to mention SLG (.750) and OPS (1.201). If he had kept that pace up over 160 games he would have produced a line of .368-57-169 with 151 runs scored. If he had produced a season for the ages like that, would more people have taken notice of him?

(3) Despite his tremendous work, other than 1994, was he ever even considered the best first baseman in baseball with players like Fred McGriff, Mo Vaughn, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Carlos Delgado and Todd Helton around?

VERDICT

Bagwell should be a lock. In addition to being a tremendous person and teammate, he was also a dynamic player. His career totals stack up well against pretty much any man who ever played first base, and it’s not his fault there were so many tremendous hitting first basemen in the game when he played. Bagwell was also widely regarded as one of the best base runners in baseball in his career, even with less than scintillating speed, and that reputation should augment the glowing numbers. The Hall of Fame candidacy of many players has been exaggerated of late, but if Mr. Bagwell is enshrined the voting body will be making a decision that will undoubtedly stand the test of time.

By Ray Flowers

The HOF and Ubaldo Jimenez

On Sunday Andre Dawson was officially inducted into the Hall of Fame. An eight time All-Star who is one of only three men in big league history to hit 400 homers while also stealing at least 300 bases (Barry Bonds and Willie Mays are the others), Dawson also has one of the worst OBP (.323) of any player in the Hall of Fame. In fact, it’s the worst mark of any outfielder enshrined at Cooperstown, .020 points below the .343 mark of Lou Brock. Should Dawson have been elected to the HOF? I tackled that very question in The Case of Andre Dawson. If that piece doesn’t cause you some pause about whether or not the athletic outfielder should have been enshrined, perhaps Dawson vs. Alomar will prove to you, once an for all, that not only does Roberto Alomar deserve to be in the Hall of Fame but that Dawson’s credentials might be a little thin.

I actually wrote up a series of piece on players who were eligible for induction into the Hall of Fame this year, and here are those links:

Edgar Martinez – Is there Room for a DH?
HOF: Tim Raines.
Is McGriff Hall Worthy?
HOF: Mammoth McGwire Misunderstood?
HOF: Who Am I?

Any here are my final thoughts where I discussed the 2010 voting results.

HOF: What Should Have Been.

Has anyone pointed you toward one of the best sites on the internet? No, I’m not talking about something that has porn in it, you certainly already have your favorites bookmarked for your adult entertainment, or BaseballGuys.com (since you’ve already found it), I’m referring to Rumorzone.com. It’s a collaborative effort from Fanball.com, and we’re tracking all the latest rumors in the world of sports for the four major sports at that location (MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL). Don’t forget to bookmark it.

Ubaldo Jimenez is awful. There, I said it, and don’t for a second try and tell me you weren’t thinking the same thing. On June 7th, a mere eight starts ago, Ubaldo had a 0.93 ERA. Heck, on June 18th it was still 1.15. However, the past six outings haven’t looked anything like his first 14 trips to the hill. Here are the numbers:

7.64 ERA, 1.52 WHIP, 8.73 K/9, 5.18 BB/9, 1.68 K/BB

The ERA is horrific, the WHIP is terrible, and that walk rate is godawful leading to a decidedly sub par K/BB mark that is well below the big league average of 2.10.

So what happened? It’s called regression people, ever heard of it? Did you really drink so much of that Ubaldo Cool Aid that you actually thought he was going to challenge Bob Gibson’s NL ERA mark of 1.12? Come on now. Did you think he was gonna keep his ERA under 2.00 all year long? I got news for you, that’s only happened twice in baseball since the 21st century began (Pedro Martinez had a 1.74 mark in 2000 and Roger Clemens posted a 1.87 mark in 2005). Again, you kid right?

The truth is that Ubaldo is simply returning to the level of “dominance” instead of the “historic” pace that he flashed early on. He still has a 2.75 ERA, his WHIP is just 1.12, he has nearly a K per inning (120 in 134.1) and he is still 15-2. How rare is that combination? If he maintains that pace for 34 starts this season we’d be looking at something like 25 wins, 200 Ks and a 2.75 ERA. How many pitchers have reached all three of those levels since 2000? It’s a small group of — zero. If we go back to 1990 there still isn’t one member of the group. How about 1980? Still none. You have to go all the way back to to Ron Guidry in 1978 to find a pitcher who reach all three milestones (25-3, 1.74 ERA, 248 Ks).

The bottom line with Ubaldo is that you should cut the guy some slack. Still, I hope you listened when I suggested you sell high on the flamethrower from Colorado because that window for peak value in a trade has been closed completely.

By Ray Flowers

HOF: What Should Have Been

I have spent the better part of the past couple of weeks giving you my thoughts on a myriad of men who were eligible for election into the Baseball Hall of Fame (you can find link to all of those pieces in Is There Room for a DH – just scroll to the bottom for the other reviews). In case you missed it, here is how things played out in the voting that was announced yesterday. Remember, a player must appear on 75 percent of the ballots to gain enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.

77.9% – Andre Dawson
72.4 – Bert Blyleven
73.7 – Roberto Alomar
52.3 – Jack Morris
51.6 – Barry Larkin
47.3 – Lee Smith
36.2 – Edgar Martinez
30.4 – Tim Raines
23.7 – Mark McGwire
22.4 – Alan Trammell
21.5 – Fred McGriff

Obviously only Dawson was enshrined. I don’t exactly get the warm and fuzzies there, but a strong case can clearly be made for him (I did just that arguing for him in a piece you can access in the link above. In fact, I previously covered Dawson, Alomar, Martinez, Raines, McGwire and McGriff). My thoughts on the others who gained at least 20 percent of the vote are as follows.

Bert Blyleven: 287 career victories (27th all-time), 3,071 Ks (5th), 4970 IP (14th). Ten times he finished in the top-10 in ERA, but he won 20 games only once, never led the league in victories or ERA, and basically was a very, very good pitcher for a very long time. Was never great, and if that is what the HOF is for, he shouldn’t make it (he never finished above third in the Cy Young voting). Also, how has he gone from 14.1 percent of the vote in his second year of eligibility (1999) to the cusp of enshrinement?

Roberto Alomar: See link above for my thoughts. Bottom line is that 12 All-Star appearances and 10 Gold Gloves should make you a mortal lock for HOF. What are the voters waiting for – Alomar to discover Adamantium (an X-Men reference for those of you that don’t get the inside joke)?

Jack Morris: Much has been made about the fact that his 3.90 ERA would be the worst of any pitcher in the Hall. Like Blyleven, he was very good for a long time but was he every truly great? You can make the argument he was great in big games, but there is more to a career than a World Series outing or two (ask Mr. Perfect, Don Larson). Morris won “only” 254 games, never finished as even the runner-up for the Cy Young Award, never led the league in ERA or WHIP, and only once paced his league in Ks (232 in 1983). One of the best who shouldn’t be in.

Barry Larkin: A case has been made by Jayson Stark of ESPN, and instead of rehashing all of it I will just link you to the piece titled Underrated Larkin Deserves Spot in Hall. Two salient points. (1) Larkin won nine Silver Slugger awards. There has only been one infielder in history with more than that and his name is Alex Rodriguez. (2) His .815 OPS isn’t great, but it’s better than Cal Ripken (.788) and is actually better than all but five shortstops since 1900 who have accrued at least 5,000 at-bats.

Lee Smith: His total of 478 saves is third all-time. He was named to seven All-Star teams, but at the same time he only finished in the top-10 of the Cy Young voting four times in 18 seasons and owns a 3.03 ERA and 1.26 WHIP, hardly awe inspiring numbers. Another case of really good but never really great despite the huge save total.

Edgar Martinez: See link above for my thoughts. I wasn’t at all surprised he didn’t get in, but with all the “Vote for Martinez” and “I Love Edgar” movements floating around, I’m surprised he only got a third of the vote. Will likely one day make it.

Tim Raines: See link above for my thoughts. A travesty. If he wasn’t one of the five best leadoff men of all-time I’ll eat my left shoe with nary an herb to spice it up.

Mark McGwire: See link above for my thoughts. Again, no shock he is on the outside looking in. Clearly voters are punishing him for his connection with performance enhancing drugs as you cannot, as a rational person, dispute his candidacy based on the numbers.

Alan Trammell: Rob Neyer, about as respected a man as there is at knowing the history of the game combined with sabermetric principles, said this week that Trammel is one of the 10-12 greatest shortstops of all-time. I don’t know if that is true or not, I’m inclined to take Neyer at his word, but I do know that Trammel made six All-Star teams, was a top-10 vote getter for MVP three times, won four Gold Gloves, had 2,365 hits and posted a .285 batting average. He also had a season for the ages in 1987 as he hit .343 with 28 homers, 105 RBI, 109 runs and 21 steals.

Fred McGriff: See link above for my thoughts. Using the smell test he just doesn’t make it. Mind numbingly consistent, he was never the best at his position or truly great.

When I have more time I might lament what the hell the voters are thinking, clearly at least a few of the men and women who make the decision when it comes to entry in the Hall need to be replaced for outright stupidity (what sane person would case a vote for David Segui? – and I’m not making that up, he got one vote this year). Luckily for them, I don’t have time to get into that right now because I’m sure I have a scathing review of the entire process germinating in my mind.

By Ray Flowers

HOF: Mammoth McGwire Misunderstood?

Mark McGwire, like the mythic figure of Babe Ruth, seemed to transcend the game. Massive muscles, topped only by mammoth blasts that reached the upper levels of seats, were his calling card. A huge man who stood 6’5″ while weighing something like 250 (or more) pounds, he was a cartoon character who made pitchers look foolish when they grooved a pitch. He was a generational icon who did what he did – blast long balls – just about as well as anyone who had ever played the game.

Alas, McGwire’s run as a hero to many was destroyed well before it should have been when he was tainted by the whole PED scandal (Performance Enhancing Drugs). I’m not here to say whether or not he did anything illegal, goodness knows there have been reams of articles dealing with that very subject (for my thoughts on the topic take a look at Death of the Hero). The bottom line is that unless you want to exclude every player who suited up from 1995-2005 from the Hall of Fame, you have to make the decision to judge the players based on the merit of their works on the field and not by the suppositions of the masses. If everyone was or wasn’t cheating isn’t the point. The point is we don’t know who was “cheating,” we don’t have anyway of knowing who was cheating, and there will never be a way to prove, one or another, who was cheating. So let’s just examine McGwire through the lens of the men that he played against to see how he ranks, and by extension, whether or not he should be elected to the Hall of Fame in his fourth year on the ballot (I’m under no illusions that he will be selected for enshrinement, he certainly will not).

* McGwire, a pitcher in college at USC, started out his career as an offensive force being moved to third base before finally being shifted over to first base. In his first year in the bigs (1987), a 6’5″, 220 lbs McGwire won the Rookie of the Year award hitting .289 with 49 homers, 118 RBI and a .618 SLG (the HR and SLG led the league).

* McGwire never won the MVP award in his career, likely a result of a career batting average of just .263, but he still finished in the top-7 five different times finishing second to Sammy Sosa in 1998 despite hitting .299 with a then record 70 homers (he also scored 130 runs and knocked in 147 while posting a massive 1.222 OPS).

* Despite the plethora of talented men who played first base during his career, McGwire was named to the All-Star team 12 times. In fact, from 1987-2000 he missed out only in 1993 and 1994 when he was injured and limited to 27 and 47 games.

* From 1987 through his final year in the big leagues (2001), here is how McGwire ranked in a myriad of categories for that 15-year stretch.

McGwire hit 580 homers, the most in baseball (Barry Bonds had 551).
McGwire had 1,405 RBI, third most in baseball (Bonds had 1,494).
McGwire had a .590 SLG, the third best mark in baseball (Bonds and Manny Ramirez led the way at .594).
McGwire had a .985 OPS, fourth in baseball (Bonds at 1.017).

McGwire clearly dominated when compared to his peers, a fact that isn’t lost when we compare him to the immortals of the game. Here are McGwire all-time ranks in a handful of categories.

583 home runs, 8th all-time
1,414 RBI, 66th all-time
.394 OBP, 78th all-time
.588 SLG, 9th all-time
.982 OPS, 11th all-time

Clearly this man was one of the greatest sluggers of all-time, period. To me, that record of achievement deserves enshrinement in the Hall of Fame. I’ll leave the value judgments to others. What was it that Jesus said way back when? “Let he who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone…” (John 8:7).

To see my thoughts on others in my HOF series simply click on the following links:

Who Am I?

HOF: Tim Raines

Is McGriff Hall Worthy?

The Case of Andre Dawson

By Ray Flowers

Happy New Year 2010

A welcome to 2010 as well as a brief description of coverage of the upcoming announcement of who will gain entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

By Ray Flowers

Is McGriff Hall Worthy?

In yesterday’s column I championed Tim Raines for inclusion in the Hall of Fame in HOF: Tim Raines. Today, I’ll take a look at a player who in no way resembled the fleet of foot Raines, but that doesn’t mean that Fred McGriff doesn’t deserve some serious consideration for addition to the hallowed halls of the shrine in Cooperstown.

Consistency vs. Greatness

Yes he played in the era of the lively ball, expansion, and steroids, but Mr. McGriff was never even remotely attached to the muscle bounds freaks that dominated his era. Despite this fact, McGriff still posted some pretty special numbers over the years, though as you might gather from the title of this section, he never really took his game to the level of greatness. Here is what I mean.

* McGriff hit 493 homers in his career, good enough for a 26th place all-time tie with the incomparable Lou Gehrig.

* McGriff finished in the top-5 in his league in home runs seven times pacing his league twice (1989 and 1992).

* From 1988-1994 he hit at least 31 homers each season, and 10 times in his career he hit at least 30 bombs.

* Eight times he knocked in at least 100 runs, and four other times he was in the 90′s.

* Overall he knocked in 1,550 runs, the 41st best mark ever.

* McGriff finished with 958 extra base hits in his career, good enough for 42nd all-time (his 441 doubles rank 99th).

* McGriff produced a Runs Created mark of 1,704 – good for 45th all-time.

That’s a pretty darn impressive run of effectiveness. At the same time there is some downside as well.

First off, McGriff hit “only” .284 in his career with four season of at least .300. Solid numbers to be sure, but far from outstanding.

Second, though he hit all those homers he never reached 40 homers in a season. Heck, even a guy like Adrian Beltre did that once.

Third, despite all the RBI, he never once reached even 110 RBI in a season.

Fourth, never fleet of foot, McGriff scored 100 runs only twice and he never swiped more than eight bags in a season.

Fifth, and this is where the argument against McGriff is most acute, the man was named to only five All-Star teams. There were certainly a virtual pantheon of terrific first baseman chosen instead of McGriff through the years, but the fact of the matter is that McGriff was rarely, if ever, considered to be the best first baseman in his league. Moreover, McGriff had only one top-5 finish in the MVP voting (he was fourth in 1993).

A man that McGriff is often compared to is Willie McCovey because both men swung left-handed and played first base. How do McGriff’s career numbers stack up against the Giants’ great? Quite well actually.

McGriff: .284-493-1,550-1,349-72 with a .886 OPS
McCovey: .270-521-1,555-1,229-26 with a .889 OPS

Based solely on numbers, there is little difference between the two. Of course this leaves aside the real test which is comparing a players’ numbers to those men that played in the same era against the same level of competition. Without getting into an overly technical comparison in that respect, let me spell it out for you very clearly. McCovey was more highly thought of than McGriff during his career, not to mention that he produced his numbers in an era when pitchers had a much higher degree of success than they did during the majority of McGriff’s career.

Those people that voted for Jim Rice will also likely vote for McGriff. It’s not that it would be a horrible inclusion to the Hall, after all his totals in a myriad of categories do place him in a position to be considered one of the best, it’s just that for those of us who watched McGriff, did any of us ever think we were in the presence of greatness when we saw him sock a homer? As a voter the decision has to be made – do you reward consistency in which case McGriff is a lock, or do you sit back and say that the Hall of Fame is a place for greatness, and by that standard Fred McGriff can knock on the door though no one will ever answer.

By Ray Flowers

HOF: Tim Raines

Hall of Fame talk is starting to heat up with the announcement of the 2010 inductees mere days away (January 6th). Some players eligible for the first time include Barry Larkin, Andres Galarraga, Fred McGriff, Edgar Martinez and Roberto Alomar (you can read my thoughts on Alomar in Who Am I?). Other players who return hoping to pick up the required 75 percent vote this season include a host of some of the who’s who in the game the past 30 years: Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven, Lee Smith, Jack Morris, Mark McGwire and Tim Raines. The last name on this list is who I’m going to focus on in this piece.

Long considered the best leadoff man in the National League during his career, Tim Raines had the misfortune of being the second best leadoff hitter in the game when he played. Mind you, there is no reason to hang ones head when you are #2 behind the man widely considered to be the best ever to fill the roll in Rickey Henderson, but clearly Raines falls behind Henderson in almost every way you can possible think of. Here are each man’s career bests in the 5×5 categories.

Raines: .334-18-68-133-90
Henderson:.325-28-74-146-130

Mind you the numbers are pretty close, but when we move to the realm of their career totals, the gap does widen.

Raines: .294-170-980-1,571-808
Henderson: .279-297-1,115-2,295-1,406

By the way, Henderson scored more runs and stole more bases than any man who ever lived.

Still, like I said at the start, the decision to vote for Raines shouldn’t be about Raines vs. Henderson, it should be about how Raines staked up against the competition. In this respect, he did very well.

Raines was named to 7-straight All-Star teams (1981-87).

Raines finished in the top-10 in AVG four times (led league at .334 in 1986).

Raines was top-10 in runs scored eight times (led league twice – 1983, 1987).

Raines led the NL in steals 4-straight years (1981-84). He also finished in the top-10 seven other times.

Raines finished in the top-10 in hits six times.

Raines finished in the top-10 in triples nine times.

Raines finished in the top-10 in OBP seven times (led league in 1986 at .413).

Raines finished in the top-10 in OPS four times.

Obviously Raines was one of the most effective players in the game for the majority of a decade as he enjoyed some tremendous success with the Expos. All told, that success led to some marks that clearly place him amongst the all-time greats that the game has ever seen.

Raines scored 1,571 runs, the 50th best total ever.
Raines produced 2,605 hits, the 73rd best total ever.
Raines stole 808 bases, the 5th best total ever.
Raines produced 1,636 Runs Created, the 53rd best mark ever.
Raines produced a 280.9 Power-Speed Number, the 28th best mark ever.

Yes, Mr. Raines was one hell of a player.

So why has he failed to break even 25 percent in the HOF vote in his first two go round in the voting process? My guess is that Raines fails in the most basic of comparisons – he simply wasn’t the best at what he did during his career failing to live up to the impossibly high standards of Henderson. Is that fair? Certainly not. There are a plethora of players enshrined in the Hall who may not have been “the best” when they were playing, just think of the comparison of Yankee teammates Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. Should Gehrig have been denied admittance to the Hall since he wasn’t even the best player on his team? Of course not.

In the end I have no idea why Raines has gotten such little respect for what he accomplished as he was clearly the best leadoff man in the National League in the 1980′s. It might take a while for Raines to get his due but I certainly hold out hope that one of these years he will be recognized for what he was, and that was one of the best players every to hit atop of a major league lineup.

DEROSA TO GIANTS?

By Ray Flowers