The returning players on this year’s Hall of Fame Ballot are an interesting group.  They include one player whose candidacy is largely driven by evolving views on steroid use, one candidate who clearly doesn’t make the cut, two players who’s failure to win election so far is baffling, and seven whose candidacies make for interesting debates.

The steroid case is, of course, Mark McGwire.  McGwire, despite having made a buffoon of himself while testifying before congress in 2005 should probably benefit from the revelations of how widespread steroid use has been in recent years.  As more of the game’s biggest names are linked to steroid use it becomes more difficult to single out McGwire.  However, unlike his contemporary Barry Bonds, McGwire was not a clear Hall of Famer based on his pre-steroid years alone.  For this reason, if I were a Hall of Fame voter, I would not yet vote for McGwire, but would not rule out voting for him in future years as the steroid era becomes better defined.

Don Mattingly is the easiest returning player on this ballot to reject.  His peak was simply too short for him to get in, particularly because he was a first baseman, a position where there is no shortage of excellent hitters who have not made it to the Hall of Fame.

A great deal has been written about why Bert Blyleven should be in the Hall of Fame, so there is not a lot to add.  Blyleven, who received one of Chris Berman’s best nicknames, “Bert Be Home Blyleven”, is an interesting case because he never seemed like a superstar pitcher while active, but when his career was done his numbers were extremely impressive.  Blyleven’s candidacy rests on his ability as a pitcher rather than the perception that he was a star.  He was, however, a better pitcher than contemporary and Hall of Famer Don Sutton and at least as good as Gaylord Perry and probably Nolan Ryan.  Had Blyleven played for better teams during a few years of his career, or not been hurt for most of 1982, he almost certainly would have won 300 games and been elected to the Hall of Fame years ago.  Instead, his candidacy rests on still being fifth on the all time strike out list, having a career ERA of 3.31, and an ERA+ of 118, while winning 287 games.  These are clearly Hall of Fame numbers.  Moreover, in an era when baseball is increasingly international it seems somehow wrong to keep Major League Baseball’s winningest foreign born pitcher out of the Hall of Fame.  The argument against Blyleven’s election seems to be more of an argument against sabrmetrics and statistically oriented ways of evaluating players than an argument against Blyleven himself.

While an argument against Blyleven can be made on the grounds that while he was an excellent pitcher, he was never viewed as such while he was playing, a similar argument cannot be made about Tim Raines.  Raines was a seven time all-star who received MVP consideration in seven seasons, finishing in the top ten three times.  Raines was both viewed as a star when he was playing and put up Hall of Fame numbers.  Raines was primarily a leadoff hitter who finished in the top ten on OBP seven times, and had a career OBP of .385.  He was also known for his speed as his 808 stolen bases make place him fifth on the all time stolen base list and combined with his OBP place him on the short list for second greatest leadoff hitter ever.  However, as a leadoff hitting left-fielder who played from the late 1970s to the early 21st century, Raines suffers from being compared to the clearly superior Rickey Henderson.  While Raines was obviously not as good as Rickey Henderson, it is equally clear that Raines was better than Lou Brock, another leadoff hitting left fielder known for his base stealing prowess who was easily elected in the Hall of Fame.  Raines was one of the best in the game for a number of years and played, and contributed, well past his prime.  Raines and Blyleven would both get my vote.

Alan Trammell is a closer call than either Blyleven or Raines.  In the years since Trammell retired, the game, and the shortstop position have changed a lot as power hitters such as Alex Rodriguez have transformed the position.  This makes Trammell’s candidacy harder to evaluate, but at the time Trammell retired, it would not have been easy to find too many shortstops not named Ripken or Wagner who had played defense as well as Trammell and contributed as much offensively.  At the time Trammell retired after having played 2,139 games at shortstop, only Ripken and Luke Appling had played more than 1,900 games at shortstop with  an OPS+ better than Trammell’s 110. Wagner played 1887 games at shortstop with a career OPS+ of 150 so he also clearly makes this cut.  Trammell would get my vote as well.

Two pitchers, Lee Smith and Jack Morris, don’t quite make the cut.  Both were very good pitchers for a long time, and were recognized as such when they were playing.  Blyleven, by contrast was viewed as a very good pitcher when he was playing, but a closer look at the numbers indicates he was better than that.  The numbers are not as kind to either Morris or Smith.  Morris’s candidacy rest on his extraordinary 1991 World Series for the Minnesota Twins and having been one of the top two or three pitchers in the American League between the decline of Jim Palmer and the emergence of Roger Clemens.  However, his career ERA+ of 105, wins (254) and strikeouts (2,478), for a player whose candidacy is at least partially built around longevity are not quite good enough.

Smith would not be a terrible choice for the Hall of Fame, but as a relief pitcher he is caught between not having been as valuable as a multi-inning reliever as players like Goose Gossage or Rollie Fingers while not having been as dominant as closers who were used primarily as one inning closers such as Hall of Famer Dennis Eckersley or future Hall of Famers Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman.

The remaining four returning players on the ballot were all hard hitting outfielders-Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy and Dave Parker.  These players are, in some respects, quite similar.  They all had career OPS+ between 119 and 121, lower than Tim Raines’ 123, and played during roughly the same years, although Parker started a few years earlier and Baines a few years later.  Baines was almost ageless and played in 2,836 games, while Murphy faded relatively quickly and only played in 2,180 games.  Brief summaries of their numbers (BA, OBP, SLG) and their All Star Game and awards credentials are below.

Baines-.289/,356/,465 6ASG 2 Top Ten MVP
Dawson-.279/.323/.482 7ASG 1 MVP 4 Top Ten 8 Gold Gloves
Dale Murphy-.265/.346/.469 7ASG 2 MVP 4 Top Ten 5 Gold Gloves
Parker-.290/.339/.471 5 ASG 1MVP 6 Top Ten 3 Gold Gloves

The numbers are so similar that it is hard to determine who the best of the four was.  Dawson, Parker and Murphy were, during their peak, viewed as among the very best players in the game.  Dawson was generally, and probably mistakenly, often seen as better than his teammate Tim Raines, yet all of their candidacies are flawed.  Dawson’s OBP is too low for the Hall of Fame.  Between the age of 29-33, due to personal issues, Parker was only an average player.  Murphy’s career ended too early.  Baines, while very good for a long time, did not have the big years that a corner outfielder needs to get into the Hall of Fame.  All four of these candidacies, however, received a boost when Jim Rice was elected to the Hall of Fame last year.

Rice-298/.352/.502 8 ASG 1 MVP 6 Top Ten

While Rice was slightly better offensively, with an OPS+ of 128, than the other four, he accumulated his numbers over a shorter career while contributing less defensively than any of the other candidates with the possible exception of Baines.

An additional argument against these four players, however, is that there are other slugging outfielders of this era for whom an equally compelling HOF case could be made including Jack Clark (137 OPS+ in 1,994 games), Dwight Evans (127 OPS+ in 2,606 games and eight gold gloves, Fred Lynn (129 OPS+ in 1,969 games and four gold gloves), and even George Foster (126 OPS+ in 1,977 games).

The candidacies of Baines, Dawson, Murphy and Parker while not unambiguously weaker than that of Jim Rice, are no less unambiguously better than several of their contemporaries who are no longer on the ballot.  Murphy, Parker and Dawson’s candidacies are also something of a polar opposite of Blyleven’s.  Unlike Blyleven, these three slugging outfielders were viewed as superstars for several years, but their numbers, by the time they were through, were not of Hall of Fame caliber.  For this reason, none of them would receive my vote, but should any of them make it into the Hall of Fame it would not be the worst choice the BBWAA has ever made in this regard.

Out of the returning players, Raines, Blyleven and Trammell are easy choices.  The rest of the players would not receive my vote.   The toughest call is McGwire, which I would resolve, or dodge, by voting against him this year, but keeping my options open for future years.

Photo by Afagen.

Email