On Sunday night, it was announced that the Today’s Game Era ballot had been voted on and they would be inducting Lee Smith and Harold Baines into the Baseball Hall of Fame this upcoming summer in Cooperstown, New York.
The 16-member committee for this ballot consisted of Hall of Famers Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Pat Gillick, Tony La Russa, Greg Maddux, Joe Morgan, John Schuerholz, Ozzie Smith and Joe Torre; major-league executives Al Avila, Paul Beeston, Andy MacPhail and Jerry Reinsdorf; and veteran media members/historians Steve Hirdt, Tim Kurkjian and Claire Smith.
Smith getting inducted was no surprise, as he had reached as high as 50.6% on the BBWAA ballot and was a borderline candidate for years, mattering on where you stood on the induction of relievers into the hall. But Baines was another story.
Baines never received more than 6.1% of support on the BBWAA ballot and is probably the definition of a player with a good career that hung around long enough to compile some good numbers. Good, but not great.
So how did Baines get in? Well, it probably helped that he had a former teammate (Alomar), a former manager (LaRussa) and a former owner (Reinsdorf) on his side. Also, Baines was always known as a good guy and a good teammate. For those within the game, that carries quite a bit of weight.
But for many of us, being a “great guy” doesn’t always qualify you for being a Hall of Famer. Cooperstown is the best of the best, and the numbers say that Baines isn’t one of the elite. But what if the hall honored those players who might not have been “the best of the best”, but were good for the game? What if there was a separate wing for those that were admired and loved outside of their accomplishments on the field? What if they included the true “characters” of the game? Maybe an award for the “nice guys” of the game?
This subject was actually broached to me last year by a friend and it was amusing because I had thought of the idea years ago. What initially sparked adding a separate wing for me was Buck O’Neil. Lets be honest: Kansas City loved Buck. He was not only a symbol of Kansas City baseball, for his ties to the Monarchs and his attendance at Royals games, but he was the benchmark of what is great about baseball in general.
Buck was friendly, cordial, and loved talking baseball with anyone who wanted to. For him it wasn’t as much about giving back to the game as sharing something he loved with others. Who doesn’t remember Buck’s appearance in the Ken Burn’s documentary “Baseball”?:
In fact, despite not being inducted at Cooperstown, Buck did give a speech at the Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony back in 2006 to honor the pioneers in the Negro Leagues:
Buck O’Neil might not have been one of the greatest players in history, but he was the definition of what was great about the game. It was unfortunate that while O’Neil helped honor the greats involved with the Negro Leagues, he himself had been overlooked for induction despite all he did for baseball.
Buck would pass away in late 2006 and in 2008 the Baseball Hall of Fame would honor his legacy with the creation of the Buck O’Neil Lifetime Achievement Award. A statue was dedicated to the museum and every three years a new winner is announced. This is a great honor and one worthy of a man of O’Neil’s stature and character.
Now the Hall of Fame has done its due diligence when it comes to honoring those that are just as big a part of the game as the players. The Veterans Committe, which has lineage all the way back to 1939, would put together a subcommittee to consider candidates that not only involved players, but managers, umpires and executives as well.
The hall has also handed out the Ford C. Frick award annually to honor a broadcaster for their contributions to the game. So there is no stone left unturned, starting in 1962 they would also honor a baseball writer annually, also known as the J.G. Taylor Spink award.
But it would be nice if the hall could go a step further. The Baseball Hall of Fame is a museum and it would be fitting to include some of the more charitable and “class acts” that made the game better.
There would have to be a few guidelines to follow for this to happen. For one, the inductees for this achievement should be in a separate wing from the elite players who get inducted. There would have to be a definite difference between the two so fans are aware of this separate honor.
Also, to show this is a different award it would probably be smart not to give them the same plaques as the greats of the game. Maybe instead of a plaque, present videos on each player and why they are worthy of this honor. Since this would be a different wing, it should have a different feel to it.
So who exactly should be honored for this award? The criteria would obviously be quite a bit different, as statistics wouldn’t matter as much as the footprint you leave on the game. In my vision of this honor, it would be about everything that is great for baseball. The eligible should be those that are great ambassadors, those that were genuine big-hearted and charitable that didn’t cause any issues and even the players who made the game more fun.
In my eyes, this honor would be about players like Andrew McCutchen, who has spent years giving back with his charitable work and when he was in Pittsburgh, giving back to the community. It would also be for someone like former Royals first baseman Mike Sweeney, who has put together baseball camps for kids and has always been one of the great guys in the game.
It would also include some of the players who made the game so much fun to watch. Take Bartolo Colon for example. Colon has played into his mid-40’s and has a child-like demeanor when he is out on the field that makes it easy to cheer for. The same could be said about former Detroit Tigers pitcher Mark Fidrych. “The Bird” had a short career with a number of highs and lows, but was one of the most entertaining players in baseball history.
These players make the game better and while they won’t go down as one of the “all-time greats” in baseball history, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be honored. Some of the greats weren’t good human beings, like Ty Cobb and former Boston Red Sox owner Tom Yawkey, who both have been elected to baseball’s hallowed halls. Since this is a museum, you sometimes have to take the bad with the good, which is why it wouldn’t be such a bad thing to include more of the benevolent people involved within the game.
From every story or conversation that has been thrown out this week, Harold Baines appears to be one of the great guys that helped build a solid foundation for baseball. Maybe if a separate wing is put into the hall for guys like him, there won’t be a need to slide someone in where they might not fit. This way we could talk about why they deserve an honor instead of why they don’t.
There is no greater honor in any sport than getting a plaque in the baseball Hall of Fame. I’m sure someone who believes the NFL or NBA is a greater honor will debate me on this, but there is never the sort of debate toward their hall’s as there is in baseball. That debate has grown into a fervor amongst baseball fans, writers and even players, as every one seems to have an opinion on this topic. What has made it even more intense is what we should do with players who were “suspected” of enhancement thanks to steroids and other performance enhancement drugs, and whether or not they deserve a spot in the hallowed halls of Cooperstown or left on the outside looking in. In some ways, the people who vote on this honor are the judge, jury and executioner, as testing was not done during this period so for many of the players of that era there is no definite of what they did or did not do. Even Hall of Famer Joe Morgan has spoken out on the topic recently, which stirred the pot even more. As a member of the IBWAA, this will be my fourth year of voting for ‘the Hall’ and as I have said in years past, I have no issue voting for anyone suspected for PED use, since I feel those players played within the parameters of the rules allowed at that time. I’ve long considered the Hall of Fame a museum of the game, not a church, and because of this I vote based on performance alone. Now, there are a few differences between us in the IBWAA & our brethren in the BBWAA, one of which is the players we have already inducted. Last year we inducted Vladimir Guerrero and Ivan Rodriguez, and in years past we had already voted in Edgar Martinez, so he will not show up on our ballot this year. Also, we are allowed to vote for up to 15 players, where the BBWAA can only vote for 10. Before we get to my actual votes, you can read my previous votes: Here is 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Also, follow Ryan Thibodaux on Twitter. That way you can follow how the voting is going before the big announcement on January 24th. Without further ado, here are my votes for the 2018 Hall of Fame ballot.
I have voted for Bonds every year and will continue to until he is finally elected. In my eyes, this is a no-brainer, as Bonds is one of the greatest baseball players ever, not just of his era. I could rattle off all the numbers that show how great he was, but I think the best way to explain it is this way: before there was any whispers about suspected steroid use, Bonds was a 5 tool player who could literally do anything on the baseball field…and then he became an offensive juggernaut that could not be contained. The all-time home run king took that whole era to another level and it wasn’t even close. You might not like him or what he had to do to elevate his game, but I am not concerned about any of that when it comes to voting. To me, Bonds is a slam dunk pick and should already be in the Hall of Fame.
Like Bonds, Clemens is an easy pick, the greatest pitcher of his era and one of the greatest pitchers of all-time. Clemens won the Cy Young Award seven times throughout his career, and is on a list of statistics that garner him near the top of almost all pitching leader boards. Both Bonds and Clemens seem to be garnering more support, as the election of former Commissioner Bud Selig to the Hall seems to have allowed some voters to start putting an ‘x’ in the box next to their names. At one time it appeared both men would have to wait until they showed up on the Veteran’s Committee ballot before they would get elected; now we could see that wall busted through in the next couple of years.
Wagner was a seven time All-Star, twice was in the top ten of the NL Cy Young award and took home the 1999 NL Rolaids Relief Award. While he sits in 6th place all-time in saves, that doesn’t mean as much to me as his 86% conversion rate, which is close to Trevor Hoffman’s 88.8%. What does interest me is some of the deeper numbers when compared to fellow relievers. Wagner is 5th all-time for relievers in ERA+, 14th for relievers in bWAR (in fact, just under Hoffman), 4th in strikeouts for a reliever, 86th in Adjusted Pitching Runs, 93rd in Adjusted Pitching Wins, 55th in RE24, and 36th in Win Probability Added. All this was done in less than 1,000 innings, which for some is a hindrance rather than a positive. I get that relievers today aren’t used in the same scenarios as their forefathers, and because of that their innings totals will seem meek in comparison. But that is also what the role calls for nowadays and there is something to be said for compiling numbers like this in a much shorter amount of time. For Wagner, it was more about the efficiency than the longevity; Wagner came in, shut down the opposing team and was done. In some ways, Wagner and Hoffman are linked in that they both pitched about the same amount of time, in the same period and were equally efficient. Both were top of the food chain for their position and in my eyes, both should be in Cooperstown.
If there is a position that is under-represented in Cooperstown, it is third base. Only 16 third baseman are enshrined into the “Hallowed Halls” (which is the lowest of any single position) but it looks as if number 17 will be inducted this summer, as Chipper Jones feels like a slam-dunk to get voted in. When it comes to just third baseman, Chipper is ranked high among the elite at his position: 6th in WAR, 8th in WAR7 (which are a combination of his seven best seasons), 8th in JAWS (which is a combination of the previous two WAR stats), 6th in hits, 3rd in home runs, 2nd in RBI’s, 7th in on-base percentage, 4th in slugging and 9th in OPS+. In the Hall of Stats, Chipper is ranked 6th all-time at the position and considering the other numbers that feels like a fair spot for him. While it is obvious he ranks among the best at his position, that did make me curious to see where his place was in the all-time rankings of baseball history. The numbers actually tell the story of a great baseball player: 51st in career WAR (32nd for position players), 25th in offensive WAR, 54th in on-base percentage, 51st in slugging percentage, 37th in OPS, 60th in career hits, 32nd in total bases, 33rd in home runs, 34th in RBI’s, 16th in career walks (this actually surprised me a bit), 72nd in OPS+, 25th in runs created, 28th in extra base hits, and 15th in career Win Probability Added. It is easy to tell that Jones was a Hall of Famer but there is more to it than just his place in history. Jones was drafted as a shortstop by the Braves, but ended up only playing 49 games at the position in the big leagues. While Chipper is known as a third baseman (and that is where he played the most games), Jones did spend the 2002-2003 seasons out in left field, as the Braves had Vinny Castilla playing at third base. To me, this felt a bit like Kris Bryant, who has floated around for the Cubs the last few years at third base and the outfield. Jones was also a switch hitter and easily one of the best of his kind in baseball lore. In fact, Fangraphs ranked the greatest switch hitters in MLB history a few years back and Jones came in at number two, just behind Mickey Mantle and ahead of Hall of Famers Eddie Murray, Tim Raines and Roberto Alomar. But what statistic stood out to me the most in Chipper’s career? From 1996 to the end of his career in 2012, Jones never posted an OPS+ below 116. In other words, for the duration of his career, Chipper never produced an offensive season below league average (his lowest was a 108 that he posted in his rookie year of 1995). To play 19 seasons in the big leagues and never get below the league average is the definition of consistency and is just one of many numbers that prove that Chipper Jones deserves induction to the baseball Hall of Fame.
Some hitters are adored for their ability to get on base, some are praised for their mastery of putting the ball ‘where it ain’t’…and then some are hailed for power and consistency; that would be the category that Jim Thome would fall into. Thome was one of the greatest home run hitters of his era and was that middle of the lineup force that few teams wanted to mess with. While the accolades are there (five time All-Star, a Silver Slugger award, 2002 Roberto Clemente award, 2004 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award and 2006 AL Comeback Player of the Year), the numbers are the meat and potatoes of Thome’s candidacy. Thome’s rank as a first baseman is a nod to just how great he was, considering how loaded that position is throughout the course of baseball history. Thome ranks 9th in WAR for first baseman, 19th in WAR7, 10th in JAWS, 2nd in home runs, 9th in RBI’s, 8th in slugging percentage, 8th in OPS and 13th in OPS+. This really amazes me, considering Thome is dealing with such classic first baseman as Gehrig, Foxx, Mize, Thomas and Pujols, just to name a few. Thome ranks 10th all-time for the position in the Hall of Stats, 96th all-time. Much like Chipper, his model of consistency was amazing. Outside of the 2005 season (where he appeared in only 59 games due to injury), he never posted an OPS+ below league average, and the lowest he posted in a season where he played at least 120 games was 117. In fact, he posted 10 seasons (10!) where he had an OPS+ of 150 or more. I’m a big proponent of where player’s rank all-time when it comes to their Hall candidacy, and Thome crosses those off with flying colors. He ranks 84 in career WAR (54th for position players), 44th in offensive WAR, 51st in on-base percentage, 23rd in slugging percentage, 18th in OPS, 41st in total bases, 8th in career home runs, 26th in RBI’s, 7th in walks, 47th in OPS+, 24th in runs created, 23rd in extra base hits, 5th all-time in at bats per home run, 21st in RE24, and 38th in Win Probability Added. While Thome wasn’t a great defensive player, teams weren’t employing him for his glove; it was all about his bat. But there is always one more thing that compels us to cheer for Jim Thome on his journey to Cooperstown: Thome might be one of the nicest guys that has ever played professional baseball. Don’t just take my word, take the word of Cleveland Indians President Chris Antonetti:
“The thing that stands out to me about Jim is just who he is — day-in, day-out,” Indians general manager Chris Antonetti told Rumblings. “It’s the way he treats the ushers and the parking-lot attendants, not just how great a guy he is in the clubhouse. He treats every person he meets with respect and dignity. And I’m not sure I can give anybody a better compliment.”
For those of you that wouldn’t vote for a Bonds or a Schilling for how they have acted in the past, Thome would be your measuring stick for the other side of the pendulum. A vote for Thome is not only for the great numbers that rank among the best in history. No, a vote for Thome is one for a guy who was a Hall of Fame player AND person. I’m pretty sure Thome is another lock to be giving a speech in upstate New York this upcoming summer.
Over the last few years I have gone back and forth on Gary Sheffield and his candidacy for the Hall of Fame. Maybe it was because he bounced around from team to team, or the fact that he bounced between the infield and the outfield throughout his career. Either way, it was easy to leave Sheff out of the conversation and feel like he was on the cusp of greatness. But when I finally broke down the numbers, it really felt like his case has been one of the most overlooked when it comes to the hall. Sheffield played right field more than any other position, so I first stacked his numbers against the others at that position. Sheffield is 19th in WAR for right fielders, just below Shoeless Joe Jackson and Dave Winfield. He ranks a bit lower on his peak, as he sits 24th in WAR7, above Hall of Famers Winfield, Chuck Klein, Willie Keeler, and Enos Slaughter. He is also at 24th in JAWS while 7th in home runs, 8th in RBI’s, 12th in OPS and 15th in OPS+. Now, right fielders are well represented in the hall (24 to be exact) so Sheffield holds his own in the position, even if he is slightly below the elite level. But as I mentioned earlier, I’m a big proponent of where players stack up all-time and that is where Sheffield shines. He is 35th in offensive WAR (obviously his defense dragged him down a bit in the WAR category), 88th in on-base percentage, 76th in slugging percentage, 58th in OPS, 69th in hits, 34th in total bases, 26th in home runs, 28th in RBI’s, 21st in walks, 78th in OPS+, 26th in runs created, 39th in extra base hits, 25th in RE24, and 16th in Win Probability Added. I’m sure the fact he played 22 seasons helped him compile a decent amount of those numbers, but he also was able to stay healthy and be a consistent run producer for almost the entirety of his career. Sheffield had six seasons with an OPS+ of 150 or more and was above league average for all but two years of his career (one was his rookie year and the other was his age 39 season). So what has hurt Sheffield’s case? I’m sure a few people would mention that his name was in the Mitchell Report and had been linked to PED’s in the past. Like I mentioned, that doesn’t affect my voting. But the other concern was his defense. It didn’t really matter whether he was at shortstop, third base or the outfield, he just wasn’t a great fielder. In the past I’ve not voted for Jeff Kent because of his defense and I didn’t vote for Omar Vizquel this year because of his lack of offense. So what was the difference with Sheff? His offense was so good that it crossed out any issues I had with his defense. I’m also a “Big Hall” guy and feel like Sheffield was one of the great hitters of his era. I can understand if someone leaves him off (he is a fringe guy in this regard), but for me he was far enough above the line to be considered one of the greats.
When thinking about Mike Mussina, what is the first thing that springs to mind? Is it his start in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS? Or maybe his use of the knuckle-curve, which was his out pitch? Or does nothing specific pop into your mind when hearing Mussina’s name? I sometimes wonder if those of us on the Mussina bandwagon would have to praise his career if he had been even just a tad bit flashier.What I end up realizing is that part of what made him so great was that he wasn’t flashy and just went out for 18 seasons and performed as a top of the rotation starter in that span. There are no Cy Young awards on his mantle, but there are numbers that back up his greatness. Mussina has the 24th best bWAR for pitchers, 19th in strikeouts, 22nd best strikeout to walk ratio, 17th best adjusted pitching runs, 21st best adjusted pitching wins, 9th best RE24, and 10th best Win Probability Added. Mussina was that guy who you could count on for a big win or just to go out and save the bullpen from being overused. Mussina jumped up to 51.8% of the ballots in 2017 and it appears he is inching closer to the 75% he needs to reach the Hall. One of the pitchers that Mussina’s stats are comparable to is another former Oriole, Jim Palmer. While Palmer might have the accolades that Mussina does not have, the one thing in common is that both pitchers deserve to be in the baseball Hall of Fame.
There might not be a bigger lightning rod on the Hall of Fame ballot than Schilling, who has caught quite a bit of scorn for his behavior on social media within the last couple of years. While I might not agree with his politics, I do realize it has nothing to do with his candidacy in the Hall and justly had no qualms in voting for him yet again this year. Schilling’s numbers speak of a top-notch starter: 26th all-time in pitchers bWAR, 15th in strikeouts, 3rd best strikeout to walk ratio, 18th best Win Probability Added and 46th best ERA+. Those are just his regular season numbers; toss in the postseason and you have a surefire Hall of Famer. Schilling has rubbed many a writer the wrong way (and by no means do I feel sorry for Curt; he would probably be better off learning when to keep quiet) and because of that his vote totals went down last year, down 7.3 %, finishing at 45%. I might not like Schilling the person, but the baseball player was one hell of a pitcher out on the diamond. For that, he has my vote.
For the third consecutive season, I voted for Trevor Hoffman. There has been plenty of debate on whether or not closers should be judged on a different criteria than most other positions and to a small degree I get some of the trepidation. Closers today don’t always face the strongest part of the lineup and it seems odd to have your best bullpen arm only throw an inning or less an outing. The thing to remember though is that “the closer” is still a position and if you excel at it for 16 seasons, you should be rewarded justly. In some ways, the Hoffman argument is very similar to Tim Raines; Raines was the second best leadoff hitter of his time, behind another Hall of Famer in Rickey Henderson. Hoffman was the second best closer of his, behind future Hall honoree Mariano Rivera. Hoffman not only shouldn’t be punished for not being Rivera, but was about as consistent as one can be. During his career, Hoffman posted 15 consecutive seasons of 20+ saves (and I hate the save stat, but this is still very impressive) and had an 88.8% save conversion rate, which within itself is almost insane when you consider the amount of save opportunities he received in his career.Throw in his lethal change-up that was almost as deadly as Rivera’s cutter, and you have a one of the best relievers of all-time. He might be no Mariano Rivera, but then again who is? What Hoffman is though is a Hall of Fame closer.
Many voters have said the difference to them between Bonds or Clemens and Rafael Palmeiro or Ramirez is that the latter tested positive for performance enhancing drugs and was justly suspended. In fact, last year when I started filling out my ballot, I paused on Ramirez and had to really stop and think of which direction I wanted to go. Like I have said, my voting is performance based but an actual suspension (and for Manny it was multiple suspensions) muddies the water a bit. After much contemplation, I went ahead and voted for Manny since he had put up Hall of Fame numbers before the suspensions. While Ramirez wasn’t a stellar defender (and that is evidenced by his career bWAR of 69.2), offensively he was a juggernaut. Manny posted a career line of .312/.411/.585 with 555 career home runs, and an OPS+ of 154. I firmly believe he could hit blindfolded and still produce league average numbers, as he was that good of a hitter. Manny also contributed during the playoffs, where he hit .285/.394/.544 with 29 home runs and 78 RBI’s over 111 postseason games, all fairly on pace to his regular season averages. The awards are all there for him as he was a 12 time All-Star, 2 time Hank Aaron award winner, 2002 AL batting title, 2004 World Series MVP, and 9 time Silver Slugger award winner. If that isn’t impressive enough, the numbers are quite gaudy: 32nd all-time in oWAR, 32nd in On-Base Percentage, 8th in Slugging Percentage, 8th in OPS, 29th in total bases, 31st in doubles, 15th in home runs, 18th in RBI’s, 28th in OPS+, 21st in runs created, 17th in Adjusted Batting Runs, 20th in Adjusted Batting Wins, 16th in extra base hits, 11th in RE24, and 23rd in Win Probability Added. Those are Hall of Fame numbers and most of that accumulated before he tested positive for anything. Would I hold it against anyone for not voting for him because of the suspensions? Nope. I get it.But for me, Ramirez has long been a Hall of Famer; the only thing those suspensions did was tarnish the perception of him, which is unfortunate. Instead of people remembering Manny for his child-like antics or immense hitting, he will be branded a cheater. He has no one else to blame for that, but I still felt like he had earned my vote, scarlet letter and all.
If there is a player I voted for that I feel others will look past on first glance when they absolutely shouldn’t, it’s Scott Rolen. I mentioned earlier how under-represented the position of third base is and voting for both Chipper and Rolen would go a long way toward making up some much-needed ground. While Chipper’s case mostly lies on his offense, Rolen’s leans a bit more toward his defense. While the defensive metrics still feel a bit like a work in progress, there is no denying that he was an elite defender. Rolen sits 6th all-time in total zone runs as a third baseman, 32nd for range factor/9 innings for a third baseman and is second in defensive runs saved as a third sacker since 2002. Rolen was 48th all-time in defensive WAR, an eight-time Gold Glove winner and outside of maybe Adrian Beltre, was considered the elite defender at the position during his day. Now, defense alone doesn’t get you in the hall, otherwise someone like Mark Belanger would have a nice little plaque. Luckily for Rolen, his offense was stellar as well. The stats don’t speak as a world beater as much as a consistent performer throughout his 17 year career; 99th all-time in WAR (67th for position players), 51st in career doubles, 74th in extra base hits and 104th in Win Probability Added. Like I said, not breaking any records but I doubt many would expect these kind of footprints stepping into the statistical records of baseball history. But to truly honor Rolen’s greatness, all you have to do is view his place in third basemen all-time. Rolen sits 10th for third basemen all-time in WAR, 14th in WAR7, and 10th in JAWS. If you believe in those numbers as much as I do, you consider Rolen one of the greatest third baseman in history…but there is more. When considering the other players at his position, he is 6th in doubles, 15th in home runs, 14th in RBI’s, 14th in slugging percentage, and 11th in OPS. To top it all off, the Hall of Stats has him listed as a 142 Hall Rating, 85th all-time overall and 8th among third baseman. In other words, he was great and totally deserves this honor. I really wish Rolen was getting more support this year, since I really feel like he is the third base equivalent of Alan Trammell. Great numbers, especially the more you dive into them but overshadowed by his peers who played at the same time. It would be great to see Rolen and Trammell get inducted together; unfortunately, it appears Rolen will have to wait for his honor. At some point he will get his acknowledgement, it’s just a matter of how long that takes to happen.
There are so many factors when considering players for the Hall of Fame, and everyone’s criteria is different, especially since every player is a different case. Some of my main factors are placement on the all-time leaderboard, consistency, and being elite at your position. But what about longevity, you might be asking? While it can be a factor, I’ve always leaned more toward being great for a longer period, not just length of ones career. In other words, I strongly lean toward the seven-year peak, or WAR7, which defines a player’s best seven WAR years of his career. With that in mind, it was hard to say no to Johan Santana, a player who I’m sure some will say didn’t do enough in his career. I get that and even at first I wasn’t sold that he had performed good enough to deserve the honor. But breaking down the numbers showed while shorter than most, he packed a lot of great into his 12 year career. Let’s start with his ranking among starting pitchers, since that is really where the conversation begins. Santana ranks 100th in WAR, 63rd in WAR7 and 86th in JAWS. It’s interesting to mention JAWS in these conversations, as the man who created it, Jay Jaffe, actually has debated himself just where Santana stands in the pantheon of history:
From an advanced metrics standpoint, Santana is obviously short of the WAR-based career, peak and JAWS standards, but he outdoes many big-name Hall of Famers. His 51.4 career WAR (including offense) is tied for 102nd all time but beats that of 11 enshrined pitchers, including Sandy Koufax (49.0), Dean (44.9), and Catfish Hunter (41.4), not to mention Morris (44.1). His 44.8 peak score, which is tied with Dave Stieb for 61st, is higher than 25 of the 62 (or 26 of 63 if you include Morris), and his 48.1 JAWS, which ranks 85th, tops 15 enshrinees (plus Morris), including Koufax (47.5), Whitey Ford (46.0), Dean and Bob Lemon (both 43.9), and Hunter (38.3).
So despite his short career, Santana has managed to wedge himself into interesting company when it comes to some of the advanced metrics. I was interested to see where he placed when it comes to ERA+, and he did not disappoint, sitting in 16th place all-time at 136. But where I really wanted to check Santana was a comparison to Koufax, since both were great for a number of years and both retired at a younger age due to injuries. So here are some comparisons between the two:
When it comes to WAR, Santana trumps Koufax, 51.4 to 49.0.
For their seven-year peak, Koufax beats Santana, 46.1 to 44.8.
Now for JAWS, Santana slides by Koufax, 48.1 to 47.5.
Since both pitchers had 12 year careers, I thought I would look at some of the other stats and see where they stand. Koufax easily beats Santana in ERA, WHIP, Hits per 9, Strikeouts per 9, and Strikeouts, while Santana beats him in Strikeout to Walk Ratio.
Granted they played in different times, when starting pitchers were used differently, but there really doesn’t appear to be a huge gap between the two players overall. So then I ask the question: if you feel Koufax is a surefire Hall of Famer (which I’m pretty sure no one is arguing), then why isn’t Santana? To me he is, which is why I voted for him. The voting has not been going well for him so far (he is polling at 1.3% so far with 46.9% of the ballots known) and it appears he will fall off the ballot for next year. It’s unfortunate, because he really feels like a guy who should be getting a longer look. Instead, you have to hope the Modern Baseball Era committee will give him a longer look when that times comes. To quote Neil Young, “It’s better to burn out, than to fade away”.
This was the second year I voted for Walker and my take on him seemed to be a bit different from a lot of folks. For many, the fact that Walker played a large chunk of his home games in Coors Field (Walker was a Rockie from 1995 to 2004) seemed to deter voters from placing a vote for him; I had no issue with that, since I knew he hit on the road almost as well as he did at home. No, my issue with him was injuries, as he had 7 seasons of less than 130 games, 12 of less than 140. Walker’s issue wasn’t the ‘Rocky Mountain High’s’ as much as the ability to stay on the field and play. The numbers speak volumes: .313/.400/.565 career slash line, 141 career OPS+, 5 time All-Star, 1997 NL MVP, 3 batting titles, and 7 time Gold Glove winner. So what changed for me when it comes to Walker? His place in history. According to JAWS, Walker is the 10th best right fielder of all-time. All-Time! Just seeing who he is better than sounds like a who’s-who of right fielders: Shoeless Joe Jackson, Tony Gwynn, Ichiro Suzuki, Dwight Evans, Dave Winfield, Vladimir Guerrero, Willie Keeler, Paul Waner and Enos Slaughter, just to name a few. Walker is 86th all-time in bWAR, 56th in bWAR for position players, 55th in on base percentage, 12th in slugging percentage, 14th in OPS, 31st in power-speed #, 38th in RE24, and 36th in Win Probability Added. Those numbers are just a sliver of what he could do; there are 7 other categories where Walker is in the Top 100 of all-time. What makes me curious is the voting for Walker during the first six years on the ballot; He peaked in 2012 at 22% and last year bumped up a bit to 21.9%. One has to wonder if the voters viewpoint of him would change if he hadn’t played so many games in Colorado. It took me awhile to recognize it, but Walker deserves to be with the other elite right fielders in Cooperstown.
So there you go, my 13 picks to be inducted into the IBWAA Hall of Fame. One player that could get my vote next year is Andruw Jones. I reluctantly left him off this year, as I’m not 100% sold on him being one of the elite, but he is one that I did heavily consider during this process. One other player that fell quite a bit short was Omar Vizquel. There are those that believe his defense is enough to get him in. Unfortunately, his offense was more than lacking: a career OPS+ of 82 and only 45.3 WAR in his career shows that his defense was not enough to get my vote. 2019 should be interesting, as a number of big names will pop up on the ballot: Mariano Rivera, Roy Halladay, Todd Helton, Andy Pettitte, Lance Berkman and Roy Oswalt will all be on the list. It’s probably a good thing that it looks like as many as five players could be inducted this year, as a number of worthy candidates will be added next year. Don’t worry; while the voting will commence on Wednesday, the debate will rage on.
I received my IBWAA Hall of Fame ballot in my inbox yesterday. I look forward to it every year, as it is an honor to be able to vote for players I feel are worthy of baseball’s highest honor. It also gives me the opportunity to really dive into the numbers, or as my wife calls it “fall down the statistic rabbit hole”. You will see that article in about a months time, where I breakdown my votes and why I voted the way I did. Since I occasionally get asked this, in the IBWAA we do things a bit differently than the boys and girls over at the BBWAA. We have a number of guys who have been voted in (Vlad Guerrero, Edgar Martinez) that the BBWAA still has on their ballot. We are also able to vote for 15 players instead of the 10 the BBWAA are left with. Finally, we don’t have a former player like Joe Morgan send us a letter, trying to sway our vote with arrogant confidence and ignorant hubris…and for that I am grateful.
If you aren’t aware(or maybe in a cave), Joe Morgan sent out a letter a few weeks back, hoping to veer the writers of the BBWAA away from voting for players linked to steroid use. If you want to read the entire letter, here it is:
Teams lobby us to get their players into the HOF. This email from Joe Morgan arrived this AM to keep steroid users out… pic.twitter.com/BkLPJ8NUTK
Now, I’m not going to get into a huge debate over the Hall of Fame or steroid use in baseball; I have done that so much over the years that I’m just bored with it and it just seems to agitate me. I will tell you that if you want my opinion on the Hall, read this; I wrote this a few years back and it pretty much encompasses my feelings on “cheaters” in the Hall. So I’m not going to get into a big debate about steroid use and Cooperstown. But…I do have a few comments about what Joe said and just who Joe is speaking for.
First, let’s start with Joe’s comment about those linked to steroid use:
We hope the day never comes when known steroid users are voted into the Hall of Fame. They
cheated. Steroid users don’t belong here.
I hate to tell Joe, but I’m pretty positive there is someone (or likely more than one) in the Hall who used steroids. Oh yeah…Mickey Mantle took steroids. So right there, you have a player in those “hallowed halls” that falls below Morgan’s standard for Cooperstown. Pretty sure you won’t catch ol’ Joe looking to pull “The Mick” and his plaque.
Players who failed drug tests, admitted using steroids, or were identified as users in Major League
Baseball’s investigation into steroid abuse, known as the Mitchell Report, should not get in. Those
are the three criteria that many of the players and I think are right.
Look, there is a some validity to the Mitchell Report but lets not act like it is a 100% guilty verdict. That is just someone wanting to believe guilt without the proof.
Now, I recognize there are players identified as users on the Mitchell Report who deny they were
users. That’s why this is a tricky issue. Not everything is black and white – there are shades of gray
here. It’s why your job as a voter is and has always been a difficult and important job. I have faith in
your judgment and know that ultimately, this is your call.
Wait, so Joe knows the Mitchell Report is probably not 100% accurate, yet earlier wants voters to use that report as a template? Come on Joe…
But it still occurs to me that anyone who took body-altering chemicals in a deliberate effort to cheat
the game we love, not to mention they cheated current and former players, and fans too, doesn’t
belong in the Hall of Fame. By cheating, they put up huge numbers, and they made great players
who didn’t cheat look smaller by comparison, taking away from their achievements and consideration for the Hall of Fame. That’s not right.
Body-altering chemicals? You mean like performance enhancers? So players who used amphetamines, right? Because, if we are being honest, amphetamines are enhancing a players performance…and Greenies were used in baseball up until they started testing for amphetamines back in 2006. Greenies were prevalent in the game for years and were widely used during Morgan’s playing days. In fact, players like Hank Aaron & Willie Mays have both been linked to amphetamines over the years…and no one is asking those two to leave Cooperstown (nor should they).
It’s gotten to the point where Hall of Famers are saying that if steroid users get in, they’ll no longer
come to Cooperstown for Induction Ceremonies or other events. Some feel they can’t share a stage
with players who did steroids. The cheating that tainted an era now risks tainting the Hall of Fame
too. The Hall of Fame means too much to us to ever see that happen. If steroid users get in, it will
divide and diminish the Hall, something we couldn’t bear.
Does this include Gaylord Perry? Is he appalled by the cheating?
I care about how good a player was or what kind of numbers he put up; but if a player did steroids,
his integrity is suspect; he lacks sportsmanship; his character is flawed; and, whatever contribution
he made to his team is now dwarfed by his selfishness.
So when do we point out the selfishness of baseball for allowing steroids to be used all those years? The owners? The GM’s? Bud Selig? I’m sure their selfishness won’t allow them to return all the money they received from fans flooding the ballparks during this period. You can put some of the blame on the players, Joe, but there is enough blame to go all the way around.
Steroid users knew they were taking a drug that physically improved how they played. Taking
steroids is a decision. It’s the deliberate act of using chemistry to change how hard you hit and throw by changing what your body is made of.
See “Greenies” from earlier.
I and other Hall of Famers played hard all our lives to achieve what we did. I love this game and am
proud of it. I hope the Hall of Fame’s standards won’t be lowered with the passage of time.
For over eighty years, the Hall of Fame has been a place to look up to, where the hallowed halls
honor those who played the game hard and right. I hope it will always remain that way.
Honestly, baseball has never been a pure game and never will. If I’m being completely honest, when I first read this letter, it felt sanctimonious and hypocritical. Reading it again doesn’t make me change my mind. In fact, it just further cements my initial thoughts of the ignorance in Joe’s words…and how Joe is being used as a puppet.
Don’t get me wrong; I totally think Joe Morgan believes the words he wrote in this letter. But I also believe that what he wrote was allowed to be sent because the people on the board for the Hall of Fame and those involved agree with this sentiment. I also feel this is a direct reaction to seeing Barry Bonds’ and Roger Clemens’ vote total moving upward these last couple years. The honest truth is that testing for performance enhancing drugs was not being done when these players were putting up those “tainted numbers” that Joe mentioned. Maybe it’s just me, but since baseball wasn’t testing and those involved seemed okay with it continuing (that was until congress stepped in to put a halt to it), it feels self-righteous to then turn around and punish the players and no one else (including the true villain in this, Bud Selig). Luckily, the letter appears to have angered many a writer in the BBWAA and it makes one wonder if Bonds’ and Clemens’ total will continue to rise. As a member of the IBWAA, we don’t have to worry about any of this mess. I don’t expect a letter from Howard Cole telling us about “hallowed grounds” and “flawed character”. I thank Howard for that, as he appears to “get it”. I’m still going to enjoy the Cooperstown inductions next summer, as I love watching some of the best players in the history of the game get to celebrate their career in the best way possible. The real taint on the Hall of Fame is those involved who try to move the chess pieces to their liking by ignoring a section of history. History is exactly what it is, a part of the past. If you don’t ignore it, you aren’t likely to repeat it again. Now, it appears it’s time for me to go turn in my IBWAA ballot…
Say the name Pete Rose and you are bound to hear many a varied opinion. If there was one former player who is a lightning rod for controversy and passion it would be the man nicknamed “Charlie Hustle”. We all know the story of Rose, one of a man who has fallen from grace because of his vices. This week we found out that Rose has sent a formal request to new MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred to have his lifetime ban lifted, a ban that has been in effect since August of 1989. Many in and around the game are on Rose’s side in this argument, including the executive director of baseball’s players’ union, Tony Clark. But should Rose have his lifetime ban lifted?
I know some people don’t completely grasp this, but gambling is the biggest sin in baseball. If you think all the visceral hatred of PED use was as bad as it could get, you would be wrong. Gambling is much worse and can(and has) tore apart the fabric of the game. Gambling is such a no-no in the game that there is a sign posted in every Major League, Minor League and Spring Training clubhouse that reads:
“Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.”
This hasn’t been posted for just a few years, or a couple decades; it’s been in clubhouses for close to 100 years. So from the moment Pete Rose walked into a professional baseball dugout he was aware of the dangers and punishment if he gambled on the game. Yet he did it anyway. In fact while manager of the Cincinnati Reds, he gambled on his team. Now, he always has said he “bet on them to win” but does this even matter? He broke rule #1 in the game he loved, a rule that he knew if broken would cost him. It cost him alright; it cost him inclusion into the game that was his life. But he knew the risks and he knew he shouldn’t do it–and did it anyway. I’m not even for sure he feels as if what he did was wrong. Which means much like the fans clamoring for his reinstatement, he doesn’t grasp the severity of gambling in baseball.
That is the other part of the Pete Rose argument. For years Rose denied he gambled on baseball. He denied it on August 24th, 1989 when then Commissioner Bart Giamatti announced Rose’s lifetime ban. In fact, Rose vehemently denied gambling on baseball:
“Despite what the commissioner said today, I didn’t bet on baseball,” Rose told the media. He does, however, admit that he bet on other sports. “I made some mistakes and I’m being punished for mistakes,” he says.
For years Rose would deny he ever bet on baseball. Years. In fact for years “Charlie Hustle” hustled the media and fans alike by lying and saying he would never bet on the game he loved. But eventually he would go back on that and tell the truth. He would admit that he bet on baseball. But he would do it right before the release of his tell-all book, My Prison Without Bars. So Pete would finally tell us the truth…when it would bring something to him. After years of swearing he was the victim and had done no wrong, he turned around and told the truth when he could make a profit. So the question would have to be asked; At this point, in 2004, did Pete really feel like he had done wrong or did he just admit his wrongdoing for the sympathy? In 2007 he would admit betting on his own team on the Dan Patrick Radio show:
“I bet on my team every night. I didn’t bet on my team four nights a week. I was wrong,” Rose said. “I bet on my team to win every night because I love my team, I believe in my team,” Rose said. “I did everything in my power every night to win that game.”
Maybe it’s just me, but it just feels like Pete found a way to give people what they wanted(the truth) while also making money. It didn’t feel like someone getting something off his chest, relieving himself of guilt. It felt like a man trying to manipulate people’s feelings for him. It didn’t feel like remorse. Only remorse he got caught.
This most recent attempt by Rose for reinstatement isn’t his first. In fact, former teammates have come to his aid before. Back in 2003, Mike Schmidt and Joe Morgan set up a meeting with then Commissioner Bud Selig where Rose could discuss his case with Selig and possibly even move forward. ESPN’s Jayson Stark wrote an article back in 2009, discussing an episode of “Outside the Lines” where Morgan and Schmidt discussed this meeting. In the article there is some very telling truths about Rose and his situation:
Morgan actually shed a tear as he talked about his longtime teammate and what had become of his life. And Schmidt visibly agonized in frustration over Rose’s inability to do and say what seemed so obvious to those of us not living inside the Hit King’s skin.
“If it were me,” Schmidt said, “and I had lived a lie for 14 years, and I went up to tell the commissioner that I was sincerely sorry for what I’ve done to my family, to the sport, etc., I probably would be back in baseball now and in the Hall of Fame — because I would have been a tremendously remorseful individual. And I would have felt the burden of that the rest of my life, in everything that I did. And I would have, in my travels, been a totally different person.
“My lifestyle would have changed. I would have felt an obligation to change and to become someone that the baseball world would once again learn to love after forgiving me. I would have been that guy. And I don’t think Pete has been.”
There were no promises made to Rose that day in 2003. But Schmidt went into stunning detail about the topics on the table in that meeting.
The men in that room actually talked informally, he said, about how Rose should go about holding a news conference to admit what he never could admit all those years: that he’d bet on baseball. They kicked around when he should hold that session. And where.
More than anything, there seemed to be awareness that Rose would have to change his lifestyle. The lifestyle that got him into this situation in the first place. That is where a problem arose:
But the men in that meeting also talked about the changes in lifestyle Rose was going to have to make. No more trips to Vegas. No more hanging out at the racetrack. That was going to have to stop.
And, of course, none of it ever stopped. Not then. Not now.
But the nature of the conversation tells you how much momentum was being built for Rose’s reinstatement. It may not have been imminent. But it was clearly within reach.
“So we were very confident,” Schmidt said, “that once we left Milwaukee, that some phone calls would ensue, some e-mails and discussions with Pete’s representatives and the commissioner’s office, that a plan would be put in place.”
But that plan never even made it onto a crumpled up sheet of scrap paper in Selig’s office. And that was no one’s fault but the Hit King’s alone.
People in the commissioner’s office are still muttering that Rose’s first public stop after leaving Selig’s office was an appearance at a Vegas sports book. It wasn’t quite the reconfiguration of Pete Rose’s life they had in mind.
If you have ever wondered why Pete Rose hasn’t ever been reinstated, and why I feel he shouldn’t ever, those last few paragraphs tell so much. The reason why Pete Rose should never have his lifetime ban lifted is because of the lifestyle he just isn’t willing to give up.
The biggest issue baseball will have to look at is whether or not Rose has reformed, or whether Rose is living the gambling lifestyle. There is nothing we have seen from the last few years that says he has changed. Rose lives 1.2 miles from the Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, where he signs autographs in a mall music store. Go back and re-read that; Pete Rose, noted gambler who says he wants a second chance, works in a casino. Sure, Rose will tell you things are different and he would never gamble on baseball again. But lets be honest; Rose lied for 15 years, telling us he didn’t bet on his team. He came clean 11 years ago but where does the truth and lie begin and end? As much as we all want to believe Rose can be this better person who would put the game ahead of his own wants and needs, I’m not so sure that person exists in him. Rose has much in common with players who are suspected of PED use and have denied it for years; they believed they were untouchable. They believed because of who they were they would never get caught. Well, Pete got caught and has spent the last 25 years trying to convince everyone that he was the victim. The honest truth is Pete put himself in this situation. Pete created this mess; his decisions led him to this place and time. There is one rule that everyone that plays, umpires, manages or is a club official has to follow no matter what; don’t gamble. Rose broke that rule and has spent all these years trying to convince everyone that he did nothing wrong. The reality is he broke the one rule that will end your career in the sport. No reinstatement, no Hall of Fame, no nothing. This is the bed Pete Rose has made for himself; it’s time for him to admit he must lie in it.