My Hypothetical 2009 Hall of Fame Ballot

So, it’s been awhile since I’ve posted on my blog and what better to bring me back than one of the most anticipated days of the major league baseball calendar: On Monday, we’ll find out the results of this year’s balloting for the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

Of course, as I have mentioned previously on this blog, “Hall of Fame” seems like a misnomer to me, since the balloting usually works like a “Hall of Excellence” instead. I’ll put that issue aside for the moment and proceed with this blog entry as if I’m thinking of it as a “Hall of Excellence,” as it is typically conceived.

Since I’m an academic and not a sportswriter, I don’t get to vote in the election, though that does raise what I think could be some intriguing questions about who should be voting for the Hall of Fame. I mean, I could probably make an argument that, having been a member of the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) for more than 10 years, I’ve got at least as much credibility as many baseball writers in voting for this thing. But that sounds like a good idea for another post somewhere down the road. For now, I’m going to focus on who I’d vote for if I had a say. So, here, generally, is how I see the folks on this year’s ballot, grouped by order of my sense of their merit for induction:

Unequivocally, I’d vote for them (4 players): Rickey Henderson, Mark McGwire, Tim Raines, and Andre Dawson. Rickey Henderson is the no-brainer on everyone’s list this year. McGwire would be in, but for the steroid stuff, and that doesn’t make him unworthy in my thinking, so he’s right there, too. I didn’t realize how good Raines was until I looked at his numbers last year. It seems to me that he definitely belongs there and might have been a sure thing, if he hadn’t been Henderson’s contemporary. Dawson is probably, for many people, the biggest question mark as unequivocal of the four I’ve named here, but he’s been that way for me since the day he hit the ballot. When I asked myself in the late 1980s and early 1990s which current players were definite Hall-of-Famers someday, I didn’t think twice in adding Dawson’s name to the list. I maintain that conviction today. I think ESPN writer Jayson Stark’s comments on Andre Dawson, especially the line “All I know is that every who's-the-best-player-in-the-National-League conversation in the 1980s included his name,” seem to hit the mark.

I wouldn’t necessarily have thought of these guys as Hall-of-Famers when they played, but I see their merits and would vote for them (2 players): Bert Blyleven and Jim Rice. If twenty years ago, someone gave me a choice between these two and made me choose one for the Hall of Fame, I’m pretty sure I would have picked Rice, but I wouldn’t have thought he definitely belonged and for a number of years I wouldn’t have included him on this list. He never struck me as being as dominant as I guess he was. I suppose that’s because about half of his “great” period was before I was old enough to recognize that kind of thing. Blyleven suffers similarly for me, since I’m a child of the 80s, but, of course, many who covered him in the 1970s have had to be convinced of his merits, too. Basically, I look at the cases and statistics for these two and see them as belonging, but I did have to be convinced. To a certain extent, Raines could go here, since I did have to look at his numbers to be convinced last year, but two things put him in the prior group: (1) one glance at his numbers convinced me; I look again at the cases for Blyleven and Rice every year and (2) twenty years ago, if you put Raines in that choice I mentioned and made me pick one of him, Rice, or Blyleven, I would have said Raines belongs there well before either of the other two.

I once had him in the unequivocal category, cooled off him after his career ended, and then came back to him (1 player): Jack Morris. In the 1980s, when Morris was at his peak, I would have considered him a lock. When he retired, though, I wasn’t sure he had done enough and I remember thinking one or two more good seasons would have put him in. So, I cooled on thinking of him as a Hall-of-Famer, given that he didn’t win 300 games and his ERA was 3.90. On further consideration a couple of years ago, I decided he belongs. 254 wins is pretty good and plenty of players have made it with a win total in the mid-200s before. He also gets credit for his postseason performances. I mean, right now I’d say Curt Schilling should be a Hall-of-Famer because, while his statistical numbers aren’t as high as some of his contemporaries, his postseason performances count for something. If I do that, I think I need to do the same for Morris. So, Morris would get my vote.

Vying for slots 8-10 this year (10 players): Harold Baines, David Cone, Mark Grace, Tommy John, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Jesse Orosco, Dave Parker, Lee Smith, Alan Trammell. I tend to have a very inclusive view of the Hall of Fame, so I would almost assuredly vote for the maximum of 10 players every year. Thus, how many slots on my ballot would be available after the folks I’m sure I’d vote for would change from year to year. If, for instance, Rickey Henderson had managed to keep playing longer than he did, he wouldn’t be on the ballot this year and that would open a slot for someone else. Also, whether Jim Rice makes it or not, this is his last year of eligibility, so next year that would open a slot where he would have been. Of course, the 2010 ballot will include Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, and Fred McGriff, who, I’m sure, are all players for whom I would vote. So, there might actually be less slots available next year. This year, there are three slots available and I think each of the ten players I’ve listed deserves, in varying amounts, at least some consideration. If the ballot had a maximum of 15 instead of 10, I’d likely add 8 of these players instead of just 3. If it had a maximum of 20 instead of 10, I’d probably vote for all of these folks, for a total of 17. I’m not going to go into much detail about all of them here and my 3 choices from among this group tend to vary from time to time, but I think right now I’d vote for Baines, Murphy, and Smith. Baines did hold on forever but, in some ways at least, he compares favorably with Jim Rice. So, I suppose if Rice gets in, in my mind Baines does, too. Murphy was really good in the 1980s and, while he didn’t quite make some of the “big” milestone numerical markers, his excellence in the 1980s puts him slightly ahead of many of the others here. Finally, I think ending his career as the all-time saves leader (and having only Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman pass him since, in an era of even more closer specialization than Smith’s era) counts for enough to put him ahead of the rest of this pack. That said, if I had two more slots available, I think they’d go to Mark Grace and Jesse Orosco. For Grace, he did have a heck of a career, with a ton of hits, especially doubles. I tend to think he was among the best players of the 1990s. For Orosco, I think being the all-time leader in appearances (and by a pretty significant margin) counts for something and he really was an effective pitcher for almost all of that time, while playing at the position (though he was a closer for a few season, most of his career was middle relief) that probably gets the least respect in all of baseball. Of course, as a Mets fan, maybe I’m just giving him too much credit for the last out of the 1986 World Series.

Definitely wouldn’t make my ballot (6 players): Jay Bell, Ron Gant, Dan Plesac, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams. I almost put Jay Bell in the above category, but when I thought about whether or not I’d include him if I had a maximum of 20, I had to say no. So, he goes here. I guess he’s the line of my inclusiveness for the Hall of Fame. The only other one on here at whom I’d even take a second look is Matt Williams, who had a very nice career and might have beaten Mark McGwire to breaking Roger Maris’ single-season home run record if not for the 1994 work stoppage. I suppose Mo Vaughn might deserve a little consideration for his early and mid-1990s play, especially his MVP season, but, as I mentioned, I’m a Mets fan. That probably says enough about Mo … or should that be Les? … Vaughn.