Who deserves the Hall in 2009?
Posted: Thursday, January 08, 2009 12:11 PM
There are 23 candidates on this year’s Hall of Fame ballot with the election results to be announced on Monday. In my previous blog, I wrote on the top three returning vote-getters from last year: Jim Rice (72.2 percent), Andre Dawson (65.9) and Bert Blyleven (61.9) and whether I thought they deserve to get the 75 percent of the vote needed to be inducted.
Understand that every candidate has friends and former teammates, managers and coaches who will vouch for his brilliance. The mission of the voters is to place the praise alongside the numbers and the visceral reaction to a player's career.
The late Leonard Koppett -- one of the great gems of the sports writing profession -- always talked of his litmus test for Cooperstown. If Koppett had to pause and think about a player's worthiness, then he was not a Hall of Famer.
With that in mind some thoughts on this year’s candidates:
HAROLD BAINES: He had only one league leading total in his long career: slugging percentage in 1984. Baines is a perfect example of quantity with not enough quality for the Hall of Fame. Or as a fine major leaguer once told me, "I was a very good player and the Hall of Fame is for great players."
JAY BELL: He is remembered for one exceptional year, 1999 with Arizona (.289 BA, 38 HR, 112 RBI). Should he be honored for his durability, eight years of 150-plus games and another of 149 at the demanding shortstop position? Not a realistic Hall of Fame candidate.
DAVID CONE: His credentials look better upon closer examination: two 20-win seasons, a Cy Young Award and four top five finishes in the Cy Young voting, a strong ERA differential (3.46 career to 4.17 league ERA) and the standout accomplishment in winning 45.6 percent of his career starts. But he didn't reach the 200-win plateau that has become the bare minimum for Hall of Fame consideration. And even reaching that didn't help Orel Hershiser.
RON GANT: He should have been a 300/300 man but while he did hit 321 home runs, his career ended with 243 stolen bases. A dirt bike accident before the start of the 1994 season kept him from ever again reaching the level of play of earlier in his career. A good player but his career totals of 1,651 hits and 1,411 strikeouts are way too close to help his candidacy.
MARK GRACE: His biggest sales point: he had the most hits in the 1990s. And that means more than many give him credit for. A lifetime .300 hitter with modest power and four Gold Gloves, Grace would seem to fall into the category, "If not Keith Hernandez, then why him?"
RICKEY HENDERSON: The greatest leadoff hitter of all time. I love Jimmy Rollins’ take on Henderson. Growing up in Oakland, Rollins idolized Henderson and long heard the tales of Henderson never working out with weights. Pushups and situps, just like Herschel Walker, said Henderson.
In 2001, Henderson was with the Padres and a young Rollins went to the weight room on a Phillies visit to San Diego. Henderson was there and Rollins decided to introduce himself -- only Henderson was in the middle of a serious set of bicep curls!
TOMMY JOHN: He compares more favorably to his peers also seeking the Hall of Fame (Bert Blyleven, Jim Kaat and Jack Morris) than I would have imagined. What likely hurts John is only winning 40.5 percent of his career starts.
DON MATTINGLY: This cuts to the Jim Rice question. Was he dominant enough to overcome the longevity question? Mattingly has fewer top 10 finishes in every category than has Rice. If Gold Gloves matter, then why isn’t Keith Hernandez in the Hall of Fame? For five years Mattingly was a supreme player but that’s not probably not long enough to make it to Cooperstown.
MARK MCGWIRE: As has been written in this blog before, judge a man against his peers. On that basis alone, McGwire is yes, yes, a thousand times yes for the Hall of Fame.
JACK MORRIS: Like McGwire, a thousand times yes. I have previously pointed out how favorably Morris measures up against the 280-win club. At some point, despite the efforts of some in the stat fraternity, wins do matter. And Morris won an astounding 47.6 percent of his career starts. As a comparison Randy Johnson has won 50.3 percent, Roger Clemens won 50 percent and Greg Maddux won 47.9 percent. So Morris is in good company.
DALE MURPHY: A candidacy like Mattingly’s except Murphy had a slightly longer career. He had a five-year period of brilliance and some surrounding years that were good. He’s probably in the Baines category -- very good but not great.
JESSE OROSCO: No chance. He simply wasn't a closer long enough. If Lee Smith can't get a sniff, we will never see a set-up man or situational reliever come close to making it to Cooperstown.
DAVE PARKER: I made a strong case on his behalf last year. He truly benefits from a closer look. Parker has more quality than you think and more longevity than you might remember (2,712 hits). If Dawson gets elected, then Parker should be next.
DAN PLESAC: See Orosco.
TIM RAINES: Probably the most controversial omission for many who analyze numbers. The quality is there, particularly in comparison to Lou Brock, although they were a generation apart. But Raines didn't quite reach Brock's career totals, falling 400 hits and 100 stolen bases shy of them. Although Raines was a different type of player, I wonder if he is caught in the logjam behind Dawson and Rice.
LEE SMITH: Frequent readers of this blog know how strongly I feel about the disrespecting of relievers. The election of Goose Gossage righted what I felt was the Hall of Fame’s most egregious omission. Now Smith is the standard bearer for closers seeking Cooperstown. How, for example, can Trevor Hoffman feel about his chances at the Hall of Fame if Smith can't make in? Smith is the closers' version of Robin Yount – he had a long, steady and generally unspectacular career. But he did make seven All Star teams and had four top 10 Cy Young Award finishes. On the Koppett meter, I say no as Smith never struck me as a dominant closer. But his performance, both in excellence and longevity, warrants a closer look over time.
ALAN TRAMMELL: A terrific shortstop whose candidacy suffers from the change in his position over the last half of his career. Ripken, Alex Rodriguez, Nomar Garciaparra and Derek Jeter introduced offense, notably power, to a shortstop – a position where offense had rarely been found. I think Trammell will receive a fairer look from the Veteran’s Committee down the line than from writers who have been mesmerized by the power era. And some make an equally strong case for his partner, Lou Whitaker.
GREG VAUGHN/MO VAUGHN: They’re not related but they have similar tales. Flashes of dominance, awesome power but neither sustained their runs long enough for the Hall of Fame. Neither man reached 2,000 hits or 400 homers.
MATT WILLIAMS: I covered closely two third basemen that fit in the Baines category -- Williams and Gary Gaetti. Both were incredible competitors who honored the game in the manner in which they played. Both had power, Williams superior there as he finished the 1994 season with 43 homers in 112 games. Both were Gold Glovers. Gaetti in his prime had the better arm. Both fall tantalizingly close of this honor -- in the case of Williams, his career effectively ended at 35, denying him the chance to put up better career totals. But Williams was a winner, proven in his three stops (San Francisco, Cleveland and Arizona). He went to the World Series with all three teams. And no player was ever more respected by his teammates.
