Mark's Hall of Fame Ballot

If everyone else was jumping off a bridge, I’d look for the fire, collapsing structure, and/or runaway train/vehicle, and then, yes I’d jump, Mooom. When TCM and Bill put up their ballots, I didn’t really feel obligated to do one, but once Jason did it, I couldn’t become the least favorite son and look like a slacker. Well, okay I’m already the lesser of the two sons, but I just don’t want to lose anymore ground than I already have, okay? Anyway, without further ado.

Jeff Bagwell: He’s 34^th all-time in OPS+ at 149, and he was an excellent baserunner and defender. The OPS+ adjusts for era and such, and he’s still one of the best hitters ever. But he might have used steroids! Even if he did, it wasn’t illegal, you doofuses. Get over your self-righteous indignation and put him in already. It’s already a year overdue.

Jeromy Burnitz: A .253/.345/.481 career line for an 111 OPS+ is a perfectly acceptable playing career. The only thing memorable about him is my 10-12 year-old team running around yelling, “Burn itz down. Burn itz down” to make fun of a kid who like him. Yeah, it’s not that funny. We were 10. We thought we were clever.

Vinny Castilla: I will always, always, always blame Castilla for making Chipper move, which made his hamstrings explode and his feet crack, which ruined Chipper’s chances at 3,000/500, which ultimately hasn’t ruined Chipper’s Hall of Fame chances. I still hate Vinny.

Jason's Hall of Fame Ballot

This isn't one of the posts I had lined up for the new year, but with the Hall of Fame announcements approaching and The Blogfathers both having weighed in with their Hall of Fame ballots, I feel peer pressure to note my own preferences. They follow some preliminary issues.

I look at park-adjusted offensive measures, and take those park adjustments with a grain of salt because they're an imperfect science. I look at FRAA and Total Zone on defense because I have no present ability to actually evaluate these stats, but I know they're based on mostly objective data, and I try to get a sense of the contemporary qualitative opinions of the man's skill. I combine this in my head in a highly imperfect way that won't matter for the vast majority of players. Position matters a lot. I'm not a huge-Hall guy, but I probably err on the side of inclusion. I don't like that Jim Rice is in, but I think it's a lot smaller problem than keeping out guys like Bert Blyleven and Ron Santo for as long as they were kept out.

To the players.

The Common Man's 2011-2012 Hall of Fame Ballot

Bill laid out his Hall of Fame picks the other day, so it's incumbent upon The Common Man to similarly lay his cards on the table. Here's TCM's fake ballot:


Jeff Bagwell: Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Bagwell is one of the ten best first basemen in baseball history. That's not up for debate. Anyone saying otherwise is plum ignorant. And anyone who wants to keep him out because they think, without evidence, he might have used PEDs is probably a damned plagiarist.

Jeromy Burnitz: No. The Indians didn't need him when they traded him to the Brewers for Kevin Seitzer, but he became an excellent player quickly in Milwaukee. Seems like the Tribe should have done more with him. Burnitz killed everyone's buzz in 1999 during the Home Run Derby, when he ousted Mark McGwire in the second round. Boo. Still, a very good career.

Legislating Intent

By Mark Smith

Would you put a player who used PEDs into the Hall of Fame? It’s a simple question, but the answer isn’t so simple. Do you cross off anyone who ever used? Or do you only cross off the ones who used a lot? Do you cross off the guys who used them before they were against MLB’s rules? Or do you only cross off the ones who used after the testing was implemented? These are only a few questions, but I think you get the point. My purpose here isn’t too answer them yet (though I may make an attempt at the end). My purpose is to ask why we’ve arrived at having to answer them and what’s even the reason we’re upset.

I ask because I obviously don’t think the PEDs themselves are the real problem. Remember all the way back to 1998 and 1999. I specifically remember reports about Mark McGwire using andro, and I specifically remember no one doing anything about it. The reason is pretty simple. We want to see the best possible game, and we’re really not all that concerned about how that happens. Sure, we’d love it to be the result of practice, but we know that’s not all it takes. But PEDs aren’t “natural”. Well, what’s natural about weight lifting? What about protein shakes? What about nutrient supplements and vitamins? What about specialized diets? Heck, what’s even natural about training? None of those are particularly natural. Natural means “occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature”, and none of those things are “natural”. They’re all performance-enhancing, but we’re okay with that. But we have drawn a line, but why?

There are a few reasons. One and probably the most important is that a black man that we don’t like threatened the sport’s most hallowed record. The race part isn’t a conscious thing, but I’m not sure our society has come far enough to where there’s no subconscious issue present. In any matter, I think the key part is that we didn’t like Bonds, and because of that, he didn’t fit our image of the game’s hero. Roger Maris didn’t fit, either. Mickey Mantle, the good-looking all-around player, was supposed to break the single-season record, damn it. Not Maris. So he got death threats, insults, and various other problems in a similar manner to Bonds and his chase for Hank Aaron’s record. He didn’t fit with the idea of being the sport’s greatest home run hitter. Barry Bonds didn’t, either. When it was McGwire and the lovable Sammy Sosa, we weren’t all that concerned. If it had been the charismatic Ken Griffey, Jr., we still wouldn’t have cared because it fit with the way it’s “supposed” to work out. When it doesn’t work that way, we have to know why. Steroids and PEDs became our answer.

HOF 2012: The Guys You Can't Even Vote For

By Bill


As I promised in my ballot post yesterday, and as I did last year, I'm going to run down the list of 42 players, representing what I believe is every player not appearing on the 2012 Hall of Fame ballot who was technically a first-time eligible candidate this year under the rules -- that is, they played in at least 10 different MLB seasons and retired in 2006 -- and say a little something about each. Because just lasting that long is a really impressive accomplishment, and these guys don't deserve to be tossed aside (especially not in favor of, say, Tony Womack). A lot of them are journeyman relievers and career backup catchers, but again: ten years, in the Major Leagues! So, a few words of farewell.

If you want to see the stats, here are the hitters and here are the pitchers (with a few extras -- there are some guys whose careers spanned more than a decade, but who didn't actually play in the MLB in 10 different years). And here's the commentary:

Update: Three More Suspected Plagiarists Slither Out From Under Their Rocks

By The Common Man

We asked you to be vigilent. And you have come through for us.

We asked you to find us more writers who believed, without evidence, that Jeff Bagwell was too "suspicous" to have naturally played baseball so well, knowing that it would be equally fair for all of us to collectively suspect those writers of being dirty, stinking plagiarists based on the same lack of evidence they use to punish Jeff Bagwell for his big arms and for the era in which he played.

And you (if your name is Joshua Powling, aka @AstroBrit, of The Crawfish Boxes and AstroBrit's Astros from Across the Atlantic) found us two in one article. God bless you (Joshua Powling), for bringing to our attention:

My 2012 Hall of Fame Ballot

By Bill
I spend enough time criticizing and arguing against writers with actual votes, and urging voter openness, accountability, and so forth, that it seems only fair to give my own thoughts on the year’s BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot. (Do it every year: here’s 2010, here’s 2011.) Besides, it’s fun. With the big announcement coming up in a week, this is likely to be kind of Hall of Fame Week (or Two Weeks) here at TPA, so this seems like as good a way as any to kick it off.

I’m a big Hall guy. More accurately: I think that, for all the (justified) ribbing it gets, the Hall has established a pretty definable standard after more than seventy years, and that standard should be maintained. That’s not at all to say that anyone outside who is better than anyone on the inside should get in; there are numerous clear mistakes, like Chick Hafey, Freddy Lindstrom, Jim Rice and Bruce Sutter, who just aren’t any part of the standard. But if you’re close to the average Hall of Famer -- that is, better than about half the guys who are already in -- I think you belong.

Two years ago, I “voted” for seven guys; last year, I used up all ten slots. Three of my ten are now gone, in one direction or t’other -- Bert Blyleven, Roberto Alomar, and Kevin Brown (frowny face) -- so I figure I might as well go through the whole ballot top-to-bottom again.

In addition, later this week, I’ll bring back my piece from last year that takes a look at otherwise eligible candidates who didn’t make the ballot, so check back for that.

Here's the full ballot: