It took a lot of time and a lot of thought to solve my Hall of Fame voting conflict. As I referenced in last week’s On The Beat, I still had a blank ballot in my hands less than a week before the deadline to submit my vote. I truly agonized over whether to vote for players connected to PED use, like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. I even considered abstaining from the process, like two long-time baseball-writing colleagues whom I have great respect for, John Fay of the Cincinnati Enquirer and T.J. Quinn of ESPN.
I wound up submitting my ballot on the New Year’s Eve, in the last hours before the deadline. I checked nine names and, no, before you start inundating me with hate emails, tweets and Facebook messages, I did not vote for Tim Raines. I have wavered on Raines throughout the six years he has been on the ballot, and it just didn’t feel right voting for him. That could certainly change, though, and I am so much on the fence about his candidacy that I could see myself voting for him on the next ballot.
However, this piece is about this election, and I ultimately decided to vote for Bonds and Clemens. I am sure when the voting results are released Jan. 9 that a vast majority of the 600-plus voters—all of whom have had at least 10 years of active service in the Baseball Writers Association of America—will decide to go the other way.
I have come to the conclusion that I am neither a moralist nor an ethicist. The Moody Blues sang “I’m just a singer in a rock-and-roll band.” Well, I’m just a baseball writer. It’s not my place to judge who was right and who was wrong, especially because I am absolutely positive that a number of players used PEDs during their careers who were never caught, just as I’m sure a number of players—stretching back to the 1960s—used amphetamines without it ever becoming public. Thus, my ultimate criteria, boiled down quite a bit, is if the player was a Hall of Famer in my mind for his accomplishments on the field, then he gets my vote.
So here are the nine players who got my vote:
Jeff Bagwell: I don’t get the steroids talk now that his career is over, because he drew little or no suspicion when he played. Regardless, he’s a Hall of Famer in my book and has been since the day his career ended.
Barry Bonds: Questioning the legitimacy of his home run record is certainly fine and dandy, but he is the greatest player I have seen in my 48 years on Earth, and it was a privilege to cover him for five seasons from 1988-92 when he played for the Pirates.
Roger Clemens: These achievements can’t be misremembered: a record seven Cy Young Awards, seven ERA titles, five strikeouts titles and 11 All-Star Game appearances.
Edgar Martinez: I’ll say it again: designated hitters are people, too, and he was the best one ever with a .312/.418/.515 triple-slash line that was as pretty as his swing.
Rafael Palmeiro: An extremely reliable source—with no ties to Palmeiro—told me an off-the-record story at the Winter Meetings that convinced me that Palmeiro was indeed a clean player and was tricked into using the steroid when he thought he was taking a shot of vitamin B-12 that led to his suspension and end of his career in 2005. Unfortunately, there would be too many legal ramifications to make the story public.
Mike Piazza: Granted, he did have a lot of acne on his back, but he was the greatest offensive catcher ever.
Curt Schilling: Everyone knows he was one of the game’s great post-season pitchers but he was also pretty darned good in the regular season.
Alan Trammell: This is a classic example of why players can stay on the ballot as long as 15 years if they gain at least five percent of the vote. I didn’t vote for him in his first 11 years on the ballot but have changed my mind after considering he played the most difficult position on the diamond (shortstop) and won four Gold Glove and three Silver Sluggers while helping redefine the position with his offensive prowess. Raines fans, there is your hope!
Larry Walker: The critics can say he was a Coors Field creation and too fragile, but I’ll say he had a 141 OPS+ with a triple-slash line of .313/.400/.565 in 8,030 plate appearances
Meanwhile, I realize that 3,000 hits means all but automatic induction into the Hall of Fame, but I want more time to think about Craig Biggio. As much as I admired him as a player, his 3,000 hits seem to me to be partially a product of playing 20 seasons, as he only surpassed 180 hits in a season four times.
I also have reasons for voting for Bonds but not fellow mashers Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. Bonds was a complete all-around player, while McGwire was a one-trick pony and Sosa was a great player for only a short time.
As far as Jack Morris, that 3.90 ERA is just too big to fit in the Hall of Fame. And as much as I would have loved to put a check next to Dale Murphy’s name in his last year on the ballot because he was a Hall of Fame person, he just wasn’t quite a Hall of Fame player. The same goes for Reggie Sanders, in what will likely be his first and only year on the ballot.
—
The Rays and left-hander David Price avoided an arbitration hearing by agreeing to a one-year, $10.1125 million contract. The reigning AL Cy Young Award winner is not eligible for free agency until after the 2016 season, but it’s never too early to guess how much money he might make if gets to the open market without suffering either a major injury or an unforeseen drop in performance.
The largest contract ever given a pitcher was the seven-year, $161-year deal CC Sabathia signed with the Yankees during the 2008-09 offseason. In a quick survey of five front-office types, all five agreed that Price would make more than that if he reaches free agency, especially when inflation is factored.
And just how much of a factor is salary inflation, especially in light of the fact each team will receive an additional $25 million a season in national television revenue beginning next year? So much so that all five also predicted Price will crack $200 million and that Dodgers left-hander Clayton Kershaw will, too.
It is generally assumed that the Rays will be unable to afford Price following this upcoming season. Yet they have worked to keep third baseman Evan Longoria under contract through 2022 and a front-office type from another AL East team doesn’t completely rule out the Rays doing something with Price.
“Let me preface by saying I think there is about a 10 percent chance of it actually happening, but you have some factors in play that could make a deal happen,” the FOT said. “One, the Rays have brilliant people running their franchise. Two, Price has an agent in Bo McKinnis, who is very good at what he does and has no ego. Three, Price doesn’t strike me as the type of person who feels compelled to make every last dollar. You put those three together, and there is at a slim chance Price winds up staying there for the long term.”
—
The final baseball transaction of 2012 raised a few eyebrows, with the Royals signing infielder Miguel Tejada to a minor-league contract. Tejada hasn’t played in the major leagues since 2011, but some other teams, like the Diamondbacks, also showed interest. One scout from a National League club who has watched the 2002 American League MVP play winter ball in the Dominican Republic doesn’t think it’s a bad gamble on the Royals’ part.
“It’s a free look at the guy in spring training,” the scout said. “I wouldn’t have guaranteed him any money, and they didn’t. He’s swung the bat pretty well down there and he might be able to help them off the bench. I would say the odds are against him making the club, but it’s not a total longshot, either.”
—
The Indians signed right-hander Brett Myers to a one-year, $7-million contract as a free agent and plan to use him as a starting pitcher. Myers pitched in relief last season with the Astros and White Sox, appearing in 70 games and working in 65 1/3 innings.
However, most scouts and front-office types believe Myers’ health should not be at risk with a transition back to the rotation. He pitched a combined 439 2/3 innings with the Astros during the 2010 and 2011 seasons, a figure that ranked 14th in the major leagues during that time.
“He’s always been a workhorse if he’s healthy,” one NL scout said. “He always wants the ball and he always wants to pitch deep into games. He’s not a No. 1 starter, but he’ll give them innings, keep them in the game most of the time and, most importantly, keep Terry Francona from blowing out that bullpen, which is very good.”
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
"Edgar Martinez: I’ll say it again: designated hitters are people, too, and he was the best one ever with a .312/.418/.515 triple-slash line that was as pretty as his swing." [8,674 PA, 147 OPS+]
"Larry Walker: The critics can say he was a Coors Field creation and too fragile, but I’ll say he had a 141 OPS+ with a triple-slash line of .313/.400/.565 in 8,030 plate appearances"
McGwire was as fragile as Walker, but hit .263/.394/.588 (163 OPS+) over 7,660 plate appearances. Walker was a good defensive RF and solid baserunner until the injuries took their toll, but 22 points of OPS+ is nothing to sneeze at.
By fWAR, it's very close (McGwire 70.6, Walker 73.2, Edgar 69.9).
Palmiero wasn't the hitter than any of the above were (.288/.371/.515, 132 OPS+), and he's at least as tainted as McGwire.
So to look at McGwire's OBP or OPS doesn't really change anything. In a sense it's double counting his power. He's still just a "one trick pony".
Obviously that misses the objective forest for the subjective trees, but that's how I understand it.
Joe Carter was a one trick pony because he couldn't leverage his very good power into BBs and a high OBP.
By tools, McGwire may also be a one trick pony, but his "trick" was so overwhelming in comparison to players like Carter that he could leverage it into a ton of value via BBs and OBP. And that counts too.
I think that's the argument that has to be made to voters like Perroto.
I don't get the ambiguity on his case.
To me, he's the same as Palmeiro: very good for a long time. Not great, or HoF-worthy.
We all love love love advanced stats around here, but by the traditional measures by which every player in the hall of fame was elected, (which do matter, despite what we'd like to pretend), Biggio's exclusion makes as much sense as a banana peel on a rhinoceros.
He eclipsed 3000 hits. But almost 1200 of those hits came after 1999, in a string of 8 years at the end of his career when he was only better than league average twice (if we define league average as 2.0 WARP) and in one of those two years he was 2.1 WARP. He hung around playing somewhere between replacement level and under-league-average for eight years, accumulating another 1192 hits.
I'm a small-Hall person at heart, so please consider that's fueling my POV on Biggio to a large degree. I think HoF players should be great, and that Biggio falls short of greatness.
That said: Tim Raines.
There are arguments for and against Raines' case, but John hasn't presented either here.
Not enough hits.
Don't understand what OPB is.
Don't understand the importance of success rate when stealing.
Cocaine makes them feel icky.
Baseball should be played in America dammit!
:)
It will be interesting to see how the bottleneck of borderline and PED-associated players resolves itself heading into the next two or three years of voting.
Can BP readership influence your Raines fence-squat?
That said, I echo the sentiments above about transparency, and understand the difficult PED-linked decisions on your plate.
Let me start by saying "On the Beat" is one of my absolute favorite features in BP. While it's anecdotal, I love reading scouts' perspectives on not only the players, but also the work being done by managers and GMs.
John, I applaud your conclusion that you are "neither a moralist nor an ethicist." We all love baseball, but it's entertainment and the moralizing sports writers are too self-important, in my view.
And you make a very good point about many other PED users who were never caught. Plus, players have used different not-yet-illegal factors (like segregation) to their statistical advantage in every era.
Growing up an A's fan, Mark McGwire was one of my favorite players. I wonder if experiencing the value of a player who combined a very high OBP with extreme power and a low batting average helped Sandy Alderson and his disciples understand just how overrated batting average truly is. I wonder how much having Mark McGwire helped them shape their philosophies going forward.
I remember McGwire as a very good fielder -- adding to his "tricks," but Range Factor shows he was right around league average for most of his career. And I remember him being injured a little bit, but the final totals show he played 140 or more games in only eight of his 15 full seasons.
Still, I feel like Mark McGwire's impact puts him ahead of Rafael Palmeiro. McGwire's career OPS+ of 163 ranks 11th all time, tied with Jimmie Foxx. Palmeiro's career OPS+ of 132 ranks 139th, tied with 16 others including Jose Canseco, Jim Edmonds and Mo Vaughn.
Mark McGwire has seasons where his OPS+ reached 170, 176 (twice), 196, and 216 (and two injury-shortened seasons where it reached 200).
In his three best years, Palmeiro's OPS+ was 150, 155 and 160.
The Hall of Fame has to be a little bit about the magic and excitement the players brought to the game for the fans. The numbers show, when healthy, Mark McGwire's power set him apart from the field.
He may have had one main "trick," but it was a doozy!
If there is evidence that can clear this man's name then it needs to come forward. Period. I can't believe anyone would be willing to keep a secret that would clear a man's sullied name, even if that secret was embarrassing to yourself - even if revealing that secret could cost you a source/friendship. How can one sleep at night with this information, knowing that the rest of the baseball community has labelled Palmeiro a fraud, liar, and cheat? The information must not be THAT convincing. If John wanted to vote for Palmeiro, PED-be-damned, that's fine. Just say so.
I'm not looking to satisfy some public need for gratification here. This is a man's reputation and dignity at stake. I find it hard to believe there would be a legitimate legal reason to keep this a secret. Are prosecutors still looking to put people connected with 10 year old MLB doping cases in prison?
I really, really enjoy your columns, but the McGwire and Raines omissions are truly mind boggling. It's as if someone I really, really trusted told me something so ludicrous that I would ever-so-slightly lose faith in the guy's sanity.
Plenty of people have cited numbers above, so let me just add this: There was never a moment in either's career where I didn't realize I was watching a future hall of famer.
Regarding Biggio, having only +180 hits 4 times.
-Would have made it in '94 if not for the strike
-Might have made it in '95 if not for the strike
-175 hits, 77 walks, 10 HBP in 1993
-174 hits, 75 walks, 27 HBP in 1996
-180 hits, 66 walks, 28 HBP in 2001
-170 hits, 94 walks in 1992
10 straight years (92-01) with an OBP of .373 or higher. Playing most of that time at the 2 positions most likely to end your career early (catcher and second base)
Not sure on Biggio and Raines but voting for Walker, Trammell and Palmeiro. I'm not even sure what to say, except
I appreciate you sharing your ballot but wish there was some more transparency on the reasons, especially behind Raines and Biggio.
John has his right to vote how he wants to, and should publish his ballot should be wish to share it, my problem with that part of the article is that it should not be published on Baseball Prospectus. Similar articles by other voters are available on dozens of sites (most free). John's piece is not consistent with the editorial traditions of BP (Are we really ignoring OBP and tracking hits in 2013 at Baseball Prospectus). Again, John has earned the right to vote his conscience, my complaint is that this material should not grace Baseball Prospectus. I know he is the only current contributor that votes for the HOF, but material degrades the BP brand. I miss JAWS.
Nonetheless, I don't think there's wrong with posting a wider variety of viewpoints and content type. BP didn't used to have much minor league information, didn't have much in the way of "humor articles", rarely interviewed people in baseball etc. And yes, they still hav a lot of statistics and sabremetrics too. If you don't like the article, it's fine if you choose not to read it.. but don't say it shouldn't be published and/or wouldn't make the cut just because it doesn't fit your personal idea of what the BP brand should be.
That is the nature of the world. Each person decides what they like, and what they don't like. I don't see why there needs to be an argument, when it comes to personal preference.
Thanks for sending this--I enjoyed reading it, and I agreed with most of it (maybe not the PED Wing idea, but just about everything else). I'm probably not going to be able to publish this at BP while it's timely, since I'm budgeted for one guest article a week and I already have the series scheduled into January, but I hope you have a blog where you can post it or that you can find somewhere else to submit it.
Thanks again for the article, and thanks for reading BP.
Ben
----------
http://ricsize.com/
This will be my last post ever, on BP. Minus that.
And just because we can't or won't publish your article should signal that we're not going to post anything else (serious or otherwise...although I'm not so sure when we're not serious) about this HOF election? I don't understand that logic at all. I'd be surprised if a good amount of what we do next week isn't centered around the HOF. I know of at least one major column already in the works, a group vote, a Lineup Card article dedicated to the HOF, and a Dan Evans chat on Wednesday(which is almost certain to be influenced by the Hall of Fame). I will also be at the Hall of Fame press conference to try to add another perspective on the vote by talking with some of the voters and digging deep into their thinking...especially the ones who didn't publicly write about their ballot.
John opted to give his opinion in this article, and I applaud him for that. So many writers don't have the nerve to let the public know how they're thinking. And some that actually do publish their votes, do so while attacking the public, other writers, or statistical analysts. John did none of that here. And while I disagree with some of his votes (or non-votes), I think it's unfair to say that he wasn't serious or didn't think his vote through.
I'm sorry that we can't publish everyone's thoughts on the HOF, but part of the reason we allow comments is so that we can have educated conversations. I would like to think we are still trying very hard to understand and appreciate the game and all the voices that impact it.