If only I knew what the standards were....

Holdovers: Blyleven, Dawson, John, Sandberg, Trammell.

New Guy: Boggs

Thinking about: Gossage, Sutter, Morris, Murphy.

Veterans Committee, it's up to you: Grich, Whitaker, Santo, Raines.

And many, many others are condemned to Eternal Injustice. Don Mattingly and Keith Hernandez are not quite HoF players to my mind, although I think they were certainly better than any number of HoF first basemen. Including Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda. Let's not even mention George Kelly.

Oh my bad. Raines isn't on the ballot because he's not eligible yet. I thought he had been dropped....

My ballot consists of Trammell, Sandberg and Boggs. I've changed my mind about Blyleven, after closely comparing him with Robin Roberts and Don Sutton. He's in too.

I haven't got to the outfield yet in my Hall Watch series, but Dave Parker's name got me thinking. There were 3 great rightfielders born in 1951- Dave Winfield, Dewey Evans and Dave Parker. Winfield was the best of the 3, but Evans was mighy close. Parker was behind both. I make Evans a marginal HofFer, and Parker out.

Jim Rice and Andre Dawson are close too, but alas out. Dawson would be in if he was a little better with the glove. Rice's game was offence, but all those GIDPs and his lack of speed make him out.

Tommy John misses by just a hair. He's within sniffing distance of the Hall right next to Jim Kaat, but out. Gossage, Smith and Sutter are all out. You have to be mighty effective as a reliever to make it. None of these guys were. The interesting relievers, as far as I am concerned, are Firpo Marberry and Quiz. I'll have to think more about them.

There's three guys that I don't hesitate for a second over: Blyleven, Boggs and Sandberg.

I have never really thought Dawson should make it, but I think I haven't been giving him credit for being a very good CF. I'd give him a vote now.

Likewise for Trammell, I didn't think of him as HOFer but he had a long career, was a good hitter and a good defender. There aren't all that many SS all-time that were better than him.

I'd vote for Gossage, although voting for relief pitchers is hard both because there are no real HOF standards for closers, and they generally have less real value than starting pitchers due to pitching fewer innings. I think he did enough.

So that's 6 votes from me.

As for my non-picks.
* Mattingly would have made it but for the back problems.
* John is a good candidate but I don't think he had enough really great years.
* Murphy is real close but he just kind of fell off a cliff after 31
* Parker is also real, real close. It's close to a coin toss for me, but the .339 OBA isn't helping.
* Rice is close but had a short career and was helped a lot by Fenway.
* Sutter was great, no question... but for only 8 of 12 seasons and he had only 1042 IP.
* Smith is close too... not enough career, I think.

Definitely out for me are: Abbott, Candiotti, Concepcion (I'm having a hard time supporting HOF candidates whose career OPS+ is less than 100, let alone 88, as his was), Davis, Garvey, Langston, McDowell, McGee, Montgomery, Morris (career ERA+ 105), Nixon, Phillips, Steinbach, Strawberry.

Always interesting to see the guys who have been out of baseball for 5 years. Especially the ones I remember coming into MLB baseball. Geez I'm getting old.

Abbott - one of my favorites, the Jays drafted him out of high school iirc. Skipped the minors then went to them late in his career. Hope someone tosses him a vote even though he isn't a HOFer by any stretch.

Blyleven - should've been there years ago

Boggs - solid lock no matter how you cut it

Candiotti - Former Jay, solid pitcher but nothing to write home about

Concepcion - only if you are voting in the whole Big Red Machine

Davis - another player I enjoyed watching play but no HOFer

Dawson - some good arguements for, but imo is short of the hall

Garvey - not close

Goose - should've been in years ago, one of the best closers in an era when saves were scarce and helped define the position

John - imo should've been there awhile ago, even not factoring in how the surgery he had influenced baseball

Langston - Ah, the Expos surprise trade in the late 80's. Not a HOFer

Mattingly - Oh yes, the leader whose team only made the playoffs in his final season then went out quickly in the first round. A good player but without the NY factor would've been off the ballot by now

McDowell - Wow, been 5 years already? One of those guys you wonder what would've happened if his arm wasn't abused.

McGee - Didn't know he lasted until 99. Average and speed his keys but under 2300 hits and only 352 SB's

Montgomery - Very good closer, but not close to HOF level

Morris - An interesting one. I don't put him on but can see the argument (almost 100% on wins, but he did get a lot of them)

Murphy - The best peak value of the OF'ers on the ballot I'd think with the two MVP's. Still, he ends up short in career length.

Nixon - Heh, loved watching Otis play. Speed kills, but dang if it isn't fun to watch.

Parker - The best career value of the OF'ers imo but has a lot of 'buts' in his career with the drug use, 2700 hits, attitude problem (at least according to reporters). Tempting.

Phillips - A Jay for a day (or a couple of weeks at least). Another fun scrappy player who JP would go for I suspect. A more talented version of Reed Johnson who could play the infield. Not a HOFer

Rice - Ah, a good what if player. Seemed a lock at times but just kept coming up short, much like his HOF chances.

Sandberg - should've been a first ballot choice. No idea why the voters don't put him in, unless they really don't understand that a second baseman doesn't have to hit like a DH to be valuable.

Smith - All time saves leader, but not a HOFer. Weird eh? Wonder if he cracked 500 if he'd have made it. Doubt he'll ever get in though. Never thought of as a closer lock like the Eck, never had the personality of Goose, or a claim to fame like Sutter. He just saved his 30-40 a season and went home.

Steinbach - uh, no

Strawberry - like Rice (wonder why it ended) & Parker (drugs) but more so, a guy who people will always wonder what could've been

Sutter - made the split finger famous, but had a quick end to his career. I just don't see him as being in the class of Fingers & Goose

Trammell - should've been put in with Lou Whitaker, but Whitaker was pulled off the ballot too soon. Maybe the vet committe will fix that in 16 years or so.

So I'd vote for Boggs, Blyleven, Goose, John, Sandberg, and Trammell. The outfield class has many who are close but to me it would be vote for all or none and I pick none.

My HOF list:

Alan Trammell- better than a lot of SS's already in the Hall and is, IMO, in the top 15 shortstops of all time.

Goose Gossage- As a reliever he won 124 games, pitched in over 1000 and saved 310 games before it was routine to save that many. An ERA+ of 126.

Wade Boggs-Over 3000 hits and an BA of .328; OBP of .415

Bert Blyleven- Smarter men than me have said he's in and I agree. 287 wins is a lot, no matter how long you play or how little you value those kinds of stats. Also a ton of SO's.

Ryne Sandberg- Was the dominant 2b of his time, and probably the best since Morgan (I rate him ahead of Biggio and Alomar).

Players on which my opinion wavers constantly:

Andre Dawson and Dave Parker: If one gets in, so should the other as their stats are very similar.

I totally agree with Nolan, exactly those 5:
1) Boggs
2) Blyleven
3) Trammell
4) Sandberg
5) Gossage
I am amazed that Alan Trammell is not in yet, and can only think that the numbers shortstops are putting up today has skewed the voters on him

My Ballot would only have two players; Boggs and Blyleven, however I would think long and hard about adding Sandberg and Trammell.

I expect only Boggs will get into the hall this year.

I think Sandberg will make it this year. He started at 49%; last year he made it to 61%. A similar jump would put him at 73%, and with only one new candidate (Boggs) looking worthy of the Hall it opens up another spot for those who only ever pick 3-4 candidates. It will take a "push" from the community of baseball writers, but I think Ryno will make it, or come so close that he will be a lock for 2006.

I agree with Craig. The writers usually pick one second baseman per decade, and Sandberg will be the guy from the 80s. It's a pretty reasonable selection, although Sweet Lou was very close (not as high as Sandberg at the peaks, but more consistent and with a longer career).

My fear is that the recent offensive explosion makes 80's players look so 'inferior' that they won't get the credit they deserve. We've already seen that with Trammell, Whitaker, and Sandberg; if I were Fred McGriff and Barry Larkin, I'd be worried.

I'd like to quote Bill James' four definitions of a HOF player:

A: Any player who could reasonably be argued to be the greatest ever at the position he played. Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens.

B: Any player who is one of the greatest ever at the position he played. Such a player should be the dominant player at his position at the time that he is active. He should be the biggest star on the field at almost any time, and should be the biggest star on a pennant-winning team. Joe Morgan, Willie McCovey, Randy Johnson, Cal Ripken Jr..

C: A player who is consistently among the best in the league at his position. He would ordinarily be the biggest star on his team, unless it was a pennant-winning team, in which case he would be regarded as one of the most valuable members of the team. Billy Williams, Willie Stargell, Fred McGriff, Tom Glavine.

D: A player who rises well above the level of the average player, a player who would be capable of contributing to a pennant-winning team, and would be one of the outstanding players on an average team. Lloyd Waner, Eppa Rixey, Moises Alou, David Cone.

I would want any player who was a Definition C or better to be in the Hall of Fame, so my ballot would include:

Wade Boggs - Definition B.
Ryne Sandberg - Definition C, perhaps a Definition B at his peak.
Alan Trammell - he was the best shortstop in the AL for nearly a decade, and was robbed of an MVP award in '87, so he's at least a Definition C, but you could make the argument for Definition B.
Goose Gossage - assuming that a reliever is a defined position, then Gossage is Definition A.
Bruce Sutter - Definition B, too inconsistent to rise to the A level.
Bert Blyleven - Definition C.
Andre Dawson - Definition C - if he could have drawn 40 more walks a season and played on grass instead of turf, he'd have been an easy Definition B. He was a terrific, exciting player for a long time.
Tommy John - Definition C.

I join Magpie in hoping the Veteran's Committee recognizes Bobby Grich, Ron Santo, and eventually Lou Whitaker, three Definition B players who deserve better.

It's hard to call Larking an '80's player, with only about 1500 of his 8000 at-bats coming before 1990.

That said, Lark clearly fits definition C and was in B territory until the Trinity came along.

Unfortunately, I think most fans, much less voters, are going to remember the end-of-career Larkin, especially if he hangs on another couple of years, since he reached his MVP-level-peak in Cincinnati, not New York. If Larkin were a Yankee, Jeter would be playing CF.

It's funny, GrrBear, James listed Joe Morgan as a definition B, but then made a reasonable argument that he was the greatest (better than Collins or Hornsby). Even assuming that relief pitcher is a position on a par with say, shortstop (which I do not accept), Goose is not a definition A, although he is a definition B. Even if Rivera stopped his career now, he'd clearly be better (a 190 ERA+ instead of a 126 ERA+, with K/W ratios to match, albeit in 1/2 the innings). If you must have the innings, then Eck is clearly better.

I'm coming to the shortstops in my Hall Watch series. The trinity will be there (it's only November and the religous metaphors have been flying in da Box the last couple of days!), as will Larkin and Franco. Larkin is a very interesting case, and I'll spend considerable time with him.

Blyleven
Boggs
Dawson
Gossage
Sandberg

Some thoughts:

* This might be controversial, but I think that it ought to count for something if a player is universally acknowledged as a Hall of Famer when he's playing. Boggs was the kind of hitter that the opposition built their strategy around. I think it's almost pointless to parse through his numbers now, since at the time everyone agreed as to his greatness. These are also the players I least begrudge for sticking around beyond their prime years.

* It's hard to believe that Sandberg's laying somewhat low in the consciousness of voters. Great hitter, great fielder, popular star and definitely the NL's best second baseman in the '80s.

* I had resisted getting on the Blyleven bandwagon -- Rob Neyer and others have made him the trendy if-only-voters-were-as-smart-as-us pick for some time now, and I refused to give in to the Da Vinci Code-style fad of lionizing Bert (who was, from the accounts I've read, an enormously unpleasant individual to be around). Still, the numbers don't lie. I think he's obviously in.

* Dawson, to me, is on the fringes but earned my vote with his all-around play at his peak. Mattingly is, in some ways, a similar player to The Hawk -- fine hitter with superb defence. But I give Dawson the edge in value both offensively and defensively.

* Murphy's career trajectory is really remarkable. He was on an ain't-no-doubt-about-it Hall of Fame path until a decline came that was too precipitous, and at too young an age, for him to cement his place in Cooperstown.

* I don't agree with the Morris-bashing in which many in the analytical community seem to revel. I think he was an extraordinarily valuable pitcher, and he had a huge performance in that wonderful 1991 Game 7. But I don't think he belongs in the Hall.

* I do not believe Trammell is a Category B. If he gets into the Hall, I won't be disappointed...but it'll make Barry Larkin's induction mandatory, in my opinion.

* Gossage was better than Sutter and Smith. Comparable to Rivera, who's a sure thing for the Hall (or at least ought to be).

These are also the players I least begrudge for sticking around beyond their prime years.

I'd never begrudge anyone for sticking around past their prime, actually, and I try not to let it influence my Hall selection. It can be hard to do... so many players dilute their career accomplishments with years of subpar play.

But if I had the talent to play professional baseball, I'd play until they had to drag me off the field.

http://www.baseballreference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=larkiba01:Barry+Larkin&st=career
Mike D, Funny that you should link Larkin and Trammell. COMN.

Mike,that's a great list. But ... Jay Bell???

Mick, I don't want to give away the punch line, but what the hey. It's the top 5 players plus Biggio who are Larkin's closest comps. Larkin slips in nicely between Trammell and Cronin. Heady company, eh?

Jay Bell obviously was a step and a half behind Larkin, but he was a fine ballplayer, both with the bat and the glove. Fernandez was somewhat better defensively, but they're pretty comparable offensively.

Blyleven, Boggs, Gossage, Sandberg, Trammell.

Lou Whitaker and Sandberg ended up with remarkably similar stats, though they took different paths to get there. Whitaker's lack of support stunned me.

Gossage pitched over 500 innings more than Smith and about 750 more than Sutter, very large differences for relievers. Sutters' peak was awfully short.

Through Age 29, Strawberry was the next Reggie Jackson. He played eight more years and racked up only about 1200 plate appearances.

I change my mind on Tommy John about once a week. I don't think it's an injustice if he gets in, but it's not an injustice if he's left out.

I was thinking, a small change in HOF voting should be done. In the first year on the ballot a guy can be carried over if he gets even a single vote. Have an increasing bar as time goes by. This is due to voters feeling the first ballot is an honour not all HOFers deserve (rightly or wrongly). This change would've left Lou Whittaker on the ballot a lot longer and might have got him in.

To me it should be...
1st year - 1 vote
2nd year - 2%
3rd year - 4%
4th year - 8%
5th year - 16%
6th year - 24%
7th year - 32%
8th year - 40%
9th year - 48%
10-15th year - 50%

That gives players time to recover if they are unlucky in year one (say, against a few locks) and gets guys off the ballot who just won't ever get in after a few years. Joe Carter would've had a shot at making his case to the voters then, as would've Lou Whittaker and others who may or may not have deserved to get in while others (such as Concepcion, Garvey, John) would be removed once their vote growth ended thus keeping them from 'blocking' others (I figure a few vote for John each year but keep avoiding Blyleven feeling John should go in first or who have filled up their ballot with past picks and have no space for new ones).

But if I had the talent to play professional baseball, I'd play until they had to drag me off the field.

And if you were, say, Brooks Robinson hitting .211 at age 39, I'd be thrilled - utterly and absolutely thrilled - to have had the opportunity to see you play. And I'd be grateful that you hung around long enough to give me the chance.

It's true that our memories of players in the last five or ten years of their careers sometimes pushes away our recollection of the first five years. Andre Dawson and Don Mattingly were both regarded, in the early 1980s, as no-brainer Definition B HoF guys. The argument was made for both guys that they were the best baseball player in the world at that moment. This was also said about Dave Parker before them.

Mattingly's case looks a lot to me like Orlando Cepeda - they both had about a four year run as great players in their 20s, and were not much use after age 29, largely because of injury. (Cepeda did manage one last very good year with Atlanta in 1970, when he was 32.)

Mattingly was certainly more highly regarded when he was active than Cepeda at his time. Cepeda was never even recognized as the best player on his own team (OK, there was this Willie Mays guy. Fair enough. )

You could argue that Mattingly was in fact the third best player on those Yankee teams (behind Winfield and Henderson) and I'd probably agree with you. Now. But at the moment it was all happening, Mattingly was the guy.

My opinion-

Obviously Boggs. Sandberg and Trammel have to be in. Blyleven goes too.

More important- I loved Tony Phillips and Otis Nixon. Both unique players. Nixon's ratio of SB:AB has to be the highest ever. if there was a "pinch runner" designation on the Hall ballot, Nixon would get it. Best ever at what he did.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a moment ... or I would, if the pinball arcade were still open. I don't consider Wade Boggs an automatic HOF choice.

Boggs fell off a cliff in 1989 -- he was undeniably on the first-ballot HOF track up until then, as six of his first eight seasons were simply stellar (.349 average or higher, with many walks and doubles). He was an on-base machine -- from 1985 to 1989, his BB/K ratio was an astonishing 442/177.

Year OPS+
1982 128
1983 150
1984 125
1985 151
1986 157
1987 173
1988 168
1989 143

1989, unfortunately, brought the Margo Adams fiasco, and while that affair itself has no bearing on my vote, the effect it evidently had on his performance does. In the ten seasons that followed Margo Year, only '91 and (strike-shortened) '94 could be described as more than just decent.

Margo
1990 121
1991 140
1992 95
1993 102
1994 142
1995 120
1996 97
1997 103
1998 92
1999 94

Boggs' lengthy plateau at the end of his career can't simply be overlooked -- in 6 of his last 10 seasons, he was basically Frank Catalanotto. What we're left with, then, is a player with 5 magnificent seasons (150-168 OPS+), 3 pretty great ones (140-143 OPS+), and 10 seasons ranging from pretty decent to just ordinary (90-128 OPS+, including 6 sub-105 seasons).

I'd vote Boggs into the Hall eventually -- those 8 terrific seasons were something special, there's no denying -- but not on the first ballot, or maybe even the second.

In regards to the other candidates, only Trammell, Blyleven, Sandberg, Gossage and Sutter would get my votes, unless I'm on the Veteran's Committee, in which case Lou Whitaker goes in too. Sutter's record isn't as impressive as Gossage's, but he introduced the split-fingered fastball to the game, and he should receive some credit for pioneering and mastering a pitch that changed baseball.

in 6 of his last 10 seasons, he was basically Frank Catalanotto

Yes, Jordan, but that still leaves ten seasons of Mike Schmidt. If Wade Boggs had retired after 1991, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, as he'd have been in the Hall years ago.

The Hall's rules say it takes a minimum ten years to be considered. That's the rule I like to use... if a guy played like a Category B guy for ten years (and I prefer ten years in a row, or at least no more than two well-defined periods) then I try to vote for him.

Mattingly was certainly more highly regarded when he was active than Cepeda at his time.

True, but you have to ultimately bring performance as well. Mattingly was a very good player - just below Category B status - for four years, but that's it. I can't wrap my head around the idea that Mattingly was even as good as John Olerud, let alone someone like Will Clark.

Mattingly was highly *regarded*, true, but that's merely because he was a Yankee and won a batting title and an MVP award (a slightly dubious award that he won thanks to Rickey) in consecutive years as a young player. Before Mattingly, it was Thurman Munson; after Mattingly, it was Derek Jeter.

Boggs, of course
Blyleven, no diggity doubt
John, borderline case but the most famous surgery ever is named for him
Sandberg, didn't really deserve a first year induction, OK now
Gossage, clearly the best reliever eligible now
Strawberry, love the name, plus I have like 45 rookie cards (need $$$)

While we're on the subject, lots of borderline cases among NL infielders, so from my spreadsheet, the best 20 NL infielders, post WW2, hitting stats only (no D), context adjusted, sum of best 11 seasons:

1. Bagwell
2. Mathews
3. Schmidt
4. Santo
5. Morgan
6. Cepeda
7. Hernandez, K
8. McCovey
9. Garvey
10. Biggio
11. Perez
12. Hodges
13. Boyer, K
14. Sandberg
15. Galarraga
16. Rose
17. Cey
18. Grace
19. Evans
20. Kent

It's been alluded to a few of times already, but what's with the notion of withholding a vote because someone isn't 'first-ballot' material? The elector's only concern should be whether the player is worthy of induction; if they plan on eventually voting for that player then it makes no sense not to do it as early as possible. We've taken to equating the speed with which a player is inducted to the quality of the player and this strikes me as a perversion of a system that keeps players around on the ballot to give people a chance to change their minds, not to let those who have already made theirs up try to further create distinctions between careers.

Before Mattingly, it was Thurman Munson; after Mattingly, it was Derek Jeter.

Tru dat. And while I sure wouldn't mind starting a ballclub with those three guys, speaking as a Yankee fan I think the media is missing the boat entirely on just who is overlooked for HOF consideration regarding those guys and the teams they played for.

Not Munson ... Nettles.
Not Mattingly ... Randolph.
And, check back with me in 20 years, and he'll probably not play MLB long enough to get into the Hall but ...
Not Jeter ... Matsui.

I predict that after Matsui and Suzuki retire, there will be widespread debate about their Hall worthiness based on MLB counting stats and that will open up consideration to "world baseball experience" counting in voter's minds, in much the same way that Warren Moon and Doug Flutie get the "and do you remember those crazy CFL stats he threw on the board?" conversation going when discussing their legacies.

I predict that after Matsui and Suzuki retire, there will be widespread debate about their Hall worthiness based on MLB counting stats and that will open up consideration to "world baseball experience" counting in voter's minds

If Negro league accomplishments can be considered relevant for HOF considerations, could one not argue that foreign baseball accomplishments are also relevant?

Then again, it is called the "National Baseball Hall of Fame". Hmm... maybe you're right, in that debate will indeed be widespread!

Mick, Willie Randolph is a great example about perceptions of second basemen. He wouldn't be on my ballot (I'd be quite restrictive) but he'd be close. He was a productive offensive ballplayer and fine defender for many, many years. But, if Hall voters won't give Lou Whitaker (or Bobby Grich) the time of day, Willie Randolph stood absolutely no chance. There are many, many less valuable players in the Hall.

Mike, that's true. I guess my point was, relatively speaking, Randolph is a better candidate for the HOF than Mattingly (or Munson, for that matter).

I agree completely, Mick.

The other thing about Willie is that he had no public profile (at least until he became a coach). Wouldn't it be something if he had a great managerial career with the Mets, and ended up in the Hall like Schoendienst did? Willie was a better player than Red, in my view, and I wouldn't worry a bit if that was what ended up happening.