Roberto Alomar is my ALLTIME favourite Blue Jays - watching him in 91-93 was just magical - I hope he is a 1st time hall of famer. That Alomar/Carter for

Fernandez/McGriff trade is the greatest trade in Jays history  - At the time I remember Jays fans were split.

My ballot would include Roberto Alomar, Fred McGriff, Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, and Alan Trammell.

I could probably be talked into Larkin, Parker, Murphy, and Smith.

Five no-doubters: Larkin, Raines, Blyleven, Trammell and Alomar.  I've done the McGriff and McGwire year-by-year comparison before and I am glad that they are on the ballot at the same time. I still say that McGriff was better, but when you account for baserunning and defence fully, he should be out too. At the time, the idea that Robin Ventura was a more valuable player than Fred McGriff seemed totally remote.  Now, I believe it. 

It's totally appropriate that 3 of the 5 no-doubters are middle infielders, and if Santo was voted in by the VC (with Grich to come), that would be sweet.

Lots of BBWAA screwage lies ahead. They have their issues with middle infielders.

Killing time, let me give one-sentencers on each player...

Roberto Alomar - I would vote for him; not a complete no-doubter, but one of the three best on this ballot. YES

Kevin Appier - How many pitchers out there can say "If only I didn't get hurt..."?  Appier is much better than most give him credit for. NO

Harold Baines - Exemplifies those who are just not quite there. NO

Bert Blyleven - I have been advocating Bert for years.  A very fine pitcher and a long career. YES

Ellis Burks - Another player like Appier who is better than most give him credit for, but falls short.  NO

Andre Dawson - It causes me almost physical pain to say that Hawk comes up just short.  Dawson and Fernando were my first-ever favorite ballplayers. NO

Andres Galarraga - About even with Burks.  Another former favorite.  NO

Pat Hentgen - Never quite as good as he should have been, somehow.  NO

Mike Jackson - You wonder why Jackson never got the chance to start.  He had starter's stuff.  As it is, NO.

Eric Karros - I find it almost impossible to believe that Eric Karros hit 284 home runs.  NO

Ray Lankford - maybe the most underrated player on this list.  A fine ballplayer who deserves some consideration but will get none, and zero votes.  Falls short, though.  NO

Barry Larkin - I think Barry will eventually be voted in, I think he will get strong support and eventually build a candidacy.  He and Trammell will steal votes from each other though for a long time.  YES.

Edgar Martinez - I hate to say it, but he's awfully close to the line.  I will happily vote for a DH (and he was once a pretty OK third baseman) but Edgar needed a lot of rest.  For a guy offering only offense, he's a little shaky.  But he goes in.  YES

Don Mattingly - Robbed of a brilliant career.  NO

Fred McGriff - It's my policy never ever to punt on a guy - if I think he's worthy, I vote for him no matter what unless my ballot is full and I am crossing guys off.  McGriff I almost want to make an exception.  I feel I need more critical distance.  My hunch is "in".  YES

Mark McGwire - a no-doubt YES.

Jack Morris - he won a lot of games, but he doesn't fit my "ten year" rule where a guy is in with ten great years, and he doesn't qualify on career length.  NO

Dale Murphy - ten great years, Dale.  I've actually gone back and forth about your qualifications over the years.  Another one just short.  NO

Dave Parker - I'm on the record as supporting Parker; he is an interesting case but I have changed my mind.  For Parker, Murphy and Dawson I reserve the right to change my mind.

Tim Raines - I am still supposed to contribute more here : http://raines30.com/.  Check it out.  YES

Shane Reynolds - Shane Reynolds was a pretty good pitcher, you know.  NO

David Segui - NO

Lee Smith - I never thought much of him, but his credentials are hard to argue with.  Notwithstanding my statements above, for now I am saying YES but reserve the right to change my mind.

Alan Trammell - Top 3 player on this ballot, probably.  YES

Robin Ventura - A very fine player and won't get votes but deserves some.  Not mine, maybe, but some.  NO

Todd Zeile - A guy I admire an immense amount.  When all of baseball routinely kicked the Expos' players and fans for sport, Zeile was the one guy with the balls (and the political capital) to stand up and say how wrong it was.  I will always admire him for it.  I only have eight guys and I am the only person who would ever dream of casting a vote for him, but to me he represents all of the courage that a player should have.  YES (once).

Interesting to check the MLB site listing candidates. They split it into two - one they display in the articles and then
'other candidates'.

The main ones...
• Roberto Alomar (lock to be there someday)
• Harold Baines
• Bert Blyleven (lock to be there someday)
• Andre Dawson (lock to be there someday)
• Andres Galarraga
• Barry Larkin (lock to be there someday)
• Edgar Martinez (maybe)
• Don Mattingly
• Fred McGriff (doubtful)
• Mark McGwire (VC)
• Jack Morris (maybe)
• Dale Murphy
• Dave Parker
• Tim Raines (hopefully)
• Lee Smith
• Alan Trammell (should but won't)

then the 'others'
Kevin Appier, Ellis Burks, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, Ray Lankford, Shane Reynolds, David Segui, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile.

Of the others only Ventura and Zeile showed anything close to a HOF career while the rest will be happy if they get just one vote. Of course, the big issue is the ballot in a couple of years.

Next year we see Rafael Palmeiro (3000 hits, 500 HR but not getting in if the McGwire vote says anything), Jeff Bagwell (lock), Juan Gonzalez (probable lock), Larry Walker (sadly not getting in), Kevin Brown (211 wins 594 win %), John Franco (424 saves but will get little support) on the ballot. All of them will get some support.

Then a breather with no likely HOF'ers thus a chance for guys like Raines to get in if they aren't by then.

Then comes the killer ballot.
Roger Clemens, Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza, not to mention Curt Schilling (likely to get in someday), Julio Franco and other good but not HOF level guys who could get a few 'nice guy' votes and guys like David Wells who had solid enough careers for a 'yes I noticed' vote. 5 HOF locks (sans steroids) plus a couple more really good guys who'd have been on the ballot for years if they didn't arrive that year. Mix in the steroid mess and you could easily have 7 guys getting around 20-30%+ of the vote leaving just 3 open slots for anyone else and most voters will not put that many on.

Yeah, that'll be the most interesting ballot the HOF will get in the near future (the following year sees a few more locks like Maddux and Thomas come up).

• Bert Blyleven (lock to be there someday)

By God, I hope you're right. Bert and Raines are the two biggest omissions, currently. Trammell and Morris are just a snoodge behind them, and I recognize part of my ranking them there might be personal preference bias. But Blyleven and Raines? Ridiculous omissions.

Blyleven has cracked 60% now iirc and that means he will get there, if not by the writers then by the vets at some point. I think just one guy didn't get in eventually who did that.

Raines is another situation. This year is vital for him - if he gets to the 40% he will move into a situation where he could get in before the killer ballot in a few years. If he is in the 30% he still might. If he doesn't hit 30% though...

And if he doesn't hit 40% the voters need to get their heads examined.

A remarkably flat group - no inner circle guys, but tons of guys near the borderline. It's not hard to see 10 reasonable votes, or only 3-4. If all voters were forced to vote for 3 players, I'm not sure anyone makes it to 75% in this group.

Raines - . It's been noted before, but his candidacy mainly suffers from not being Rickey Henderson - similar players, with Raines not being as great, or for as long. Still a HoF player.

Larkin - Strangely I think he's a complete no-brainer, but who knows? Won the MVP in 1995, had a much better year in 1996, and wasn't even close. Couldn't put in a full season, might cost him.

Alomar - Most sudden and shocking career end I can recall - deserving of an MVP at age 33, then his hitting was gone, possibly due to eyesight problems?

Trammell - remarkably inconsistent career that ended with an OPS+ of 110 despite having no seasons in the 100-110 range. Deserving at SS with 6-7 great seasons.

Blyleven - Most know why he should be in by now, I'm not sure if he makes it...are there really 20%-40% of the voters just waiting for "momentum" behind his candidacy?

Smith - If you're putting closers in, Smith is clearly one of the best and longest lasting.

McGwire - Don't care a whit about his probable use, he was good enough. Voters are going to have a hard time justifying the selective process of who was judged to be a bad cheat, or a good one, in 20 years. I suspect the VC will be putting in a lot of guys at some point.

McGriff - Never quite convinced, but sure, he gets my BBox vote. Almost as meaningful as the HoF.

Dawson - not so much for me, but better than Rice from last year, so hardly a bad choice by that metric. Martinez in the same boat.

My ballot would be:

 

• Roberto Alomar

• Bert Blyleven

• Andre Dawson

• Barry Larkin

• Fred McGriff

• Mark McGwire

• Dale Murphy

• Dave Parker

• Tim Raines

• Alan Trammell

Rally's Wins Above Replacement on baseballprojection.com has the candidates in this order:

Blyleven   91 (top three years-22.6)
Larkin       69 (19.5)
Tram         67 (21.8)
Edgar       67 (20.1)
Raines     65 (20.3)
Alomar     64 (22.1)
McGwire   63 (20.5)

The top eligible players not in the Hall of Fame, according to this metric, are Blyleven, Dahlen (75) and Lou Whitaker (70).

Alomar, Raines, and Blyleven seem to me to not even need discussion as they meet any reasonable criteria, but when we consider the "Better Than Rice" factor there are several others who have to be looked at.   Of course, Rice isn't the weakest honouree in The Hall, so one could propose a lot of names if one uses a LCD.

Geez, I'd love to see Trammell and Whitaker go in together -- not as a unit, but at the same time. The state of Michigan would come to a complete halt that day.

They both deserve it, Mick, and you are quite right that it would be appropriate for them to walk through the doors at the same time.  Lou is off the ballot (due to getting less than 5% in his first year of eligibility!), so it would fall to the Veteran's Committee decades from now to make it happen. 

Just random thinking - after the vote for the 2013 HOF with the massive quality players that year (1st year Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, Piazza on the 'steroid' front, plus Biggio and Schilling) mixed with the likely 'HOF if not for steroids' crew (McGwire, Palmeiro) and guys who the writers will have holding on (Walker, Juan Gonzalez, probably Raines, Baines, Galarraga, Edgar Martinez, McGriff) we'll probably see a record for quality of guys dropping off the ballot due to under 5% support.

How insane eh?  Just a few years after Jim Rice gets in we might see Edgar Martinez, Larry Walker, and maybe even Tim Raines drop off (sadly wouldn't shock me).

I'm a small hall guy, Blyleven, Rains and Alomar would be the only players I'd vote for on the ballot. The contrarian in me wants to see McGwire in, I doubt he ever will be as he's the voters scapegoat. Ditto for Palmero (3000 hits and 500 HR, juice or not he deserves to be in).

Shortly a lot of records for most of some category not in the HOF (who is eligible - thus no Pete Rose mixed in) will be broken. 

Hits: Rafael Palmeiro's3020 over Harold Baines over Vada Pinson

Home Runs: Barry Bonds over Mark McGwire over Jose Canseco over Dave Kingman (who was just a jerk, not a steroid guy).

Slg%: Barry Bonds over Mark McGwire who passed Albert Belle who passed Dick Allen (533 slg%) - many others above Allen will not get in too if current steroid and other stuff limits stay (Manny, A-Rod, Walker, Berkman, Delgado, Piazza, Ortiz are a few who have their HOF buzz far lower than needed).

OPS+: Barry Bonds (#3 all time at 181) over Pete Browning (tied with Mark McGwire at 162).

Wins: Roger Clemens over Bobby Mathews (297 in 1870's/1880's) with Tommy John the next highest (1 win over Blyleven) then another 1880's guy (Tony Mullane) then Jim Kaat. (Kaat was the start of 'higher standards' for pitchers outside of the 1880's crew).

Whitaker's off the ballot ... of course, I knew that. I had just blocked that utter inanity from memory.

According to BBRef, Sweet Lou's most similar player historically was HOF 2B Ryne Sandberg -- his exact contemporary, and pardon my regionalistic bias, but Whitaker was better than Sandberg. (Better career OPS+, more career RBI, far-far-far better career BB/K ratio, and IMNSHO, better with the glove and arm) ...

Lou's second-most-similar? Alan Trammell. Nice.

Where does Dawson rank in comparison to some of the centerfielders in and out of the Hall?  Was he truly an elite defender at a premium position, or should those 8 GG's be taken with a grain of salt?  Would he be a slam dunk if his walk rate was say 10%?

Rally has Dawson at 57 WAR, with 4 GG quality seasons (10+ FRAA by Total Zone and Arm).  For comparison, Willie Davis is at 57, Andruw Jones and Richie Ashburn are at 58, Jimmy Wynn is at 60, Reggie Smith is at 63, Kenny Lofton is at 65 and Jim Edmonds is at 67.

I never thought of Kenny Lofton as more valuable than Tim Raines over their respective careers, but when you think about it...And as for Jim Edmonds, I've made that argument before. 

I have no idea why McGwire has so much support in the blogosphere.  I think the BBWAA has it right.

I mean, we don't know exactly when he started juicing.  Operation Equine links him to steroids in the early 90s.  If he didn't start then, I think the next likeliest timeline would begin around 1995 or 1996.  You know, right around the time that two things happened:  1) he started to stay healthy again, and 2) he started to hit for passable average consistently for the first time since his rookie year.  Personally, I'm most inclined to believe the steroids began after his disastrous 1991 season, after which I can just picture Canseco telling McGwire that there was a way that everything could become good again.

Either way, Mark McGwire means nothing to baseball history if we take away the final six or seven years of his career, during which we (almost?) know that he was using steroids.  He owes his career to steroids.  And we are going to put him in the hall of fame?  Why not just send a syringe to cooperstown?  That's what we'd really be honoring and glorifying.

McGwire was a good defender when he came up (he had been a third baseman) and was a poor one when he was putting up the gaudy offensive numbers in the late 90s.  Usually an offensive peak will be closer to a player's defensive peak.  He wasn't as great as many think in the late 90s.  As you can see from the WAR numbers above, he was a lesser player than Larkin, Edgar and Trammell, for sure, without any discounting for presumed steroid use.  And, personally, I don't think you can compare McGwire to McGriff without making some discount.

Rally's WAR incidentally has Olerud significantly ahead of both McGriff and Delgado, both for peak and career, with superior defence being worth 10 wins over their respective careers.

I have no idea why McGwire has so much support in the blogosphere.

Because he was, especially at his peak, a breathtakingly awesome baseball player.  McGwire regularly did things that (almost?) no one had done for decades.

Either way, Mark McGwire means nothing to baseball history if we take away the final six or seven years of his career, during which we (almost?) know that he was using steroids. 

I'm not even going to deny the last part, although I think one can.  Let me just grant it.  It doesn't matter.  Mark McGwire still means a tremendous amount to baseball history, because you don't get to stand up like a Soviet Commissar and declare that Mark McGwire's career did not exist.  What possible purpose would be served by pretending this?  It is, and I mean this word specifically, insanity to try to do this.

That doesn't mean that I'm opposed to people not voting for McGwire.  There are all kinds of reasons to vote for a guy or not vote for a guy, and if someone doesn't vote for a player because he doesn't like suspected steroid users or doesn't like six-inning starters or doesn't like relief pitchers or doesn't like one-dimensional players or doesn't like assertive black people... well, these things happen, and that's why we have a vote (although I'd like it to be broader.  But I won't get into the Hall's BBWAA problem here).  To wash out the yahoos.  And if the press isn't yet comfortable with Mark McGwire in Cooperstown, that's jake with me.  I think they're wrong, but I'll concentrate on trying to change their minds.

But I am implacably opposed to people who try to blot out history and pretend things didn't exist, to rewrite record books and engage in revisionism about what we are and are not allowed to honour and celebrate.  To try to pin some sort of moral failing on me because I would vote for Mark McGwire is censorious and ridiculous, and you should be ashamed of it.

Mark McGwire doesn't want to talk about the past.  And his 70-homer season et al are all in the past.