The 2010 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot: Who Really Belongs Inside

THE HALL OF FAME:  75 YEARS OF ELECTORAL FUN

The Hall of Fame ballot is out. Now the fun starts.  I don’t know who is going to get votes.  What I can do, though, is talk about who should be getting votes, by the standards of their era and the past elections to the Hall of Fame.  The Hall of Fame has never set out any clear criteria on who should be elected.  Despite oft-mentioned statistical achievements, there is not an “automatic” achievement that brings instant entry to the Hall of Fame.  Currently, the Hall of Fame has 289 members, of which 202 are former Major League players. 

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET IN?

Election requirements have varied dramatically through the years, since the first election in 1936.  No one has ever been so acclaimed by the voters that they were unanimously elected.   The first Hall of Fame election had 226 voters, and they were told to pick up to 10 players to vote for.  Active and recently retired players were chosen by many voters.  Lou Gehrig, for example, who was to play for three more years, received 51 votes.  Five players were elected the first year, led by Ty Cobb, who received 222 votes.  Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner followed with 215 votes, and Christy Mathewson drew 205 while Walter Johnson had 189.  Among those who failed to draw the 170 votes needed for election, but were later inducted were Cy Young (111 votes), Tris Speaker (133), Nap Lajoie (146), Eddie Collins (60), Mordecai Brown (6), and Sam Crawford (1).  And just to show that voters have always been ambiguous about the propriety of the players, Hal Chase received 11 votes (as many as Tinker, Evers, and Chance combined) despite having been formally banned from baseball for corruption and throwing games.  Currently, eligible voters are members of the Baseball Writers Association of America with 10 years of membership, and players with 10 years in the Major Leagues are eligible for election. 

Admission to the Hall of Fame requires 75 percent of the vote by the writers.

WHO GETS SELECTED?

Without any concrete guidelines, we are left to consider how past Hall of Fame voters have decided who belongs and who does not.  The important thing, as I see it, is not that a player is better than someone in the Hall of Fame.  This would result in a race to the bottom, in which every errant selection results in future errant selections.  The real question we have is whether a player has contributed more to his teams than other players who are not in the Hall of Fame.   If there are many players who have been deemed unworthy of induction who have done as much or more than the player under consideration, we are forced to assess whether the prior players were unjustly denied entry, or whether the player now under consideration should be seen as the same light as those who made similar contributions, but who were not held to be of Hall of Fame caliber. 

Generally, Hall of Famers come in one of three flavors:  Long, very good careers (Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, Ernie Banks, Cal Ripken, Robin Yount); Short, great careers (Dizzy Dean, Sandy Koufax, Lefty Gomez, Addie Joss); and Long, great careers (Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, Frank Robinson, Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove).  Those with the long, great careers are usually the subject of no debate whatsoever.  We don’t have any of these on the ballot this year.  Mostly, among the serious candidates, we have the long, very good career types.  The only player with a short, great career on the ballot this year is Mark McGwire, and his case is complicated by the whole performance enhancing drug issue.

THE 2010 BASEBALL BALL OF FAME CANDIDATES:

Roberto Alomar:  Alomar is head and shoulders above many of the second basemen who are already in the Hall of Fame, but, oddly enough, his numbers are pretty much on par with Lou Whitaker, who was mercilessly snubbed by the voters several years ago. 

G       BA    OBP   SLG  OPS+

Alomar      2,379   .300  .371   .443  116

Whitaker   2,390   .276  .363   .426  116

Sure, the raw numbers for Alomar are better, but adjusted for the eras, they have the same meaning.  Both have identical OPS+ of 116.  OPS+ takes a player's on base average and slugging average, combines them, makes adjustments for the park, and compares the result to the rest of the players of that time.  An OPS+ of 100, for example, would be average.   Whitaker had more power, Alomar had more speed, but both had above-average supplies of power and speed.  Alomar had 12 gold gloves, Whitaker three, but both were great fielders.  They had careers of the same length, and neither won any MVP awards.  Whitaker got 15 votes in his only Hall of Fame ballot appearance.  I’m not saying that Whitaker was as good as Alomar, but the difference sure is not as big as the one between 2 percent of the vote and 75 percent of the vote. 

There are 13 second basemen who played 1,500 games and had an OPS+ of 115 or higher.  Eight are in the Hall of Fame.  Jeff Kent is not yet eligible for the Hall.  The rest of the group are Alomar, Whitaker, Larry Doyle, and Bobby Grich.  Doyle was a mainstay of John McGraw’s teams in the first two decades of the 20^th century, and he had a 126 OPS+, and his career ended when he was 33.  Grich had an OPS+ of 125, was a fantastic fielder, and got absolutely no support for the Hall of Fame.  So what’s my feeling?  Yes to Alomar, but Yes to Grich and Whitaker as well.  Too bad they can’t get any votes anymore.

Kevin Appier:  169-137, once an all-star, once finished third in the Cy Young voting, once topped 16 wins.  Nice career, but a Hall of Famer by no one’s definition. 

Harold Baines:  An interesting candidate, a classic of longevity and consistency.  He never hit 30 home runs, never led the league in anything interesting.  But look at this:

                        H       HR    BA    OBP   SLG   OPS+

Baines             2,866   384   .289  .356  .465  120

Andre Dawson   2,774   438   .279  .323  .482  119

Rusty Staub     2,716   292   .279  .362   .431  124

No one eligible for the Hall of Fame has more hits than Baines and is not currently enshrined.  Despite Baines being at least as good a candidate as Dawson, Dawson outpolled Baines 358 to 28 in 2008.   Rusty Staub, who had, in context, a more impressive career than both Dawson and Baines, did not see any significant Hall of fame support.  I think Baines is someone who, like Rusty Staub, stands just on the outside of the Hall of Fame, with a career of extraordinary length (18^th all time in games played, and 33^rd in plate appearances) and very good performance.

Bert Blyleven:  Once again, for those who missed it every other year:  Bert Blyleven not only is the best pitcher eligible for the Hall of Fame who is not in it, he is far, far beyond the level of most Hall of Fame pitchers, including Don Sutton, Nolan Ryan, Jim Bunning, Red Ruffing, Jesse Haines, Burleigh Grimes, Early Wynn, and Catfish Hunter.  He is 5^th in career strikeouts, 14^th in innings, 27^th in wins, 9^th in shutouts.  He threw more shutouts than Mike Mussina threw complete games.  He was not merely “very good.”  He was, year in and year out, one of the best pitchers in the game. 

Top 10 Finishes in:  ERA   ERA+    Career ERA+

Blyleven                  10    12         118

Nolan Ryan                8     7          111

Don Sutton                8     7         108

Jim Bunning                7     7         114

Catfish Hunter            3     3          104

His career ERA+ is the same as Warren Spahn and Ted Lyons, and better than Gaylord Perry, Steve Carlton, Fergie Jenkins, and Robin Roberts, and only nine pitchers since 1900 have thrown more innings.  Blyleven is clearly a Hall of Famer by any measure.

Ellis Burks:  Good hitter, medium-length career, but nothing about it calls for induction into the Hall of Fame.  Had a really great year in 1996, and finished third in the MVP voting.  Had a good resurgence late in his career from 1999 through 2002.  Only twice played more than 150 games in his career.

Andre Dawson:  One thing that always seems to impress people is putting together unrelated achievements.  During Andre Dawson’s career, it was a big deal to hit 30 home runs and steal 30 bases.  This had been a real rarity for a long time, done by Ken Williams once and Willie Mays and Hank Aaron and that was about it.  Then Bobby Bonds came along, and then came Tommy Harper.  Then came Dale Murphy, and then the floodgates opened.  Andre Dawson never joined the 30-30 club, but he always seemed about to.  He had power and speed and he just looked like great baseball player.  And he was really, really, good.  But you know what?  He wasn’t great.  Not for one season.  And not for his career.  In 1987 he won the MVP award, hitting 49 home runs.  It was a very poor choice for MVP.  Dawson had both a lower slugging average and a lower on-base-percentage than Jack Clark, Will Clark, Darryl Strawberry, Eric Davis, and Dale Murphy.  He hit over .300 our times, but this value was diminished by his inability to take a walk.  In fact, the highest OBP he ever had in a single season was .365.  His career batting average was only .279, and his on base percentage was .323.  His career OPS+ was 119.  This is tied for 358^th all time, with, among others, Sal Bando, Phil Bradley, Nate Colbert, Steve Kemp, and Rusty Greer.  Oh yes, Dawson won eight Gold Gloves.  Imagine another outfielder with eight Gold Gloves, whose career overlapped Dawson's for 15 seasons.  Let's compare them:

                G     2B   3B   HR    RBI     BB     BA     OBP   SLG  OPS+

Dawson   2,627  503  98  438  1,591   589   .279   .323  .482  119

Player X  2,606   483  73  385  1,384  1,391 .272   .370  .470  127

Player X dropped from the HOF ballot after three years for lack of support, never drawing more than 8 percent.  If Dwight Evans so clearly didn’t belong (with his 127 OPS+), Dawson does not belong.  Dawson would not get my vote.

Andres Galarraga:  Here is a guy who actually was great, but not every year.  Actually, he was great in 1998, at the age of 37.  He was good in Colorado for a few years, but you have to take the ballpark into account when you look at his numbers there.  Galarraga would not be the worst first baseman in the Hall of Fame, but there are a ton of guys who have had better careers and have not gone into the Hall.  Galarraga, by the way, has a career OPS+ of 118, one point below Dawson.  He is not expected to get a lot of support.

Pat Hentgen:  He won a Cy Young award in 1996.  131-112 for his career.  He won’t be seeing many votes.

Mike Jackson:  It’s kind of great that these guys get to appear before the voters, because otherwise, who would ever think to look up their numbers and careers?  I, personally, missed Mike Jackson.  Really.  I can’t remember him at all.  He spent 17 years in the big leagues, during all of which I was an adult who followed the game, and I can’t tell you the first thing about the guy without looking him up.  He had a couple of good seasons closing for Cleveland in the late 90s.  He appeared in more than 1,000 games as a pitcher, which seemed impressive when only Hoyt Wilhelm had done it. 

Eric Karros:  The all-time home run leader for the Los Angeles Dodgers.  This is somewhat similar to being the all-time win leader for the Houston Astros.  Not exactly the honor it seems to be at first glance.  Karros hit 270 home runs for the Dodgers, 14 for other teams.  284 home runs and a .268 batting average with a .325 on base percentage.  It’s a very good career, but it’s nowhere near the career put together by, say, Kent Hrbek, who got five votes and disappeared in the 2000 election.  By the way, the all-time win leader for the Astros is Joe Niekro.

Ray Lankford:  He hit for power, he stole bases.  He drew walks.  He never did any of those things often enough to be great, though.  A very good player, with 238 home runs, 258 stolen bases, and .272/.364/.477 numbers.   His OPS+ was 122.  He was sort of Rick Monday, but he stole bases far, far better.  Rick Monday never got any Hall of Fame support, and I don’t think Lankford will either. 

Barry Larkin:  People are excited about Barry Larkin.  I keep reading that he is a strong candidate for the Hall of Fame, if not this year, than in coming years, and that he was part of a big transition from the glovemen at shortstop to the hitters at shortstop.  This kind of thing always confuses me, because it assumes that baseball had two shortstop types:  Mark Belanger, and Alex Rodriguez, and that at some point, thing switched from one to another.  It makes you wonder about baseball history.  I mean, Honus Wagner was a pretty good hitter.  He won eight batting titles.  He led the league in slugging six times.  He stole 722 bases.  Arky Vaughan was a great hitter, as were Luke Appling, Joe Cronin, and Lou Boudreau.  Vern Stephens, who is not a Hall of Famer, had some mighty impressive years for a shortstop.  There’ve been a bunch of good hitting shortstops, many of whom were also very good fielders.  Ernie Banks was a Gold Glove winner.  So were Robin Yount and Cal Ripken.   Larkin was a very good fielder, taking home three Gold Gloves.  He also was a very good hitter, hitting as many as 33 home runs in a season, and as high as .342.  He stole bases – 51 one year – and he walked as many as 96 times in a season.  He won the MVP award in 1995.    But for me, the most relevant comparison now is not to any of the shortstops now in the Hall of Fame – he's far better than many of them – but to Alan Trammell.  Trammell has been lingering on the ballot since 2002.  He has never drawn more than 18.2 percent of the vote.  

                 G      BA    OBP  SLG     HR   OPS+

Larkin       2180   .295  .352  .444   198   116

Trammell   2293   .285  .371  .415   185   110

Trammell also won four Gold Gloves.   So where do I stand?  I think both Larkin and Trammell are borderline Hall of Famers.  I think that neither are likely to get in now or later, though.  Support for borderline Hall of Famers now seems to be going to the guys that were the power hitters of the 70s and 80s, who were scary at the plate.  Rice and Dawson types.  I predict that Larkin will have the same kind of success as Trammell, which is to say, the long, lingering, annual failure.  Do they belong in the Hall of Fame?  Sure they do.  Both were great players for a long time.  Both were, for many years, among the top few players at their position.  That’s a lot more than you can say for Jim Rice and Dawson, who each had about five years as a top player.  They were on par with Joe Cronin and Lou Boudreau and Joe Sewell and Cal Ripken and Robin Yount, just without the cache, or the catchy identifier.  They played on small-market teams, each got to the post-season rarely, and then they vanished, never to become the face of the game.  So I say Yes to Larkin.

Edgar Martinez:  The big controversy of the year.  Should a DH be a Hall of Famer?  This argument seems rooted in the belief by some people that the DH is not a legitimate position.  After more than 35 years, I think we need to get over this.  Of course the DH is a legitimate position.  It is there every day in the American League.  We just have to consider that Martinez’s, and every other DH’s, contribution defensively is zero, the same way we consider that a catcher makes an enormous defensive contribution when we look at his value, and a first baseman makes a much smaller defensive contribution.  So when we look at the appropriate value for a Hall of Fame DH, we need someone who is a bit beyond the offensive value of a Hall of Fame first baseman.  With that in mind, where does Martinez stand?  He put up some great numbers, that’s for sure. He had a 147 career OPS+, is the same as Willie McCovey, and Mike Schmidt.  But I can’t say I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame.  The main reason is not his lack of defensive contribution:  it's his career length.

When we look at rate stats, like Martinez's .312 batting average, .418 OBP, and .515 slugging average, and his 147 OPS+, we have to consider how long he was able to perform at this level for.  Let's look at the number of times Martinez came to the plate in his career, next to the Hall of Famers. To compare:

                PA     OPS+

Martinez    8672   147

McCovey   9686   147

Schmidt    10062  147

Martinez's career value has got to be seen as signficantly lower than those players who were able to sustain their performance for longer careers, especially when one takes into account the fact that he was making no defensive contribution.  Players with shorter careers have often not been recognized by the Hall of Fame:

                      PA    OPS+

Dick Allen         7314  156

Albert Belle       6673  143

Rocky Colavito  7559   132

Frank Howard    7353  142

Norm Cash        7910  139

Boog Powell      7810   134

Darryl Strawberry 6326 138

Will Clark          8283  137

Jack Clark         8225  137

Bob Johnson      8047  138

Sure, Martinez has a slight edge on most of these guys.  But it’s not such a big one.  And for Martinez to be a Hall of Famer he needs not only match these guys despite making zero defensive contribution, but he also needs to climb the difference between these guys and the Hall of Famers.  None of them, by the way, were even given serious consideration in the Hall of Fame voting.  Is he so much better than any of them?  I don’t see it.

Don Mattingly:  Great fielder, and for a brief moment, a terrific hitter.  From 1984 through 1987, he was a Hall of Famer.  Unfortunately, from the age of 27 on, from 1988 through 1995, he was not.  Through 1987, his career states included a .331 batting average, .376 OBP, and .543 slugging average.  After that, though, the fall-of was swift and merciless.  From 1998 on, he hit .292, with a .347 OBP, and a .424 slugging average.  What does it all add up to?  A short career with solid numbers that don’t compare well to Hall of Famers.  His career looks more like another non-inductee:

                 BA   OBP  SLG   HR    PA     OPS+

Mattingly   .307  .358  .471  222  7721   127

Fred Lynn   .283 .360  .484  306  7923   129

Lynn was also known as an extremely game player, willing to sacrifice his body to make plays.  He was a Gold Glove winning centerfielder.  Lynn never drew more than 5.5 percent of the Hall of Fame vote, and dropped off after two years.   Mattingly has not drawn a lot of Hall of Fame support, getting 28.2 percent his first year, and significantly less since then, drawing under 20 percent of the vote in each of the last seven years.  It’s probably a bit more support than he deserves.

Fred McGriff:  Another first-time candidate with a big resume.  Actually, his resume consisted of one fact:  493 home runs.  McGriff, undoubtedly, was a hugely talented player who was durable and consistent.  Almost no player is great every year.  A few are.  They are the names that really resonate, that require no first name:  Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Gehrig, Cobb, Musial.  There is no debate about those players.  We often wind up debating players with a few great years, interspersed with many good years.  McGriff is the interesting case of a player with many good years, but not a single great year.  Maybe one great year – 1994.  That short season has many great years in it.  McGriff had 34 home runs in only 114 games that year, and he was still only fourth in the National League.  His .623 slugging average was also fourth.  He finished eighth in the MVP voting.  So he didn’t impress the MVP voters that year as having had a particularly great season.  All right – here is the situation with McGriff.  He put up nice numbers, averaging 32 home runs a year, with a 134 OPS+.  That’s great stuff.  There are some guys, though, with an OPS+ of 134 who are not in the Hall of Fame.  Boog Powell had a 134 OPS+.  So did Al Kaline, though.  And Paul Waner.  Gene Tenace was at 136.  Norm Cash had a 139 OPS+.  McGriff, though, had over 10,000 plate appearances.  There are a whole passel of guys with great OPS+, and there are lots of guys with over 10,000 plate appearances.  But everyone with an OPS+ as high as McGriff’s, and as many plate appearances as McGriff is in the Hall of Fame.   So I’ve got to think he belongs as well.

Mark McGwire:  This is a religious question.  If you don’t think he belongs, I’m not going to persuade you.  There is no way that you can construe the stats to deny him a place.   Some people have tried, claiming he was some sort of latter-day Dave Kingman, hitting home runs or striking out, and generally not contributing very much to his teams.  This could not be further from the truth.  McGwire did have a mid-career collapse, but even at its worst, in 1991, when he hit just .201, McGwire still worked 93 walks and had an OPS+ of 103 and an on base percentage of .330.  Kingman, on the other hand, had a career on base percentage of .302.  McGwire has the best home run percentage in history.  He has a .394 OBP and a .588 slugging average.  His OPS+ is 162.  He compares favorably to other short but spectacular career Hall of Famers like Hank Greenberg and Johnny Mize.

Jack Morris:  A pitching candidate!  Some people like Jack Morris for the Hall of Fame.  Other people look at his record.  You can construe statistics to say anything you want.  Morris did win more games in the 1980s than any other pitcher.  That doesn’t make him a Hall of Famer.  In fact, if it did, you would think that the guys who were also on the top five list for the 1980s would be Hall of Famers.  The rest of the top five, though, are Dave Steib, Bob Welch, Fernando Valenzuela, and Charlie Hough.  The only Hall of Famer on the whole top ten list, as of today, is Nolan Ryan.  Morris went 254-186 in his career.  Great record!  He’s 42^nd in wins, and 190^th in winning percentage.  His career ERA+ is 105.  He won 20 games three times.  Is he a Hall of Famer?  That depends on what you think a Hall of Famer is. 

                         W-L      ERA+

Morris              254-186   105

Jamie Moyer      258-195   105

Dennis Martinez  245-183  106

Luis Tiant         229-172   114

Billy Pierce        211-169   119

Bob Welch        211-146   106

Milt Pappas       209-164   110

I don't think of Moyer or Martinez as Hall of Famers.  The voters have not considered any of these pitchers to belong in the Hall of Fame. There are only two pitchers in the Hall of Fame with as bad or worse ERA+ than Morris:  Rube Marquard, a 1971 Veterans Committee selection made during a period in which Frankie Frisch seemed determined to put all his old cronies into the Hall of Fame, and widely regarded as an error.    The other is a classic blunder from the writers, overwhelmed by the superficial statistics, and memories of who “looked like a Hall of Famer.”  That was Catfish Hunter, probably the second-least qualified Hall of Fame pitcher.  He went 224-166 with an ERA+ of 104.  Just looking at the above pitchers with better records and ERA+ numbers who have not made it into the Hall of Fame, why would anyone see Morris as a serious candidate?

Dale Murphy:  When I was a kid, and Dale Murphy won his second straight MVP award, I thought he was a future Hall of Famer for sure.  I mean, who won two straight MVP awards without going into the Hall of Fame?  Well, Roger Maris, but he was a weird case.  And Hal Newhouser, but that was during World War II.  Anyway, Murphy he hit for power and speed and was even a 30-30 guy.  But Dale stopped hitting a bit early for a Hall of Famer.  He had a great year in 1987, hitting 44 home runs, racking up a 157 OPS+, and he looked great.  But that was the end of it.  He had 310 career home runs at the end of the year, an OPS+ of 132.  Reggie Jackson had 313 home runs at that point in his career.  But Jackson kept hitting, and Murphy did not.  The rest of his career, six years, Murphy hit 88 home runs, had a .234 batting average, .307 on base percentage, and a .396 slugging average.  His OPS+ was 96.   And so we are left with a career quite similar to George Foster:

           PA      HR   BA    OBP    SLG   OPS+

Murphy  9,040 398  .265  .346   .469  121

Foster   7,812 348   .274  .338  .480  126

The same arguments we can make against Andre Dawson can and should be made against Dale Murphy – he simply wasn’t the type of player who has historically been selected for the Hall of Fame.  What is odd is that while Murphy has gotten limited Hall of Fame support, between 8 and 23 percent, Dawson appears on the verge of election.  Dawson’s career was a bit longer, but Murphy had a bit higher quality, so on the whole, I see them as pretty near equal.  They were seen as pretty close when they played, as well, as I recall.  I don’t know how the voters are dividing these two now.  I don’t think either should be in.

Dave Parker:  Here’s a guy who was a Hall of Famer at 28, and who then pretty much marked time for the rest of his career.  At the end of the 1979 season, Parker was on the World Series champs, he had been named MVP in 1978, he had two batting titles on his resume, and an OPS+ of 143.  His batting average was .317, on base percentage was .370, and slugging percentage was .521.  Then everything fell to pieces.  He stayed around a long time, 12 more years, and often seemed about to regain that early skill.  He was a good player, but not great during those last 12 years, hitting .275, with a .322 on base percentage, and a .444 slugging average.  His OPS+ was 109.  His career totals have 339 home runs, and a 121 OPS+ in 10,184 plate appearances.  If you think Harold Baines is a Hall of Famer, then you can consider Dave Parker.  They basically have the same career totals.  If you think Harold Baines falls short, then Dave Parker must fall short as well.  And that’s where I stand.

Tim Raines:  I confess.  I was wrong about Tim Raines.  I thought that his skills were so great that the voters would be able to see the incredible value he brought to his teams over his long career, and would elect him promptly and without dispute.  I was wrong, though.  His skills, apparently, were of the subtle variety, and the voters have given him less than 25 percent of the vote in each of his first two years.  First off, let’s concede the obvious:  Tim Raines was not as great a player as Rickey Henderson.  Now, let’s talk about the other side of the coin.  We’ll start with the basics:  Tim Raines had a long career, 10,359 plate appearances.  There are 72 players in major league history with 10,000 plate appearances.  49 of them are in the Hall of Fame.  10 are not yet eligible, and one is Pete Rose.  The remaining 12?  Rusty Staub, Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Darrell Evans, Dwight Evans, Vada Pinson, Bill Dahlen, Graig Nettles, Dave Parker, Bill Buckner, Buddy Bell, and Tim Raines.  Raines can be distinguished from the group of non-Hall of Famers.  His OPS+ of 123 is higher than all but Dwight Evans (127) and Rusty Staub (124).   Another interesting statistic:  Raines got on base 3,977 times in his career.  This is 41^st in major league history.  Of the 40 players with more times on base than Raines, only one is eligible for the Hall of Fame, but not a member:  Rusty Staub.  Raines was on base more times than Lou Brock, Mike Schmidt, Richie Ashburn, Max Carey, Frankie Frisch, Roberto Clemente, and Nap Lajoie.  No one eligible for the Hall of Fame, with a comparable number of plate appearances, has an on base percentage as high as Tim Raines and is not in the Hall of Fame.  And now let’s add in something else about Tim Raines:  he stole 808 bases, with a stolen base success rate of 84.7 percent.  Of players with 300 or more stolen bases, since 1930, the worst percentage of success is (betcha didn’t know this one) Rod Carew, at 65.4 percent.  He stole 353 bases, getting caught 187 times.  Tim Raines stole 808 bases, getting caught 146 times.  Lou Brock stole 938 bases, and was caught 307 times.  His success rate was 75.3 percent.  Rickey Henderson stole 1406 bases, caught 335 times, for an 80.8 percent rate of success. Joe Morgan, a great base stealer in his own right, stole 689 bases, and was caught 162 times, a 81.0 percent rate of success.  So Joe Morgan, a more successful base stealer than Rickey Henderson, was caught stealing more times than Tim Raines while stealing over 100 fewer bases.    So what are we looking at here?  We’re looking at a player with a career length and offensive production that make him a borderline Hall of Famer, combined with historic levels of base stealing attempts and success, leaving him as one of the top leadoff men of all time.  I think that make a Hall of Famer in anyone’s book.

Shane Reynolds:  Another player that left me saying “Who?”  He won 19 games in 1998, struck out more than 200 batters twice, and had a 114-96 record with a 4.09 e.r.a., and a 103 ERA+.  Not a Hall of Famer.

David Segui:  A .291 career hitter with some power who also walked a bit.  His career wasn’t particularly long (5,449 plate appearances) or notable (OPS+ of 110, 139 home runs, 17 stolen bases).  He did knock in 103 runs one year, and his father, Diego Segui, led the American League in e.r.a. in 1970, and in losses in 1964.  Not a Hall of Famer.

Lee Smith:  A returning candidate, Lee Smith’s claim to fame is that he was the career save leader.  From 1926 through 1945, the career saves leader was Firpo Marberry, who was an interesting and talented starter-reliever, mostly for the Senators.  In 1946, Johnny Murphy, the Yankees fireman, took over.  He held onto the record until 162, when Roy Face became the leader.  In 1964 Hoyt Wilhelm passed Roy Face, and Hoyt Wilhelm held the lead until 1980, when Rollie Fingers became the leader.  Jeff Reardon passed Fingers in 1992, and the next year, Lee Smith took over, and held the lead until 2006.  14 years of leading the majors in a career category is impressive.  Currently, he is third on the career leader board.  Four times he led the league in saves. He finished second, fourth, fifth, and ninth in Cy Young Award voting.  .  Relievers are a tricky bunch for Hall of Fame consideration, since they have changed so much over the years. Comparing Smith to the Hall of Famers now in we have:

                         IP      G      Relief Games   ERA+

Hoyt Wilhelm      2,254  1,070   1,018           146

Rollie Fingers      1,701    944      907           119

Dennis Eckersley 3,285  1,071      710           116

Bruce Sutter       1,042    661      661           136

Goose Gossage    1,809   1,002    965           126

Lee Smith           1,289   1,022   1,016          131

He seems to match up pretty well with the Hall of Famers.  What about with other guys?  That's where it gets dicey.

                            IP      G      Relief Games   ERA+

Lee Smith             1,289   1,022   1,016          131

Roberto Hernandez  1,071   1,010  1,007          131

Kent Tekulve         1,436   1,050   1,050          132

Trevor Hoffman      1,042     985    985            147

Dan Quisenberry     1,043    674     674            146

John Franco           1,245   1,119  1,119          137

Sparky Lyle            1,390     899    899           127

Lyle never drew many votes, despite a Cy Young Award. He started in 1988 with 13 percent, and dropped off the ballot in 1991 with 3 percent.  That was better than Quisenberry, who dropped off with less than 4 percent on his first try.  It’s going to take some time to figure out what a Hall of Fame reliever is.  Any by that time, the role will probably have changed again.  I say sure to Lee Smith, mainly because he was the career saves leader for 14 years.

Alan Trammell:  Once upon a time, it was generally assumed that Trammell and Whitaker would wind up in Cooperstown together.  This assumption continued until they ended their careers.  Sometime after that, though, expectations changed, and while Whitaker is already gone from the ballot, Trammell is doing that long, slow slide into oblivion, that way that players like Ken Boyer and Steve Garvey have before him, never getting much serious support, but always getting enough votes to hang around.  Trammell, in six years on the ballot, has consistently gotten between 13 and 19 percent of the vote.  Trammell qualifications consist of  2,293 games, over 2,100 of them at shortstop, four gold gloves, a 110 OPS+, 185 home runs, and 236 stolen bases.  Trammell matches up well against other Hall of Fame shortstops.  His OPS is higher than 10 of the 20 shortstops in the Hall of Fame:  Joe Sewell, Bobby Wallace, Travis Jackson, Pee Wee Reese, Dave Bancroft, Joe Tinker, Phil Rizzuto, Ozzie Smith, Luis Aparicio, and Rabbit Maranville.  Of course, only two of these guys began their careers after World War II, and while Trammell was a fine fielder, no one has put him in the same league as Smith or Aparicio.  That said, his offensive rate stats don’t match up badly against Cal Ripken and Robin Yount, especially considering the large portion of his career that Yount spent as a centerfielder.  Of course, Ripken and Yount each had about 30 percent longer careers than Trammell did.  There are, though, only three players who have spent 75 percent of their careers at shortstop with at least 8,000 plate appearances who have higher OPS+ numbers than Trammell, and none of them have been voted on before for the Hall of Fame:  Miguel Tejada, Barry Larkin, and Derek Jeter.  The way I’m going to look at this one is this:  If you believe Larkin belongs in the Hall of Fame, than Trammell belongs.  If you don’t think so, then Trammell doesn’t.  Bill Dahlen is not in the Hall of Fame.  He played at the end of the 19^th and beginning of the 20^th century, and had a long career at shortstop with a 109 OPS+.  Some people think he belongs in the Hall of Fame.  Personally, I don’t see the point of adding people that no one can identify as anything but a stat sheet, but that’s another discussion.  From a statistical point of view, Dahlen is in the same club as Trammell and Larkin.  I think that there’s room for all of them in the Hall of Fame, so I say let’s elect Alan Trammell. 

Robin Ventura:  Ventura makes a surprisingly strong case for someone who has no chance of entry into the Hall of Fame.  A six-time Gold Glove third baseman (only Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt, and Scott Rolen have more at third base), he was a very good hitter, with a 114 OPS+, 294 home runs, and a remarkably bad record trying to steal bases – 24 successes and 38 times caught stealing.  He is comparable to Ken Boyer, who had a 116 OPS+ and five Gold Gloves.  But Boyer didn’t make it in, and Ventura is not going to remain on the ballot long, because he has a batting average of .267, and 294 home runs just doesn’t impress the voters these days.

Todd Zeile:   Well, Todd Zeile makes Robin Ventura look like a Hall of Famer.  That’s actually not fair at all.  Zeile had a long career, over 8,000 plate appearances, and hit 253 home runs.  He had decent strike zone judgment, as well, walking nearly 1,000 times.  He was one of the well-traveled major leaguers.  Between 1995 and his retirement in 2004, he changed teams 11 times.  Does that mean that no one wanted him, or everyone needed him?  In any case, he was good enough to play in the majors for a heck of a lot longer than most guys, and to rack up an OPS+ of 103, which is more than some Hall of Famers can say.  And so I say, congratulations on a fine career, Todd Zeile, and I wish you well, but not in the Hall of Fame.

That concludes our long and detailed discussion of the Hall of Fame ballot.  For those who have managed to complete this journey with me, I hope you've found it entertaining and informative.  To sum up then, I am giving a big yes to the following: Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Barry Larkin, Fred McGriff, Mark McGwire, Tim Raines, Lee Smith, and Alan Trammell.  And good luck to all of you.