My Take on the Baseball Hall of Fame Candidates

Not gonna do in depth analysis, just a little coverage of each. If anyone wants, I will write a full article about any of the below. Just put it in my comments.  

First off, it should be noted that the Hall of Fame, as an institution, may lose much of its relevance, should it ignore all players from 1988-2005. I am going to entirely ignore the steroid issue (if and when it comes up), and focus instead on the player. I know this article has already been written for Bleacher Report, but I never get tired of hearing different takes on the Hall, and neither should you.

Brady Anderson:

Man, I love Brady Anderson. And, while it by no means absolves him (I know, I'm not talking about it), I was really really happy to see that his name was not in the Mitchell Report. Having said that, Brady Anderson is certainly not remotely anything approaching a Hall of Fame player. He was, however, not just a one year wonder. Despite his late start, Brady put together 3 excellent seasons, and two other very productive ones. He got on base .362— although he did slug a somewhat surprisingly low .425, and constantly signed up to do photo shoots like this one:

It's only been 5 years, but God I miss the Hell out of him already. 

Harold Baines:

Professional hitter, clearly just below all standards for Hall of Fame induction, even though he had a great and long career. I remember near the end, there was a lot of talk about the possibility of Baines reaching 3000 hits. This was before all this "invalidating of 1990's records" stuff started (I know...). I wonder, with 3000 hits still being a fairly safe barometer for Hall of Fame inclusion, what would have happened had Baines reached the mark. No players yet have forced the electorate to reevaluate the 3000 hit standard (as they recently have with those of 400 and 500 home runs). He was a great player, and should probably stay on the ballot all fifteen years, but he does not deserve inclusion.

Rod Beck:

Not really in the mood to write about Rod Beck, the man (not that that should have anything to do with anything anyway). He was good, but nowhere near great. He had 3 great years and a bunch of fine seasons with good save totals. Shouldn't really merit the percentage necessary to stay on the ballot, but he may get some mileage out of his story. 

Bert Blyleven:

Can't even get into it, as Rich Lederer over at BaseballAnalysts.com has done a superb job of support Bert during the past few years. All I will say is, if you had never heard of win and loss totals (number determined far more by the quality of a team than the quality of the pitcher), and payed attention to all other numbers, it would never occur to you that Blyleven wasn't a slam dunk Hall of Famer.

Dave Concepcion:

It depends: Would his election make Joe Morgan talk less, or more? Good defensive player, great even, on an all time great team. According to Baseball prospectus, he was 28 runs below average with the bat during his career. Bring him up to average, and he might actually squeak his way into deserving induction. But you can't. And he isn't.

Andre Dawson:

Pretty tough one here. The MVP helps and hurts him—helps for the obvious reasons, hurts because it was one of the most absurd selections of all time. He was not one of the top 15 players in the league. He has some great counting stats, a great reputation. I wouldn't really object to his election but for the fact that he is not the best (or one of the very best) not yet in. Bring in Raines, Santo, Blyleven, maybe Trammel, Bobby Grich...then we can talk about the Hawk.

Shawon Dunston:

Threw well. Did more things poorly than almost any player in baseball history. He was a below average fielder. He got on base less then 30 percent of the time he came up to bat! This is beyond absurd.  Has some of the most eye popping K-BB ratios of all time. He's basically the complete inverse of Barry Bonds, and has no business in this discussion.

Chuck Finley:

Really underrated. His final line was 200 W, 173 L. 3.85, 2610 K. He was, in many ways, a victim of circumstance. He pitched for teams who were generally solid, but not great, in one of the highest offensive eras in baseball history.

Baseball-Reference.com allows for the neutralization of statistics. Here is that line in a neutral environment: 208 W, 156 L, 2748, 3.48. Looking a little closer, borderline now, but pretty comparable to low level HOF pitchers like Catfish Hunter.

Just for fun, here is what Chuck Finley would have done had he received the same benefits as Don Drysdale pitching for the 1968 Dodgers.

 229 W, 161 L, 2934 K, 2.33 ERA

Had he been born 20 years earlier and come up with the A's or O's or Dodgers, he'd be in already.

Travis Fryman:

We never talked about it at the time, but Travis Fryman was on a bit of a HOF path before flaming out at the age of 33. Had he not stopped being productive at 31, and aged on a normal path, we would probably be looking at something around the following line (assuming he retires around 38):

2576 H, 445 D, 51 T, 298 HR, 1422 RBI, .270, . 333, . 440 

Probably still not HOF material, but much much closer. Either way (and I expect no objection here), he does not make the cut.

Goose Gossage:

The judging of relievers changes too rapidly for there ever to have been a consensus on "what makes a Hall of Fame reliever."  I would vote for Goose—he was definitely better than Sutter. I'm just not riled up about it too much, what with the Blylevens and Santos of the world still on the outside looking in.

Tommy John:

Reminds me of Harold Baines.  What would people have done if he had pitched just a little bit longer, pitched for just a little better team. I have no real problem with him in or out. I think he definitely makes the cut going by the least common denominator method. It should also be noted that his defensive prowess (80 FRAA) according to Baseball Prospectus, was formidable. Yeah sure, he gets my vote on this nonexistent ballot. But he is probably the one that I feel most ambiguous about.

That's it for now, I'll have the rest coming up this weekend. Again, I know I don't go into much depth here, but I'll end with "my ballot" of up to 10 players for whom I would vote and in what order. And I would be happy to further explain why I feel someone does or does not deserve inclusion in a longer post—just ask.