The Hall of Famers

1. Greg Maddux-You don't need me to tell you why Greg Maddux belongs in the Hall of Fame. The most popular viewpoint on his candidacy may be, "Anyone who doesn't vote for Greg Maddux is an imbecile and should have his (or her) vote taken away."

So instead, let's try to imagine how someone could possibly justify leaving Maddux off of a ballot.

A theoretical but indefensible proposition would be that Greg just wasn't quite good enough. But hey, several of these bozos managed to conclude that Rickey Henderson didn't belong in the Hall, so I guess anything's possible.

And then there is the "Steroid Era" crowd, who maintain that Maddux (a guy who dominated pitching for 15 years with an 88 mph fastball) is somehow under an 'umbrella of suspicion', or complicit in the steroid use of others because he, I don't know, didn't start hurling wild and unsubstantiated allegations at his coworkers. Yeah, that seems like a failure of integrity, sportsmanship and character on his part. That's the ticket.

And of course there's the ever popular "If Joe DiMaggio wasn't a first ballot Hall of Famer (he wasn't) and Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous (he wasn't, although he was competing against every player in baseball history up to that point), then no one should be!" Which sounds fine, until you apply what is known as 'logic' and realize that if everyone adopted that viewpoint, Greg Maddux would fall off the ballot with 0.0% of the vote. Which doesn't quite seem fair.

So yes, I think that anyone using one of the above arguments is an imbecile and should have his or her vote taken away. And sadly, at least two of those arguments will be advanced by the handful of voters who won't vote for Maddux.

But there is also the argument of game theory, recognizing that in reality Greg Maddux is in no danger of receiving less than 75% of the vote, or even less 95% of the vote. So there may be those voters who will determine that someone else on this stacked ballot 'needs' their vote more than Maddux. As I've already stated, that doesn't fit with my concept of what Hall voting should be about. It's not about helping 'your guy', but a collective decision that is made by everyone participating fairly. Nevertheless, as long as the Hall restricts the number of votes a writer can cast, many will be left allocating votes among more than ten worthy candidates--and if you vote for ten legitimate Hall of Famers, I guess I might have to countenance a vote against Greg Maddux on such grounds.

Not mine, though.

2. Barry Bonds
3. Roger Clemens
4. Mike Piazza
5. Jeff Bagwell
There is something these four players have in common.

What I'm referring to is, of course, the fact that all exceed the Hall standard at their respective positions by a huge margin and there is no cogent statistical case to be made against any of them. I suppose that one could attempt a tortured argument against Piazza on the grounds that catchers shouldn't get any credit for playing a position that wreaks havoc on the knees, back and head, or that Piazza shouldn't get credit for being a catcher because he was bad at it. (Although he wasn't bad at it, not when you take plate coverage and calling games into account. He had a weak arm, but he played in an era where teams were looking to hit balls into the seats, not play small ball. A flaw, but a minor one in light of his other qualities.) But we all know that's not why more than a handful of writers aren't voting for Piazza.

Where they differ is that two of them are admitted users of an anabolic steroid that is banned by the Olympics, the NFL and Major League Baseball. The other two are suspected on the basis of overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

The users, as you might have guessed, are Bagwell and Piazza. Both admitted using androstenedione, a performance enhancing anabolic steroid, while playing. Somehow both are receiving close to twice as many votes as the suspected users (Bonds and Clemens), each of whom has a case as one of the ten best players EVER. Why, then are these two facing what amounts to a blacklist? The answer "they were using ILLEGAL steroids" is all well and good, but how then are you going to justify voting for Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Mickey Mantle, who were using performance enhancing amphetamines illegally? Or Tim Raines, who slid headfirst into second to keep from breaking the vials of cocaine in his pocket?

It seems that a bigger issue is the perception--the unproven perception--that the substances ingested by Bonds and Clemens (and almost certainly other players on this ballot, and very probably other players already in the Hall) gave them a competitive advantage that was above and beyond anything you could get from 'andro' or 'greenies' or corking a bat or scuffing a ball (here's looking at you, Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford). The 'proof' of that is what happened in the late 90s and early 2000s. Players did things at a rate that had never been achieved before.

So in a way, Bonds and Clemens are being tarred with their own greatness.

There's also the disturbing fact that both were royal jerks in general and to writers in particular. And now those same writers are their judge and jury. You wonder how much of the pursuit of these guys was really about 'the integrity of the game' and how much was about 'the bigger they are, the harder they fall'...and payback.

For me, the whole exercise is hypocritical and pointless. The purpose of the Hall has never been, and never should be, to whitewash baseball history.

6. Tim Raines-Raines, much like Bert Blyleven, was hurt by the 'eye test'. He didn't look like one of the greatest hitters of his generation...and on top of that, he had a hard time getting looked at all since he played in Montreal.

But Tim Raines was, it so happens, one of the greatest hitters of his generation. Again, much like Blyleven he was hurt because his greatness wasn't readily apparent from the 'traditional' counting stats or batting average ('only' a career .294 hitter, 'only' 2605 hits, 'only' 170 HRs and 980 RBI.

Thing is, though, you don't have to get into the intricacies of park adjustments or defensive fielding metrics to appreciate Raines. His on-base percentage was .385. He accumulated more total bases than Tony Gwynn. The goal in baseball is to run all around the bases and get back where you started, and Raines picked up more bases than a no doubt first ballot Hall of Famer. He belongs, and in light of the pharmacopeia ingested by many of the other players on this ballot, concerns about his history of cocaine use 30 years ago seem almost quaint.

Tim Raines should be in the Hall, and I hope that his case eventually picks up steam.

7. Frank Thomas
8. Edgar Martinez
Here we have two guys who played more games at DH than elsewhere. Neither was any good as a fielder; Martinez occasionally played a somewhat important defensive position (3B, poorly), whereas Thomas more frequently played a much easier position (1B, poorly). Both were not only good but absolutely great hitters for ten year periods (Thomas' 7 year peak WAR is 45.3, Martinez' 43.5, both exceeding the average Hall standard for hitters).

And look, I'm not trying to argue that Thomas doesn't deserve your vote a little more than Martinez does. His longer career certainly counts for something, and as great as Martinez was at his peak Thomas was slightly better.

But as I've said many times before, if the Mariners had trotted out Edgar Martinez to play a lousy 1B the same way the White Sox did with Thomas (largely at his own request in later years, fully cognizant of the Hall of Fame implications), he would probably be at 50% on the ballot by now.

How, exactly, is it right that Martinez should be punished for not hurting his team by being bad at fielding? Isn't the goal of baseball to help your team win?

9. Tom Glavine-I discussed Glavine vis a vis Schilling and Mussina earlier--as I alluded to in the initial post, I do regard the magic number of 300 wins as a worthy tiebreaker. Schilling can't match Glavine in terms of length of career as an effective pitcher, and Mussina's puzzling decision to walk away with 270 wins is probably going to cost him. I don't have much of a problem with those who prefer one (or even both) of those pitchers to Glavine, but of the three it is Glavine who got my vote.

10. Rafael Palmeiro-And so we come to the end.

I also discussed Palmeiro's case in comparison to Craig Biggio's in the last post, as well as the fact that Palmeiro's anemic vote total has little to do with his statistical merits. Even among those who can countenance steroid users, Palmeiro's positive test in the 'post-penalty' era is apparently too much to stomach, in many cases.

And I do get that. Palmeiro would have had an uphill climb in any case in a sabermetric era in which 3000 hits doesn't get you bonus points in comparison to 2950. But I do think that he is too easily dismissed as 'merely' very good for a long time--he had more accumulated career value than Craig Biggio, Mark McGwire, Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines and Alan Trammell. There's nothing 'mere' about that select company. I object--perhaps for the last time--to the reduction of Palmeiro's career to the stereotype of a plodder and I do wish more writers would admit that his actual statistical case is a lot stronger than they have heretofore admitted.

And since this may well be Raffy's final rodeo, I leave you with one final, discomfiting thought...what if he was telling the truth? He was not named in the Mitchell report. He apparently passed a polygraph examination as regards intentional steroid use. Is it possible that Palmeiro's inexplicable use of steroids during his last year was really a one-off stupid mistake? Or even that his claims of having ingested something given to him by another player is actually what happened? I'm not saying that I believe it--I don't--but I have to admit it's not a matter of certainty. No matter how much the writers would like to be.