Hall of Fame Musings

I was absent on the day that Sutter's induction was announced, and thus missed my chance to contribute as our conversations were occurring. But having been pleaded with to add my two cents, here's a series of thoughts, mostly in response to various things said here, in no particular order:

1. Jim Rice vs. Albert Pujols: Colonel asserted that it's "a bit of a stretch" to compare Rice to Pujols. He's right: Pujols isn't in the same ballpark as Rice - yet. Pujols is well on his way to being a first-ballot Hall of Famer, as quite possibly the best overall hitter any of us have ever seen. He's a freak, and he's phenomenal - even in this juiced-ball/steroid era. But it takes more than 5 seasons to make the Hall - which is why the future candidacies of the likes of Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey Jr. remain debatable subjects. When Pujols sustains quality play for another 5 years, we can say he's better than Rice was. But not yet.

2. Andre Dawson: I said in my post on Monday why I thought he should be in - and wish to point Laz to that post. To say that Hawk was "nothing special" other than between 1986 and 1988 is flat wrong. Six of his eight All-Star appearances came at other times (3 before and 3 after). He was NL ROY in 1977. He won Gold Gloves every year from 1980 until 1985. If voters knew about or remembered Dawson's years with the small-market Expos - when, in ten seasons (including the strike-interrupted 1981), he hit 25+ homers three times and stole 34+ bases three times, and added that to his outstanding tenure with the Cubs, there'd be nobody voting against him.

3. Jack Morris: Laz says he was "just good" in all years other than 1984 and 1991. Wrong. His three 20-win seasons were in '83, '86, and '92. He won 15+ games in 12 separate seasons - 10 of which weren't '84 or '91. 3 of his 5 All-Star appearances, his two best finishes in the Cy Young races, the two years he led the AL in wins, his 6 best ERA numbers, his 5 best strikeout years - all not in '84 or '91. Jack Morris should get in due to both his regular season excellence and his playoff dominance.

4. HOF Qualifications: I think Laz is generally right that you should get in if you're either (a) "perenially" good, or (b) "dominant" for a shorter period of time. I'm not sure I agree with his 12/5 year split, but I think the basic rules are correct. I also agree with MJ's point that those who are the best or one of the best of their era merit more consideration. Winning awards, or even coming close, count as well.

I'd add (by way of reiteration) that some players will, and should, win admission based upon an "aura of dominance." Kirby Puckett is my best example: his stats and successes are not great on paper against other inductees, but anyone who remembers him thinks of him as an amazing, all-around stand-out player. When a guy has both good numbers and conveyed a sense of unique excellence, even if that sense and the numbers don't jibe, that tells me that the player was special enough to merit induction. It's another reason why Jack Morris should be in Cooperstown.

5. John Smoltz: Tough, tough call. He's only won more than 15 games twice. 177 wins and a 3.26 lifetime ERA are pretty fantastic, and that he was an awesome closer for three years certainly helps. I also think he has the "aura of dominance" about him. But he was #3 in Atlanta behind Maddux and Glavine, who are sure things for induction, and that could kill Smoltzie's chances. I'd probably punch his ticket, but don't bet on his admission.

6. The Juicers: Sosa will get in because, even though everybody knows he juiced, there's no actual proof. McGwire and Palmeiro may have some problems, though - Big Mac because of his absurd "testimony" before Congress in March '05 and Raffy because he's a lying shitbag who got caught. I would expect all of them to get there initially, but voters may punish them by not voting for each in their first year of eligibility.

7. Changing Vote Totals: MJ's question is a huge one: how does someone get in one year but not the one before? Of course these guys' credentials haven't changed. So generally, I agree that the shifting votes make no sense - with one exception: I think there is a sentimental difference between first-ballot HOF'ers and everyone else. Yes, it's a difference that has been created over time by the voters and the media, but it's a real one, like it or not - and I happen to like it. I like that guys like Cal Ripken get a special legacy because there was and is zero question as to his baseball immortality. That doesn't diminish the inductions of guys like Tony Perez, who are just as deserving; it's just a special recognition for those super-super special athletes.

One more thought on this last item: as silly as the changing votes are, I would not support a system in which you had one or two shots only. As foolish as the changing-vote system is, it has helped guys like Perez, Sandberg and Sutter - all of whom deserving of induction - get into Cooperstown.