Lower bar means bigger ballot
With Harold Baines setting the standard for induction, more players make my cut
The Baseball Hall of Fame is in danger of devolving into an old boys network similar to the Hockey Hall of Fame, where popularity trumps accomplishment and the bar of excellence is lowered year after year.
When Harold Baines was voted to the pantheon of immortals at Cooperstown by a 16-person veterans committee at the winter meetings in early December, it came just eight years after he had fallen off the official writers’ ballot on which he had never topped 6.1 per cent of the votes.
A candidate needs to be named on 75 per cent of the official ballots cast by the 500 to 550 writers, all 10-year BBWAA members, who spend a month seriously studying candidates. The writers, by and large, take their responsibility as they should. Yes, there will always be criticism of any process, but it has worked for 80-plus years.
The Baines turnaround was a slap in the face to a long-established process that at one time made baseball’s hall the most difficult shrine for players to enter.
Baines in effect becomes the Mendoza line for baseball immortality, meaning that anyone with comparable stats and a better career WAR can claim they should be in. Consider that on Baines’s final ballot in 2011, his WAR (38.7) and his career JAWS (30.1) each ranked 20th among that year’s candidates. Yet in a couple of hours in a conference room at the Mandalay Bay in Vegas last month, Baines was in.
I had not yet sent my 2019 ballot in, so the Baines announcement — he enters this summer along with star reliever Lee Smith, who topped 50 per cent once in his 15 years on the writers’ ballot — caused me to reconsider my picks and add two players I was not originally going to vote for, giving me the maximum of 10 on my ballot.
My 2019 ballot (alphabetically): OF Barry Bonds; RHP Roger Clemens; RHP Roy Halladay; 1B Todd Helton; DH Edgar Martinez; 1B Fred McGriff; RHP Mike Mussina; RHP Mariano Rivera; 3B Scott Rolen; OF Larry Walker.
Bonds and Clemens: Both their reputations and candidacies are tainted by the shadow of performance-enhancing drugs. Clemens and Bonds were the best players at their positions and among the greatest ever, so where do you draw the line? I draw the line in 2004.
It is impossible, as has been pointed out by many critics of the Hall process, to determine how many players enshrined at Cooperstown were dabbling or fully invested in steroids. Fingers have been pointed and innuendo directed at guys like Ivan Rodriguez, Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, among others, but they are hall of famers.
My personal decision was that in ’04, when MLB introduced mandatory testing with a clearly defined list of illegal substances that would see a player punished, that to me was the moment it officially became cheating. It precludes me from voting for Manny Ramirez and, once he is on the ballot, Alex Rodriguez.
A true disgrace for both the game and the players’ union was the truth that prior to ’04, there was no testing, so players in the Steroid Era looked around and saw other players improving their strength and endurance using pharmaceuticals. Money was huge. It was a matter of keeping up performance-wise, so just because Clemens and Bonds embarrassed themselves trying to avoid detection does not take away from the fact they were elite ballplayers. Put a scarlet letter on their plaques.
Helton and McGriff: These are the two that I added to my ballot after the Baines announcement. McGriff was a pure power hitter, never tainted by rumours of PEDs. His numbers and ability as a defender make him more qualified than Baines. I never voted for him before and he is the type of player who, six years from now, the Veterans Committee would vote in over cocktails.
Helton was a 17-year majorleaguer, all with the Rockies, which as history shows works against him. His best six years from 1999 to 2004 were hallworthy by any standards. He would be No. 10 on my list of 10.
Halladay and Mussina: A Blue Jays icon, Halladay was always going to be on my ballot in his first year of eligibility and he was always going to be a hall of famer, but after his tragic death off the coast of Florida in a small plane in 2017, voters have had a closer look at his numbers and he may go in on the first ballot.
This is the first time I have voted for Mussina. I have always considered him a solid candidate, but after writing in Doc’s name, I felt Mussina should also be included for his consistency as a staff 1-2, winning 270 games and being voted in the top 10 in Cy voting nine times.
I must admit I supported Cito Gaston for years. Gaston received death threats in Baltimore after Mussina pulled a stunt at Camden Yards at the 1993 all-star game, warming up on his own in the eighth inning when he wasn’t scheduled to pitch. The fans booed Gaston for not bringing Mussina into the game and for years he couldn’t walk the streets of Baltimore.
Edgar and Mariano: Two one-name recognition guys, with MLB awards named after them, also have the numbers for the Hall.
I figured if Baines could enter for winning DH trophies and the trophy is named after Martinez, then the Mariners star should automatically be in. I voted for Edgar the past three years. Rivera will be a firstballot inductee, taking over as Yankees closer from John Wetteland in ’97 and dominating baseball through an incomparable stretch of team success.
á Walker and Rolen: Two of the favourite players I worked with (Walker) or covered (Rolen). Walker’s numbers are stupidly underrated. His candidacy was hurt by playing so many years at mile-high altitude. Don’t ever blame his time in Montreal. People that counted knew who he was with the Expos.
Walker is one of the most instinctive and joyful players I have ever been around. Rolen, in his brief time with the Jays, was a grown-up leader in a clubhouse filled with attitude. His stats and his position are underrated in hall inclusion.
The official hall announcement will take place on Jan. 22.