San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
Hall of Fame Chron voters explain how they decided
Voters are asked to consider “the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
Enter Bonds, Clemens, Curt Schilling and Sammy Sosa, each in their last year on the ballot. Jeff Kent is in his ninth, penultimate year, while former Giants ace Tim Lincecum is especially prominent among first-time candidates.
With their votes turned in, we asked this year’s voters on The Chronicle staff who they supported. Participating were columnists Bruce Jenkins and Scott Ostler, national baseball writer John Shea, reporters Susan Slusser, Ron Kroichick and Steve Kroner, and sports editor Christina Kahrl. Columnist Ann Killion did not vote, and explained why. Ostler and Kroner are first-time voters. We also invited Henry Schulman, former Giants beat writer and reliable friend of the Sporting Green, to contribute his ballot and his thoughts.
Having already gotten their thoughts on Bonds in his last year on the ballot, we also asked all eight voters to explain who their toughest omission was (and why), and their reasons behind voting for a particular player.
Bruce Jenkins
Voted for (9): Bonds, Clemens, Lincecum, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Curt Schilling, Sosa, Omar Vizquel
Toughest omission: Jimmy Rollins. Examining his body of work, his spiritual guidance, his MVP award and the 50 postseason games played, I see a worthy candidate. It’s just that I’ve always judged players how they struck me at the time. As in, “I’m watching a Hall of Famer right now.” I never felt that way about Rollins, but it makes me wonder if I should adjust my criteria.
Why I voted for Sosa: I don’t need to be reminded about the inflated body or the corked-bat episode, or that he became so distant from baseball after retirement. But I’ve never acknowledged the Hall of Fame character clause. Too many rogues have come before. I vote for the greatest players — that’s it, no other criteria — and I think you can build a compelling case around 600 lifetime homers,
three seasons of 60-plus homers, the fans he delighted with his palpable joy, and what he did for the game of baseball in tandem with Mark McGwire. I’ve enthusiastically voted for him every single time, without thinking twice.
Christina Kahrl Voted for (10): Bonds, Todd Helton, Ortiz, Andy Pettitte, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Scott Rolen, Rollins, Gary Sheffield, Sosa
Toughest omission: Kent.
I’m a big-Hall voter, so it wasn’t just a tough call cutting down to 10, but down to 12. Not voting for Kent this time around was tough, but I expect to vote for him in his 10th and last ballot next year. Not voting for Tim Hudson, on the other hand, could cost the most durable pitcher from the Moneyball A’s his Cooperstown candidacy, because he barely survived the 5% cutoff in his first year on the ballot in 2021 — when I did have room for him. What Hall of Fame voters will do with starting pitchers in the future — not DHs, not closers — is their next big controversy after PEDs. Good candidacies like those of Hudson or Mark Buehrle will look great in 10 years when 3,000-inning careers are virtually extinct.
Why I voted for Rollins:
When I was at ESPN, I explained my support for Bonds, Sheffield and Sosa; I still see three Hall of Famers.
So let me instead explain why I voted for Rollins. He was crucial to the Phillies’ mini-dynasty that won the NL East five straight years plus two pennants and a World Series (2009); lest we forget, they were the big bad the Giants overcame in the 2010 NLCS en route to the first of their three World Series wins.
During Rollins’ run as the full-time shortstop of the Phillies (2001-14), he topped all MLB shortstops in wins above replacement (47.6 WAR), bettering even Derek Jeter (43.3). Flawed as WAR might be, that’s a suggestion of Rollins’ durable value as a premium defender, superb speedster, and power source. And he was a joy to watch play to boot. If voters screw up and he falls below the 5% mark in his first year on the ballot, it’s a shame and another collective mistake from my colleagues, peers and friends.
Ron Kroichick Voted for (3): Andruw Jones, Kent, Vizquel Toughest omission: Ortiz.
I struggled with Ortiz, mostly because the only evidence of his possible steroid use came from MLB’s survey testing in 2003. But I ultimately didn’t feel comfortable voting for him when I’m omitting so many other players linked to performance-enhancing drugs. It’s an imperfect process, obviously, and I might feel differently and vote for Ortiz in the future. Another, smaller factor: Ortiz took nearly 90% of his at-bats as a designated hitter, and I believe a Hall of Fame position player should contribute on both offense and defense.
Why I voted for Vizquel:
He was one of the best defensive shortstops in majorleague history (11-time Gold Glove winner), at a premium position. He contributed enough offensively (.272 career average, 404 stolen bases) to justify induction, in my view. Domestic abuse allegations against Vizquel are troubling, obviously, and nearly brought an end to my history of voting for him. I will not vote for him if he’s ultimately charged or if new developments warrant.
Steve Kroner
Voted for (6): Bonds, Clemens, Kent, Rodriguez, Rolen, Billy Wagner
Toughest omission: Ortiz. His HOF credentials are hard to ignore: 541 homers; a .931 career OPS, including a league-leading 1.021 in his final season of 2016 when he was 40; the postseason performances that included 17 homers, an ALCS MVP, a World Series MVP and three World Series titles. These two issues also were hard for me to ignore: his connection to the Mitchell Report and the fact he was almost exclusively a DH throughout his career. Neither of those issues individually would necessarily prevent me from voting for a player, but taken together, they swayed me — barely — to not vote for Ortiz.
Why I voted for Kent: No one has ever accused me of having excessive intelligence, so I’ll ask this apparently dumb question: Why shouldn’t I vote for Kent for the Hall of Fame? He hit the most home runs by a second baseman (351 of his 377 total) in the history of the game. Among Hall of Fame second basemen, only Rogers Hornsby (.577) has a higher career slugging percentage than Kent’s .500. Kent ranks tied for 30th in career doubles (560), ahead of recent HOF infielder inductees Chipper Jones and Jeter, who each had a longer career than Kent did. Kent won the NL MVP in 2000 and finished in the top 10 three other times. He wasn’t a great defensive second baseman, but how many times did his defense cost his team a game? Moreover, he did possess a strong arm, and was excellent in turning double plays. And yet, the highest percentage of votes Kent has received in his eight years on the BBWAA ballot was 32.4 last year. What am I missing? Scott Ostler
Voted for (10): Bonds, Clemens, Kent, Lincecum, Ortiz, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Rollins, Sheffield, Sosa
Toughest omission: Schilling. I invoked my own private selective character assessment. I stayed away from the character issue as it pertained to baseball and the steroid cheaters. We can debate each of them — were they bad for baseball or good for baseball? Schilling transcended that debate; he has been bad for America. The Hall of Fame wants character considered? I did my part.
Why I voted for Lincecum: As a first-time HOF voter, no way I was voting for Lincecum. Didn’t want to be branded a rookie buffoon. Then I read Jenkins’ column on why he’s voting for Lincecum. I realized: Stats and analytics are super-relevant, but in defining baseball greatness there is also an element of entertainment and, deeper, of magic. That little sunuvagun (Lincecum, not Jenkins) brought the magic.
Henry Schulman Voted for (10): Bonds, Clemens, Jones, Kent, Ortiz, Rodriguez, Rolen, Schilling, Sheffield, Wagner
Toughest omission: Helton. I did not have a gutwrenching omission this year, but the one name that keeps coming back to me is Helton, who is gaining traction but is
still hurt by the Coors Field effect and his chasm-like home-road splits. I will give him a closer look-see next year.
Why I voted for Sheffield: I think Sheffield is one of the most underappreciated hitters in my lifetime, if a 500homer guy can be viewed as such. Beyond the nine AllStar selections, five Silver Sluggers and longevity, Sheffield was one of the most feared hitters in the game, who combined power, speed (22 steals at age 38!) and the ability to get on base. Also, he did not have a single triple-digit strikeout season, which is astonishing for a .514 slugger who had 600-plus plate appearances eight times.
John Shea
Voted for (9): Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Kent, Ortiz, Rollins, Schilling, Sheffield, Sosa
Toughest omission: Lincecum. When Schilling said he no longer wanted to be on the ballot, my first thought was, “OK, I’ll give his vote to Lincecum.” A feel-good vote replacing a feel-bad vote. No matter how much I wanted to support Lincecum’s candidacy, his greatness didn’t last long enough, and Schilling’s numbers can’t be overlooked, his hate-spewing notwithstanding. Unlike Schilling, Vizquel no longer is on my ballot. A much easier omission with the growing allegations against him.
Why I voted for Sosa: In some ways, Ortiz and Sosa were the same guy. Ortiz is a first-timer on the ballot, Sosa a final-timer. It’s the first time I voted for Sosa, but I couldn’t omit him if I’m voting for Ortiz. Both were subjects of PED speculation, and both had major power spikes in their late 20s. But beyond their reported PED positives in 2003 survey testing, there were no further paper trails. It’s a fine line that needs to be drawn somewhere.
Susan Slusser
Voted for (10): Bonds, Clemens, Helton, Jones, Ortiz, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Rolen, Sheffield, Wagner
Toughest omission: Kent. I voted for Kent for the first time last season because he’s among the top offensive second basemen in the history of the game, but with the limitations of the 10-player ballot and the additions of Rodriguez and Ortiz, I had to leave someone off. Thanks to Schilling, though, for making one of the removals easy, since he requested voters refrain from checking his name.
Why I voted for Rodriguez: Rodriguez was suspended for positive performance-enhancing drug tests or he’d be a slam-dunk. But hey, Ramirez managed to surpass A-Rod in ridiculous positive test results, and I vote for him — once I decided to take PEDs out of the character clause equation, based on the inclusion of the primary leaders of the steroid era (Bud Selig, La Russa, Bobby Cox), it made on-field results my only criteria for the PED peeps.