Anno: Barry Larkin is a First-Ballot Hall of Famer, and Ed Price is a Moron

That about covers it…

As always, I reserve the right the change my mind. Perhaps I will be shown that Larkin was a better defensive player than I remember, or get convinced his offensive contributions were great rather than good.

Don’t worry ########, I’ll more than likely be e-mailing you soon enough.

Once again, during his prime years, he led all shortstops in OPS+, OBP, and a slew of other categories. Defensively, he was +74 in FRAA and posted a 51.7 WAR (defensive wins above replacement). He was also +505 in FRAR (fielding runs above replacement). Ozzie Smith, during that same time period, was just +48 in FRAA, posted a +17 WAR, and was +183 in FRAR. Omar Vizquel was +46 in FRAA, posted a 25.6 WAR, and was +240 in FRAR. Those two players were the dominant Gold Glove winners of the 1990s, with 12 Gold Gloves between the two of them from 1990-1999. Plus, both of them are generally considered to be two of the greatest defensive shortstops of all-time. During Larkin’s prime years (which you defined as 1990-1999), he was FAR better than two of the greatest defensive shortstops of all-time.

Madden: New York Mets make noise, but landing free agent slugger Jason Bay is doubtful

Tougher to say HOF Jim Rice or HOF Bill Madden?

The Madden HOF ballot…

Alomar
Larkin
Edgar
J. Morris
Blyleven
Dawson

Bert Blyleven - Needs to make up 13% and has been gaining steadily each year. How long can a pitcher who ranks fifth all-time in strikeouts, to go along with 287 wins, be kept out? And, with 60 shutouts, how is it going to be explained to Blyleven in the future when the writers start voting in pitchers from the pitch-count era with zero career shutouts?

Jack Morris - “Black Jack’s” disappointing 40-ish% showing each year is presumably reflective of his career 3.90 ERA and the absence of any Cy Young hardware on his mantle. But voters really need to look past that and judge him on the fact that he was the ace of just about every staff he pitched on (as evidenced by his 14 Opening Day starts) and that he was one of the greatest postseason pitchers of all time (4-2, 2.96 in three World Series). He also led the AL in wins twice, was a five-time All-Star and holds the all-time record for putouts by a pitcher.

Mercury News: The Carl Steward HOF Ballot

Very early raw vote results (no pct. not enough full ballots) from my HOF tally.

10 - Alomar
9 - Blyleven
9 - McGwire
7 - Dawson
7 - Larkin
7 - E. Martinez
7 - J.Morris
4 - Raines
3 - L.Smith

-- Baseball Hall of Fame ballot mailed: Votes here for Roberto Alomar, Jack Morris, Mark McGwire, Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, Andre Dawson and Lee Smith. Prediction on who actually makes it: Alomar, Dawson.

-- Tough omissions: Barry Larkin, who may get my vote someday but only when I decide it’s also time for Alan Trammell; and Dave Parker, whose all-around qualifications are too similar to Harold Baines, who isn’t a Hall of Famer. Edgar Martinez? Amazing hitter, but no.

Cybermetrics: Morong: Some Players With A Good Sabermetric Case For The Hall Of Fame

To come up with this list, I looked for players who were:

1. in the top 150 in wins above replacement (WARP) from Sean Smith’s site
2. in the top 120 in MVP win shares as listed at baseball reference
3. in the top 200 in career Win Shares from Bill James’ book
4. in the top 150 in batting plus fielding wins or BFW (from Pete Palmer and the Baseball Encyclopedia)

...So Alomar will be an interesting case. McGwire has the PED scandal. But Hernandez is surprising. He ranks so highly by different measures including MVP voting. So the voters saw something in him all those years while he was compiling a stellar sabermetric resume. Anyone have an explanation for why he is not in? I think all of the guys who meet 3 or 4 of the criteria deserve serious consideration. The players with a * will be eligible for the first time in this current vote. MVP stands for MVP shares. This list is not meant to be complete-only to show players who pass some major hurdles.

Dick Allen just misses making the top 120 in MVP shares. If he had made that, he would meet all 4 criteria. Andre Dawson looks very good except for his low BFW rating. The only place where Bobby Grich falls down is in MVP shares. Sherry Magee meets 3 of the criteria. The only one missing is MVP shares and they had very little of that in his day. We can say the same thing for Bill Dahlen, whose rankings are very high. Perhaps the most astounding MVP share is for Willie Randolph, .004, for a rank of 1157th yet his rankings in the sabermetric stats are great.

Maybe Randolph will get a slight managerial HOF bump...(substitutes Coffemate with Topiramate...stirs)

Sandler: Will Gaston be a Hall of Fame candidate as a manager?

Dunno...I mean, Tex Rubinowitz isn’t in the dopey Rock and Roll HOF yet. So you just never know.

Gaston won two World Series and made the playoffs four times in his first 12 years. The 65-year-old currently sits 70th with 809 wins and will likely finish the 2010 season between 65th and 67th among the nearly 700 men to have managed in the big leagues. He is also trailblazer of sorts as the first, and only, African-American manager to win a World Series.

In terms of winning percentage, Herzog’s .532 mark is better than Gaston’s .516, but it is not as though that has been the measure of managers over the years. Connie Mack, the all-time wins leader among managers, was a sub-.500 manager and Casey Stengel, The Old Perfessor, barely won more games than he lost. Wilbert Robinson managed the Brooklyn Robins to two pennants and no titles in 18 years, finished with a record of 1,399-1,398 and gained election by the Veterans Committee in 1945.

Veterans Committee voting is historically an esoteric exercise and figuring which way the winds will blow for a particular candidate is nearly impossible.

However, based on some of the other managers already honoured at Cooperstown, Gaston’s credentials merit debate.

Jenkins: First ballot is all Alomar should need

Always a fun time of year (along side Bam-Bam Battaglia’s “Pants Off/Roll Off” tourny week...of course)...Bruce Jenkins’ soul-stirrin’ HOF ballot.

Roberto Alomar
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Jack Morris
Dave Parker
Mark McGwire

and

Don Mattingly: He won’t make it, and I’m well aware of that, but in the short time he excelled, Mattingly had that rare ability to stir the soul. His swing personified the uncoiling of a precise, well-conceived instrument, and he was revered by even the finest opposing hitters. His name must appear on the balloting somewhere.

but

Close, but not quite: Bert Blyleven and Andre Dawson.

ESPN: Gammons Ends Hall of Fame Run with ESPN

Baseball Hall of Fame journalist Peter Gammons has decided to pursue new endeavors and will no longer be a contributor to ESPN after this week’s winter meetings.

“My decision to leave ESPN and move on at this point in my life has been conflicted. I owe a great deal of my professional life to ESPN, having spent more than half of my 40 years in journalism working for the network, and the choice to move on was made with nothing but the strongest feelings for the people with whom I worked. ESPN gave me a great deal more than I gave it, and will always be a huge part of who I am.

Murray Chass on Baseball: Marvin Miller: THERE WAS A TIME BUT NO LONGER

They’ve hired men with their crabtree sticks to cut him skin from bone
And the Miller he’s been served worse than that

That Kuhn is in the Hall of Fame and Miller is not is a true baseball travesty. It lessens the stature of the Hall. Miller is 0-for-4 in less than seven years. No one who made such an impact on baseball should endure such humiliation.

“I think the oh-fer goes further back than you’re suggesting,” he said. “You have to remember that under their rules if an executive is over 65 and retired, you didn’t have to wait five years. You were eligible immediately. Having retired at the end of 1982, you’re talking 0 for 27 years at the moment.”

Miller is more than ready to retire from the game. “I really offered to get them off the hook,” he said. “They could say ‘What do you want; he doesn’t want to be on the ballot.’ They wouldn’t take that either.”

There was a time when Miller would have appreciated the honor, but that time has passed.

“I think of all the people who were close to me,” he said, “childhood friends, adult friends, my mother, my wife. They’re all gone. It might have pleased them. I take that back. It would not have pleased my wife. She was an early one who said you have to be patient; don’t rock the boat. But even she changed from years back. When I finally wrote a letter saying I don’t want to be on the ballot, she said ‘I hope you mean it.’”

Terry Miller died last month. Miller is 92. “You look at the calendar,” he said. “I won’t be around forever.”

RLYB: Jaffe: Book Excerpt: Evaluating Baseball’s Managers - Joe McCarthy

A similar philosophy existed in McCarthy’s approach to hitting and pitching.  His hitters prioritized walks and home runs, and relying on fielders meant pitchers had to keep walks and homers in check.  McCarthy’s teams clubbed more home runs than they surrendered in each of the 22 seasons he managed.  The odds on that happening by random happenstance are one in 4,194,304.  His record with walks was nearly as impressive.  His squads drew more free passes than they surrendered every year except 1944 (when they allowed only nine more than they earned) and with a few of his Chicago squads.  Overall, his squads belted 2,891 long balls while allowing 1,711, a difference of 1,180.  As the list below shows, McCarthy gained more benefit from the home run than any other manger:

Best Home Run Differentials
Joe McCarthy +1,180 home runs
Bobby Cox +828 home runs
Miller Huggins +533 home runs
Tommy Lasorda +506 home runs
Earl Weaver +465 home runs

Herzog, Harvey elected to Hall of Fame

Doug Harvey, a five-time World Series umpire, and Whitey Herzog, a six-time division winner and manager of the 1982 World Series champion St. Louis Cardinals, were elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by the Veterans Committee for Managers and Umpires, it was announced on Monday.

The news is breaking so fast that the above is the entirety of the MLB.com article.

Rany on the Royals: Kevin Appier: A Retrospective.

I can not, in good faith, make a case that he deserves enshrinement in the Hall of Fame. But I hope that at least one of the several readers of this blog who have a Hall of Fame vote will check the box next to his name anyway. The nature of Hall of Fame voting is inherently broken, as Bill James brilliantly laid out in his opus “The Politics of Glory” (later published under the name “Whatever Happened To The Hall of Fame?”)

The binary, up-or-down nature of Hall of Fame voting allows no room for nuance, and provides no mechanism for voters to distinguish between shades of Hall of Famers. This leads to a situation whereby a player who everyone agrees is just shy of being Hall-worthy gets no votes, whereas a player that has the support of a vocal minority of voters stays on the ballot year after year. This is how Lou Whitaker gets tossed off the ballot after one year, while Jack Morris sticks around year after year, gaining enough momentum each season to make his election a worrisome possibility.

...Appier might not get a single vote when the results are released next month, or he might receive enough votes to stay on the ballot another year. Neither result will have any impact on his place in my experience as a baseball fan. Kevin Appier was the shining beacon of light in my journey from hard-core baseball fan to insanely obsessive baseball fan to burgeoning baseball writer in the 1990s. He was a reason for me to turn on the TV or the radio or follow the play-by-play on the proto-web every fifth day. He was the inner wall of defense against the rising tide of despair that lapped at the shores of the Royals throughout the 1990s, and it’s no coincidence that the bottom fell out on the organization soon after he got hurt.

I can’t imagine my history as a Royals fan without the eight years I spent watching and rooting for Kevin Appier. No matter whether the Hall of Fame chooses to give him some small measure of remembrance next month, he’ll be remembered by the fans that had the pleasure to watch him pitch for a long time to come.

Thanks to The Mingori Details.

Murray Chass on Baseball: PITCHER OVERDUE FOR HALL

Or...How Murray Chass browbeats the liver-snaps out of the Hal Bodley’s of the world about JACK MORRIS!

Morris was not about to lose that game. He would stay on the mound as long as it took Minnesota to win the game and the World Series. That’s the kind of pitcher he was. His way could not be measured by the statistics that have infested baseball in recent years – FIP, WHIP, VORP and assorted other acronyms.

The purveyors of these statistics ignore the intangibles that enable someone like Morris to win a 10-inning Game 7. Pitchers, not initials, win those games. Sadly, we are heading for the time when voters who are immersed in those numbers and initials will be the preponderant Hall of Fame voters, just as they hijacked the voting for the Cy Young awards this year.

In giving the awards to Tim Lincecum and Zack Greinke the voters said the number of victories a pitcher has doesn’t matter. I’m not sure how far they are prepared to take that stand, but wins still count.

Morris thinks so.

“It’s supposed to be about winning,” the 54-year-old Morris said in a telephone interview Friday, “but somehow that has faded away. It’s amazing. I don’t know why it’s evolved into this. Statistics are now used to pad stats for salary arbitration with little care if your team makes the playoffs with a chance to go to the World Series. Guys are missing out on the fun part of the game.”

I asked Morris how he felt about the so-called sophisticated statistics, the ones with the fancy initials. “I’m really not familiar with them,” he said. “I don’t even know what they are.”

NYT: Rosenheck: A D.H. in the Hall? It’s a Numbers Game

No...it’s not another pro-Dirk Hayhurst bit. It’s a Rosenheck of a HOF article.

But there are two extra arguments for Martinez. First, he arrived in the majors late. The Mariners were committed to Jim Presley, so they did not make Martinez a starter until 1990. According to calculations by Dan Syzmborski of Baseball Think Factory, Martinez’s minor league numbers in 1988 and 1989 suggest he would have accumulated 469 plate appearances at an O.P.S. 12 percent above average had he played in Seattle.

Second, Martinez played a perfectly good third base through 1992, and was relieved of his glove only to keep his bat in the lineup after a series of injuries. If Martinez is to be docked for being a D.H. in his later years, he needs to be credited for being a two-way threat early on. The position-switcher and the replacement-player methods each find that playing third base is worth 19 hits per year more than playing first.

After adding on the minor league years and four seasons of credit for playing third base, Martinez winds up with the same value as an average defensive first baseman with 9,141 plate appearances and an O.P.S. 44 percent above average. That translates to one notch below Harmon Killebrew (9,830 plate appearances and an O.P.S. 43 percent better than average) or Willie McCovey (9,686 plate appearances and an O.P.S. 47 percent better than average) — or near the bottom of deserving Hall of Famers but worthy of induction. Analysts who do give extra credit for the D.H. penalty would see Martinez as a peer of those sluggers, and an obvious selection for Cooperstown.

Wellman: Dave Parker Deserving of Hall

If _____ is in the HOF then _____ belongs in. If Jim Rice is in the HOF then...SOMEBODY REALLY ###### UP!

The other player with over 2.50 MVP Award Shares eligible for Hall of Fame election but not yet voted into Cooperstown is Dave Parker, the other 1978 MVP. Dave Parker had 3.19 career MVP Award Shares, barely more than Jim Rice. His skill set was different from Rice’s: Parker was a Gold Glove right fielder, while Rice was an oft-criticized (albeit surprisingly good upon examination) left fielder; both Rice and Parker led their league in OPS and total bases in 1978, but Rice had 66 more total bases than Parker that year. Rice was much better than Parker in the early 1980’s, but Parker’s 1985 was better than Rice’s 1986, and Parker had a 19-year career, not a 16-year career. All told, Rice had 1384 runs created, for 6.0 RC/G, and Parker had 1451 runs created, for 5.5 RC/G. Rice had the higher OPS+, 128 to 121, as well as more home runs, but Parker had more hits, runs, and RBI. Parker was unquestionably a better post-season player than Rice.

In essence, Dave Parker is the National League analogue to Jim Rice. They both peaked at the moment in baseball history most likely to conceal their excellence. Rice had a slightly truncated career, perhaps due to vision issues; Parker lost a couple of his best years, perhaps due to substance abuse. But few of baseball’s heroes are perfect, and, given by how much Dave Parker exceeds the 2.50 MVP Award Share milestone, perhaps the BBWAA voters should, at the least, take a moment to review Parker’s career in the context of its time before casting their ballots.

Justice: Even at 75, humble Hank touches people to the core

Aaron declined to discuss Bonds and Roger Clemens and their possible use of steroids because both are the object of criminal investigations. However, on the topic of Pete Rose, he was emphatic.

“I think Pete has paid his dues,” he said. “I’d like to see him go into the Hall of Fame. The commissioner (Bud Selig) may know more about this than I do. From what I know and see, I’d like to see his statue right beside mine in Cooperstown.”

Aaron said the records of steroid users should remain on the books.

“If anybody can tell me steroids is the reason someone hit so many home runs, I’ll be the first one to tell them it’s a lie,” he said. “I will say the thing it does is help you recover quickly. It also sends a bad message to our young people. I think all the records should remain like they are. I think those guys deserve everything they did.”

Lest someone think he’s condoning steroids or cheating, he’s clearly not.

“I’m proud of the mark I left behind,” Aaron said. “People can say whatever I accomplished was clean — 755 home runs was hit with nothing but ability. I never got involved in anything. I smoked one cigarette. My mother saw me doing it and slapped it down my throat.”

He said the worst thing steroids do is send a message to youngsters that their use is OK.

“These kids watch,” Aaron said. “They emulate everything you do. We do owe them something. I’m proud of the fact that I played 23 years and my body is still healthy.”

Thanks to Ball-peenin’ Barnald.

OCR: Earl Bloom HOF Ballot

Alomar, Blyleven, Dawson, Larkin, E. Martinez, McGwire, Raines, LEE SMITH…

Henderson: Here’s one Hall of Fame vote for steady (and clean) Fred McGriff

and the only vote...so far.

His teams made the playoffs five times and he has a World Series ring. He twice led the league in homers – once with Toronto and once with San Diego. Three times he was in the top 10 in MVP voting.

His misfortune was to play in an era where team chemistry took on an altogether different meaning. I know sports heroes disappoint us every day (see Woods, Tiger), but I’d be stunned beyond all comprehension if it ever came out that McGriff juiced.

For one thing, he never had the quantum jump in power totals like so many in the Juice Era did. McGriff never hit more than 37 homers in a single season. Barry Bonds, on the other hand, hit 73 homers at age 36 – after hitting 34 bombs at age 34.

I suppose diet and exercise could explain it.

I think there ought to be special consideration given to those who we’re reasonably certain didn’t cheat. I realize that’s totally arbitrary and cleanliness exists primarily in the minds of the voter, but it’s also the type of judgment we’re supposed to make.

ESPN: Neyer: Does Big Mac belong in the Coop?

Devils Advocate: The Art of the Coop.

McGwire was, at his best, a devastating hitter; the sort of hitter that Jim Rice’s admirers imagine Rice was. In Rice’s best season, his adjusted OPS was 157. McGwire topped that figure in six seasons. Until Barry Bonds decided to bulk up (ahem), McGwire really was the game’s most feared hitter.

...But it goes even beyond that, doesn’t it? There have been, for many years, rules prohibiting corked bats and doctored baseballs, but we know there are players in the Hall of Fame who happily violated those rules. We also know that many, and perhaps most of the great players of the 1970s routinely and illegally ingested stimulants with the express purpose of enhancing their performance.

For me, this is the heart of the matter. Like steroids, stimulants in the 1970s (and afterward) were used as performance enhancers. Like steroids, stimulants were generally against the law, but willfully ignored by the Lords of Baseball. I would absolutely love for someone to explain to me the difference between what Mark McGwire (allegedly) did, and what the superstars of the 1960s and ‘70s were doing.

When someone can do that, I’ll be happy to reconsider my opinion of Mark McGwire’s Hall of Fame candidacy. Until then, I suspect that he’ll have my vote when I’ve got one.

Viva El Birdos: Ray Lankford for the Hall of Fame: A Completely Dishonest Proposal

or...How did Bruce Sutter get in?

Fact

The Hall of Fame voters are making far dumber mistakes on their own.

They’re going to induct Jack Morris pretty soon. They inducted Bruce Sutter, ostensibly because he invented the forkball, and Jim Rice, because sportswriters became convinced, one after the other, that pitchers were terrified of the guy. Ray Lankford is better than Bruce Sutter and could well be better than Jack Morris and Jim Rice.

They don’t do an awful job; they don’t give some worthy players (Will Clark, Lou Whitaker) the time of day, and they’re far too easily persuaded by a player being the best X or having the most Y of time-period Z, but they get most of the easy ones right and have avoided stepping on a few landmines in their day. They’re far better than the Frankie Frisch-led Hall electors of the seventies, who would stop at nothing until they made plaques for everybody who briefly considered playing baseball in the thirties. But they don’t appear to have a cohesive idea of what the Hall of Fame is and who belongs there; it seems like anybody who is suspected of having symbolized some movement or time period in baseball history is elected without question, to be sorted out later, when some intern has to prune the narratives.

Ray Lankford can be an overrated narrative player for a new generation, one fond of positional adjustments, walks, power from punchless positions, and players who get heckled for striking out too often. He could found a new wing of the Hall of Fame for players whose nicknames involve the letter K, whose fanbase struck out at the team’s best player for the failings of its worst members. He already has a Hall of Very Good named after him; I am only proposing that we go one step further.

Conclusion

I just can’t do it…

Perpetual Post: Megdal & Pummer: Andruw Jones

Megdal: Seeing Andruw Jones’ decline is still nearly impossible for me to believe.

This Willie Mays of our generation, the center fielder with 10 Gold Gloves and 342 home runs- by AGE 29!!!- signed a one-year deal for $500,000 with the Chicago White Sox. How can he not be worth that? Or far more than that?

I still remember him effortlessly getting to any fly ball. His ease was infuriating to opponents- but there was an appreciation that someone truly incomparable was on the field.

How did he manage to post a .207/.304/.393 batting line in 2007-2009? How could his defense have suffered so much that the Rangers played him at Designated Hitter?!?

Through age 29, his offensive comp, according to Baseball-reference.com, was Frank Robinson. That’s right: he was Frank Robinson at bat, plus 10 gold gloves in center field defensively. He was that good.

Now, his closest comp is Dale Murphy, another player who inexplicably veered from the Hall of Fame track with too quick a decline.

A resurgence wouldn’t shock me. If he simply averages 23 home runs a year from age 33-37, he’ll get to 500. Add that to his unimpeachable peak, and Jones can still make the Hall of Fame.

I, for one, hope it happens. As a baseball fan, I feel robbed by his career.

I feel for ya...but I’m not using a Juan Ruben Rivera drop twice in one day. Sorry.

Klapisch: Hall voters consider Robbie Alomar

Alomar finally comes clean...on that horridable ‘03 Mets team.

Alomar is equally clear-eyed about his disappointing tenure with the Mets. He batted just .266 in 2002, dropping 70 points off his previous year’s average in Cleveland. Alomar was hitting .265 halfway through the 2003 season before he was traded to the White Sox. Realizing he was quickly losing his elite skills – “I never would’ve allowed myself to be remembered as just an average player stealing money” — Alomar retired in 2004 at age 36.

His mediocrity as a Met still gnaws at him, but Alomar believes the culture of underachievement affected everyone at Shea. “No one played up to their potential in those years; that’s the only way I could explain it,” he said. “There were a lot of unhappy guys, and that rubs off on the way you perform on the field. I wasn’t myself, but no one else was, either.”

Across town, the Yankees were in the middle of a run of 13 consecutive postseason appearances, and Alomar admits to being envious of that prosperity. In fact, if he has any regrets in his career, it’s that he never wore pinstripes.

“That’s one team I would’ve liked to have been part of,” said Alomar, who played for the Padres, Blue Jays, Orioles, Indians, Mets and White Sox. “I always thought it would’ve been great to say I played for George Steinbrenner.”

He still keeps an eye on the current Bombers, including a certain second baseman who reminds Alomar of himself – the flashy, gifted (and often nonchalant) Robinson Cano.

“When you have too much talent, you can end up playing that way,” Alomar said of Cano. “But I do think Robinson is going to be an MVP and Gold Glover. That’s how good he is. The rest is up to him.”

Bill Livingston: This writer won’t hustle for Roberto Alomar as a first-ballot Hall of Famer

Doctored Livingston, I presume?

Roberto Alomar is on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot for the first time this year. I can’t vote for him.

A .300 lifetime hitter and often a magician around second base, Alomar played like poetry in motion for most of 1999-2001 with the Indians. At least that was so until his emotions and the muddled processes inside his head turned the poems into graffiti. Then, the magician made the Indians’ chance to win disappear.

I will vote for Alomar next year if he doesn’t make it. But not this time. First-ballot inductees are the cream of the crop, the ultra-elites. A player who hurt his team’s chances to win and gave less than his best in the decisive game of a playoff series doesn’t qualify as the very best.

...When Mark Shapiro was named the new general manager after the season, replacing John Hart, I brought up Alomar’s fifth-game performance in a meeting. Shapiro admitted that Alomar did not give his all that day. He knew the player was a diva, and traded him before the next season.

Although he hit only .190 in the ALDS, Alomar hit .336, a career high, in the 2001 regular season. He never came close to it again as a full-time player in the three years he had left. That was a surprise.

It was also karma.

MLB: Noble: Keith Hernandez deserving of Hall of Fame

Take heed, all ye egg-headed Bennett Serf types and stow away that OPS stuff...thine Nobleity of the Futile System speaketh.

When putting check marks on the ballot, the rule—to me—is to be as selective as Ted Williams with a 3-1 count. The term “borderline Hall of Famer” ought to be regarded as an oxymoron. A step on the Hall of Fame borderline is not akin to a bloop that raises chalk. If a player falls on the line, he doesn’t get my vote.

The analysis of career performances has become increasingly difficult because of the effects of expansion, which has produced an increase in players eligible, the effects of steroids, which have distorted so much of what we witnessed and tracked for two decades, and the real decline in the level of fundamental execution. What we see these days isn’t Branch Rickey’s or George Kissell’s baseball.

...Where is it written that first basemen must also be sluggers? Hernandez wasn’t. He probably wouldn’t have been even if he had not spent most of his career playing in home ballparks that were home run unfriendly. Neither old Busch Stadium nor Shea Stadium surrendered easily. But he was a productive and clutch hitter.

Hernandez scored more runs and drove in more runs per 500 at-bats than Robinson. And when we finally put away all the OPS stuff, runs win games. But if batting average is a yardstick, Hernandez’s average in his 13 prime seasons was 30 points higher than Robinson’s in his 18 prime seasons.

Offensively then, Robinson did it longer, Hernandez did it better.

And no matter how much credit Robinson gets—and deserves—for his brilliant defense, Hernandez, as a first baseman, was at least comparable to Robinson as a third baseman. Each was best at what he did for an extended period. One is Hall of Famer. The other ought to be.

THT: Jaffe: Book excerpt: “Evaluating Baseball’s Managers, 1876-2008”—Dusty Baker

The fifth crucial distinction was the different batboys Baker had in San Francisco and Chicago. That sounds frivolous, but it mattered. With the Giants, Baker made the players’ children team batboys in an attempt to foster a positive atmosphere. Baker firmly believed happier teams play better. Fathers who could go weeks without seeing their kids got to spend the day hanging out with them. Someone who committed an error or struck out three times could still return to the smiling face of his child, which shone through all of the crowd’s boos. A bench player could more easily endure his lack of playing time if his son was with him. The batboys motivated the players, putting them in the best frame of mind to win: enjoy the game, have fun, and do not sweat the small stuff. It not only made them happier and better focused, but it also put the players’ priorities in order. First comes family, then the job you do to support it, and after that everything seems insignificant. Also, the kids made sure the adults remained on their best behavior without Baker having to say a word.

Unfortunately, in the 2002 World Series Baker’s own son nearly got run over at the plate, causing Bud Selig to issue guidelines for hiring batboys. The Cubs had generic batboys and considerably less fun. If ever a team could benefit from hearing a child’s laughter, it was the 2004 Cubs, who constantly sweated the small stuff.

One other concern should be noted. There is no profession where people’s talents and abilities stay fixed forever. As Baker got older, he likely declined. His style centered on empathizing with his players. The older one gets, the more difficult it is to relate to twenty-somethings. Baker was neither as bad as he appeared in Chicago nor as good as he seemed in San Francisco. What happens in Cincinnati will determine his managerial legacy.

Bah! Not even Louie Van Zelst could get the Cubs over the hump.

MLB: Bodley: This could be the year for Dawson, Blyleven

Voting Man Behaving Bodley…

History tells me that former National League MVP Andre Dawson, one of only six outfielders with 300 homers and 300 stolen bases, should make it. And so should Bert Blyleven, who’s fifth on the all-time career strikeout list.

Both came close last year, when Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice were chosen, and they’ll get my vote on the 2010 ballot.

So will Jack Morris. There should be an investigation about why he hasn’t gotten more support for Cooperstown. But that’s another story.

I’m wrestling with whether to check Roberto Alomar’s box.

Alomar’s the most likely of those being considered for the first time to make it, but does he really deserve to be in the select company of the 44 players chosen by the BBWAA in their first year of eligibility?

NYBD: Silva: I Applaud Davidoff for His Stance on McGwire

Since Davidoff-limits…

On Saturday Ken Davidoff wrote a column that should have received more national recognition. It’s not often that anyone, mainstream media or otherwise, admits to being wrong about something, much less a position on Mark McGwire. It’s easy to take the high road and treat McGwire’s career as the baseball version of the anti-Christ. His 98′ record breaking season is sometimes viewed as the poster for all that went wrong during the steroid era. Since none of us- that includes fans- can absolutely say how PED’s impacted McGwire’s performance we can’t deny the results.

...It’s ok if they don’t vote for McGwire because they believe his performance on the field is not Hall worthy. To use their vote as a means to perpetuate a “holier than thou” position on the ethics of the game bothers me. It’s the same type of thoughts process that produces talk radio phone calls from some “baseball dad” that wants to know what he is going to tell his kid now that their favorite player was caught using PED’s. It’s the proverbial throwing rocks while standing in front of a glass house. Davidoff is man enough to admit he is wrong and I hope others follow. As for the baseball dad- and his kid – little Johnny is going to learn the world is a cold and cruel place soon enough. If Mark McGwire cheating is the worst thing he has experienced to date consider him lucky. It’s only going to get much harder from there.

THT: Jaffe: Book excerpt: “Evaluating Baseball’s Managers” - Charles Comiskey

Plus...Jaffe video!

A common theme existed in Comiskey’s teams: Fielders meant more than pitchers. Both were important, but pitchers were more replaceable. Comiskey needed a hurler with control who could constantly take the mound, but if he wore out that was fine. Comiskey could always replace him with another hurler, so there was no point in being gentle.

This approach was especially well suited to the period Comiskey managed. Think about it: How was it possible that pitchers could throw 400-500 innings or more year after year without destroying themselves? Simple - they were not expected to put too much “oomph” on each pitch. Thus the fielders were more important in stopping the opponents. With the big change in 1893, this relationship between fielders and pitchers began to shift. (It shifted further in the 1920s with the liveball, but that is getting ahead of the story.) Comiskey intelligently adapted to the conditions.

However, the above paragraph does not give full credit to Comiskey’s strategy because it was much more than an approach that worked in 1880s baseball. Though one could not ask a pitcher to throw the gargantuan inning totals achieved by Silver King, the basic approach still worked, as evidenced by Comiskey’s White Sox. Pitchers and fielders who complemented each other was an effective way to stop opponents from scoring, and it allowed teams to push their starters harder.

Most important of all, Comiskey’s formula was not merely something he personally utilized; it may be the most commonly replicated route to success in baseball history. In particular, the effort to place control pitchers before terrific fielders was adopted by numerous managers in the years since Comiskey left the dugout. This style of baseball became the style of play from 1893 to 1920, as skippers such as Fred Clarke, John McGraw, Pat Moran, Buck Ewing, Frank Selee, and Frank Chance owed varying degrees of debt to Comiskey’s system.

The Columnists: Allen: Yankee shortstop may be the game’s all-time best

Count the NuvaRingzzzzs! I’m ready to explode!.....As Maury Allen wants to update his Baseball’s 100 book and guess what?!

Now, three decades later, when I think about updating the book, I think about Derek Jeter as No. 1 in the game. Now, then and always.

...The measure of Jeter’s brilliance on the ball field does not always come with overwhelming statistics, in the numbers-mad Great American Pastime. It comes with a catch he made while falling into the stands against the Red Sox or a never-before-seen play he made against Oakland in the playoffs by shuffling a ball home from the third base line against a non-sliding Jeremy Giambi or an unbelievable grab of a Texas league fly ball.

It comes with the clutch home run in the late innings of a Boston game, a playoff game or a clash in October against the Phillies. It comes against the game’s best pitchers at crunch time when the fans in the stands at Yankee Stadium are breathing smoke.

It comes, almost always with Jeter, in only the games that matter.

Minnesota’s MVP Joe Mauer won his third batting title with a .365 mark this year, freakish for catchers, and Albert Pujols collected his third MVP title with a .327 season, 47 homers and 135 RBIs. They each qualified to make my list in the new Baseball’s 100. Of course, steroids-addled Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens have to be up there somewhere, too.

But for my money, Jeter is the game’s No. 1 player, now and forever. Sorry about that, Babe.

Viva El Birdos: Jack Morris and (Matt Morris and Matt Morris)

I’m reminded of Wayne Morris playing Wayne Morris in Screen Snapshots: Hollywood Plays Golf.

But baseball news is baseball news, at this point, right? And discussion is discussion. So in the grand tradition of blogging, I’d like to show you this weird thing I found: Jack Morris, apparently inevitable Hall of Fame mistake, vs. two Matt Morrises stacked on top of each other.

...Matty-Matty-Mo becomes Jack Morris’s most similar player by a significant margin, somewhere in the 920s. The only real differences between these guys is Our Morris’s substantial control advantage and Other Morris’s famous complete games. I liked Matt Morris a lot, and there are scenarios in which he could have been a Hall of Fame-caliber pitcher; he came up young and was immediately excellent, and if he doesn’t lose two years in the late-90s and his fastball sometime in the middle of 2003 he might be the poor man’s Mike Mussina.

But the version of Matt Morris we got is not very suitable for Hall of Fame cloning. He’s got three all-star-type seasons, one of which might have won the Cy Young in a weaker year, some solid fragmented seasons, and four years of bulk pitching. It’s a few years of the Matt Morris we’ll all remember appended hastily to the career of Kyle Lohse. These are not pieces you can make into a Hall of Fame pitcher, but they’re exactly what Jack Morris has, along with a reputation for tenacity, a habit of completing games, and two heroic World Series performances out of three.

Blair: Alomar deserves a call from the Hall

Can always count on Jeff Blair for the first full ballot.

So I’m rattling around last Friday trying to get stuff done before heading to Germany for some pre-Olympic stuff overseas and – ting! – into the e-mail box arrives the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot announcement. I’ve been looking forward to this one, not because I will continue to beat my head against the wall and vote for Mark McGwire and Tim Raines, but because I will now have a chance to vote for Roberto Alomar.

I don’t know if Alomar will be a first-ballot inductee because of his infamous spitting incident but he should be. He is the best second basemen I’ve seen in person (missed Joe Morgan, and Ryne Sandberg is a fraud-uct of Wrigley Field).

When he does get elected, he will go in wearing the Toronto Blue Jays hat on his plaque – the first player to do so. Oh, and while I won’t vote for Andre Dawson, but this is his best shot of getting in.