Not too bad a ballot, actually: from my POV, if you vote for Blyleven, Raines, Martinez, McGwire, Alomar and Larkin, you are entitled to your Dawson's and Lee Smith's (Dawson may get in one of these days. Smith, not so much).

I like this ballot. It's a little bigger than mine would be be (and doesn't have Trammell), but I agree with JRVJ: I'm happy to give him Smith and Dawson if he gives me McGwire and Raines. And I guess if you're going to vote for 8 players, Smith and Dawson aren't HORRIBLE choices (though not the best) for the bottom end.

Dude has the newbie middle infielders, Tim and Bert. He can vote for Jack Morris twice for all I care.

BTW, Dawson is in the Hall of Merit (although he's one of our bottom picks). That should give him at least some stathead cred.

Lee Smith is underrated by statistical analysts in large part because his career fits in the gap between the Gossage/Sutter era and the Eckersley/Hoffman/Rivera era, and he suffers by comparison to both groups. If you look at each part of his career separately, he definitely belongs in a HOF discussion. (If I can ever get out from work and personal avalanches I'll write about this - I know, I know!)

-- MWE

I, too, heartily approve of this ballot despite the fact that I'm one of the legion of Lee Smith hating Cubs fans.

If every writer voted like this, we might be able to retire the pinata... but what fun would that be?

Well done, Mr. Bloom. Raines, E-Mart, AND Blyleven? We could let this guy become the be all and end of the Veterans Committee for all I care. The HOF would be better for it.

his career fits in the gap between the Gossage/Sutter era and the Eckersley/Hoffman/Rivera era, and he suffers by comparison to both groups

I think he suffers as versus Gossage, who pitched 520 more innings, and had some monster years.

As for Sutter vs. Smith:

Smith: 1,289.1 IP, 131 ERA+
Sutter: 1,042 IP, 136 ERA+

The real issue is, what is Sutter doing in the Hall, and why did he go in so much more easily than Goose.

As to Mariano, well, just about everybody suffers in comparison to a guy who is 1,090 IP and 202 ERA+, with a throw in Post Season of 133 IP at a .74 ERA. Hoffman has racked up the saves, but still only has 1,042 IP at a 147 ERA+, and Eckersley is just not comparable due to the starter's career.

If Sutter is your in-out line, I don't see how you can keep Lee Smith out. If you think Sutter is a mistake, and want as a minimum either the heft of Goose or the transcendence of Mo, then Smith simply does not make it, and Hoffman is also questionable.

The point I was making about Smith is that he doesn't have the heft of Goose mostly because of the changes in usage patterns for late inning relievers in the second half of his career, and he doesn't quite match up to Mo in part because of the way he was used early in his career (although the postseason thing makes a big difference, too).

-- MWE

I'm not adamantly opposed to Smith gaining entrance -- and I hate to revert to scribey "feels like"/"doesn't feel like"...

But man... growing up with Lee Smith closing games - forget 1984 - it was never a sense "whew! we got the game to Smitty".

Maybe Boston/St Louis fans feel differently, but of the Cubs I grew up with, Lee Smith just never 'felt' like a HOFer. He always seemed like a disaster waiting to happen. Watching Smith enter the game wasn't a time of relief, it was time to amp up the sedatives.

Cardinal fans only liked Sutter and Worrell as a closer, maybe Henke also, but Smith was far from a comforting thought.

still good ballot overall, I don't support Sutter for the hof either, and if you lower the line there and aren't giving massive credit for popularizing the splitter, then I just can't see a strong case for making him the in/out line. There are too many similar pitchers (Quiz, Smith etc) to lower the standards that much.

Part of that was the park effect-tho the shadows late in the day games would have worked in his favor you would think: half a hit more per 9 at Wrigley than overall. If you also consider the usually crappy Cubs defense, then yeah he'll look worse than he actually is.

The point I was making about Smith is that he doesn't have the heft of Goose mostly because of the changes in usage patterns for late inning relievers in the second half of his career, and he doesn't quite match up to Mo in part because of the way he was used early in his career (although the postseason thing makes a big difference, too).

-- MWE

I don't see it. I could buy an argument that says Smith is comparable to or better than Hoffman because Smith's rate stats suffered due to pitching more innings per season and appearing for more than a single inning often when he was younger, but I can't see how that puts him anywhere close to Mo.