Love and baseball

So, Lynne and Matt have been married for six wonderful months. Bet you were expecting a post about love and wonderfulness.
Would you settle for a rant about baseball with the promise to finish the honeymoon adventures soon? Deal.

So, Monday afternoon, the Baseball Writers Association of America will announce who has been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Let's get this out of the way right off the bat (ha ha): Matt has no problem with the way the voting is done. Yes, the writers should vote. Yes, players who get less than 5 percent should be off the ballot. Yes, it's fine to create "sub-class" of First Ballot Hall of Famers.
No, no, no, a thousand times no, more people shouldn't be let in. Matt thinks less should. A few years back, Matt and his dad traveled the Baseball Hall of Fame. It was fantastic. But when you walk into the room with the plaques, well, it's very small. Tiny. And to Matt, it seemed...right. The Hall is for the best of the best. Not the pretty good. Not the above average. No, it is for the most outstanding players to ever step foot on a baseball field. The Greats.

Matt knows that football writers do the voting a bit differently and that's fine. Matt just loves the debate that swirls around baseball and the elite nature of The Hall. Very good players are not in the Hall of Fame - former MVPs (even two-time MVPs), home run champs, World Series heroes. Fine.
So, here's how Matt would vote for...wait.
Matt should really give some general parameters for what he thinks a Hall of Famer is.

First, the Hall of Famer should have a decade of excellence, where they are among the best players at their position.
Second, they should have some semblance of an all-around game. Excelling in one aspect of the game is not to be ignored, but more well-rounded players will do better.
Third, MVP awards, Cy Youngs, all-star selections count. They are a measure of how dominant the player was in his era. In his era is an important thing, too. Not every era may have a Hall of Fame catcher, for instance. Sometimes two or three might be playing. But the key is that players should be compared against others in their position and others in the league as a whole when they played.
Fourth, there are no "magic numbers." So, cough, Rafael Palmeiro, cough, Craig Biggio, just because you limped along to 500 homers or 3,000 hits, that's not a free pass.
Fifth, bonus points for excellence in the post season.
Sixth, and most suspicious: the player should have been magical. Someone who, if you were walking by the TV, you stopped just to see them hit/pitch. A player who you sat in car for a few extra minutes, just so you could hear what they'd do. Granted, that's not exactly a measurable quality and it varies greatly from viewer to viewer, but there's something there. Rafael Palmeiro didn't have it. Willie Mays did. Don Sutton didn't have it. Sammy Sosa did.

OK, so, now the candidates:

The No Ways
Jay Bell, Dave Cone, Ron Gant, Jesse Orosco, Dave Parker, Dan Plesac, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams.
Matt is a bit surprised that any of these players were in the league long enough (10 years) to qualify for the ballot. Cone and Williams were the best of this bunch, but no thanks. (And Matt can never forgive Mo Vaughn for stealing the Mets money.)

The They Were Pretty Good But Not Hall of Famers
Harold Baines - Harold Baines is in the nice guy Hall of Fame, the designated hitter Hall of Fame, and the Mutes Hall of Fame. He was a very good hitter who hit well in the post season. Was he dominant? No. He finished in the top 10 in MVP voting once. He did end his career with 2,800+ hits. If he had limped his way to 3,000 is he really a different player? Some voters would say yes. Matt says no.

Mark Grace - One of Matt's favorite players and another great guy. Most hits in the 1990s. Did you know that? Everyone likes to bring it up as often as possible. He was a good hitter and a great fielder. Very good post season hitter. He finished at .303 lifetime, but...never in the top 10 in MVP balloting, never won a batting title. He may become a Hall of Fame broadcaster, however.

Tommy John - 288 wins with a .555 winning percentage look pretty good for Surgery Man. 26th on career wins, 26th on shutouts and 48th in strikeouts. Because he pitched pretty well for a long, long time. Never really dominant. Four times in top 10 for Cy Young - no wins. Close, but no.

Don Mattingly - Don Mattingly had the homers, the batting titles, the MVP awards and the mustache for the Hall of Fame. But, sadly, it all fell apart too quickly. For five years he was great. Then, he couldn't stay on the field. Retired at 34. These are the guys you feel sorry for when you see all the 'roided up players.

Tim Raines - A great base stealer. A one-time batting champ. Top 10 in MVP voting thrice. Fifth all time in stolen bases - a few ahead of Vince Coleman, who will get zero votes for The Hall. A good player, but are you really going to put his plaque next to Lou Brock or Willie Mays? Please. If Maury Wills isn't in, Tim Raines shouldn't be.

Lee Smith - Here's what there is to say about Lee Smith: His save totals are spectacular - top three all-time - and he led the league four times. Four finishes in the top 10 in Cy Young voting. If he had pitched in New York or Boston, he'd be the conquering hero. Here's the questions about Lee Arthur. What's the big game he saved? What's his Moment? And if you were going to the ninth, up one, bases loaded, two outs - would he be the guy you'd hand the ball to? Is he in your top 10? 20? Dunno. This is a tough no, for now.

Alan Trammell -Trammell's case is mostly made up intangibles - his leadership and hustle. Still, he finished second in the MVP balloting and was a mainstay on the all-star team at shortstop. He played very well in the World Series. But he didn't do one thing really well, when compared to the rest of the league. Never led the league in a single category. Career .285 hitter. An argument can be made, but no.

The Almosts But Not Quites
These are guys Matt could still be convinced on. These are the ones he agonizes over.

Bert Blyleven - 27th all time in wins, but 10th all time in losses. Fifth all time in strikeouts, but 29th in walks. Ninth in shut outs, but 10th in earned runs allowed. Never won an MVP, never won 20 games, never won a Cy Young. Led the league in strikeouts one time. For now, no. Perhaps Matt could still be convinced.

Jack Morris - Of all the people, this is the toughest 'no' vote. He had 250 wins, three 20-win seasons and was the ace workhouse on some very, very good teams. And - most crucial - in three World Series he was 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA. His team won every one. And he threw 10 shut out innings in game seven of the 1991 World Series. He was the guy you wanted the give the ball to. Never won a Cy Young or an MVP. No...but Matt certainly can be swayed with more study.

Dale Murphy - Two MVP awards are very hard to dismiss. Throw in five gold gloves for the converted catcher. He was one of the best players at his position, but did he play long enough? 398 homers and a .265 average? Eh. Most painfully for him, very little postseason magic. By the thinnest of margins, no.

Jim Rice - Look at Jim Rice's numbers. Look at Andre Dawson's numbers. Where is the outrage that Dawson is not in the Hall, like the outrage there is for Rice? Rice was a feared slugger who won an MVP and led the league in homers three times. But he couldn't field a lick, couldn't run and didn't last very long. He gets a bump by playing for the vaunted Red Sox. He's got a good case. But for now, no.

The Yes Barelys
By the slimmest of margins

Andre Dawson - Against: .279 average. No post season numbers, essentially. For: Four 100-RBI seasons, an MVP award, eight Gold Gloves, 436 homers, 316 steals.
Matt may be a bit tainted because he watched Dawson as a kid. What Matt saw was a guy who was tough, who carried his team. He was a leader and was feared by opponents. So, yes, barely.

Mark McGwire - Surprised? Well, Matt is too. But here's the deal. Yes, Mark McGwire was using steroids. No question. But was he among the best players of his generation? When he came to the plate, did you stop what you were doing? Was it artificially enhanced? Yes, yes, yes. The problem with the steroid players is this: Who was using and who wasn't? OK, Palmeiro had a positive test. But what about Clemens? Sosa? Bonds? Bagwell? Where do you draw the line on players you know for sure weren't using. You can't. When you see the names on the Mitchell Report, there's not much rhyme or reason to who's on there. So, how do we know who's clean? All you can do is say that this is the steroid era, just as there was a dead-ball era and an era when the best black players were segregated. Then, judge the players against their peers. In that criteria, McGwire was among the best. Besides the steroids, his biggest problem is his lopsided stats. He couldn't run or hit for average. But, at this moment, a begrudging yes.

The No Doubters
Rickey Henderson - He only batted .279 lifetime. Otherwise, Rickey Henderson could do it all.
Hit. 339 in the World Series. Redefined the lead off position in baseball. 3,055 hits. Most runs scored ever. Oh yeah, and 400+ more stolen bases than second place. That would be the equivalent of Alex Rodriguez ending his career with 1,100 home runs.

This year's ballot was pretty weak, but there's some hum dingers coming up. Can't wait to vote for Ellis Burks!