The 2022 Hall of Fame BBWAA Election, Part B [2022 Hall of Fame Round-Up]
February 1 [That was the day I aimed for…] February 22, 2022
The light of other days is faded, And all their glories past. Alfred Bunn
In this post, I will discuss the results of the 2022 BBWAA Baseball Hall of Fame election for all of the 30 players who were eligible. Each discussion will simply be about whatever struck me the most about each candidate. But first:
Congratulations to David Ortiz and the BBWAA
The 2022 election of David Ortiz to the Baseball Hall of Fame by the BBWAA [Baseball Writer’s Association of America] is a triumph of applied intelligence over knee-jerk stupidity. Due to a slight whiff of steroid scandal, Ortiz barely scraped in, just making it over the 75% of the ballots requirement by eleven votes. But the baseball writers got it right. The election of Ortiz may finally bring a sense of balance to the steroid argument. Murder and jaywalking are both crimes. But they differ greatly in degree and punishment. To keep Ortiz out of the Hall because of his reported positive test in 2003 would be a total injustice. The 2003 test was agreed upon between the Major Leagues and the Player’s Union. The results were supposed to be anonymous and then quickly destroyed. The reason for the 2003 test was to impose steroid testing on the players if the steroid saturation was greater then 5 percent (it was). However, though the samples were quickly discarded, the results were not. The United States Government subpeonaed the results and they were then leaked. Since 2004, the Major League players have played under a regime of steroid rules, regulations and punishments. David Ortiz played the great bulk of his career (from 2004 to 2016) without ever failing a League administered steroid test.
In other words, David Ortiz was accused of a baseball crime that: 1) was not on the books at the time of the violation; and 2) could not even be defended against because the evidence had already been destroyed. In addition to this, Ortiz himself had been wronged by a breach of confidentiality. Did the results indicate that Ortiz took steroids? Would retesting Ortiz prove that the result was a false positive? Was the result from an over-the-counter supplement or did Ortiz inject some Nandrolone or Stanozolol? Was Ortiz simply completely innocent? It is unknown and unknowable. Ortiz himself denied that he had ever knowingly taken any steroids. In a court of law, this case would simply be thrown out. Compare this to the case against Alex Rodriguez. A-Rod also reportedly failed the 2003 test. But it was reported that he failed specifically for Primobolan, an injectible steroid. Unlike David Ortiz, Alex Rodriguez did not deny that he used steroids. In fact, A-Rod admitted that he used steroids from 2001 to 2003. Just on these basic facts, there is quite a bit of difference between Ortiz and Rodriguez. And, as far as I can tell, no one has addressed the fact that A-Rod’s steroid of abuse was identified. Doesn’t that mean that, if Ortiz had taken an injectible steroid, it would have been identified too? If it was not an injectible steriod, David Ortiz must have taken, either knowingly or unknowingly, an over-the-counter supplement. Or the test was just a false positive and Ortiz is totally innocent.
Obviously, there is quite a bit of difference in the evidence just for the failed 2003 test between David Ortiz and Alex Rodriguez. Of course, Alex Rodriguez was later suspended for the entire 2014 season for his part in the Bio-Genesis scandal. The evidence collected from Bio-Genesis showed that Rodriguez had continued to use steroids after 2003. Despite overwhelming evidence against him, Rodriguez fought the accusations to the bitter end, lied constantly about everything, and threw anyone and anybody under the bus to protect himself. Even after he lost, Rodriguez fought against the punishment (and succeeded in getting it reduced). The criminal baseball charges of steroid usuage against Alex Rodiguez are the equivalent of assault most foul. Meanwhile, the crime under baseball law that David Ortiz faced was the equivalent of a dismissed charge for a misdemeanor that wasn’t actually a written law at the time. It was entirely appropriate for the Baseball Writers to let David Ortiz in the Hall of Fame while keeping A-Rod in baseball purgatory. While Ortiz deserves the congratulations that he has received for his well deserved enshrinement into the Baseball Hall of Fame, the Baseball Writers of the BBWAA deserve praise also for doing the right thing.
Player Comments in order of their vote totals and percentage, then followed by years on the ballot with career bWAR totals and their place among the 30 players who were on the 2022 BBWAA ballot.
1) David Ortiz [307 of 394, 77.9%, Ballot 1-ELECTED] 55.3 bWAR/16th
David Ortiz was one of three very similar players on the 2022 BBWAA ballot. The other two guys just like him were Manny Ramirez and Gary Sheffield. Each of these men was primarily a slugger. Each of these men was not known for his defensive value. Each of these players was stained to some extent by the steroid scandal (Ortiz got dirt on his shoes, Sheffield had sludge splashed all over his clothes in a drive-by, and Ramirez fell into the mudhole and ruined his suit). To evaluate their worthiness for the Baseball Hall of Fame, I first use a simple Lowest Common Denominator [LCD] method. There are 235 eligible players in the Hall of Fame. According to the website Baseball Reference, the 235th ranked eligible player has a career Wins Above Replacement value of 52.5 bWAR [the b to indicate the WAR value comes from Baseball Reference]. There are many players in the Hall of Fame who do not meet this 52.5 bWAR standard, and an equal number of unelected who are over it [98 in fact]. The great majority of these 98 unelected players are not eligible for the Hall [still active, not retired for the required five years, Pete Rose, etc]. Of course, this bWAR rating should never be the deciding factor of a player’s exclusion from the Baseball Hall of Fame. But I firmly believe that any player over the 52.5 line should certainly be elected eventually.
There were 30 players on the 2022 BBWAA Ballot. Incredibly, sixteen of these players had more than this 52.5 bWAR lowest common denominator standard for their career. This high number is abnormal. The backlog of fully qualified candidates whose elections have been sidetracked by steroid allegations has clogged the docket. Of these 16 players, Manny Ramirez was 6th with 69.3 bWAR; Gary Sheffield was 9th with 60.5 bWAR; and David Ortiz was 16th and last of those qualified with 55.3 bWAR for his career. Despite this, David Ortiz was the only one of these three hitters (or all 16 that qualified for that matter) who was elected. These three sluggers are ranked by Baseball Reference in the same order if you list them just by the offensive component of their total career bWAR [Ramirez with a 91.0 oWAR, Sheffield with 88.2 oWAR, & Ortiz with 76.2 oWAR]. Defensively, Gary Sheffield takes the iron glove award home with an awful -27.7 dWAR in 2576 games played. Manny Ramirez (with -21.7 in 2302 games) and David Ortiz (-20.9 in 2408 games) were not much better. None of these men are going to the Baseball Hall of Fame for their glovework. However, despite the fact that their career and offensive bWAR statistics rate these three players consistently in a Ramirez-Sheffield-Ortiz order, it is quite clear that David Ortiz was actually the best player of the group.
This deduction does not stem from any intangible addition to David Ortiz’s career value. By reputation, David Ortiz was a far greater team player than either Ramirez or Sheffield. That is not being counted. Neither of the other two players can match Ortiz’ post-season heroics (which are basically pretty much unmatched by anyone except maybe Babe Ruth). That is not added in either. The reason for the conclusion that David Ortiz was better stems from a deeper look at their career bWAR values. From age 30 on, David Ortiz was a better player than either Manny Ramirez or Gary Sheffield. After getting out of his 20s, David Ortiz had 39.9 career bWAR; Sheffield had 36.7 bWAR; and Ramirez had 34.2 bWAR. And it is not even as close as that makes it look. Ramirez and Sheffield both played until they could play no more. David Ortiz retired and called it a career after the 2016 season, a year in which he hit 38 HRs and slashed a .315/.401/.620 line [BA-OPS-SA] with 5.2 bWAR while also leading the American League in doubles [48!], RBIs, and slugging percentage. Obviously, David Ortiz could have continued his career and added to his post-30 bWAR total. The conclusion that Ortiz was a better player than either Gary Sheffield or Manny Ramirez after they turned 30 is hardly controversial.
While David Ortiz was almost surely a greater player from age 30 on, Manny Ramirez and Gary Sheffield make up ground in their 20s. Before he turned 30, Manny Ramirez collected 35.1 career bWAR; Gary Sheffield accumulated 23.8 bWAR; and David Ortiz came in last with just 15.4 bWAR. Was David Ortiz not as good a player as the other two guys in their 20s? I don’t believe so. It was just a question of opportunity. When he reached the Major Leagues, Ramirez was immediately given a full time job and told to thrash. He continued to do so until they took his job away because his bat had died. Sheffield came up, was given a full time job, and also told to mash. He didn’t blast off right away because of his own immaturity and some poor handling by his teams. But Sheffield eventually straightened out and blasted away until his bat expired too. On the other hand, David Ortiz came up with the Minnesota Twins. In an epic case of poor talent management, the Twins would not or could not just commit and give the man a job. The Twins brought Ortiz up, sent him back down to the Minors, tried to change his swing, benched him for other lesser players, and generally bungled his career. This doesn’t make David Ortiz a worse player than Ramirez or Sheffield in his 20s, just a less lucky one. In my opinion, David Ortiz was a greater player than either Manny Ramirez or Gary Sheffield, no matter what the career bWAR statistics seem to indicate.
As mentioned in a prior post, the election of David Ortiz to the Baseball Hall of Fame will be notable for one other aspect. Ortiz is being inducted with two other living players. These three players will stand together on the podium on July 24, 2022. Each will get a chance to make a speech. The two other players being inducted with Ortiz are Jim Kaat and Tony Oliva. Both of these players are identified with the Minnesota Twins organization. In many ways, Kaat and Oliva are part of the heart and soul of the Twins organization (along with Rod Carew, Harmon Killebrew, and perhaps Joe Mauer). David Ortiz came up with the Twins. However, he has written two entire autobiographies that trash the Twins organization. It wouldn’t be hard to make the case that Ortiz hates the Twins and especially their former manager-for-life Tom Kelly. The possibility that David Ortiz trashes the Twins one more time in his Hall of Fame induction speech is not zero. Of course, it is more likely that David Ortiz just does not mention his former club and simply concentrates on his good times with the Boston Red Sox. There may even be a small chance that he says something positive about the Twins. David Ortiz is certainly capable of being the greater man. I can’t wait to see what happens.
2) Barry Bonds [260 of 394, 66.0%, Ballot 10-DONE] 162.7 bWAR/1st
In his tenth and final year on the Baseball Writers’ BBWAA Ballot, Barry Bonds fell 36 votes short. His shot at entering the Baseball Hall of Fame through the front door is finally over. Oddly, his opportunity to sneak in through the back door [as a Veterans Committee pick] begins immediately. Bonds is eligible for selection by the Today’s Game Era Committee [one of the 4 former Veterans Committee zombie sub-committees] in December 2022 for induction in 2023. The obvious question is: Will the lock on the back door be any looser than the chain on the front door? In the past, the former baseball players, executives, historians and writers that usually staff these sub-committees have been even harder in their public statements about actual or suspected steroid abusers than the Baseball Writers that vote in the BBWAA elections. If that continues to hold true, Barry Bonds shift from the BBWAA ballot to the usually much less discriminating Veterans Committee will not help him. Perhaps an even more interesting question would be: Has Barry Bonds already been punished enough for using steroids?
Rather than being elected on the very first ballot, Barry Bonds got the slow American-CIA-waterboarding-torture experience of being denied year after year for 10 straight years by the BBWAA. Is that punishment enough? Does the crime fit the punishment? Or should he continue to suffer? Barry Bonds was, without a doubt, a steroid user. The US government investigation into his steroid supplier, Bay Area Laboratory Co-Op [BALCO], laid bare exactly when Bonds started using steroids, which steroids he took, what schedule he took them on, and even when he stopped. Although he was eventually acquitted of perjury, the evidence that Bonds took steroids is overwhelming. In a way, the steroids evidence against Bonds is as unique as Bonds himself was as a baseball player. Because the government prosecuted (or persecuted) Barry Bonds for perjury, the complete scope of Barry Bonds’ abuse of steroids is known. Compare this to the steroid case against Alex Rodriguez. Because he lied so much about his steroid abuse and only admitted use under duress, the full scope of Alex Rodriguez’ steroid aided and inflated career is unknown and probably unknowable. There are even allegations that Rodriguez was taking steroids in High School. Who really knows? This cannot be said about Bonds. With the full scope of Barry Bonds’ steroid abuse well-known, what should be his punishment? Are there any mitigating circumstances?
By the mid-1990s, Barry Bonds had established himself as the greatest player in the game. Despite this, Bonds had to accept second-place publicity-wise to Ken Griffey, Jr. Bonds made it well-known that he believed he was the better player. Then the steroid wave, which had been building for some time, began to peak. Ken Caminiti, jacked to the max on raw roids, won the 1996 National League MVP. Mark McGwire, a great home run hitter before steroids, became a home run monster through better chemistry. In 1998, McGwire and Sammy Sosa, also probably on steroids, shattered the single season home run record. McGwire was the 1998 NL MVP. Barry Bonds, the best player in Baseball, was forgotten. Most athletes are competitive. The greatest are typically insanely competitve. Bonds, with his competitive juices probably on fire, decided that he needed to juice up to continue to compete. From 1999 until 2003, Bonds showed the game of Baseball what it’s very best player could do when totally roided up. What happened during those five years can only be described as awe-inspiring. While he was jacked up, Bonds turned the game on its head. In Baseball, the pitcher always has the advantage because the batter fails far more times than not. Maximum Bonds reversed that equation. This must have been what it was like to watch Babe Ruth at his peak in the 1920s.
Taking steroids was not illegal by Baseball’s very own rules when Barry Bonds decided to level the playing field for himself with the other steroid monsters. But it was definitely a crime. In 1990, the United States Government passed the Anabolic Steroids Control Act. This law criminalized the possession of anabolic steroids. More importantly, it was a ethical crime. It was well known that taking steroids gave the juiced athlete a competitive edge. Thus, Barry Bonds was guilty in both a criminal and ethical sense. But, once again, it was not technically a crime in according to baseball’s own rules and regulations. This brings up the issue of why steroids proliferated throughout baseball at that time. Who was guilty for allowing steroids to overwhelm the game? The pretty clear answer to this question is the Baseball Owners and their personal representative, the Baseball Commissioner. In a very real sense, the Owners are the stewards of the game. They should have been working hand-in-hand with the Players’ Union to protect the game. Instead, the decades from 1970 to the 1990s saw the Owners at war with the Players. Because the two sides were fighting with each other, no one was steering the ship. The Owners had abandoned their stewardship of the game itself. So the next question should be obvious. Was this war the fault of the Owners or the Players?
Interestingly, the 1990s plague of steroids has some interesting similiarities to the Chicago Black Sox, Baseball’s greatest scandal. During the decade of the 1910s, the Baseball Owners firmly established their control over their players. At that time, the Owners held the players in a type of employment bondage through the application of a ‘reserve clause’ in all players’ contracts. Basically a player was owned by his team. In other words, the Owners conspired with each other to never let any player really bargain for his true value. Normally, this would be totally illegal. Under the law against monolopies, businesses cannot collude with each other to set prices or salaries. However, in one of the strangest decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court’s long history of bizarre opinions, the Baseball Owners got a ruling granting them a monopoly and protecting their enforcement of employment servitude. With the players well aware that they were being cheated of fair compensation, gambling interests were able to begin to corrupt some players. This rot snowballed until finally eight members of the Chicago White Sox team conspired to throw the 1919 World Series. In a way, the 1990s steroids scandal is the flip side of this earlier 1910s gambling scandal. The Baseball war that snowballed from the 1970s to the 1990s was an aftermath of the end of Baseball’s system of employment slavery.
During the 1970s, the Players, through their Union, overturned the ‘reserve clause’ system in Federal Arbitration and won the right to eventually become free agents. The Owners immediately began a long crusade to try to put the expensive genie of free agency back into the bottle. The Owners’ desperate attempts to reinstate some form of employment servitude on the players led to: 1) the cancelation of a good part of the 1981 season; 2) a 1984 conspiracy to set salaries that ended in collusion convictions against the Owners in the late 1980s; and finally 3) an all-out war with the Players Union that ended the 1994 season, canceled the 1994 World Series, and then delayed the start of the 1995 season. The Players’ strike that wrecked the 1994 season and also continued into 1995 only ended when the Owners were convicted of Federal Labor Law violations. The Baseball Owners abandoned their stewardship of the game because of greed. And no single person was more responsible for the Owners abandoning their role as stewards of the game than Bud Selig, the owner of the Milwaukee Brewers who became the Baseball Commissioner. Selig, for reasons of obvious self-interest, was always deeply involved in the Owners’ long struggle against the players. He was the Commissioner when the 1994 World Series was canceled. The 1990s can just as easily be labeled the “Bud Selig Era” as the “Steroids Era.”
Which brings us back to the question of whether there are any mitigating circumstances for Barry Bonds use of steroids. Just like the 1910s when the Owners’ greed allowed gambling to overwhelm baseball, the Owners’ greed allowed steroids to swamp baseball during the 1990s. As already stated, the Federal Government banned steroids in 1990. If they had not been so busy fighting the Players Union, the Owners could have worked out an agreement to monitor and test for steroids right then. The warning signs for the coming deluge were already in place. The Owners abandoned their responsibility to the game. If they had worked out an agreement banning steroids in 1990 or shortly thereafter, Bonds almost certainly does not end up changing into a mutant version of Babe Ruth nine years later. To punish Barry Bonds for the very competitiveness that made him great while giving Selig and all the other Owners a pass for what happened seems unfair. Especially since these same Owners made a fortune from the steroid-aided superhuman assaults on the baseball record books before the house of cards fell apart. Despite all this, Bud Selig was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame without a dissenting vote in 2017. Is this fair?
Which brings us back to our initial question. Has Barry Bonds already been punished enough for using steroids? The answer that question is undoubtedly yes. If he had retired or hit by a bus in 1998, Bonds would have been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame on the very first ballot. In a steroid clean Baseball universe, there is no argument for keeping him out. The ten years of public misery inflicted on Bonds is sufficient. One could even claim that there was something majestic about Bonds refusal to go down quietly before the tidal wave of steroids in the game. Bonds may have made the wrong choice by joining the crowd, but one can surely sympathize with why he did it. And the fact that Bud Selig has been already been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame destroys any argument against the induction of Barry Bonds also. Bud Selig, probably more than any other single person, was responsible for the fact that steroids inundated the game. To put Selig in the Hall while keeping Bonds out is just hypocrisy. The only other argument for keeping Barry Bonds out was that he was not a nice guy, basically a miscreant. With the caveat that no one is ever a total jerk, Bonds certainly had a prickly personality. This certainly didn’t keep Ty Cobb or Ted Williams out of the Hall. As a personal prejudice rather than an actual argument, it should count for nothing. It’s the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Nice Guy Hall of Fame. In my opinion, Barry Bonds has done his penance and deserves to immediately be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame without any further delay.
3) Roger Clemens [257 of 394, 65.2%, Ballot 10-DONE] 139.2 bWAR/2nd
The argument for Roger Clemens’ induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame is the mirror of the Barry Bonds debate. While Bonds was the best player in his prime and also arguably of all time, Clemens was the best pitcher in the game at his peak and possibly of all time too. Just like Bonds, Clemens was accused of using steroids and then prosecuted (persecuted) by the U.S. govenment for perjury after denying he did under oath. Like Bonds, he was also acquited by a jury. Both men played their last Major League season in 2007, then became eligible for induction into the Hall of Fame in 2013, and were forced to spend 10 years twisting lockstep in the wind waiting to be elected. Just like Bonds, Clemens would have been overwhelmingly elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot without the steroid allegations. All the arguments made that Barry Bonds has already been punished enough, while certain people who bear an even greater burden for the steroid scandal have been rewarded, also apply to Roger Clemens. In one way, the argument for Clemens is actually stronger than the argument for Bonds. The case against Clemens for abusing steroids is much weaker than the case against Bonds.
The evidence against Barry Bonds is basically overwhelming. The evidence against the Rocket just boils down to the word of one man against another. While there is an absolute certainty that Bonds took steroids, there is only an extreme likelihood that Clemens took some sort of steroids or (more likely) Human Growth Hormone. The evidence against Roger Clemens boils down to just three things: 1) the testimony against the Rocket by his former personal trainer Brian McNamee, 2) the evidence presented by McNamee to support his claims [which was basically used needles stored in beer cans for ten years], and 3) the testimony of his former teammate Andy Pettitte that he had a brief discussion with Clemens about using Human Growth Hormone [HGH]. When Clemens went to court, all three pieces of evidence fell short. Brian McNamee was a convicted liar with an obvious grudge against Clemens. There was no chain of custody for McNamee’s supposed used needles (and no evidence of steroids or Clemens DNA on them either). Pettitte confirmed that HGH was mentioned in a conversation with Clemens. But once again confirmed under oath that he could not exactly remember the context. Unlike Bonds, there were no receipts or payments directly linking Clemens to the purchase of steroids. Unless their lawyer was totally incompetent, no one would have or should have been convicted on this evidence.
Unlike Bonds, it is much harder to pinpoint Clemens’ steroid usage simply by looking at his career. Usually three peroids of his career are mentioned when Clemens is accused of steroid usage: 1) his 1997 and 1998 seasons with the New York Yankees when he was 34 and 35 years old; 2) his 2001 season when he had a won-loss record of 20-3 at the age of 38; and 3) his 2004 and 2005 renaissance years with the Houston Astros when he was 41 and 42 years old. The 1997 and 1998 years can actually be explained away without resorting to steroids as a reason. In 1996, Roger Clemens began developing and using a devastating split-finger fastball (which he comically called Mr. Splitty). During the 1996 season, Clemens led the American league with 257 strikeouts. But he also walked 106 men while he struggled to control his new pitch. It was the only year in his whole career when he walked over 100 men in a season. In 1997 and 1998, Clemens had control of the split-finger and had two great seasons. Interestingly, Clemens came down with arm fatigue late in the 1998 season. Of course, this was also the first season that he was accused of using either HGH or steroids. In 1999, he had the highest ERA of his career [4.60]. Did Clemens maybe try steroids or more likely Human Growth Hormone to deal with his fatigued arm in 1998?
In any case, his arm did recover. Clemens was also accused of using steroids during the 2001 season. As stated, his won-loss record was a superb 20 wins versus just 3 losses. But the year was actually not all that different from any of his other seasons from 2000 to 2005. The 20-3 record was the result of great run support, not better pitching. His last two great years, 2004 and 2005, both happened after random steroid testing was instituted throughtout the Major Leagues. If he was using, he didn’t get caught. Sometimes, Roger Clemen’s career longevity is used as indirect evidence that he was taking steroids. But this is an empty argument. Clemens was an outlier, not a normal pitcher. It is well-established that the length of a pitcher’s career depends on how hard he throws and how well he pitchs while avoiding completely disabling injuries. Clemens, one of the greatest and hardest throwing pitchers of all time, should have had an extremely long career. The career of Roger Clemens resembles no one else more than the career of his fellow Texan, Nolan Ryan. In 1987, Ryan won an ERA title at the advanced age of 40. In 2005, Clemens won an ERA title at the advanced age of 42. Ryan continued to be a fantastic pitcher until finally blowing out his elbow when he was 46. Clemens was a fantastic pitcher until partial retirement and a hamstring injury stopped him at 44. The argument that his longevity indicates steroid usage simply doesn’t hold much water. Unlike Bonds, all of Clemens career was possible without steroids.
There is one final odd thing in the ten years Roger Clemens spent in Baseball purgatory being denied induction to the Hall of Fame over and over by the BBWAA. After they both came onto the Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot in 2013, Roger Clemens always did a little bit better than Barry Bonds. That first year Clemens received 37.6% of the vote while Bonds debuted at 36.2%. This 1.4% gap would remain the largest difference for the entire 10 years. The simplest explanation would seem to just be racism. The white player got more support than the black player. It could also be argued that the difference was caused by the fact that Bonds was simply a more disagreeable person. From 2013 to 2020, Clemens always maintained his slight edge over Bonds in the Baseball Hall of Fame voting. Then, in the last two years that they were elligible (2021 and 2022), Bonds finally inched ahead of Clemens. Why did this happen? Did it just happen naturally because some old voters were replaced by newer ones who supported Bonds more than Clemens? Or did it happen because some of the old school moral-majority type voters changed their minds? Over the past few years, Barry Bonds has been noticably absent from the news cycles. But Roger Clemens has had his good name furthered smeared by allegations of marital infidelities. Was this the cause? It proabably really doesn’t matter. In my opinion, Roger Clemens, just like Barry Bonds, has done his penance and deserves to be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame without any further delay.
4) Scott Rolen [249 of 394, 63.2%, Ballot Year 5] 70.1 bWAR/5th
Scott Rolen, unless tainted by a steroids accusation or some sort of bizarre personal misconduct charge in the next year, will most likely breeze into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2023. And, if not 2023, then 2024 for sure. Rolen is well qualified already. There is not much else to say about Rolen’s inevitable election to the Hall of Fame other than he can certainly be used as proof that the BBWAA Voters prefer offense to defense. David Ortiz, with an offensive bWAR of +76.2 and a bad defensive bWAR of -20.9 for a total bWAR of +55.3, just sailed into the Hall on the first ballot. Meanwhile, Rolen, with an offensive bWAR of +48.9 and a defensive bWAR of +21.2 for a total bWAR of +70.1, is still waiting in the wings after five ballots. The other two candidates on the 2022 ballot with outstanding defensive statistics, Andruw Jones (+24.4) and Omar Vizquel (+29.5), are also treading water. [Although Vizquel was recently seen attaching an anchor to his career and going down for probably the last time]. The lesson here seems to be, if you want to get into the Baseball Hall of Fame, it is best that you bring a big bat.
5) Curt Schilling [231 of 394, 58.6%, Ballot Year 10-DONE] 79.5 bWAR/4th
After the 2021 Baseball Hall of Fame election, Schilling asked the Hall of Fame to remove his name from the Ballot. At the time, you had to wonder whether his strategy was: 1) to dare or shame the BBWAA Voters into electing him; 2) to give the BBWAA voters the finger first before they gave it to him one more time, or 3) to ensure he was not elected by the BBWAA because that’s what he honestly wanted. Of course, his motivation may have been all of the above or none of the above too. But we now know the result. The BBWAA voters used Schilling’s request to give the finger right back to him. Interestingly, the usual explanation for Schilling’s failure to get voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame is that his career falls just a little short. This is simply foolish. By any objective measurement, Curt Schilling was Hall of Fame worthy, even without the extra credit for his post-season heroics. The reasonable conclusion is that, for the entire 10 year period that Schilling was eligible, some of the Baseball Writers refused to vote for him as punishment for a series of divisive comments that could be characterized as ‘hate’ speech. Whether divisive or hateful, no one has argued that Curt Schilling’s coments were not protected under the First Amendment Right of Free Speech.
The Baseball Writers could evidently not just come right out and say that they were punishing Schilling for saying disagreeable things. Those that live by the First Amendment were not willing to die by the First Amendment. Nowadays, when even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has given up protecting the Right to Free Speech, this should perhaps not come as a big surprise. The Writers may have had a reasonable fear that Curt Schilling would have used the podium provided by his Hall of Fame election to give a speech spewing hatred. But he could have just as easily decided to not spoil the day honoring himself. But now we will never know. Schilling was denied the opportunity to ennoble or embarrass himself by the BBWAA. One day he may be elected by the Baseball Hall of Fame’s numerous second and third chance committees. But the stain of the BBWAA rejection will remain. The Baseball Writers should have risen above this pettiness in the service of a greater principle. But they did not. Instead, they lowered themselves to the level of what they feared. It was not their finest moment. Schilling certainly deserves to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame and hopefully some day he will be inducted.
6) Todd Helton [205 of 394, 52.0%, Ballot Year 4] 61.8 bWAR/8th
Todd Helton’s raw statistics certainly paint a very convincing portrait for his inevitable induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame. There are three possible reasons for his slow rise up the yearly BBWAA ballots: 1) the Baseball Writers are discounting his career because of the enormous boost given his statistics by playing his entire career in the Denver’s mile high altitude; 2) his arrests in 2013 and 2019 for driving under the influence [DUIs]; and 3) an allegation of steroid abuse. The first reason is surely true. Todd Helton’s home splits [227 HRs-859 RBIs-.345 BA-.607 SA] dwarf his road splits [142 HRs-547 RBIs-.287 BA-.469 SA] to an extreme degree. The second reason certainly doesn’t help but the Baseball Hall of Fame is full of alcoholics. The third reason may be the killer. In 2004, Colorado Rockies broadcaster Wayne Hagin stated on the air that Don Baylor, the Rockies manager from 1993-1998, told him that Todd Helton was on the ‘juice’ earlier in his career. Hagin continued on that Baylor said he told Helton to get off the stuff because he didn’t need it. This caused a media firestorm. All parties immediately backtracked. It was quickly stated that no one was claiming Helton used injectible steroids. They were actually talking about Creatine, an over the counter supplement. Helton then stated that he had never even used Creatine. It was all a little shady.
In 2004, the same year that Todd Helton was accused, the Major Leagues started testing the players for steroids. Helton’s career can be split into two distinct parts. In the first half of his career [1997-2004], Helton was quite a slugger. From 1999 to 2004, he hit at least 30 HRs every year, peaking at 49 in 2001. In the second half of his career [2005-2013], Helton was still a good hitter. But he lost most of his power, never hitting more than 20 HRs again. There were many other possible explanations for this rather than steroids. In 2005, Helton got off to a terrible start and then hurt his left calf. In 2006, his season was ruined by acute ileitis (intestinal inflammation). In 2008, Helton was diagnosed with a degenerative back condition that required surgery. It would bother him for the rest of his career. A torn labrum ruined his 2012 season. Irregardless, the fact remains that Helton was a much more powerful hitter before steroids were driven out of the game than he was afterwards. Of course, This is just a: “Where there’s smoke there’s fire” argument. But it may have hurt Helton’s chances of getting to the magic 75% of the vote. On the other hand, Larry Walker, a teammate, who was a far better player than Todd Helton, received only 10.2% of the vote after his fourth year of eligibility. Walker got into the Hall of Fame in his tenth year. Since Todd Helton is at 52.0% of the vote after just four years, It is probably still inevitable.
7) Billy Wagner [201 of 394, 51.0%, Ballot Year 7] 27.7 bWAR/23rd
Billy Wagner was one of the three top relievers, along with Joe Nathan and John Papelbon, on the 2022 Ballot. During the regular season, Wagner [with 27.7 bWAR] did have a better career than Nathan [26.7] who then had a better career than Papelbon [23.3]. But during the post-season, Wagner was an epic train wreck; Nathan was pretty good; and Papelbon was outstanding. None of these men come even remotely close to the 52.5 bWAR requirement that has been calculated as the minimum to enter the Baseball Hall of Fame. None of these men have any of the usual exceptions to that rule either. In any event, neither Nathan or Papelbon received the five percent minimum necessary to appear on the 2023 ballot. They were just one and done. Perhaps the job of relief pitching requires a special dispensation in the Hall of Fame voting since they can supposedly exert maximum leverage over their team’s victories. But this would require the doubling of Wagner’s bWAR score so he could qualify just by the bare minimum [Joe Nathan would also qualify by doubling while Jon Papelbon would fall slightly short]. But the reasoning behind doubling a relief pitcher’s bWAR score is pretty much just a wish and a prayer.
Despite all this, if he just had a stellar post-season resume, it is possible that Billy Wagner would have already been elected to the Hall. However, I cannot advocate his election. Whenever I scrutinize Wagner’s candidacy, I consider the Hall of Fame careers of Dennis Eckersley and John Smoltz. Both Eckersley and Smoltz were outstanding starting pitchers who became relief pitchers for parts of their careers. Both of them completely dominated as relief pitchers. In my heart, I believe that any decent starting pitcher can dominate as a relief pitcher (and probably extend his career too). On the 2022 Hall of Fame Ballot, Tim Lincecum, who finished with way less votes than Billy Wagner, would have probably had an excellent career as a reliever. Andy Pettitte, Tim Hudson, and Mark Buerhle would have all had great careers as a relief pitcher. Looking at relief pitchers through this lense, it is actually hard to believe any relief pitcher is a Hall of Fame candidate. An argument can be made that relief pitching is a specialized skill like pinch hitting that does not deserve Baseball Hall of Fame recognition. Manny Mota, arguably the greatest pinch hitter of all time, is not in the Hall of Fame. However, there is usually an exception to every rule. The great reliever Mariano Rivera seemed every inch like a Baseball Hall of Famer while he was still active.
8) Andruw Jones [163 of 394, 41.1%, Ballot Year 5] 62.7 bWAR/7th
Andruw Jones may have one of the strangest Baseball Hall of Fame cases of recent memory. As just a hitter, his Hall of Fame case resembles the careers of many other players who fell a little short of the Hall. These players looked like they were going to blast their way into the Hall of Fame in their 20s, but then just faded away in their 30s and never made it. There are plenty of these players littered throughout Baseball history. There are even three on the 2022 Ballot (Prince Fielder, Justin Morneau, and Ryan Howard). But Andruw Jones brings something else to the party. Even though he faded very badly in his 30s [58.0 career bWAR at age 29 and just 4.7 career bWAR from 30 on], Jones combines both good to great hitting statistics with absolutely elite defensive metrics during his 20s. This combination was actually enough to qualify Jones by bWAR even if he had retired after his age 29 season. But his career during his 30s left should a bad afterimage that his election to the Baseball Hall of Fame is no longer guaranteed. Why did Andruw Jones fade so badly that he was virtually useless in his 30s?
Most players fade as they age because of injuries, lack of conditioning, loss of motivation, and/or simply the irresistable tide of time. Sometimes, all four of these factors (injuries, conditioning, motivation, and old age) are all related to each other. Injuries drain a player’s motivation and suppress his conditioning. Lack of conditioning leads to loss of motivation and increases injuries. Every one of these problems are increased just by the process of aging. In the case of Jones, all these factors seemed to contribute to his bad play during his 30s. Andruw Jones has obviously out-of shape and overweight as he aged into his 30s. This led to more injuries and accelerated the aging process. He seemed to demonstrate a lack of motivation too. Andruw Jones may have been under the teen-age baseball player curse too. For some reason, almost all baseball players who debut in the Major Leagues as teenagers have far better careers in their 20s than their 30s. These teen-age players, who are so successful so young, seem to be unable to motivate themselves in their 30s. Andruw Jones came up at the age of 19. Because his Hall of Fame case rests so heavily on the defensive statistics that are the most ambiguous of all Baseball metrics, I cannot find it in my heart to advocate for the election of Andruw Jones. Also I can’t erase the ‘Fat Elvis’ type memories of his later years.
9) Gary Sheffield [160 of 394, 40.6%, Ballot Year 8] 60.5 bWAR/9th
It is pretty clear that Gary Sheffield, because his career was badly tarnished by the steroids scandal, will not be elected by the BBWAA before his maximum ten years on the Ballot runs out. He was identified by the Mitchell Report as receiving a shipment from BALCO. Exactly what the shipment contained was unclear. It was probably steroids but it may have just been vitamins. Sheffield himself admitted that he trained briefly with Barry Bonds. During that time, he had the same steroid cream that Bonds used rubbed on his leg. Sheffield claimed that he had no idea it was a steroid-based cream and it did nothing for him. There is certainly a lot of smoke here but no identifiable fire. Gary Sheffield adamantly denied that he ever knowingly used steroids. Despite this lack of actual conclusive evidence and his denial, Gary Sheffield seems to have been convicted of using steroids anyways. His reputation may have damaged his chances of just shrugging off these accusations. Throughout his career, Sheffield often acted in a very aggressive and confrontational way. In other words, he acted as if he was suffering from stereotypical ‘Roid Rage.’
In his defense, two things should probably be pointed out about Sheffield: 1) he played until 2009 without testing positive for steroids from 2004 to 2009, and his career path and decline does not look suspect; and 2) Sheffield pretty much acted as if he had an anger management problem very similiar to Roid Rage for the entire duration of his career. Unless he always took steroids, his behavior does not add up to an indictment. In all probability, Gary Sheffield did use steroids. But there is also a distinct possibility that he was basically innocent. If his version of his Bonds/Balco interactions are accurate and the damning receipt from BALCO was only for supplements (even if just steroid pre-cursor supplements), there is the real possibility that he has been done a great injustice. This is an inevitable result of the steroids scandal. Sooner or later (and probably already), a steroid abuser will be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame (looking at you, Mike Piazza). Meanwhile, there will be players who are innocent who will be turned away because of rumor and innuendo. As many if not most things in life, this is hardly fair.
10) Alex Rodriguez [135 of 394, 34.3%, Ballot Year 1] 117.5 bWAR/3rd
Rodriguez is a completely different case than Clemens or Bonds or Sheffield or even Ramirez (or any other player accused or convicted of using steroids except maybe Ryan Braun). His behavior mitigates against any reduction of sentence. Neither Pete Rose nor Joe Jackson has ever been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. And neither should be. But they still serve the game of Baseball by providing an example of the dangers of gambling. Rodriguez, because of his extensively dishonest actions during his own steriod scandal, should never be allowed into the Hall of Fame either. Alex Rodriguez should remain outside the Hall of fame as a warning against the pitfalls of steroids. In this way, Rodriguez can still serve the game, just as Rose and Jackson do. No one needs to weep any tears for him either. He very smartly leveraged his steroid-aided career into a total paycheck [$450+ million] of epic proportions. That amount currently dwarfs the cumulative career pay of any other Major League player (though not for long). That should be reward enough for Alex. All that being said, it is a damn shame that his post-career attempt to buy the New York Mets with actress Jennifer Lopez failed. Rodriguez would have fit fight in with the people who populate the Owner’s suites.
11) Jeff Kent [129 of 394, 32.7%, Ballot Year 9] 55.5 bWAR/15th
The candidacy of Jeff Kent seems to be a type of Twilight Zone reverse twist on the strange Baseball Hall of Fame election of Ray Schalk. Schalk was the catcher for the 1919 Chicago White Sox, the team that threw the 1919 World Series and ended up being renamed the Black Sox. Of course, Schalk was not in on the fix. He was a member of the ‘clean’ Sox and not part of the eight man cabal that sold out the Series. Because of this, Ray Schalk was eventually elected to the Hall of Fame despite qualifications which were probably only apparent to his immediate family. Like Schalk, Jeff Kent labored under the shadow of a scandal that affected his team, the San Francisco Giants. He was the second best player on those Giants’ teams after Barry Bonds, the steroid abuser. Kent reportedly never took a steroid in his life. He was a Caucasian versus Bonds African-American heritage. Unlike Schalk, Jeff Kent was actually qualified for the Baseball Hall of Fame. So why hasn’t he been elected? As the anti-Bonds, it seems like the Hall of Fame would have elected Kent simply to snub their nose at Barry Bonds. Just like when Schalk was elected to snub the Black Sox. Even the fact that Kent was a great offensive second baseman, but no great shakes in the field, does not seem to have helped. Usually the big bat trumps the great glove. Why Jeff Kent has not received more support is a mystery. I don’t understand it.
12) Manny Ramirez [114 of 394, 28.9%, Ballot Year 6] 69.3 bWAR/6th
With the bat, Manny Ramirez was the third best of the thirty candidates that were considered by the BBWAA for the 2022 Baseball Hall of Fame Election (after Barry Bonds and A-Rod). In the field, Ramirez was the 29th best of the 30 eligible 2022 players (with only Gary Sheffield worse). Ramirez is obviously statistically over-qualified for the Hall of Fame despite his iron glove. But he was a steroid abuser. In many ways, the case against Manny Ramirez parallels the case against Alex Rodriguez. Like Rodriguez, Ramirez flunked the 2003 test that imposed testing on the players. Also like Rodriguez, Ramirez later tested positive under the new testing regime. But unlike A-Rod, Manny Ramirez did not deny that he took steroids. Ramirez did not lie or blame or try to destroy anyone after he flunked steroid tests in both 2009 and 2011. He simply accepted the suspensions and apologized. The non-election to the Hall of Fame of Barry Bonds, who was way better than Manny Ramirez by any measure and who was never suspended or caught cheating under the current testing protocols, probably nails the coffin shut on Ramirez’ chances. Are there any mitigating circumstances to excuse Ramirez’ transgressions? Well there is actually one.
One gets the sense that Ramirez just lived to hit baseballs and that he was probably willing to try anything to continue to hit baseballs. He continued to play professional baseball for many years after dropping out of the Majors. Back in the early days of Baseball, this was actually an option. Nowadays, not so much. Was it sad or noble? Either way, it actually gains him my sympathy. Who wouldn’t do whatever it took to try to continue doing the thing that they absolutely loved doing? In a way, Ramirez was an throwback to an earlier time. During his playing career, his various odd behaviors and strange antics were dismissed by the sportswriters as an eccentricities. They even came up with a phrase, ‘Manny being Manny,’ to describe it. Although it wasn’t ever spelled out, the gist of this theme was that Ramirez was most probably on the autistic spectrum. In Baseball’s early days, there were many eccentric players. Rube Waddell being probably the most noteworthy. There were even players with serious mental illnesses. The pitcher Ed Doheny slaughtered his entire family with an ax. Being on the autistic spectrum is probably as odd as it can get today. It seems like the current system, Tee Ball to Little League on up, weeds out the intellectually challenged. The last truly crazy big leaguer was probably Danny Thomas in the 1970s. But a little craziness can sure add a lot of color. Manny Ramirez will be missed by anyone who watched him play.
13) Omar Vizquel [94 of 394, 23.9%, Ballot Year 5]
Omar Vizquel became eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2018. Despite lukewarm support from modern baseball analysts, His eventual election to the Hall of Fame seemed to be inevitable. After just three years on the ballot, his vote percentage had risen to 52.6%. Every player on an similar trajectory had eventually been elected. In December 2020, his wife of the last six years filed for divorce and accused him of domestic abuse. This bad publicity seemed to hurt his chances slightly. In 2021, his vote percentage went down marginally to 49.1%. However, There was also the possibility that Vizquel’s percentage in 2021 went down because some modern analysts had begun writing that he was not worthy. In other words, a slight backlash against his coming election. Then, in August of 2021, Vizquel was charged by a former bat boy of sexual harassment. Like a space shuttle burning up on re-entry, Vizquel’s chances of induction all but evaporated. In 2022 his vote percentage dropped off a cliff to just 23.9%. Although stranger things have happened, it is very unlikely that Vizquel will ever be elected and inducted by the BBWAA now.
In theory, there are two types of Baseball Hall of Fame voters. One end of the spectrum would be the older, very conservative, anti-change writers who are usually newspaper writers (or bitter former newspaper writers) and still believe in old school statistics like the RBI. Murray Chass, formerly of the New York Times, is a great example of this type (the archetype would be the Dick Young, but Young is dead). In general, this group seems to be the most relentless in keeping the players who may have done steroids out of the Hall of Fame. The other end of the spectrum would be the young, liberal, pro-change bloggers who remember newspapers as something their parents read. They worship in the church of WAR. Keith Law, formerly of ESPN, would be an example of this type. They do not necessarily believe that the shame of steroids should ban a player from the Hall of Fame. In reality, it is not so quite cut and dry as this. Murray Chass, the sterotype of the cigar and whiskey old school newspaper writer, can be progressive every blue moon. On the other hand, Keith Law has a surprising amount of moral absolutism like an old school Baptist preacher in him. It seems like the old school voters were those supporting Vizquel’s Hall of Fame case, and the newer analytical voters were the ones giving Vizquel’s case a pass.
If the voters who abandoned him were just the Murray Chass types, Vizquel may have a shot at redemption. It seems that they would be more likely not to forgive a heterosexual abuse claim followed by a homosexual crime claim. Tolerance is usually associated with the young and liberal, not the ancient and conservative. On the other hand, the young liberal baseball analysts are also the ones that have claimed that Vizquel does not qualify statistically. Vizquel is just another data point in the generational divide. It will very interesting to see whether Vizquel’s vote totals go up or down during his last five years of eligibilty on the BBWAA ballot [Omar Vizquel Hall of Fame vote percentages first five years: 2018 37.0%, 2019 42.8%, 2020 52.6%, 2021 49.1%, 2022 23.9%]. If they go up, does this mean that some of the younger voters are forgiving him? If they do down, does that mean more younger voters are coming on-board who do not see him as qualified? Does Vizquel lose votes from both old and young voters as the knowledge that his candidacy is doomed causes them to jump ship? I personally believe the Hall of Fame candidacy of Vizquel is doubly doomed and he will lose even more votes. It will be fascinating to watch as the elections continue down through the years.
14) Sammy Sosa [73 of 394, 18.5%, Ballot Year 10-DONE] 58.6 bWAR/13th
Like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, the possibility that the BBWAA would elect Sammy Sosa to the Baseball Hall of Fame has now officially ended. This is probably a good thing because the Hall of Fame candidacy of Sammy Sosa has been pretty odd. Although nowhere near as qualified as either Bonds or Clemens, it seems like Sosa should have had way more support than he did. Of course, the normal explanation for his candidacy capsizing is the steroid scandal. Like David Ortiz, Sosa reportedly flunked the same problematic 2003 PED test that imposed steroid testing on the Major Leagues. Also like Ortiz, it is unknown what substance triggered Sosa’s positive result. There is no way to retest the sample as it was discarded. It might have been a false positive. The confidentiality of the test was illegally broken. Because of this, Sosa could argue that he was the victim. No matter how you slice it up, this reportedly flunked test is really the sum total of the evidence that keeps Sammy Sosa out of the Hall of Fame. Although he is not overwhelming qualified , Sosa does easily clear the 52.5 bWAR standard for the Hall. He also has one other thing that should have put him way over the threshold for induction. Sammy Sosa was really really famous.
With the evidence disqualifying Sosa from the Hall of Fame amounting to a warm bucket of spit, some of the Writers seem to have decided to charge Sosa with an additional crime against Baseball. In 2003, he was caught using a corked bat. Rather than denying he knew anything about it, Sosa confessed that it was his bat. He explained that his corked bat was not a game bat, and it had been accidentally mixed in with his regular bats. No one believed him. But who really cares? Baseball players have been using corked bats forever. A conviction for a corked bat is like a ticket for jaywalking. This doesn’t even compare with steroid accusations in the land of Baseball. Steroid allegations are the baseball equivalent of an assault with intent to kill charge (Gambling accusations would be the death penalty cases). Some writers seem to realize that the corked bat crap is pretty weak. So they usually bring up Sosa’s 2005 performance before a Congressional committee investigating steroid use in Baseball. During this hearing, Sosa denied taking steroids and also bizarrely denied that he could speak the English language. But, realistically, what sane person wouldn’t deflect the questions from the grandstanding amoral idiots that populate Congress?
In my opinion, there are three possible reasons why Sammy Sosa got so much less support than he should have for the Baseball Hall of Fame, even with the rumors and accusations of steroids. The first reason would be that the Hall of Fame voters did not believe that he had the stats to qualify. However, Sammy Sosa surely had the statistics that old school writers love while also qualifying, though not as overwhelmingly, under the modern analytics. Sosa should have gotten votes from both sides of the aisle. The next reason would be that Sosa was the victim of racism. There was always a racist undertone to the coverage of his career. It also hasn’t been helped by Sosa’s weird post-career project of lightening his skin. But racism is a slippery devil and it’s hard to pin this down as the cause of Sosa’s non-support for the Hall the Fame. The third and last reason, and the one I actually believe, would be that Sammy Sosa still labors under the large shadow of his rival Mark McGwire. The careers and personas of McGwire and Sosa are inexorably linked. But Sosa was clearly the second banana. McGwire won their home run duel. He was the better player. During that same 2005 Congressional hearing, McGwire refused to lie while Sammy Sosa pretended not to speak English. Of course, Mark McGwire, unlike Sosa, admitted that he took steroids and the BBWAA writers made an example of him and let him twist in the wind for the full ten years. After doing that, they apparently could not justify treating Sosa any better.
15) Andy Pettitte [42 of 394, 10.7%, Ballot Year 4] 60.2 bWAR/10th (tie)
Why Andy Pettitte doesn’t get a little more support for his induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame is beyond me. Pettitte played his whole career with the New York Yankees. He finished his career with a fantastic 256-153 Won/Loss record. Pettitte was a standout in the post-season with a 19-11 W/L record. He twice finished with 21-8 records. His 60.2 bWAR is comfortably above the Lowest Common Denominator bWAR score of 52.5 bWAR for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Andy Pettitte was quite famous as one of the four Yankee players who formed the backbone of New York’s 1996-2000 dynasty (along with Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter and Jorge Posada). Against all this, there are two demerits that seem to be keeping Pettitte out of Copperstown. The first is that he was “Don Sutton” good. Like Sutton, Pettite was virtually always good, but never truly great, season after season. Secondly, Pettitte got sideswiped by the performance enhancing drug [PED] scandal. It seems like these two things are crippling his candidacy.
Interestingly, a close look at Andy Pettitte’s role in the PED scandal does not really show any fire or even any smoke, simply some early morning fog. The Baseball Commissioner’s Office hired an outside consultant, former senator George Mitchell, to investigate PEDs usage in the game. Pettite confessed to Mitchell that he had briefly tried Human Growth Hormone [HGH] to speed his recovery from an injury. He said that he felt an obligation, because of his high salary, to get back on the field. Pettitte also stated that he discussed the HGH usage with fellow Yankee pitcher Roger Clemens. In the government’s perjury case against Roger Clemens, Pettitte just repeated these facts. Can Pettitte be forgiven for taking something to speed his recovery? Why is Human Growth Hormone treated exactly the same as steroids?. HGH helps repair the human body and does not have the same exact effects as steroids themselves. The two things that are strangest in the steroid scandal are 1) a complete lack of proportion and 2) an absence of forgiveness. According to Pettitte, he tried HGH briefly which is certainly a negliable offense. Can Any Pettitte not simply be forgiven for this an inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame?
16) Jimmy Rollins [37 of 394, 9.4%, Ballot Year 1] 47.6 bWAR/19th
Every article I read analyzing the Baseball Hall of Fame case for Jimmy Rollins seems to assert that he is worthy because he may have been the best player on the 2008 Philadelphia Phillies World Series Champions. Is the best player on any World Series Championship team always of Hall of Fame caliber? Was Jimmy Rollins the best player on the 2008 Champs? I think the answer to the first question is probably. The answer to the second question is: no. Chase Utley was pretty obviously the best player on the 2008 Philadelphia Phillies. But Jimmy Rollins was almost surely the second best Phillie in 2008. For their careers, members of the 2008 Phillies probably rank: 1) Utley [64.5 bWAR], 2) Cole Hamels [59.3], 3) Jaime Moyer [49.8], and then Rollins [47.6]. Would the second best player on a World Series Champ, who was also the fourth best player career-wise on the team, necessarily be of Hall of Fame caliber? The answer would probably be no. Jimmy Rollins is close to a lowest common denominator Hall of Famer [bWAR of 52.5], but he just doesn’t quite make it [bWAR of 47.6]. I do not advocate his election.
The recent past of the Philadelphia Phillies franchise has been interesting. After the great Mike Schmidt teams of the late 1970s faded, the Phillies were losers (the team lost more than it won) every season from 1987 to the year 2000, except for 1993. In that one year, the Phillies caught some lightning in a bottle (or perhaps more appropriately Lenny Dykstra in a steroid syringe), won 97 games, and made it to the World Series before losing. From 2001 to 2007, the Phillies won 80 games or more each season [86, 80, 86, 86, 88, 85, 89]. Only in 2007 did they make the playoffs, where the Phillies were quickly eliminated. In 2008, the Phillies won 92 games and went all the way, winning an unexpected World Series. Then it got weird. In 2009, they won 93 games. In 2010, they won 97 games. In 2011, they won 102 games. But each year, they got farther away from the gold. The Phillies lost the World Series badly in 2009, and then were defeated in the National League Championship Series in both 2010 and 2011. Has any team ever won the World Series and then had their total team wins go up for three straight years afterwards without winning another one? After 2011, the Phillies collapsed. It wouldn’t be until 2021 that the Phillies won more than they lost again.
17) Bobby Abreu [34 of 394, 8.6%, Ballot Year 3] 60.2 bWAR/10th (tie)
Is it possible to be too boring a player to be a Baseball Hall of Famer? Bobby Abreu qualifies for the Hall of Fame statistically but not overwhelmingly. He was a very good hitter but never a really great hitter. He was nicknamed the Candy Eater in Spanish (“El Comodulce”) which is certainly cool but it was just a nickname he inherited from his father. He was engaged to Alicia Machado, who was crowned Miss Venezuela and then Miss Universe in 1996, but they called the marriage off. Despite good season after good season, he was only elected to the All Star team twice. He was durable and twice led the League in games played. His only other League leading totals were doubles once and triples once. He twice hit 30 or more Home runs and stole 30 or more bases in a season. He was an all purpose player, hitting 288 homers but with highs of just 30 and 31 HRs. He walked over 100 times a year for eight seasons in a row. He stole 400 bases for his career with a high of 40 in just one year. He passed through Baseball history like an ocean liner running at night with all the lights off.
Bobby Abreu could perhaps be considered the anti-David Ortiz. Both players were great hitters though Ortiz was obviously greater. Abreu was a doubles machine while David Ortiz was a home run slugger. Both often appeared to be slightly pudgy. However, while Ortiz seemed to be built like a stout oak tree, Abreu was still just slightly pudgy. Despite this, Abreu stole an amazing amount of bases considering his frame. The speed also meant that Abreu was a much better defensive player than Ortiz. Unlike Ortiz, Abreu came up to the Majors and was quickly given a job at 23, playing full-time in 1998 at age 24. He stayed in the line-up full-time year after year he was 37, finally retiring at 40 years old. Perhaps most importantly, Bobby Abreu only played 20 games in the post-season, getting just 67 at bats. Abreu never played in the World Series, not even one game. Of course, David Ortiz played in 85 post season games and got 304 at bats. Ortiz hit .455 and slugged .795 in three different World Series and his team won each time. By bWAR, Bobby Abreu is rated as a better player than David Ortiz [60.2 to 55.3]. He wasn’t for the same reasons that Manny Rameriz and Gary Sheffield were not. But Abreu was a hell of a player and, boring or not, deserves to be inducted eventually.
18) Mark Buehrle [23 of 394, 5.8%, Ballot Year 2] 59.1 bWAR/12th
Mark Buehrle could be considered the pitching version of Bobby Abreu. He was not a flashy strikeout pitcher. Instead, he threw strikes and kept the ball on the ground. Although there was no pizzazz, Buerhle was a Hall of Fame caliber hurler. He compiled a career record of 214-160 with 60.0 bWAR from 2000-2015. Retiring at the age of 36 after a 15-8 season, Buehrle could have certainly pitched longer and padded his career stats some more. Instead he walked away from the game. Mark Buehrle was a big chunky guy (listed at 6’2″ and 240 pounds) whose last name always echoed in my head as “Burly.” He also always reminded me of Rick Reuschel, another big chunky guy who played in Chicago and threw strikes and ground balls. Reuschel finished his career with the exact same number of wins as Buehrle but more losses (191) but a better bWAR (68.1). Like Reuschel, I expect Mark Buehrle to fade away on the Hall of Fame BBWAA ballots without getting an actual whiff of the Hall itself. It seems to already be happening as Buehrle debuted with 11.0% of the vote in 2021 but then barely hung on in 2022 with just 5.8% of the vote. Will he last one more year before being designated to the Veteran’s Committee scrap-heap?
19) Torii Hunter [21 of 394, 5.3%, Ballot Year 2] 50.7 bWAR/17th
With Mark Teixeira and Jimmy Rollins, Torii Hunter is one of the three players from the 2022 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot who are just on the wrong side of the border line for induction. Like Teixeira, Hunter is actually close enough that the standard may eventually dip down low enough to include him. He was an interesting player from a psychological perspective. Torii Hunter was African-American and grew up poor in Arkansas. He was a religuous man and a striver (someone who works hard to improve himself). In 1992 at the age of 16, Hunter reportedly could not come up with the $500 fee to join the United States Junior Olympic baseball team. He wrote to the Arkansas governor (and later U.S. President) Bill Clinton for help. Clinton, to his great credit, paid the fee. From the very beginning, Hunter was persistent. This quality was later reflected in his career. In 1997, Hunter came up to the Major Leagues at the age of 21 for a very small cup of coffee [1 game]. In 1998, he played 6 games. He played part-time in in 1997 and 1998 but really did not hit well enough. In 1998, at the age of 25, Hunter had his first good season. He then essentially had this exact same season, some better and some worse, for fourteen years in a row. In 2015, now 39 years old, Torii Hunter began to fade just a little and called it a day.
Interestingly, Torii Hunter had his best two seasons by bWAR in 2009 [bWAR of 5.3] and 2012 [BWAR if 5.4]. He was 33 and 36 respectively in these two years. Modern baseball analysis postulates that a player quickly gets better until they peak at age 26. The player then declines slightly and plateaus until age 30 or so. Once in their 30s, the player declines much more rapidly. The career path of Torii Hunter is completely at odds with this theorem. His 30s were way more valuable than his 20s. It seems to me that Hunter was an outlier because of his psychological make-up. He was a driven man. He was a competitive man. He was a structured man of strong beliefs. This structure actually caused the only two real controversies of his career. Hunter got in trouble for differentiating African-American players and Afro-Latin players. And he got into trouble for saying that he would have problems playing with a homosexual. These statements were intolerant. But they also indicate a man with a structured belief system. The future of baseball scouting lies in determining what makes a man like Hunter tick. Physical talents are easy to spot. But the drive and determination that makes a player like Hunter strive to continue to improve? If a team could consistently figure this out, that team would have an enormous advantage drafting and scouting players.
OFF THE 2023 BALLOT [Less then 5%]
20) Joe Nathan [17 of 394, 4.3%, Ballot Year 1] 26.4 bWAR/25th
As discussed in the Billy Wagner comment above, it is hard for me to envision Joe Nathan as a Baseball Hall of Fame pitcher. Like most relievers, he failed as a starter first before spending the rest of his career throwing the snot out of the ball in the pen. His career bWAR of 26.4 is just slightly above the halfway point of the 52.5 bWAR threshold that my system uses to designate a Hall of Fame worthy career. The fact that Nathan received 5 more votes than Tim Hudson seems particularly bizarre. If Hudson had spent his entire career as a relief pitcher, there is almost no doubt in my mind that his pitching statistics would be better, probably much better, than those of Nathan.
21) Tim Hudson [12 of 394, 3.0%, Ballot Year 2] 57.9 bWAR/14th
Tim Hudson, who is qualifed to be in the Hall of Fame, seems to have suffered greatly from the continuing and endless BBWAA torture rack treatment of the Clemens and Schilling Hall of Fame cases. Although he qualifies (barely) as a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher, the career of Hudson looks like so much oatmeal compared to the careers of either Clemens or Schilling. In 2021, his first year on the ballot, Tim Hudson received just 5.2% of the vote. By barely clearing the five percent percent minimum to remain on the Ballot, Hudson was able to return for a second chance in 2022. Alas, it did him no good at all. He got just 3.0 percent of the vote in 2022. Hudson now falls off the BBWAA Ballot for good. This seems like an injustice. Oddly, Tim Hudson has a better case superficially than two pitchers who survived the 2022 election, and may still be elected by the Baseball Writers another day. While Tim Hudson finished his career with a fine 222-133 won-loss record, Andy Pettite compiled a 256-153 mark and Mark Buehrle pitched his way to a 214-160 log. Interestingly, Hudson now has a chance to elected quicker than either pitcher who was able to remain on the BBWAA ballot. Tim Hudson is eligible to be elected by the Today’s Era Committee for 2023. It is unlikely but you never know.
22) Tim Lincecum [9 of 394, 2.3%, Ballot Year 1] 19.5 bWAR/29th
Tim Lincecum, like the next player on this list (Ryan Howard), had the peak of a Hall of Famer but not the complete career. The first five years of his career were excellent. He won consecutive National League Cy Young awards as the best pitcher in the National League. He led the National League in strikeouts three years running. Lincecum certainly seemed to be on a Hall of Fame track. But he only pitched in the Majors for ten years total (the minimum number of years you can play and still be qualified for the Hall). The last five years of his career were a sad losing battle to regain the glory of those first five seasons. The fantastic young pitcher who comes up, takes over the League, and then fades out badly before punching his ticket to Cooperstown is a very familiar story (Herb Score, Vida Blue, Mark Fidrych, Dwight Gooden, Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, Rick Ankiel, Dontrelle Willis, etc). But it always leaves a very bittersweet taste of unachieved glory. How would the history of Baseball been changed if any these great young pitchers had been able to fulfill their promise? What was lost when their talent died on the vine before their time?
One of the themes of the 2022 Baseball Hall of Fame candidate class seems to be loose and fluid versus stiff and rigid. All athletes lose their talents as their bodies age. What once came naturally has to be maintained with greater and greater effort. Many athletes simply live lifestyles that eventually rob them of their physical gifts. Sometimes their talent dies a death of a thousand cuts as a cascade of minor injuries overwhelms their skills. Some athletes have their ability to compete at the highest level taken away by a catastrophic or tragic injury. A very lucky few have only time and the aging process itself combining to finish off their career. Tim Lincecum was nicknamed “The Freak” because his limber gymnastic delivery got the maximum out of his undersized and slender frame. As he aged, Lincecum seemed to simultaneously lose both his elastic agility and pitching form over time. As he lost his dexterity, a cascade of minor injuries wiped out the rest of his career. An interesting question is: Was it all inevitable or was there anything TimLincecum could have done to prolong his career? He certainly gave it his all.
Ryan Howard, the next player on this list, also saw his career fade badly as he got stiffer and more rigid. Of course, Howard did not start out anywhere near as limber as Tim Lincecum. Howard was somewhat stiff and immobile from the very beginning. But his home run power came from the ability to create tremendous torque with his body. His torque slowly begin to fade away after his early peak. Then Howard’s career basically collapsed under the strain of his own injury cascade.. Prince Fielder, a little lower on the list, also had his career derailed by getting stiffer and more unbending. Fielder’s career was first derailed and then completely ended by a herniated disc in his neck. But even before this, he was showing signs of losing his home run swing as his swing became stiffer and less fluid. What would be the answer for this? It could be yoga or gymnastics training. In any case, it would seem that career longevity has two components: 1) staying in shape and 2) staying limber.
23) Ryan Howard [8 of 394, 2.0%, Ballot Year 1] 14.7 bWAR/30th and last
Like David Ortiz, Ryan Howard had somewhat of a delayed start to his career. Blocked by Jim Thome from the Philadelphia Phillies first base job, he had to wait for the Phillies to trade Thome before taking over the position. Howard, in a perfect world, should have probably debuted in the Major Leagues at 23 years old in 2003. He should have been playing full-time in 2004 (instead he hit 46 Hrs with 141 RBIs in the Minors). He played half of the 2005 season in the Minors too (16 HR-54 RBI-.371 BA in just 61 Minor League games). Then he played the other half in the Major Leagues (22-63-.288 in 88 Major League games). Howard finally played his first full Major League season in 2006. This brings up an interesting question: How much credit do you give to a player whose Major League career is delayed by the player simply not getting a chance when they deserve it? If all the dominos had fallen perfectly, Howard should have had a year and a half more time in the Majors than he did. And his 2005 season in the Major Leagues may have actually resembled his career year in 2006.
Of all the players on the 2022 Hall of Fame Ballot, Ryan Howard had (by far) the lowest bWAR score. During his career Howard was credited with only 14.7 bWAR, just barely over a third of the wins above replacement needed by my system to qualify for the Hall of Fame. Even the three relief pitchers who have systematically lower WAR scores beat Howard easily. There are three reasons for this. First, Howard lost probably five to possibly eight WAR while blocked in 2004 and 2005. Second, Howard was defensively poor. During his prime seven years from 2005 to 2011, Howard was credited with 19.2 total bWAR. But this included -9.7 defensive bWAR. With just average defensive ability, Ryan Howard would have accumulated 28.9 bWAR during his prime. Finally, Howard had a fade out to his career that was more like a crash and burn with no survivors. From 2012 until his retirement after the 2016 season, Howard is credited with an awful -4.8 bWAR. His 2013 season was the only year in this career wipe-out that did not register as a negative. It’s almost too bad. If he had come up earlier and had a normal fade out to his career, Ryan Howard would have surely hit well over 500 home runs. But he probably wouldn’t have accumulated 52.5 bWAR. His slide into oblivion robbed the world of an old school sportswriter versus new school analyst argument about his Hall of Fame worthiness.
24) Mark Teixeira [6 of 394, 1.5%, Ballot Year 1] 50.6 bWAR/18th
Mark Teixeira seems to have had two different careers: one career before he signed a huge contract and another career after his signature dried upon it. In December of 2008, Teixiera signed his name on an agreement that would guarantee him 180 million dollars over eight years. Before this happened, he regularly hit over .300/.400/.550 [BA-OBP-SA] with personal highs of 43 HRs and 144 RBIs. In 2009, the first year of his contract, Teixiera had one last great year, leading the American League with 39 HRs and 122 RBIs while hitting for a .292 BA. He seemed to be a lock at this point for an eventual election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. But, from 2010 until he retired in 2016, Teixeira never batted over .256 again. He retained his HR power but struggled with constant injuries. In this second half of his career, he appeared not to be in the best of shape, going from a stocky physique to a more doughy one. The minute his eight year contract was up, Teixeira retired. When signing any pro athlete to a guaranteed long term contract, a team takes the risk that the player will just coast. Except for that first year after he was set for life, Mark Teixeira, rightly or wrongly, gave the impression that he was just cruising towards retirement.
Mark Teixeira will always live in my memory with Kevin McReynolds. For one thing, Teixeira and McReynolds looked like they were brothers from another mother. Neither player seemed motivated to get the absolute maximum out of their talent. Both men seemed to have left a Baseball Hall of Fame career on the buffet line. Perhaps this is too hard a judment. Not every man can be Ty Cobb or Jackie Robinson with a burning desire to compete, dominate and win. Mark Teixiera was a better player than McReynolds. Teixeira had much more offensive value than the defensively superior McReynolds. The Hall of Fame system based on Wins Above Replacement [WAR] leaves Teixeira just outside the Baseball Hall of Fame with 50.6 bWAR [with the lowest common denominator being 52.5 bWAR]. That seems to be a perfect summation of Teixeira’s career: a very good player just barely short of the Hall of Fame who would have been in if he had a little more fire in his belly. If this sounds too harsh, it could have been worse. Mark Teixeira coasted into retirement and just barely cost himself a Hall of Fame plaque. His career did not completely collapse after he became rich (see Carl Crawford below).
25a) Justin Morneau [5 of 394, 1.3.%, Ballot Year 1] 27.0 bWAR/24th
There was an old joke that goes: I went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out. If you looked at Canadian Justin Morneau’s injury history without knowing his actual sport, you would probably guess that he played hockey or football. Off the top of my head, I don’t know of any other baseball player who had a possible Baseball Hall of Fame career totally derailed by multiple concussions. His career first began to go off track in 2009 when his year was ended by a stress fracture in his back. In 2010, when he was 29, Morneau had a MVP caliber season wiped out by a brain concussion (he had already won a undeserved MVP in 2006). Fascinatingly, Morneau played 81 games in 2010, which is exactly half of the 162 game schedule (On July 7th, when he suffered the concussion, Morneau had actually played in 82 of a possible 84 games). By simply doubling his statistics, you get a player who scores 106 runs on 204 hits with 50 doubles, 2 triples, 36 HRs and 112 RBIs. He would have walked exactly 100 times. Morneau slashed .345/.437/.618 and his doubled bWAR of 9.4 would have topped the Majors (Josh Hamilton, the American League MVP, lead the Majors with 8.7 bWAR). Could Morneau kept up the pace for the rest of the season? Was Morneau’s 2010 season the beginning of a series of peak seasons? We will never know.
When he suffered the concussion in 2010, Morneau had amassed 21.5 bWAR during his career (and it would have well over 25.0 bWAR if he had been able to maintain his 2010 pace). He played on from 2011 until 2016 but amassed just 5.5 extra bWAR before retiring. After hitting 30 or more Home Runs in 2006, 2007, and 2009 (and on track for more than 30 in 2010), Morneau never hit as many as 20 in a season again. During his last six years, Morneau really had only one more good season. In 2014, he registered 3.4 bWAR and won a mile-high-altitude assisted batting title for the Colorado Rockies. It seemed like his career might get back on track. But then Morneau lost virtually the entire 2015 season to another concussion. For all intents and purposes, the second concussion ended his career. In some alternative universe, Morneau was never injured in 2010. He had a renaissance from 2011 to maybe 2016, possibly hitting 40 HRs some seasons. A skeptic would point out that these were his early 30s age seasons when most players decline. But Morneau was from Canada and may bloomed late. After that, Morneau would have faded, perhaps retiring in 2021. Instead of just one and done on this year’s BBWAA ballot, Morneau would be waiting for his inevitable induction to the Baseball Hall of Fame by the BBWAA around 2026 or 2027. It’s a damn shame.
25b) Jonathan Papelbon [5 of 394, 1.3%, Ballot Year 1] 23.3 bWAR/28th
Clearly the worst of the three top relievers on the 2022 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot, Jonathan Papelbon was certainly the most colorful of the crew. He had no filter and often seemed not to be playing with a full deck. It is a humorous coincidence that his two former teammates Curt Schilling and Manny Ramirez were still on the ballot for Papelbon’s one and done shot at being elected to the Hall of Fame by the BBWAA. Schilling, no stranger to verbal controversies, famously commented about Papelbon: “He’s not exactly a charter member of Mensa.” And Ramirez may have been the only player in the Major Leagues with a bigger reputation as a flake during Papelbon’s career. Papelbon had much greater success in the post-season than Billy Wagner or Joe Nathan, his 2022 fellow travelers on the Ballot. But there are a lot of other relief pitchers who should be elected before Papelbon. The champion Red Sox teams of the first decade of the 21st century were a lot of fun.
27a) Prince Fielder [2 of 394, 0.5%, Ballot Year 1] 23.8 bWAR/26th (tie)
One of the many interesting results of the 2022 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot was Ryan Howard finishing with eight votes to Prince Fielder’s measly two. By old school evaluation this seems about right. Ryan Howard whacked 382 HRs during his career while Fielder only banged 319 HRs. Howard’s peak season, 58-149-.313 [HR-RBI-BA], was much more impressive than any Fielder season [Prince peaked at 50-141-.313 but with every statistic in a different season]. Despite all this, Prince Fielder was actually a much better hitter overall than Howard because he got on-base at a much greater rate. Fielder’s on-base-percentage [OBP] was .382 against Ryan Howard’s more pedestrian .343 mark. Because of this Fielder finished his career with 23.8 wins above replacement according to Baseball Reference’s calculations [bWAR] while Howard ended up with only 14.7 bWAR. Both men were huge relatively immobile sluggers. But, if forced to chose, I would take the Prince and do my best to find him a good chiropractor early on in his career.
Although he was actually a better offensive player than Howard, Fielder was not superior defensively. The 2022 Ballot was littered with players who did not make their living with a glove. David Ortiz, who was so good in the field that he spent his career as a DH, cost his teams a win defensively about every 115 games. Manny Ramirez, who fielded as if he had just met his glove, cost his teams a win every 106 games. Gary Sheffield, who incredibly made Manny being Manny look good, cost his teams a victory every 93 games. Not to be outdone, Ryan Howard, who spent his defensive career imitating a statue, cost his teams a win every 91 games. But none of these players could touch Prince Fielder as a defensive liability. By the defensive wins above replacement stat in Baseball Reference [dWAR], Prince Fielder cost his teams a win in the field every 78.5 games. Fielder was incredibly atrocious between the lines. This is somewhat strange because my memories of him in the field are not that bad. Fielder must have been falling all over himself while I wasn’t watching.
Despite his rotten fielding, Prince Fielder would have probably ended up in the Baseball Hall of Fame with good health. Fielder was epically durable at the beginning of his career. In his first full season, he played 157 games in 2005. Fielder then played 158-159-162-161-162-162-162 games from 2006 until 2013. In the five seasons from 2009 to 2013, he missed just one game. However, during the 2013 season, his production fell off quite a bit and it was obvious that he was dealing with a physical problem. In 2014, at the age of 30, Fielder’s season was wrecked by a herniated disk in his neck. He hit only 3 home runs in 42 games. He returned in 2015 and had one last good season. Obviously still bothered by the neck injury, Fielder cut down on his swing and sacrificed power for contact. In 2016, his neck injury returned and once again he had a horrible year (8 HRs with a .212 BA in 89 games). After that season, Fielder had to undergo spinal fusion sugery of his neck vertabrae. His career was over. His last healthy season was apparently the 2012 campaign. At that point of his career, the 28-year-old Fielder had accumulated 21.5 bWAR and a cool 260 career HRs. Without injury, Fielder was a good bet to hit well over 500 HRs and maybe even 600. But his defense was so bad that reaching the 52.5 bWAR threshold was probably iffy. There would have been an interesting debate between the old school voters (500 HRs!) and the new school analysts about his worthiness. Considering his fame and his legacy as the son of Cecil Fielder, my money would have been on his inevitable election.
27b) A. J. Pierzynski [2 of 394, 0.5%, Ballot Year 1] 23.8 bWAR/26th (tie)
A. J. Pierzynski’s inclusion on the 2022 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot is abit of a mystery. He was certainly a very good player. He was a catcher for his whole career and that position is worth some bonus points. He was an entertaining player, although some would say that adjective should be infuriating. He was certainly not boring. All that being said, I never once thought that Pierzynski was on a track to the Baseball Hall of Fame while he was active. Now that his career is over, no eureka moment or epiphany changes that conclusion even one iota. He was a good but not great player. The statistic that I use to sort Hall of Fame candidates certainly agrees. Pierzynski accrued only 23.8 bWAR, far short of the 52.5 bWAR that I believe is the threshold for the Hall. In other words, A. J. Pierzynski not even half as good as a normal Hall of Famer. For a baseball player, that is still very good. But unlike any of the other 29 players on the 2022 Ballot, I cannot even imagine a scenario in which AJ Pierzynski ends up having a Hall of Fame career. Perhaps Pierzynski got on the Hall of Fame Ballot because he was someone’s favorite player. If that person voted in the actual election, they found someone else who agreed that A. J. Pierzynski was worthy of a vote. Strangely enough, those two ultimately wasted votes seem just about right to me too.
29a) Carl Crawford [0 of 394, 0.0%, Ballot Year 1] 39.1 bWAR/22nd
Carl Crawford, like Prince Fielder and Justin Morneau on the 2022 Ballot, was on a Baseball Hall of Fame track in his 20s. But he had a completely different skill set than either of those players. Crawford’s game was primarily based on speed rather than power. By the end of the 2010 season, the 28-year-old Carl Crawford had already amassed 35.6 bWAR. He was coming off his very best year [110 runs scored, a league leading 13 3B, 19 HR, 90 RBIs, .307 BA, 47 SB, a career high 7.0 bWAR]. He was an excellent defensive player though limited to left field by a weak arm. It seemed inevitable that he would easily surpass the 52.5 bWAR lowest common denominator standard for the Baseball Hall of Fame. But, after his great 2010 season, Crawford signed a free agent contract for 142 million dollars over 7 years. He was never really worth a warm bucket of spit after that. Like Fielder and Morneau, his career was derailed by injuries that took him off the field. From 2011 until he retired after the 2016 season, Crawford’s cascade of injuries included: left wrist, left elbow, hamstring, left ankle, and oblique. He needed ‘Tommy John’ surgery on the left elbow. But, unlike Fielder or Morneau, injuries do not seem to tell the whole story.
As soon as he signed his enormous contract, Crawford certainly seemed to lose all motivation. He stopped keeping himself in shape and was obviously overweight for the entire fadeout of his career. How much this contributed to him being injury-prone from 2011 to 2016 is debatable. It surely didn’t help. Crawford got engaged to a woman who almost surely was not interested in supporting his career. He was released in June of 2016 with a year and a half left on his contract. Crawford didn’t try to catch on with another team. He admitted that he had always planned on retiring at the end of his enormous contract. In other words, Crawford was simply playing out the string for the money. It is hard to judge another person’s motivations without access to their actual thoughts. But the evidence points to a conclusion that, once he signed his massive contract, Carl Crawford lost all interest in delivering on his contractual obligations. Perhaps this is too harsh. Maybe the injuries were so dispiriting that he simply gave up. Nevertheless, if he had just duplicated his career value amassed before age 29, Carl Crawford would have slid into the Baseball Hall of Fame without a tag. Zero votes seems about right.
29b) Jake Peavy [0 of 394, 0.0%, Ballot Year 1] 39.2 bWAR/21st
Jake Peavy twice lead the National League in both earned run average and strikeouts and once in games won. He won the National League Cy Young award and pitching Triple Crown (Wins, ERA, and Strikeouts) in 2007, his best season. From his first season in 2002 until 2007, Jake Peavy was certainly on a Hall of Fame track. But, from 2008 until his retirement after the 2016 season, Peavy’s career was derailed and then finished by injuries. During that time, he was only able to pitch full seasons in 2012 and 2014. Despite that, Peavy had a pretty good career, finishing with a 152-126 record and being credited with 37.2 bWAR. However, by most reasonable evaluations, it falls short of a Hall of Fame career [LCD=52.5 bWAR] and his chance at election to the Baseball Hall of Fame is now one and done without receiving a single vote.
It’s interesting to compare the vote totals of Jake Peavy with Tim Lincecum, who also was one and done in 2022. Lincecum got 9 votes to Peavy’s zero. Lincecum finished his career with a 110-89 record. He was credited with just 19.9 bWAR despite winning back to back National League Cy Young awards in 2008 and 2009 and also leading the League in strikeouts three years running (2008-2010). By any measure, Lincecum had a higher peak. Lincecum’s best two years (the Cy Young award years) are both much better than any season of Peavy’s career, even his own Cy Young Award season. But, by any measure, Peavy had the greater career. Lincecum’s much superior showing in the vote can only be explaining by valuing peak value far over career. In a way, it does not really matter. Neither man was Baseball Hall of Fame worthy.
Final Thoughts – The Baseball Hall of Fame Tracker
The results of the 2022 Baseball Writer’s Association of America [BBWAA] election for the Baseball Hall of Fame were announced on January 25, 2022. Before the announcement, one thing was completely clear: the only player with any chance of actually being admitted in 2022 by the BBWA was David Ortiz. A week before the election was final, the Hall of Fame tracker compiled by Ryan Thibodaux had counted 162 of the published BBWAA ballots. David Ortiz had been included on 144 of these ballots. In other words, Ortiz was, at that time, polling 83.7% of the ballots cast. As the requirement for induction is 75% of the ballots, it was obvious that Ortiz had a good chance. But he was the only player with a shot. With 394 ballots being cast, David Ortiz needed to simply hang on to get elected. Previous years of the Baseball Hall of Fame Tracker [BHOFT] indicated that Ortiz’s percentage would shrink as more and more ballots were counted (because the real reactionary voters who send in empty ballots or with the baseball equivalents of Elmer Fudd included usually do not publish their ballots). Is it a good thing that the results of the election were all but certain before it was even over?
Because Ryan Thibodaux’ BHOFT has pretty much ruined the possibility of a surprise induction, some baseball writers have posed the question of whether the BHOFT is ruining the process of the Baseball Hall of Fame vote. The clear answer to that question is pretty much no. The Baseball Writers are just using the question to write a column and fill empty space. If anything, the BHOFT has brought needed scrutiny to the whole voting process. It is apparent that some of the BBWAA members should not be allowed to vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame at all. Because the BHOFT keeps track of individual votes, it is possible to see which writers take their responsibility seriously. The Baseball Hall of Fame should not take the vote away from the BBWAA. The BBWAA has certainly done a better job than any of the Committees appointed by the Hall of Fame. But it is obvious that all votes should be published. It is also obvious that the Baseball Hall of Fame should have some process to eliminate the writers who vote for reasons that are basically stupid. The Baseball Hall of Fame tracker could be used to improve the process immensely. Which means that it will probably never happen.