Hall of Fame
In my opinion, there are three, and only three, acceptable ways to address the PED era:
- Not vote for anyone;
- Vote for everyone eligible regardless of PED usage; or
- Only penalize those people who have been confirmed to use PEDs.
I’m in part three of the camp, but I can accept anyone’s reasonable thought process on the issue. What is not reasonable is playing the steroids guessing game. When you do that, you’re bound to make mistakes. When you do that, you’re bound to be inconsistent and look foolish. Of course, I’m specifically addressing Rick Plumlee’s vote.
https://twitter.com/rickplumlee/status/676894578625105922
Here is his ballot blown-up:
Now, I typically don’t take issue with public ballots. I don’t take issue because there are presumably reasonable and justifiable reasons for not voting for a player. I think Mike Piazza is a sure Hall of Famer, but there could be legitimate arguments why you don’t vote for him.
There could be valid reasons why you would vote for Jeff Bagwell and not Piazza. This is not one of them:
@rickplumlee I see you deleted the Tweet where you reference the "credible case" against Piazza. I was correct. You are a coward.
— Joe Perota (@joeperota) December 15, 2015
https://twitter.com/rickplumlee/status/676904982768189440
Note, I had to include this exchange because Mr. Plumlee deleted his Tweet where he stated there was a “credible case” Piazza used steroids. After deleting his Tweet, he used a Mets Today piece about Piazza admitting he used Andro. That’s his basis. It didn’t matter to him Andro was legal back then:
https://twitter.com/rickplumlee/status/676907078145937408
I could accept not voting for anyone that took anything. He drew a line in the sand, and he used it as a basis to vote for Bagwell but not Piazza. There’s one problem with that . . .
Bagwell made the same admission. You know how I found this Bagwell article? I used what your older relatives refer to as “The Google.” Of course, Mr. Plumlee has not answered any questions why the line of demarcation or why he’s comfortable for voting for a steroid user in Bagwell.
Again, this is why you don’t play the steroids guessing game. Eventually, you vote for a guy who used steroids. You vote for that guy even if the information was readily available.
Yesterday, Rob Manfred made the only decision he could make. He denied Pete Rose’s application for reinstatement.
I don’t care if it was as a manger or a player. Pete Rose doesn’t deserve reinstatement, and not just because he was deemed not to have reformed his life. No. Rose doesn’t deserve it for two very important reasons. The first is he bet on baseball as a player and manager. It’s the golden rule. It’s drilled into players from the minors. We all know the repercussions. The precedent was there from the Black Sox scandal. You bet on the game it’s a lifetime ban. You don’t mess with the integrity of the game.
The second reason is the less talked about reason. He agreed to it. At the time, he was being investigated by the IRS and FBI regarding his betting and potential drug use. Yes, as per MLB rules, he had a right to apply for reinstatement, but that doesn’t mean he was promised reinstatement.
How could he? He potentially jeopardized the sanctity of the game. He was completely untrustworthy. He lied until it suited him to discontinue the lie. He perjured himself about his betting on baseball. We know this because later on, he admitted to it when it became profitable to do so. However, he insisted he only bet on the game when he was a manager, and he always bet on the Reds.
Turns out, he did bet on baseball as a player. While nothing has been uncovered about him betting against the Reds, we’ll see. If the right book advance comes along, he might. Regardless, why should we believe him either way? He perpetually lies about it. Perhaps he’s lying about it so he may get elected into the Hall of Fame. Could you imagine the fallout if Rose was reinstated and elected to the Hall only to later discover he was betting against the Reds?
My guess is we will eventually find out he bet against the Reds in some fashion. I don’t know if it’ll be tomorrow, next year, or the next century. We did just confirm he bet on the game as a player 20 plus years later.
There are many who don’t care. They find it absurd the All Time Hits Leader isnt “in” the Hall of Fame. Have these people ever been to Cooperstown? Pete Rose is in the Hall of Fame. They don’t cover up the fact that he has more hits than Ty Cobb. His artifacts are in the Hall of Fame as being the hits leader and being a member of the iconic Big Red Machine. It’s not like Pete Rose was whitewashed from MLB history.
What Pete Rose is being denied is the honor of enshrinement. He’s being denied being inducted as a member. His face is not going to be seen in the sane room as legends like Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson. He doesn’t belong there. Not in 1989. Not today. Not ever.
No, I don’t subscribe to the put it on his plaque theory. That area of the Hall of Fame is for honoring the best of the best. We don’t see there the worst things about each player. We see what makes them great. That area is for celebrating what made those players great, not to serve as a cautionary tale or to chastise a player. What’s the purpose of honoring him just so you can chastise him?
The better recourse is to prevent his enshrinement. That was his decision. Instead, I’d like to have a young kid go to the Hall of Fame and see Pete Rose is the All Time hits leader. I hope that kid notices Rose was never inducted. I hope that kid finds out why. See? You’ve just accomplished what you wanted to do without excusing Rose’s actions away. You did it without honoring the man who has consistently defiled the game.
Hopefully, this is the last time we will have to hear about this. At least until we discover he has an 0-4 in some random July game or didn’t use his closer in May to satisfy his gambling debts.
Once Michael Cuddyer‘s retirement was confirmed, seemingly everyone sought out the best way to spend his $12.5 million forfeited salary. The prevailing thought was that the Mets should re-sign Yoenis Cespedes. I do admit for a time being the Mets could’ve better spent their money.
These are interesting and worthwhile discussions, but they also neglect the void Cuddyer leaves behind. I know he was slated to make a lot of money. Money, frankly, that could be better spent elsewhere. Put that aside for a second. That money was already budgeted. Instead, let’s focus on the role Cuddyer was going to play:
- Veteran presence in the clubhouse;
- Solid pinch hitter; and
- Right handed bat against tough lefties.
At a minimum, you knew you could slate him in to give Lucas Duda an occasional day off while having a credible bat and glove at first base. He could take some at bats from Curtis Granderson against lefties. Remember, Granderson has definitive platoon splits, and he will be 35 years old next year. He can also ease the transition of Michael Conforto into his role as an everyday player.
Now, many people will naturally call for Juan Uribe to take his place. It seems like a fit. Uribe was a great addition to the clubhouse, and can spell David Wright at third on occasion. Last year, Uribe was uncomfortable playing first, but he may have more aptitude after having an offseason to prepare for the role. He will also cost much less than $12.5 million.
However, Uribe is not the player Cuddyer is or was. Cuddyer is a career .277/.344/.461 hitter. Last year, Cuddyer hit .259/.309/.391. As a pinch hitter, Cuddyer hits .355/.431/.548. Conversely, Uribe is a career .256/.303/.421 hitter. Last year, he hit .219/.301/.430 with the Mets and .253/.320/.417 overall. As a pinch hitter, Uribe has hit .281/.363/.461.
For the money, sure, you’d probably rather have Uribe. However, that first implies the Mets will reallocate the money (not a given). Second, it ignores the fact that Cuddyer also plays the outfield, which Uribe doesn’t. Lastly, Uribe would be redundant as he would just be signing on to play Wilmer Flores‘ role.
No, to fully replace Cuddyer the Mets need a right handed 1B/OF who can serve as a mentor to the players on the team. Looking at the free agent market that player doesn’t exist. Therefore, finding a replacement for Cuddyer will be next to impossible. The Mets are not a better team after his retirement.
I suppose the biggest testament to the type of player and Cuddyer is is noting that the 2016 Mets are worse off for his retirement.
To me Hall of Fame voting gets frustrating because seemingly everyone has a different standard. Worse yet, they believe everyone should adopt that standard.
The first group are the “I know a Hall of Famer when I see him.” I simply don’t get this one because what you see isn’t what everyone else sees. Seriously, we live in a world where Aaron Sele received a vote for the Hall of Fame. When someone tells me Aaron Sele is a Hall of Famer due to the eye test I’m out.
The next is to compare players to the lowest common denominator. For example, there is a Hall of Fame catcher by the name of Rick Ferrell, who as far as I can tell, basically made the Hall of Fane because he caught a lot of games. Long story short, if he and his 29.8 career WAR is your standard, we’re not debating if Mike Piazza belongs in the Hall of Fame. Instead, we’re debating if Tim McCarver belongs in the Hall of Fame.
My favorite is the person who tries to compare players at different positions. Personally, I call this the Don Mattingly defense because that’s where I’ve heard it most often. I’ll hear something like Mattingly had 222 homers while Kirby Puckett only had 207. If Puckett gets in, why can’t Mattingly? The answer is simple having a Gold Glove CF who averages 19 homers is a lot more valuable than a Gold Glove first baseman that averages 20.
Personally, I have no hard set rule. I will say that when analyzing a player’s candidacy for the Hall of Fame, I like to look towards what does the average Hall of Famer look like at that position. It’s not the end all and be all, but it’s a nice place to start. If after looking at that you’re short of that average threshold, there are other things I like to consider.
First is postseason success. If you’ve had real success in the postseason, you should get a bump. Every year, the goal is to win a World Series. If you consistently did something to help your team’s chances, you deserve credit for that.
The next is whether there was something truly great about you. Ozzie Smith wasn’t a great hitter, but he was amazing with the glove. On the flip side, Ryne Sandberg wasn’t a great fielder, but he hit the most ever homeruns by a second baseman when he retired. Being truly great at something and/or being the best ever at something should improve your Hall of Fame chances.
Lastly, I do look at stuff like steroids. I won’t play a guessing game on who did and who didn’t. However, if there’s concrete, actual evidence, I’m not voting for that person. No, I don’t mean a Murray Chase accusation, I’m talking about something that could be substantiated.
Overall, I get to cast my first IBWAA ballot this year, and I’m looking forward to it. I’m sure over time I will learn some things and adapt. I will do a small write-up on whoever is on my ballot.
There has been a recent push by the BBWAA to expand the amount of players that can be voted for in any particular ballot.
On the surface, the request is extremely reasonable. They want to eliminate limits or increase the limit on the number of players you can vote for in any ballot. It’s a great argument. If there are 15 players who are truly Hall of Fame worthy, you should be able to vote for 15 players. However, there is a subtext to the request:
Keeping 10-vote limit isn't about tradition. I think it's about suppressing votes for "undesirables" w/out saying it https://t.co/jjBtc1eY0I
— Jayson Stark (@jaysonst) November 18, 2015
The voters really voicing this opinion want the PED guys to go into the Hall of Fame. That’s their prerogative. They have a vote and can do with it as they please. Other voters who disagree can do the same. Looking over last year’s voting, the highest percent of the vote amongst confirmed steroids users went to Roger Clemens with 37.5% of the vote. It seems the overall electorate has spoken on how the PED guys should be treated.
So the 37.5% are really left with a choice. Do you continue to vote for players like Clemens, or do you vote for someone else. Admittedly, it’s not an easy decision. You’re stuck between voting for someone you seem worthy or voting for someone who you deem deserving but may not be as good. For example, do you vote for Clemens or Curt Schilling? Schilling had 39.2% of the vote last year.
The question is how each voter views their job. Is it their job to vote for the 10 best players (assuming there are 10 worthy candidates), or is it their job to elect worthy players into the Hall of Fame? This is probably the first time this has been an either/or proposition. In their history, members of the BBWAA have voted both ways.
There are voters who write-in the name of Pete Rose each year. Why? There is no way Rose can be elected. Even if Rose received a write-in vote on 75% of the ballots, he’d still be ineligible. This is nothing more than taking a stand on principle.
On the flip side, we see voters who vote for players they once deemed not Hall of Fame worthy. Jim Rice went from 29.8% of the vote in his first year to 76.4% in his last year of eligibility. Unlike Bert Blyleven, Rice didn’t have a new statistical approach to the sport to support him. No, it was a separation from his poor relationship with voters as well as superlatives thrown his way like his being a feared hitter.
The person who finished third the year Rice was elected was Andre Dawson with 67.0% of the vote. The next year he was elected with 77.9% in his ninth year of eligibility. The top vote getter not elected was the aforementioned Blyleven with 74.2% of the vote. Behind him was Roberto Alomar with 73.7% of the vote. They would both be elected the next year. It was Blyleven’s 14th year on the ballot and Alomar’s second.
You see the pattern. In fact, anyone who has received over 64.8% of the vote on any year has eventually been elected to the Hall of Fame. Eventually, the voters tend to coalesce around a candidate to get them elected regardless of their prior thought process.
Going back to Clemens and Schilling, for whom should a voter cast their vote? If the idea is to elect candidates who are worthy and can actually be elected, you vote for Schilling. If you follow the Hall of Fame voting patterns, you vote for Schilling. Regardless of how you feel about PED users, is it worth it to block Schilling’s path to the Hall of Fame so you can enter a vote for Clemens?
If you think both are worthy, what purpose does it serve to not vote for Schilling? If you’re complaining there isn’t enough spots, you need to vote for the most electable candidates. If you aren’t, you are effectively acting as a voter who makes a distinction between first ballot Hall of Famers and non-First Ballot Hall of Famers. Effectively, you are saying Schilling belongs in, but only after Clemens makes the Hall of Fame.
If you think someone belongs in the Hall of Fame and they have not been linked to PEDs, you must vote for them. This isn’t limited to Schilling. It incorporates anyone who is on the ballot whether it be Mike Mussina or Mike Piazza. Really, it incorporates anyone you deem Hall of Fane worthy. If there are any spots left, then vote for the Clemenses of the world.
Not voting for Schilling means you subscribe to a tier system in the Hall of Fame; a tier system that does not exist. It has to stop.
When I was reviewing the 2016 Hall of Fame ballot, one name was conspicuously missing: Carlos Delgado. I knew he retired in 2009 and was never able to play again. I figured it was an error. Nope. Somehow , Delgado only received 3.8% of the vote. How is that possible?
I’m not saying he’s a Hall of Famer. I’m saying it’s up for legitimate debate. Over his career, his 162 game averages were .280/.383/.546 with 38 homeruns and 120 RBIs. THAT’S HIS AVERAGE! Overall, he would finish with 473 homeruns and 1,512 RBIs in 17 years in the big leagues. Look, I know he played in an offensive era, but those numbers are other worldly. I don’t know why 96.2% of the voters couldn’t give him more consideration.
Maybe it’s because he fell one healthy season short of 500 homeruns. Every clean player with 500 homeruns has been elected to the Hall of Fame. Maybe it’s because he spent too much of his career in Canada. Gary Carter seemingly had the same problem, but he had one or two more signature moments with the Mets than Delgado did. Maybe if the Mets win the World Series in 2006 the voters would’ve looked at him differently.
What I do know is Delgado was a feared slugger. When the Mets obtained him in 2006, they went from a .500 club to contenders. Once Willie Randolph slotted him in that cleanup spot, the Mets took off, and Delgado was excelling in his first opportunity to play for a contender. In the 2006 postseason, he went off hitting .351/.442/.757 with three doubles, four homers and 11 RBIs.
I remember him struggling in the beginning of 2008 wondering if this was it for him. He only hit .248/.328/.455 in the first half, and I’m not even sure he was that good. With a .500 team that collapsed the prior year and in need of a spark, especially, with a fired manager, Delgado came in like a raging inferno. In the second half, he hit .303/.386/.606 with 21 homers. He willed the Mets into contention.
Sadly, his career and the stretch of good Mets baseball would end when Delgado needed hip surgery due to bone spurs and a torn labrum. Delgado did not get the chance to go out on his own terms. He deserved better than that much like he deserved more than the paltry 3.8% of the vote he received last year.
In any event, I’m happy Delgado came to the Mets. He retired as one of the top 3 first baseman in Mets history. He may belong to the Blue Jays, but he will always be a Met in my book. Hopefully, the Mets will induct him into the Mets Hall of Fame. It’s not the same as Cooperstown, but it’s something.
Unfortunately, Delgado will no longer be on the ballot. We all lose because of this. We lose because we can’t have intelligent debates over whether or not he belongs in Cooperstown. We lose because we can’t re-live his career highlights. We lose because a great player and a good man was slighted.
There are debates to be had on the players on the 2016 ballot. For the life of me, I can’t wrap my head around the fact that Carlos Delgado isn’t one of them.
Recently, the players eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame were announced. On that list is former Met, Billy Wagner, who is eligible for the first time.
The question that naturally follows is if he’s a Hall of Famer. Unfortunately, what happens next is some idiot starts minimizing what each player had accomplished, and/or questioning why the player appears on the ballot. There’s no need for that. To be eligible, a player has to be in the big leagues for 10 years, which is no small feat considering most of us never made it out of Little League. These players have earned the right to have their name there. Instead of telling us why they’re not Hall of Famers, their stories should be shared.
Personally, I always marvel at Billy Wagner. Did you know he’s not even a lefty? He’s a natural righty, but as a kid he learned to throw lefty because he broke his right arm twice. It’s a good thing too because inside that left arm was a fastball that could occasionally hit triple digits. He would make it to the Astros to become an elite All Star closer.
For his career, Wagner amassed 422 saves. That ranks as sixth all time and second amongst left handed closers trailing only fellow former Met (and Astro) John Franco. He had a 2.31 ERA with a 0.998 WHIP and a 11.9 K/9. He was what you wanted with a closer. He came in and struck people out en route to wrapping up the game. He made it an eight inning game for his team. You can make a case for him going into the Hall of Fame with those numbers.
As a Mets fan, I’m more interested in two things about Billy Wagner: 2006 and 2009. In 2006, Wagner came to the Mets and became part of an incredible bullpen. He saved 40 games. His year was so good he finished sixth in the Cy Young voting. He was a vital member of a team that won 97 games and won the NL East for the first time in 28 years. Unfortunately, it was his only fully healthy year with the Mets. He was unavailable due to injury in 2007 and 2008. We watched as a damaged bullpen and flawed team collapsed in those seasons.
The worst of Wagner’s injuries would come in 2008. He would need Tommy John surgery. Most, myself included, thought this was the end of his Mets career. Instead, Wagner come back astonishingly fast from the surgery. After 11 months, he came back to a Mets team going nowhere. No one would’ve blamed him for easing off the throttle a bit. There wasn’t a need to rush back. However, it wasn’t the way Billy Wagner is wired. He came back to a well deserved standing ovation and recorded a 1-2-3 inning.
He would be traded to Boston to finish out 2009. He would play one more year with the Braves before hanging them up. He left behind a career in which he was dominant. He can honestly say he gave it all on the field. He was a fierce competitor that brought integrity to the game.
I’m not sure if he’s a Hall of Famer. What I do know is that he was a great player, and I’m glad he was a Met. Instead of taking time to denigrate his career, people should be writing his story. It’s a remarkable story about resiliency and competitiveness. He should be shown as an inspiration to children that you can overcome anything to be a big leaguer . . . even twice breaking your throwing arm.
For all that, congratulations on a terrific career Billy Wagner.