2009 Hall of Fame Class

[FromWayDowntown]

Will we have a one-player class in 2009 with Rickey Henderson getting what he always wanted -- the spotlight to himself? (because Rickey's getting in no matter what this year) Or will the voters send along a marginal candidate or two to make Rickey less of a spectacle?

Here are the 2009 candidates:

• Harold Baines
• Jay Bell
• Bert Blyleven
• David Cone
• Andre Dawson
• Ron Gant
• Mark Grace
• Rickey Henderson
• Tommy John
• Don Mattingly
• Mark McGwire
• Jack Morris
• Dale Murphy
• Jesse Orosco
• Dave Parker
• Dan Plesac
• Tim Raines
• Jim Rice
• Lee Smith
• Alan Trammell
• Greg Vaughn
• Mo Vaughn
• Matt Williams

I think there are several on that list who have no business being in a conversation about the Hall of Fame and, I think, no chance of even getting the 5% to remain on the ballot into next year -- Jay Bell, Ron Gant, and Dan Plesac. On that basis, too, I wouldn't vote for either Vaughn or for Matt Williams, but I don't have a vote and I could see where some might vote for those guys just to keep them around for another year or two.

Of those who were eligible last year, Rice came the closest to enshrinement:

Gossage, Rich -- 85.8%
Rice, Jim -- 72.2%
Dawson, Andre -- 65.9%
Blyleven, Bert -- 61.9%
Smith, Lee -- 43.3%
Morris, Jack -- 42.9%
John, Tommy -- 29.1%
Raines, Tim -- 24.3%
McGwire, Mark -- 23.6%
Trammell, Alan -- 18.2%
Concepcion, Dave -- 16.2%
Mattingly, Don -- 15.8%
Parker, Dave -- 15.1%
Murphy, Dale -- 13.8%
Baines, Harold -- 5.2%

Rice would seem the most likely candidate to join Henderson, both because he was close to joining Gossage in 2008 and because this appears to be his last year of eligibility. Dawson strikes me as being quite a bit like Rice.

I still think that precedent makes Blyleven a worthy candidate and his voting totals seem to get closer and closer to 75%, but I'm not sure he'll get enough love this time to get in, either.

Lee Smith retired as the all-time saves leader and is still 3rd on that list, but saves strike me as a pretty absurd way to define greatness. Still, if Gossage is in, Smith has a decent argument. He's a 7-time All-Star who lead his league in saves on 4 different occasions while finishing in the top 5 in Cy Young voting three times.

McGwire is, well, McGwire.


So, who gets in with Rickey?

[barbacoataco]

Out of those guys I actually think Dave Parker deserves it more than the rest. He was a dominant MVP type player and one of the best hitters of his era, first with the Pirates then the Reds.

You have to ask yourself is longetivity more important than peak greatness. In other words, someone like Harold Baines played a long time and racked up the stats to look kind of like a Hall of Famer. But at no time was he considered one of the best players while he was playing.

Jim Rice, Dave Parker, Dale Murphy, were all MVP type players at their best, but they didn't have really long careers and rack up the big stats.

Blyleven and Tommy John had long careers but were only a little better than average for much of them.

Tim Raines was a very effective leadoff hitter and is borderline HOF'er. You have to remember that not all of the players in the HOF were really great.

[K-State Spur]

Rice & Dawson belong. Rice should be obvious. Dawson was widely regarded as the best RF in baseball for almost a decade. That alone should get him in.

[FromWayDowntown]

Rice & Dawson belong. Rice should be obvious. Dawson was widely regarded as the best RF in baseball for almost a decade. That alone should get him in.

I think of those two as being extremely similar. Rice is Dawson without the good glove and arm; Dawson is Rice without the consistent bat.

I still think McGwire is the most interesting question on this ballot, and I'll be curious to see if his vote totals rise appreciably in the next year or so.

[barbacoataco]

Why are Rice and Dawson more deserving than Dave Parker? Parker finished top 5 in the MVP voting 5 seasons, which is better than Dawson or Rice. He also won 2 batting les and was a great fielder with a tremendous arm. He was the best player on a World Series winner 1979. Go back and compare his career to Rice and Dawson, and you'll see all 3 are about even. Parker just has a stigma because of his coke problem.

Also, Jim Rice's stats were inflated by Fenway, although he was a great hitter.

The McGwire issue is complicated and at this point kind of beaten like a dead horse. I guess they're not letting him in. I do agree in a way, but it does seem arbitrary to "wipe out" his career from the book.

Bonds is different because he was already a great player prior to becoming a roided out freak. Even if you throw out all the later seasons, he still is a HOF'er. Mcgwire was not a HOF caliber player before the roid craze.

[K-State Spur]

Why are Rice and Dawson more deserving than Dave Parker? Parker finished top 5 in the MVP voting 5 seasons, which is better than Dawson or Rice. He also won 2 batting les and was a great fielder with a tremendous arm. He was the best player on a World Series winner 1979. Go back and compare his career to Rice and Dawson, and you'll see all 3 are about even. Parker just has a stigma because of his coke problem.

Also, Jim Rice's stats were inflated by Fenway, although he was a great hitter.

The McGwire issue is complicated and at this point kind of beaten like a dead horse. I guess they're not letting him in. I do agree in a way, but it does seem arbitrary to "wipe out" his career from the book.

Bonds is different because he was already a great player prior to becoming a roided out freak. Even if you throw out all the later seasons, he still is a HOF'er. Mcgwire was not a HOF caliber player before the roid craze.

Just an opinion. Rice was definitely the best offensive player of the 3 (although not by a large margin). Parker and Dawson are pretty similar offensively - but Dawson was an all-around superior player (terrific base stealer, the best RF in baseball for a long period - with apologies to Dwight Evans).

[barbacoataco]

I respect your opinion and will admit that all 3, Rice-Parker-Dawson have more or less egual credentials. So if one is in the HOF, shouldn't they all be? Some of the old time players like Travis Jackson weren't even among the best players of their day.

These guys were all MVP players who had long careers making the Allstar team 7-8 times. I have studied baseball history and I am telling you that is HOF credentials. Unless wer're going to suddenly change the standards they should all be in the HOF. Blyleven is different because he was never considered the best pitcher in the league. He was just a consistent good pitcher who played a long time.

The Veterans committee will put them all in anyway.

Another guy who should go in- Dave Concepcion. While he was an active player he was considered a HOF player and perhaps THE greatest defensive shortstop ever. He was a big part of the 1976 Reds team that was the best ever. He won a million gold gloves and he should be in the HOF.

[Reggie Miller]

The real issues with the HOF are roughly as follows:

Are there too many borderline players in the HOF already? If yes, how should the voters deal with this? Should they stop diluting the HOF, or should they acknowledge it’s too late and continue to induct borderline players?

I am of the opinion that we need to stop bringing in borderline players for a lot of reasons. First, it diminishes the honor. Second, it makes the induction criteria too vague. (I can expect to figure out the best player at his position for his generation, but distinguishing the fourth from the fifth best becomes a little problematic.) Third, lowered standards will be a real problem as the steroid-era players become eligible. There are going to be a lot of players finish their careers with 500 HR in the next decade or so.

As much as I love Andre Dawson and Rock Raines, Rickey Henderson is the only obvious HOF player on that list. Lee Smith, Raines, and Dawson deserve some discussion. If Rickey did not exist, then Raines would be the ideal of the modern lead-off hitter, but Rickey came first and has better numbers. Raines is essentially Rickey Lite. Dawson is a tough call. As someone else pointed out above, you can make a strong argument that he was the best RF in the NL for at least a decade. In my mind, that matters more than a lot of arbitrary counting stats. Lee Smith is unlikely to get in based on how the HOF has handled relievers in the past.

In my mind, you have to be pretty damn spectacular to get in the HOF, period. If you are a reliever or a DH, you need to be the most dominant player of your era. Why? You just aren’t as valuable. Rice couldn’t field a position. It’s hard for me to put him in the same class as the greatest players of all time when he was so one-dimensional. I can’t imagine someone seriously believing that Rice is worthy of the same honor or distinction as Willie Mays or Roberto Clemente, who were better players in every single facet of the game.

Guys like Parker and Concepcion are total reaches. Concepcion may have had a great glove, but his offense was quite mediocre for the HOF, even for a middle infielder of his era. Parker wasn't even the best OF on his own teams early in his career, and he certainly was never the best DH in the AL later in his career. The fact that he finished in the Top 5 of MVP voting but never won it isn't exactly conclusive evidence in his favor.

[barbacoataco]

You obviously don't know Dave Parker's career. HE DID WIN THE MVP in 1979. He also finished 2nd once and 3rd two times. That means 4 seasons he was voted one of the top 3 players.

He is not a reach as a HOF'er. On Baseball-reference.com the HOF monitor statistic (which was developed by Bill James) has Dave Parker at 124 with an average HOF'er at 100. Nearly every player over 100 who is eligible is in the HOF. Parker is well over 100.

Concepcion is 106.5. So he also, based on objective analysis, is a HOF caliber player. He was an Allstar 9 times!!!!! How many 9 time Allstar players are not in the Hall of Fame??? I'd like to know one.

[FromWayDowntown]

He was an Allstar 9 times!!!!! How many 9 time Allstar players are not in the Hall of Fame??? I'd like to know one.

Pete Rose.

How about:

Bill Freehan (11 time All-Star (including 10 consecutive appearances))
Steve Garvey (10 time All-Star)
Elston Howard (9 time All-Star)
Joe Gordon (9 time All-Star)
Fred Lynn (9 time All-Star)
Frank McCormick (9)
Ron Santo (9)
Joe Torre (9)

There's also a plausible chance that some others will soon join that list, since I'd say that neither Roberto Alomar (12 time All-Star) nor Barry Larkin (12) is guaranteed enshrinement.

[barbacoataco]

Good job! Still the vast majority of 9 time allstars are in the HOF. Some of the players on that list might still get in. Garvey was considered overrated even in his prime.

I do not agree with changing the standards to allow fewer players in. Why change the criteria cow when the HOF has been around over 70 years? The fact is -- in the past a player who was good enough to win an MVP, made the allstar team every year, and had a long career, playing with winning teams, was a HOF player. Why should that change now?

Ever heard of Travis Jackson?

[MajorMike]

McGwire was a 12 time All Star.

[K-State Spur]

Good job! Still the vast majority of 9 time allstars are in the HOF. Some of the players on that list might still get in. Garvey was considered overrated even in his prime.

I do not agree with changing the standards to allow fewer players in. Why change the criteria cow when the HOF has been around over 70 years? The fact is -- in the past a player who was good enough to win an MVP, made the allstar team every year, and had a long career, playing with winning teams, was a HOF player. Why should that change now?

Ever heard of Travis Jackson?

What criteria? There is no criteria.

[FromWayDowntown]

Good job! Still the vast majority of 9 time allstars are in the HOF. Some of the players on that list might still get in. Garvey was considered overrated even in his prime.

Actually, I think time will show that the value of All-Star selections will diminish. There are a lot of factors that go into All-Star voting, not the least of which is popularity of a player or his team -- a factor that is driven as much by exposure as quan ative success. Garvey was overrated, even in his prime, but he was adored by fans who got to see the Dodgers frequently on the Game of the Week and who saw him almost annually in the post-season. That Garvey frequently made All-Star teams doesn't make him a Hall of Famer (same with Darryl Strawberry or Ted Simmons or Lance Parrish or Gil Hodges or Harvey Kuenn). All other concerns aside, the fact that Rafael Palmeiro only made 4 All-Star teams (or that Frank Thomas and Jim Thome each only made 5 All-Star teams) doesn't strike me as a very good reason to suggest that his resume would be un-Hall-worthy.

I do not agree with changing the standards to allow fewer players in. Why change the criteria cow when the HOF has been around over 70 years? The fact is -- in the past a player who was good enough to win an MVP, made the allstar team every year, and had a long career, playing with winning teams, was a HOF player. Why should that change now?

I'm not sure anyone is really arguing to change the standards; I think the argument is that the Veterans' Committee unilaterally changed the standards for a long time. The Veterans' Committee ensured that a lot of unspectacular players reached the Hall and a lot of people (in and out of the game) think that the inclusion of those players -- through the change that the VC wrought -- was wrong. I tend to agree; it's not the Hall of Really Good.

Ever heard of Travis Jackson?

Travis Jackson is a red herring. He was elected by the Veteran's Committee at a time when that committee was wreaking havoc on Hall of Fame standards. Jackson is among the many players who achieved Hall of Fame enshrinement despite utter unworthiness for that honor. The fact that Jackson is in the Hall of Fame (on the basis of the old VC vote) is absurd. I'm personally skeptical of using VC admittees as the basis for arguing subsequent candidates, and I think most would tend to agree with me.

[ATRAIN]

Have any of you guys ever been to Cooperstown?

[Reggie Miller]

I'm not sure anyone is really arguing to change the standards; I think the argument is that the Veterans' Committee unilaterally changed the standards for a long time. The Veterans' Committee ensured that a lot of unspectacular players reached the Hall and a lot of people (in and out of the game) think that the inclusion of those players -- through the change that the VC wrought -- was wrong. I tend to agree; it's not the Hall of Really Good.

I'm personally skeptical of using VC admittees as the basis for arguing subsequent candidates, and I think most would tend to agree with me.

That was my line of thought, also. The Veterans' Committee basically got a foot in the door and started inducting all of their old teammates and such. (That's why there are way too many borderline Yankess in the HOF.)

There are no designated criteria for the HOF, just guidelines. The conservative approach has been to urge that an inductee should have been a dominant player and/or the best at their position in their league. There is also a marked tendency to award HOF status to players who hit certain benchmarks (3,000 hits, 500 HR, or 300 Wins).

One of my favorite players, Ryne Sandberg, is a borderline HOFer in my mind. You could certainly claim he was the best 2B in the NL during his career, but he falls short on all of the counting stat criteria (partially due to premature retirement). His popularity was almost certainly the deciding factor.

I did not know that Parker won an MVP award. My mistake. I also have to admit that I didn't realize that the 1979 Pirates did it basically with just Parker, Stargell, and Madlock. I have a tendency to write off guys who spent too much time at DH (for the reasons I mentioned above).

[T Park]

I guess the NY hype for Mattingly was just that. It seemed like with him playing there he was one of the greatest players of all time.

[barbacoataco]

I have been to Cooperstown when I was younger and it is awesome.

I have been following baseball since the late 70's. One of the things that I find interesting is that the way players are viewed (in terms of greatness) often changes AFTER the player retires. This usually has to do with a player's stats when it is all said and done. EG- having 1500 RBI's as opposed to 1700. This has a lot to do with how much a player does in their last few years.

The result is that players like Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly, who were considered to be among THE VERY BEST players while active, get less recognition. Dale Murphy won back to back MVP's. That is impressive in any league.

I agree that Allstar selection is not always accurate. But MVP voting is a much better guage of how players were viewed WHILE THEY WERE AVTIVE. It is much better to go back and try to determine how these players were ranked at the time they were playing. Time plays tricks on people's memories and we all kind of forget things.

Remember that Dave Parker played his best seasons in Pittsbugh and Cincinnati- two small market teams. No wonder he doesn't have the name recognition of Jim Rice. But he was an equal player.

In 20 years will fans remember how great Bruce Bowen was? When they look at his stats, they might just say "he was just a mediocre SF with agood 3pt percentage and good defense." But people who saw him play a lot know he was a great player.

Also- why tighten the standards and allow fewer players in the HOF. For better or worse they have set a criteria. The BIll James HOF MONITOR statistic is very accurate measure of whether a player has the credentials.

Ryne Sandberg should be in the HOF. He was the best player at his position for many years and he was famous. In the past that was good enough-- so why not now? Why should the players of my youth not get in when players from the 30's. 40's and 50's are in?

Fans will remember that Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were the greatest of their generation. But Al Kaliine was a great player too and deserves to be remembered.

Jim Rice is not even a borderline HOF'er. He is in for sure unless you are totally changing the standards.

[FromWayDowntown]

One of my favorite players, Ryne Sandberg, is a borderline HOFer in my mind. You could certainly claim he was the best 2B in the NL during his career, but he falls short on all of the counting stat criteria (partially due to premature retirement). His popularity was almost certainly the deciding factor.

It's a different case with Sandberg than it was with, say, Concepcion. Sandberg was clearly the best 2B in the NL (and probably MLB) during his tenure in Chicago. He put up great numbers every year, hitting for both power and average, while being the best fielding 2B of that era (or almost any era, for that matter). And with all of that, I'd agree that Sandberg is a borderline HOF at best.

Concepcion played in a bunch of All-Star games and played short very well, but if he hadn't played for the Cincinnati Reds of that era, I'm not sure he'd be considered historically significant. He was in the Top 10 of a major offensive category only 5 times in his career and 2 of those were in BA and RBI in 1981, a strike-shortened year. For his career, he was a .267/.322/.357 guy who barely reached 100 home runs, who isn't in the Top 100 in stolen bases, and whose OPS+ is 88. Was Concepcion a good player? Sure. Does his resume make him a Hall of Famer? I don't think so.

Since it was mentioned eariler, I'll reiterate that I don't really buy the value of his All-Star appearances as any sort of real historical marker. But I think that's particularly true in a case like Concepcion's, because the compe ion he faced to make the All-Star team during that era was fairly limited. From 1973 through 1982, Concepcion made the All-Star team in all but one year (1974). During that time, here are the other SS who made NL All-Star teams: Larry Bowa (5 times -- 74, 75, 76, 78, 79); Bill Russell (3 times -- 73, 76, 80); Chris Speier (2 times -- 73, 74); Garry Templeton (2 times -- 77, 79); Ozzie Smith (2 times -- 81, 82); Don Kessinger (1 time -- 74); Craig Reynolds (1 time -- 79). It's not like Concepcion was beating out other guys who ended up in the Hall of Fame to land his All-Star appearances; historically, he was probably the best of that bunch, but it was a pretty weak era for NL shortstops.

I did not know that Parker won an MVP award. My mistake. I also have to admit that I didn't realize that the 1979 Pirates did it basically with just Parker, Stargell, and Madlock. I have a tendency to write off guys who spent too much time at DH (for the reasons I mentioned above).

I think the '79 Pirates were a whole that was a lot greater than the sum of its parts -- that team was great at manufacturing runs; it ran the bases very well; it aggressively moved runners. It also had good starting pitching and an extremely good bullpen. Parker was a huge part of that team's success, but having lived and died with baseball in that era (between 1978 and 1990 or so), I would never say: (1) that the '79 Pirates were a dominant champion in any real sense; or (2) that Parker was a dominant player in that era.

Parker was a key part of some really good teams and after the cocaine issues arose, he found his way into a few really good seasons in Cincinnati before finishing up well with some stacked teams in Oakland. And, as a young player, he was a gifted right fielder and had, I think, the most feared outfield arm in baseball (Dwight Evans and Andre Dawson were close, but not as feared as Parker, who had 26 assists from RF in 1977 and had 12 or more every year from 76-80). But Parker, to me, was a guy who was really good in isolated spurts while being fairly mediocre in other stretches. He was fabulous between 1975 and 1980; fairly unproductive (for a variety of reasons) between 1981 and 1984; really good for the Reds in 1985 and 1986; okay in 1987 and 1988; and more productive in 1989 and 1990. I think, for instance, that if Parker hadn't had a big dip in those seasons between 81 and 84, he's probably a clear-cut HOF guy. But he did have that dip and he did struggle to maintain consistency, despite his greatness in isolation. For that reason, I think Parker's case becomes much more difficult.

Frankly, I'm rooting for Parker, because I think he's forgotten as having been a dynamic player in a fun era of baseball. I'm sure I'm among many 30-somethings who love baseball and still recall the spectacle of Dave Parker gunning down Jim Rice and Brian Downing in the '79 All-Star Game. But those memories don't make a Hall of Fame career and I think that Parker's resume is going to end up being seen as a little short of Cooperstown's front door.

[barbacoataco]

Thanks for the lively discussion. Nice to talk baseball with people who know their . Ultimately time will tell who makes the HOF.

Too bad baseball isn't as much fun as it was in the 70's and 80's.

[barbacoataco]

Also, I think you are underestimating just how good Concepcion's defense was. At the time he was playing many considered him the best ever.

Also, you can't compare Concepcion's offense stats out of the context when he played. When he played shortstops didn't hit a lot. Most of the HOF SS's didn't hit a lot and weren't expected to. He is very comparable to Ryne Sandberg IMO. They were both considered the best at their position when they were active, but not among the greatest ever. Remember that Sandberg played in Wrigley field and never would have put up his stats in another ballpark.

[barbacoataco]

"There's also a plausible chance that some others will soon join that list, since I'd say that neither Roberto Alomar (12 time All-Star) nor Barry Larkin (12) is guaranteed enshrinement. "


You should check out the thebaseballpage.com all-time rankings where Barry Larkin is ranked the #3 Shorstop of All-time. But he's not a HOF'er? That's absurd.

[barbacoataco]

Why is there so little support for Dale Murphy? He was the best player in baseball for a good 6-7 year span, or at least top 3. He was an all around player who hit for average, power, ran the bases, gold glove defense. When he was active he was considered an all-time great CF. He didn't have the longest career, but he was very consistent and durable in his prime. Back to Back MVP's. I remember at that time many thought Murphy was a DiMaggio, Mays, Mantle type player.
If he had played a few more mediocre seasons at the end of his career and piled up better career totals, he would be in. And that doesn't seem right.

[timvp]

You have to eventually put McGwire in. I can see not making him a first or second ballot HOFer as punishment for the roids issue but he deserves to be in soon. The HOF voters shouldn't have the power to figure out who to penalize and who to not penalize ... especially when the proof is lacking.

Even as someone who has been anti-McGwire for more than a decade due to him being on steroids, back when whottt and T Park were saying he was just country strong, I don't see why he should be kept out of the HOF much longer.

[K-State Spur]

The HOF voters shouldn't have the power to figure out who to penalize and who to not penalize ... especially when the proof is lacking.

Well, they probably have enough proof. For the purposes of the court of public opinion - there was only one reason for him to take the 5th amendment to the direct questions asked.