Typically, when I review a player’s case for their Hall of Fame candidacy, it is done prior to their induction.  However, when Harold Baines was inducted, there was such a fervor I felt compelled to review the candidacy of an actual Hall of Famer.  The strange part about the reaction has been the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune toward the man himself.  Make no mistake, Harold Baines didn’t select himself.  Harold Baines didn’t plead his case or campaign for selection.  One day he was minding his own business enjoying his well-deserved retirement and the next day he was swept up into a whirlwind of the Hall of Fame.  

1.Quiet
2.Strong Postseason Record
3.38.8 WAR
4.Two Time Edgar Martinez Award Winner
5.#3
6.1,628 RBIs
7.2,866 Hits
8.Six time All-Star
9.MVP voting
10.Top 5 DH of All-Time
11.Black Ink – 3, Gray Ink – 40, Hall of Fame Monitor – 67, Hall of Fame Standards – 44
12.Uniqueness
13.4,604 Total Bases
14.121 OPS+

1. Quiet - Most Hall of Famers have a famous story that has nothing to do with statistics or Hall of Fame worthiness.  These can be something remarkable like Babe Ruth’s called shot and Willie Mays’ “The Catch”, or these can be crazy like Robin Ventura getting 5 hits off of Nolan Ryan and George Brett’s Pine Tar Incident, or these can simply just be a memorable quote like Lou Gehrig’s “I am the luckiest man on the face of the earth” and Rickey Henderson’s “Today I am the greatest of all-time”.  And that’s the thing about Harold Baines, he was quiet.  Baines played 22 years without pomp, without controversy, without a clever quip, and without flash.  He was perhaps the quietest 20+ year veteran who ever played the game.  He showed up, did his job, and went home.  In fact, the most interesting story about Baines happened to him 9 years before he saw his first Major League pitch.  Hall of Fame owner, Bill Veeck saw Baines play as a Little Leaguer when Baines was 12 and followed his career until 1977 when Veeck’s White Sox drafted Baines #1 overall.  In a way, Baines’ lack of story makes him stand out as a somewhat unique Hall of Famer.  It’s possible his lack of story is one of the reasons there may have been such a harsh response to his induction. 

2. Strong Postseason Record – None of Harold Baines’ teams won the World Series.  But they did make the Postseason six times with one World Series appearance.  In his sole World Series appearance, Baines only hit .143 but it was the 1990 Series and being the A’s DH, he only got 8 at bats since they were swept.  However, Baines was great when the spotlight was on his team.  His career Postseason slash line is .324/.378/.510 hitting over .350 in five of his eight Postseason series. While he gets dinged for the 1990 World Series, the overall body of work looks good next to most Hall of Famers. 

3. 38.8 WAR – 38.8 WAR is a low total for a Hall of Famer.  Excluding pitchers, among Hall of Fame players with at least 3,000 Plate Appearances there are 19 players with a lower WAR total than Harold Baines.  Four of the 19 are Negro Leaguers.  Two of the 19 are 19th Century Baseball players.  The remaining 13 were elected for one (or more) of three reasons: 1. Reputation, 2. Association, 3. A Singular Accomplishment.  Reputation: Rick Ferrell was considered one of the best catchers of his era and had the added benefit of being an executive with the Tigers during their two World Championships.  At the time of his selection, Ray Schalk was considered one of the great defensive catchers of his time.  He was also one of the few 1919 White Sox players who played to win.  George Kell was generally regarded as one of the great 3rd basemen of his era and made 10 All-Star appearances, but he also spent 37 years after his career as a successful broadcaster for the Tigers.  Pie Traynor was often cited as the greatest 3rd baseman of his era.  Association: High Pockets Kelly was elected by the “Friends of Frisch” Veterans Committee.  Kelly specifically was the “finest first baseman” Frisch had ever seen.  Freddie Lindstrom was also selected by the Frisch/Terry Committee.  Chick Hafey was also selected by the Frisch/Terry Committee; though his induction was defended using the Koufax argument, Hafey’s brilliance in his short, injury marred career pales in comparison to Koufax. Ross Youngs was also selected by the Frisch Committee, though he died tragically young.  As was Jim Bottomley.  Lloyd Waner was the brother of well qualified Hall of Famer Paul Waner.  Ernie Lombardi was finally selected by the Veterans Committee once his friend and contemporary Birdie Tebbetts was added to the committee.  Singular Accomplishment: Bill Mazeroski is often cited as the greatest defensive 2nd baseman of all-time but he also is given credit for his Walk-Off HR to end game 7 of the 1960 World Series.  Hack Wilson still holds the record for most RBIs in a single season.  Of these 3 options, Baines falls into the Association category as his candidacy was advocated (and defended) by Veterans Committee members, Tony LaRussa and Jerry Reinsdorf.  Of the three categories, Association is the weakest.  Coupled with his WAR total, this is probably the weakest point of Baines’ case.  Even looking at the players just above him, Campy, Bresnahan, and Rizzuto, and two of these are weak selections.  Bresnahan can probably be pointed to as a line of demarcation in the Hall of Fame when the standards of the Hall softened.  Campanella is probably the first on the list to show a well-qualified Hall of Famer.  And Scooter was, well, a popular broadcaster who had friends on the committee.  Baines’ issue is, it had been almost 20 years since one of the players listed above got this treatment, (Maz) and he last played in 1972.    

4. Two Time Edgar Martinez Award Winner – I find it humorous that Baines having been named DH of the year in 1987 and 1988 is now recognized as having won an award named for a player who was a Rookie the first time Baines won the award.  It is interesting to note there are now seven Hall of Famers who have won this award.  He is also one of 10 to have won the award multiple times.  As Hall of Fame DHs are a relatively new phenomenon, it is probably too early to attribute any correlation to this particular award.  However, one of the criteria often asked when considering a player’s Hall of Fame worthiness is, did this player dominate his league or his position in his era? Well, his two Edgar Awards were back to back, and he probably should have won the award again in 1989 and 1990 but was traded during both seasons which can always muddy awards.  Plus, he didn’t play great for Texas after the 1989 trade.  In 1991, Chili Davis had an outstanding season for the Champion Twins, but Baines was probably the 2nd best DH that season.  It is safe to say, over Baines’ first 5 seasons as a DH, he was the best DH in the game. 

5. #3 – Baines wore #3 most of his career.  Normally this wouldn’t be worth noting.  However, the Chicago White Sox thought so much of Harold Baines that they retired his number.  Again, you may be thinking, “so what?  A lot of players have their number retired.”  Well, Baines is one of seven to have had his number retired…while still active!  The others include Hall of Famers, Robin Roberts, Frank Robinson, Willie Mays, Harmon Killebrew, Phil Niekro, Nolan Ryan.  (I’m excluding players who had their number retired in the final month of their career, like Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, and Ozzie Smith.  Apparently, the Cardinals like to retire numbers right before a player says goodbye)
                In reviewing the 212 times a player or manager have had their number retired by a team, 75% of those are recognizing a Hall of Fame player.  (86% of them are recognizing a player who is either in the Hall, clearly going to be soon, or has at least had multiple showings on a Veterans Committee ballot).  While having your number retired doesn’t mean you are a Hall of Famer, it is clearly a level of recognition that few receive and those who have received it are generally all-time great players.  
          When a player or manager has their number retired, it is an honor reserved for recognizing a person’s impact to a franchise.  It isn’t necessarily indicative of a Hall of Fame career.  In fact, it stands to reason players sometimes get their number retired because they made the Hall of Fame and not the other way around.  But in the case of Harold Baines, the White Sox thought him important enough to their franchise to make him just the 6th player to have his number retired while still active.  As it relates to his case, this is essentially an award he received as a player – a very rare award, and therefore strengthens his case.

6. 1,628 RBIs – In the Sabermetric Era, certain stats have been identified as having been overvalued in the past.  Among those are RBIs.  While it is fair to say RBIs are not as important as other stats when determining the overall value of a player’s career, it is not to say they are without value.  However, we sometimes become so dismissive of a statistic, we treat it as if it is without value.  This has happened with the RBI metric.  I think the issue is RBIs are an output stat.  They are an indication of other positive activities and therefore measuring them can be duplicitous when determining a player’s value.  For example, a batter doesn’t hit an RBI.  They hit a single or a double which may lead to an RBI.  A player who has a lot of RBIs did a lot of positive activities.  For Harold Baines, his 1,628 RBIs were good for 21st All-Time when he retired in 2001.  The 20 players above him are all Hall of Famers.  In fact, the 19 players below him are all Hall of Famers except for Barry Bonds.  As Bonds (and Ripken) was not yet HOF eligible at the time of Baines’ retirement, every eligible player in the top 40 of RBIs at the time was enshrined. There simply was no precedent for keeping a player out of the Hall of Fame with that many Runs Batted In. 

7. 2,866 Hits – Not exactly the 3,000 Hit Club.  But the 2,800 Club is strongly represented in Cooperstown.  At the time of his retirement, every eligible player with 2,800 hits was inducted. Baines was 37th on this list and he just squeaked above 2,800 Hits.  If we go to 2,600 Hits, the list gets a little shakier.  At the time of his retirement, 84% of the eligible players with 2,600 Hits were Hall of Famers.  His hit total is definitely a strong part of his argument. Sometimes people will argue that had there been no player strikes, Baines would have made the 3,000 hit club.  Reviewing his 1981, 1994, and 1995 seasons and projecting his Hits over the games he was on pace to play as well as using his batting average in those seasons to extrapolate his “missing hits” (which is probably the most optimistic approach one could take), he projects to a career total of 2,974.  While it is reasonable to expect the White Sox would have let him keep swinging for those last 26 Hits, Baines was hurt in his final season and when he did play he was pretty awful.  Regardless, his career hit total of 2,866 remains impressive.  It’s definitely “Hall of Famesque”. 

8. Six time All-Star - This isn’t a particularly remarkable number.  There have been 259 players to make six or more All-Star teams.  These range from obvious HOFers like Willie McCovey and Billy Williams to not in a million years would they ever make the Hall of Fame like Eddie Miller and Del Crandall.  For what it’s worth, among DHs, only Ortiz, Cruz, and Edgar made more All-Star appearances.  Being a six time All-Star neither helps nor hurts Baines’ case. 

9. MVP voting – Everyone looks at Baines and thinks of his time as a slow, plodding DH.  But before his knees gave out, he was considered a great outfield prospect with a good arm.  Drafted #1 overall, he made his mark pretty early in his MLB career.  His White Sox, led by Carlton Fisk, took the AL West crown in 1983 and Baines finished #10 in the MVP voting.  Overall, Baines had 2 top 10 finishes and 2 other top 20 finishes.  Once he moved to DH, well DHs don’t win MVPs.  Molitor, Thomas, and Ortiz all came closest with 2nd place finishes.  And technically, Ohtani just won an MVP playing mostly DH, but he was also doing something else incredible.  As far as MVP voting is concerned, Baines is unremarkable. 

10. Top 5 DH of All-Time – There is an argument to be made regarding the validity of treating “DH” as its own independent position.  The position was created as an AL-Only position in 1973.  The first player to be inducted into the Hall of Fame while playing more of his games as a DH than any other position, was Paul Molitor in 2004.  Frank Thomas was the next HOFer inducted having played slightly more games at DH than 1st Base.  However, the Hall of Fame does not recognize Molitor or Thomas as DHs.  Molitor played several positions well and the Hall regards him as a 3rd baseman.  Frank Thomas cemented his Hall of Fame credentials as a 1st baseman. Parceling out the DH as its own position, there are just 3 recognized HOF DHs: Edgar Martinez, David Ortiz, and Harold Baines.  With 3 inductees, it is the least represented position in the Hall; which makes sense since it only has a 50-year history with almost all of that coming from one league.  Regardless, it is fair to rank Baines as 3rd best between Edgar, Ortiz, and Baines. 
             So, how many DHs should we expect in the Hall at this point?  Well, if the DH is 50 years old and almost all of that is in one league, there’s really the equivalent of 25 full seasons worth of DHing (really 22 years worth as 2017 is the most recent year of HOF eligibility).  Baseball is ~150ish years old.  There is an average of around 22 HOFers at each position (excluding pitchers, of course).  That’s one Hall of Famer at each position every 6 years or so depending on how you want to count the years.  With 22 full seasons worth of DHing, we could expect there to be 3-4 DHs in the Hall. 
               If Harold Baines is one of the 3-4 best DHs ever, it would be reasonable to expect him to be in the Hall of Fame.  According to WAR, the ranking goes: 1. Edgar (68.4), 2. Ortiz (55.3), 3. Nelson Cruz (42.5), 4. Harold Baines (38.8), 5. Don Baylor (28.5).  According to Win Shares it’s: 1. Ortiz (316), 2. Baines (307), 3. Edgar (305), 4. Cruz (266), 5. Baylor (262).  Baines has the most Hits of any DH ever, 2nd most runs scored, 3rd most HRs, 2nd most RBIs, and the 7th best OPS+.  It is reasonable to rank Harold Baines as the 3rd or 4th best DH of all-time.

11. Black Ink – 3, Gray Ink – 40, Hall of Fame Monitor – 67, Hall of Fame Standards – 44 - On a relative scale, Baines performs best on the Hall of Fame Standards metric; probably because he played a long time and accumulated a lot of stats.  He did lead the league in slugging once and had a few top 10 finishes here and there.  Overall, these metrics do not help his case.

12. Uniqueness – In Bill James’ “The Politics of Glory,” he outlines a system of comparing the sum total of a player’s career with another to determine how similar they are.  Not to “eat the bones” but the system is a great way to answer the question, does this player’s career resemble anyone else’s in history?  Often, a Hall of Famer represents a player who has had a career unlike any other and that uniqueness can distinguish the player as Hall of Fame worthy.  Sometimes their uniqueness can also work against them as perhaps the voters don’t know how to handle something they’ve never seen or tried to measure.  But if a player is most similar to a bunch of Hall of Famers, that could also indicate a player may be worthy of inclusion. Harold Baines was fairly unique.  The most similar player to Baines is a Hall of Famer, Tony Perez, with a similarity score of 944.  The next nine most similar players to Baines all come in below 900 and among his 10 most similar players, four are Hall of Famers who were inducted by the BBWAA – Perez, Al Kaline, Billy Williams, and Andre Dawson.  Three others have decent Hall of Fame cases in their own right (Dwight Evans, Dave Parker, and Carlos Beltran). 

13. 4,604 Total Bases – At the time of his retirement, Harold was 28th All-Time in Total Bases.  Again, every player above him who was eligible at the time, was in the Hall of Fame.  And in the top 40, all except Dave Parker are enshrined. 

​14. 121 OPS+ - Harold Baines has a career OPS+ of 121.  That is better than about a third of the Hall of Fame.  Of course, some Hall of Famers are in because they were a light hitting middle infielder with a dazzling glove (Luis Aparicio) or were considered an integral part of a legendary team (Pee Wee Reese) or both (Bill Mazeroski).  And there are several Hall of Famers with a lesser OPS+ than Baines who are generally considered Hall of Famers with strong offensive reputations like Carlton Fisk, Cal Ripken, and Andre Dawson.  Of course, a 121 OPS+ doesn’t get you in the Hall of Fame.  But a 121 OPS+ is the kind of OPS+ that holds its own against other HOFers.  In Baines’ case, a more distinguished accomplishment is that he had 19 consecutive seasons of an OPS+ above 100.  At the time of his retirement, only 13 other players had posted more than 19 consecutive OPS+ seasons above 100: Cap Anson, Eddie Collins, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron, Stan Musial, Joe Morgan, Frank Robinson, Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, Tony Gwynn, Dave Winfield, Mule Suttles, and Jim O’Rourke.  Ted Williams and Tris Speaker also posted 19 consecutive seasons.  This displays the type of consistency we would only expect from a Hall of Famer.  Forget consecutive.  If we simply look at the 51 players with the most OPS+ seasons above 100, here are the only players not in the Hall of Fame: Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Rafael Palmeiro, Gary Sheffield, Darrell Evans, and Rusty Staub.  As it relates to his case, Baines’ OPS+ accomplishments aren’t Ruthian.  However, they are Hendersonian, Dawsonian, and maybe a little Winfieldian.  
 
I’ve written this previously, there are 3 typical paths to the Hall: Longevity, Peak Value, and Dominance.  Harold Baines was not a dominant force in his prime.  But Baines’ case really isn’t predicated on being a perennial league leader; it’s predicated on being someone who accumulated Hall of Fame totals and someone who was the best at his position for a period of time.  Harold Baines didn’t put up a lot of “Hall of Fame-looking” individual seasons.  He never had a 30 HR season; but he did have 11 seasons with 20 or more HRs.  His lifetime batting average isn’t .300, but he did hit .300+ eight times and .290+ five times.  He never led the league in OBP, but he did post a .350+ OBP 12 times.  From beginning to end, Harold Baines was consistent.  He really didn’t have a decline phase other than playing time.  In fact, he was a little better in his second half than he was in his first half.  In the first half of his career, he slashed .288/.344/.461 while in the second half he slashed .291/.371/.471.  He hit a homerun every 28 at bats in the first half of his career and hit one every 23 in the second half. 
               It would seem part of the argument for Harold Baines may be the nebulous “…integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played” clause.  But Harold Baines was also a consistent hitter who excelled in the post-season. He accumulated near-Hall of Fame career totals and definitely has some statistical achievements that stand up to most Hall of Famers.  I don’t think it unreasonable that Harold Baines is in the Hall of Fame.  There are others with less impressive careers, and his numbers really aren’t that far away from being a slam dunk Hall of Famer.  Another 134 Hits and there would be little debate.  He was probably the best DH in the game for half of a decade.  There is an argument for him being the 3rd greatest at his position ever and the HOF DH will come more into focus over the next couple of decades.  The first three 3rd basemen inducted were: Jimmy Collins, Homerun Baker, and Pie Traynor.  It’s reasonable that Baines may simply be the Pie Traynor of the DH position. 
          He certainly doesn’t deserve the vitriol he’s received since his enshrinement.  Harold Baines was a professional hitter who carried himself like Teddy Roosevelt, walking softly and carrying a big stick.  He was asked to just hit and he did it better than nearly anyone ever at his position.  

It’s hard to imagine the daunting task of looking back at an era of baseball over half a century since it played its last game, where the records are missing a lot of detail and many of the players are long gone, and trying to construct a fair assessment of who was worthy of baseball’s highest honor.  That’s exactly what the 2006 Negro League Committee attempted when they selected 17 deserving All-Time greats to join the other immortals.  Since that time, one other Negro Leaguer has been added in Buck O’Neil, and one other literal Black pioneer was added in Bud Fowler.  


​Today we take up the case of another overlooked All-Time great…Vic Harris:

1. Vicious Vic
2. Negro League Managers Underrepresented
3. Greatest Manager in Negro League History
4. Nine Consecutive League Championships
5. Last Negro League Champion
6. 269 Games over .500
7. .682 Winning Percentage
8. Early Baseball Era Ballot 
9. Seven-Time All-Star
10. 113 OPS+
11. 10.6 WAR
12. Average Hall of Famer


1. Vicious Vic – When Homestead Grays Owner Cum Posey managed his franchise, they were mostly a run-of-the-mill team.  But Posey was a fiery personality and apparently wanted another fiery personality to take over – queue Vicious Vic Harris.  Harris was a standout player with the Grays ever since he joined them at the age of 20.  However, in 1934 he jumped over to the crosstown rival Crawfords for the 1934 season.  Posey wanting his long-time player back, and feeling Harris was just the fiery guy he wanted to lead his team, recruited Harris back with the offer to manage the team.   There are several stories of the origin of Vic’s nickname but mostly they center around his reckless and aggressive playing style.  There is one story of him being offended by another player on a road trip and Vic pulling him out of the car and beating him for saying something offensive.  Based on available writing, it would seem Vicious Vic was an aggressive player both on and off the field.  But as Harris himself said, Posey was looking for someone fiery and Vicious Vic was definitely that.

2. Negro League Managers Underrepresented – There have been seven people inducted into the Hall of Fame for their contributions to the Negro Leagues: Buck O’Neil, Effa Manley, Alex Pompez, Cum Posey, Sol White, J.L. Wilkinson, and Rube Foster.  Six of the seven were owners.  Some of those seven did also play, but their Hall of Fame recognition really wasn’t for their playing abilities.  Among the seven only one was inducted, in part, for their record as a Manager – Rube Foster.  (Technically, Buck O’Neil does also get credit for managing, but his contributions to baseball were deeper than any one thing and he only has one season of managing a Negro League team before integration watered down the Negro Leagues.)  Rube Foster’s plaque starts with “Rated foremost manager and executive in history of Negro Leagues.”  Rube was also a great pitcher, but his Hall of Fame induction was clearly for his creation of the Negro National League, his ownership of the Giants, and his Managerial record.  That means, in all of Negro League history, only one manager gets recognized.  Only one guy in the Negro Leagues, apparently, had the skills to merit inclusion with the greatest strategists of all-time.  The Major Negro Leagues are recognized by the MLB as occurring between 1920 and 1948 encompassing about 49 seasons of baseball.  In 49 seasons, there has been just one manager who merits inclusion?  Including Foster, there are currently 23 Managers enshrined in Cooperstown.  11 of the 23 Managed some or all of their career during those same seasons.  Vic Harris led teams won seven pennants, good for fourth among the 11 just ahead of Miller Huggins.  He won just one World Championship, making him tied for 9th with Leo the Lip and just ahead of Wilbert Robinson.  And his .663 Winning Percentage would be the highest of the eleven.
 
3. Greatest Manager in NL History – One of the reasons it is perhaps easy to discount Harris’ managerial record is to point out he had some legendary rosters.  In fact, he had the greatest Negro League player of all time on his roster – Josh Gibson.  He also had Buck Leonard and Ray Brown on those teams (not to mention himself).  But Miller Huggins often had 5 Hall of Famers including Babe and Lou and even his Yankees didn’t make the World Series every year.  Casey’s mighty Yankees seemed to win every year, but even he missed the 1954 World Series.  Vic Harris led his Homestead Grays to 7 Championships in a row.  Part of a 9-year run that Harris had to miss two years of while helping with the war effort in 1943 & 1944.  No manager in Negro League history is as decorated and no manager in Negro League history won more games. 

4. Nine Consecutive League Championships – From 1937 – 1945, the Homestead Grays finished 1st in the Negro National League every season.  With Harris missing two of the nine seasons while he was working at the defense plant, perhaps he doesn’t get enough credit for the accomplishment.  When researching the prevailing opinion of Harris as a strategist, there is very little written on his managerial tactics.  In fact, the only thing available comes from one of the most renown authorities on Black Baseball History, James Riley, who authored The Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues.  In it, he writes, “Although (Harris) was not noted as a brilliant strategist, the players responded to the fiery manager by giving good performances on the baseball diamond.”  He’s essentially demonstrating the absence of recognition.  We could take this and infer Riley is suggesting Harris wasn’t a great strategist or we could take the words at face value that he simply wasn’t noted as one.  Which perhaps isn’t surprising since newspapers of the time were reticent to bestow compliments on blacks in leadership positions; particularly when it came to sports.  Oh, they might heap recognition of a man’s athletic ability, but the idea the results of a team’s play could have anything to do with the brilliant mind of the black manager, well, that was unheard of in the 1930s and 40s.  All we really have is the record and this record stands up to any manager in the history of baseball.  His seven in a row is two more than Casey’s MLB record five.

5. Last Negro League Champion – In 1948, Harris’ Homestead Grays won the final Negro League World Series 4 games to 1 over the Birmingham Black Barons.  It was 40-year old Buck Leonard’s final games and 17-year old Willie Mays’ beginning to his career.  It was also Harris’ only World Series victory.  This Championship makes Vic Harris the defending Negro League Champion for all-time. 

6. 269 Games over .500 – Based on available records, Vic Harris teams finished 269 Games over .500.  There are 22 Managers in history who are more than 269 Games over .500.  Three are still active.  The rest are all in the Hall of Fame except Davey Johnson.  As for the Managers just below him, they include non-HOFers like Billy Martin (2 losing seasons), Jim Mutrie (1 losing season), Mike Scioscia (7 losing seasons), Charlie Grimm (2 losing seasons), and Steve O’Neill (0 losing seasons); they also include HOFers like Hughie Jennings, Bill McKechnie, Tommy Lasorda, Whitey Herzog, Dick Williams, etc.  Martin, Scioscia, Grimm, and O’Neill have good resumes and each has their own HOF argument.  269 games over .500 is a pretty good indication that he managed some great teams and was clearly a great manager considering the company he’s keeping on this list.      

7. .682 Winning Percentage – Best of all-time.  Among managers who managed 10+ seasons, 11 of the top 12 are in the Hall of Fame.  Of the 11, only McGraw and McCarthy won more pennants.  There really is no precedence for keeping Harris out as it relates to his Winning Percentage.

8. Early Baseball Era Ballot – Harris’ case is predicated on his record as a Manager.  However, when he was most recently considered on the Early Baseball Era Ballot, he was listed as a Player.  While Harris was a fine player (and we will take a look at his playing career), he really should have been considered as a Manager as his managerial record is a much stronger case.  As it was, he finished with 10 votes on the Ballot, just 2 shy of the 75% needed for election.

9. Seven-Time All-Star - Sometimes it’s worth reviewing a manager’s playing record to see if it should have any weight on his case; particularly when we are reviewing a Player/Manager.  Did he keep himself in the lineup despite poor play?  In Harris’ case, his playing record was pretty good.  So, let’s review and see if there’s anything that might strengthen his potential Hall of Fame resume.            187 Players have made seven or more All-Star teams.  Every eligible player with 15 or more is in the Hall of Fame.  Every eligible player with 12 or more appearances is in excluding the players implicated in the PED scandal.  In fact, there is a strong correlation between All-Stars and Hall of Famers with anyone making nine or more All-Star teams.  But there is a noticeable drop-off at eight.  63% of the eligible players with eight All-Star selections are in the Hall of Fame as are 48% of the eligible players with seven.  There is one PED implicated player with seven who would otherwise be in the Hall of Fame (Sammy Sosa) so we can surmise players who make seven All-Star team get in to the Hall of Fame about half the time.  Ultimately, while seven is an impressive total, it doesn’t necessarily help Vic’s case. But it does suggest, as a player, he was likely pretty good. 

10. 113 OPS+ - Ok, using OPS+ as an indicator of anything related to a player who has an incomplete record probably doesn’t tell us much.  It probably matters even less on a managerial candidate.   However, for what it’s worth, Harris’ OPS+ of 113 is respectable.  It’s not Hall of Fame level by any stretch.  The only Left Fielder with a lower OPS+ is Lou Brock whose career was spectacular for other reasons.  However, Harris put himself in the lineup a lot and with the OPS+ we can extrapolate from available data, it was for good reason.  He clearly helped his teams when he was in the lineup. 

11. 10.6 WAR – This also may not be the best metric for measuring a Negro Leaguer’s Hall of Fame worthiness.  Though it is worth noting, the Negro League players with the 10 highest WAR total have been enshrined in the Hall.  But it certainly isn’t material to the case of a potential Hall of Fame Manager.  However, among all Negro League players in history, 10.6 WAR is respectable.  Most of the Hall of Fame Negro Leaguers with fewer WAR are in because they also played in the Major Leagues (Willie Mays and Larry Doby, for example), or they are in for other reasons (Buck O’Neil, for example).  Excluding Pitchers, 10.6 would rank 52nd All-Time.  While Harris’ WAR total doesn’t help his case, it really isn’t material to his case.

12. Average Hall of Famer – The average Hall of Fame Manager won 1,894 Games while Vic Harris is only credited with 547.  We also know the Negro League records are incomplete.  There are only 825 games worth of data for Harris and despite this he is still credited with winning 269 more games than he lost.  The average HOF Manager is 290 over .500, but the average HOF manager had nearly 3,500 games to get to 290 games over.  If we project Harris’ wins over .500 across the same number of games as the average HOF manager, he’d project to 1,140 games over .500.  John McGraw is the all-time record holder with 815 games over .500.  Of course, we can’t just give Harris credit for 2,600 games and say he was better than John McGraw.  But we don’t need to.  John McGraw isn’t the bar for a Manager to make the Hall of Fame.  As it is, even with 2,672 fewer games on record, Harris’ 269 games over .500 still compares favorably to the average HOF Manager.  The average place of finish for teams managed by Harris is 1.7 vs the average HOF manager of 3.2.  Harris made the post season 8 times vs the average HOF manager who made it 6.3 times.  Harris won one World Series vs the average Hall of Fame Manager winning 2.3.  Harris also won 7 Pennants vs the average Hall of Fame Manager who won 5.3.  And Harris managed all of this in just 11 seasons.  The average Hall of Fame Manager has 24.2 seasons to attain their numbers.  One the other hand, this means Harris is only credited with 547 Wins which is 1,346 fewer than the average Hall of Fame Manager.  But his All-Time record .663 Winning Percentage is a lot higher than the .547 an Average Hall of Fame Manager posted.  When compared to the Average Hall of Fame Manager, Harris comes up short only in opportunity.  In every other way, his record resembles a Hall of Fame Manager. ​​

​Baseball has done a lot to acknowledge decades of exclusion and has made a sincere effort to correct the sins of its past.  The MLB honors Jackie Robinson for breaking the color barrier by retiring his number and celebrating it every year when all players wear #42 in tribute.  In 1969, the Hall of Fame inducted its first Black baseball player, Roy Campanella and in 1971, it inducted its first player based on their Negro League career in Satchel Paige.  In 2006, after sporadically inducting Negro League players for over 30 years, the Hall of Fame convened a special committee to do a thorough examination and essentially doubled the number of Negro League Hall of Famers.  Since that time, they have enshrined one more Negro Leaguer in Buck O’Neil.  Major League Baseball has also officially recognized the Negro Leagues as a Major League.  However, in the 76 years since Jackie broke the color barrier, only one person has been enshrined, in part, because of their managerial record and that’s Rube Foster.  Of course, Foster’s Hall of Fame credentials are far more forged by his creation of the Negro National League and he is considered the “Father of Negro League Baseball”.   For whatever reason, the Hall has yet to recognize the greatest Negro League Manager in history.  But worse than that, they have failed to recognize one of baseball’s greatest Managers in history.  A Manager’s primary job is to win and Vic Harris won more frequently than any Manager ever.  It is past time to recognize a Negro Leaguer for more than just their athletic ability or their ability to write a check.  It’s time to recognize one of baseball’s great tacticians who only knew how to win better than anyone ever. 

In 2001, Dave Winfield and Kirby Puckett sailed into the Hall of Fame on their first attempt.  Meanwhile, other first-timers did not fair as well.  Don Mattingly and Dave Stewart each garnered enough votes to remain on the 2002 ballot, but 13 other first-timers failed to muster the requisite 5% to stick around for further consideration including 3 pretty darn good Detroit Tigers: Kirk Gibson, Lance Parrish, and "Sweet" Lou Whitaker. 

Was Lou the greatest 2nd Baseman in history?  No.  Was he the greatest 2nd Baseman of his era? Also no.  My hypothesis, however, is he may be the greatest BBWAA Hall of Fame snub in the last 30 years.  He also may have been the best candidate on the 2001 ballot.  That being said, the voters have always been especially tough on 2nd basemen when it comes to their first ballot.  In fact, only three 2nd basemen in history have ever been inducted on their first try.  See if you can name them.  (I'll post the answer at the end of the article)  

What I found crazy at the time (and still do) is, like Cone, he disappeared after one ballot and garnering a measly 15 votes of support. 

So, let's take a look at the Hall of Fame case for Whitaker:

1. All-Star Game Jersey
2. Mixed Postseason Record
3. 71.4 WAR
4. Three Time Gold Glove Winner
5. 1984
6. 1,000 Runs and 1,000 RBIs
7. All-Time Double Play Record
8. Five time (consecutive) All-Star
9. Rookie of the Year Award Winner
10. Leading Off
11. Black Ink - 1, Gray ink - 31, Hall of Fame Monitor - 86, Hall of Fame Standards - 43.
12. Uniqueness
13. Alan Trammell
14. Average Hall of Famer

1. All-Star Game Jersey.  Great players typically come with great stories.  It's part of the fabric of the game: Babe Ruth's called shot, George Brett's Pine Tar Incident, Nolan Ryan making Robin Ventura pay for charging the mound, Cal Ripken's lap around the stadium to thank fans after besting Lou Gehrig's record streak, etc, are all examples of stories that are almost too good to be true.  Sometimes the stories are touching (Ruth hitting a homerun for a sick child), sometimes the stories are hysterical (Anything Yogi Berra has said or didn't say), sometimes the stories are embarrassing (Sammy Sosa's corked bat) and sometimes the stories are just rude (Marichal hitting John Roseboro in the head with a bat).  Perhaps one of the strangest stories is the time Lou Whitaker forgot to bring his jersey to the 1985 All-Star game.  Whitaker had left a bag in the backseat of his car with his jersey, helmet, hat, glove, and batting gloves.  Fortunately, he was able to borrow a helmet from Bert Blyleven, a glove from Cal Ripken, and batting gloves from Damaso Garcia.  Trouble was, no one had an extra "Lou Whitaker Jersey" or Tigers hat, so one of the clubhouse folks actually purchased a generic Tigers jersey and cap.  Next, they used a black marker to color Whitaker's number "1" on the back. (Pictured above)  Today, the jersey sits in one of the most prestigious museums in the country - The Smithsonian.  While this moment does not help or hurt his case, it is a part of the Lou Whitaker story.  George Brett isn't in the Hall because he famously went ballistic but it really adds a dimension to his story that the numbers can't convey.  For Whitaker, forgetting his jersey was unforgettable.

2. Mixed postseason record. There is no denying the 1984 Detroit Tigers were dominant.  There is also no denying that Whitaker was a key player on this team.  While all that is true, the Tigers only made it to two postseasons during Sweet Lou's career.  In his 13 post-season games, he did exactly what a leadoff hitter is supposed to do - he got on base (.350 OBP) and scored runs (13).  Aside from that he did very little offensively, hitting just one solo homerun (for his one postseason RBI), stole one base, and hit a measly .206.  To be fair, his best post-season series was the '84 World Series where he posted a nice .278/.409/.389 line.  I view his mixed postseason record as net neutral.  He accomplished the stated purpose of the leadoff hitter but was otherwise unremarkable.  In the end his mixed postseason record does not help his case and may hurt it.

3. 71.4 WAR.  Next we'll look at career value.  Using Wins Above Replacement, there are just 6 secondbasemen with a higher WAR than Whitaker.  All 6 are in the Hall of Fame.  In fact, 11 of the next 16 are in the Hall.  The ones that aren't are either going to be Hall of Famers (Biggio) or have a strong case themselves (Grich, Randolph, Utley, and Kent).  Think about it.  There are 19 Hall of Famers who played 1,000 or more games at 2B.  Whitaker's Wins Above Replacement is better than all but six of them.  At the beginning of this article, I mentioned that Whitaker may have been the best player on the ballot when he was unceremoniously dumped.  Winfield played 22 seasons and ended up with 59.4 WAR in nearly 600 more games.  Puckett ended up with 48.2 WAR in his 12 seasons; though in about 600 fewer games than Whitaker.  Puckett did average slightly more WAR per season (4.0) than Whitaker (3.8) but it's pretty close.  Overall, Whitaker's Wins Above Replacement is possibly his best argument.  

4. Three Time Gold Glove Winner.  Whitaker's skills with the bat often overshadowed his skills with the glove.  Only 10 2nd basemen have won more Gold Gloves.  Three is not a remarkable total, per se, but is a very strong total.  Defensive statistics are abundant but are still often met with suspicion.  One thing is certain, regardless of the defensive metric you favor, Whitaker scores well.  Fan of Range Factor?  Whitaker's (5.4/9 Innings) is better than ANY Hall of Famer.  Prefer the antiquated Fielding Percentage? Only Sandberg and Alomar are better among Hall of Famers.  Perhaps you like Total Zone?  Only Maz and Nellie Fox have a higher Total Zone among Hall of Famers than Lou.  Prefer defensive WAR?  Only 6 Hall of Fame 2nd basemen have more than Lou's 15.4, and Mazeroski is the only one that actually played baseball after 1950.  Like actual things you can count?  Looking for some bulk numbers?  Lou has the 6th most assists of any 2nd baseman in history, the 4th most Double Plays, and the 11th most putouts.  The reality is three Gold Gloves will not get you into the Hall of Fame.  But one thing is clear, Lou Whitaker was one of the greatest defensive 2nd basemen in history.  This is another strong piece of evidence in his case.

5. 1984.  In 1984, the Detroit Tigers got off to the greatest start in baseball history, going 35-5 in their first 40 games.  While they didn't clinch the division with 35 wins, it sure seemed like the race was over after those 40 games.  This was one of the few times in history where the beginning of the season was far more interesting than the end.  Those 40 games became legendary.  No matter what else happened that season, the torrid 35-5 start was impossible to overcome.  We often point to strong Septembers when placing context on a pennant race.  In 1984, September was completely unimportant to the pennant race.  This was all about those 40 games and like he was throughout his career, Whitaker was a catalyst getting on base nearly 2 times per game (73 times) hitting .317/.385/.427 with 31 Runs Scored.  1984 was not Whitaker's best season, but he was still the best 2nd baseman in the AL and they would not have had the historic start without him.  In terms of his case, being one of the best players on a Championship Team never hurts.

6. 1,000 Runs and 1,000 RBIs. Only 210 players in Major League history have ever scored 1,000 Runs AND knocked in 1,000.  Lou Whitaker is one of these 210.  91 of the 210 are currently Hall of Famers.  The rest are all pretty good (Vada Pinson, Torri Hunter, etc) to great players (Derek Jeter, Chipper Jones, Craig Biggio, etc).  However, there are only 16 2nd Basemen in history who have accomplished 1,000 Runs/1,000 RBIs: 11 are Hall of Famers, two are definite or borderline Hall of Famers (Biggio and Kent), two are a never going to be Hall of Famers (Julio Franco and 19th Century player Fred Pfeffer), and one is Lou Whitaker.  On balance, not bad for a leadoff hitter.  I would say this is good for his case.  It isn't the type of career milestone that gets you into the Hall of Fame like the 3,000 Hits or the 300 Wins, but it's nevertheless impressive and pretty exclusive.

7. All-Time Double Play Record. When reviewing a player's case for the Hall of Fame, there are several pieces to the puzzle to consider.  Did this player dominate his league or his position in his era?  Did this player do something so remarkable, it's never been done before?  In baseball there are certain indelible records: 511, 4,256, 2,632, 5,714, etc. It's time to add another one to the list: 879.  Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammell turned a Major League record 879 Double Plays; the most of any Keystone Combo in baseball history.  To give that a little context, among active players, Jeter and Cano are currently on top with 555.  The second highest total in history appears to be Aparicio and Fox with ~598.  As it is, Whitaker turned the 4th most DPs of any 2nd baseman in history.  By the way, 7 of the top 10 are in the Hall.  The only 3 not enshrined?  Whitaker, Willie Randolph, and Frank White.  But I digress.  The point is, Whitaker and Trammell not only hold the DP record, it isn't even close.  Holding any all-time record is impressive, sharing it with Trammell is poetic.  This is a strong piece of evidence in the Hall of Fame case for Lou Whitaker.

8. Five time (consecutive) All-Star. At a glance, five All-Star selections is impressive but not exactly overwhelming evidence to support one's Hall of Fame case.  However, in this case it is the consecutive that makes this an interesting piece of Whitaker's Hall of Fame case.  Before we get to the consecutive portion of this discussion how does five All-Star selections measure up?  It looks "ok".  18 other 2nd basemen have been selected to more than Whitaker's five and while there are many legends above him, there's also a couple of guys like Gil McDougal and Johnny Temple.  During Whitaker's career he played at the same time as some other pretty great 2nd basemen and there is quite a balance of All-Star Games spread among his contemporaries (Grich & Randolph - 6, & White - 5).  What does strengthen Whitaker's case is the consecutive part.  In history, 15 2nd basemen, including Sweet Lou, have been selected to five or more consecutive All-Star teams.  Of the remaining 14, there are 11 HOFers, 1 certain HOFer (Biggio), 1 active but building a potential HOF resume (Utley), and Bobby Richardson who retired in his prime.  Five consecutive All-Star selections doesn't make him a Hall of Famer, but it's a definite positive in his case.  It is also evidence that, in his prime, he was the best 2nd baseman in the AL.

9. Rookie of the Year Award Winner.  There have been plenty of Rookie of the Year Award Winners to miss out on fulfilling the potential of their rookie campaign. It is also hard to imagine winning an award in one's rookie season would have any bearing on making the Hall of Fame. But consider: There have been 130 ROY Winners.  Of these, 96 have been retired at least 5 years.  Of the 96, 14 have been inducted into the Hall of Fame or 14.6%.  This is substantially higher than the less than 2% of all players who have been inducted into the HOF.  Of the 34 who are either still active or haven't been retired long enough, there are five MVP winners and a 3,000 Hit Club Member (Pujols, Ichiro, Verlander, Posey, Pedroia, and Jeter).  Among ROYs there are another four players who have been retired 5+ years and have strong HOF cases themselves (Rose, McGwire, Piazza, and Bagwell).  All this shows is a lot of great players have won the Rookie of the Year Award.  However, there are also plenty of busts in the ROY ranks (Hamelin, Cordova, Charboneau, etc).  Winning a Rookie of the Year Award neither helps of hurts a Hall of Fame case, but it does indicate a greater likelihood of finding a Hall of Famer than not winning the award.  For Whitaker, it is just another example of how consistent he was throughout his career - even from the beginning.

10. Leading Off.  The primary job of any leadoff hitter is to get on base and Lou Whitaker got on base.  Among all leadoff hitters whose career overlapped Whitaker's, only 14 have a better career OBP than Whitaker's .363.  There are three Hall of Famers in the list (Boggs, Molitor, and Rickey), two eventual Hall of Famers (Biggio and Raines), and one outcast (Rose).  The remaining eight are all very good and range from the speedy, Kenny Lofton, to one of the most underrated players of his era, Brian Downing.  Looking at all 15, Whitaker was one of only five to post an OPS above .800.  He also managed to score over 18% of the time he led off a game (11th best on this list, Lofton was the best among his contemporaries being the only one at 22%). Whitaker strukout just 11% of the time when leading off a game.  Only five of his contemporaries had a better rate of not striking out (Rose, Boggs, Randolph, Butler, and Raines).  As a side note, speaking strictly in terms of leadoff hitters, Rickey is clearly the best of his (or perhaps any) era, but Kenny Lofton was a LOT better than I thought. However, this is about Lou.  Overall, he was one of the best leadoff hitters of his time but not THE best.  His prowess as a leadoff hitter is a slight positive, but doesn't really strengthen his case. 

11. Black Ink - 1, Gray ink - 31, Hall of Fame Monitor - 86, Hall of Fame Standards - 43. Two of these are in the Hall of Fame neighborhood (Hall of Fame Monitor and Standards) and two of these are complete whiffs (Black and Gray Ink). What this tells me about Lou Whitaker is he wasn't the type of player to top the league in the major hitting categories but accumulated enough stats as a middle infielder that he probably should have been given a longer look than the 15 Votes he received.  Overall, this is probably the weakest part of his case.

12. Uniqueness. Lou Whitaker was very unique.  There are few players in history like him.  And of the ten most similar to him, four are Hall of Famers (Sandberg, Alomar, Morgan, and Larkin).  In fact, he was so unique five of the ten players most similar to him aren't even 2nd basemen.  His most similar, was a contemporary in the NL, Ryne Sandberg.  Perhaps just as interesting is who is atop HOF Joe Morgan's similar player list: Lou Whitaker.  Sometimes a player's uniqueness can be an asset.  Voters will look at a great player and say, "There's never been anything like this before.  Clearly he's a Hall of Famer."  Sandy Koufax, for example.  Or Cal Ripken Jr.  I think, in Lou Whitaker's case his uniqueness worked against him.  Perhaps voters said, "There's never been anything really like this before. I don't know what to do with him."  What was Lou Whitaker?  Imagine someone with the offensive skills of an decent hitting Outfielder (like Bryce Harper) playing 2nd base with the defensive skills of a slick fielding Shortstop (like Elvis Andrus).  Overall, Whitaker's uniqueness should be an asset.  There's really never been another 2nd baseman like him.  Also of interest? The second most similar player in baseball history to Lou Whitaker: Alan Trammell.

13. Alan Trammell - It is impossible to talk about Lou Whitaker without mentioning Alan Trammell.  Sometimes statistics tell the whole story and we are left with an obvious hit you over the head answer to whether or not someone is a Hall of Famer; even when it's a statistic that doesn't hold the same perceived value it once did.  For example, Cy Young won 511 Games - obvious Hall of Famer, Mario Mendoza hit .215 - obviously not a Hall of Famer.  Other times, statistics don't tell the whole story.  Sometimes it is a matter of perception.  People who saw Bill Mazeroski play will tell you he was one of the greatest defensive 2nd basemen of all-time.  People who saw Dave Kingman play will tell you he was one of the worst defensive 1st basemen of all-time.  I lived through the Whitaker-Trammell era of baseball.  I saw them play along with millions of other people.  It seemed every time the Tigers were on TV, an announcer would say something to the effect, "Won't it be great seeing Trammell and Whitaker go into the Hall of Fame?" or "Wouldn't it be great if these two got inducted in the same year?"  Anyone I talked to back then took for granted Whitaker and Trammell were obvious future Hall of Famers.  This fits into the "I know it when I see it" category made famous by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. Seeing Trammell and Whitaker play sure felt like I was watching two Hall of Famers.  There are few players in history so indelibly linked that, together, they are perhaps better than they are apart.  (Tinkers, Evers, and Chance come to mind)  This duo were the very definition of Detroit Tigers baseball for a generation and are arguably the greatest 2B/SS combination, not just in their era, but in history.  Overall, I'd say this is a plus in Whitaker's case; albeit an intangible one. 

14. Average Hall of Famer. After studying Lou Whitaker's career this closely, there was an interesting trend I noticed.  Something that probably helps his case more than anything I've mentioned so far.  He looks average...when compared to Hall of Fame 2nd Basemen.  Consider the following comparing the 19 Hall of Fame 2nd Basemen to Lou Whitaker: 
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman played 18 seasons; Lou played 19
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman played 2,159 Games; Lou played 2,390
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had 8,057 ABs; Lou had 8,570
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman scored 1,300 Runs; Lou scored 1,386
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had 2,442 Hits; Lou had 2,369
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman hit 417 Doubles; Lou hit 420
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had 1,080 RBIs; Lou had 1,084
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had an OBP of .374; Lou had .363
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had a SLG of .437; Lou had .429
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had an OPS of .810; Lou had .789
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman had 66 Wins Above Replacement; Lou had 71.4
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman made 7 All Star Games; Lou made 5
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman's OPS+ was 121; Lou's was 117
The average Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman hit more triples (105) than Lou (65), but Lou slugged a bunch more Homeruns (244) than the average Hall of Fame 2nd baseman (149). 
See, to me, the best piece of evidence in Lou Whitaker's case for the Hall of Fame is that he looks like your typical Hall of Fame 2nd Baseman.  His career fits right in with the rest.  In fact, he'd be right in the middle of the pack of the best in history.

When reviewing the case for Lou Whitaker, he really looks like a Hall of Famer.  Is he Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle?  Obviously not.  But as I've said previously, the Hall hasn't been just for the Willie Mays and Mickey Mantles in a long time.  What Lou Whitaker is, is one of the greatest 2nd basemen who ever played the game - be it offensively or defensively.  While there are some who exceed his skills in one, there are few 2nd basemen who exceeded his prowess in both. 

The reality is, Whitaker's era is sorely underrepresented in the Hall.  There are only four Hall of Fame 2nd basemen who played any seasons during Whitaker's 19 year career.  One is Joe Morgan, who is difficult to consider a contemporary since his best seasons came before Whitaker started playing.  Another is Rod Carew who was primarily a 1st baseman by the time Lou took over 2nd in Detroit.  Another is Roberto Alomar who's career began more than 10 years after Whitaker's began.  The other is Ryne Sandberg.  Sandberg is the only Hall of Fame 2nd baseman to have played the majority of his career in the 1980s or have played more than 5 seasons in that decade.  Among Whitaker's contemporaries, I believe Sandberg was the standard in the NL both offensively and defensively.  In the AL, Frank White, Willie Randolph, and Bobby Grich all could lay claim to part of these arguments and perhaps have Hall of Fame cases to be made themselves.  But Whitaker looks like a no-brainer when considering his dominance with the glove and at the plate.  There's really never been anyone like him and he should be in the Hall instead of the biggest BBWAA oversight in recent memory.  It's clear only 15 voters got it right in 2001.  Hopefully the 11 who choose the next Veteran's Committee nominees will be among the 15 who voted for Lou.

Thanks for reading,
Jeff

As for the answer to the trivia question...Jackie Robinson, Joe Morgan, and Rod Carew. 

Perhaps I am being gullible...duped.  It wouldn't be the first time.  Here we are, 6 days before baseball season officially begins and I have fallen into the trap that is "Spring Optimism".  See, I am one who largely ignores Spring Training.  I may watch a pitch here or there and certainly follow the random transactions (Kyle Loshe signing with the Brewers, for example).  But I largely ignore the scores and the standings.  See, I've been burned before. 

In 1999, the Royals were the Kings of Spring, leaving camp with a Major League best 22-9 mark.  That season was a disaster.  Not only did we finish 64-97, it was right in the middle of the Tony Muser era and led to the ousting of GM Herk Robinson.  Now, don't get me wrong.  Herk was not a good General Manager.  He was completely unable to transition us from the George Brett/Ewing Kaufman era and let's face it, being the guy to succeed John Schuerholz is just asking for trouble.  But all this led us into the abyss that was Allard Baird - quite possibly the most inept executive in baseball history this side of Frank and Stanley Robison. 

So fast forward to 2013 and here we are with the best Spring Training Record in our beloved franchise's history.  We have outscored our opponents by 65 runs!  Our pitching has been outstanding!  Our hitters are...well, hitting.  Brandon Wood looks like he might finally live up to those lofty expectations!  Wil who?  I'm starting to believe!  This could be our year!  In fact, I am officially predicting we take the Central Division.  Forget "hoping to compete for a Wild Card"... I want the Central!  We are dominating! 

See?  I've done it again.  Too bad it's only March. 

Thanks for reading.
Jeff

I stumbled across another of my articles from Baseball Nation about the 3,000 Hit Club.  At the time, Jeter had just joined the club and many people were suggesting the Club "ain't what it used to be" because the Club was apparently under assault by the likes of Johnny Damon and Omar Vizquel.  (Technically, it may still be as both still want to play this year.)  I also made a brief mention of Pudge toward the end of the article who ultimately retired before challenging Mr. Clemente.  Here was my take on the exclusiveness of the 3,000 Hit Club:

Not to get off on a rant here, but...

Ever since Derek Jeter joined the 3,000 hit club I have read some articles questioning the impressiveness of this achievement.  In fact, a common argument stems from some of the next potential members.  It seems if Omar Vizquel and/or Johnny Damon crash the party then all hope is lost. 

Now, I am no Jeter fan (see 2010 All-Star Game), but 3,000 hits is still impressive and exclusive.  I don't care if Damon or Omar get there.  I seem to remember a similar discussion about Al Oliver being a shoo-in and he didn't make it.  I also recollect Frank Robinson being a mortal lock for 600 homers and he stalled at 586.  In fact, go to the Babe Ruth museum and see who sponsored Ruth's 600 Homerun...it's Frank and he inscribed something to the effect "For when I get here."   I am pretty sure more than one person assumed Mattingly was going to conquer both 500 homers and 3,000 hits.

The beauty of the 3,000 hit club is that it has always included members who got there in a multitude of ways.  Sure, you have Wade Boggs and (his hero and mine) George Brett who hit for high averages but there is also room for Lou Brock and Cal Ripken Jr who weren't .300 hitters.  While you get the natural born contact hitters like Tony Gwynn, you also get power guys like Aaron and Murray.  You want controversy?  Look no further than #1 on the list, and I don't mean Pete Rose.  Sure Pete is controversial and sits at #1, but I am talking about the club's 1st member.  It seems Cap Anson's exact hit total changes every couple of years because in his playing days walks counted as hits.  There's a DH in the club (Paul Molitor), an "accidental" steroid user (Palmeiro), a guy loved by everyone (Musial) and a guy hated by everyone (Cobb).  We get a humanitarian standing at the gate like a vigilant guard protecting the entrance waiting to gun anyone out with the flick of his wrist (Clemente) and a pariah at the top of the list betting no one will approach his hallowed mark (Rose). There is the prototypical athlete who could have played any sport (Winfield) and the atypical member who could play any position (Biggio).  You have a player who was so well thought of his team changed their name to his (Lajoie) but you also have a player who was sometimes booed by his own fans (Yaz).  There's the flashy players like Rickey and the Say Hey Kid and the blue-collar players like Kaline and Yount.   

To me the 3,000 hit club is the one club that truly reflects everything great about baseball.  From angels to assholes, it's the one club for everyone, but not just anyone.  You have to earn your way in or Clemente will stop you in your tracks.  So I say good luck to Omar and Damon (and Pudge for that matter), you'll need it.  

But that's just me, I could be wrong.

In 2009 the Hall of Fame voters inducted Rickey Henderson on his first ballot and Jim Rice on his last.  Those same voters decided David Brian Cone was not only unworthy of the Hall of Fame, but unworthy of even remaining on the ballot. 

From my perspective Cone was a great pitcher.  Without even studying his career closely, I figured him to be a borderline Hall of Fame candidate who might linger on the ballot and maybe get one of those late pushes that helped Blyleven and Rice get in (and probably Jack Morris next year).  At the very least he might be Tommy John and get 15 cracks without breaking through.  But to not even muster the minimum 5% to remain on the ballot after one try?  Preposterous. 

As a Royals fan, Cone was "the one who got away, came back, and got away again."  I am convinced, with Saberhagen and Cone atop the rotation, the Royals may have given King George one or two more World Series rings.  But that's ok, we got Ed Hearn. 

So, let's take a look at the Hall of Fame case for Cone:

1. The Perfect Game
2. Impressive postseason record
3. 58.8 WAR
4. .606 Winning Percentage
5. Two 20-win Seasons
6. 2,668 Strikeouts
7. Five sub-3.00 ERA seasons
8. Five time All-Star
9. Cy Young Award Winner
10. 8.28 Strikeouts Per 9 Innings 
11. Black Ink - 19, Gray ink - 168, Hall of Fame Monitor - 103, Hall of Fame Standards - 39.
12. Uniqueness
13. Career ERA of 3.46
14. 194 + 8 Wins

1. The Perfect Game - On July 18th, 1999 the cermonial first pitch was tossed by Don Larsen to Yogi Berra on "Yogi Berra Day" at Yankees Stadium.  Cone must have been inspired, because he took the ball and proceeded to pitch the 16th Perfect Game in Major League history against the Montreal Expos.  Along with Larsen's, it is the only other "Interleague" Perfect Game.  What made this particularly remarkable was the 33 minute rain delay in the 3rd inning.  The image of Cone falling to his knees after the final pitch remains one of those moments burned into our collective minds.    

2. Impressive postseason record. 8-3 overall with a 3.80 ERA.  2-0 in the World Series with a 2.12 ERA in 29.2 IP. Cone was a member of 5 World Championship teams.  Cone was not the "Ace" for the 1992 Blue Jays, rather he was a hired gun for the stretch run.  He did pitch great for them.  His other 4 Championships were as a part of the Yankees behemoth that closed out the 20th Century:  1996 - Injured with an aneurysm in his arm, Cone missed a lot of the season, but, with apologies to Andy Pettitte, was still the best pitcher in the rotation.  1998 - One of the greatest teams in history, Cone and Wells were the best pitchers.  1999 - Back to Back Champions and Cone was the best pitcher in the rotation again.  2000 - Let's face it.  The Yankees won in 2000 despite Cone, who was awful.  On balance, being arguably, the best pitcher on 4 different World Championship teams certainly counts toward his Hall of Fame case.

3. 58.8 WAR.  Let's take a look at career value.  Using Wins Above Replacement, there are 11 Pitchers with a higher WAR than Cone and not in the Hall.  Of the 11, two are 19th Century Pitchers (Tony Mullane and Jim McCormick), four are not yet eligible for the Hall but likely going in (Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, and Mike Mussina), two are currently on the ballot (Roger Clemens and Curt Schilling), and the remaining three would have to go in via the Veteran's Committee if at all, (Luis Tiant, Kevin Brown, Rick Reuschel).  First, let me point out, there are plenty of Hall of Famers below Cone on this list including perceived "no-brainer" Hall of Famers like Mordecai Brown and Hal Newhouser.  But focusing on those above him, Tiant, Brown, and Reuschel are really the best arguments against Cone on the WAR front, but one could also argue that Tiant and Brown are borderline Hall of Famers themselves.  The anomaly here is Big Daddy.  In fact, seeing Rueschel ranked as having the 97th highest WAR total in history almost undermines the statistic.  But I digress.  On balance, Cone's WAR is actually one of his strongest arguments.

4. .606 Winning Percentage.  His .606 Winning Percentage is 98th best all-time.  As I mentioned in the Schilling article, this compares favorably to Hall of Famers Warren Spahn, Herb Pennock and Walter Johnson (in fact his is better than those guys).  Cone's Winning Percentage is better than Tom Seaver's.  Another interesting fact?  Cone pitched 17 seasons.  Of all pitchers in history with 17+ seasons on their resume, only ONE Hall of Fame eligible pitcher has a better winning percentage than Cone who has not been inducted - Roger Clemens.  All in all winning percentage in and of itself does not constitute a Hall of Famer, but only 26 current Hall of Famers have a better winning percentage, so this certainly helps his argument.

5. Two 20-win Seasons. Not exactly the kind of stat that makes you go, "Wow!  Now THAT's Hall of Fame worthy!"  But there is one interesting footnote...Cone went 10 years between 20 Win campaigns.  This is the longest span between 20 win seasons.  Like Schilling, Cone's 20-win seasons aren't going help other than to be able to say he won 20 games at least once. It may even hurt.

6. 2,668 Strikeouts. This includes six 200-plus seasons.  Cone also led the league in strikeouts twice.  He sits at #22 on the All-Time Strikeout list. Of the eligible pitchers on the list, all but four (Clemens, Schilling, Lolich, and Tanana) are in the Hall of Fame. If we extend to the top 30, Chuck Finley and Jerry Koosman are not. As mentioned in the Schilling article, the ineligible pitchers include two "no-brainer Hall of Famers": Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux, and three "may/should make it with a decent argument but each has question marks": Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Mike Mussina. So, all in all top 30 in strikeouts still looks pretty solid. This helps Cone.  That being said, it is starting to look like the "3,000" Strikeout Club is the real place to be.  This hurts Cone.

7. Five sub-3.00 ERA seasons. Many Hall of Famers have more. This isn't really going to help him though, like the 20-win argument, he will at least get credit for it. Something that seems to still be hurting Jack Morris. 

8. Five time All-Star. Like Schilling's Six, also a great total. Once again impressive since it speaks to coaches picking him rather than fans. Without the All-Star selections his case would also have a big hole.

9. Cy Young Award Winner.  Not winning the Cy Young hurts Schilling's case, but clearly helps Cone's.  He was a Cy Young contender (Top 5) in 3 other seasons and even managed to garner a few MVP votes over the years.  However, his overall "Award Share" total is not a good as Schilling's; though it is still an excellent 35th all-time.  Of the 34 pitchers above him about half are either in the Hall or will be.  Winning the award helps his case, but is not, in and of itself, a reason to induct him into the Hall.

10. 8.28 Strikeouts Per 9 Innings. This is good for 26th All-Time.  Obviously a fantastic historical rate.  Being one of the best of all-time in any category is always impressive.  However, when reviewing the 25 names above his,there are two Hall of Famers (Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax), a few probable/possible Hall of Famers (Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, Justin Verlander, etc) and a lot of pitchers who will never make the Hall (Kerry Wood, Erik Bedard, JR Richard, Eric Plunk, etc).  On balance, his strikeout rate has no bearing on his candidacy. 

11. Black Ink - 19, Gray ink - 168, Hall of Fame Monitor - 103, Hall of Fame Standards - 39. One of these puts him on par with average and likely hall of famers. Two of these are misses, but at least close (Gray Ink and Hall of Fame Standards). And he's a swing and a miss on the Black Ink. What this tells me about David Cone is he was consistently among the league leaders in many important categories, but rarely THE leader. 

12. Uniqueness. Cone was not as unique as Schilling, but he was fairly unique.  Two of Cone's most similar pitchers are in the Hall of Fame (Dazzy Vance and Bob Lemon).  His most similar pitcher is Doc Gooden at 945.  8 of the other 9 are clustered around 900.  Like Schilling he is not so unique as to say there has never been anyone like him, (see Nolan Ryan where Carlton at 755 was the most similar), but similarly unique in the Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton way that there weren't a lot of pitchers like him.

13. Career ERA of 3.46.  Hmmm...his career ERA is the exact same as Curt Schilling's.  So I can just regurgitate what I said about Curt: This is probably going to hurt his argument. At a quick glance, there are only 7 Hall of Fame Pitchers worse.  That being said, his ERA+ (121) is slightly better than the most recently inducted pitcher, Bert Blyleven (118). In fact, his ERA+ would be right in the middle of the Hall of Fame as there are 32 HOFers with a better ERA+ (Including Ruth).  What's all this mean?  Though his ERA probably hurts his argument, his ERA+ provides some context that helps his case.

14. 194 + 8 Wins. This hurts his argument.  300 Wins makes a pitcher's career look aesthetically pleasing.  200 Wins does not, per se, but missing 200 Wins can make an otherwise stellar career feel like it's missing something.  However, if we include the postseason, Cone surpasses the 200 Win barrier at least making his case a little better.  But again, 200 Wins doesn't get you into the Hall.  For Cone, this is a strike against him.

Overall, the argument looks decent for Cone. It's certainly not as solid as Schilling's argument.  But he's at least a decent candidate and certainly worthy of more than the paltry 21 votes he received prior to being bounced from the ballot.  From a gut perspective, Cone seemed like a future Hall of Famer at times, but not all the time.  He had a reputation as a horse and was known for some ridiculous pitch counts (166 in one game, for example).  There may be more deserving players that should go in first (the aforementioned Tiant, for example), but Cone would be a fine addition to the Hall.  Regardless, he certainly should have lasted longer than one and done.  Coupled with the logjam on the current ballot, the Veteran's Committee is probably going to be busy for years to come.

Speaking of players who were unceremoniously dumped from the ballot after one try, Lou Whitaker is perhaps the best example of the BBWAA getting it wrong.  Maybe we'll take his case next time...

Thanks for reading,
Jeff

Clearly Luke must have used some Jedi mind tricks on this one.  As reported by Dick Kaegel on mlb.com:

"Pitcher Luke Hochevar was pleased with the one-year, $4,560,000 contract that he agreed to with the Royals on Friday."

No kidding.  He just fleeced us.  How does someone perform THAT horribly and warrant a 30% raise?!

The Royals have had an unusual off-season; one of their most active in years.   Seeing them actually make high-impact moves has sent Royals Nation into a bit of a frenzy.  What makes it particularly strange is these moves have made all of us simultaneously a bit nervous, angry, and excited.

Adding a top of the rotation starter was an absolute priority this off-season.  Certainly acquiring James Shields accomplished this goal.  Trouble is the cost, (top prospect in baseball under team control for 6 years), may prove too much. Especially when we factor in having Frenchy and his .665 OPS patrolling RF for another year. We can use any measure we want:

Statistical fanatic?  Francoeur's WAR was -2.7 last year while Shields' WAR was 2.2.  In theory, Shileds replaces our worst starter from 2012, a combination of Will Smith and Jonathan Sanchez (combined for 38 starts) who combined gave us a -1.4 WAR.  This gives us a 3.6 improvement.  If we had kept Wil and handed him RF we would have picked up 2.7 wins if he were simply replacement level. 

Are you into "Old School" numbers and hate confangled modern statistics like "WAR"?  How about this?  Frenchy batted 5th for half of the season until he was mercifully moved down to 7th and had 49 RBIs in 603 plate appearances!  He hit .235.  We could have had ANY other Right Fielder in the game and probably got more production.  By the way, when he moved down to 7th he hit an awesome .196 - ugly in any language.

But THE trade wasn't our only off-season maneuver.  We also gave Jeremy Guthrie a Brinks Truck worth of cash for 3 years based on 3 months of good pitching.  We handed our resident 36 Year Old innings eater $4.5 Million for one more year.  We gave Getz another year too.  We've invited a slew of "hasbeens" (Tejada) and "neverwases" (Brandon Wood) to camp in hopes of striking lightning. 

And if you read a lot of articles from "experts" and comments from fans, the moves have been met with mostly negative opinions (me included) always with the caveat of "but at least Moore is doing something" or "Moore's job is clearly on the line."  And despite all of this, I feel better about the Royals going into 2013 than I have in years.  I hope Shields is an Ace.  I expect Hosmer to bounce back (go look at Ron Santo and Rod Carew at the same age and see how similar they look to Hos).  I love our offense.  Our bullpen is still strong. Perhaps Frenchy can return to 2011 form again!  Maybe, just maybe one or more of our hurt, young pitchers can come back and dazzle us!  Maybe we can sneak into the playoffs as a Wild Card where anything can happen!  Hope, after all, springs eternal. 

But then there goes Moore again, testing our collective optimism by giving Luke a raise.  To create a winning culture, you need accountability, yet we seem to love rewarding failure.  Not that Greinke would have returned, but if we simply let Chen and Hoch go, traded Frenchy away, and took the money we saved on letting Soria go, we could have afforded Zack.  But alas, we have to endure one more year of Hoch.  We're KC fans and we're pulling for him, but geesh, there's only so much we can take!

Gil Meche went 6-15 in his last two seasons with us and retired rather than continue to take the Royals' money.  Perhaps he should give Luke a call.

Last year I wrote an article for sbnation.com reviewing the case for Curt Schilling's Hall of Fame candidacy.  Since no one got elected this year, I thought it'd be a good time to post that article here.  Over on sbnation I also ran a poll and Curt received 67% of the vote.  Not bad for an informal public poll.  From time to time, we can debate other worthy (or unworthy) candidates.  Should be fun...here's the article:

First, let me start by saying I am a Royals fan.  So, perhaps discussing Curt Schilling seems odd since he never played for Kansas City.  But his career has always been fascinating to me so I figured why not start here? Since Curt Schilling retired I have seen numerous debates on his Hall of Fame worthiness. Before I enter this debate I must establish the fact that over the years I have changed my perspective on the Hall of Fame.  Now that we have inducted the Rizzutos and Mazeroskis of the world, I believe if someone is even borderline we might as well let them in. And why not? Who does it hurt? If someone is close, why not make a bunch of fans happy that "their guy" got in? Was I a fan of Jim Rice? No. Did I think I was watching a Hall of Famer at the time? Not really. But should he be in the Hall of Fame? Sure, why not? Heck there is a list of players not in that I would be fine with. I may not advocate on their behalf, but I certainly have no problem if they go in.  We are already way past the point of the Hall of Fame being a club just for Babe Ruth and Willie Mays.

Back to Schilling. Simply based on the above, I am inclined to agree that Schilling can go in to the Hall of Fame. But let's look at the evidence and see how he compares:

1. Bloody sock
2. Dominant postseason record
3. The Curse of Babe Ruth
4. near-.600 Winning Percentage
5. Three 20-win Seasons
6. 3,000 Strikeouts including three 300-plus seasons
7. Four seasons of sub-3.00 ERA seasons
8. Six time All-Star
9. Three times runner up Cy Young
10. Number one all-time strikeout to walk ratio (4.38/1)
11. Black Ink-42, Gray ink - 205, Hall of Fame Monitor - 171, Hall of Fame Standards - 46
12. Uniqueness
13. Career ERA of 3.46
14. 216 Wins

1. Bloody sock. This is one of those "moments" many Hall of Famers have simply because the hall is filled with great players and great players almost always have extraordinary moments. In and of itself it certainly does not make one a hall of famer, but could come in handy if it's close. This is the kind of thing that will stick in the voters minds and if they are going back and forth could make them check the box. Though, it hasn't exactly helped Jack Morris (1991 World Series) or Roger Maris (1961 61 Homers) or Tuffy Rhodes (1994 3 Homers on opening day).

2. Dominant postseason record. 11-2 over all with a 2.23 ERA. 4-1 in the World Series with a 2.06 ERA. One of only 2 pitchers to start 3 games in one World Series in the last 20 years (Jack Morris being the other in that aforementioned 1991 series).

3. The Curse of Babe Ruth. While Curt didn't singlehandedly break the curse, he certainly played a pivotal role with his 21-6 record and 6 shutout innings in the World Series.

4. near-.600 Winning Percentage. On the one hand, his .597 Career Winning percentage is essentially in the neighborhood of Hall of Famers Warren Spahn, Herb Pennock and Walter Johnson. On the other hand Teddy Higuera, John Candelaria and Wes Ferrell also live in that neighborhood. All in all winning percentage in and of itself does not constitute a Hall of Famer, but his is better than 31 current Hall of Famers, so this certainly helps his argument.

5. Three 20-win Seasons. Like many "strikeout" pitchers Curt had seasons where he couldn't seem to put it all together. Seasons where he'd win 16 games but post a 4.00+ ERA or strikeout 300+ batters and win just 15 or so games. Of course other than '93 Phillies, he pitched for some pretty ordinary teams. Then in Arizona it all clicked. He was with a good team and won 22 games, a World Series, posted a sub-3.00 ERA and was still striking batters out at a healthy clip while continuing to improve his walk totals. However, as a Hall of Famer, Curt's three 20-win seasons aren't going help other than to be able to say he won 20 games at least once. It may even hurt.

6. 3,000 Strikeouts including three 300-plus seasons. Schilling sits at #15 on the All-Time Strikeout list. Of the eligible pitchers on the list, every single one above him is in the Hall of Fame (and for the first time in a long time I can finally stop saying except for Blyleven). If we extend to the top 30, Mickey Lolich, Frank Tanana, David Cone, Chuck Finley, and Jerry Koosman are not. Of the pitchers ineligible, two are "no-brainer Hall of Famers": Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux. One "should be but now may not because of steroids Hall of Famer": Roger Clemens. And three "may/should make it with a decent argument but each has question marks": Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Mike Mussina. So, all in all top 30 in strikeouts looks pretty solid. This helps Schilling.

7. Four seasons of sub-3.00 ERA seasons. Many Hall of Famers have more. This isn't really going to help him though, like the 20-win argument, he will at least get credit for it. Something that really hurts Jack Morris.

8. Six time All-Star. A great total. For a pitcher, impressive since it speaks to coaches picking him rather than fans. Without the All-Star selections his case would have a big hole.

9. Three times runner up Cy Young. Not winning the Cy Young will undoubtedly hurt him. However, for the voters considering the Schilling case I will point out that he has the highest "Award Share" total in history to have not won the award. (16th all-time). By the way, for those that decided to put Goose and Sutter in, I will take a moment to remind you that you forgot our beloved Quisenberry. (#2 on the list) Oh, and for the Ryan fans out there who know he was robbed in 1981 and 1987, he's #3.

10. Number one all-time strikeout to walk ratio (4.38/1). (yeah, I had no idea either). Ok, technically he is listed at #2 behind Tommy Bond from the 1870s. But with all due respect to Mr. Bond, I am going to set him aside and consider Schilling #1 in the "modern" era. I'll be honest, when I found this out it pretty much convinced me that Schilling belongs in the Hall. In the Sabermetric era, I expect on base percentage has and will continue to grow in the minds of voters. I also expect strikeout-walk ratio could enter the debate. So, why not? If Schilling is the best ever, that's a pretty salient point.

11. Black Ink-42, Gray ink - 205, Hall of Fame Monitor - 171, Hall of Fame Standards - 46. 3 of these put him on par with average and likely hall of famers. Even the one where he misses, Hall of Fame Standards, he just misses the average of 50. This all probably doesn't help his argument, but indicates he's likely to garner support just based on what we know about hall of famers and the voters' tendencies.

12. Uniqueness. On the one hand only 3 of Schillings 10 most similar pitchers are in the Hall of Fame. And they aren't the hall's most rock-solid members: Drysdale, Vance and Catfish. On the other hand, only 2 pitchers scored a similarity score of 900+ with the most similar being Kevin Brown at 920. All this tells me is that Schilling was relatively unique. Certainly not so unique as to say there has never been anyone like him, (see Nolan Ryan where Carlton at 755 was the most similar), but unique in the Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton way that there weren't a lot of pitchers like him.

13. Career ERA of 3.46. This is probably going to hurt his argument. At a quick glance, there are only 7 Hall of Fame Pitchers worse.

14. 216 Wins. Not going to help his argument. Any pitcher in the Hall with around 200 wins is not in the Hall because of their win total. I always look at there being 3 types of typical Hall of Famers that are voted in by the writers: 1. Those in because of overall career value. Longevity driven. Players like Don Sutton. Stick around long enough, hit a big number we can't ignore and you are in the club. If he really does come back, Jamie Moyer could be next. 2. Those in because of peak value. Someone who was so dominant over a short period of time that voters felt they could not ignore their greatness. Sandy Koufax is the best example. Kirby Puckett is another example and I suspect Pedro Martinez will be next. This category is "perceived" and the most subjective of the groups. Sometimes it works in a players favor: Hack Wilson. Sometimes it does not: Roger Maris. And finally #3. Those in because of the dominance in all areas of the game for a long period of time. The hit you over the head, "duh" Hall of Famers...Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Brett, etc. Schilling, if he gets in, will have to be based on #2. Perhaps it is the bloody sock. Maybe it will be the strikeout-walk ratio. Maybe it will be the overall postseason. One thing is certain...it will not be the 200 wins. The ONLY thing the wins really do for him is prevent a "he didn't even get to 200 wins" argument against him.

Overall, the argument looks pretty good for Schilling. From a gut perspective, I certainly thought I was watching one of the greats when he was at his peak. Then again, I thought the same thing when Dale Murphy won his back to back MVPs and was a dominant force in the 80s. If it were my ballot, I'd vote for both of them.

Of course, if he goes in, I am compelled to ask what about David Cone? He only got 21 votes and won't be on the ballot ever again. He has a very Schilling-esque resume. Maybe we'll look at him next time.


Jeff

Welcome to Skip's Cards!  You have reached our blog where we will discuss anything and everything related to sports, sports cards, pop culture, and whatever strikes us.  Have a topic in mind?  Just send a note to us at info@skipscards.com or comment below.  The point is to have fun talking about our favorite topics. 

Looking for something Animal related?  Check out Judi's Favorite Animals Blog!  You can find it in the links to the left.

Thank you for checking us out and if there is ever anything you're looking for that you don't see on our site, just let me know...I either have it or will find it for you.  :-)