Committee Chairman
Kirk Buchner, "The Committee Chairman", is the owner and operator of the site. Kirk can be contacted at [email protected] .
The Mark McGwire Debate: 2015
Dec 26, 2014
Published in
Hall of Fame Debates
This is the fourteenth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.
Chairman: What, the PED discussion again? Actually, I am going to open with something a little different, as I have been a little surprised at just how much as his support has plummeted. This was the first “Steroids Guy” on the Ballot and here we are on year nine and the new ten year rule will kick him off in two years; and don’t think this isn’t by accident. Mark McGwire plummeted to eleven percent last year, but his fall shows me that contrition doesn’t mean anything to the writers. Nobody else apologized, and Big Mac has done pretty well for himself as a hitting coach in the Majors. So much for forgiveness.
Darryl: You and I differ on the intent of reducing the eligibility period. I think it is to reduce the logjam regardless of the perception of the player—Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammell are just as likely to fall off as the PEDs-suspected players. Mark McGwire was indeed the lightning rod, though, the first star with that PEDs association to hit the ballot. Regardless of what doping did to his performance, that performance is on the bubble—more peak dominance than longevity.
He was largely one-dimensional, a Three True Outcomes hitter—walk, strikeout, home run—but it was an awesome dimension. One thing that impresses me is that his on-base percentage of .394 is 131 points higher than his .263 batting average. He collected 1626 hits but walked 1317 times, and only 150 of those were intentional—but that's still 46th all-time. That's a feared hitter—and a selective one. Borderline, but he's like a Ralph Kiner: Essentially one tool, but it was a sledgehammer. Just barely a Hall of Famer—but I think at this point, a future Expansion Era Committee will have to debate that. And that is the ramification of the shortened eligibility period: Baseball is dumping responsibility for gatekeeping into the Hall on future committees.
D.K.: I think that a lot of the media that covered McGwire’s quest to surpass the single season total of Roger Maris back in 1998 felt like they’d been duped when it came out that McGwire wasn’t clean. These same writers are the ones who have withheld their vote for McGwire ever since he became eligible. Therefore I think McGwire’s chances for election are minimal.
Chairman: I stand by my conspiracy theories! We did not walk on the moon, there was another gunman and aliens built the pyramids in Egypt. Ok, bad jokes aside, we’ll agree to disagree on the motives, but you are right about equating McGwire to a one trick pony, though it was one equivalent in my eyes to Thornton Melon’s triple lindy (1% of future shares in the site to whoever gets that reference), but yes, taking away from PEDs it is a resume that puts you on the cusp of the Hall when looking at the bigger picture.
Saying that these future committees are going to be loaded with his generation’s “clean players”, so if McGwire and his friends are getting in, they have a better chance with the baseball writers, not with guys like Frank Thomas or Goose Gossage who have openly decried these guys shouldn’t be in, and could wind up on these future committees.
D.K.: The odd thing about Barry Bonds and McGwire is that they began using PEDs after they were already highly successful star players. Many have argued that if Bonds had left steroids alone he’d have made the Hall Of Fame anyway. McGwire wouldn’t have put up Hall Of Fame numbers, but he would probably have hit 400+ clean home runs and had a very good career. He reached the majors with a bang, smashing 49 home runs in his first full season of 1987 and topped 50 homers a few seasons later when he was still likely clean. He probably wouldn’t have made the HOF because he was only a .263 lifetime hitter and he struck out far too much.
Was it the Deadly Sin of pride that prompted Bonds and McGwire to chase records and increase their legacies that in the end became their downfalls.
Darryl: Chairman, you may be right that McGwire's best chance is with the writers and not a future veterans committee--that is an excellent point. The recent Hall of Famers will staff those future committees, and they are likely to keep their current perspectives. So, McGwire may in fact be his generation's Deacon White, not necessarily in terms of conduct, but that his great-grandkid may deliver the induction speech near the end of this century.
As for Thornton Melon, well . . . he just don't get no respect, does he?
Much like McGwire.
And as for a second shooter, don't get me started on the JFK assassination. The most plausible explanation to me would probably gobsmack a lot of people, but then I'd tell them to read David Lifton's "Best Evidence." (Hint: The "best evidence" is the body itself and what may have happened to it between Dallas and Bethesda, where the autopsy took place.)
Chairman: DDT, we have to sit down over beer one day and solve the problems of the world, and based on an earlier comment I owe you a small portion of the site. Personally, I do believe is a Hall of Famer, and I would have voted him in other years, but the glut of additional talent pushes him off if my ballot. I vote no.
Darryl: Chairman, I'll gladly take you up on that offer.
It's not so much the glut of additional talent--this year's ballot isn't any heavier than it has been in the past couple of years--but by now it is patently obvious even to me that anyone with tangible evidence or admission of PEDs usage is wearing a scarlet letter of "C" for Cheater and is not going to get 75 percent. So, this year my voting approach is primarily (although not exclusively) for those "clean" candidates who are with little dispute Hall of Famers. And with only 10 votes that means a mean triage.
So, no to Mark McGwire. Not this year.
D.K.: I’ve never been one to forgive and forget easily when I’ve been wronged.
(I still have a fist and a set of brass knuckles ready for an older bully who once sucker punched me when I was 13).
That said, when America watched the race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa to topple Roger Maris’ season’s home run record of 61 homers in 1998 collectively we thought we were watching the greatest thing since Maris and Mickey Mantle were racing to beat Babe Ruth’s record of 60 HR nearly four decades earlier. The country thought it was watching history in the making; as it turned out we were only watching two frauds making fools out of the nation’s sports fans. The answer is a NO vote to McGwire this year and it might always be so.
The Fred McGriff Debate: 2015
Dec 26, 2014
Published in
Hall of Fame Debates
This is the thirteenth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.
Chairman: Prior to the PED controversy I kept thinking that Fred McGriff was going to wind up being the guy who would go down in history as the man who had the most Home Runs but wouldn’t wind up in the Hall of Fame. That has obviously changed, but I could easily change this to “player untainted with PEDs who has the most Home Runs not entering the Hall”. It was never that I once thought he wasn’t a very good player, or even at times great; but did the “Crime Dog” ever feel special?
He is entering year sixth on the ballot, coming off his all time low of 11.7%. Thirty years ago, wouldn’t this guy be in right away; or does his frequent movement make seem like a high priced journeyman?
Darryl: I do tend to go back and forth on Fred McGriff, but ultimately it is back to he falls just short. Crime Dog is on two cusps: One is that he started a decade before both the players and the numbers got big, so his year-to-year stats look strong but not eye-popping like the Steroids-Era players. Two is that both qualitatively and quantitatively, McGriff is on the cusp of greatness—just shy of 2500 hits, just shy of 500 home runs, and over 1500 RBI.
You may indeed be right: Turn McGriff's clock back 30 years, and his record looks like Willie McCovey's or Harmon Killebrew's. But that's not the case, and what really kills McGriff's chances is that by now the Hall is chock-full of power-hitting first basemen whose numbers are gaudier, and who had dominating peaks, which McGriff never had. He was excellent, but not elite, and you have to draw the line somewhere.
D.K.: Hall Of Fame standards are completely out of whack when a player like McGriff who put up such great numbers (as follows) receives so few votes. 493 home runs - 9 seasons of 30HR or more; 12 seasons of 25HR or more. 2 NL HR titles. 1550 Runs Batted In: 6 seasons of 100 or more RBI; 10 seasons of 90 or more RBI. Just under 2,500 career hits with a.285 batting average.
Man, what does a guy have to do to impress these writers?
Chairman: O.K., let’s play this game. How much does “fame” really matter? As a Jays fan going to the games, I never really thought “Hey, I’m going to watch Fred McGriff play today!” What imagination did he capture? Was he ever at any time considered the best at his position? I know I am arguing against stats, but I just want to throw that out there, and see just what being an icon in the sport means.
We just watched Gil Hodges fail to get into the Veterans Ballot, and while I am not saying that he has better stats than McGriff (he doesn’t), he was a guy who Dodgers fans paid to see. Does that mean anything, or should it? Maybe I am thinking of the romanticism of baseball and sports in general but shouldn’t that matter a little bit?
Unlike Larry Walker who is facing voting issues, McGriff doesn’t have a fan base as he played for three teams for five years and another five for another three combined, he has no real identity that makes any city want to rally around him. That might be why Hodges’ supporters are so passionate, and those of McGriff are non-existent.
D.K.: Playing all or most of one’s career in one city and for one team definitely has it’s advantages regarding the Hall of Fame and that goes for any sport. (I’ve often though that If linebacker Maxie Baughan hadn’t been included in a blockbuster multi-player deal in 1966 and been sent to the Los Angeles Rams and had stayed in Philadelphia his entire career he’d have been in the Pro Football Hall of Fame long ago. He only missed making the Pro Bowl one year in the early part of his career, otherwise he’s have made 10 straight pro Bowls and would have been perfect for the decade of the 1960s (Baughan made the NFL Pro Bowl for the seasons 1960-61 and 1963-69. His top years were split between Philly and LA and even unluckier than being traded from Philly was the fact that he was traded to a city that would lose its NFL franchise and that hasn’t had a team for the last 20 years - so no HOF backing comes from LA, and only some comes from Philly.
Nomadic players or players that test the free agency waters every few years do pay a price (at the gates of Cooperstown, or Canton, or Toronto, or Springfield) eventually. It is the voting writers’ job however, to see what value a player brings to his teams, no matter how often he changes uniforms and to not let a hometown push backing a player who spent all or most of his career with one team sway them unduly.
McGriff has some great numbers if you take the time to examine them. If I had a maximum of 10 choices like the writers do (and they are lobbying to be allowed to vote for 12 players instead of just 10), McGriff wouldn’t be in my first five choices, but he’d be among my ten somewhere.
Darryl: I'm not sure that Gil Hodges is a good comparison in terms of "fame" because he is an outlier--the Dodgers are a storied franchise, particularly the 1940s and 1950s Brooklyn version that is practically worshipped in Roger Kahn's book "The Boys of Summer." That mystique, as I suggested in my article on this year's Golden Era candidates, has probably inflated Hodges's perception--and, as I note, largely without justification. As for the "nomadic" aspect of McGriff's career, he played in the free-agency era, and the writers know that.
Look at Dave Winfield: I never thought of him as being the reigning star on his teams, and he played for six teams during his career. One of those, admittedly, was the New York Yankees, another "mystique" team, and Winfield did reach a Cooperstown milestone of 3000 hits, both of which were undoubtedly factors in his first-ballot election in 2001. I'm surprised that Atlanta isn't rallying around McGriff since three of his five All-Star appearances came while he was on the Braves. But has anyone considered whether his prolonged exposure through those Tom Emanski Baseball Fundamentals television commercials have ultimately soured his chances?
Chairman: You know I never saw those commercials before? Maybe that is the blessing (curse) of living in Canada. After doing research maybe that bright red hat is what should go on the bust; though it won’t happen on my ballot. I vote no.
Darryl: No.
D.K.: I ranked McGriff 10th and gave him my final YES vote. He’s at or near the top of the list when it comes to candidates on this ballot who have thus far been underappreciated by the writers.
The Don Mattingly Debate: 2015
Dec 26, 2014
Published in
Hall of Fame Debates
This is the twelfth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.
Chairman: Donnie Baseball. Mattingly is on his 15th year on the ballot, and I didn’t even realize this until I looked it up. Last year, Mattingly had 8.2 percent of the ballot, his lowest total ever. His highest was 28.2 percent, which was on his first year of eligibility. The second year was 20.3. I really like him, but here is a guy who might be this generation’s Steve Garvey; and I don’t mean because he pretended to be a really good guy in public. Basically, I am saying that sabremetrics is not his friend. With this loaded ballot, I could conceivably see him fall under fiver percent. Now I’m too lazy to look up if anybody ever fell below that 5 percent threshold on their final year, but that would have to be a first right?
Darryl: Well, the saber numbers are not his enemy—it's the counting numbers that are hurting him: Don Mattingly simply doesn't have the big career totals. Only six of his 14 seasons saw him play 150 or more games, and that is indicative of the injuries that dogged him. In the only season in which he played every game, 1986 in his age-25 year, Mattingly led the American League in hits, doubles, slugging percentage and total bases. He hit 31 home runs, drove in 113, and posted a .352/.394/.573 slash line. He had a six-year peak between 1984 and 1989, which is just a little short and he was not quite the dominant player during that time. That would compensate for the light counting numbers, but it never happened. Mattingly falls just short in both areas. And if he does fall below five percent this year, I think that would be more of an indicator of an overloaded ballot.
D.K.: This is his last year on the Writers’ Ballot Mattingly will be a Veterans Committee candidate two years from now in December 2016, for the HOF Class of 2017. If he is to reach the Hall Of Fame at all entrance to Cooperstown via the Vets Committee is his proper level of the Hall. Injuries prevented him from sustaining the type of dominant performance that adds up to a Writers Ballot HOFer, but I could see him getting in through the Vets.
Chairman: I think whatever metric you use, it comes down to a peak period that just wasn’t long enough and a period after that doesn’t measure up no matter how you slice it. I wonder though if he was on better Yankees teams, and whether we want to admit or not, Major League Baseball is more interesting when the Bronx Bombers are good, that if he played for a better team, that he would be closer to induction. Mattingly was the star of bad Yankees teams, but Rizzuto was what on great Yankees teams, maybe the fifth best player? Sorry…but I know that Darryl will understand when I say that Phil Rizzuto is my Percy Sledge. Holy Cow!
D.K.: There’s not much I could add to Darryl’s comment. He said it all – or at least most of it. Mattingly's Saber numbers or I guess you could call them his qualitative numbers are Hall Of Fame-like. It’s his quantitative numbers or counting numbers that weaken his case. His four or five year peak was not dominant enough over a long enough period of time to rate Hall of Fame enshrinement in the minds of most voters. He will be eligible for consideration by the Veterans Committee just two years from now in December 2016 on the Expansion Era committee ballot.
Mattingly has become part of a historical footnote. He is one of three players who had been through more than 10 BBWAA elections when they decided to shorten the number of years players can be voted in by the writers. Three players are being grandfathered in and will receive their full run of 15 years on the ballot as per the old rules. This will be Mattingly’s final year on the ballot, next year will be Alan Trammel’s final year on the writer’s ballot and Lee Smith will have his final vote in 2017. After Smith’s shot in 2017, the 15-year ballots rule will pass into history.
Darryl: At least Percy Sledge had an R&B hit called "Out of Left Field," so he's at least in the ballpark. I'm tempted to say that whether Mattingly was on a good or bad team doesn't, or shouldn't matter, but I don't know. Mattingly's record matches pretty closely to Kirby Puckett's in several ways. Both played at the same time, and even though Mattingly logged two more seasons, both played in nearly the same number of games although Puckett had about 100 more plate appearances and collected a season's worth more hits; thus, Puckett hit several points higher, .318 to Mattingly's .307, but otherwise their slash lines are about the same. Mattingly won a MVP award and was runner-up the following year; Puckett was top five three times. Puckett of course had postseasons heroics on his side as his Minnesota Twins won two World Series. Mattingly only ever saw one postseason series, in 1995, the AL Divisional Series against the Seattle Mariners famed for the "Edgar Martinez double" that won the fifth and deciding game. But we all but forget that Mattingly fairly raked in the series, knocking ten hits including four doubles and a home run for a .417 average while driving in six runs, so who knows what Mattingly could have done in more postseasons. Puckett is a marginal Hall of Famer, but he was worth about eight wins more in bWAR than was Mattingly, and that may be the real difference.
Chairman: I always like Mattingly…especially in his Simpsons cameo: “Mattingly, I thought I told you to trim those side sideburns!” Still, an appearance for Mr. Burns’ company softball team doesn’t get him on my ballot. I vote no.
Darryl: No.
D.K.: No.
The Pedro Martinez Debate: 2015
Dec 26, 2014
Published in
Hall of Fame Debates
This is the eleventh of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.
Chairman: We have another debut on this year’s ballot, and one that I think has an excellent shot at entering immediately. For the record, I love everything about Pedro Martinez, and for years he was my favorite (non Blue Jay) Pitcher. The only way I see somebody not voting for this guy, is for one of two reasons:
One, he is one of those writers who refuses to put anyone on the ballot because he thinks everyone was on PEDs, or can’t confirm who was and was not. Sadly, we have had some who openly do that.
Two, they are holding on to the archaic view that he only has 219 Wins. Gun to my head, I would build my team around Pedro over Randy Johnson, though I suspect the latter will get a higher percentage of the vote.
Darryl: I would build my team around Randy Johnson—he is more durable. In just under 200 more starts than Pedro Martinez, Johnson had 54 more complete games (he led the league in that category four times; Martinez, once), and pitched 37 shutouts, 20 more than Martinez, and two of Johnson's were no-hitters, one a perfect game. (Martinez once pitched nine hitless innings but gave up a hit in the 10th inning.) I mention this because as a Red Sox fan (they're number two behind the Giants), I still shudder at Pedro's staying in too long in Game Seven of the 2003 American League Championship Series against the Yankees, who tied the game against him and beat the Red Sox in extra innings to go to the World Series. Contrast that with Johnson's pitching heroics for the Arizona Diamondbacks in the 2001 World Series. Simply put, Randy Johnson is one of the most dominant pitchers ever to step on the mound.
Now, that said, Pedro Martinez is not too far behind. Any writer who thinks Pedro was on PEDs deserves to have his ballot privileges revoked permanently: Pedro was a skinny kid from the Dominican—he was a freaking David facing a host of steroids-fueled Goliaths, and like that Biblical stone-slinger Pedro mowed 'em down, one by one. In terms of run prevention, Pedro is better than the Big Unit: Martinez had two seasons with an ERA under 2.00, and Martinez had five seasons with an ERA+ over 200, and this was in the teeth of the Steroids Era; Johnson never matched either one of those accomplishments. In fact, Pedro is the only pitcher on the 2015 ballot, starter or reliever, with a sub-3.00 career ERA; his is 2.93. I've written an extensive article for this site that examines the usefulness—or lack thereof—in determining a pitcher's Hall of Fame worth, so I'll just echo agreement about their being archaic as a primary determinant. Pedro Martinez is one of the elite pitchers in the game's history—he is a first-ballot Hall of Famer without question.
D.K.: I’m still a little miffed that Pedro’s swan song was two World Series losses with the Phillies to the Yanks in 2009. The Yankees won the game by a two game margin and Pedro went 0-2 in the series ...you do the math...and Pedro can still call the Yankees ”his Daddy”.
As a Phillies fan I’ll give him my HOF vote grudgingly because you can’t ignore his stratospheric career winning percentage of .687 - second only to Whitey Ford (and Ford had a Yankees Dynasty backing him).
Chairman: So this looks like a unanimous opinion from us as to whether we think Pedro should be in the Hall. We all think he should, and believe it will be right away. Darryl, no issues from me for you picking Randy over Pedro, they are both giving our fictional teams bona fide aces either way.
Let’s throw this out. Is there any chance that the writer’s give a higher percentage to Martinez than Johnson? I vote no, but there are stranger things that have happened on Hall of Fame voting. Saying that, if he finishes in any other place than second, I would have read four different sources to believe it.
D.K.: Did I mention in round one that in addition to having one of the highest winning percentages of all time at .687 - and to simplify that it means Pedro went 11-5 for every 16 decisions throughout his career, he also is a 3,000 strikeout man. He’s in rarified company among pitchers, but as the luck of the draw has it, he also retired the same year as Randy Johnson and now they each become first-time HOF eligibles as well. Martinez and John Smoltz might suffer by the comparison to Johnson. While they are both in the 220 win range, Johnson won 303 games and while Smoltz and Pedro finished with about 3,100 strikeouts, Johnson dwarfs them again with nearly 4,900 Ks RJ also finished his career with an even 100 Complete Games, and that’s a rare accomplishment in this day and age.
Johnson also gets to be in those cool commercials where hot girls in tight shorts wash his car and mow and water his lawn while he relaxes in a lawn chair. I’ve already forgotten the product name because of those obvious curvy distractions - something to do with removing that grey from your goatee, I think. Well, that’s neither here not there I guess Pedro would be a lock in a normal year, but competing against Johnson, he might lose some votes by comparison, because for all but the last three or four years of his career, RJ was close to being “Superhuman”.
Darryl: Indeed, stranger things have happened on a Hall ballot--Ty Cobb polled more votes than did Babe Ruth on the inaugural 1936 ballot, and not only had Ruth just retired, and thus was fresh in writers' minds, but Ruth revolutionized the game and even then was considered to be the game's greatest superstar; furthermore, Ruth's colorful ways made him an American folk hero while Cobb remains one of the most disliked players of all time.
That said, I'd lay more money on North Korea's getting elected to the United Nations' Security Council than on Pedro Martinez garnering more votes than Randy Johnson this year. But who knows? Maybe that new movie with Seth Rogen and James Franco will help North Korea . . .
Chairman: This is a no-brainer for me. I am all in Pedro and am openly cheering for him to be a first ballot inductee. I vote Yes.
Darryl: Yes.
D.K.: I’m using all my 10 votes. I ranked Pedro 6th. - That means it’s a Yes vote for me.