10 (Possibly Controversial) Hall of Fame Selections

I don't have the privilege of casting an official BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot, but if I did, I'm pretty sure a couple of my selections would raise the ire of two-thirds of the general population; but so be it.

Also, since the maximum number of candidates eligible to receive votes on a single ballot is ten, I'm forced to leave off a couple of guys who clearly have Hall of Fame credentials (baseball-reference.com ranks every player at each position, for comparison); but my hands are tied by Cooperstown.  Sorry.  Maybe next year.

My votes go to the most qualified, not necessarily the most popular.  They are:

Craig Biggio - After coming up just a bit short last year with 74.8% of the vote, I hope he doesn't have to play the waiting game any longer.  His career numbers are compelling, with 3060 hits in his 20-years with the Astros (112 OPS+); not a particularly great defensive player, but good enough overall to be ranked #14 all-time for second basemen (his primary position).

Mike Piazza - Clearly the best hitting catcher in MLB history (.308/.377/.545 - 143 OPS+), with moderate defensive liabilities during his 16-year career; but not enough to justify exclusion from the Hall of Fame; however, with the PED issue still raging among the voting ranks of the BBWAA, I'd be surprised if he gets in this year, despite being ranked #5 all-time for catchers.

Jeff Bagwell - His 15-year career was hampered by injuries, but the slugging first baseman still posted HOF-caliber numbers (.297/.408/.540 - 149 OPS+) and is ranked #6 all-time at his position.  He'll more than likely get in within the next 2-3 years, barring any shocking revelation that he did in fact, juice.  There's still too much suspicion within the voting ranks to be a likely inductee in 2015 - especially with the new competition coming up the ranks.

Tim Raines - So far, being the second-best lead-off hitter in MLB history as well as the eighth-best left fielder hasn't been good enough for induction.  Go figure.  In a career that spanned 23 seasons, Raines posted excellent offensive numbers (.294/.385/.425 - 123 OPS+) plus he stole 808 bases!

Roger Clemens - Of course, he's not getting in any time soon, but the third greatest pitcher in MLB history (354-184 - 3.12 ERA - 143 ERA+) won 7 Cy Young Awards, had a 12-8 postseason record - including a perfect 3-0 in World Series play and was on 2 World Series winners:  '99 & '00 New York Yankees.  His controversial career spanned 24 seasons.

Barry Bonds - Also not getting in the Hall of Fame any time soon, but the greatest left fielder in MLB history (.298/.444/.607 - 182 OPS+) played 22 seasons, retiring with the single season (73) and career 762) home run records.  He's probably the most despised player in MLB history, but his talent was certainly remarkable - a first ballot Hall of Famer if he had refrained from the temptation of hitting the juice in the wake of the McGwire single season home run record (70), set in '98.

Curt Schilling - There are 59 starting pitchers already enshrined at Cooperstown, and Schilling is ranked #27 all-time (216-146 - 3.46 ERA - 127 ERA+); and that's before including his astounding postseason record (11-2 - 2.23 ERA, including 4-1 - 2.06 ERA in World Series play).  Oh yeah, he was co-MVP (with Randy Johnson) in the 2001 World Series as a member of the Arizona Diamondbacks, leading that franchise to its first championship; then 3 years later, helped the Bambino-cursed Red Sox to their first title since 1918 - bloody sock and all; then did it again for Boston in 2007.

Alan Trammell - This may be the most underrated player in MLB history.  Overlooked by the BBWAA who apparently viewed him as good, but not great as a 20-year fixture at shortstop for the Detroit Tigers.  His offensive numbers (.285/.352/.415 - 110 OPS+) compare favorably to most shortstops already inducted into Cooperstown and his defensive skills were far better than he was given credit for; winning four Gold Gloves, but deserving at least seven.  Baseball-reference.com ranks him #11 all-time at his position, one notch higher than the universally heralded Derek Jeter.
Of course, he won't even come close this time around, as usual; but he belongs.

Randy Johnson - Making his appearance on the ballot for the first time, he's certain to get at least 90% of the vote; and rightfully so.  Ranked #9 all-time for starting pitchers (303-166 - 3.29 ERA - 135 ERA+), the Big Unit played 22 seasons, highlighted by his 3-0 - 1.04 ERA in the 2001 World Series win over the Yankees.

Pedro Martinez - The best pitcher in the AL during the height of the Steroids Era (219-100 - 2.93 ERA - 154 ERA+), ranked #21 all-time following his 18 year career.  Like Johnson, he should have no trouble getting in on his first try.

Just missing the cut on my imaginary ballot were first-time candidate John Smoltz (#58 all-time for starting pitchers) and the great and highly underrated Larry Walker (#10 all-time for right fielders).  Smoltz has an excellent chance of getting enough votes on his first try; Walker has zero chance; unfairly downgraded by his tremendous offensive production at hitter-friendly Coors Field during his time with the Colorado Rockies.  Yet, his career numbers were staggering (.313/.400/.565 - 141 OPS+), and he did it for 17 seasons.  Sooner or later, he's got to get in.

For now, it looks like Johnson and Martinez will definitely get in; Biggio has about a 50/50 shot, and Smoltz maybe slightly less than 50/50.  If Cooperstown is really the final destination for the all-time greats of baseball, this ballot currently has the top candidates, based on performance; not hype.

HOF Class of 2013 Flunking Out

The list of former MLB players eligible for Hall of Fame consideration for the first time in 2013 includes a pair that are among the best to ever play the game - Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.  They also happen to be among the list of players suspected of using performance enhancing drugs, so there's no way either one will be getting into Cooperstown this year.

In fact, it looks doubtful any of this year's new candidates - or holdovers from previous years for that matter - will be getting enough votes to be enshrined.  At last check, even Craig Biggio - what many consider a HOF lock - is only hovering around 70% of the votes (75% is required to be inducted).  It seems as though the voters are making a collective statement:  Nobody gets in.

That's a shame, because there are at least a dozen (try fifteen) candidates that are worthy of Hall of Fame consideration; most notably:

Craig Biggio
Jeff Bagwell
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Fred McGriff
Larry Walker
Mike Piazza
Curt Schilling
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Lee Smith
Dale Murphy
Don Mattingly
Edgar Martinez
Mark McGwire

I suppose if I were actually voting, I'd have to leave five of these selections off my ballot (ten is the maximum number of players allowed).  Even though Bonds and Clemens have no chance of getting in, I'd still be compelled to cast my ballot in their favor.  I'm not sure how much the PEDs padded their numbers, but I believe they had HOF credentials before they started juicing; besides, they weren't  alone. 

Actually, I wouldn't want to drop any of the above off my hypothetical ballot, so it's probably a good thing I don't get to vote.

Deep Thoughts - Bob Costas Spouts Off

It's been two weeks since Ryan Braun won his appeal, overturning major league baseball's plan to suspend the reigning National League MVP for the first fifty games of the 2012 season, after testing (very) positive in that controversial urine sample, early last October.  In case you weren't aware of this precedent-setting successful appeal, allow me to summarize what went down:

*Braun's sample was tainted since it sat in a cool, dry place for 44 unsupervised hours before being shipped off to the lab.  

*The lab didn't know it was tainted, since all the tamper resistant seals had not been tampered with during that unsupervised 44 hour hiatus.

*The lab discovered the tainted sample was loaded with synthetic testosterone.

*Believing the tainted sample to be untainted, Braun was falsely accused by major league baseball of ingesting some type of banned, pharmaceutical product to produce all that synthetic testosterone.

*Some unknown blabbermouth leaked the news of the initial findings by the lab of the tainted sample to ESPN, who promptly spread the foreboding news to the rest of the world.

*Prior to the ESPN leak, Braun won the NL MVP Award, and appeared to be happy and synthetic testosterone-free during his congratulatory interviews with the media.  My favorite - MLB Network's ebullient analyst, Harold Reynolds' exchange with Braunie:  "Hey man, you look clean!"  "Thanks, HR!  Coming from you that means something; if it came from Ripken (Billy), not so much."  Guffaws!

*When Braun formally accepted his Award at the subsequent MLB shin-dig, he nervously dished out an awkwardly tongue-tied and embarrassing speech, mentioning key words like "challenge" and "opportunity" way too many times to make any sense.  Only his nervous laughter while stammering through the ordeal broke the dead silence among the wary gathering.

*During the long, drawn-out appeal process, Braun's crack team of legal experts proved to the arbitration panel that the sample was tainted; or at least possibly tainted (reasonable doubt!) by sitting around some guy's cool, dry basement for 44 unsupervised hours before being shipped off to the lab.

*A relieved, but indignantly bitter Ryan Braun held a fifteen minute press conference at his team's training facility in Peoria, AZ, citing the "fatally flawed" process which created the tainted sample that turned him into the falsely accused "victim".  Not wanting to leave well enough alone, Braun rambled on about the questionable integrity and competency of the guy who collected the sample that fateful late Saturday afternoon in early October.  Apparently, this collector has only done about 600 of these procedures without incident; but who's counting?

In the aftermath of this landmark decision, there was a flurry of media discussion and opinion - some "pro", and some "con" - along with the much-expected response from baseball fans everywhere - mostly "con" outside of greater Milwaukee.  There may be some fans of the Milwaukee Brewers who think the panel goofed when they upheld Braun's appeal, but I haven't seen evidence of that, anywhere; from Twitter to Facebook and all points in between; the consensus in Brewer Nation:  "He's innocent!"  According to these unbiased character witnesses, anyone who thinks otherwise is either an idiot or a "hater" (I hate that stupid expression).

One thing is certain.  Braun will be in the Brewers lineup now, for a possible full 162-game ride.  Also, the  initial widespread public outrage will gradually fade into apathetic acceptance (it may already have happened); by the All-Star break, it will be as far off the radar screen as the OJ trial.

While this story was still the hot topic on the national scene a couple of weeks ago, I happened to catch a brief telephone interview one of the hosts at the MLB Network was doing with long-time baseball purist and savant, Bob Costas.  Old Bob is a highly respected source of wisdom, particularly within the realm of major league baseball.  His commentary on a wide variety of topics - from Hall of Fame balloting to performance enhancing drug issues - is usually quite interesting; certainly, very well-prepared and at times, profound.

Costas was asked to expound upon Braun's overly zealous attempt to deny any wrongdoing; instead, pointing the finger at major league baseball's drug testing program, from top to bottom; finishing the tirade off with  an assault on the guy who collected the sample; implying a wide variety of wrongdoings - from general incompetence to haphazard procedural methods to the possibility of deliberate sabotage.  It seemed to be way over the top; borderline vindictive and somewhat paranoid; right Bob?

Nope.  Bob didn't see it that way; his response was something to the effect:  "Braun seemed more convincing in his defense than anyone else I can recall accused of using performance enhancing drugs.  Overall, he presented his case well; that there's enough reasonable doubt in the way things were handled to justify the arbitrator's decision."  Really?

I couldn't help but recall the harsh language Costas used when discussing the allegations against Barry Bonds:  "For anyone to think Bonds did not use performance enhancing drugs when he was breaking all those home run records and winning all those MVP Awards; they would have to be deranged!"  Okay; I tend to agree.

I suppose I was expecting him to say, with regard to the Ryan Braun case:  "For anyone to think synthetic testosterone mysteriously manifested itself in a non-tampered urine sample; even after a so-called 44 hour unsupervised delay in getting it to the lab for analysis; they would have to be deranged!"

I couldn't help but think back to early January, when Costas offered his opinion on the first-ballot Hall of Fame credentials for Houston Astros retired slugger, Jeff Bagwell.  Bob very solemnly and carefully crafted his pious response, which would be heard by millions of people throughout the world of baseball;  including many Hall of Fame voters who possibly value his perspective:

"You have to take into consideration the fact that Bagwell played the bulk of his career in the Steroids Era; so there's some doubt about the authenticity of his career totals.  I would rather err on the side of being overly careful, than letting a player in who may have used performance enhancing drugs."

Obviously, there were enough actual Hall of Fame voters sharing that same sentiment to keep Bagwell's inevitable Cooperstown induction on hold.  Suspicions will automatically arise when any power hitter's career numbers are scrutinized for Cooperstown consideration; simply based on their physical appearance; in other words, they have strong arms?  In Bagwell's case, there is no evidence linking him to any use of performance enhancing drugs.  He never tested "positive" and was never named in any formal inquiry, unlike so many others who were caught red-handed.  From all accounts, Bags developed those big strong arms by pumping iron; not by pumping pharmaceuticals into his system.

So, now that Bob Costas has apparently supported the decision ruling in favor of Braun, does that mean he would consider giving Braun a vote for Hall of Fame induction many years from now; assuming his career numbers look something like Bagwell's?  Would that be suspicious or deranged?

The perplexing perspective of Bob Costas keeps getting more difficult to understand.  I don't think I'm alone in that boat, either.