It's that time of year again.
Hall of Fame ballots have to be postmarked by Dec. 31, and in the spirit of transparency, I've traditionally posted by own ballot along with an explanation as to why I voted as I did.
Naturally, these explanations are always warmly received by readers, with nary a dissenting opinion offered.
Ahem.
Here are some thoughts on my ballot:
* I had two holdovers on my ballot from past seasons: Andruw Jones and Billy Wagner.
I was an early supporter of Jones, voting for him from his first appearance on the ballot. After not initially voting for Wagner, I began to do so several years ago.
I've made the case before that, to me, Jones is the Ozzie Smith of center fielders. In a time when the game featured several standout center fielders, Jones was the best of the best, winning 10 straight Gold Gloves from 1998 through 2007. The value of Gold Gloves can be debated, but for further evidence of Jones' excellence, look no further than Defensive Runs Saved. Jones was credited with 64 over his career -- and that figure would have been far greater, but the metric didn't exist for his first seven seasons in the big leagues.
And while Smith was largely a defensive savant without a lot of offensive contributions, Jones also contributed 434 career homers and a career slugging percentage of .286.
I resisted voting for Wagner for the first few years, as save totals can be misleading and often inflated. But the more I looked at Wagner's career, the more I became convinced he was plenty worthy. For one thing, Wagner's career strikeout rate (11.9 per nine innings) is one of the highest in MLB history and his career WHIP of 0.998 is lower than a number of Hall of Fame closers, including, among others, Goose Gossage, Rollie Fingers, Bruce Sutter, Trevor Hoffman and Lee Smith.
He also held opposing hitters to .187. If the primary object for a late-inning reliever is to not let the ball get put in play, Wagner did that as well as anyone. In fact, a case could be made that Wagner is the most dominant lefty closer in the game's history.
Alas, he's in his eighth year of eligibility (out of 10), and time is beginning to run out on him.
* I voted for just one newcomer -- Carlos Beltran.
This year's ballot lacked star power when it came to new players. Among the additions to the ballot: Bronson Arroyo, Matt Cain, R.A. Dickey, Jacoby Ellsbury, Andre Ethier, J.J. Hardy, John Lackey, Mike Napoli, Jhonny Peralta, Francisco Rodriguez, Huston Street, Jered Weaver and Jayson Werth. I can't imagine any of those players -- with the possible exception of Rodriguez -- receiving much support. A player must receive at least five percent support from all ballots to remain eligible.
Beltran presents an interesting case, mostly for his involvement with the Houston Astros 2017 sign-stealing scandal. By most accounts, Beltran was the ring-leader in devising the method in which the Astros signaled what pitch was coming by loudly banging on a dugout trash can. An investigation by MLB did not result in Beltran being suspended -- players were given immunity in exchange for their testimony -- but he was soon fired by the New York Mets, who had hired him to become their manager.
In his prime, Beltran was a five-tool player. He hit 435 career homers and stole 312 bases and won three Gold Gloves. He was also a superb postseason performer, with a career OPS of 1.021. I tend to view postseason play as something that enhances the case for a player who might otherwise be borderline, and in this case, Beltran benefited from his outstanding play in the playoffs and World Series.
Of course, Beltran's involvement with the sign-stealing gave me pause, and I suspect some voters who might otherwise have been inclined to vote for him will withhold their votes -- at least in this, his first year of eligibility.
Ultimately, I determined that something he did in the final year of his two-decade-long career wasn't sufficient reason to not vote for him.
* Scott Rolen and Todd Helton are trending in the right direction, but I voted for neither.
I have resisted joining the groundswell of support for both players.
Rolen was a terrific defender at third base, as his eight Gold Gloves attest. But he was a good, but not great offensive performer. At a position traditionally associated with power, he had just three seasons out of 17 in which he hit more than 30 homers. And over the course of a long career, Rolen had exactly one (1) season in which he earned Top 10 MVP votes. To me, some level of dominance should be expected from those enshrined in Cooperstown, and I didn't see that in Rolen.
As for Helton, I was struck by how much he benefited from spending his entire career playing in Coors Field. His career OPS of .855 was almost 200 points lower than it was at home (1.048). A certain discrepancy can be expected in the home/road splits of most every player, but that outsized difference suggested to me that Helton wouldn't have had anywhere near his career totals had he played for another franchise.
Helton had a period in which he was a dominant hitter. For five straight years, early in his career, he registered at least 30 homers and 100 RBI and posted an OPS of .981 or greater. But soon after, he suffered a pretty precipitous decline. In his final nine seasons, despite the inherent advantage of playing in Coors Field, he failed to hit more than 20 homers in any single season.
To me, the (relative) short period of dominance, coupled with the Coors factor, made me a "no'' on Helton.
* While some will be outraged that I voted for just three players, I make no apologies.
The ballot comes with these instructions: "An elector will vote for no more than ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election.''
Key words: "no more than...''
Note, there's nothing to suggest voting for the 10 best players, or making sure you vote for the maximum players allowed.
To me, it's astounding that many of my colleagues routinely get to the 10-player maximum. In no way, shape or form do I believe that the ballot offers 10 immortals each and every year. Some have proposed either raising the limit, or doing away with it altogether.
Not for me. Even though I'm not the "Small Hall'' voter I was long ago -- I typically vote for four or five in a given year -- I also can't rationalize voting for nearly one-third of the players on a given ballot. That cheapens the honor of induction.
I take no pleasure in denying a player a vote and I fully recognize that just qualifying for the ballot - a process determined by a screening committee -- is an honor in itself. I don't campaign against certain players and don't advise others how to vote. If either Helton or Rolen are elected, I'll not be outraged.
But I reserve my vote for the best of the best and am mystified by the trend of voting for every big-name player on the ballot.
* We're -- finally -- getting to the post-steroid era.
Last year was the final year of eligibility for Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, and neither was inducted by the Baseball Writers Association of America. Nor were they chosen by the era committee in early December, which voted in Fred McGriff, but no one else.
Over the years, I voted for both Bonds and Clemens. My stance has been that I'm willing to vote for players whose PED use took place before 2004, when MLB and the MLBPA implemented testing and discipline, but not for players who were caught after that.
Accordingly, while both had tremendous careers, I didn't vote for either Manny Ramirez or Alex Rodriguez, and will not in the future.
Thanks to long careers and the mandatory five-year waiting period before players are first eligible to appear on the ballot, we're at the point where many players with PED ties have aged out of the process. Ramirez and Rodriguez may well be the final two links to that era in baseball history.
That doesn't mean that we'll never again see a player with a PED history appear on the ballot. Down the road, Robinson Cano and others will continue to pop up. But the days of Clemens, Boggs, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and others dominating the ballot are over.
_________________
This past week, it was revealed that 10 veteran umpires will not be returning for 2023. (Warning: do not get your hopes up; Angel Hernandez is not among them).
The 10 umps in question: Jim Reynolds, Tom Hallion, Ted Barrett, Greg Gibson, Sam Holbrook, Jerry Meals, Bill Welke, Marty Foster, Paul Nauert and Ted Timmons. Of those 10, seven served as crew chiefs.
The 10 retirees are the largest in one season since 1999.
It should be noted that, according to a source, the retirements are not at all related to the upcoming rule changes (a pitch clock and banning of the infield shift will be introduced in 2023). Nor is the prospect of ABS System (Automatic Balls and Strikes) being introduced a factor.
We all like to complain about missed calls and inconsistent strike zones, but the vast majority of umpires do their jobs exceedingly well and are often under-appreciated by fans, players and the media. They are an essential part of the game, and losing this many in one year will be felt. A certain amount of institutional memory -- to say nothing of experience and the value of on-field relationships -- is lost when these many umps walk away at once.
A special salute should go out to Barrett, who in addition to being the only umpire to be behind home plate for two perfect games (thrown by David Cone and Matt Cain), and had the plate in Game 3 of the 2018 World Series, the longest World Series game in history at 18 innings and seven hours and 20 minutes.
Legend has it that Barrett never sat down once over the course of the game, remaining on his feet for the entire contest.