My 2011 Hall of Fame Ballot Part I

For the past four years, I have filled out a mythical Hall of Fame ballot here on Associated Content. This year's ballot is stacked with legitimate candidates. I count 21 people who deserve a look and there are only 10 spots available on the actual ballot. So, this year I will look at all 21 and break my annual post into two articles. So, here are the 11 people who did not make the cut.

Lee Smith and John Franco - We do not have great tools to analyze relievers, especially the modern closers who pitch less than 100 innings per year, frequently in low-leverage situations. Relievers are used to maximize saves and both Smith and Franco have high saves totals. Smith with 478 and Franco with 424, rank third and fourth on the all-time saves list. That gets them under consideration for the Hall of Fame.

But when we don't have any other solid tools to analyze, it seems to me with relievers we should emphasize how famous they were. Did they make a lot of All-Star teams? Did their teams regularly make the playoffs? Were they instrumental on World Series teams? Did fans ever think, "uh-oh we don't want to have to face XX in the ninth inning?"

Smith made seven All-Star teams while Franco made four. But in the other categories they fall short, way short. Smith's teams made the playoffs just twice in 18 years and never made the World Series. In 21 seasons, Franco's teams made the playoffs twice and World Series once, by which time he was a set-up man. And my belief is that neither Smith nor Franco instituted fear, the sense that the game was over when they entered.

Both players were very good at their role for a very long period of time. But their role is overrated and ultimately I'm just not impressed. I voted for both Rich Gossage and Bruce Sutter because I thought they had the fame part covered. But I pass on Smith and Franco, especially in a year with so many good candidates.

Juan Gonzalez - A two-time MVP winner and one of the top sluggers of the 1990s, Gonzalez was on a Hall of Fame pace through the 1990s but injuries kept him from playing long enough and well enough to make the cut. Gonzalez has a nice peak, with seven seasons of OPS+ over 130. But he never finished in the top 3 in OPS+ and his highest ranking was one fourth-place finish, in 1998. His career was in the peak of the offensive-happy years and while his raw numbers look impressive, in context they do not blow your socks off, which is what a "peak" Hall of Fame candidate needs.

If Gonzalez had played long enough to pad his counting stats, the combination of "peak" and "career" value probably would have been enough to get him elected. But Gonzalez' last great year occurred in 2001 at the age of 31. In his last four years in the majors, Gonzalez played just 186 games and was essentially a below-average player for an outfielder. Gonzalez ranks 39^th on the all-time HR list (434) and 70^th on the RBI list (1,404). That's a great start but that's his whole case and it's just not enough.

Harold Baines - The ultimate "career" candidate, Baines did not have any one season that ranked as an all-time great one, but he played for 22 years with a lifetime OPS+ of 120. If we could combine Gonzalez' peak with Baines' career length, we would have a Hall of Famer. But Baines' peak was both more spread out than Gonzalez and not quite as high. Because he played so long, Baines has some impressive counting totals, as he finished 29^th in RBIs (1,628), 35^th in total bases (4,604) and 41^st in hits (2,866). Baines was consistently good, rarely great and ultimately not a Hall of Famer.

Dave Parker - He should have been a Hall of Famer. From 1975-1979, Parker was one of the top players in baseball. But the next five years he was a shadow of his former self, his career ruined by his drug usage. In what should have been the best years of his career, Parker averaged a 106 OPS+, after not having a mark below 133 the previous five seasons. Then, in 1985, at the age of 35, Parker reminded everyone of what a great player he could have been. He put up a .312/.365/.551 line and finished second in the MVP voting. If he had not snorted away his prime, Parker would have been in Cooperstown. To me this is worse, much worse, than those who sought ways to make themselves better.

Don Mattingly - Back injuries make Mattingly a "peak" candidate and his peak is very good. He was an All-Star for six straight seasons and four times he was a top 10 MVP candidate, including 1986 when he placed second and 1985 when he won the award. He also won five Gold Glove Awards in those six years. To me, Mattingly's case comes up just short. I like a seven-year peak and one of Mattingly's seasons (1988) included a year with an OPS+ of 128, which is very good, but not great. If he had two more seasons like 1987, which was essentially the middle of his peak years, I would look on his case differently. If elected, Mattingly would not be the worst player in the Hall of Fame chosen this century, but for me, the bar to entrance is not the mistakes of the past.

Dale Murphy - In 1987, Murphy put up a .295/.417/.580 line as a 31-year old and everyone expected he was on his way to the Hall of Fame. In 1988, Murphy hit .226/.313/.421 then basically repeated that season three more times. Few great players fell off a cliff as early and as totally as Murphy did. While he won back-to-back MVPs and five straight Gold Glove Awards, Murhpy's peak wasn't high enough to make up for his lack of career totals. His career high in OPS+ is 157 which is an excellent season, but not enough to make up for what is essentially a 10-year career. Murphy was well-regarded by everyone he encountered in his baseball career, which undoubtedly helps his Hall of Fame candidacy. If he had a normal decline, even an early one starting in 1988, that might be enough to push him in. But his career cratered and he remains short.

Jack Morris - A popular choice among writers, Morris has two things going in his favor - wins and his 1984 and 1991 post-season performances. Morris finished with 254 wins, which is 42^nd on the all-time list. But on top of that, Morris has the distinction of having the most wins of any pitcher in the 1980s, with 162. This carries weight with some people, although I am not sure why. He never won a Cy Young Award, although he finished third in the balloting twice. He made the All-Star team five times in his 18 year career, hardly an indication that he was viewed as one of the top active pitchers.

Morris played on good teams with the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays, explaining how a pitcher with a 3.90 ERA wound up with so many wins. His lifetime ERA+ is 105, meaning he was just barely above average in his time period in ERA. He led the league in strikeouts once, but in wild pitches six times.

Morris has a reputation as an outstanding post-season pitcher. Lifetime in the playoffs, he is 7-4 with a 3.80 ERA, which hardly seems the stuff of legend. Everyone recalls the 1991 post-season and the epic Game 7 where he threw 10 shutout innings. But they gloss over the following year, when Morris had a 6.57 ERA in the ALCS and an 8.44 ERA in the World Series and went a combined 0-3.

Morris was a fine pitcher. But he benefitted from having great teammates. Most pitchers could not win 254 games with a 3.90 ERA. But most pitchers were not surrounded by Hall of Fame-caliber teammates to consistently score five runs a game in a four-run environment. Morris' Hall of Fame case rests on a team stat (wins) being erroneously applied to an individual. If we take away wins, there is nothing in his profile that shouts out Hall of Famer. He was durable, not dominant - the pitching equivalent of Harold Baines.

John Olerud - He has a better Hall of Fame case than you think. He has nearly 1,300 more PA than Mattingly and his 1993 season was better than any year Mattingly put up. If only Olerud had 1985-vintage Rickey Henderson batting in front of him, he would have put up the gaudy RBI numbers that Mattingly did and people would realize how great he was that season. And while Mattingly rightly gets credit for his outstanding defense, Olerud was a great defender, too.

The problem with Olerud's Hall of Fame case is that there were not enough years to support his monster 1993 season. Yes, he had four other seasons with an OPS+ over 130 but most of his career was spent compiling OPS+ numbers between 111-126 which are good ones, just not great ones for a first baseman. There is some greatness in Olerud's career and there is some longevity but to me there is not enough of either and the overall picture lands him just on the "out" side of my Hall of Fame line.

The final two candidates I think are Hall of Famers. But since we are limited to 10 names, they get the short end of the stick and do not make my ballot.

Fred McGriff - On last year's mythical ballot I voted for McGriff. This year he is a casualty of having too may people better than him eligible. Most people think McGriff does not have enough of a Hall of Fame case. But those people are ignoring that many of McGriff's best years came before the offensive explosion of 1993. While his yearly home run totals do not seem that impressive, from 1988-1992, he finished first twice, second, and fourth twice in homers. In that same period, he was first in OPS once, placed third three times and fourth the other year. He was one of the best hitters in the game over a five-year stretch.

He drew MVP votes in six straight years and eight seasons in all. Earlier I mentioned that I like a seven-year peak. Here' how McGriff stacks up with Hall of Famer Eddie Murray in their seven best seasons in OPS+

Eddie - 158, 156, 156, 156, 156, 149, 140

Fred -- 166, 166, 157, 157, 153, 147, 144

To put this in perspective, when Prince Fielder hit 46 HR and drove in 141 runs in 2009, he had a 166 OPS+. McGriff was every bit as good as Murray in his prime, probably a shade better. Yes, Murray has 3,000 hits and 500 HR but McGriff was hardly a piker in these categories with 2,490 hits and 493 HR. McGriff has both the peak and career value necessary for the Hall of Fame.

We have a huge number of first baseman now eligible and coming up in the next few years who put up very good numbers. Each voter and fan has to draw a line somewhere. I think McGriff did enough in his career to merit inclusion. Unfortunately, due to the 10-man limit on the ballot, I have to leave him off.

Edgar Martinez - Previously I did not vote for Martinez but given more time to examine his case, I think that was a mistake. Martinez is hurt because his career got off to a late start, as he spent three years in Triple-A. Then Martinez suffered some injuries which forced him to become a full-time designated hitter. Martinez did not move because he was a poor fielder. Instead, he moved to keep him healthy. He deserves to be docked for not playing in the field. But I think I was penalizing him too much.

Martinez' Hall of Fame case rests on his hitting and I think it's strong enough to deserve induction. Here is his seven-year peak by OPS+

185, 166, 165, 164, 160, 158, 157

That is tremendous hitting, seven years worth of stats that would look at home in Albert Pujols' career. But let's compare him to Hall of Famer Wade Boggs, who was a first-ballot pick. Here are their stats for their age 27-40 seasons

Boggs - 8,614 PA, 1,213 R, 2,391 H, 100 HR, 812 RBIs, .326/.415/.444 131 OPS+

Edgar - 7,843 PA, 1,148 R, 2,053 H, 295 HR, 1,168 RBIs, .317/.426/.531 153 OPS+

That's 14 years where he averaged a 153 OPS+. He stands toe-to-toe with Boggs, although to be fair Boggs had 2.5 years before this stretch where he also was a great hitter. Boggs also made himself into a Gold Glove winner at third base.

Boggs was better because of his longer track record, was more durable and the ability to play the field. But it does not seem right that Boggs is a first-ballot pick and Martinez is on the outside. I think Martinez is Hall of Fame worthy. But, like with McGriff, I think there are 10 more deserving candidates this year.

Look for Part II of my ballot tomorrow.