Continuing with the writers ballot candidates.
13. Chuck Knoblauch
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 12 seasons (1991-2002) with the *Minnesota Twins, New York Yankees, and Kansas City Royals.
Peak season: 1996 -- 197 hits, 140 runs, 13 HR, 72 RBI, 35 doubles, 14 triples, 98 walks, 45 stolen bases, .341/.448/.517, 143 OPS+, 147 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1995, 1999.
Primary position: second base.
Honoraria and claims to fame: four All-Star selections, 1991 AL ROY, one AL Gold Glove at Second Base, two AL Silver Sluggers at Second Base (amazingly, 1995 and 1997, bookending his peak season), led AL in doubles once and triples once. Member of the 1991 World Series champion Twins and the 1998-1999-2000 World Series champion Yankees.
Knoblauch was an above-average but not brilliant fielder, until late in his career his fielding fell apart and he was moved to left field -- so, to the point, his glovework isn't going to get him into the Hall. And neither is his hitting -- he knew how to take a walk and had good doubles power, but such players are not rare. Useful isn't Hall-class by itself. Knoblauch was a fun player to watch, but Cooperstown is not his final stop.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: relegated on his first ballot.
14. Don Mattingly
Years on ballot: 7.
Peak return: 28.2% (2001).
2007 return: 9.9%
Career: 14 seasons (1982-95) with the *New York Yankees.
Peak season: 1986 -- 238 hits, 117 runs, 31 Hr, 113 RBI, 53 doubles, .352/.394/.573, 161 OPS+, 150 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1984, 1985, 1987.
Primary position: first base.
Honoraria and claims to fame: six All-Star selections (one start), 1985 AL MVP, nine AL Gold Gloves at First Base, three AL Silver Sluggers at First Base, 1984 AL batting champion, 1986 AL slugging champion, led AL in hits twice, doubles three times, RBI once. Set the major league single season record for grand slams with six in 1987 (and never hit another in his entire career). Tied the ML record for consecutive games with a home run, with eight. Tied the ML record for most putouts in a game, with 22. Jersey #23 retired by the Yankees.
Baseball bonus points: Mattingly has been a coach for the Yankees for the last several years. This has (or maybe, had) given rise to hopes among Yankee fandom that some day he would take the manager's seat and earn his Hall plaque the other traditional Yankee way, by piling up trophies. Well, maybe -- but he's now gone, and I don't think we can annoint him a Hall-worthy manager until he actually begins managing.
Donnie Baseball was, along with Dave Winfield and Rickey Henderson, the only bright spots in Bronx baseball for most of the 1980s. The team was good but never good enough to win the division, and Mattingly never saw the postseason until his last year, 1995, when he played great but the Mariners just squeaked by in a five-game, down to the wire classic. And thus was born the Curse of Don Mattingly -- the Yankees never won a championship while he was there, promptly won four after he retired, and stopped winning when he returned as a coach. Go figure.
Mattingly was, without question, one of the two or three hottest players in baseball for a magical four-year stretch, 1984-87, winning one MVP and finishing second another time. Even his 1988 and '89 seasons were pretty good, but then he injured his back and the majestic swing was robbed of its power. Mattingly was pedestrian after that. Position matters; his numbers from a catcher or second baseman would be amazing, but baseball history is littered with good-hitting first baseman. And as great as his four-year peak was, four years is not a Hall-class career. Outside of that, he was merely mortal. The injury was a harsh thing, but sometimes that happens. Illness and injury have felled better players than Donnie, and no credit should be given for things not done. I know there's a generation of Yankees fans who love him, but, well, sorry -- pinstriped glasses might make him look All That, but they don't make him better than he was. And he was not Hall-class.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: his vote totals have been falling, but he bounces back a little bit to 14%. Don't look for the happy ending, Yankees fen -- he either falls below 5% and gets relegated some year, or simply lingers for the full 15 and drops off.
15. Mark McGwire
Years on ballot: 1.
Peak return: 23.5% (2007).
2007 return: 23.5%
Career: 16 seasons (1986-2001) with the *Oakland Athletics and St. Louis Cardinals.
Peak season: 1998 -- 130 runs, then-record 70 HR, 147 RBI, then-NL record 162 walks, .299/.470/.752, 216 OPS+, 193 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1987, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000 even though he played only 89 games.
Primary position: first base.
Honoraria and claims to fame: 12 All-Star selections (six starts), 1987 AL ROY, one AL Gold Glove at First Base, three Silver Sluggers at First Base (one AL, two NL), led his league in OBP twice, SLG four times, home runs four times, RBI once, walks twice. Rookie record 49 HR. Record 70 HR in 1998, since surpassed once. Member of the 1989 World Series champion Athletics. Member of the 500 Home Runs Club (583 career).
Big Mac finished second, to Sammy Sosa, in the 1998 NL MVP voting, one of the worst and least justifiable results in recent history. McGwire was penalized for having lesser teammates than Sosa did, as the Cubs crawled into the postseason while Mac's Cardinals finished in third place. Make no mistake, Sosa had a great season, but McGwire had a historic one; the voting should not have been close -- and it wasn't, but in the wrong way. Damn mediots.
People dismissive of McGwire like to claim he was "one-dimensional", though if you ask them about this they never have a firm definition of what that means. It is nonsense anyway, when applied to McGwire -- his best-known dimension, power, came in league-leading servings, which is not at all a bad thing, but he also provided league-leading on-base ability -- he knew how to take a walk -- and that combination, power and on-base, is deadly. And highly desirable -- general managers will pay a lot for players who can provide both in the massive amounts McGwire could. He was more than just 583 homers, and those 583 homers alone are considerable. Homers are good things. On his stats alone, McGwire is unquestionably Hall-worthy.
But... yeah, you knew this was coming... McGwire's candidacy doesn't get to testify based on just his statistics and gameplay style. He is known to have used androstenedione (which, at the time, was both legal and not prohibited by MLB), and there is wide suspicion that he was using other, stronger magic waters as well. No one knows that, not publicly, and we may never have the full story. I honestly do not care -- MLB is a competitive enterprise that attracts competitive people, who are all, always, looking for an edge, a (preferably permitted) way to play better and win more, and if they find something which the sanctioning body has not outlawed, that something will get used. So if McGwire was using something to play better and win more, he was being a smart player, and I'm not going to frown upon him for that.
But the writers, the Hall electors, will, and did.
I have no flaming idea what his 2008 ballot return will look like, since it was well-known his 2007 return would amount to an unofficial rebuke, both for the magic waters rumors and his uninspiring Congressional testimony in March 2005. Some writers may now consider that withholding their vote once was sufficient sanction, and he'll gain some ground. But it's just a guess.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes.
Prediction: jumps a few points to, oh, 29%. But honestly I have no idea.
16. Jack Morris
Years on ballot: 8.
Peak return: 41.2% (2006).
2007 return: 37.1%
Career: 18 seasons (1977-94) with the *Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins, Toronto Blue Jays, and Cleveland Indians.
Peak season: 1986 -- 21-8, 15 CG, 6 ShO, 223 K, 3.27, 267 IP, 127 ERA+.
Other outstanding seasons: 1979, 1981, 1987, 1991, 1992.
Primary position: RH starting pitcher.
Honoraria and claims to fame: five All-Star selections (three starts), 1991 World Series MVP, led AL in wins twice, strikeouts once, shutouts once. Pitched a no-hitter in 1984. Member of three World Series champion teams, the 1984 Tigers, the 1991 Twins, and the 1992 Blue Jays. A good postseason pitcher, going 7-4, 3.80 in 13 games, 92.1 IP, with one legendary night.
Morris was a good pitcher, no doubt, but he never put up a truly great season. Fat wins totals, yes, because he played on (and strongly contributed to) good teams. But his ERA and WHIP were never in the elite -- never led the league in either, and his best seasonal ranking ever was 4th in WHIP, 5th in ERA. Durable and dependable are very good things but not enough for the Hall.
And then we have his legendary night, Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, wherein Morris outlasted a young John Smoltz, kept the Braves scoreless into the tenth inning, and finished with an extra-inning complete game shutout to win the championship. No question it was a brilliant, gutsy performance in a high-pressure environment, probably the second-best postseason pitching performance ever (edging in just behind Larsen's perfect game). It was a game for the ages -- if you didn't see it or weren't yet born, I feel a little sorry for you -- but ultimately, it was one game, and one game does not make a career Hall-worthy.
Morris' ballot returns are futzing around the midway mark, slowly growing, but not yet showing any inevitable momentum. If the writers vote him in, well done -- but if they never do I don't think it will be a shame.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: uninspiring ballot (much like 2006) gives Morris' candidacy a little giddyup, bringing home 46% -- promising but still mostly tease for Tigers fans.
17. Dale Murphy
Years on ballot: 9.
Peak return: 23.2% (2000).
2007 return: 9.2%
Career: 18 seasons (1976-93) with the *Atlanta Braves, Philadelphia Phillies, and Colorado Rockies.
Peak season: 1983 -- 131 runs, 36 HR, 121 RBI, 30 stolen bases, 90 walks, .302/.393/.540, 149 OPS+, 131 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1980, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1987.
Primary position: center field.
Honoraria and claims to fame: seven All-Star selections (five starts), 1982 and 1983 NL MVP, five NL Gold Gloves for Outfield, four NL Silver Sluggers for Outfield, led NL in slugging twice, runs scored once, home runs twice, RBI twice. Jersey #3 retired by the Braves.
I place Murf alongside Dawson -- he'd look good on a plaque, but the Hall is not a lesser institution without him. Had a brilliant, six-year peak, hotter than Mattingly even without accounting for position (great CFs are harder to find than great 1Bmen). Defensively he was very good, and merited being in center. And then, after 1987, he fell off a cliff, became a league-average player for the rest of his career, and fell short of the 400 home run milestone (398; makes little difference, but 400 looks better). The writers have been giving him far less love than I have expected.
Two other points to note. One, among the voting criteria is that a player's character, integrity, and sportsmanship should be taken in to consideration. Dale Murphy is, from all accounts, one of the finest human beings ever to walk the diamond, a genuinely nice guy and kind person. If anyone would ever earn some bonus points for character, it'd be Murf -- and yet his vote returns keep dropping. So either the "character and integrity" concepts are mainly included for use as an excuse against voting for a player, or the writers simply don't bother putting in that sort of consideration. Not that being a nice guy should earn Murf the plaque, but below 10%? Come on, his character should be worth a little love.
Second, in the still-turbulent wake of the steroids era scandal, many people have proffered that the many suspicions surrounding the inflated powerball stats of the 1990s will start to make the 1980s guys look a lot better -- mainly Dawson, Murphy, and Jim Rice (who's coming up later), men who have gained the Hall ballot but not yet the plaque. Well, that's a nice theory, but it hasn't borne much fruit -- Rice and Dawson are still lingering, and Murphy's candidacy is fading badly.
I don't know what the writers are thinking, and I could change my mind next week, but right now I'm going to say that with his scorching peak, tough fielding position, and type of person is just enough to convince me to move just past the borderline.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes.
Prediction: gets a "weak ballot" bounce back up to 15%, but it just isn't showing any real hope for the happy ending.
18. Robb Nen
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 10 seasons (1993-2002) with the Texas Rangers, Florida Marlins, and *San Francisco Giants.
Peak season: 2000 -- 4-3, 41 saves, 1.50, 92 K in 66 IP, 284 ERA+.
Other outstanding seasons: 1996, 1998, 2002.
Primary position: RH relief pitcher / closer.
Honoraria and claims to fame: three All-Star selections, led NL in saves once. Member of the 1997 World Series champion Marlins and the 2002 NL champion Giants.
Nen was a very good closer with flashes of greatness. The Hall, however, still hasn't built a reliable notion of what makes a Hall-class relief pitcher, as there are few already in, and they're not all that similar -- Wilhelm, Eckersley, Fingers, Sutter. And the leading future candidates -- Gossage, Rivera, Hoffman -- won't really improve the issue right away. Nen, however, is not of the same cut as the men just named. Maybe someday, as the concept of a Hall-class reliever starts to gel, he'll look a lot better, but right now there are better closers waiting ahead of him.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: below 5%, relegated. Though I'll be quite happy if he skirts past and gets on the ballot again next year.
More to come, should finish up the candidates in one more post.
Friday, November 30, 2007
The Hall's 2008 Writers Ballot -- The Player Candidates, Part 2
Continuing with the candidates on the BBWAA's players ballot, voting returns to be announced Tuesday, 08-January-2008.
7. Shawon Dunston
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 18 seasons (1985-2002) with the *Chicago Cubs, San Francisco Giants, Pittsburgh Pirates, Cleveland Indians, St. Louis Cardinals, and New York Mets.
Peak season: 1995 -- 14 HR, 69 RBI, .296/.317/.472, 107 OPS+, 68 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1997 was pretty good by his own standards, but Dunston isn't on the ballot for his hitting.
Primary position: shortstop.
Honoraria and claims to fame: two All-Star selections. First overall draft pick in 1982.
Dunston is noted for having a rocket of a throwing arm, making the throw across the diamond to first with ease. He was quite good defensively, above league average in range factor for the first part of his career. But he spent a lot of time injured in 1992 and 1993, and was rarely more than a part-time player afterwards. Wouldn't take a walk if spotted a 3-0 count. Defensive-based candidate players need that touch of legend, and Dunston doesn't have it.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: one and out, below 5%, relegated.
8. Chuck Finley
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 17 seasons (1986-2002) with the *California/Anaheim Angels, Cleveland Indians, and St. Louis Cardinals.
Peak season: 1990 -- 18-9, 2.40, 177 K, 7 CG, 2 ShO, 236 IP, 158 ERA+.
Other outstanding seasons: 1989, 1993, 1998.
Primary position: LH starting pitcher, though he was a middle reliever for his first two seasons.
Honoraria and claims to fame: five All-Star selections, led AL in complete games in 1993 (with 13), innings pitched and starts in 1994. The only pitcher in major league history to have a four strikeout inning more than once, and he did it three times. 200 wins, .536 winning percentage, 2610 strikeouts. Used to be married to actress Tawny Kitaen, which makes no difference to his baseball career but a touch of even C-list celebrity never hurts.
Finley was a good and useful pitcher for a long stretch, but other than the four seasons cited above, he never demonstrated greatness (and even those four are not that great). It's good to have a reliable, above-average pitcher to put on the mound, but that doesn't get one into the Hall. There are better starting pitchers than Finley who haven't yet gotten the call.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: 9% return, avoids relegation for a few years.
9. Travis Fryman
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 13 seasons (1990-2002) with the *Detroit Tigers and Cleveland Indians.
Peak season: 1993 -- 182 hits, 22 HR, 97 RBI, 37 doubles, 77 walks, .300/.379/.486, 133 OPS+, 117 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1990 (short rookie season), 2000.
Primary position: third base.
Honoraria and claims to fame: five All-Star selections (one start), one AL Gold Glove at Third Base, one AL Silver Slugger at Shortstop.
A useful player, decent power, a little above league average with the glove and could play shortstop in a pinch. Nothing here indicates Hall-class greatness. This ballot has a woefully thin crop of first-timers, some of whom appear to be filler for the sake of appearances. Fryman wasn't a bad player, but he's nowhere near Hall level.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: under 5%, relegated.
10. Rich "Goose" Gossage
Years on ballot: 8.
Peak return: 71.2% (2007)
2007 return: 71.2%
Career: 22 seasons (1972-89, 1991-94) with the Chicago White Sox, Pittsburgh Pirates, *New York Yankees, San Diego Padres, Chicago Cubs, San Francisco Giants, Texas Rangers, Oakland Athletics, and Seattle Mariners.
Peak season: 1981 -- 3-2, 20 saves, 0.77, 48 K, 461 ERA+ (!), 0.771 WHIP.
Other outstanding seasons: 1975, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1985 -- and he's got some other pretty good ones too, but these are his personal cream.
Primary position: RH relief pitcher / closer.
Honoraria and claims to fame: nine All-Star selections, 1978 AL Rolaids Relief Award, finished third in the 1980 AL Cy Young Award voting (a rarity for a reliever) and also third in the AL MVP voting (extremely rare for a reliever). Led the AL in saves three times. Member (key member) of the 1978 World Series champion Yankees. Very good postseason pitcher -- 2-1, 8 saves, 2.87, 29 K (to 7 walks) in 19 games, 31.1 IP.
Gossage at his peak brought a palpable sense of doom with him when he came out of the bullpen. That's it, show's over, the Goose is coming in to do the cooking. And he did so, more often than not. Devastating fastball. Finished with 310 career saves, which doesn't look amazing today but was something special back then (ranked fourth all-time when he retired after the 1994 season). Probably hung on longer than he should have; after his peak was over, around 1986, he was still a good pitcher but stopped closing games a few years later. None of that, however, diminishes what he did do in his long, amazing peak. Received votes for the CYA and MVP Awards in five different seasons (always in the same season), and relievers just don't pull that sort of recognition today. Gossage was a brilliant reliever and practically a force of nature when he was on his game.
He was also the last pitcher active who had played (and batted) in the pre-designated hitter AL, going 0-16 with 11 strikeouts for the 1972 Chicago White Sox. Means nothing here, but someday maybe you'll win a trivia contest with this tidbit.
Oh, one more bit of trivia -- Gossage recorded his 308th save in the same game that Nolan Ryan recorded his 308th win. You could look it up.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes!
Prediction: the happy ending at last, elected to the Hall Of Fame with 79%.
11. Tommy John
Years on ballot: 13.
Peak return: 29.6% (2006).
2007 return: 22.9%
Career: 26 seasons (1963-74, '76-89) with the Cleveland Indians, Chicago White Sox, *Los Angeles Dodgers, New York Yankees, California Angels, and Oakland Athletics.
Peak season: 1968 (wasn't it for just about any pitcher?) -- 10-5, 1.98, 117 K, 161 ERA+.
Other outstanding seasons: 1974, 1977, 1979, 1981. But in one way, his 1976 season was his most amazing, as no one ever expected him to pitch at all.
Primary position: LH starting pitcher.
Honoraria and claims to fame: four All-Star selections, three coming after 1975. Led the AL in shutouts three times, winning percentage once. First baseball player to undergo ligament replacement surgery, a procedure which now informally bears his name: Tommy John surgery.
John was a good pitcher for a very long time, but let's cut to the chase -- his lasting claim to fame was his reconstructed elbow, a procedure pioneered by Dr. Frank Jobe, which caused him to miss the entire 1975 season but put him back on the diamond in 1976. John himself is known to joke about his left arm being 30 years younger than he is. The procedure is now essentially routine, and rehab is down to about nine months. John deserves credit for trying it and making a successful return, but that alone isn't enough to get him into the Hall, nor does he have any great seasons of the sort I like to see. John had his only three 20+ win seasons in the five years after his return, but after that he faded to league average (or worse) and, although he made a good attempt at reaching 300 wins, it was not to be, ending with 288. Some people don't like "accumulators", and John was one of those (I don't have a strong opinion either way, as I prefer to look for great seasons than career summary stats.) Good pitcher and an all-time trivia answer, but not Hall-class.
I selected the Dodgers as John's primary team despite his spending more seasons with the White Sox and Yankees, because it was his one year in LA when he did not play that gives him a lot of his historical weight. Not enough, though.
If the Hall ever decides to stand Dr. Jobe for consideration, however, I'll be foursquare behind his candidacy. The impact his procedure and subsequent research has had on the game (and other sports, and so many people) has been enormous and positive. He'd look great on a plaque.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: another ho-hum, around 25% return, with one final ballot next year before his candidacy expires.
12. David Justice
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 14 seasons (1989-2002) with the *Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, New York Yankees, and Oakland Athletics.
Peak season: 1997 -- 33 HR, 101 RBI, 80 walks, .329/.418/.596, 158 OPS+, 124 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 2000.
Primary position: right field.
Honoraria and claims to fame: three All-Star selections (two starts), 1990 NL ROY, two Silver Sluggers for Outfield (one NL, one AL), 2000 ALCS MVP. Member of the 1995 World Series champion Braves, smacking a solo homer for the entire scoring in the 1-0 Game 6 clincher. Also a member of the 2000 World Series champion Yankees. Briefly married to actress Halle Berry (touch of celebrity, again).
By virtue of joining the Braves just as the team's ascendancy began, and then moving to the Indians, Yankees, and Athletics, Justice played in the postseason ten of his 14 seasons -- missing the first two when the Braves were poor, 1994 when there was no playoffs, and 1996 when he was injured. As a result, his 112 postseason games played rank third (behind Derek Jeter and Bernie Williams).
Aside from the Cy Young Award-winning pitchers, Justice was the star of the first half of the Braves dynasty. Very good hitter, average defensively. He was the right man in the right place at the right time for the Braves. But he was never a Hall-class, great player.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: just dodges relegation with 6% return.
Just under half complete... more soon.
7. Shawon Dunston
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 18 seasons (1985-2002) with the *Chicago Cubs, San Francisco Giants, Pittsburgh Pirates, Cleveland Indians, St. Louis Cardinals, and New York Mets.
Peak season: 1995 -- 14 HR, 69 RBI, .296/.317/.472, 107 OPS+, 68 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1997 was pretty good by his own standards, but Dunston isn't on the ballot for his hitting.
Primary position: shortstop.
Honoraria and claims to fame: two All-Star selections. First overall draft pick in 1982.
Dunston is noted for having a rocket of a throwing arm, making the throw across the diamond to first with ease. He was quite good defensively, above league average in range factor for the first part of his career. But he spent a lot of time injured in 1992 and 1993, and was rarely more than a part-time player afterwards. Wouldn't take a walk if spotted a 3-0 count. Defensive-based candidate players need that touch of legend, and Dunston doesn't have it.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: one and out, below 5%, relegated.
8. Chuck Finley
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 17 seasons (1986-2002) with the *California/Anaheim Angels, Cleveland Indians, and St. Louis Cardinals.
Peak season: 1990 -- 18-9, 2.40, 177 K, 7 CG, 2 ShO, 236 IP, 158 ERA+.
Other outstanding seasons: 1989, 1993, 1998.
Primary position: LH starting pitcher, though he was a middle reliever for his first two seasons.
Honoraria and claims to fame: five All-Star selections, led AL in complete games in 1993 (with 13), innings pitched and starts in 1994. The only pitcher in major league history to have a four strikeout inning more than once, and he did it three times. 200 wins, .536 winning percentage, 2610 strikeouts. Used to be married to actress Tawny Kitaen, which makes no difference to his baseball career but a touch of even C-list celebrity never hurts.
Finley was a good and useful pitcher for a long stretch, but other than the four seasons cited above, he never demonstrated greatness (and even those four are not that great). It's good to have a reliable, above-average pitcher to put on the mound, but that doesn't get one into the Hall. There are better starting pitchers than Finley who haven't yet gotten the call.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: 9% return, avoids relegation for a few years.
9. Travis Fryman
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 13 seasons (1990-2002) with the *Detroit Tigers and Cleveland Indians.
Peak season: 1993 -- 182 hits, 22 HR, 97 RBI, 37 doubles, 77 walks, .300/.379/.486, 133 OPS+, 117 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1990 (short rookie season), 2000.
Primary position: third base.
Honoraria and claims to fame: five All-Star selections (one start), one AL Gold Glove at Third Base, one AL Silver Slugger at Shortstop.
A useful player, decent power, a little above league average with the glove and could play shortstop in a pinch. Nothing here indicates Hall-class greatness. This ballot has a woefully thin crop of first-timers, some of whom appear to be filler for the sake of appearances. Fryman wasn't a bad player, but he's nowhere near Hall level.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: under 5%, relegated.
10. Rich "Goose" Gossage
Years on ballot: 8.
Peak return: 71.2% (2007)
2007 return: 71.2%
Career: 22 seasons (1972-89, 1991-94) with the Chicago White Sox, Pittsburgh Pirates, *New York Yankees, San Diego Padres, Chicago Cubs, San Francisco Giants, Texas Rangers, Oakland Athletics, and Seattle Mariners.
Peak season: 1981 -- 3-2, 20 saves, 0.77, 48 K, 461 ERA+ (!), 0.771 WHIP.
Other outstanding seasons: 1975, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1985 -- and he's got some other pretty good ones too, but these are his personal cream.
Primary position: RH relief pitcher / closer.
Honoraria and claims to fame: nine All-Star selections, 1978 AL Rolaids Relief Award, finished third in the 1980 AL Cy Young Award voting (a rarity for a reliever) and also third in the AL MVP voting (extremely rare for a reliever). Led the AL in saves three times. Member (key member) of the 1978 World Series champion Yankees. Very good postseason pitcher -- 2-1, 8 saves, 2.87, 29 K (to 7 walks) in 19 games, 31.1 IP.
Gossage at his peak brought a palpable sense of doom with him when he came out of the bullpen. That's it, show's over, the Goose is coming in to do the cooking. And he did so, more often than not. Devastating fastball. Finished with 310 career saves, which doesn't look amazing today but was something special back then (ranked fourth all-time when he retired after the 1994 season). Probably hung on longer than he should have; after his peak was over, around 1986, he was still a good pitcher but stopped closing games a few years later. None of that, however, diminishes what he did do in his long, amazing peak. Received votes for the CYA and MVP Awards in five different seasons (always in the same season), and relievers just don't pull that sort of recognition today. Gossage was a brilliant reliever and practically a force of nature when he was on his game.
He was also the last pitcher active who had played (and batted) in the pre-designated hitter AL, going 0-16 with 11 strikeouts for the 1972 Chicago White Sox. Means nothing here, but someday maybe you'll win a trivia contest with this tidbit.
Oh, one more bit of trivia -- Gossage recorded his 308th save in the same game that Nolan Ryan recorded his 308th win. You could look it up.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes!
Prediction: the happy ending at last, elected to the Hall Of Fame with 79%.
11. Tommy John
Years on ballot: 13.
Peak return: 29.6% (2006).
2007 return: 22.9%
Career: 26 seasons (1963-74, '76-89) with the Cleveland Indians, Chicago White Sox, *Los Angeles Dodgers, New York Yankees, California Angels, and Oakland Athletics.
Peak season: 1968 (wasn't it for just about any pitcher?) -- 10-5, 1.98, 117 K, 161 ERA+.
Other outstanding seasons: 1974, 1977, 1979, 1981. But in one way, his 1976 season was his most amazing, as no one ever expected him to pitch at all.
Primary position: LH starting pitcher.
Honoraria and claims to fame: four All-Star selections, three coming after 1975. Led the AL in shutouts three times, winning percentage once. First baseball player to undergo ligament replacement surgery, a procedure which now informally bears his name: Tommy John surgery.
John was a good pitcher for a very long time, but let's cut to the chase -- his lasting claim to fame was his reconstructed elbow, a procedure pioneered by Dr. Frank Jobe, which caused him to miss the entire 1975 season but put him back on the diamond in 1976. John himself is known to joke about his left arm being 30 years younger than he is. The procedure is now essentially routine, and rehab is down to about nine months. John deserves credit for trying it and making a successful return, but that alone isn't enough to get him into the Hall, nor does he have any great seasons of the sort I like to see. John had his only three 20+ win seasons in the five years after his return, but after that he faded to league average (or worse) and, although he made a good attempt at reaching 300 wins, it was not to be, ending with 288. Some people don't like "accumulators", and John was one of those (I don't have a strong opinion either way, as I prefer to look for great seasons than career summary stats.) Good pitcher and an all-time trivia answer, but not Hall-class.
I selected the Dodgers as John's primary team despite his spending more seasons with the White Sox and Yankees, because it was his one year in LA when he did not play that gives him a lot of his historical weight. Not enough, though.
If the Hall ever decides to stand Dr. Jobe for consideration, however, I'll be foursquare behind his candidacy. The impact his procedure and subsequent research has had on the game (and other sports, and so many people) has been enormous and positive. He'd look great on a plaque.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: another ho-hum, around 25% return, with one final ballot next year before his candidacy expires.
12. David Justice
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 14 seasons (1989-2002) with the *Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, New York Yankees, and Oakland Athletics.
Peak season: 1997 -- 33 HR, 101 RBI, 80 walks, .329/.418/.596, 158 OPS+, 124 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 2000.
Primary position: right field.
Honoraria and claims to fame: three All-Star selections (two starts), 1990 NL ROY, two Silver Sluggers for Outfield (one NL, one AL), 2000 ALCS MVP. Member of the 1995 World Series champion Braves, smacking a solo homer for the entire scoring in the 1-0 Game 6 clincher. Also a member of the 2000 World Series champion Yankees. Briefly married to actress Halle Berry (touch of celebrity, again).
By virtue of joining the Braves just as the team's ascendancy began, and then moving to the Indians, Yankees, and Athletics, Justice played in the postseason ten of his 14 seasons -- missing the first two when the Braves were poor, 1994 when there was no playoffs, and 1996 when he was injured. As a result, his 112 postseason games played rank third (behind Derek Jeter and Bernie Williams).
Aside from the Cy Young Award-winning pitchers, Justice was the star of the first half of the Braves dynasty. Very good hitter, average defensively. He was the right man in the right place at the right time for the Braves. But he was never a Hall-class, great player.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: just dodges relegation with 6% return.
Just under half complete... more soon.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The Hall's 2008 Writers Ballot -- The Player Candidates, Part 1
There's 25 names on the BBWAA players ballot. I'll try to knock them all out in four posts or less, but we'll see.
Let us use the ever-popular alphabetical order. Where a team played for is marked with an asterisk "*", that's the team I consider to be the player's primary team, the one that would be on the plaque cap if elected. Some of these are obvious (single-team players, or those with one particularly long tenure), but I'll explain the few that are a bit slipperier.
Some background points: I tend to put more emphasis on seasons (especially great seasons) than career summary statistics. And I'll say more about those I support for the Hall than those I do not, as there's little point in arguing against a player for the Hall, since that is the default state.
Onward.
1. Brady Anderson
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 15 seasons (1988-2002) with the Boston Red Sox, *Baltimore Orioles, and Cleveland Indians.
Peak season: 1996, by a mile -- 117 runs, 50 HR, 110 RBI, .297/.396/.637, 156 OPS+, 150 runs created.
Primary position: center field.
Honoraria and claims to fame: three All-Star selections (two starts), led the AL in hit-by-pitch three times (ouch!), darn good hitter in the postseason (.300/.380/.575 in 19 games, 80 AB).
A good outfielder for a long span of seasons, but only one genuinely great year, and coming as it did during the steroids-suspicion era, maybe he was using the magic waters (I really do not care, but many others do). But outside of his 1996 monster year, he was around league-average (sometimes above, sometimes below). Above average fielder but nothing great. Good player, sure, but the Hall looks for greatness.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: one and out; gets below 5% return and is relegated.
2. Harold Baines
Years on ballot: 1.
Peak return: 5.3% (2007).
2007 return: 5.3%
Career: 22 seasons (1980-2001) with the *Chicago White Sox, Texas Rangers, Oakland Athletics, Baltimore Orioles, and Cleveland Indians.
Peak season: 1984 -- 29 HR (career high), 94 RBI, .304/.361/.541, 142 OPS+, 109 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1989, 1991, 1996.
Primary position: right field for seven seasons, then designated hitter.
Honoraria and claims to fame: six All-Star selections (one start), one Silver Slugger, led the AL in slugging average in 1984. Good postseason hitter (.324/.378/.510 in 31 G, 102 AB). Jersey #3 retired by the White Sox (before he had retired as a player, so he wore it again when he returned to the South Side later in his career). His career 1628 RBI currently enable Baines to hold the title of "Most RBI Not In The Hall", a title which eventually got Tony Perez in, and one which Baines is likely to hold until Rafael Palmeiro reaches the ballot.
Baines was a good hitter, but not a great one -- even his best seasons were not earth-shaking -- and as a DH, he doesn't have any defensive value to fall back upon. His candidacy barely scraped past relegation on his first ballot, and I don't think it's going to survive a second.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: below 5% return, and relegated.
3. Rod Beck
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 13 seasons (1991-2001, 2003-04) with the *San Francisco Giants, Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Sox, and San Diego Padres.
Peak season: 1993 -- 48 saves, 3-1, 2.16 ERA, 86 K, 180 ERA+.
Other outstanding seasons: 1992, 2000, 2003.
Primary position: RH relief pitcher / closer (704 games pitched, zero starts).
Honoraria and claims to fame: three All-Star selections (obviously, zero starts), 1994 National League Rolaids Relief Award (yes, this is a real, MLB-sanctioned award). Career 286 saves. Well-earned reputation for being a "regular guy" who liked yakking with the fans and enjoyed a can or two of beer. Swung his pitching arm like a pendulum while checking the signs, which was an entertaining quirk.
Let's first clear up a misconception. Beck, sadly, died earlier this year; had he lived, he wouldn't have qualified for the Hall ballot until the 2010 election. His candidacy was not, however, granted a waiver, or any other special conditions as inaccurately described in the media. The Hall's rules for the BBWAA elections includes Rule 3, which defines eligibility, and while 3(C) spells out the standard five-year waiting period before consideration, it also includes 3(D), which grants accelerated consideration in the event of the death of a potential candidate. The exact language:
In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.
Beck died on 23-June-2007, so the six month window is almost expired (ballots have to be returned by 31-December, IIRC, so this is good enough), and he is eligible for the December 2007 ballot (considered the 2008 election). The rules cover his rare case -- this was first codified following Roberto Clemente's special election, and has since been used for Thurman Munson and Darryl Kile as well -- and no waiver is necessary. Just clarifying that; Beck gets accelerated consideration, but this is already defined. RIP, Rod.
Moving on from administrivia, Beck was a very good reliever and a darn good showman, and the Hall's notions of worthy relievers is still in flux, but Beck isn't going to help define that notion from the inside. Not a Hall-worthy career. Sorry, Rod.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: one and out; below 5%, relegated.
4. Bert Blyleven
Years on ballot: 10.
Peak return: 53.3% (2006).
2007 return: 47.7%
Career: 22 seasons (1970-90, 1992) with the *Minnesota Twins, Texas Rangers, Pittsburgh Pirates, Cleveland Indians, and California Angels.
Peak season: 1973 -- 20-17, 2.52, 258 K, 158 ERA+.
Other outstanding seasons: 1974, 1977, 1984, 1989.
Primary position: RH starting pitcher.
Honoraria and claims to fame: Let's start with his current title -- Best Eligible Pitcher Not In The Hall -- and get back to this in a bit. Two All-Star selections, led AL in strikeouts once and shutouts three times. Fifth highest career strikeout total, third highest when he retired. 287 career wins, which is tantalizingly close to 300. Member of two World Series champion teams, the 1979 Pirates and the 1987 Twins, and contributed well to both -- excellent postseason pitcher, 5-1, 2.47 in 8 games, 6 starts, 47.1 IP, 36 K, 8 BB.
Blyleven -- ah, Blyleven. The worthiest pitcher not in the Hall, and well deserving of being moved to the other side of the velvet rope. Underappreciated in his own time and still today. If he'd reached 300 wins -- and given back a full 1981 or a healthy 1982 or 1991 (which he missed entirely, coming back for one last season at age 41), he probably would have -- he'd have been ushered in long ago. Instead, he lingers, high in ballot returns but not yet enough, and running short on the ballot clock. While I think there are few injustices of players overlooked for the Hall across the long span of baseball history, Blyleven is, alas, one of those few. Had some genuinely great seasons, and a lot of good ones. Delivered a lot of on-field value. Devastating curveball, textbook class. Sixty career shutouts, which ranks 9th all time, and in the post-WWII era, he ranks 4th, behind HOFers Spahn (63), Ryan (61), and Seaver (61), so he's right in the neighborhood of some very good company. "Only" won 20 games once (1973) but put up plenty of Ws regardless. Comparisons to Kaat or John are superficial and based upon nothing but proximal career win totals (Kitty had 283, John 288), as Blyleven beats both of them soundly in just about any other stat; he was a definitively better pitcher. I don't know what it is that the voters do not see in this man's career that doesn't appear to measure up, unless it's that damnable "fell short of 300 wins" thing, which hasn't prevented other, certainly worthy, pitchers from winning election. Blyleven's plaque is long overdue. As noted, he is The Best Eligible Pitcher Not In The Hall, and he needs to pass on that title (probably to Jack Morris) with the happy ending (election!) and not the sad ending (ballot eligibility expiration). Bert For The Hall!!!
Chipmaker's vote: YES!
Prediction: surpasses 60%. That the next few ballots are weak on platinum candidates only helps the cause.
5. Dave Concepcíon
Years on ballot: 14.
Peak return: 16.9% (1998).
2007 return: 13.6%
Career: 19 seasons (1970-88) with the *Cincinnati Reds.
Peak season: 1978 -- 170 hits, 6 HR, 33 doubles (career high), .301/.357/.405, 114 OPS+, 82 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1974, 1976, 1981, but let's not pretend that this man was on the field for his hitting.
Primary position: shortstop.
Honoraria and claims to fame: nine All-Star selections (five starts), 1982 All-Star Game MVP, five NL Gold Gloves for Shortstop, two NL Silver Sluggers for Shortstop, member (and a valuable one) of the legendary Big Red Machine, the 1970s Reds dreadnought, which won two World Series championships (1975-76), two other NL pennants (1970, '72), and two other NL West titles (1973, when Concepcíon was injured, and the last gasp in 1979). Jersey #13 retired by the Reds.
Concepcíon was a decent hitter, but that's all he had to be when surrounded by Bench and Morgan and Foster and Griffey and Rose. He was a player for his glove, and he was very good on defense, the sort a champion team likes to have and sometimes even needs. And, for his efforts, he was awarded a plurality of Gold Gloves and even more All-Star selections. All of that, I think, is the right amount of honoraria for Concepcíon -- the Hall should be about more than offense (and his bat certainly isn't why he's on the ballot), but defense is still sufficiently slippery to evaluate that defense-dominant players need a measure of legend to convince voters (and unbiased fans) that their candidacy is worthy of the bronze plaque. I'm not at all sure that this is how defensive players should be approached, but it is how the writer electorate treats such players. Concepcíon has only once convinced 1/6 of the electorate that he merits their votes, and even in this election, his last time on the writers ballot, I don't think he'll improve on that, certainly not enough. I agree with the writers -- good player, very good defensive shortstop, but not enough for the Hall.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: "last ballot" sympathy lets him crack 20%, but that's all, folks.
6. Andre Dawson
Years on ballot: 6.
Peak return: 61.0% (2006).
2007 return: 56.7%
Career: 21 seasons (1976-96) with the *Montréal Expos, Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Sox, and Florida Marlins.
Peak season: 1981 -- 24 HR, 64 RBI, .302/.365/.553 in 103 games (the Expos played only 108 games in the strike-split season, which was the most of any NL East team), 157 OPS+, 83 RC (which would pro-rate to around 124 RC in 154 games played).
Other outstanding seasons: 1980, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1990.
Primary position: center field when he was younger, right field when he was older.
Honoraria and claims to fame: 1987 NL MVP, 1977 NL ROY, eight All-Star selections (seven starts, five at CF and two at RF), eight NL Gold Gloves for outfield, four NL Silver Sluggers for outfield, led NL in hits in 1983, home runs and RBI in 1987, and in hit-by-pitch four times (ouch!). Career 438 homers, 1591 RBI, 2774 hits. Jersey #10 retired by the Expos.
I have a standing evaluation of Dawson and a few other players: he'd look good on a plaque, but the Hall is not a lesser institution for his absence. The thing about Dawson's career that bothers me the most is his on-base percentage -- peak season of .365, career .323. If elected, that would be the lowest OBP by a primary outfielder by about 20 points (Brock and Yount are in the low .340s). It's not the number itself that irritates me, but rather what it indicates about how he played his game. Dawson made a LOT of outs, and outs are bad. He currently ranks 21st in career outs, and while all the men above him are either in the Hall, will be some day (Henderson, Biggio), are ineligible (Rose), or are doomed (Palmeiro), being in such good company doesn't give him an automatic induction. I realize his 438 homers are a lot shinier than his .323 OBP, and everyone likes him, and expect some day the writers will vote him in. I'm just not convinced; truly great players should know how to take a walk. I'll be happy for him the day he gets the nod, though.
I realize I did not select his 1987 NL MVP season as his peak performance season. While it certainly was an impressive season, it wasn't really a great one, and if I'd had a vote for the NL MVP Award that year it probably would have gone to Ozzie Smith. Well, someone had to win it.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: surpasses 68%, essentially entering the electoral promised land, and gets elected either in 2009 or 2010. (Which will be a good thing, because Dawson and Raines are the last chances for an Expos player to be honored in the Hall. Yes, eventually there's Guerrero and Martinez, but they'll go in under other team logos.)
More soon....
Let us use the ever-popular alphabetical order. Where a team played for is marked with an asterisk "*", that's the team I consider to be the player's primary team, the one that would be on the plaque cap if elected. Some of these are obvious (single-team players, or those with one particularly long tenure), but I'll explain the few that are a bit slipperier.
Some background points: I tend to put more emphasis on seasons (especially great seasons) than career summary statistics. And I'll say more about those I support for the Hall than those I do not, as there's little point in arguing against a player for the Hall, since that is the default state.
Onward.
1. Brady Anderson
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 15 seasons (1988-2002) with the Boston Red Sox, *Baltimore Orioles, and Cleveland Indians.
Peak season: 1996, by a mile -- 117 runs, 50 HR, 110 RBI, .297/.396/.637, 156 OPS+, 150 runs created.
Primary position: center field.
Honoraria and claims to fame: three All-Star selections (two starts), led the AL in hit-by-pitch three times (ouch!), darn good hitter in the postseason (.300/.380/.575 in 19 games, 80 AB).
A good outfielder for a long span of seasons, but only one genuinely great year, and coming as it did during the steroids-suspicion era, maybe he was using the magic waters (I really do not care, but many others do). But outside of his 1996 monster year, he was around league-average (sometimes above, sometimes below). Above average fielder but nothing great. Good player, sure, but the Hall looks for greatness.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: one and out; gets below 5% return and is relegated.
2. Harold Baines
Years on ballot: 1.
Peak return: 5.3% (2007).
2007 return: 5.3%
Career: 22 seasons (1980-2001) with the *Chicago White Sox, Texas Rangers, Oakland Athletics, Baltimore Orioles, and Cleveland Indians.
Peak season: 1984 -- 29 HR (career high), 94 RBI, .304/.361/.541, 142 OPS+, 109 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1989, 1991, 1996.
Primary position: right field for seven seasons, then designated hitter.
Honoraria and claims to fame: six All-Star selections (one start), one Silver Slugger, led the AL in slugging average in 1984. Good postseason hitter (.324/.378/.510 in 31 G, 102 AB). Jersey #3 retired by the White Sox (before he had retired as a player, so he wore it again when he returned to the South Side later in his career). His career 1628 RBI currently enable Baines to hold the title of "Most RBI Not In The Hall", a title which eventually got Tony Perez in, and one which Baines is likely to hold until Rafael Palmeiro reaches the ballot.
Baines was a good hitter, but not a great one -- even his best seasons were not earth-shaking -- and as a DH, he doesn't have any defensive value to fall back upon. His candidacy barely scraped past relegation on his first ballot, and I don't think it's going to survive a second.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: below 5% return, and relegated.
3. Rod Beck
Writers ballot rookie.
Career: 13 seasons (1991-2001, 2003-04) with the *San Francisco Giants, Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Sox, and San Diego Padres.
Peak season: 1993 -- 48 saves, 3-1, 2.16 ERA, 86 K, 180 ERA+.
Other outstanding seasons: 1992, 2000, 2003.
Primary position: RH relief pitcher / closer (704 games pitched, zero starts).
Honoraria and claims to fame: three All-Star selections (obviously, zero starts), 1994 National League Rolaids Relief Award (yes, this is a real, MLB-sanctioned award). Career 286 saves. Well-earned reputation for being a "regular guy" who liked yakking with the fans and enjoyed a can or two of beer. Swung his pitching arm like a pendulum while checking the signs, which was an entertaining quirk.
Let's first clear up a misconception. Beck, sadly, died earlier this year; had he lived, he wouldn't have qualified for the Hall ballot until the 2010 election. His candidacy was not, however, granted a waiver, or any other special conditions as inaccurately described in the media. The Hall's rules for the BBWAA elections includes Rule 3, which defines eligibility, and while 3(C) spells out the standard five-year waiting period before consideration, it also includes 3(D), which grants accelerated consideration in the event of the death of a potential candidate. The exact language:
In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.
Beck died on 23-June-2007, so the six month window is almost expired (ballots have to be returned by 31-December, IIRC, so this is good enough), and he is eligible for the December 2007 ballot (considered the 2008 election). The rules cover his rare case -- this was first codified following Roberto Clemente's special election, and has since been used for Thurman Munson and Darryl Kile as well -- and no waiver is necessary. Just clarifying that; Beck gets accelerated consideration, but this is already defined. RIP, Rod.
Moving on from administrivia, Beck was a very good reliever and a darn good showman, and the Hall's notions of worthy relievers is still in flux, but Beck isn't going to help define that notion from the inside. Not a Hall-worthy career. Sorry, Rod.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: one and out; below 5%, relegated.
4. Bert Blyleven
Years on ballot: 10.
Peak return: 53.3% (2006).
2007 return: 47.7%
Career: 22 seasons (1970-90, 1992) with the *Minnesota Twins, Texas Rangers, Pittsburgh Pirates, Cleveland Indians, and California Angels.
Peak season: 1973 -- 20-17, 2.52, 258 K, 158 ERA+.
Other outstanding seasons: 1974, 1977, 1984, 1989.
Primary position: RH starting pitcher.
Honoraria and claims to fame: Let's start with his current title -- Best Eligible Pitcher Not In The Hall -- and get back to this in a bit. Two All-Star selections, led AL in strikeouts once and shutouts three times. Fifth highest career strikeout total, third highest when he retired. 287 career wins, which is tantalizingly close to 300. Member of two World Series champion teams, the 1979 Pirates and the 1987 Twins, and contributed well to both -- excellent postseason pitcher, 5-1, 2.47 in 8 games, 6 starts, 47.1 IP, 36 K, 8 BB.
Blyleven -- ah, Blyleven. The worthiest pitcher not in the Hall, and well deserving of being moved to the other side of the velvet rope. Underappreciated in his own time and still today. If he'd reached 300 wins -- and given back a full 1981 or a healthy 1982 or 1991 (which he missed entirely, coming back for one last season at age 41), he probably would have -- he'd have been ushered in long ago. Instead, he lingers, high in ballot returns but not yet enough, and running short on the ballot clock. While I think there are few injustices of players overlooked for the Hall across the long span of baseball history, Blyleven is, alas, one of those few. Had some genuinely great seasons, and a lot of good ones. Delivered a lot of on-field value. Devastating curveball, textbook class. Sixty career shutouts, which ranks 9th all time, and in the post-WWII era, he ranks 4th, behind HOFers Spahn (63), Ryan (61), and Seaver (61), so he's right in the neighborhood of some very good company. "Only" won 20 games once (1973) but put up plenty of Ws regardless. Comparisons to Kaat or John are superficial and based upon nothing but proximal career win totals (Kitty had 283, John 288), as Blyleven beats both of them soundly in just about any other stat; he was a definitively better pitcher. I don't know what it is that the voters do not see in this man's career that doesn't appear to measure up, unless it's that damnable "fell short of 300 wins" thing, which hasn't prevented other, certainly worthy, pitchers from winning election. Blyleven's plaque is long overdue. As noted, he is The Best Eligible Pitcher Not In The Hall, and he needs to pass on that title (probably to Jack Morris) with the happy ending (election!) and not the sad ending (ballot eligibility expiration). Bert For The Hall!!!
Chipmaker's vote: YES!
Prediction: surpasses 60%. That the next few ballots are weak on platinum candidates only helps the cause.
5. Dave Concepcíon
Years on ballot: 14.
Peak return: 16.9% (1998).
2007 return: 13.6%
Career: 19 seasons (1970-88) with the *Cincinnati Reds.
Peak season: 1978 -- 170 hits, 6 HR, 33 doubles (career high), .301/.357/.405, 114 OPS+, 82 RC.
Other outstanding seasons: 1974, 1976, 1981, but let's not pretend that this man was on the field for his hitting.
Primary position: shortstop.
Honoraria and claims to fame: nine All-Star selections (five starts), 1982 All-Star Game MVP, five NL Gold Gloves for Shortstop, two NL Silver Sluggers for Shortstop, member (and a valuable one) of the legendary Big Red Machine, the 1970s Reds dreadnought, which won two World Series championships (1975-76), two other NL pennants (1970, '72), and two other NL West titles (1973, when Concepcíon was injured, and the last gasp in 1979). Jersey #13 retired by the Reds.
Concepcíon was a decent hitter, but that's all he had to be when surrounded by Bench and Morgan and Foster and Griffey and Rose. He was a player for his glove, and he was very good on defense, the sort a champion team likes to have and sometimes even needs. And, for his efforts, he was awarded a plurality of Gold Gloves and even more All-Star selections. All of that, I think, is the right amount of honoraria for Concepcíon -- the Hall should be about more than offense (and his bat certainly isn't why he's on the ballot), but defense is still sufficiently slippery to evaluate that defense-dominant players need a measure of legend to convince voters (and unbiased fans) that their candidacy is worthy of the bronze plaque. I'm not at all sure that this is how defensive players should be approached, but it is how the writer electorate treats such players. Concepcíon has only once convinced 1/6 of the electorate that he merits their votes, and even in this election, his last time on the writers ballot, I don't think he'll improve on that, certainly not enough. I agree with the writers -- good player, very good defensive shortstop, but not enough for the Hall.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: "last ballot" sympathy lets him crack 20%, but that's all, folks.
6. Andre Dawson
Years on ballot: 6.
Peak return: 61.0% (2006).
2007 return: 56.7%
Career: 21 seasons (1976-96) with the *Montréal Expos, Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Sox, and Florida Marlins.
Peak season: 1981 -- 24 HR, 64 RBI, .302/.365/.553 in 103 games (the Expos played only 108 games in the strike-split season, which was the most of any NL East team), 157 OPS+, 83 RC (which would pro-rate to around 124 RC in 154 games played).
Other outstanding seasons: 1980, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1990.
Primary position: center field when he was younger, right field when he was older.
Honoraria and claims to fame: 1987 NL MVP, 1977 NL ROY, eight All-Star selections (seven starts, five at CF and two at RF), eight NL Gold Gloves for outfield, four NL Silver Sluggers for outfield, led NL in hits in 1983, home runs and RBI in 1987, and in hit-by-pitch four times (ouch!). Career 438 homers, 1591 RBI, 2774 hits. Jersey #10 retired by the Expos.
I have a standing evaluation of Dawson and a few other players: he'd look good on a plaque, but the Hall is not a lesser institution for his absence. The thing about Dawson's career that bothers me the most is his on-base percentage -- peak season of .365, career .323. If elected, that would be the lowest OBP by a primary outfielder by about 20 points (Brock and Yount are in the low .340s). It's not the number itself that irritates me, but rather what it indicates about how he played his game. Dawson made a LOT of outs, and outs are bad. He currently ranks 21st in career outs, and while all the men above him are either in the Hall, will be some day (Henderson, Biggio), are ineligible (Rose), or are doomed (Palmeiro), being in such good company doesn't give him an automatic induction. I realize his 438 homers are a lot shinier than his .323 OBP, and everyone likes him, and expect some day the writers will vote him in. I'm just not convinced; truly great players should know how to take a walk. I'll be happy for him the day he gets the nod, though.
I realize I did not select his 1987 NL MVP season as his peak performance season. While it certainly was an impressive season, it wasn't really a great one, and if I'd had a vote for the NL MVP Award that year it probably would have gone to Ozzie Smith. Well, someone had to win it.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
Prediction: surpasses 68%, essentially entering the electoral promised land, and gets elected either in 2009 or 2010. (Which will be a good thing, because Dawson and Raines are the last chances for an Expos player to be honored in the Hall. Yes, eventually there's Guerrero and Martinez, but they'll go in under other team logos.)
More soon....
Monday, November 26, 2007
The Hall's 2008 Writers Ballot -- Introduction
Well, this was announced earlier than I expected, but entertaining news nonetheless.
More detailed review later, but for now, just the 25 candidates on the Baseball Writers of America Association (BBWAA) ballot, results to be announced 08-January-2008.
Ballot returnees (14): Harold Baines, Bert Blyleven, Dave Concepcion, Andre Dawson, Goose Gossage, Tommy John, Don Mattingly, Mark McGwire, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Jim Rice, Lee Smith, Alan Trammell.
Ballot rookies (11): Brady Anderson, Rod Beck, Shawon Dunston, Chuck Finley, Travis Fryman, David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch, Robb Nen, Tim Raines, Jose Rijo, Todd Stottlemyre.
Just one quick thought: this is probably the first time the Hall ballot has had two guys named "Chuck" on it.
More detailed review later, but for now, just the 25 candidates on the Baseball Writers of America Association (BBWAA) ballot, results to be announced 08-January-2008.
Ballot returnees (14): Harold Baines, Bert Blyleven, Dave Concepcion, Andre Dawson, Goose Gossage, Tommy John, Don Mattingly, Mark McGwire, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Jim Rice, Lee Smith, Alan Trammell.
Ballot rookies (11): Brady Anderson, Rod Beck, Shawon Dunston, Chuck Finley, Travis Fryman, David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch, Robb Nen, Tim Raines, Jose Rijo, Todd Stottlemyre.
Just one quick thought: this is probably the first time the Hall ballot has had two guys named "Chuck" on it.
Friday, November 23, 2007
The HOF's New VC, Part 4 (and last): Summary
In a little over a week, during the Winter Meetings, two committees, subsets of the complete Veterans Committee, will meet and vote on two ballots, one of Managers & Umpires and another of Executives. Results will be announced on December 3.
If I were eligible to vote -- and real voters are limited to no more than four votes on each ballot -- here's how I would cast mine:
M&U: Davey Johnson, Danny Murtaugh, Billy Southworth, Doug Harvey.
Executives: Ewing Kauffman, Marvin Miller, Walter O'Malley.
As this is a completely new revision of the Veterans Committee and some of its ballots, there is no way to predict what the results will be, but I'll stretch and say one candidate, Harvey, gets elected.
The one limitation I see in these ballots is that the Hall has not defined any relegation method. There's no firm way to take the extremely low-voted candidates and put them on enforced hiatus from further consideration. It doesn't have to be permanent, but there should be a method by which obvious deadwood gets pushed aside, at least for a while. This was clearly lacking in the previous incarnation of the VC, whereby the non-players ballots in 2003 and 2007 had the exact same set of candidates. Take the hint, Hall -- sometimes there are candidates who are just never going to measure up, no matter how much some small faction of nominators likes them. The lack of a relegation method is more a shortcoming than a real failing, but it still should be addressed.
And with that, let's see what happens. The Hall at least did take the initiative that the previous VC was not working, or at least was doing nothing that no committee at all would have accomplished equivalently, and so is trying something new. Good job reading the tea leaves, Hall.
I'm hoping at least one candidate, of these 20, gets elected, just because that's a better result than no one (and given my druthers, it would unquestionably be Marvin Miller). And the new VC gets a further shakedown next year with player ballots, where Santo might finally get his due. At least it'll be interesting.
Review of the 2008 writers ballot when it gets released in December. The election announcement comes on January 8, 2008.
If I were eligible to vote -- and real voters are limited to no more than four votes on each ballot -- here's how I would cast mine:
M&U: Davey Johnson, Danny Murtaugh, Billy Southworth, Doug Harvey.
Executives: Ewing Kauffman, Marvin Miller, Walter O'Malley.
As this is a completely new revision of the Veterans Committee and some of its ballots, there is no way to predict what the results will be, but I'll stretch and say one candidate, Harvey, gets elected.
The one limitation I see in these ballots is that the Hall has not defined any relegation method. There's no firm way to take the extremely low-voted candidates and put them on enforced hiatus from further consideration. It doesn't have to be permanent, but there should be a method by which obvious deadwood gets pushed aside, at least for a while. This was clearly lacking in the previous incarnation of the VC, whereby the non-players ballots in 2003 and 2007 had the exact same set of candidates. Take the hint, Hall -- sometimes there are candidates who are just never going to measure up, no matter how much some small faction of nominators likes them. The lack of a relegation method is more a shortcoming than a real failing, but it still should be addressed.
And with that, let's see what happens. The Hall at least did take the initiative that the previous VC was not working, or at least was doing nothing that no committee at all would have accomplished equivalently, and so is trying something new. Good job reading the tea leaves, Hall.
I'm hoping at least one candidate, of these 20, gets elected, just because that's a better result than no one (and given my druthers, it would unquestionably be Marvin Miller). And the new VC gets a further shakedown next year with player ballots, where Santo might finally get his due. At least it'll be interesting.
Review of the 2008 writers ballot when it gets released in December. The election announcement comes on January 8, 2008.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
The HOF's New VC, Part 3: The Executives Ballot
Another part of the Hall's re-constituted Veterans Committee will vote on the current Executives ballot on December 2 at the Winter Meetings, with results announced on December 3. I'm hoping that total votes will be released, but it may be a simple in/out list, which is so much less interesting, but as with the Managers & Umpires ballot, this has not yet been detailed that I can find.
The ten candidates on next month's Executives ballot. Candidates who were on the previous VC ballot (February 2007) will have very brief comments, unless I see a need to substantially reconsider my opinion from then to now. In the ever-popular alphabetic order:
1. Buzzie Bavasi
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 43.0%
2007 VC ballot: 37.0%
Bavasi was involved in baseball for half a century, or essentially forever, made some headlines (in that long a tenure, who wouldn't?), had some winning teams and some losing teams built under his direction. As with players, longevity is a strong asset but not enough by itself to earn the bronze plaque. I find nothing here compelling.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
2. Barney Dreyfuss
Claims to fame: longtime owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates (1900-32). Briefly owner of the Louisville Colonels, an NL team that was contracted after the 1899 season, and Dreyfuss made sure all the good players, including Honus Wagner, ended up with the Pirates. Built Forbes Field in 1909, the first steel ballpark. The Pirates won two World Series (1909, 1925) and four other National League pennants (1901-03, 1927) during his tenure. Sketchily credited with conceiving the World Series.
Dreyfuss was a team owner, and while he was a good one, I don't find a lot of the bold, pioneering sort of work that the Hall looks for from the owner ranks. Owners should be working to deliver entertaining, winning baseball to the fans and thereby profit, and honoring someone simply for doing their job without obvious excellence in the execution thereof doesn't seem to be among the Hall's goals. As for the World Series, there had been exhibition postseason play a few years earlier, so making it "count" wasn't that innovative, and the Series stumbled out of the gate as the 1904 NL champion Giants refused to participate. Anyway... standard longtime baseball man but nothing that stands out.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
3. John Fetzer
Claims to fame: longtime owner of the Detroit Tigers (minority owner 1956-60, full owner 1961-83). Made his fortune in radio and television broadcasting, and helped MLB negotiate national contracts during his tenure. Put good teams on the field, peaking with the 1968 World Series champion; also took home an AL East title in 1972 and sold out just before the monster 1984 champions, so a good bit of that team was put in place under his administration.
Another generally good-guy owner, but with the emergence of the players union under Marvin Miller during this time, no owner gets off easy. As a group, they were incapable of negotiating in good faith or ceding any amount of power, leading to such confrontation losses as the 1972 and 1981 strikes and the 1975 free agency decision. It just wasn't a good era to be an owner if one wanted a cruise-control style labor market. Fetzer put a good team on the field but nothing in his baseball career stands out as particularly notable.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
4. Bob Howsam
Claims to fame: general manager of the St. Louis Cardinals (1964-66) and the Cincinnati Reds (1967-78 -- the Big Red Machine era -- and 1983-84). Also ran the minor league Denver Bears (at A and AAA level) from 1947-62. Helped co-found the Continental League in 1959, which never went anywhere but inspired (threatened) MLB to expand in the early 1960s. Put the finishing touches on the Big Red Machine, particularly getting Joe Morgan, as the Reds brought home two World Series championships (1975-76), two other NL pennants (1970, '72), and another NL West title (1973), while putting six MVPs (Bench '70 & '72, Rose '73, Morgan '75-76, Foster '77) on the field.
Howsam had good timing with Cincinnati -- he did help fine-tune the Machine, but the core was already on the farm when he got there, except for Morgan and Foster. He also bailed out just as free agency was beginning to influence roster structure and team payrolls, so it's difficult to say how well he might have adapted to the new age (his brief return to the GM chair was not notable). Ran one of the great teams of the second half of the 20th century, and had a long career doing many good things, but I cannot see any greatness or bold innovation on his résumé.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
5. Ewing Kauffman
Claims to fame: original owner of the Kansas City Royals, from the team's inception in 1969 until his death in 1993. Kauffman Stadium is named after him, an honor he resisted on his deathbed until his wife reminded him that it wasn't just a building, it was one with a baseball diamond inside. Under his administration, the Royals founded a baseball academy with hopes of fostering young talent, built Royals/Kauffman, won the AL West six times, the American League pennant twice, and took the 1985 World Series championship.
A billionaire from the pharmaceuticals business and a generous philanthropist who gave away millions to worthy causes, mainly in the Kansas City area, Kauffman was a genuinely good man. He returned baseball to KC (the Athletics moved out after 1967), he wasn't hesitant to spend to build a winner, and he was successful, culminating in the 1985 title. He gave Kansas City one unquestionable Hall Of Famer, George Brett. I typically have little love for owners, and as with others Kauffman crashes into the Marvin Miller era when the owners, as a group, fought and lost consistently. But Kauffman's pure dedication to his city and to great baseball lets him transcend his peers. (Certainly comparing the Royals' fortunes since his death makes the contrast between Good Owner and Bad Owner glaringly obvious.) He's too good for the Hall, but I'll vote for him anyway.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes.
6. Bowie Kuhn
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 25.3%
2007 VC ballot: 17.3%
Kuhn was Commissioner for a long time, and some good and interesting things happened under his administration (expansion in 1969 and 1977, divisional realignment and additional postseason play in 1969, the designated hitter in 1973), but he's got some bigger albatrosses -- the 1981 season-splitting strike and the 1975 free agency decision (against his employers, the owners). Commissioner is not an easy job and Kuhn was not a bad person, but he didn't take initiative often enough -- the office is powerful -- and eventually he was swept aside. History hasn't been kind to him, but in many ways, it shouldn't be. His tenure didn't accomplish enough by his actions to merit the Hall.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
7. John McHale
Claims to fame: general manager of the Detroit Tigers (1957-58), Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves (1959-66), and Montréal Expos (1978-84). Team president of the Expos from its expansion beginnings in 1969.
Baseball bonus points: McHale was a player for the Detroit Tigers for parts of five seasons (1943-45, '47-48). The few times he played defense, he was at first base. Bench players serve a purpose, but the only thing notable about McHale's playing career was that he was a member of the 1945 World Series champion team.
McHale is yet another baseball lifer, someone who was always around in a front office somewhere. His tenure with the Braves came just after the team had peaked, and the city of Milwaukee started losing interest, such that the team finally left for Atlanta (a move which, by extension, let Bud Selig into the game's corridors of power), so McHale's efforts during this time were ultimately discouraging. He did better in Canada, building the only Expos team ever to reach the postseason, and that was good work. But the Hall is for more than just good work, and nothing about McHale says greatness.
Esoteric bonus baseball points: McHale was the last holdover from the pre-2001 incarnation of the Hall's Veterans Committee; his term on the VC didn't expire until after the February 2007 ballot cycle. I suspect his candidacy here is, in part, based upon the timing of his term finally expiring.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
8. Marvin Miller
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 44.3%
2007 VC ballot: 63.0%
Marvin Miller was the longtime executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association, colloquially known as the players union. Marvin Miller improved working conditions for his constituents, the players, from the day he took the job. Marvin Miller's crowning achievement was winning an arbitration decision to overturn the assumed perpetuity of the standard player contract reserve clause -- a decision which enacted free agency within Major League Baseball. Marvin Miller's influence and impact endures to this day. Baseball now earns billions instead of mere millions, and part of that is because Miller set the players (occasionally) free.
Marvin Miller made baseball better. He delivered the greatest positive off-field change the game has ever seen, and that change (and many other, smaller ones) continues to this day.
That is exactly the sort of impact that the Hall should seek to honor.
Marvin Miller is The Most Worthy Person Not In The Hall.
Unfortunately, Miller will stand before an electorate of twelve, which includes three writers, seven current or former executives, and only two former players. Miller's candidacy needs at least a majority of the executives (assuming he has the players and writers behind him, which is unknown), and many people who have held big seats in a team front office view him as a mortal enemy, the man who forged the strongest labor union in history (think former Wal-mart CEO David Glass will ever vote for a union man, particularly one as storied as Miller?). Placing Marvin Miller before this particular electorate is either heartlessly stupid or deliberately dismissive, a backhanded way of ensuring he never gains a plaque in the Hall -- and neither evaluation makes the Hall look good. I can easily understand how various powers-that-be want never to see Miller elected, but denying his impact on history is simply pernicious. He deserves the plaque. He earned it, which is more than can be said for some other honorees in the Executive category.
I predict that Miller's candidacy, on this December 2007 ballot, is doomed, because of the constituency of the present electorate. I don't want anyone handwaved into the Hall, but the next time the Executives ballot comes around, in late 2009, I hope the Hall sees fit to convene a more equitable electorate. Well, we'll see; maybe he gets elected next month after all, which would be a delightful surprise.
I ramble -- but Miller is that important to baseball history. No one has had a greater impact on the game or the business. I cannot support Miller's candidacy enough. So, predictably, my vote is very much in favor.
Chipmaker's vote: YES!
9. Walter O'Malley
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 48.1%
2007 VC ballot: 44.4%
A longtime owner, and a powerful one in the smoke-filled back rooms, who led the territorial expansion of Major League Baseball across the continent. I'm not a strong supporter of O'Malley for the Hall (and like the real electors, I limit myself to no more than four votes), but I was faintly in favor of him before so I'll hold to that, but if I had to start throwing my candidates off the boat O'Malley would be the first to go.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes, without enthusiasm.
10. Gabe Paul
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 16.5%
2007 VC ballot: 12.4%
A baseball lifer who got involved in some of the interesting developments over the decades (divisional realignment in particular), but I cannot see anything that proclaims Hall-worthiness, and his previous ballot returns agree with me.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
----------
Summary of Chipmaker's Yes votes: Kauffman, Miller, O'Malley.
If I could vote for only one: Miller.
Next: a brief summary and comments.
The ten candidates on next month's Executives ballot. Candidates who were on the previous VC ballot (February 2007) will have very brief comments, unless I see a need to substantially reconsider my opinion from then to now. In the ever-popular alphabetic order:
1. Buzzie Bavasi
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 43.0%
2007 VC ballot: 37.0%
Bavasi was involved in baseball for half a century, or essentially forever, made some headlines (in that long a tenure, who wouldn't?), had some winning teams and some losing teams built under his direction. As with players, longevity is a strong asset but not enough by itself to earn the bronze plaque. I find nothing here compelling.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
2. Barney Dreyfuss
Claims to fame: longtime owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates (1900-32). Briefly owner of the Louisville Colonels, an NL team that was contracted after the 1899 season, and Dreyfuss made sure all the good players, including Honus Wagner, ended up with the Pirates. Built Forbes Field in 1909, the first steel ballpark. The Pirates won two World Series (1909, 1925) and four other National League pennants (1901-03, 1927) during his tenure. Sketchily credited with conceiving the World Series.
Dreyfuss was a team owner, and while he was a good one, I don't find a lot of the bold, pioneering sort of work that the Hall looks for from the owner ranks. Owners should be working to deliver entertaining, winning baseball to the fans and thereby profit, and honoring someone simply for doing their job without obvious excellence in the execution thereof doesn't seem to be among the Hall's goals. As for the World Series, there had been exhibition postseason play a few years earlier, so making it "count" wasn't that innovative, and the Series stumbled out of the gate as the 1904 NL champion Giants refused to participate. Anyway... standard longtime baseball man but nothing that stands out.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
3. John Fetzer
Claims to fame: longtime owner of the Detroit Tigers (minority owner 1956-60, full owner 1961-83). Made his fortune in radio and television broadcasting, and helped MLB negotiate national contracts during his tenure. Put good teams on the field, peaking with the 1968 World Series champion; also took home an AL East title in 1972 and sold out just before the monster 1984 champions, so a good bit of that team was put in place under his administration.
Another generally good-guy owner, but with the emergence of the players union under Marvin Miller during this time, no owner gets off easy. As a group, they were incapable of negotiating in good faith or ceding any amount of power, leading to such confrontation losses as the 1972 and 1981 strikes and the 1975 free agency decision. It just wasn't a good era to be an owner if one wanted a cruise-control style labor market. Fetzer put a good team on the field but nothing in his baseball career stands out as particularly notable.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
4. Bob Howsam
Claims to fame: general manager of the St. Louis Cardinals (1964-66) and the Cincinnati Reds (1967-78 -- the Big Red Machine era -- and 1983-84). Also ran the minor league Denver Bears (at A and AAA level) from 1947-62. Helped co-found the Continental League in 1959, which never went anywhere but inspired (threatened) MLB to expand in the early 1960s. Put the finishing touches on the Big Red Machine, particularly getting Joe Morgan, as the Reds brought home two World Series championships (1975-76), two other NL pennants (1970, '72), and another NL West title (1973), while putting six MVPs (Bench '70 & '72, Rose '73, Morgan '75-76, Foster '77) on the field.
Howsam had good timing with Cincinnati -- he did help fine-tune the Machine, but the core was already on the farm when he got there, except for Morgan and Foster. He also bailed out just as free agency was beginning to influence roster structure and team payrolls, so it's difficult to say how well he might have adapted to the new age (his brief return to the GM chair was not notable). Ran one of the great teams of the second half of the 20th century, and had a long career doing many good things, but I cannot see any greatness or bold innovation on his résumé.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
5. Ewing Kauffman
Claims to fame: original owner of the Kansas City Royals, from the team's inception in 1969 until his death in 1993. Kauffman Stadium is named after him, an honor he resisted on his deathbed until his wife reminded him that it wasn't just a building, it was one with a baseball diamond inside. Under his administration, the Royals founded a baseball academy with hopes of fostering young talent, built Royals/Kauffman, won the AL West six times, the American League pennant twice, and took the 1985 World Series championship.
A billionaire from the pharmaceuticals business and a generous philanthropist who gave away millions to worthy causes, mainly in the Kansas City area, Kauffman was a genuinely good man. He returned baseball to KC (the Athletics moved out after 1967), he wasn't hesitant to spend to build a winner, and he was successful, culminating in the 1985 title. He gave Kansas City one unquestionable Hall Of Famer, George Brett. I typically have little love for owners, and as with others Kauffman crashes into the Marvin Miller era when the owners, as a group, fought and lost consistently. But Kauffman's pure dedication to his city and to great baseball lets him transcend his peers. (Certainly comparing the Royals' fortunes since his death makes the contrast between Good Owner and Bad Owner glaringly obvious.) He's too good for the Hall, but I'll vote for him anyway.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes.
6. Bowie Kuhn
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 25.3%
2007 VC ballot: 17.3%
Kuhn was Commissioner for a long time, and some good and interesting things happened under his administration (expansion in 1969 and 1977, divisional realignment and additional postseason play in 1969, the designated hitter in 1973), but he's got some bigger albatrosses -- the 1981 season-splitting strike and the 1975 free agency decision (against his employers, the owners). Commissioner is not an easy job and Kuhn was not a bad person, but he didn't take initiative often enough -- the office is powerful -- and eventually he was swept aside. History hasn't been kind to him, but in many ways, it shouldn't be. His tenure didn't accomplish enough by his actions to merit the Hall.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
7. John McHale
Claims to fame: general manager of the Detroit Tigers (1957-58), Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves (1959-66), and Montréal Expos (1978-84). Team president of the Expos from its expansion beginnings in 1969.
Baseball bonus points: McHale was a player for the Detroit Tigers for parts of five seasons (1943-45, '47-48). The few times he played defense, he was at first base. Bench players serve a purpose, but the only thing notable about McHale's playing career was that he was a member of the 1945 World Series champion team.
McHale is yet another baseball lifer, someone who was always around in a front office somewhere. His tenure with the Braves came just after the team had peaked, and the city of Milwaukee started losing interest, such that the team finally left for Atlanta (a move which, by extension, let Bud Selig into the game's corridors of power), so McHale's efforts during this time were ultimately discouraging. He did better in Canada, building the only Expos team ever to reach the postseason, and that was good work. But the Hall is for more than just good work, and nothing about McHale says greatness.
Esoteric bonus baseball points: McHale was the last holdover from the pre-2001 incarnation of the Hall's Veterans Committee; his term on the VC didn't expire until after the February 2007 ballot cycle. I suspect his candidacy here is, in part, based upon the timing of his term finally expiring.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
8. Marvin Miller
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 44.3%
2007 VC ballot: 63.0%
Marvin Miller was the longtime executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association, colloquially known as the players union. Marvin Miller improved working conditions for his constituents, the players, from the day he took the job. Marvin Miller's crowning achievement was winning an arbitration decision to overturn the assumed perpetuity of the standard player contract reserve clause -- a decision which enacted free agency within Major League Baseball. Marvin Miller's influence and impact endures to this day. Baseball now earns billions instead of mere millions, and part of that is because Miller set the players (occasionally) free.
Marvin Miller made baseball better. He delivered the greatest positive off-field change the game has ever seen, and that change (and many other, smaller ones) continues to this day.
That is exactly the sort of impact that the Hall should seek to honor.
Marvin Miller is The Most Worthy Person Not In The Hall.
Unfortunately, Miller will stand before an electorate of twelve, which includes three writers, seven current or former executives, and only two former players. Miller's candidacy needs at least a majority of the executives (assuming he has the players and writers behind him, which is unknown), and many people who have held big seats in a team front office view him as a mortal enemy, the man who forged the strongest labor union in history (think former Wal-mart CEO David Glass will ever vote for a union man, particularly one as storied as Miller?). Placing Marvin Miller before this particular electorate is either heartlessly stupid or deliberately dismissive, a backhanded way of ensuring he never gains a plaque in the Hall -- and neither evaluation makes the Hall look good. I can easily understand how various powers-that-be want never to see Miller elected, but denying his impact on history is simply pernicious. He deserves the plaque. He earned it, which is more than can be said for some other honorees in the Executive category.
I predict that Miller's candidacy, on this December 2007 ballot, is doomed, because of the constituency of the present electorate. I don't want anyone handwaved into the Hall, but the next time the Executives ballot comes around, in late 2009, I hope the Hall sees fit to convene a more equitable electorate. Well, we'll see; maybe he gets elected next month after all, which would be a delightful surprise.
I ramble -- but Miller is that important to baseball history. No one has had a greater impact on the game or the business. I cannot support Miller's candidacy enough. So, predictably, my vote is very much in favor.
Chipmaker's vote: YES!
9. Walter O'Malley
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 48.1%
2007 VC ballot: 44.4%
A longtime owner, and a powerful one in the smoke-filled back rooms, who led the territorial expansion of Major League Baseball across the continent. I'm not a strong supporter of O'Malley for the Hall (and like the real electors, I limit myself to no more than four votes), but I was faintly in favor of him before so I'll hold to that, but if I had to start throwing my candidates off the boat O'Malley would be the first to go.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes, without enthusiasm.
10. Gabe Paul
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 16.5%
2007 VC ballot: 12.4%
A baseball lifer who got involved in some of the interesting developments over the decades (divisional realignment in particular), but I cannot see anything that proclaims Hall-worthiness, and his previous ballot returns agree with me.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
----------
Summary of Chipmaker's Yes votes: Kauffman, Miller, O'Malley.
If I could vote for only one: Miller.
Next: a brief summary and comments.
The HOF's New VC, Part 2: The Managers & Umpires Ballot
Part of the Hall's re-constituted Veterans Committee will vote on the current Managers & Umpires ballot on December 2 at the Winter Meetings, with results announced on December 3. I'm hoping that total votes will be released, but it may be a simple in/out list, which is so much less interesting.
The ten candidates on this imminent M&U ballot. Candidates who were on the previous VC ballot (February 2007) will have very brief comments, unless I see a need to substantially reconsider my opinion from then to now. In the ever-popular alphabetic order, managers first:
1. (Manager #1) Whitey Herzog
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 31.6%
2007 VC ballot: 35.8%
Good career. Not a great one. Whitey was good, but only delivered half, maybe 60% of a Hall-class career, and I don't know why he never got back into a dugout.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
2. (Manager #2) Davey Johnson
Claims to fame: manager of the New York Mets, Cincinnati Reds, Baltimore Orioles, and Los Angeles Dodgers, a total of 14 seasons. A short career but a brilliant one -- other than an inherited Reds team, Johnson's teams finished in first five times, second seven times, and third once. Career 1148 wins and a .564 winning percentage, and the monster 1986 Mets championship, a team he helped build. Won the 1997 American League Manager Of The Year Award despite being fired by the Orioles at the end of the season.
Baseball bonus points: was a player for 13 seasons, with the Baltimore Orioles, Atlanta Braves, Philadelphia Phillies, and Chicago Cubs, plus almost two complete seasons with the Tokyo Giants (click to see his stats in Japan -- scroll down about 4/5 of the page). A four-time All-Star, three Gold Gloves at second base, and a member of the 1970 World Series champion Orioles. Probably best remembered, as a player, for hitting 43 homers in 1973, becoming (with Evans (41) and Aaron (40)) the first 40+ HR trio of teammates. (Was on the Hall's player ballot once, got 3 votes, below 1%, and was relegated.)
Johnson was always a proven winner, one players spoke highly of, and yet -- and yet. Why couldn't this man keep a managerial job? He was a smart manager, maybe too smart, as he got fired four times in an 11-year period despite winning results on the field. And that he never got picked up after his last ouster in 2000 says something, but exactly what and about whom (either Johnson or how various owners and GMs viewed him) is uncertain. He knew what he was doing in the dugout and got results, and it's hard to evaluate him on anything other than that. Damn good manager; I'm going to give him the nod.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes.
3. (Manager #3) Billy Martin
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 27.8%
2007 VC ballot: 14.8%
Fiery, sure. Whipped teams into shape for a short haul, burned them out for anything longer. If he hadn't managed the Yankees to one championship (and then got fired during a successful defense thereof) and mixed it up with Reggie now and then, he wouldn't be half so remembered as he is. Doesn't have the historical weight to merit the Hall.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
4. (Manager #4) Gene Mauch
Claims to fame: 26 seasons as manager of the Philadelphia Phillies, Montréal Expos (from the start of the franchise), Minnesota Twins, and California Angels. Notorious for never managing in the World Series, and best-remembered (unfortunately) for the 1964 Phillies, a team that collapsed in the final two weeks. Two AL West titles with the Angels, both times being stopped in the ALCS. Career 1902 wins, .483 winning percentage.
Baseball bonus points: was a player for nine seasons (1944, '47-52, '56-57) with the Brooklyn Dodgers, Pittsburgh Pirates, Chicago Cubs, Boston Braves, St. Louis Cardinals, and Boston Red Sox, but was never more than a spare part. Typically played second base.
Mauch stuck around a long time and made a lot of friends. He does own a lot of responsibility for the 1964 crash, as he overworked the pitchers, but he wasn't one of the guys on the field and it was bad enough for the blame to be spread around widely. A good manager but not a great one; the great ones can whip a team into shape even if it takes a few seasons. Hey, no one can hammer the manager of a first-year expansion team, it's a job and someone has to do it -- but in seven years with the Expos, they never finished above fourth (of six), and there wasn't any particularly powerful contender during that span -- Pittsburgh was the most dominant but could be beaten, and the 1973 NL East was simply begging some team to win it. And it was much the same in Minnesota, and most of his time in Philadelphia -- lots of second-division (bottom half) finishes. I cannot see anything in Mauch's managerial career that stands up and proclaims Hall-worthiness. There doesn't have to be championships or even division titles, but there has to be some winning.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
5. (Manager #5) Danny Murtaugh
Claims to fame: longtime manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates (15 seasons in four tenures from 1957-76). Skipper of the 1960 and 1971 World Series champion teams. Three other NL East titles. Career of 1115 wins and a .540 winning percentage. Continued to work for the Pirates in other roles during the gaps in his managerial career. Won The Sporting News' Manager Of The Year Award in 1960 and 1970.
Baseball bonus points: was a player for nine seasons (1941-43, '46-51) with the Philadelphia Phillies, Boston Braves, and the Pirates. Four seasons as a regular, mostly played second base. Useful but mainly a spare part. Led the NL with 18 stolen bases in his rookie season, which says a little bit about Murtaugh and a lot more about the National League in 1941.
A Pirates lifer, basically, and while he didn't always run a winner he was good at getting value out of his team; never had a complete disaster team. Even his bad finishes, ranking-wise, weren't teams with especially bad records -- under .500, two times barely (75-79, 80-82) and only one other, strongly losing season, finishing at .457. And of course, two trophies are a sweet and rare accomplishment, though when your squad has guys like Clemente, Stargell, and Mazeroski playing it makes it that much easier. Knew what he was doing, and twice got the big prize (the 1960 title by the skin of the teeth, but a win is a win; Murtaugh did get the team into position for Maz to end it in dramatic fashion). I might change my mind tomorrow or next week, but right now I like Murtaugh's record.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes.
6. (Manager #6) Billy Southworth
Claims to fame: 13 seasons as manager of the St. Louis Cardinals and Boston Braves. Player-manager in 1929, a breed extinct today. Won four National League pennants (1942-44 with the Cardinals, 1948 with the Braves) and two World Series championships (1942, 1944). Never finished below fourth place, and his only two losing seasons were partial ones, in his first and last managing seasons. Career 1044 wins and a sterling .597 winning percentage.
Baseball bonus points: was a player for 13 seasons (1913, '15, '18-27, '29) with the Cleveland Indians, Pittsburgh Pirates, Boston Braves, New York Giants, and St. Louis Cardinals. Good but not great hitter. Mainly played right field. Member of the 1924 NL champion Giants, when he did very little in the World Series, and the 1926 World Series champion Cardinals, where he was the starting RF for all seven games as the Cards knocked off the Yankees, batting .345 with a double, triple, and home run. Led the NL in triples in 1919. Good player, but clearly this part of his career wasn't going to get him into the Hall -- he was on the writers ballot seven times between 1945 and 1958, and peaked at 6.8% (under today's rules he'd have been relegated after his first ballot).
The wartime years might have been a bit thinner for baseball, but Southworth made the most of them, bringing home three pennants and two trophies. And that winning percentage, .597, is fifth-best among long-time managers, behind HOFers McCarthy, Comiskey, and Selee, and Mutrie (and the next seven behind Southworth are HOFers as well, so ten of the top twelve). Not a long career but, like Johnson, a brilliant one, both in wins and hardware. I don't know why the Hall hasn't welcomed this man already.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes.
7. (Manager #7) Dick Williams
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 41.8%
2007 VC ballot: 37.0%
Wore out his welcomes, though not as quickly as Martin did. Popular when winning but never got a break when losing; didn't build up the goodwill needed to get a chance to pull out of a dive. Short-term managers have their purposes, but adorning a Hall plaque isn't one of them.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
8. (Umpire #1) Doug Harvey
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 60.8% (highest return on ballot)
2007 VC ballot: 64.2% (highest return on ballot)
I don't see much need for the Hall to honor umpires, as to me they are not participants in the game, but part of the framework. So I don't really care if an umpire gets elected or not. The previous VC, which was player-heavy, obviously liked Harvey but not enough. The new electorate has eight former players, two former managers, three executives, and three writers. If these players like Harvey, he'll probably get in. If they don't, he won't. So far they've liked him, but he needs 12 of 16. I think he'll get it, but no tears if he doesn't.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes, as before, but again I'm just riding the player pool opinion.
9. (Umpire #2) Hank O'Day
Claims to fame: National League umpire for 29 years (1895, 1897-1911, 1913, 1915-27). Officiated in ten World Series, including being the only NL ump in the three of the first four (1903, '05, '07). Developed a stand-offish persona for professional reasons, as one- or two-man crews were the norm of the time, and he wanted to avoid even potential improprieties; this became the bedrock of his reputation for excellence. One of the umpires in the 1908 "Merkle's Boner" game that ended in a tie, forcing a replay game a few weeks later to decide the NL title.
Baseball bonus points: started out as a player, lasting seven years mainly as a pitcher, with the Toledo Blue Stockings (American Association), Pittsburgh Alleghenys (AA), Washington Nationals (National League), New York Giants (NL), and New York Giants (Players League), from 1884-90. His 329 IP workload in his final season left his arm too sore to continue. Adequate but nothing great, and no hitter whatsoever. O'Day was also a manager for two seasons, in 1912 for the Cincinnati Reds and 1914 for the Chicago Cubs. Both teams finished in fourth place; O'Day finished with 153 wins and a .498 winning percentage.
It's nearly impossible to assess an umpire objectively even in modern times, and O'Day's career was a century ago. Legends tend only to grow over time. I think O'Day is a good candidate and might be a good HOFer some day, but my general view of umpires still applies, and I've already cast a fainthearted vote for Harvey. So, not this time. Impressively varied career though.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
10. (Umpire #3) Cy Rigler
Claims to fame: longtime National League umpire (1906-35, 30 years). Credited for creating umpire hand-signaling for balls and strikes, a technique he pioneered while still working in the minors. An expert in groundskeeping and field layout. Worked in ten World Series. Noted for having a thick skin and great patience during on-field arguments, and had a dominating physical presence.
Another impressive career, but like O'Day another (very) olde-tymer. If Rigler is a sufficiently critical part of baseball history (and just for the hand signals alone, he deserves a lot of credit), he should have been in the Hall before now. So, another good candidate, but not this year.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
----------
Summary of Chipmaker's Yes votes: Johnson, Murtaugh, Southworth, Harvey.
If I could vote for only one: Southworth.
Coming soon: the Executives ballot.
The ten candidates on this imminent M&U ballot. Candidates who were on the previous VC ballot (February 2007) will have very brief comments, unless I see a need to substantially reconsider my opinion from then to now. In the ever-popular alphabetic order, managers first:
1. (Manager #1) Whitey Herzog
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 31.6%
2007 VC ballot: 35.8%
Good career. Not a great one. Whitey was good, but only delivered half, maybe 60% of a Hall-class career, and I don't know why he never got back into a dugout.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
2. (Manager #2) Davey Johnson
Claims to fame: manager of the New York Mets, Cincinnati Reds, Baltimore Orioles, and Los Angeles Dodgers, a total of 14 seasons. A short career but a brilliant one -- other than an inherited Reds team, Johnson's teams finished in first five times, second seven times, and third once. Career 1148 wins and a .564 winning percentage, and the monster 1986 Mets championship, a team he helped build. Won the 1997 American League Manager Of The Year Award despite being fired by the Orioles at the end of the season.
Baseball bonus points: was a player for 13 seasons, with the Baltimore Orioles, Atlanta Braves, Philadelphia Phillies, and Chicago Cubs, plus almost two complete seasons with the Tokyo Giants (click to see his stats in Japan -- scroll down about 4/5 of the page). A four-time All-Star, three Gold Gloves at second base, and a member of the 1970 World Series champion Orioles. Probably best remembered, as a player, for hitting 43 homers in 1973, becoming (with Evans (41) and Aaron (40)) the first 40+ HR trio of teammates. (Was on the Hall's player ballot once, got 3 votes, below 1%, and was relegated.)
Johnson was always a proven winner, one players spoke highly of, and yet -- and yet. Why couldn't this man keep a managerial job? He was a smart manager, maybe too smart, as he got fired four times in an 11-year period despite winning results on the field. And that he never got picked up after his last ouster in 2000 says something, but exactly what and about whom (either Johnson or how various owners and GMs viewed him) is uncertain. He knew what he was doing in the dugout and got results, and it's hard to evaluate him on anything other than that. Damn good manager; I'm going to give him the nod.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes.
3. (Manager #3) Billy Martin
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 27.8%
2007 VC ballot: 14.8%
Fiery, sure. Whipped teams into shape for a short haul, burned them out for anything longer. If he hadn't managed the Yankees to one championship (and then got fired during a successful defense thereof) and mixed it up with Reggie now and then, he wouldn't be half so remembered as he is. Doesn't have the historical weight to merit the Hall.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
4. (Manager #4) Gene Mauch
Claims to fame: 26 seasons as manager of the Philadelphia Phillies, Montréal Expos (from the start of the franchise), Minnesota Twins, and California Angels. Notorious for never managing in the World Series, and best-remembered (unfortunately) for the 1964 Phillies, a team that collapsed in the final two weeks. Two AL West titles with the Angels, both times being stopped in the ALCS. Career 1902 wins, .483 winning percentage.
Baseball bonus points: was a player for nine seasons (1944, '47-52, '56-57) with the Brooklyn Dodgers, Pittsburgh Pirates, Chicago Cubs, Boston Braves, St. Louis Cardinals, and Boston Red Sox, but was never more than a spare part. Typically played second base.
Mauch stuck around a long time and made a lot of friends. He does own a lot of responsibility for the 1964 crash, as he overworked the pitchers, but he wasn't one of the guys on the field and it was bad enough for the blame to be spread around widely. A good manager but not a great one; the great ones can whip a team into shape even if it takes a few seasons. Hey, no one can hammer the manager of a first-year expansion team, it's a job and someone has to do it -- but in seven years with the Expos, they never finished above fourth (of six), and there wasn't any particularly powerful contender during that span -- Pittsburgh was the most dominant but could be beaten, and the 1973 NL East was simply begging some team to win it. And it was much the same in Minnesota, and most of his time in Philadelphia -- lots of second-division (bottom half) finishes. I cannot see anything in Mauch's managerial career that stands up and proclaims Hall-worthiness. There doesn't have to be championships or even division titles, but there has to be some winning.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
5. (Manager #5) Danny Murtaugh
Claims to fame: longtime manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates (15 seasons in four tenures from 1957-76). Skipper of the 1960 and 1971 World Series champion teams. Three other NL East titles. Career of 1115 wins and a .540 winning percentage. Continued to work for the Pirates in other roles during the gaps in his managerial career. Won The Sporting News' Manager Of The Year Award in 1960 and 1970.
Baseball bonus points: was a player for nine seasons (1941-43, '46-51) with the Philadelphia Phillies, Boston Braves, and the Pirates. Four seasons as a regular, mostly played second base. Useful but mainly a spare part. Led the NL with 18 stolen bases in his rookie season, which says a little bit about Murtaugh and a lot more about the National League in 1941.
A Pirates lifer, basically, and while he didn't always run a winner he was good at getting value out of his team; never had a complete disaster team. Even his bad finishes, ranking-wise, weren't teams with especially bad records -- under .500, two times barely (75-79, 80-82) and only one other, strongly losing season, finishing at .457. And of course, two trophies are a sweet and rare accomplishment, though when your squad has guys like Clemente, Stargell, and Mazeroski playing it makes it that much easier. Knew what he was doing, and twice got the big prize (the 1960 title by the skin of the teeth, but a win is a win; Murtaugh did get the team into position for Maz to end it in dramatic fashion). I might change my mind tomorrow or next week, but right now I like Murtaugh's record.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes.
6. (Manager #6) Billy Southworth
Claims to fame: 13 seasons as manager of the St. Louis Cardinals and Boston Braves. Player-manager in 1929, a breed extinct today. Won four National League pennants (1942-44 with the Cardinals, 1948 with the Braves) and two World Series championships (1942, 1944). Never finished below fourth place, and his only two losing seasons were partial ones, in his first and last managing seasons. Career 1044 wins and a sterling .597 winning percentage.
Baseball bonus points: was a player for 13 seasons (1913, '15, '18-27, '29) with the Cleveland Indians, Pittsburgh Pirates, Boston Braves, New York Giants, and St. Louis Cardinals. Good but not great hitter. Mainly played right field. Member of the 1924 NL champion Giants, when he did very little in the World Series, and the 1926 World Series champion Cardinals, where he was the starting RF for all seven games as the Cards knocked off the Yankees, batting .345 with a double, triple, and home run. Led the NL in triples in 1919. Good player, but clearly this part of his career wasn't going to get him into the Hall -- he was on the writers ballot seven times between 1945 and 1958, and peaked at 6.8% (under today's rules he'd have been relegated after his first ballot).
The wartime years might have been a bit thinner for baseball, but Southworth made the most of them, bringing home three pennants and two trophies. And that winning percentage, .597, is fifth-best among long-time managers, behind HOFers McCarthy, Comiskey, and Selee, and Mutrie (and the next seven behind Southworth are HOFers as well, so ten of the top twelve). Not a long career but, like Johnson, a brilliant one, both in wins and hardware. I don't know why the Hall hasn't welcomed this man already.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes.
7. (Manager #7) Dick Williams
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 41.8%
2007 VC ballot: 37.0%
Wore out his welcomes, though not as quickly as Martin did. Popular when winning but never got a break when losing; didn't build up the goodwill needed to get a chance to pull out of a dive. Short-term managers have their purposes, but adorning a Hall plaque isn't one of them.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
8. (Umpire #1) Doug Harvey
Reviewed in February.
2003 VC ballot: 60.8% (highest return on ballot)
2007 VC ballot: 64.2% (highest return on ballot)
I don't see much need for the Hall to honor umpires, as to me they are not participants in the game, but part of the framework. So I don't really care if an umpire gets elected or not. The previous VC, which was player-heavy, obviously liked Harvey but not enough. The new electorate has eight former players, two former managers, three executives, and three writers. If these players like Harvey, he'll probably get in. If they don't, he won't. So far they've liked him, but he needs 12 of 16. I think he'll get it, but no tears if he doesn't.
Chipmaker's vote: Yes, as before, but again I'm just riding the player pool opinion.
9. (Umpire #2) Hank O'Day
Claims to fame: National League umpire for 29 years (1895, 1897-1911, 1913, 1915-27). Officiated in ten World Series, including being the only NL ump in the three of the first four (1903, '05, '07). Developed a stand-offish persona for professional reasons, as one- or two-man crews were the norm of the time, and he wanted to avoid even potential improprieties; this became the bedrock of his reputation for excellence. One of the umpires in the 1908 "Merkle's Boner" game that ended in a tie, forcing a replay game a few weeks later to decide the NL title.
Baseball bonus points: started out as a player, lasting seven years mainly as a pitcher, with the Toledo Blue Stockings (American Association), Pittsburgh Alleghenys (AA), Washington Nationals (National League), New York Giants (NL), and New York Giants (Players League), from 1884-90. His 329 IP workload in his final season left his arm too sore to continue. Adequate but nothing great, and no hitter whatsoever. O'Day was also a manager for two seasons, in 1912 for the Cincinnati Reds and 1914 for the Chicago Cubs. Both teams finished in fourth place; O'Day finished with 153 wins and a .498 winning percentage.
It's nearly impossible to assess an umpire objectively even in modern times, and O'Day's career was a century ago. Legends tend only to grow over time. I think O'Day is a good candidate and might be a good HOFer some day, but my general view of umpires still applies, and I've already cast a fainthearted vote for Harvey. So, not this time. Impressively varied career though.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
10. (Umpire #3) Cy Rigler
Claims to fame: longtime National League umpire (1906-35, 30 years). Credited for creating umpire hand-signaling for balls and strikes, a technique he pioneered while still working in the minors. An expert in groundskeeping and field layout. Worked in ten World Series. Noted for having a thick skin and great patience during on-field arguments, and had a dominating physical presence.
Another impressive career, but like O'Day another (very) olde-tymer. If Rigler is a sufficiently critical part of baseball history (and just for the hand signals alone, he deserves a lot of credit), he should have been in the Hall before now. So, another good candidate, but not this year.
Chipmaker's vote: No.
----------
Summary of Chipmaker's Yes votes: Johnson, Murtaugh, Southworth, Harvey.
If I could vote for only one: Southworth.
Coming soon: the Executives ballot.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The Hall Of Fame's NEW Veterans Committee, part 1: The Setup
The Hall revamped the Veterans Committee after the 2001 election, primarily because it, both the Board and the constituent honorees, were tired of the format: an unaccountable handful of men, former players and retired executives and olde-tyme writers, horse-trading to put a few names in every year or two. There's more to it, but that's the boiled-down version, and it's not something worth rehashing here.
So the VC was revamped and the electorate expanded, to include all living HOFers (a group hovering in the 60-70 headcount range), all living winners of the Frick and Spink Awards (honored announcers and writers, respectively), and any members of the former VC whose terms had not yet expired. This new VC was given two mandates: vote on retired players every other year, and vote on retired managers and executives every fourth year. And the VC didn't elect any players in 2003 or 2005 or 2007, nor any managers or executives in 2003 or 2007, and neither did it show any promising trends to get around to electing anyone any time soon. So, following the third consecutive shutout in 2007, the Hall bailed on that VC design.
The NEW new Veterans Committee has a diverse membership, but the entire group doesn't vote on any single ballot. The VC now has ownership of four different ballots, each of which has a different relevant electorate. Standard conditions apply -- anyone on baseball's Ineligible List cannot be considered, 75% vote return required for election, etc. With that in mind, let's step through each new ballot.
1. The ballot: "Post-WWII Players" -- retired players who began their major league career in 1943 or later and have passed from BBWAA consideration.
Voting frequency: every other year, beginning 2008 (2009 Induction for electees).
The ballot composition: some details are still vague, but a BBWAA-appointed committee (of indeterminate size) will name 20 candidates. A separate, Hall-appointed committe (consisting of six HOFers) will name five candidates. The two lists are combined (duplicates deleted if necessary) for a draft ballot of 20-25 candidates. The living HOFers then review and cull the draft list down to a final ballot of 10 candidates.
The electorate: the living HOFers (currently 62, following the death of Phil Rizzuto) will vote the ten-candidate ballot, with 75% minimum return needed for election.
The practical upshot: being voted on only by playing peers might finally get Ron Santo the bronze plaque in 2009. I don't expect this ballot will ever elect more than one player per ballot, but I do think it will finally deliver a very select few their key to the Hall. Also, since any player debuting in 1943 would have been born around 1918-25, a window which corresponds to the current oldest HOFers (MacPhail, Feller, Musial), there's the likelihood that at least one voter has first-hand familiarity with anyone on the final ballot, which adds a depth of perspective that a page of stats just cannot provide.
2. The ballot: "Pre-WWII Players" -- retired players who began their major league career before 1943.
Voting frequency: every five years, beginning in 2008 (2009 Induction; next would be 2013 for 2014 Induction).
The ballot composition: uncertain, but likely to be crafted by a multiple-iteration review process by one or more Hall-appointed committees, which is how the Hall likes to do these things. Size of the final ballot unspecified, but probably no more than ten.
The electorate: a special committee of 12 members (HOFers, writers, and historians), appointed by the Hall Board.
The practical upshot: provides a lasting albeit very narrow doorway for olde-tymers to earn the plaque, if some lost diamond hero is uncovered or deeper research reveals some overlooked star. As I think by now there are very few remaining injustices across the long reach of history (not named Santo), I cannot imagine who might be identified for the ballot, let alone get elected. Looking back to the 2007 VC ballot, the oldest players by debut were Carl Mays (1915) and Lefty O'Doul (1919), good players but clearly not Hall caliber (and the vote return validated this). The oldest debut player that I liked for the Hall was Joe Gordon (1938). The historical research continues, and while the statistics are available for everyone maybe yet some name will jump out, but I just don't think there's any players buried in the deeps of time that really, really demand induction. This ballot seems part safety valve, part feel-good (door not locked forever), part old horse-tradin' style Veterans Committee (or at least could become abused in such a manner; 12 voters is a small enough group in which one or two proponents could wield substantial influence). Well, we'll just have to see. The five-year interval certainly makes it not a priority ballot.
3. The ballot: "Managers and Umpires" -- just what it says, though I find this a very curious pairing.
Voting frequency: every other year, beginning 2007 (2008 Induction for electees). Ballot results to be announced December 3 (whether only inductee names or actual voting totals is not yet clear).
The ballot composition: an 11-member, BBWAA-appointed committee of writers crafted the ballot of ten total candidates of retired managers and umpires. (The 2007 ballot happens to have seven managers and three umpires.) The writers who contributed to the 2007 ballot: Dave Van Dyck, Bob Elliott, Rick Hummell, Steve Hirdt, Moss Klein, Bill Madden, Ken Nigro, Jack O'Connell, Nick Peters, Tracy Ringolsby, and Mark Whicker. (It's nice to know the committee members, though I don't think it's all that important, unless someone wants to write to one or more and tell them how good or bad a job they did on crafting the ballot. At least we know who they are.)
The electorate: a 16-member committee appointed by the Hall, each for a term of one year (which is renewable). Electors may cast as many as four votes, with no write-ins. For the 2007 ballot the committee includes HOFers (Aaron, Bunning, Gibson, Jenkins, Kaline, Lasorda, Niekro, Perez, Weaver, and Billy Williams), executives (Jim Frey (retired), Roland Hemond, Bob Watson), and writers (Jack O'Connell, Tim Kurkjian, Tom Verducci). I don't like O'Connell being on both the ballot committee and the election committee as a matter of principle, but he's the only one, so I'll let that pass.
The practical upshot: Interesting that this committee is player-heavy (eight, nine counting Lasorda), plus two managers (one legendary for mixing it up with umpires), so at first glance any umpire candidate is doomed; but perhaps not. I see little need for the Hall to recognize umpires, but that'll be up to the committee.
4. The ballot: "Executives" (edit: the background issue appears to be fixed) -- anyone who did something for baseball in an office, unless there's a better definition, who is either retired or active and over age 65.
Voting frequency: every other year, beginning 2007 (2008 Induction for electees). Ballot results to be announced December 3 (whether only inductee names or actual voting totals is not yet clear).
The ballot composition: an Executive Voting Committee developed a ballot of ten candidates.
The electorate: a 12-member committee appointed by the Hall Board, each for a term of one year (which is renewable). Electors may cast as many as four votes, with no write-ins. For the 2007 ballot the committee includes HOFers (Irvin, Killebrew), executives (Bobby Brown (retired), John Harrington (retired), Jerry Bell, Bill DeWitt, Bill Giles, David Glass, Andy MacPhail), and writers (Paul Hagen, Rick Hummell, Hal McCoy).
The practical upshot: I don't see a lot of need for executives to get plaques either, as most of the true pioneers and visionaries have already been inducted. There is one enormous oversight, however -- former players union executive director Marvin Miller. With a player-heavy electorate, he'd have waltzed in by now; but with this owner/general manager dominated electorate, first impression is that he has no chance whatsoever (I cannot imagine former Wal-mart CEO David Glass ever voting for someone who not only worked for a union, but forged it into the strongest labor union the country has ever seen). Election from this ballot takes nine of 12; even with the players and writers on his side (no sure thing), Miller would still need a majority of the executives, four of seven. I could rave about Miller for pages, but the short version is that no one, no one, has had a greater or more lasting positive impact on the business of baseball than he, and that is exactly the sort of contribution that the Hall should seek to honor. Putting Miller before this electorate is either inept consideration or deliberate relegation from him having a legitmate candidacy, neither of which reflects well on the Hall or its new VC policies. Marvin Miller is without a doubt the most worthy person of the Hall who is not yet in, and making him stand before an electorate which is composed of present and former office-holders who would consider him an enemy is profoundly cruel. One can almost smell the conspiracy of "let's never let Marvin Miller get a plaque", and denying this man's historical impact on the great game is a disservice to everyone.
But then again, maybe he'll get elected. He surely deserves it, and I'd like him to be alive (he's in his 90s) when the election announcement comes.
Final comment: by expanding the mandate of the Veterans Committee and breaking its purview into four parts, each with a smaller electorate than before and a smaller ballot, the chances of this VC edition electing someone, anyone, from at least one ballot is better than it was during the 2003-07 approach. While I think that electing no one is a very valid result, the Hall (and the city of Cooperstown) has vested interest in seeing at least one person (preferably someone living) starring in the annual induction ceremony every summer -- and with Steroids Era candidates coming up in recent years (and Canseco already relegated -- not that he was Hall worthy, but he got clobbered on the ballot return), chances for many potential 1990s-window candidates are looking uncertain but dodgy. This multi-track Veterans Committee should, I think, put one or two people (or descendants thereof) on the podium, and this is a happier outcome than a perpetual "no, no one this year" response.
Coming very soon, reviews of the candidates on the Managers & Umpires and Executives ballots.
So the VC was revamped and the electorate expanded, to include all living HOFers (a group hovering in the 60-70 headcount range), all living winners of the Frick and Spink Awards (honored announcers and writers, respectively), and any members of the former VC whose terms had not yet expired. This new VC was given two mandates: vote on retired players every other year, and vote on retired managers and executives every fourth year. And the VC didn't elect any players in 2003 or 2005 or 2007, nor any managers or executives in 2003 or 2007, and neither did it show any promising trends to get around to electing anyone any time soon. So, following the third consecutive shutout in 2007, the Hall bailed on that VC design.
The NEW new Veterans Committee has a diverse membership, but the entire group doesn't vote on any single ballot. The VC now has ownership of four different ballots, each of which has a different relevant electorate. Standard conditions apply -- anyone on baseball's Ineligible List cannot be considered, 75% vote return required for election, etc. With that in mind, let's step through each new ballot.
1. The ballot: "Post-WWII Players" -- retired players who began their major league career in 1943 or later and have passed from BBWAA consideration.
Voting frequency: every other year, beginning 2008 (2009 Induction for electees).
The ballot composition: some details are still vague, but a BBWAA-appointed committee (of indeterminate size) will name 20 candidates. A separate, Hall-appointed committe (consisting of six HOFers) will name five candidates. The two lists are combined (duplicates deleted if necessary) for a draft ballot of 20-25 candidates. The living HOFers then review and cull the draft list down to a final ballot of 10 candidates.
The electorate: the living HOFers (currently 62, following the death of Phil Rizzuto) will vote the ten-candidate ballot, with 75% minimum return needed for election.
The practical upshot: being voted on only by playing peers might finally get Ron Santo the bronze plaque in 2009. I don't expect this ballot will ever elect more than one player per ballot, but I do think it will finally deliver a very select few their key to the Hall. Also, since any player debuting in 1943 would have been born around 1918-25, a window which corresponds to the current oldest HOFers (MacPhail, Feller, Musial), there's the likelihood that at least one voter has first-hand familiarity with anyone on the final ballot, which adds a depth of perspective that a page of stats just cannot provide.
2. The ballot: "Pre-WWII Players" -- retired players who began their major league career before 1943.
Voting frequency: every five years, beginning in 2008 (2009 Induction; next would be 2013 for 2014 Induction).
The ballot composition: uncertain, but likely to be crafted by a multiple-iteration review process by one or more Hall-appointed committees, which is how the Hall likes to do these things. Size of the final ballot unspecified, but probably no more than ten.
The electorate: a special committee of 12 members (HOFers, writers, and historians), appointed by the Hall Board.
The practical upshot: provides a lasting albeit very narrow doorway for olde-tymers to earn the plaque, if some lost diamond hero is uncovered or deeper research reveals some overlooked star. As I think by now there are very few remaining injustices across the long reach of history (not named Santo), I cannot imagine who might be identified for the ballot, let alone get elected. Looking back to the 2007 VC ballot, the oldest players by debut were Carl Mays (1915) and Lefty O'Doul (1919), good players but clearly not Hall caliber (and the vote return validated this). The oldest debut player that I liked for the Hall was Joe Gordon (1938). The historical research continues, and while the statistics are available for everyone maybe yet some name will jump out, but I just don't think there's any players buried in the deeps of time that really, really demand induction. This ballot seems part safety valve, part feel-good (door not locked forever), part old horse-tradin' style Veterans Committee (or at least could become abused in such a manner; 12 voters is a small enough group in which one or two proponents could wield substantial influence). Well, we'll just have to see. The five-year interval certainly makes it not a priority ballot.
3. The ballot: "Managers and Umpires" -- just what it says, though I find this a very curious pairing.
Voting frequency: every other year, beginning 2007 (2008 Induction for electees). Ballot results to be announced December 3 (whether only inductee names or actual voting totals is not yet clear).
The ballot composition: an 11-member, BBWAA-appointed committee of writers crafted the ballot of ten total candidates of retired managers and umpires. (The 2007 ballot happens to have seven managers and three umpires.) The writers who contributed to the 2007 ballot: Dave Van Dyck, Bob Elliott, Rick Hummell, Steve Hirdt, Moss Klein, Bill Madden, Ken Nigro, Jack O'Connell, Nick Peters, Tracy Ringolsby, and Mark Whicker. (It's nice to know the committee members, though I don't think it's all that important, unless someone wants to write to one or more and tell them how good or bad a job they did on crafting the ballot. At least we know who they are.)
The electorate: a 16-member committee appointed by the Hall, each for a term of one year (which is renewable). Electors may cast as many as four votes, with no write-ins. For the 2007 ballot the committee includes HOFers (Aaron, Bunning, Gibson, Jenkins, Kaline, Lasorda, Niekro, Perez, Weaver, and Billy Williams), executives (Jim Frey (retired), Roland Hemond, Bob Watson), and writers (Jack O'Connell, Tim Kurkjian, Tom Verducci). I don't like O'Connell being on both the ballot committee and the election committee as a matter of principle, but he's the only one, so I'll let that pass.
The practical upshot: Interesting that this committee is player-heavy (eight, nine counting Lasorda), plus two managers (one legendary for mixing it up with umpires), so at first glance any umpire candidate is doomed; but perhaps not. I see little need for the Hall to recognize umpires, but that'll be up to the committee.
4. The ballot: "Executives" (edit: the background issue appears to be fixed) -- anyone who did something for baseball in an office, unless there's a better definition, who is either retired or active and over age 65.
Voting frequency: every other year, beginning 2007 (2008 Induction for electees). Ballot results to be announced December 3 (whether only inductee names or actual voting totals is not yet clear).
The ballot composition: an Executive Voting Committee developed a ballot of ten candidates.
The electorate: a 12-member committee appointed by the Hall Board, each for a term of one year (which is renewable). Electors may cast as many as four votes, with no write-ins. For the 2007 ballot the committee includes HOFers (Irvin, Killebrew), executives (Bobby Brown (retired), John Harrington (retired), Jerry Bell, Bill DeWitt, Bill Giles, David Glass, Andy MacPhail), and writers (Paul Hagen, Rick Hummell, Hal McCoy).
The practical upshot: I don't see a lot of need for executives to get plaques either, as most of the true pioneers and visionaries have already been inducted. There is one enormous oversight, however -- former players union executive director Marvin Miller. With a player-heavy electorate, he'd have waltzed in by now; but with this owner/general manager dominated electorate, first impression is that he has no chance whatsoever (I cannot imagine former Wal-mart CEO David Glass ever voting for someone who not only worked for a union, but forged it into the strongest labor union the country has ever seen). Election from this ballot takes nine of 12; even with the players and writers on his side (no sure thing), Miller would still need a majority of the executives, four of seven. I could rave about Miller for pages, but the short version is that no one, no one, has had a greater or more lasting positive impact on the business of baseball than he, and that is exactly the sort of contribution that the Hall should seek to honor. Putting Miller before this electorate is either inept consideration or deliberate relegation from him having a legitmate candidacy, neither of which reflects well on the Hall or its new VC policies. Marvin Miller is without a doubt the most worthy person of the Hall who is not yet in, and making him stand before an electorate which is composed of present and former office-holders who would consider him an enemy is profoundly cruel. One can almost smell the conspiracy of "let's never let Marvin Miller get a plaque", and denying this man's historical impact on the great game is a disservice to everyone.
But then again, maybe he'll get elected. He surely deserves it, and I'd like him to be alive (he's in his 90s) when the election announcement comes.
Final comment: by expanding the mandate of the Veterans Committee and breaking its purview into four parts, each with a smaller electorate than before and a smaller ballot, the chances of this VC edition electing someone, anyone, from at least one ballot is better than it was during the 2003-07 approach. While I think that electing no one is a very valid result, the Hall (and the city of Cooperstown) has vested interest in seeing at least one person (preferably someone living) starring in the annual induction ceremony every summer -- and with Steroids Era candidates coming up in recent years (and Canseco already relegated -- not that he was Hall worthy, but he got clobbered on the ballot return), chances for many potential 1990s-window candidates are looking uncertain but dodgy. This multi-track Veterans Committee should, I think, put one or two people (or descendants thereof) on the podium, and this is a happier outcome than a perpetual "no, no one this year" response.
Coming very soon, reviews of the candidates on the Managers & Umpires and Executives ballots.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
A Valiant Pug, Remembered
When Val first moved in, more-or-less for good, she of course brought the two sister pugs, Song-hai and Mui-mui, with her, and in mid-1996 she found Chan-ho. Walking the entire pack with leashes was pointless, so we simply didn't bother. They never wandered far.
The pugs were the biggest reason we made friends with a couple down the street, David and Monet, because they had a pug also, a beefy male, almost as big as Chan-ho, named J.C. Pinkerton, or JC for short. David was also a baseball fan -- Yankees his favorite, but he's one of the delightful, sane Yankee fan types -- so whenever he stopped by on a walk, he and I could yak for an hour easily. Our pugs were always trying to be friendly with JC, but he was too used to being a solo pug. It took him months to warm up to our little pack, but eventually a reasonably warm detente was reached. Sometimes David would tell us that, while out walking with JC, neighbors would call out "where's the other two?" We loved that (three pugs are memorably noticable).
Monet amicably moved on, and David met Lori and they married and JC heartily approved of this. And then they moved to a larger home, not so far away but well beyond walking distance, a newer neighborhood on the other side of the highway. Tile floors! JC adapted. Pugs do -- comfortable places to sleep, a known spot where the food dish is, and a small yard is all they really want, so JC was good.
Our pugs, in turn, went away to that great soft blanket in the sky. But, whenever David and Lori left town, we gladly watched JC for them. It was always good to have a pug around the house again. Despite getting on in years (14 or so), and having various health concerns (some of which our pugs had had, or similar), JC was easy to caretake. Our last time keeping him was a few weeks ago, and he was in good spirits and had a typical pug appetite. JC had recently had surgery to remove some skin cancer tumors, but apparently had healed nicely. David came and picked him up, and though he seemed a bit more sluggish than usual, I didn't think anything of it.
Last week David called and told us that JC had taken a turn for the worse, and was declining fast. We talked for a while, and later that night I visited. JC was lying by the back door, apparently comfortable, but he had very little strength left -- he lifted his head to sniff my hand, but showed no interest otherwise. He didn't seem to notice my stroking his coat; he was simply exhausted, even worn out.
Since Val and I had put down three pugs -- it never gets easy, but there is small comfort in being familiar with the process -- I gave what little advice and succor that I could. JC's longtime vet could not give a promising prognosis, and from what I could tell by observing him, it was only a matter of time, or choosing to let him go. It isn't easy news to deliver, but JC was at the point that he couldn't be helped, only kept comfortable for a while. Everything David, Lori, and I discussed came back to the same conclusion. JC's tail was never up -- the sign of an unhappy pug. He had decent appetite but was slowly losing interest. He had a very hard time standing up, and his sides twitched when he exhaled, signs of losing muscle control and strength. David had found him lying in his own puddle one morning. It was miserable, but the cancer had gotten JC, and all that was left was to decide when to let him go. It is the hardest, harshest, and kindest thing an owner ever can do for a pet, but it becomes that or let the wee beastie descend into physical ruin. A clean death is the humane choice, no matter how dismal it is.
JC hardly moved the entire time I was there, at least an hour -- lifted his head a little, shifted a tiny bit, but otherwise just snoozed and snored. He was a sweet pug, a good pug -- well, they all are, really.
Last Wednesday, David and Lori took JC to his vet and let him go.
Goodbye, big pug, our "fourth pug". Very glad to have known you, and so sorry you had to go. You were well loved, JC.
Dogs' lives are too short, and really, that is their only flaw.
----------
Euthanizing a cherished pet is a rotten decision, but one nearly every pet owner has to face sooner or later. There is no easy way to get to that decision; the best pets are like family. When we let each pug go -- they each had different terminal conditions -- it was a question of the quality of their respective lives. We couldn't do anything more but give them the kindness of release from their misery (and yes, they were miserable; we probably kept each one a little longer than we should, but it was very, very hard to let them go, even as we watched them obviously dying). So, here is a short list of advice I give to people having to make this ultimate choice for their animal friend.
1. The pet's quality of life -- are they ever happy any more? If they aren't enthused about eating (dogs in particular) or being stroked or scritched, they are not happy. Your vet probably won't suggest euthanasia, but will take you to the brink of that choice. Listen deeper to his or her advice. When your pet has nothing left, let them go -- keeping them longer is mostly for your sake, and that's not helping your pet.
2. Be there for your pet when he goes. You've been a good owner this long, don't abandon him now. He deserves that much. And it's not so bad -- they fall asleep, and are at peace.
3. Think about how to treat the remains. Cremation, burial at home, pet cemetery -- decide on something ahead of time.
4. Decide what to do with no-longer-needed toys, leashes, etc. Any remaining food should be donated to the local shelter or Humane Society, they can always use it.
5. It's okay to take pictures. Someday you may want to remember those last moments, or afterwards.
6. You are doing a kind thing. Good pets don't deserve to suffer.
7. When you are ready, later, there are many, many good animals -- dogs and cats and others -- waiting to be adopted, and wanting nothing more than a welcoming home. Rescue another animal that is not in need of the final nap. You'll both be glad you did.
The pugs were the biggest reason we made friends with a couple down the street, David and Monet, because they had a pug also, a beefy male, almost as big as Chan-ho, named J.C. Pinkerton, or JC for short. David was also a baseball fan -- Yankees his favorite, but he's one of the delightful, sane Yankee fan types -- so whenever he stopped by on a walk, he and I could yak for an hour easily. Our pugs were always trying to be friendly with JC, but he was too used to being a solo pug. It took him months to warm up to our little pack, but eventually a reasonably warm detente was reached. Sometimes David would tell us that, while out walking with JC, neighbors would call out "where's the other two?" We loved that (three pugs are memorably noticable).
Monet amicably moved on, and David met Lori and they married and JC heartily approved of this. And then they moved to a larger home, not so far away but well beyond walking distance, a newer neighborhood on the other side of the highway. Tile floors! JC adapted. Pugs do -- comfortable places to sleep, a known spot where the food dish is, and a small yard is all they really want, so JC was good.
Our pugs, in turn, went away to that great soft blanket in the sky. But, whenever David and Lori left town, we gladly watched JC for them. It was always good to have a pug around the house again. Despite getting on in years (14 or so), and having various health concerns (some of which our pugs had had, or similar), JC was easy to caretake. Our last time keeping him was a few weeks ago, and he was in good spirits and had a typical pug appetite. JC had recently had surgery to remove some skin cancer tumors, but apparently had healed nicely. David came and picked him up, and though he seemed a bit more sluggish than usual, I didn't think anything of it.
Last week David called and told us that JC had taken a turn for the worse, and was declining fast. We talked for a while, and later that night I visited. JC was lying by the back door, apparently comfortable, but he had very little strength left -- he lifted his head to sniff my hand, but showed no interest otherwise. He didn't seem to notice my stroking his coat; he was simply exhausted, even worn out.
Since Val and I had put down three pugs -- it never gets easy, but there is small comfort in being familiar with the process -- I gave what little advice and succor that I could. JC's longtime vet could not give a promising prognosis, and from what I could tell by observing him, it was only a matter of time, or choosing to let him go. It isn't easy news to deliver, but JC was at the point that he couldn't be helped, only kept comfortable for a while. Everything David, Lori, and I discussed came back to the same conclusion. JC's tail was never up -- the sign of an unhappy pug. He had decent appetite but was slowly losing interest. He had a very hard time standing up, and his sides twitched when he exhaled, signs of losing muscle control and strength. David had found him lying in his own puddle one morning. It was miserable, but the cancer had gotten JC, and all that was left was to decide when to let him go. It is the hardest, harshest, and kindest thing an owner ever can do for a pet, but it becomes that or let the wee beastie descend into physical ruin. A clean death is the humane choice, no matter how dismal it is.
JC hardly moved the entire time I was there, at least an hour -- lifted his head a little, shifted a tiny bit, but otherwise just snoozed and snored. He was a sweet pug, a good pug -- well, they all are, really.
Last Wednesday, David and Lori took JC to his vet and let him go.
Goodbye, big pug, our "fourth pug". Very glad to have known you, and so sorry you had to go. You were well loved, JC.
Dogs' lives are too short, and really, that is their only flaw.
----------
Euthanizing a cherished pet is a rotten decision, but one nearly every pet owner has to face sooner or later. There is no easy way to get to that decision; the best pets are like family. When we let each pug go -- they each had different terminal conditions -- it was a question of the quality of their respective lives. We couldn't do anything more but give them the kindness of release from their misery (and yes, they were miserable; we probably kept each one a little longer than we should, but it was very, very hard to let them go, even as we watched them obviously dying). So, here is a short list of advice I give to people having to make this ultimate choice for their animal friend.
1. The pet's quality of life -- are they ever happy any more? If they aren't enthused about eating (dogs in particular) or being stroked or scritched, they are not happy. Your vet probably won't suggest euthanasia, but will take you to the brink of that choice. Listen deeper to his or her advice. When your pet has nothing left, let them go -- keeping them longer is mostly for your sake, and that's not helping your pet.
2. Be there for your pet when he goes. You've been a good owner this long, don't abandon him now. He deserves that much. And it's not so bad -- they fall asleep, and are at peace.
3. Think about how to treat the remains. Cremation, burial at home, pet cemetery -- decide on something ahead of time.
4. Decide what to do with no-longer-needed toys, leashes, etc. Any remaining food should be donated to the local shelter or Humane Society, they can always use it.
5. It's okay to take pictures. Someday you may want to remember those last moments, or afterwards.
6. You are doing a kind thing. Good pets don't deserve to suffer.
7. When you are ready, later, there are many, many good animals -- dogs and cats and others -- waiting to be adopted, and wanting nothing more than a welcoming home. Rescue another animal that is not in need of the final nap. You'll both be glad you did.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
The Hall Of Fame's NEW New Veterans Committee
Following the third consecutive shutout by the Veterans Committee in February, the Hall decided to revamp the VC yet again, since the 2001 respin clearly wasn't doing anything that couldn't be accomplished by having no VC at all (which is, at times, an appealing thought). I knew about this, the Hall rather slipped the only press release under the door during the All-Star hoopla in July (where it got totally ignored), and have a few words to say about it, but the quick version is that the ballots will be smaller, and therefore it is more likely that someone will get elected. Which will be a good thing, as there are a few names deserving the honor.
There are two ballots, results of which will be announced in early December, one for managers and umpires (curious pairing, that) and another for executives. The candidate selection and ballot constitution methodologies also got revised, and we'll get to that soon as well. To conclude, here are the candidates, ten names per ballot (another new wrinkle):
Managers (7) & umpires (3): Whitey Herzog, Davey Johnson, Billy Martin, Gene Mauch, Danny Murtaugh, Billy Southworth, and Dick Williams; Doug Harvey, Hank O'Day, and Cy Rigler.
Executives: Buzzie Bavasi, Barney Dreyfuss, John Fetzer, Bob Howsam, Ewing Kauffman, Bowie Kuhn, John McHale, Marvin Miller, Walter O'Malley, Gabe Paul.
In the next few days I'll review the names that were not included in the February 2007 voting, with very brief recaps of those who were, because I cannot imagine my opinions have changed since then.
The one name that jumps off the page is, of course, longtime MLBPA executive director Marvin Miller, who had greater and longer-lasting impact upon the game than any other off-field personnel in the history of the game.
There are two ballots, results of which will be announced in early December, one for managers and umpires (curious pairing, that) and another for executives. The candidate selection and ballot constitution methodologies also got revised, and we'll get to that soon as well. To conclude, here are the candidates, ten names per ballot (another new wrinkle):
Managers (7) & umpires (3): Whitey Herzog, Davey Johnson, Billy Martin, Gene Mauch, Danny Murtaugh, Billy Southworth, and Dick Williams; Doug Harvey, Hank O'Day, and Cy Rigler.
Executives: Buzzie Bavasi, Barney Dreyfuss, John Fetzer, Bob Howsam, Ewing Kauffman, Bowie Kuhn, John McHale, Marvin Miller, Walter O'Malley, Gabe Paul.
In the next few days I'll review the names that were not included in the February 2007 voting, with very brief recaps of those who were, because I cannot imagine my opinions have changed since then.
The one name that jumps off the page is, of course, longtime MLBPA executive director Marvin Miller, who had greater and longer-lasting impact upon the game than any other off-field personnel in the history of the game.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Backpacking through the years
Our daughter Amalie began school this year, and so needed a backpack. Not for hauling around books other than the occasional library check-out; kindergarten doesn't impose great demands on classical academics. So I picked up an appropriately pink roller model at Target (the rollers were Amie's idea).
Then we switched her school -- the private institution just wasn't the place for her -- and the new school, public, strongly recommends against roller models. So, off to Target, where there was still a good supply, now on clearance sale. A new, similar, pink backpack was procured.
And soon, the loop handle ripped. Given how light the loads within have been, this was unacceptable quality. It went back to Target, and a third, different, yet still pink backpack was acquired.
And the loop ripped on this one, too. Feh. Enough is enough -- there's no substitute for quality, so last night I ordered a JanSport brand bag for Amalie, pink of course. I've been using a JanSport since college, lo over two decades ago, and while it now looks (and is) beaten to hell, it is still enduring. Loop handle intact, straps firmly anchored, tough suede leather bottom (nothing can Take It like suede), zippers strong. Some of the seams have burst, but the way I've treated this pack over the years, I'm more than impressed. So it'll be a JanSport for Amalie as well. Unless she needs something bigger, she'll still be using it in 20 years, you betcha. And mine, past 40, will probably still be around as well.
Then we switched her school -- the private institution just wasn't the place for her -- and the new school, public, strongly recommends against roller models. So, off to Target, where there was still a good supply, now on clearance sale. A new, similar, pink backpack was procured.
And soon, the loop handle ripped. Given how light the loads within have been, this was unacceptable quality. It went back to Target, and a third, different, yet still pink backpack was acquired.
And the loop ripped on this one, too. Feh. Enough is enough -- there's no substitute for quality, so last night I ordered a JanSport brand bag for Amalie, pink of course. I've been using a JanSport since college, lo over two decades ago, and while it now looks (and is) beaten to hell, it is still enduring. Loop handle intact, straps firmly anchored, tough suede leather bottom (nothing can Take It like suede), zippers strong. Some of the seams have burst, but the way I've treated this pack over the years, I'm more than impressed. So it'll be a JanSport for Amalie as well. Unless she needs something bigger, she'll still be using it in 20 years, you betcha. And mine, past 40, will probably still be around as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
