I am glad to see Martinez doing so well in the balloting; he is in an area that suggests he will eventually get there.   The argument against him, of course, is that he was a one-way player, "just" a hitter.   It’s a little bit like arguing that Gwyneth Paltrow can’t sing.   How important is that, really, when you’re making a movie?   Does everybody have to sing?  Does Henry Fonda have to sing to be considered a great entertainer?

             Somebody has to play defense, of course, and we have to apply some penalty to Martinez’ numbers because he didn’t.   In my system we have him with a defensive won-lost record of 11-37—11-15 through 1994, when he was trying to play third base, and 0-22 after 1994, when he was strictly DHing.  His hitting contributions with the bat were so immense that, to me, he’s a Hall of Famer anyway, based on what he did with the lumber.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Alomar, as you all know, was the top vote-getter in the actual balloting, winning election in his second year of eligibility, with 90% of the vote.   On the one hand, I don’t disagree with the vote; Alomar is a deserving Hall of Famer, and I would have voted for him had I had a ten-man ballot.   On the other hand,  I don’t really see that Alomar was the best player on the ballot.   I have him as the 8^th best.

            Roberto Alomar won ten Gold Gloves.   That, I think, is the real issue; I don’t believe, honestly, that Roberto Alomar was such a superior defensive second baseman that he deserved ten Gold Gloves.   I think he probably deserved one—the National League Gold Glove in 1988, his rookie season.   I think he won his Gold Gloves the same way that Derek Jeter wins them:  with his bat and his reputation. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Probably enough has been said about Mark McGwire’s Hall of Fame candidacy.    To clarify my position:   I would vote for him, and I think the position that steroid players shouldn’t go into the Hall of Fame is ultimately untenable.   I’m not saying that you have to support him if you don’t want to; if you choose to disqualify him for steroid use, that’s fine with me.   I’m not saying that the Hall of Fame will forgive the steroid users.   I am saying that trying to draw a line between steroid users and non-steroid users requires more sophistication than is ultimately possible in the collective thought of a group of people.   The way that history will ultimately resolve it is, you’re going to have to keep them all out, or it’s not an issue.  It will be impossible to keep them all out, because in fact there are probably some who are already in there; therefore, in the long run it will not be an issue.

            These 36 players had a eleven total seasons with a Win Share Value of 40 or more, which I designate as an MVP level of value.   McGwire’s 1998 season was the best season by any player in this group:

             In fact, the group of players won eight MVP Awards—two each by Gonzalez and Murphy, and one each by Bagwell, Mattingly, Dave Parker and Barry Larkin.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Barry Larkin should be selected to the Hall of Fame next year, and it will be a good selection.   I evaluate Larkin as the best defensive player in this group of 36 players:

            Fred McGriff hit 493 Home Runs, just short of a number (500) that has traditionally represented automatic elevation into Cooperstown.   McGriff’s performance is being downgraded, I believe, because people think, "Well, he didn’t actually hit 500 homers; he just came close to 500 homers, and anyway, 500 home runs are not what they used to be, before the steroid era; maybe 600 home runs is the new 500.  He had good numbers, but he didn’t have the big, big numbers that Larry Walker did, or Bagwell, or Todd Helton."

            McGriff’s numbers are being discounted by intuition, which is a normal thing; only a few of us really study the numbers.   Almost everybody interprets them by intuition, which is fine.   But I think if you really study the numbers, rather than adjust them by intuition, McGriff was a great player.    For one thing, he has John Olerud’s problem:  too many walks.   McGriff had 300 more walks than an average first baseman in his era, 157 more homers, 200 more RBI.  It’s much more than one pennant’s worth of advantages.

            With Fred McGriff, we have entered the "B" group of candidates:

GROUP A

Win Share Value 450 or more

Obvious Hall of Famers

GROUP B

Win Share Value 400 to 449

Obvious Hall of Famers

More-than-Qualified Hall of Famers of a type who are almost universally selected fairly quickly.

            McGriff has a Win Share value of 403.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            His election ended a long controversy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            I think in general you’re a Hall of Famer if you are one hundred "games"—one hundred thirds of a game—over .500, because at +100 you have, in essence, won your teams a pennant.  Tim Raines is plus two hundred.   He’s two Hall of Famers.

            In 1983 the Montreal Expos scored only 677 runs as a team.   Raines scored 133 of them—easily the highest percentage of his team’s runs that any of these players scored in any season:

            There have been 49 seasons since 1900 in which a player has had 50 stolen bases and a .400 on base percentage—eight by Rickey Henderson, eight by Ty Cobb, five by Joe Morgan, five by Honus Wagner, four by Eddie Collins, three by Tim Raines.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Palmeiro in 1993 hit .295 with 37 homers; he later hit 38 or more homers for nine straight years, often hitting over .300.  How, then, is the 37-homer season his best?

            Context, and defense.  In 1993, as the steroid era was just getting started, his offensive context was 4.51 runs per 27 outs (league runs/27 outs, park-adjusted.)   In his later years the run context was almost always over 5.00, and several years around or over 5.50.   Also, his defensive contribution in 1993 was 4-3; in his later years it was typically 1-3 or 1-4.    

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Same thing for Bagwell as Palmeiro; his 1996 stats don’t look as good as his stats in later years, but if you adjust for the offensive context, they’re actually better.   In 1996 his context was 4.33 runs per game.   In 2000 it was 5.39.

            We rated players here by how far they are above a .250 replacement level.   If we had rated them instead by how far they were above a .400 replacement level, this is how it would have changed the list: