When the baseball industry makes its way to Las Vegas this weekend for the winter meetings, among the early arrivals will be the members of the 16-person "Hall of Fame-appointed electorate," which is charged with evaluating the candidacies of the 10 names on the Today's Game Era ballot for possible enshrinement in Cooperstown.
Before the deliberations even begin, the electorate's outcome is preordained to be disappointing. That's because the ballot they will be evaluating is incomplete. Here are the names under consideration:
Harold Baines, player
Albert Belle, player
Joe Carter, player
Will Clark, player
Orel Hershiser, player
Lee Smith, player
Davey Johnson, player and manager
Charlie Manuel, manager
Lou Piniella, player and manager
George Steinbrenner, owner
Here is a name that is not under consideration: Mark McGwire, player.
The last time the Hall examined this era was in 2016. The 10 names that ended up on that ballot were: Baines, Belle, Clark, Hershiser, Johnson, McGwire, Piniella, John Schuerholz, Bud Selig and Steinbrenner.
Selig and Schuerholz made it; the others did not. The new names on the ballot are Smith, Carter and Manuel. McGwire is the only one who dropped off without being elected. In case you're wondering, the veteran sportswriters who prepared the ballot this time were the exact same ones who did it last time. I'm not going to call out these people, as I have deep respect for all of them, but this is just wrong.
I'll be honest with you: I'm pretty sick of the self-righteous moralizing that surrounds the PED issue, and even more sick of the assumptions that continue to be made about the topic in general. It's an issue too deep to dispatch within a paragraph, so I'll leave it at that. Maybe I'll write a book about it afterward.
In any event, trying to pretend that Mark McGwire never existed is not the way to go. Clearly some fresh perspectives on these committees are needed.
With that out of the way, let me order the candidates from most deserving to the least-most deserving. (I don't really want to call any of these accomplished individuals "least deserving," but I guess that's the nature of any kind of ranking.)
N/A Mark McGwire: A no-brainer. There are two paths to Hall worthiness in my way of thinking, and either of them can get a player to Cooperstown. One is short-term dominance, as defined by the best 10-year stretch of a player's career. I choose 10 years as it's the minimum career duration for Hall eligibility, as defined by the overseers in Cooperstown. The other path is by compiling career numbers worthy of inclusion. McGwire gets in both ways.
In his dominant decade, McGwire created 532 runs above league average between 1991 and 2000, according to the Complete Baseball Encyclopedia. Among players of the Today's Game period (since 1988), only Barry Bonds (an astonishing 1,035 RCAA in his best stretch), Manny Ramirez (597) and Edgar Martinez (537) enjoyed a more productive decade at the plate.
On the career-numbers front, McGwire ranks 75th all time in career offensive WAR, per Baseball-reference.com. He's 81st in on-base percentage, seventh is slugging, 10th in OPS, 13th in OPS+ and 74th in RBIs. Most of all, his 583 career home runs rank 11th in baseball history.
None of this, apparently, is enough to remain on the Today's Game ballot.
1. Davey Johnson: Johnson was a four-time All-Star and a three-time Gold Glover as a big league second baseman, so his playing career was no joke. But with 27.6 career WAR, he was no Hall of Famer and dropped off the ballot after his first year of eligibility, earning three votes. His Hall case rests entirely on his fine record as a manager.
Johnson won 1,372 games as a skipper, ranking 31st all time. Twenty-one of the managers ahead of him are already in the Hall, while four others were active as of the 2018 season. The others are Gene Mauch, Ralph Houk and recent retirees Dusty Baker, Piniella and Jim Leyland. Johnson's .562 winning percentage is better than any of those non-Hall of Famers who happened to win more games.
Baseball-reference.com has a rating for managers called AvRk, which is the average finish in a division or league, weighted for games managed. Among managers with at least 10 seasons, only one ranks ahead of Johnson -- Charlie Manuel. Johnson's teams made the postseason six times, and he famously guided the 1986 Mets to the World Series championship. And while that team was obviously bursting with talent, keeping that particular collection of personalities on track was no small feat.
Johnson is a Hall of Fame manager, as far as I'm concerned.
2. George Steinbrenner: Steinbrenner was certainly as famous as any owner we've had in sports. His methods -- reckless spending, impetuous decision-making -- were terrific fodder for sportswriters over the decades. The bottom line, though, is that when he acquired the Yankees from CBS in 1973, baseball's marquee franchise was in ruins. Now, it's one of the most valuable franchises in sports.
From the point that Steinbrenner acquired the Yankees until 2009, the last full season before Steinbrenner died, New York won 115 more games than any other club in baseball. The Bronx Bombers also nearly doubled the number of postseason wins of any team, winning 114 playoff contests compared to 63 for the second-place Braves.
There were character issues, of course. He received a lifetime ban from managing the day-to-day activities of the Yankees in the early '90s, which commissioner Fay Vincent revoked a little more than two years later. That was at the start of a period in which New York finally shook off its stupor early in that decade, developed a host of homegrown talents such as Derek Jeter, and began a streak of winning seasons that began in 1993 and continues to this day. He was also suspended during the 1970s for some Richard Nixon-related business.
Do we or do we not give Steinbrenner credit for being such a hands-on owner? That's a hard question to answer, but certainly he was more hands-on than most current ownership groups, and less so than most of those in baseball's early days. Meddlesome ownership is often a common thread among perennially struggling franchises, but the Yankees were anything but struggling for the duration of Steinbrenner's tenure.
Many owners in the Hall also contributed to baseball in some other significant way. Charles Comiskey played and managed, as did Connie Mack. Larry MacPhail was a successful executive. Bud Selig was one of baseball's longest-serving commissioners. Others, like William Hulbert and Barney Dreyfuss, were pioneers in baseball's early days. None of these are particularly good comparisons for Steinbrenner.
Who would actually be in The Boss' peer group if he were enshrined? Best I can tell, there really isn't anyone. There are a handful of people who were strictly owners: Walter O'Malley, Jacob Ruppert, Tom Yawkey and Bill Veeck. Historic figures all, but all lacking in terms of being Steinbrenner-like. Much of that has to do with the era -- being an owner in the television/free agency/internet/social media age is a very different thing.
Really, we have to accept that there is no good standard in play here. The question I come back to is this: If we are going to start putting post-expansion owners into the Hall, is Steinbrenner the most worthy owner of his time? If he's going to be the first, that's the designation he ought to have.
I think he is.
3. Lou Piniella: Like Johnson, Piniella had a nice playing career, winning Rookie of the Year honors for the Royals in 1969 and playing until age 40. He toiled for the Yankees during his last 11 seasons as a platooning outfielder and hit over .300 five times and helped the Yankees to four World Series. Also, he finished with 12.5 career WAR, topping out at 3.7, and like Johnson, he fell off the ballot after his first year, getting two votes in 1990.
Of course, by then Piniella was already racking up wins as a manager, and only 15 skippers have won more than his 1,835. He's within 100 career wins of three other non-Hall of Fame managers: Mauch, Baker and Leyland. Baker leads that quartet in winning percentage -- Piniella's was a modest .517 -- and also in postseason appearances with nine. (Piniella had eight.) Leyland is the only one of them to win a title and also had the most pennants, with three. Piniella and Baker both won a single pennant, while Mauch famously never got one.
So how do you separate those managers? It's tough. Piniella's winning percentage is skewed by his three seasons of .412 baseball with the then-Tampa Bay Devil Rays, but then again, that's part of his record. However, the Rays were the only one of the five clubs Piniella managed that did not either make the postseason or win 90 games during his tenure. He usually had a swift, positive impact after taking over. And he led the Seattle Mariners to a record-tying 116 wins in 2001.
Piniella's is a less-certain case for me than Johnson's, but I'd put him in. He certainly had a Hall of Fame-worthy presence, and when motivated, he could give a heck of a news conference.
This is the cutoff between those who I think should get in and those who shouldn't. However, I will rank the entire ballot.
4. Albert Belle: Belle's career was a short one, by Hall standards, ending at age 34 because of a hip condition. In terms of performance, the focus would have to squarely be on at least a decade of dominance. Before I get to that, I'll stipulate that Belle falls well short on the cuddliness scale. He yelled and cursed at reporters -- an impulse I can understand -- but he also was suspended for corking his bat and served time after his playing career for stalking an ex-girlfriend. I prefer to focus on performance, but I have never said character-related factors should never be mentioned.
As for that short-term performance, Belle was one of the most feared hitters of his day, even during an era of heightened offensive expectation. Yet his bottom-line production was still uneven for a Hall candidate once you account for the era in which his numbers were compiled. His best 10-year WAR score is just 41.1, ranking 318th in baseball history. Among recent players just ahead of him who have had better 10-year runs are Dan Haren, Curtis Granderson and Ian Kinsler.
In terms of raw production, Belle's numbers are eye-popping. His 1,173 runs created from 1991 to 2000 rank as the 62nd-best offensive decade a player has had. That ranks one spot ahead of Jeter. However, the average big-league hitter would have created 823 runs during that span, given his opportunities. By comparison, the average hitter compiled just 668 runs during George Brett's best 10-year run. It was just so hard to stand out during Belle's best years, and his defense and base-running metrics only harm his cause.
5. Orel Hershiser: During a period from about 1987 to 1989, Hershiser was the best pitcher in the National League. And, of course, his 1988 season was one for the history books, featuring 23 wins, eight shutouts and a record 59 consecutive scoreless innings. He was also MVP in both the NL Championship Series and the World Series that year in helping the Dodgers win their last championship. (No, they didn't give the World Series MVP that season to Kirk Gibson for that one memorable at-bat, even though I think a lot of people remember it that way.)
Beyond those three top-of-the-game seasons, the rest of Hershiser's career was very good but didn't quite live up to the standard established by that great run. His best decade rated only a couple of slots ahead of Belle's, and even though he played until age 41, Hershiser only put up a little over 11 WAR outside of his best 10 seasons. Beyond 1988, Hershiser was a clutch playoff pitcher over 22 career appearances in October, going 8-3 with a 2.59 ERA. But despite the dazzling high spots on Hershiser's resume, there is just not enough there to get in.
6. Will Clark: Clark, at his best, was a Hall-caliber player. We just didn't get to see him enough at his best. In 1989, he posted 8.6 WAR, finishing second in the NL MVP race to teammate Kevin Mitchell. The award should have gone to Clark, who might have been the best player in baseball that season. From 1987 to 1991, he averaged 5.6 WAR per season. If he had maintained that pace for even a full decade, his 10-year peak would have ranked in the top 90 or so all time. As it turned out, Clark played 140 games or more in only seven seasons. He was always good and as consistent as they came, but there were just too many injuries.
7. Harold Baines: I can't get there with Baines. He compiled some nice numbers over 22 seasons, including 2,866 hits and 384 home runs. However, much of that production came in one of baseball's most extreme offensive environments. He received MVP votes in only four seasons, never finishing higher than ninth.
His best 10-year stretch in WAR was 24.7, which barely ranks among the top 1,000 all time. He has to get in based on career value and, indeed, his non-peak WAR ranks 164th. Still, that's not a Hall of Fame portrait. He led the league in slugging percentage once, and that's about it in terms of the leaderboard. He DH'd in well over half of his career appearances, so he brings little to the table in terms of a defensive record, and he wasn't much better on the basepaths.
Fine player and person. Just not a Hall of Famer.
8. Lee Smith: In Jay Jaffe's JAWS system, Smith ranks 16th among relievers, ahead of Bruce Sutter, Trevor Hoffman and Rollie Fingers. All three are quasi-modern closers; all three are in the Hall of Fame. Smith ranks third on the career saves list. In terms of win probability added, Smith ranks 12th among relievers, suggesting he was no mere compiler of saves. He pitched 80 or more relief innings in eight different seasons, underscoring that fact.
I do fear over-recognizing short relievers in the Hall, but I also feel like we have to acknowledge a position group that has become so crucial to winning in modern baseball. The key question is whether Smith raises the bar for Hall relievers. I'm not sure he does. I say this because of those who rate ahead of him in some of those key aforementioned metrics, beyond saves. If we put Smith in, do we have to stump for Troy Percival, Tug McGraw, Jonathan Papelbon and Joe Nathan as well? I don't think so.
9. Charlie Manuel: I'll admit it: The degree to which Manuel succeeded as a manager kind of snuck up on me. As mentioned, he is the all-time leader in AvRk -- which measures the average finish in a division or league (minimum of 10 seasons). But comparing managers in the six-division era to those who came before in this way is awkward, at best. His .548 winning percentage ranks 21st, using that same 10-year minimum. Manuel won exactly 1,000 games as a manager, ranking 64th all time, and he led the Phillies to the title in 2008.
Manuel doesn't get over the bar for me, as fine as his career was. It was also unlikely, especially given the plummeting average age of new managers since he retired. These days, it's hard to say whether he ever would have received the chance in today's game. Manuel was 56 when he landed his first big league gig, with Cleveland in 1990.
While I don't think Manuel merits inclusion, there is another factor to consider. Last July, when slugger Jim Thome was inducted into Cooperstown, he lauded the work that Manuel did with him as the Indians' hitting coach. Manuel served as the Cleveland hitting coach from 1988 to 1989, and again from 1994 to 1999. During that latter tenure, the Indians featured one of the most potent offenses of our time. If, in the future, we are able to better quantify the work of the top hitting and pitching coaches, and cases can be made for their inclusion in Cooperstown, Manuel could package that production with his fine managerial record and merit another look.
10. Joe Carter: I'll resist the urge to compare Carter's numbers to McGwire's directly, though he was added to the ballot and McGwire was dropped. Still, Carter deserves to have his case looked at on its own merits. It's not much of a case. He ranks 1,283rd in peak 10-year WAR and was actually below replacement beyond that decade. Carter managed to drive in more than 100 runs three times while posting an OPS+ under 100. Anyway, Carter doesn't need to hang a plaque in Cooperstown. He'll always be remembered for one thing: one of the most dramatic homers in World Series history.
Shiftless
Writing at the Athletic, Jayson Stark suggests that owners are considering banning the extreme defensive shifts that have stirred so much discussion in the game the past few years. This, my friends, would be a largely pointless rule change and a potentially damaging one.
For one thing, it would be an unprecedented alteration of a fundamental part of the sport. Other than the pitcher and the catcher, there has never been a restriction on where defensive players can stand on the field. This, I fear, would lead to some unpleasant unintended consequences.
For another thing, the actual effect of the change would be largely imperceptible. Sure, maybe when Anthony Rizzo tops a ball, he might be more likely to find his way to first base. The unpleasant aesthetic would be absent, and some observant fans might appreciate that. But would Rizzo -- and hitters like him -- stop trying to yank the ball into the right-field bleachers? Of course not. By reducing the downside for dead-pull hitting, more lefty sluggers are going to be encouraged to adopt that approach.
I'd prefer to let the competitive aspects of the game evolve organically. With the shift, we know who the shift guys are and evaluate them accordingly. The hope is that teams will start to target and value hitters who aren't easily undermined by defensive configuration. At the very least, teams should want to minimize the number of shiftable, dead-pull hitters on their roster in pursuit of the kind of balanced offense that has worked so well for the Astros and Red Sox over the past two years.
Besides, the biggest issue right now isn't the shift. It's strikeouts. When teams start targeting and developing players with more consistent bat-to-ball skills and the ability to utilize the whole field, the shift will no longer seem like a big deal. This is not something that needs to be legislated.
There is one caveat to this: A couple of players have told me that one problem with the shift is that by putting a fielder directly behind second base, it in effect messes with their field of vision, making it harder to pick up the ball out of the pitcher's hand. If that is a widespread issue -- and I don't know if it is -- that is something that could be looked at.