HOF 2009 - Here's who I'd vote for

Let's talk about the 2009 Hall of Fame candidates...

There are five guys who would get my votes this year - if I had a ballot to fill out - and while I fully understand a few of them will never get in I have to put this stuff out there because I think the majority of HOF voters use screwed up criteria to make their selections.

I'm not calling the BBWAA a bunch of idiots - I have a good number of friends who are BBWAA members and they're some of the smartest people (not just in terms of baseball) that I know. What I do think, however, is that too many BBWAA members judge by a strange set of criteria that seems to change from case to case.

Far too offten it's about statistical milestones, too much about the quality of the team someone played on and too little about things like defense and excellence within one's era.

A guy like Tony Perez gets in the Hall, in my opinion based partly on the fact that he played for the Big Red Machine, while a guy like Ron Santo sits and waits while his health fails him because he had the bad fortune of playing for lesser teams.

Consider:

Perez (1964-1986): 2777 G, 9778 AB, 2732 H, 379 HR, 1652 RBI, OPS+ 122, 7-time All-Star, no Gold Gloves

Santo (1960-1974): 2243 G, 8143 AB, 2254 H, 342 HR, 1331 RBI, OPS+ 125, 9-time All-Star, 5 Gold Gloves

So what we have here is pretty obvious. Santo was the better player, especially during the 11-year period when their careers overlapped, and is still on the outside looking in mostly because voters seem to have an illogical distaste for adding a fourth player from some bad Cubbie teams.

Santo was clearly the dominant third baseman of his era in the National League, his offensive numbers are superior to those of Brooks Robinson and he was clearly the better defensive player compared to Perez, who spent the majority of his career at first base rather than third.

The guy posts similar offensive numbers, has more All-Star appearances and 5 Gold Gloves compared to zero for the other guy and there isn't something strange going on here?

This is just one example of what bugs about the Hall of Fame voting process. Too many people with goofy, nonsensical standards that don't stand up to any logical analysis whatsoever. Another example of that is coming up in a couple of paragraphs...

With all that out of my system now, let's move on to the players who would receive my votes for the 2009 HOF class:

Rickey Henderson - No need to make any points here as I doubt anyone disagrees that this guy's a Hall of Famer. Best leadoff man of all-time. What will tick me off, however, is the fact that some voters will leave him off their ballots this year as a means of ensuring that no player will ever be a unanimous selection. Now there's something that drives me nuts. This idea that since nobody in the inaugural HOF class was a unanimous choice nobody should EVER be is just plain stupid.

Here's the logic - some voters were complete, unadulterated idiots 70 years ago therefore we must act like idiots now.

Unreal.

Andre Dawson - Another guy, like Santo, who suffers because he wasn't on good teams often enough. 438 homers, 314 steals, Rookie of the Year, MVP (and runner up twice), 8-time All-Star, 4-time Silver Slugger winner and 8 Gold Gloves.

That's not a Hall of Famer? The only differences between Dawson and Dave Winfield is that Winfield played in 300 more games and that Dawson didn't play for the Yankees.

Jack Morris - How can someone be the best pitcher in baseball for an entire decade and not be a Hall of Famer? Morris was the "Pitcher of the 80's" - nobody was better for an entire decade and he was a top of the rotation starter through 1992. Three more wins than Bob Gibson, though he did play in 21 more games and while his career ERA is a full run higher than Gibby's (3.91 to 2.90) it's important to note that Morris pitched in the American League during a more hitter-friendly era (w/ DH's) while Gibson pitched in the "Old School" National League, complete with 3-foot tall mounds.

Don't get me wrong, Gibson was CLEARLY superior to Morris, vastly superior in just about every way. I'm just trying to point out that Morris has numbers similar to an automatic Hall of Famer and yet he gets almost no love. Morris was the #1 starter on THREE different World Series winners, a 5-time All-Star and a World Series MVP.

All that and he was the best pitcher in baseball from 1979-1992.

Jim Rice - 1978 MVP, 8-time All-Star with 382 homers and 1451 RBI in just 2089 career games and he's not in the Hall? Really?

It took Winfield nearly 900 extra games to hit 83 more home runs and drive in 382 more runs. That's an extra 5 1/2 seasons. That tells me Rice was pretty productive, doesn't it?

I'm not picking on Winfield, by the way. I think he was a great choice and is certainly a Hall of Famer. He was an amazing all-around player, something I respect. I only use him as an example because he played in the same era, roughly speaking, as Dawson and Rice and because nobody questions his credentials.

Rice belongs...

Alan Trammell - This is a case that drives me nuts. Trammell was essentially the same player as Robin Yount and yet he sits outside Cooperstown because Yount played long enough to reach 3,000 hits. Compare their average seasons:

Trammell: .285, 13 HR, 71 RBI, 17 SB, 110 OPS+
Yount: .285, 14 HR, 80 RBI, 15 SB, 115 OPS+

In other words, over time their offensive production was just about the same. Yount was a little better with the bat but barely as the OPS+ shows reasonably well.

The difference is that Trammell was an outstanding shortstop while Yount was a decent shortstop who was moved to the outfield for the last 9 seasons of his career.

Yount was a 3-time All-Star who won 3 Silver Sluggers and just 1 Gold Glove. He was, however, a 2-time MVP.

Trammell was 6-time All-Star (remember, these guys played the same position in the same league for a long time) who also won 3 Silver Sluggers and 4 Gold Gloves. He was runner-up in MVP voting once and was a World Series MVP.

I'm not arguing that Yount shouldn't be in - I'm saying that Trammell should be in based on the fact that they were comparable offensive players while Trammell was CLEARLY the superior defensive player who played in twice as many All-Star games as Yount while playing in the same league at the same time.