During his career, Larkin was selected to the all-star team 12 times.  He also won three gold gloves and nine silver slugger awards.  Here’s what I said last week about Larkin’s candidacy for the Hall of Fame:

At first, I wasn’t sold on Barry Larkin. I don’t remember him being as great as he was. Maybe he just had a more quiet career than some other players, but it’s hard to deny that Larkin was a great shortstop. He came along at a time when many shortstops were still weak hitting defensive specialists. But Larkin could hit AND play defense. He hit for average, he had some power, and he got on base. Larkin received 62.1% of the vote last year and is expected to rise about the 75% level this year.  I expect him to be elected to the Hall of Fame in 2012.

Others that I thought should make the Hall of Fame were not quite so lucky.  For instance, here is how the other people I woulds have voted for fared:

• Jeff Bagwell — 56.0%
• Edgar Martinez — 36.5%
• Tim Raines — 48.7%

The rest of the vote went like this:

• Vinny Castillo — 1.0%
• Juan Gonzalez — 4.0%
• Javy Lopez — 0.2%
• Don Mattingly — 17.8%
• Fred McGriff — 23.9%
• Mark McGwire — 19.5%
• Jack Morris — 66.7%
• Bill Mueller — 0.7%
• Dale Murphy — 14.5%
• Rafael Palmiero — 12.6
• Brad Radke — 0.3%
• Tim Salmon — 0.9%
• Lee Smith — 50.6%
• Alan Trammel — 36.8%
• Larry Walker — 22.9%
• Bernie Williams — 9.6%
• Eric Young — 0.2%

Jeremy Burnitz, Brian Jordan, Terry Mulholland, Phil Nevin, Ruben Sierra, and Tony Womack did not receive any votes for the Hall of Fame from the BBWAA.

First, let’s take a look at the players who are on the ballot for the first time this year. Those players are:

• Jeremy Burnitz
• Vinny Castilla
• Brian Jordan
• Javy Lopez
• Bill Mueller
• Terry Mulholland
• Phil Nevin
• Brad Radke
• Tim Salmon
• Rueben Sierra
• Bernie Williams
• Tony Womack
• Eric Young

Do you see any Hall of Famers on that list. No, I don’t either. There are some good players on the list — chief among them would probably be Bernie Williams — but none of them had careers that would rise to the level of serious Hall of Fame consideration. That takes us to the holdovers from previous years.

This group of players have been on the HOF ballot previously and they received enough votes to stay on the ballot, but not enough to gain entrance into the Hall. The players on this list include;

• Jeff Bagwell
• Juan Gonzalez
• Barry Larkin
• Edgar Martinez
• Don Mattingly
• Fred McGriff
• Mark McGwire
• Jack Morris
• Dale Murphy
• Rafael Palmeiro
• Tim Raines
• Lee Smith
• Alan Trammel
• Larry Walker

Let’s look at each player individually.

Jeff Bagwell

Jeff Bagwell should absolutely not be branded with the steroids tag. Sure, he played during the steroids era, but he was never connected to PED use. His career should be judged on it’s merits, not on rumor and speculation. And when it is judged on it’s merits, it becomes clear that Bagwell is a Hall of Famer. He was a great hitter, hitting .297/.408/.540 over his career. Wait, a .408 OBP?  Yeah, I had to look twice at that, but it’s true. He only played 15 years in the big leagues, but has a very impressive 79.9 WAR. The closer you look at Bagwell, the more impressive his career becomes. He has my vote.

Juan Gonzalez

This is Juan Gone’s second year on the ballot and very well could be his last. In 2010, his first year on the ballot, he only received 5.2% of the vote, far less than any other hold over player on this year’s ballot. On the plus side, Gonzalez won two MVP awards and hit more than 400 home runs in his career. He had a slash line of .295/.343/.561 and an OPS+ of 132, which I have to admit is more impressive than I would have imagined. Even so, to me, Gonzalez fails the “eye test;” did he look like a Hall of Famer. In this case, I say “no.” Gonzalez always seemed lazy to me. He played defense like he preferred to be somewhere else and his base running skills left a lot to be desired.  I don’t recall ever thinking that Gonzalez was one of the best players in MLB during the course of his career.  He was good, but not that good.

Barry Larkin

At first, I wasn’t sold on Barry Larkin. I don’t remember him being as great as he was. Maybe he just had a more quiet career than some other players, but it’s hard to deny that Larkin was a great shortstop. He came along at a time when many shortstops were still weak hitting defensive specialists. But Larkin could hit AND play defense. He hit for average, he had some power, and he got on base. Larkin received 62.1% of the vote last year and is expected to rise about the 75% level this year.  I expect him to be elected to the Hall of Fame in 2012.

Edgar Martinez

Edgar Martinez has kind of become my pet project. In my opinion, he is the greatest DH ever. However, there are a lot of people that don’t believe that a player who spent the vast majority of his career as a DH should ever be allowed into the HOF. I disagree. If baseball is going to have the DH rule, then we should honor the greatest DHs in the HOF. The irony is if Martinez would have continued to play third base, a position he did not field very well, he likely would be a shoe-in for the Hall. Let’s face it, fielding isn’t always taken very seriously when a really good hitter comes up for HOF consideration. So as a poor fielding third baseman, Martinez would likely be elected to the HOF, but as a non-fielding DH, he is being excluded. Does that really make sense? During his career, Martinez hit .312/.418/.515, had an OPS+ of 147 and a WAR of 67.2.  He won two batting titles and led the league in on-base percentage three times. By any measure, those are extremely impressive statistics. Does it really matter that Martinez didn’t play in the field? I’m not a fan of the DH rule, but as long as it exists, then let’s recognize the guys who fill the role the best. For my money, Edgar Martinez was the best and he deserves to be in the HOF.

Don Mattingly

For crying out loud, the man’s nickname is Donnie Baseball. Doesn’t he deserve to be in the HOF just for that? In a word, no. Mattingly had some great years, but he did not have a great career. He hit .307/.358/.471 with an OPS+ of 127 and a WAR (BR) of 39.8. His WAR was so low because he played just 14 seasons and most of them after the age of 27 were not particularly noteworthy. Mattingly was a very good ball player, particularly before his body began to betray him, but for me, he simply did not rise to the level necessary to be inducted into the HOF.

Mark McGwire

Mark McGwire was a lot of fun to watch. I still have very fond memories of the home run race between him and Sammy Sosa in 1998. I know all about the steroids, but that does not diminish my memories of that year. However, it’s hard to separate McGwire’s career from his use of steroids. In fact, many writers simply refuse to vote for him because he admitted to using steroids. I believe we need to judge the player by the era in which he played, otherwise no one from the so-called “steroids era” will ever make it into the HOF no matter how great they may have been. Having said that, I still don’t believe McGwire had a HOF career.  Sure, he was the most prodigious home run hitter in history, hitting a home run every 10.6 at-bats. However, his game was too one-dimensional for me. He was a tremendous home run hitter, but I found the rest of his game lacking. I have to admit that I am closer to voting for him now than I was in 2005 when he first came on the ballot, but I’m still not there yet.

Fred McGriff

McGriff is another one of those guys who had a terrific career, but never rose to the level of HOFer. He was always one of the better hitting first basemen, but he was never an elite hitter. He was always one of the guys you would want on your team if you couldn’t have one of the very best guys, but he was never considered to be among the very best. McGriff had a very nice career, but it wasn’t good enough for the HOF.

Jack Morris

So much could be written about Jack Morris. Of all of the players on the HOF ballot in recent years, Morris just might have the most rabid supporters. The problem those supporters run into is the fact that their arguments for Morris being included in the HOF are often wrong. For instance, Morris supporters love to make the claim that, while his ERA was not great, it was because he had the rare ability to pitch to the score. In other words, he bared down when the game was close, and eased up when he had room for error. It’s a nice argument, but it’s not based in fact. The facts are that Morris was a very good pitcher who was a bulldog on the mound and compiled some respectable stats, including a W-L record of 254-186. He also threw an incredible game 7 in the World Series for the Twins against the Braves in 1991 that will go down in history. But he had a 3.90 ERA during a pitchers era which is hard to explain away. Morris has been steadily gaining momentum for his HOF bid and garnered 53.5% of the vote last year. He very well may be elected this year, but if he does so, he will have to do it without my vote. (Note: Once again, I do not actually have a vote, so this should not hurt Morris’ chances.)

Dale Murphy

If we were talking about the HOF for nice guys, Dale Murphy would have already gotten in on the first ballot. But that’s not what we are talking about. I have a soft spot in my heart for Murphy. At a time when baseball on TV was a much rarer occurrence, I used to be able to watch him and the Atlanta Braves most nights on WTBS. He was my favorite Brave and I looked forward to watching him play. Even so, in many ways, Murphy is the poster child for players who fade away quickly as they get older. He ended his career just two home runs short of 400, but the vast majority of those were hit before he was 32. After that age, Murphy didn’t do much. He had a couple of good years, but his home runs decreased, his batting average and OBP plummeted, and he became just another struggling player trying to hold on to his career.

Rafael Palmiero

I have more trouble than I should judging Palmeiro’s career. He played for 20 seasons, hit 569 home runs, had a slash line of .288/.371/.515, an OPS+ of 132 and a WAR of 66.0. He also was a terrific fielding first baseman, although he spent the later part of his career as a DH. Despite these very good numbers, Palmiero will forever be remembered for pointing his finger at the camera in those Congressional hearings and stating that he had never taken steroids. Just a few months later, he failed a steroids test. Putting the steroids test aside, I still don’t view Palmiero as a HOFer. He was a good ball player, but was never considered even the best player on the teams he played for, let alone one of the best in MLB. Palmiero only received 11.0% of the vote last year and I don’t see him doing much better this year.  My vote is “no.”

Tim Raines

Tim Raines did everything well. He hit for average, he had some power, he got on base, and he was a prodigious base stealer. He played for 23 seasons and was very good throughout his long career, except for his final year with the Marlins in 2002. During the course of his career he hit .294/.385/.425 with an OPS+ of 149 and a WAR of 64.6. If I was voting, I would vote for Raines. However, he only received 37.5% of the vote last year and I have the feeling that most of the writers still don’t fully appreciate Tim Raines. I think he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but if I was a betting man, I would bet he doesn’t make it in this year.

Lee Smith

Lee Smith had the benefit of coming along at just the right time. The closer role was becoming much more well defined and Smith took full advantage of it. When he retired, he held the record for most career saves. That record was impressive at the time, but seems less so now as it has fallen again and again. Unlike others who have written on the subject, I definitely think that closers should be in the HOF. However, as time has marched on, I think we see that while Lee Smith was very good, he wasn’t truly great. He just appeared great for a short time because of what he was being compared against. Today, he no longer appears like one of the truly great closers in history.

Alan Trammel

This might be the toughest call I have to make this year. I’ve already said that I would vote for Barry Larkin. If you look at their stats, Larkin and Trammel were very similar. Even so, Trammel falls short of Larkin in almost every way you can compare the two. I’ll admit, it’s a very fine line between the two players, but I’m drawing the line. Larkin is just barely a Hall of Famer and Trammel just barely misses making the Hall.

Larry Walker

Walker was a terrific hitter, but I can’t help but be bothered by the fact that he did most of his hitting in Colorado, a place where video game numbers were being put up at the time. I don’t think Walker should be penalized for where he played the majority of his games, but I don’t think he should be rewarded for it either. There’s no arguing that Walker’s numbers are impressive, but those numbers didn’t really blossom until he left Montreal and went to Colorado. Would he have been a great hitter outside of Colorado? There’s no doubt he would have been good, but it’s unlikely he would have put up the type of numbers he put up during his tenure in Colorado anywhere else. Of course, the short answer is we don’t know and can never know for sure.  But in my gut, I just don’t think Larry Walker was a Hall of Famer.

When asked if Mariano Rivera is the best closer in baseball history — an opinion widely held among those around baseball — Gossage was only too quick to toot his own horn.

“I think that he is a tremendous relief pitcher. He’s the best current-day, modern reliever. But it’s just like you can’t compare the 500-home-run club today to the old 500-home-run club. When I was inducted into the Hall of Fame, I was told that I had 53 saves with seven-plus outs. I was told that Mariano had one and Trevor Hoffman had two. So I think that says it in a nutshell.”

Says what in a nutshell?  I supported Gossage’s candidacy for the Hall of Fame.  I felt he belonged.  But his constant harping on how many two inning saves he got is getting old.  He did his job and he did it well, but that’s not how the game is played anymore.  Mariano Rivera is almost never called on to pitch two innings for a save, so how can Gossage or anyone else draw any conclusion from the fact that Gossage had 53 seven-plus out saves and Rivera only has one?

And by the way, don’t act like you didn’t know how many seven-plus out saves you had, Goose.  Before you were ever inducted into the Hall of Fame, you were criss-crossing the country reciting your stats to anyone that would listen.  No one knows your stats better than you do.

At the end of the interview, Brescia asked Gossage if he thought Mark McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame.  Gossage replied,

“No. And I mean no. In the Olympics when they catch them using performance-enhancing drugs, they strip their medals. I can’t see any difference in baseball. None of the steroid users should get in.”

I’m growing tired of this idea that some people like to spout that before steroids, baseball was as pure as the driven snow.  It is especially maddening when former players — guys who were around for other other types of cheating — float this nonesense.

One of my writing heroes, Joe Posnanski, does a fantastic job of explaining how baseball has always had cheating of one sort or another.  During Gossage’s time, amphetamines were the drug du jour.  Posnanski writes:

“Then there’s amphetamines. I have never understood why many people are so outraged about baseball players’ steroid use and so unperturbed by amphetamine use. I guess it makes some sense on a gut level — injecting yourself with steroids seems so much more villainous than popping a couple of greenies to get a boost. Steroids seemed much more in our faces as fans. The players unapologetically got bigger. A few of them hit an unnatural number of home runs. There seemed a much more direct cause and effect … steroids = bigger muscles = more home runs. And maybe the cause and effect did not seem quite as obvious with the widespread use of amphetamines.

“BUT … is any of that true? Best I can tell, amphetamines (like steroids) were illegal without prescription in American society but were just a part of the baseball culture. Best I can tell, amphetamines are performance enhancing drugs that, many people feel, sharpen focus and increase energy levels and help an athlete overcome exhaustion. Best I can tell, amphetamines can have terrible side effects and can be difficult to quit (and can be extremely dangerous to quit).

“In other words, it seems more or less the same level of cheating and more or less the same level of wrong. As far as whether amphetamines had a huge effect on the game … I don’t know. I don’t want to throw names out there, but there are records and performances — consecutive games played and huge stolen bases totals just as a for instance — that you could logically connect to amphetamine use.”

And just to drive the point home a little further, Gossage was part of a Yankees’ clubhouse that was notorious for it’s use of amphetamines.  I don’t know if Gossage used the drug or not, but he certainly had to know that they were being used.  Maybe that’s how Gossage had the energy to throw so many seven-plus out saves.  Who knows?  But if it is, if Gossage used amphetamines even just one time, should that disqualify him from the Hall of Fame?  Should he be disqualified simply because he played during the amphetamine era?

Goose Gossage and other former players need to take a good, long look at themselves and their contemporaries before they start condemning steroid users and those suspected of steroid use.  Baseball has skeletons in its closet going back to the game’s earliest days.  If the requirement for induction into the Hall of Fame was that you had to be chaste, moral, upright, and pure, the Hall of Fame would be an empty building.

The proposal from the City of Mesa includes an $84 million, 15,000 seat stadium and state-of-the-art training facilities.  It also includes a mixed use commercial development. 

The agreement between the Cubs and Mesa gives the Mesa City Council and the Arizona legislature approximately one year to find a suitable location (three are currently being considered) and approve funding for the project, being dubbed “Wrigleyville West.”  If Mesa cannot secure the funding necessary, the Cubs are free to engage other locations, including Naples.

I wouldn’t say this is a slam dunk, but it’s pretty close.  The City of Mesa and the Arizona legislature understand the huge economic impact the Cubs have in Arizona.  The total economic impact of the Cactus League is estimated at $128 million, and the Cubs account for about $50 million of that amount. 

One stumbling block may be a public referendum scheduled for November.  Once the funding mechanism is put into place, citizens have the opportunity to vote on it.  Indications are that a referendum in Mesa will pass, but it’s not automatic.  Odd things happen in elections.

By and large, the sentiment in Naples was one of disappointment.  However, there also was a feeling of betrayal expressed by some citizens; feeling like the Cubs used Naples in order to negotiate a better deasl with Mesa.  That’s probably not true, since the Cubs would have likely gotten what they wanted from Mesa with or without Naples involvement. 

Then there was the vocal minority who didn’t want the Cubs or any other team coming to their community.  I followed the drama as it unfolded in Naples through the electronic version of the Naples Daily News and the comments to the stories they ran.  I was amazed at some of the opinions being expressed.  Almost without exception, those vocal commenters opposed to bringing the Cubs to town were completely uninformed about the issues.  In most cases, they were purposely ignorant of the facts so they could continue to spew their nonsensical views.  Although I don’t believe these uninformed commenters represent the views of the average Neopolitan (citizen of Naples), I do think they would have thrown a monkey wrench into the proceedings had Naples actually landed the Cubs.

As I stated previously, I was hoping for the Cubs to choose Naples primarily because it would have benefitted me.  But aside from my own selfish agenda, I think Naples had a rather steep uphill battle.  The Cubs are the big fish in the Cactus League pond.  Had they relocated to Florida, they would have taken a back seat to the Yankees and perhaps the Red Sox.  Even more importantly, the Cubs have a 57-year relationship with the City and citizens of Mesa.  That by itself should not have been the deciding factor, but it is a very important element.

Arizona would be crazy not to get this deal done.  They have a one-year window to get the funding in place and lock-in the Cubs for another 25 years.   If they stumble, I’m sure Naples will be more than willing to jump back in with both feet.

**********

The Baseball Hall of Fame announced that Andre Dawson will enter the Hall wearing a Montreal Expos hat.  I think this is one of those issues out of which we make too big of a deal.   What we are talking about is the hat Dawson will be wearing in the bronze plaque that will be displayed at the HOF.

Even so, the hat a player wears on their plaque stirs a lot of emotion.  Initially, I said that it would be difficult to justify having Dawson wear a Cubs hat.  After all, The Hawk broke in with Montreal and he spent the first 10 full seasons with the Expos.  He was only with the Cubs for six years.  It could also be argued that Dawson’s best years were spent in Montreal.

However, the Hall of Fame (not the player) chooses the hat the player will wear “based on where the player makes his most indelible mark.”  Andre Dason was a great player in Montreal, but I don’t think there can be any argument but that he made his “most indelible mark” while playing for the Cubs.  Not only did he come to national and international prominence while playing in Chicago, but he also won his MVP Award and earned five of his eight all-star appearances as a Cub.

In addition, I think there is an arguement to be made that Dawson’s years in Chicago were at least as good, if not better, than they were in Montreal.  For instance, Dawson hit more homeruns as a Cubs, he had more RBIs as a Cub, and his batting average while in a Cubs uniform was higher than his batting average had been in Montreal.  He also had a higher OPS+ as a Cub than he did as an Expo.  Dawson led the league once in homeruns and RBIs, both as a Cub (and both in 1987).

All I’m saying here is that it is not clear cut where Dawason had his best “performance” years.  So if the HOF looked exclusively at performance stats, there is an argument to be made for both teams.

But the HOF does not (and should not) look exclusively, or even predominately, at performance numbers.  In the Hall’s own words, they chose the hat the player is going to wear “based on where the player makes his most indelible mark.”  There’s also one other thing the HOF should consider when choosing the hat a player will wear on their plaque, and that the Hall’s own mission.

What good does it do to enshrine a player for all time while wearing a hat for a team that no longer exists?  Expos fans were small in number to begin with and their numbers continue to dwindle as the years go by.  Some will argue that the Expos do exist in the guise of the Washington Nationals, but do Nationals fans really consider the National as the reincarnation of the Expos?  No, certainly not.  As far as Nationals fans are concerned, the Nationals might as well have been an expansion team with no prior history.  We’re not talking about the beloved Brooklyn Dodgers moving to Los Angeles here.  We’re talking about the underappreciated Expos being moved in order to salvage the franchise from an almost certain death in Montreal.

On the flip side, the HOF could have benefitted greatly from having Dawson enshrined in a Cubs hat.  How many Cubs fans would have cheered the decision?  How many Cubs fans would still be cheering the decision 50 years from now?  100 years from now? 

Many years into the future, there will still be Cubs fans.  But how many Expos fans will make the pilgrimage to Cooperstown in 50 or 100 years?  Today, fans can connect with players who wear hats from the Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and other teams we recognize.  But how many of us connect with Candy Cummings who is enshrined as a member of the Hartford Dark Blue or Dan Brouthers who represents the Buffalo Bison?

Getting back to my oroginal point, this probably isn’t that big of a deal.  Even so, there’s good reason to think that the HOF made a mistake by choosing to enshrine Dawson wearing an Expos cap.  I’m pretty sure that Dawson will correct this error by donning a Cubs cap during the HOF induction ceremonies.  It would be the right thing to do.

Andre Dawson was the only player elected and will enter the HOF along with former manager Whitey Herzog and former umpire Doug Harvey.  The HOF induction ceremony is scheduled for July 25 in Cooperstown, NY.

Dawson received 77.9% of the votes cast.  Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar, Jr. each received more than 70% of the votes of the BBWAA, but fell just short of the 75% level needed.

Congratulations, Hawk!  You deserve it!

Joe Posnanski recently wrote an article for Sports Illustrated detailing his HOF ballot.  Although he once again makes the case that Andre Dawson does not belong in the Hall of Fame, the article is still worth reading.  He has a unique way of looking at baseball.  As I’ve said in the past, he’s a terrific writer, but I’m still trying to come to grips with his perspectives.

A couple of other articles I found interesting were Jayson Stark’s explanation of his Hall of Fame ballot and Tim Kurkjian’s defense of his vote for Andre Dawson. 

**********

The Cardinals signed Matt Holliday to a 7-year/$119 million contract yesterday.  The contract may also contain a no trade clause, but I haven’t seen that reported anywhere.  I just know that was a sticking point in previous contract negotiations.

Obviously, the Cards are better with Holliday than without him, but I just don’t see him having that kind of value.  In many ways, The Cards signing of Holliday mirrors the Cubs signing of Alfonso Soriano.  They apparently bid against themselves and paid so much for Holliday that in a few years, the contract is going to be untradeable and the Cards are going to be stuck with him.

The real question now is, what does Holliday’s signing mean for the Cardinals long-term plans for Albert Pujols.  Most reports this off season have suggested that the Cards needed to sign Holliday to show Pujols that they are serious about staying competitive.  But a few writers have suggested that the Cardinals decided to spend the money on Holliday now because they already know that they aren’t going to be able to keep Pujols long-term.  I don’t know which is true, but it makes for some interesting speculation.

**********

The Boston Red Sox announced that they will be moving Jacoby Ellsbury to left field to make room for Mike Cameron.  According to the report from ESPN Boston, Red Sox GM Theo Epstein said, “It’s more to do with Cameron’s experience, and Ellsbury’s ability to play a dynamic left field. This is not necessarily a permanent arrangement, or a long-term arrangement. But we think Cameron is still an elite center fielder … and that’s the best way to go for now.”

Ellsbury’s “ability to play a dynamic left field?”  What does that mean?  And is calling Mike Cameron an “elite center fielder” a little over the top.  He’s good, but I don’t think he’s ever been viewed as “elite”.  Plus, if he ever was elite, I don’t think he’s still elite at age 37.

For his part, Ellsbury was not particularly happy about the move.  Boston manager Terry Francona (who I like to call “Tito”) said, ”He (Ellsbury) was probably a little disappointed, which is what I expected, but with Cameron’s long strides and Jacoby’s quickness, we have a chance to have a real dynamic outfield here.”

There’s that “dynamic” word again.  At least we know that Theo and Tito are reading the same talking points.  It sounds like the entire press conference was put toogether by a PR firm rather than a baseball organization.

Anyway, the point of all of this is that chosing Cameron over Ellsbury for center field may mean that Boston is beginning the process of separating themselves from Ellsbury.  That’s just conjecture on my part, but I think it’s fair to say that by most standards, Ellsbury doesn’t hit enough to be an “elite” corner outfielder.  Now that he’s in left field, Boston may start looking for a player with a little more power.  If they do and Ellsbury becomes expendable, I hope the Cubs are waiting in the wings to scoop him up.

In his article, entitled “Trapped by the Numbers: Andre Dawson and the Hall of Fame,” Posnanski argues that he cannot support Andre Dawson for the HOF because Dawson’s on-base percentage is too low.  Before he can condemn Dawson’s OBP, he tries to explain why OBP is so important.

“On-base percentage is not some convoluted modern statistic. On-base percentage is not something new … it goes back to the time before Ty Cobb. On-base percentage is not even about walks. On-base percentage is simply the core of baseball, the very heart of it since the first ball hit the first stick. It is about how many times a batter gets on — and, conversely, how many times he makes outs. It is what the game is all about.”

I take issue with two things Posnanski says in that paragraph.  First, of course it’s true that on-base percentage is not something new.  OBP is a mathematical formula applied to baseball.  Baseball didn’t create the formula.  So yeah, it’s not new.  But to say that “it goes back to the time before Ty Cobb” is to infer that OBP was a widely used and understood statistic from the earliest days of baseball.  In fact, it was not.  The statistic existed, but no one (or almost no one) paid attention to it. 

Heck, even now, there are some dark corners of professional baseball where OBP is still considered some kind of charlatan’s con or black magic.  The light is slowly but surely getting into those corners, but the corners still exist even all these years after OBP was first used.  So to infer that OBP is something that came over on the Mayflower and is as old as baseball itself is to badly misstate the case. 

I know Dawson’s critics bristle when they hear a pro-Dawson fan say that OBP just wasn’t that big of a deal when Dawson played.  Perhaps a better way to say it is that OBP was not stressed as much during Dawson’s playing days.  It was still important, but very few people were sitting around thinking about the stat at that time.  Today, there are hundreds of websites devoted to analyzing baseball from absolutely every angle, but in Dawson’s day, not so much. 

What Dawson and his contemporaries were most concerned with was winning baseball games.  And very few players in the history of the game did more to prepare themselves to win than Andre Dawson.* Does that mean that players today don’t care about winning?  Of course the care, but we look at the ingredients that go into winning much differently today than we did in the 1970’s and 80’s. 

*Example after example have been cited to show what Andre Dawson went through to prepare himself to play.  Teammates talk about the regimen he had to go through both before and after games of soaking his knees in ice water to reduce the swelling.  He employed workout regimens and eating habits that are somewhat commonplace today, but which were not the norm during his playing days.  Dawson also held himself to an almost impossible standard of being ready to play every day.  Remarkably, up until the last few seasons of his career, Dawson missed very few games due to injury, despite the fact that his knees had been shredded by the artificial turf during his tenure with Montreal. 

For example, there was a time when players and managers looked at sacrifice bunts and stolen bases as key components to winning baseball games.  We know today through analytical research that sac bunts and stolen bases aren’t as important as we once thought they were.  So to condemn a manager for employing a sac bunt too often before the research was available and widely understood is to hold him to too high of a standard.  It’s unfair to expect a person to know something that the vast majority of people of their time didn’t know or fully comprehend. 

As an example, let’s say that Michael Jordan missed more shots than any other player in NBA history.  I don’t know if that is true, but let’s say it is.  And let’s say that at some point in the future, researchers determine that the best way to win basketball games is to make a very high percentage of the shots your team takes.  

I mean, we already know that it is good to make a high percentage of your shots, but what if researchers could take it to another level and show us a way to play the game of basketball that gives us a distinct advantage.  Imagine if the research led to a paradigm shift in the way the game of basketball is played.  If that happened, would it be right to change our opinion of Michael Jordan from being the greatest basketball player in the history of the NBA to being the guy who missed the highest percentage of shots in NBA history and thus cost his teams even more wins and even more championships?  Of course not.  Every player, regardless of the sport, should be judged on the prevailing wisdom of the time that they played.  People inside baseball may have known about OBP at the time Andre Dawson played, but they didn’t employ it to win baseball games the way they do today.  

The second thing I take exception with is Posnanski’s statement that “It (OBP) is what the game is all about.”  No.  Joe, I think you’re great, but baseball isn’t all about OBP.  Baseball is about winning.  It’s about scoring more runs than the other team.  If the other team has a higher OBP, but your team still wins the game, then it’s a good day.  No one is going to care about which player or team had a higher OBP.

As I write those words, I begin to channel Posnanski and I can hear him say that a team with a higher OBP may lose a game here or there, but they’ll win more than they lose in the long-run.  Perhaps.  Getting on base more often and making fewer outs will certainly help the cause.  But I’m not arguing that OBP is not important.  It is important.  What I’m arguing against is Posnanski’s contention that baseball is all about OBP.  It simply isn’t. 

Pos continues:

“It isn’t about walks, it really isn’t. That’s one thing everyone seems to miss. You say OBP and everyone says, ‘Oh, walks.’ But that’s not it. Walks and hits by pitch make up a pretty small portion of on-base percentage. Most of it is hitting. True, Andre Dawson did not walk at all. But that’s not the real point: He hit .277 for his career, which is OK but certainly not stellar. If he had hit .295 or .300, his on-base percentage would be significantly higher and nobody would be talking about any of this.”

In order to have achieved a .295 batting average, Dawson would have needed an additional 155 hits (He ended his career with 2,774 hits in 9,927 at-bats).  Spread out over his 21 year career, that comes to about 7.4 additional hits per season.   Or, broken down even more, it comes to less than one-and-a-quarter additional hits per month during the season.

I don’t mean to suggest that 155 additional hits is insignificant.  In fact, that’s about an additional season’s worth of hits.  But is that really what separates a Hall of Famer from a player that doesn’t belong in the Hall, just over seven hits per season?  That’s simply drawing too fine of a line in my opinion.

If you want to look at some numbers, take a look at where Dawson ranked in various categories at the end of his career.  I borrowed these stats from Hawk4TheHall, a blog run by an uber-Dawson fan named Charley.  Thanks, Charley!

When Andre Dawson retired, this is where he stood in the entire history of baseball:

• 22^nd in homeruns
• 24^th in RBI
• 38^th in hits
• 72^nd in runs scored
• 21^st in total bases
• 125^th in stolen bases

In addition, Dawson won the following awards during his career:

• NL Rookie of the Year (1977)
• NL MVP (1987)
• NL MVP runner-up (1981, 1983)
• 8 Gold Gloves
• 8 All-Star Team selections
• 4 Silver Slugger awards

Posnanski recently wrote another article about the Hall of Fame and compared it to the Hall of Merit maintained by the folks at Baseball Think Factory.  The article is not specifically about Dawson, but Pos throws out this little tidbit in the article:

“Dawson’s case has been hammered around for a while. He is one of only three players to hit 400 homers and steal 300 bases — Dawson, Bonds, Mays.”

Wow, pretty nice company.  There’s another stat that is telling.  Dawson is the only HOF-eligible player in MLB history to have a least 2,700 hits and 400 homeruns and not be elected to the Hall of Fame.

It’s difficult for me to understand how anyone can look at those numbers and then dismiss them because Dawson’s OBP is lower than they would like.  It’s like saying that the Beatles don’t belong in the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame because they were not particularly good dancers.  I know, it’s a gross exaggeration, but the concept still works. 

Here’s the bottom line for me.  When you watched Andre Dawson play the game of baseball, you saw a guy who separated himself from his contemporaries.  He was more respected by his peers than the average ballplayer.  He was more feared at the plate.  He was more closely watched on the base paths.  In the field, his speed and arm altered decisions made by other teams.  He was a cut above.  You could see it in the way he approached the game and in the way his competition approached him. 

It kills the sabremetric crowd to hear this, but those things can’t be fully quantified.  Yet they play a huge role in how the game is played.  I don’t mean to knock statistics.  They are important and are becoming increasinglymore  important every day.  But stats don’t tell the entire story.  You have to look at the stats and look beyond the stats to see the whole picture.  And when you see the whole picture it becomes clear that Andre Dawson belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Will Cubs manager Lou Piniella be joining them one day?

Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated considered the question of which current managers  are Hall worthy and concludes that Pinella (and several other current managers) most likely deserve enshrinement in Cooperstown.

Verducci, who is a member of the Veterans Committee for Managers and Umpires, first considers what qualifies a manager for inclusion in the Hall of Fame.  In a nutshell, a manager needs to manage at least 10 years at the big league level, win a minimum of 1,300 games, and win at least one World Series.  These “requirements” were compiled by Verducci and are not official.

Verducci writes:

“There have been 91 men who have managed at least 10 years in the big leagues, including 11 who are active, and thus not yet eligible for the Hall. Of the 80 eligible managers, 19 have been elected to the Hall of Fame primarily as managers and another 14 as primarily a player or executive. That means 33 of the 80 eligible managers are in the Hall of Fame, or 41 percent of those eligible, including 24 percent specifically as managers. And when you look at the active managers, those percentages almost certainly will rise.”

Based on these “requirements,” Piniella is Hall worthy.  He has managed more than 10 years, currently has 1,784 victories, and has won a World Series with the 1990 Cincinnati Reds.  But there is one chink in his armor.  Pinella only made it to the World Series once.  As Verducci points out, no manager has ever been elected to the Hall of Fame without making it to a second World Series.  On that point, Pinella falls short, at least for now.

So, according to Verducci, Pinella is on the verge of being a Hall of Fame manager.  All he needs in one more trip to the World Series.  But first, he must make it back to the post-season and win his first playoff game in a Cubs uniform.

I’m not sure I agree with Verducci’s assessment of  what qualifies a manager for the Hall of Fame.  I have never felt that the Hall is just a Hall of magic numbers.  There’s more to it than that.

I’m not saying that Pinella doesn’t belong in the Hall.  Maybe he does.  But I see a big difference between Pinella’s managing career and Herzog’s.

I lived in St. Louis during Herzog’s heyday with the Cardinals and I saw first hand the impact he had on a game.  Verducci saw it too.

I remember when I covered the Mets in the 1980s how the New York players were acutely aware of who was in the St. Louis dugout running the game during their rivalry with the Cardinals. It was a fascinating dynamic to me: that players regarded the opposing manager, not just the opposing players, as an element they needed to overcome to win a baseball game. Such was the respect Herzog commanded for his grasp of the game and his fearlessness.”

Herzog did have that kind of mojo about him.  I think Tony LaRussa has it too.  Bobby Cox and Joe Torre might also have it.  I’ve never felt like Lou Piniella had it.  When the game is on the line and and the team needs some sort of miracle, LaRussa has a knack for making the right move.  But when the game is on the line for the Cubs, I’ve never felt a confidence that Piniella would somehow pull a Rabbit out of his hat.

Verducci opines that Dusty Baker might also be on the verge of being Hall worthy.  I think that’s just ridiculous.  I don’t think Piniella has the same mojo that Herzog had, but Dusty has the anti-mojo.  He has a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Dusty is not a Hall of Fame manager.

During his years with the Cubs, I often said that Dusty seemed like a great guy to have a drink with (especially if you wanted to go listen to Jazz), but I would not want him leading my baseball team.  He’s an enabler and an excuse-maker.  He doesn’t hold players accountable.  Under Dusty’s watchful eyes, the patients ran the asylum. 

Piniella occasionally goes the other way.  The slightest thing can put a player in Piniella’s dog house.  And he holds grudges.  Once you’re in Piniella’s dog house, it’s tough to get out.

I don’t think either approach is particularly effective, but if I had to choose between the two, I’d choose the guy that holds his players accountable. 

Although Piniella and baker may be polar opposites in the way they manage a baseball team, I don’t consider either of them to be legit candidates for the Hall of Fame.  I could be persuaded to change my mind on Piniella.  I can’t imagine ever changing my mind on Dusty.