Explaining my Hall of Fame ballot

Already, my ballot has been met with considerable ridicule on Twitter and other cyberspace spots. And at the risk of further ridicule, I will detail my thinking here (and yes, thinking did go into it).

Generally, I've voted for one or two more players than average in most years, and this year should be no exception. This time I listed six "yes" votes -- Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Andre Dawson, Jack Morris, Dave Parker and Don Mattingly.

I will comment on all my picks, near picks and no picks down below. But mostly, I'll explain three of my 20 "no'' votes (one of whom has a pretty good chance to turn to a "yes'' in coming years) -- Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines and Edgar Martinez. Those appear to be the most controversial. Or in the minds of many, just plain wrong.

The statistically oriented and sabermetrically inclined tend to think I'm not all there, particularly when it comes to Blyleven. But I do have an explanation.

I don't put quite the same emphasis as some on career statistics, especially in cases where I've had the chance to follow a player's entire career as it was unfolding, as was the case with this year's entire ballot. (That happens when you get old.)

I consider impact more than stats. I like dominance over durability. I prefer players who were great at some point to the ones who were merely very good for a very long time. And I do recall it's called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Numbers.

While Martinez was a superb hitter, and his career .418 on-base percentage and .515 slugging percentages are impressive indeed, only twice did Martinez even crack the top 10 in MVP voting (he was third once and sixth once). That suggests something less than dominance. And even on his career totals, he comes up short. His final power figures (309 home runs, 1,261 RBIs) are underwhelming for someone whose whole candidacy is based on offense.

The reason I haven't yet voted for Raines is that while he was a star in Montreal, he was merely a good player for the bulk of the rest his career, spent mainly with the White Sox and Yankees. Raines' offensive career is a little like Mattingly's in that he was exceptional for about a half-dozen years but far less than that for several more. But while Mattingly (who I didn't vote for the first seven years he was on the ballot) was greater in his great years, Raines did have many more seasons of solid performance, and I'm starting to lean in his direction.

A strong case could be made that he makes up for far fewer MVP votes with greater overall career numbers (though not in batting average or slugging percentage). The numbers people will point to Raines' gross totals of 808 stolen bases, 1,571 runs and 1,330 walks but especially to his .385 career on-base percentage, and I may not be able to ignore those figures in coming years. Several very worthwhile points were made and heard in the case of Raines, so worthwhile in fact that I could see myself voting "yes'' on Raines in the future. If I do vote for Raines, he'll become the fourth player I've switched on, turning a "no'' vote into a "yes,'' with the previous ones being Ron Santo, Jim Rice and Mattingly.

So finally, I am starting to see the light on Raines.

Yet, I remain a Bert Blyleven holdout, a position that elicits the most jeers, especially from the vocal and growing stat-minded set.

Every year, I take hits for my lack of support of Blyleven, and this time on Twitter I was called "stupid,'' a "moron" and "idiotic,'' by (at least) a trio of Blyleven supporters. No one player incites more controversy or stirs more emotion over his candidacy, which is slightly ironic after a career that was marked by solid attributes such as consistency and durability but somewhat lacking in drama.

I certainly understand why so many support Blyleven, especially in light of the new emphasis on numbers and the exuberance and passion exhibited by the strong numerically-inclined lobby. The momentum is building for Blyleven to make it, if not this year then certainly next year or the year after. But that doesn't mean I'll be joining the crowd.

First, I want to get three things out of the way. My vote isn't an insult. My three aforementioned "no'' votes, plus Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Dale Murphy, Harold Baines, Andres Galarraga and Lee Smith all fall just below my Hall of Fame borderline, putting them in the top 2 percent of all players (it's been well established through decades of precedent that almost exactly 1 percent of players make the Hall).

My vote also isn't about market size, as all the players on my ballot except Mattingly earned their vote in small- or mid-sized cities (I also never voted for Tommy John, who had a somewhat similar career to Blyleven's but played mostly in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago). And it's definitely not personal, despite what some have suggested. I don't know Blyleven well at all but did cover him when I was an Angels beat writer in 1989 and vaguely recall that I found him to be a fun-loving and decent man. He obviously enjoyed the game and was very pleasant, a lot more pleasant then Rice or Steve Carlton, both of whom received my vote.

I don't love that he is now campaigning for the honor, but it doesn't make me any more or less inclined to vote for him. I have been consistent in my "no" vote, from back when I was in an overwhelming majority in his first years on the ballot until now, when he is viewed by a clear majority of voters as a Hall of Famer. I hope this isn't about digging in my heels after having ridicule heaped on me by his most ardent and in a couple cases over-the-top supporters, and I don't believe it is. Occasionally his supporters engage in ad hominem personal attacks. But as I said, I was a "no'' vote long before he became a cause celebre.

My contention regarding Blyleven is that almost no one viewed him as a Hall of Famer during his playing career, and that is borne out by the 17 percent of the vote he received in his first year of eligibility in 1998, followed by 14 percent the next year. Blyleven obviously had an excellent and extremely lengthy career that looks a lot better to many with a decade to review it. And it doesn't hurt that he's the favorite of the Internet lobby.

Without throwing a single pitch, Blyleven has gone from 14 percent of the vote in his second year to 62 percent last year. I certainly can understand how a statistical re-evaluation can change minds, and Blyleven's career does look better on paper than it did when he was actually performing. Some of his support comes from folks who are relying solely on stats, and a few of them may not have seen any of his career. But I am in the group that believes a player's career goes beyond the numbers, and that there is value in watching a player's career as it is unfolding. For instance, while I may form an opinion on the Hall-of-Fame worthiness of the careers of Johnny Mize, Ralph Kiner, Phil Rizzuto (all of whom are in Cooperstown) and Ken Boyer (who is not), I concede there is something to having seen and followed their careers while they were happening. The same goes for Blyleven.

Blyleven's career has been re-evaluated for the better by numbers people, and while it's tough to make his winning percentage (.534) sparkle, the stat people emphasize other numbers such as strikeouts (3,701), complete games (242) and WHIP (1.19) and many of them even ignore win totals as being largely the result of circumstance beyond a pitcher's control.

While I leave some room for statistical re-evaluation (and am on the verge of being convinced regarding Raines), I still see Blyleven as just short. I look at numbers, too, and while my numbers may be slightly more simplistic than WHIP, WAR or VORP, I think they tell a story of a pitcher who was extremely good, consistent and durable but not quite Cooperstown-worthy. Blyleven was dominant in a lot of at-bats (thus, the 3,701 strikeouts) and even a lot of games (60 shutouts). But he was never dominant for a decade, a half decade or even a full season.

Only four times in 22 seasons did he receive Cy Young votes (he was third twice, fourth and seventh once), only twice did he make the All-Star team and only twice did he win more than 17 games. I tend not to vote for players who I see as great compilers rather than great players, which is why I don't see Lee Smith or Baines as Hall of Famers, either. Baines and Blyleven compiled similarly in some key areas, with Blyleven finishing with four percent short of 300 victories at 287, and Baines four percent short of 3,000 hits with 2,866. And actually, a case could be made that Baines had more greatness, as he made six All-Star teams, three times the number of Blyleven.

Some will say that Blyleven's career was equal to Hall of Famer Don Sutton's but I say it is just short of Sutton's. They both had big totals in other categories but Sutton wound up with 37 more victories, going over the magic 300 mark by 24.

Many stat people suggest wins are not important in evaluating careers. But until wins don't decide who's in the playoffs and who's out, who makes the World Series and who doesn't, I will continue to view them as important. A pitcher's goal for each game is to win the game, not to strikeout the most batters. And until that changes, I will count wins and losses. I also believe the truly great pitchers pitched to the scoreboard with the real goal in mind.

Some will say Blyleven was handicapped by playing for a string of horrific teams. But his many teams combined for a record of slightly over .500. For the most part, they were mediocre. While his career mark of 287-250 is clearly better than his teams' overall record, it isn't that much better.

My basic philosophy is to emphasis impact more than numbers. That's why I voted for Ozzie Smith but not Trammell (though during their careers it's true the Tigers never would have traded Trammell for Smith). It is why I vote or Jack Morris, a bulldog who was considered the best pitcher of the '80s, and who pitched the best game of the '90s. Morris was considered the ace of three World Series teams and was almost always selected by his manager to start Game One of the playoffs. Blyleven was the ace of many teams but usually mediocre teams. Like Morris he did pitch well in the postseason. But he was not the top pitcher on his two teams that won World Series titles.

Clearly, I don't grade on stats alone, but it is interesting to note that while Blyleven never led the league in wins or ERA he did lead the league in losses, earned runs allowed and home runs allowed. (He did lead once in strikeouts.) His overall impact was big, though not quite big enough in my mind.

Oddly enough, perhaps Blyleven's greatest impact has come since his career ended, as his career has incited history's most heated Hall of Fame candidacy debate.

Below is my ballot (the top six got my vote, the others I listed in my order of preference, with Mark McGwire and David Segui not being considered by me for drug issues -- McGwire for being an unrepentant alleged steroid user who stonewalled Congress, and Segui for being an admitted HGH user who's undeserving on merit, anyway.)

Players I Voted For

1.Roberto Alomar. The 12-time All-Star, 10-time Gold Glove winner is the only one on this year's ballot who makes it without any more than a cursory review of stats and accomplishments. Projected percentage: 84 percent.

2.Barry Larkin. Like Alomar, he's a 12-time All-Star who hit .300 nine times. A superb shortstop with power (first one to reach 30-30) before A-Rod, Nomar and the new era of power-hitting shortstops. Also, a captain, World Champion and Clemente and Lou Gehrig award winner. Projected percentage: 65.

3. Andre Dawson. He's one of only three players with 400 steals and 300 home runs (the others are Willie Mays and Barry Bonds) who was a five-tool guy who did most of it on injury-ravaged knees. Projected percentage: 70 percent.

4. Jack Morris. Dominant bulldog received Cy Young votes seven times, won more games in the '80s than anyone and was a general force in the American League (though his overall stats admittedly aren't as good as Blyleven's). Projected percentage: 45 percent.

5. Dave Parker. Five times he was in the top 10 in MVP votes. Parker was Rice with three more tools (speed, defense and a gun for an arm). Like Dawson, modest on-base percentage (.339) hurts him with newer voters while some older voters may not like the cocaine connection (though that isn't generally believed to be a career performance enhancer). Projected percentage: 18 percent.

6. Don Mattingly. He was one of the handful of greatest players in the game for a half-dozen years and one of the two or three greatest defensive first basemen ever. Career totals hurt him with most voters (but not the ones who notice they are similar to Kirby Puckett's.). Projected percentage: 14.

Close but not quite (at least this year)

7. Tim Raines. The second greatest leadoff hitter of his era is gathering support. Projected percentage: 35.

8. Alan Trammell. Terrific offensive shortstop whose numbers would look better if Alex Rodriguez, Nomar Garciaparra and Derek Jeter didn't come along just as he was retiring. Projected percentage: 23.

9. Fred McGriff. Clean and consistent slugger finished only seven home runs shy of 500. Should be fodder for a great debate once Blyleven either gets in or his debate subsides. Projected percentage: 37.

10. Dale Murphy. Consecutive MVP winner had 398 career home runs and was a terrific defender. Tough omission. Projected percentage: 10 percent.

11. Edgar Martinez. Awesome offensive player whose high OBP makes him appear even better now. Career totals probably hurt by Mariners' foolish delay in promoting him to bigs. Projected percentage: 45 percent.

12. Bert Blyleven. See above. Projected percentage: 72 percent.

13. Andres Galarraga. Inspirational leader who beat cancer, won a batting tile, hit 398 homers and was a great two-way player. Hope he stays on ballot for more thought. Projected percentage: 4 percent.

14. Harold Baines. His 1,628 RBIs are the most of anyone on this year's ballot. Projected percentage: 8 percent.

15. Lee Smith. Consistent saver had 13 straight seasons with at least 20 saves and retired with 478, then the most ever and now third. Perhaps he'd have more chance if he had more than 5 1/3 postseason innings. Projected percentage: 48 percent.

Very Good Players, But ...

16. Ellis Burks. Has surprising .510 career slugging percentage but probably benefited by playing in Boston and Colorado. On the numbers, much better than you'd think. Projected percentage: 1 percent.

17. Kevin Appier. Five seasons with 15 or more wins plus five with an ERA in his league's top 10. Projected percentage: 0.

18. Robin Ventura. Great guy with a knack for the grand slam (18, sixth in history). Projected percentage: 1 percent.

19. Pat Hentgen. Durable Blue Jays pitcher who twice led the league in complete games and won the 1996 AL Cy Young. Projected Percent: 0.

20. Eric Karros. Retired as L.A. Dodgers career record holder with 270 home runs. Projected percentage: 0.

21. Todd Zeile. Only player in MLB history to homer for 10 teams. Projected percentage: 0.

Ballot Crashers

22. Ray Lankford. Must have friends on the screening committee. Projected percentage: 0.

23. Shane Reynolds. Ditto. Projected percentage: 0.

24. Mike Jackson. Double ditto. Projected percentage: 0.

Disqualified List (own personal list*)

25. Mark McGwire. Admitted andro use made him into a home run hero before moving into pariah territory. Projected percentage: 28 percent.

26. David Segui. More likely to open his own drug store than make the Hall of Fame. Projected percentage: 0.

• It is believed the Cardinals at one point offered a seven-year deal for Matt Holliday, and one league source pegged that bid at $16 million per year, making the proposal worth $112 million. But Holliday appears to be shooting for at least $18 million annually, the figure the Cubs paid Alfonso Soriano two years ago. Cardinals people are expressing faith they will be able to re-sign him. The Orioles have been in the bidding despite comments by their people downplaying their interest and involvement, as one person familiar with their situation says they are "laying in the weeds.''

• Jason Bay reportedly passed his Mets physical on Monday.

• The Red Sox, Giants and A's are seen as having interest in Adrian Beltre.

• While the Giants love Buster Posey long-term, after watching him closely in the Arizona Fall League they aren't absolutely convinced he's ready to do the bulk of their catching to start the season. That has the Giants considering outside alternatives and even whether to move their best hitter, Pablo Sandoval, behind the plate.

• Mark DeRosa is a nice pickup for the Giants, and Juan Uribe, whose signing is expected to be announced this week, will help. But the Giants need to add either an outfielder or first baseman, especially if they make the extraordinary move of returning Sandoval to his original position.

• Danys Baez is expected to be announced in coming days as the Phillies' new reliever.

The seventh annual Scouts Foundation dinner, which aids scouts in financial need and features a great dais and one of the best memorabilia opportunities in North America, is Jan. 16 in Los Angeles. The Scouts Foundation, begun by former superagent and current White Sox executive Dennis Gilbert, raises hundreds of thousands of dollars through the annual dinner and this year features honorees Brooks Robinson, Tony La Russa, Robin Roberts, Bill Giles, Manny Mota and many scouts. Commissioner Bud Selig, Tommy Lasorda, Dave Winfield, Pat Gillick, Kevin Towers and Gary Hughes will be among the star presenters, Bob Uecker will be the emcee (which will be hilarious) and Larry King will be a co-host. It is at 6 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency Century Plaza. For tickets, call 310-996-1188.