Considering the Hall Candidates - Andre Dawson

Andre Dawson

Pro - he was a multitalented outfielder who was the 1977 National League Rookie of the Year with the Montreal Expos.

An eight-time Gold Glove winner, playing in Montreal diminished Dawson's abilities because apparently Astroturf was fake, synthetic grass layered over cement - it did much damage to Dawson's knees and hindered his ability to run and field over time, despite finishing with 314 stolen bases in his playing career.

Dawson and his agent apparently negotiated a 'blank' check after 10 years in Montreal and signed on with the Chicago Cubs - despite playing for a last place team, Dawson hit 49 home runs and had 137 RBIs in his 1987 National League MVP season.

Dawson was four-time Silver Slugger winner who hit 20 or more home runs in 13 of 21 seasons in the Major Leagues - finishing with 438 home runs and 1,591 RBIs.

Con - a player with a .323 on-base percentage may have been a little more patient and take his walks but one lone number shouldn't define the type of ballplayer Dawson was.

Yes/No - I would lean towards 'yes.'

Citing his on-base percentage seems to marginalize Dawson's relevance when he was an active player - he found a way to succeed despite his .323 on-base percentage and being one of the best all-around outfielders during his time, he cannot be denied longer.

Considering the Hall candidates - Tim Raines

Tim Raines

Pro - he might have been the best lead-off hitter of his generation, if Rickey Henderson wasn't running away with all the headlines.

On the basepaths, Raines stole 808 bases in his career, including six seasons of 70 or more steals - he also scored 1571 runs. 

At the plate, Raines got on-base via the walk 1330 times and collected 2605 hits - he was in the Top 10 in on-base percentage seven times during the 1980s and his lifetime on-base percentage was .385. 

Raines won the 1986 batting title with a .334 mark - his career batting average was .294.

An apparent cocaine addiction didn't stop Raines as his career peaked in the mid 1980s - through the decade, he was a seven-time All-Star and was the 1987 All-Star MVP. 

Con - Raines was an exciting player, but was overshadowed by Henderson, particularly when Raines was playing in Montreal. 

Oakland wasn't Montreal and more importantly, that time around the early 1980s - the A's had gained some notoriety with "Billy Ball," with Henderson to focal point of an upstart team in the Bay Area.

Raines played on World Series championship teams with the New York Yankees in 1996 and 1998 but in comparison to Henderson, who won the 1989 ALCS MVP - Raines was never the lone dominant player in one postseason series.

Yes/No - I'd lean towards 'no.'

Would it be a reasonable thought that hanging around for four or five more seasons until he was 42 hurt his Hall of Fame chances just a little bit - Raines was a pretty good player for a long time, but his star seemed to shine the most in the 1980s and by the mid 1990s, had faded into relative baseball obscurity as a part-time bench player.

Considering the Hall candidates - Roberto Alomar

Roberto Alomar

Pro - was the dominant player at second base in his prime with a sterling reputation as a slick fielding defender at second base and an offensive force at the plate. 

Alomar was arguably the best player for back-to-back World Series championship teams with the Toronto Blue Jays - winning the 1992 American League Championship MVP.

He stole 474 bases and was a constant threat - at the top of the lineup. 

His lifetime hitting marks include winning four Silver Slugger Awards - and finishing his career with 2724 hits.

His other lifetime batting marks include a .371 on-base percentage and a lifetime .300 batting average - Alomar had 504 doubles and hit 210 home runs with a .443 lifetime slugging percentage. 

Con - Alomar spat on an umpire in 1996, leaving a permanent stain on his accomplishments, altering the perception of him that still lingers among fans, the media and maybe those in the game.  

The year 2001 was the last great season for Alomar, but he was still looking to be on his way to getting 3,000 hits - however he ended up bouncing around as the latter part of his career careened off a cliff and was forced to retire without reaching the milestone.

Personal problems bubbled up for Alomar in 2009 - when an ex-girlfriend filed a suit against him with claims Alomar had exposed her to AIDS.

Yes/No - I'd lean towards 'yes.'

Reading about how Alomar's career crumbled in his last few seasons was disappointing - and reading accounts of his ex-girlfriend's claims was particularly disturbing. 

However, Alomar shouldn't judged by rumor and innuendo - as a 10-time All-Star and a 10-time Gold Glove winner, his accomplishments on the field speak for themselves.  

Considering the Hall candidates - Bert Blyleven

Bert Blyleven

Pro - he has nearly 300 wins and over 3,000 strikeouts in his resume. 

By his account - he's probably the most deserving of all eligible candidates and should have been inducted already.

Blyleven made 685 starts in 692 games pitched in the Major Leagues - he was a durable workhorse who took the ball and pitched 242 complete games, including 60 shutouts in the process.

It boggles mind to consider his innings workload during his prime in the 1970s to be 'normal' for a pitcher - which all the more impressive considering Blyleven statistics as it relates to how good a pitcher he was, regardless of any negative sentiment i.e. he pitched for bad teams, was more of a compiler, wasn't really ever great in one particular season, etc.

Aside from Blyleven's numbers, Blyleven was considered to be a good natured, fan-friendly player - who was a notorious, prankster in Major League clubhouses.

Con - what makes him so different from other comparable hurlers? However, he may come off as a little too smug and a little too ardent in campaigning for his spot in the Hall of Fame, particularly in the last four or five years, where he has gained more support.  

He has the numbers, but maybe those who don't vote for him were exposed to Blyleven - as some sort of clown who was a better clubhouse prankster, than a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher.

Yes/No - I'd lean towards 'yes.' 

He's waited long enough to be honored maybe he should be recognized for his accomplishments and not his humility - circle me, Bert.

Considering the Hall candidates - Fred McGriff

Fred McGriff

Pro - McGriff's prime was during the late 1980s and early 1990s as he clubbed 30 home runs for seven straight seasons from 1988-1994.

He propelled the Atlanta Braves in their chase to win the National League West championship in 1993 - the last real pennant race.

He slugged 30 or more home runs in 10 of 19 seasons - he led the American League with 36 home runs in 1989 and the National League with 35 in 1992.

He finished with 493 home runs and 1,550 RBIs.

He finished with a .377 on-base percentage and a .509 slugging percentage.

Con - McGriff's numbers are easy to ignore, because as the power numbers exploded through the mid 1990s, there was no real 'jump' in The Crime Dog's home run totals.

While sluggers of comparable ability were slugging past his best home run totals on a perennial basis - McGriff wasn't hitting 40-50 home runs like everyone else through the mid to late 1990s.

Yes/No - I'd lean towards 'yes.'

McGriff's legacy will forever be linked for endorsing Tom Emanski's baseball instructional videos - McGriff was a great slugger and if he had starred from the 1970s and early 1980s, maybe the consistency in his power numbers would be seen with more relevance.

Considering the Hall candidates - Dave Parker

Dave Parker

Pro - 'The Cobra' had some fine seasons and was arguably the dominant player in the National League from 1975-1979, when he won three Gold Gloves [1977-1979] in right field and was the 1978 NL MVP.

Parker was among the Top 10 leaders in slugging seven times - he led the National League with a .545 mark in 1975 and a .585 mark in 1978.

Parker's .339 on-base percentage was a little better than Andre Dawson's .323 - Parker didn't rack up 90-100 walks a season, but due to high batting averages, had three seasons where he had .397 on-base percentage [1977], .394 on-base percentage [1978] and .380 on-base percentage [1979].

Parker finished his career with a .290 batting average, 339 home runs, 1493 RBIs and 2712 hits.

Con - Parker was caught up with a drug scandal in 1980s and his numbers were dinged by a combination of a strike, injuries and age. 

Yes/No - I'd lean towards 'no.'

A seven time all-star and the 1979 All-Star MVP, Parker was a great player in his prime and a case can be made that he is a borderline Hall of Famer - if Parker he'd reached 3,000 hits, he'd be in the Hall of Fame. As impressive as his accomplishments are, his final numbers doesn't quite vault him from Hall of Very Good status.

Considering the Hall candidates - Jack Morris

Jack Morris

Pro - if there was a Hall of Moments, he'd be in along with someone like Roger Maris, particularly for his performance in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, where he gutted out a series clinching performance with 10 shutout innings over the upstart Atlanta Braves.

He pretty impressive in the 1984 World Series for the juggernaut Detroit Tigers with - two wins, 18 innings pitched, allowed four earned runs and struck out 13 against only three walks.

The winningest pitcher in the 1980s, Morris started 527 out 549 games in his Major League career and was a workhorse - he completed 175 games along with 28 shutouts.

Con - there seems to be more of a quantity rather than quality aspect to the numbers he put up. He probably got another ring with the Toronto Blue Jays in 1993, but imploded with a 7-12 record and 6.19 ERA. He got pounded for 189 hits in only 152 innings and didn't even pitch in the postseason.

Yes/No - I'd lean towards 'no.' 

If Morris had retired after the 1992 season, maybe his lifetime ERA looks a little better, even with 17 less wins [total number picked up between 1993 and 1994] - maybe he'd look better to voters to see him finish his career with a 21 win season instead of appearing to hang around two seasons too long.

Considering the Hall candidates - Mark McGwire

Mark McGwire

Pro - MCgwire was the dominant home run slugger of his era, the main attraction for a sport reeling from a strike in 1994. Along with baseball's Michael Jackson [well, that is who Sammy Sosa resembles these days], McGwire helped reinvorated the game with their home run hitting exploits back in 1998.

He hit 49 home runs as a rookie in 1987.

He finished with 583 home runs and drove in 1414 RBIs.

His lifetime slugging percentage was .588 and his on-base percentage is .394.

Con - he may have always had the ability to hit for power, but through nine seasons and the age of 31, he only had 238 home runs, his lifetime batting average was .250 with only 834 hits.

After injuries in 1993 and 1994, which seemed to signify his Major League career was basically over - it was suspicious, he would enjoy a career surge seems suspicious for a guy who had all-star ability from the beginning of his Major League career, but not quite the sustained greatness expected from a potential Hall of Fame
candidate.

There are fans, members of the media and baseball experts who probably believe while McGwire used something - he never touched one PED that helped him put up seasons where he hit 39, 52, 58, 70 and 65 home runs from 1995 through 1999.

His reluctance to speak at the congressional hearing back in 2005 seems like a smoking gun as far whether or not he used - "I'm not here to discuss the past," or, "I'm here to be positive about this subject."

Yes/No - I'd lean towards 'no.'

Maybe the PEDS helped a player like McGwire sustain his health and a rational can be justified about wanting to be healthy to play a game one loves and is getting paid for - on the other hand, any possible drug use may have propelled a player like McGwire's career into unnatural heights during the Steroid Era.

If baseball fans and the media are really interested in holding the players accountable for cheating - someone like McGwire should probably be looked upon as the biggest fraud.

Considering the Hall candidates - Lee Smith

Lee Smith

Pro - once was time the all-time saves leader, Smith racked up 478 saves in a 18 year career. He had 30 or more saves in 10 seasons and 40 or more saves in three of those seasons.

Smith was an intimidating figure 6'6" but never really had the 'signature theatrics' of a modern-day closer from the last 30 years - it seemed like he was the time who went about his business closing games out and then had a beer after the game.

Con - Smith piled up a bunch of saves in the regular season, but in his only postseason appearances in 1984 and 1988, he was 0-2 in four games and was bombed for nine hits and five runs in 5 1/3 innings. If his teams had advanced further than they did in the playoffs, Smith's accomplishments in general would be held in higher regard, especially if he was a closer for a World Series championship team.

Yes/No - I'd lean towards 'no.'

With the elections of Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage, maybe a precedent has been set to look deeper into role of a closer as far as consideration for the Hall - Smith benefits because he was pretty good for a long time, regardless of how many teams he played for. Unfortunately, his lack of postseason glory with the Chicago Cubs or the Boston Red Sox maybe the reason he is looking in from the outside.

Considering the Hall candidates - Edgar Martinez

Hall of Fame

I don't have a vote, but just like every other baseball fan - I'd like to think my 'simple man' opinion counts for something and I'd like to go through candidates eligible and worthy of consideration.

Edgar Martinez

Pro - healthy on-base percentage/power numbers, won a couple of batting titles and finished with a .312 lifetime batting average. He also spent his entire professional career with one organization, never gotten in any sort of trouble and was an otherwise model pro athlete.

Con - he shouldn't be knocked by being a designated hitter, but identifying him with the DH makes him seem one-dimensional and hinders perception of his overall career.

Once it became apparent Martinez wasn't going to take the field as a position player - it served to his advantage, all he could focus is on was hitting the ball, getting stronger in the weight room, hitting the ball, studying the mechanics of hitting, getting stronger in the weight room, hitting the ball.

He didn't have to worry about whether or not he was to bulky to play the field - all he had to worry about was watching the game from the bench and waiting for his four or five at-bats in a game.

Besides his inability to take the field, what really hurts him is somehow he found himself floundering in the minors through his mid 20s before getting an extending opportunity to stick with the Seattle Mariners - it hurts his overall numbers, especially when in his hitting prime, he wasn't considered a position player.

Yes/No - I'd lean towards 'no.' 

Martinez was a very good player for a long time and a particularly great hitter - but he falls short this time around.