This year's Hall of Fame rant...

Murphy: still, no respect...









For this year's Hall of Fame rant, which is sort of similar to the same January 10 discussions I have had with Paul for what seems like the last five years...

Bruce Sutter...no problem. He was a dominant closer before the save stat was cheapened and top-shelf relievers became a succession of 3-out specialists (such as Lee Smith) who were rarely, if ever, called upon to put out "fires" from the bullpen. I don't know that his case should be stronger than Blyleven's, but I have no problem that Sutter was elected today. And he certainly wasn't juiced, either, as I suspect a certain French-Canadian who has worn Dodger blue in recent years. In the race between primo relievers of his generation, I suppose Sutter deserved to get the nod in a photo finish over Gossage, who also might merit the HOF and made a strong showing again today. If the Goose ever gets in, he should be the last reliever so honored.

Bert Blyleven...encouraging. He was hovering around 40% last year, and moved up to 53% this year, though such advancement, or even maintaining that percentage, could be difficult next year when some shoe-ins show up on the ballot such as Gwynn and Ripken (and maybe McGwire?). The fact is that Blyleven could have pulled a Don Sutton and hung around for another year or two just to get to the "magic" 300 wins. Or he could have kept pitching like Steve Carlton, way past his sell-by date. Thus, his HOF credentials are apparently irreparably damaged because he knew when it was time to quit, unlike HOFers Sutton and Carlton and many others, after a great career. (Of course, Lefty deserves his place in the Hall, though have never been convinced Sutton deserved it when he got in after his non-stop politicking.) "Rikalbert" was a great pitcher for 8-9 seasons, pitching for many so-so or worse teams (Twins, especially past his 1970 rookie year, Rangers, and Tribe), a solid pitcher for another 4-5 seasons (including his stint with the Pirates, when he was there for the '79 title), and, unlike Lefty, was still okay and not yet a shell of himself by the end of his career, when he did manage to land on another World Series winner ('87 Twins). His career stats are very favorable for HOF inclusion. Though an acknowledged wacko in playing days, maybe the writers are mellowing to him a bit since he has become part of the media (he's pretty good as the color analyst on Twins TV games). At his best he was a rare combo of power with a wicked curve. And for Mark's sake, we'd love to bring Andy Musser back for Bert's induction ceremony, just so he can remind us that Bert hailed from Zeist, Holland. Deserves HOF (Bert, not Andy!).

Jim Rice...not yet. Yes, he was a star, but in the end I thought his career disappointed just a bit, or at least never reached the heights that it once seemed it would. I suspect the overbearing influence of the Red Sox Nation is forcing the writers to consider him slightly ahead of Andre Dawson, who hovered just behind Rice's 64% at 61%. I always thought Dawson a better all-around player than Rice, and the Hawk certainly had more longevity (though the brilliant portion of Dawson's career was limited to a short few years). And was Rice really any better than Dave Parker?

Dale Murphy...they should be ashamed! Paul knows this is my annual rant, but I was hoping that at least on this year's ballot, Murph would get a little more respect and rise above the 10% range. Nope, and I remain perplexed. For a period between 1982-86, and maybe '87, Murphy was the premier player in the game. Shouldn't that be the ultimate definition of greatness, and HOF worthiness? A couple of MVPs, 5 Gold Gloves, 7 All-Star selections. Versatility. All-around player. Numerous league-leading stats throughout his career (comparing favorably with some HOFers). In those prime years, Murph was at or near the top in every meaningful NL category, including hits, runs, OBP, OPS, runs created, power/speed, etc. Not to mention being something of an ironman in his prime years (played in all 162 from '82-86, and 160 in '87).

Like always, I don't know that Murph gets in (his .265 career BA probably doesn't help, too many Ks, and his 398 HRs probably don't get the writers very interested, either),but to see him continue to get such little respect from the writers is blasphemous. And not playing on a championship team shouldn't hurt Murph that much--Jim Rice wasn't on a World Series-winner, either (maybe the writers forgot that the Sox hadn't won the Series in 80+ years until '04, and never did when Rice was playing).

I hate to say this, but maybe Murphy was too nice of a fellow, being a good Mormon and such. In today's age, that can actually work against a guy. Baseball writers have practiced their own form of reverse racism in Hall voting before, and I'm convinced Murph, in a sense, might be subject to some of the same thing. I still rate Murphy slightly above Dawson and a little further ahead of Rice in my own unofficial balloting. But he never comes up in these HOF discussions with sorts like Tim Kirkjian or Jayson Stark, who seem to be cast as experts on the subject by ESPN, and talk endlessly about Jim Rice each year. I would suspect that Peter Gammons, even with his Boston background, would at least side more favorably with Murph.

Murph was also a greater player than McGwire in my book, too, though I'm sure the writers will have a different opinion (though I am not at all sure Big Mac gets in next year in his first try with the rumors still flying).

Lee Smith...irritating. That Smith continues to get over 40% of the vote should almost disqualify the writers who seem to keep voting for him every year. Smith was never great, he was simply in the right place at the right time, when the save was bastardized and closers were no more than 3-out specialists, not firemen. Smith had nowhere near the impact that a Sutter or Gossage had in their heydays out of the pen. Present-day closers should get less consideration than full-time DHs, though I suspect Edgar Martinez won't come close to Smith's HOF percentage in a few years when he gets on the ballot.

Other random thoughts. I am glad Alan Trammell gets proper respect from the voters and has a sizable number of votes, but I have always wondered why Sweet Lou Whitaker never made ANY impact with the writers, who didn't give Sweet Lou enough votes to even stay on the ballot when he became eligible! Whitaker's numbers are all comparable to Trammell's: hits, LW's 2369 vs. AT's 2365; homers, 244 vs. 165; RBIs, 1084 vs. 1003; OBP, .363 vs. .352; games, 2390 vs. 2292; Gold Gloves, 3 vs. 5; All-Star Games, 5 vs. 6. Trammell made better showings in the MVP voting, and deserves the respect he gets from the HOF voters, but that doesn't explain why Sweet Lou was so overlooked. I could someday see the Veteran's Committee correcting this egregious wrong by the writers. Garvey deserves his votes, but doesn't deserve more votes than Murphy, though I liked Garv more in his Padre days and retirement than I did during the sickening propaganda days with the Dodgers. Mattingly might be getting a bit short-changed like Murph, as the writers are probably forgetting he also won 9 Gold Gloves in his career.

Next year on January 10, it will surely be the Ripken love-fest for all of the talking heads on TV. And for that, I know Big Dan is already warming up in the commentary bullpen...