This year’s Hall of Fame ballot has been viewed as a particularly weak one, and to some extent that’s true. There’s no obvious slam-dunk legend coming online, like Ichiro Suzuki in 2025 or Albert Pujols in 2028. No first-timer is getting in this year; in fact, it’ll be a minor miracle if more than one of the newcomers even manage to stick around for a second year.
So it might surprise you to hear this as much as it did me: In my first year as a voter, I still voted for 10 players, the maximum allowed.
That’s not because I’m a “big Hall” kind of person. It’s because there’s this pesky myth going around that the Hall has become too open and permissive, when in fact the opposite is true: It’s harder than ever to get into the Hall of Fame. Historically, something like the top 1% of players should get in. We’re below that now. Most of the, shall we say, "more controversial" recent entrants into the Hall came via the Veterans Committees, not the annual writers vote.
Relatively weak as this group may be, there are 15 or so players on this ballot with some kind of case, even if it’s not a case as strong as a Willie Mays, Tom Seaver or Mickey Mantle might have had. When the writers pitched a shutout in 2013, it later turned out that 10 of those players (and counting!) made it into the Hall anyway. The same might happen here, too.
I’m not certain there are 10 future Hall of Famers here. I am certain there are at least 10 names -- more, really -- who should be returned to next year’s ballot to keep the conversation going. As always, I object so strongly to the Hall’s rule of a maximum number of 10 names on a ballot, rather than everyone who got here receiving the simple respect of a yes/no look. My 10 votes go to:
- OF Bobby Abreu
- OF Carlos Beltrán
- SP Mark Buerhle
- SP Cole Hamels
- SP Félix Hernández
- OF Andruw Jones
- SP Andy Pettitte
- OF Manny Ramirez
- SS/3B Alex Rodriguez
- 2B Chase Utley
Like I said: I don’t consider myself a “big Hall” person. I just think the Hall has gotten too small. Here’s how I got there, in my first try at this. We start with 27 players. I found it useful to place them into groups and start eliminating.
(11) First-year names who aren’t likely to see a second year.
Ryan Braun, Shin-Soo Choo, Edwin Encarnación, Gio González, Alex Gordon, Howie Kendrick, Matt Kemp, Nick Markakis, Daniel Murphy, Hunter Pence, Rick Porcello (11 NOs)
There are some really good careers here, responsible for some great moments – Kendrick had one of the most important homers in the history of the sport, Kemp put up the single best slugging month in the entire history of the Dodgers, etc. – but it’s unlikely most of these names get even the 5% necessary to stay on the ballot. Cap tipped, we moved on.
(3) Returnees who aren’t going to make the cut.
- Torii Hunter (NO)
- Francisco Rodríguez (NO)
- Omar Vizquel (NO)
Rodríguez and Vizquel are a pair of easy “no” here, because neither makes the on-the-field cut for me. I’ve been clear on this for Vizquel for more than a decade now, because the glove, great as it was, isn’t enough to make up for the weak bat, and for all the saves Rodríguez got, he simply doesn’t match up to the other great relievers of the 21st century. Those two players also have multiple serious off-the-field accusations, which certainly won’t lead people to pound the table for them. Neither player will get in; neither will come close.
Hunter may do better, but as the third-best center fielder on this ballot, he won’t do well enough.
Fourteen players eliminated, we’ve got 13 remaining. Let’s start saying yes.
(3) Obviously deserving hitters with some baggage.
- Carlos Beltrán (YES)
- Manny Ramirez (YES)
- Alex Rodriguez (YES)
Beltrán has a clear on-the-field case: He’s one of just five players with 400 homers and 300 steals, and the other four names are more than a little impressive -- Barry Bonds, Mays, A-Rod and Andre Dawson. He’s got the highest stolen base success rate ever. We could go deeper, but this is a 70-WAR player. The baseball part is a clear yes.
The reason he’s not in already is obvious, and that’s his very central role in the 2017 Astros sign-stealing scandal, which cost him his managerial job with the Mets before he’d had a chance to skipper a single game. I don’t think you can or should forgive and forget one of the larger sports scandals in recent times. I’m also not sure it’s right to punish him by multitudes more severely than anyone else, either. After serving suspensions, A.J. Hinch and Alex Cora are both back in the game in good standing. I don’t think association with this team is going to prevent Jose Altuve, George Springer or Alex Bregman from getting into the Hall, should their careers warrant that consideration.
Beltrán got 70.3% of the votes last year, just short of the 75% he needs. I’m guessing he sails in pretty easily this time around.
Let's take Ramirez and Rodriguez together, because there are some pretty obvious connections here.
- Their on-field value is unimpeachable. What these two did on the field, if taken by itself, is worthy of inner-circle legend stuff.
- They were both suspended for PED use after the testing era began, unlike earlier, pre-testing players like Bonds, who never actually failed anything because the testing and desire wasn’t in place, even if the rules technically were. That’s more of a “you should have known better” black mark against Ramirez and Rodriguez, in my opinion, than the previous generation. This is going to hurt Robinson Canó some day, too.
- … it would be weird for these guys to be in while Bonds isn’t, right?
It’s that last part that trips me up, because Bonds, Ramirez and Rodriguez all have the same issue, yet a vote for Ramirez and Rodriguez would put them in while leaving the best hitter of the three out? It makes no sense. It’s a twister. Ultimately I landed on this: I, personally, did not vote to keep Bonds out. I’d have voted for him if given the opportunity. I can only vote on what’s in front of me. The failed PED tests are a clear and appropriate stain on their reputations. They’ll never escape that, but I don’t think it means we can't ever recognize their careers, either.
(3) The heart of the 2005 Phillies lineup.
- Bobby Abreu (YES)
- Jimmy Rollins (NO)
- Chase Utley (YES)
This is one of my favorite running bits:
Those careers look pretty similar, don’t they? Tony Gwynn was the better player, but not by so much a gap that one should be an inner-circle legend and the other left out entirely. Abreu is one of only six players with 250 homers and 400 stolen bases. Three are in the Hall, and the father/son Bonds duo are the other two.
The reputations are different because Gwynn was a single-team hero while Abreu moved around, but also because Gwynn was a 15-time All-Star while Abreu was just a two-timer, indicating that he fails the "fame" part of the test. But I try not to worry about awards that much, because it was largely based on how much people in the 1980s and 90s cared about batting average. Abreu was a man ever so slightly ahead of his time. No punishment here for that.
Rollins and Utley usually get discussed as a pair on the ballot, given that they spent a dozen seasons together in the Philadelphia infield, but that’s not how this works. Separate people, separate evaluations -- and while Utley played only about 75% as many games as Rollins did, he was also considerably more valuable in that time.
The case for Rollins is mostly about that 2007 MVP he won, and while it was indeed a very good season, he wasn’t even the best middle infielder on the team. Utley was, by a lot. That was the only Rollins season I’d describe as ‘truly great,’ and while he had several other extremely good ones, that’s just not enough to get over the line here. I think he’s a better player than Phil Rizzuto, who’s in the Hall. I also don’t think Rizzuto should be in the Hall.
Utley's case is somewhat more like Abreu’s, requiring more interest in “getting on base” than counting stats or batting average. This is the kind of case that just begs you to dive deeper, because despite winning exactly zero Gold Gloves, DRS still has him as one of the two best defensive second basemen of the 21st century, a decade after he last regularly played the position. Utley, if he’d played today, would likely have been swimming in defensive awards, likely with four to six Gold Gloves. Plus, despite just 154 steals, he also rates as one of the 13 best baserunners, a metric which aligns with his reputation. WAR has him as the 11th-best second baseman. That’s pretty good. Hall of Fame good.
(4) The somewhat similar quartet of starting pitchers.
- Mark Buerhle (YES)
- Cole Hamels (YES)
- Félix Hernández (YES)
- Andy Pettitte (YES)
As I wrote last year, we simply have to think about how to handle starting pitchers beyond WAR or wins compared to history. It's simply a different sport now.
If your comparison point is: did he throw as many innings or win as many games as guys I remember from when I was a kid, we will never, ever induct another starting pitcher ever again. No one can pretend Max Scherzer isn’t a future Hall of Famer, but also he’s won 71% as many games as Seaver, who himself won 75% as many games as Walter Johnson.
Pretending today's pitchers just aren't good isn't tenable. It really is going to have to be more just “best pitcher of your generation,” however you define that. For now, I think the question is: Are we doing a disservice if we don’t vote for pitchers in this group, guys who are not the Clayton Kershaw/Scherzer/Justin Verlander level of no-doubters, yet still highly valuable. And while my gut feel kind of says “no” on most of them, I’m starting to think the answer to that question is: Yes.
For example: Last year, one of my editors asked me if I would write up the case for and against Hernández as he debuted on the ballot, and I figured he would be an easy “nah,” having basically been toast by 30. I wrote the story anyway and was stunned to find that it turned my opinion around completely. That’s based on the fact that from 2005-’14, Hernández was the best pitcher in baseball, and going back to 1950, 16 of the previous 18 best-for-a-decade guys are in, will be in, or missed only due to off-field problems. I also learned that through age 29, he was basically identical to CC Sabathia, who sailed in on the first ballot, and Sabathia was only fine after that, basically average. Should we be keeping Hernández out because he didn’t throw more average, forgettable innings?
I don’t care about the low win total, and I have no belief he will actually enter the Hall of Fame this year. I’m not even fully convinced that he should. But I think there’s a compelling case here, and I think he’s well worth getting to that 5% threshold to keep the conversation going. It’s not hard to see us all thinking about starting pitchers a lot differently by the time his eligibility would be exhausted. Let’s give him the chance to get there.
So, knowing that: Can I vote for him and not for these other three? In broad strokes, their careers are all pretty similar.
And so…
- Yes to Hamels, for exactly the same reason; the four were ultimately similarly as valuable, particularly he and Félix, and along with Randy Johnson and Kershaw, he’s one of only three lefties with 2,500 innings, 2,500 strikeouts, and a 120 ERA+.
- Yes to Pettitte, who probably has the strongest ‘traditional’ case of any of them, particularly if you add weight to all of the work he did in the postseason. (Yes, I know about the 2002 HGH thing. No, I’m not going to worry about that more than what Bonds, Rodriguez, and the gang did or were alleged to have done.)
- Yes to Buehrle, because even though the shape of his career was extremely different from Félix’s, the end results were mostly the same. I’m softer on him than the others, because the peaks were never the same, but also 14 straight 200-inning seasons seems otherworldly right now.
Yes, for all of them. For now. Subject to change. Maybe. I mostly think it would be a mistake if some of these starters got bounced before the sea change in pitcher evaluation comes. These are my “keep them at 5%” votes.
… and suddenly I have nine yes's. So much for a soft ballot.
(1) The complicated case of Andruw Jones.
- Andruw Jones (YES)
This is a tough one, as this being Jones' ninth time on the ballot suggests. The on-field case isn’t as obvious as you’d think, and Jones also was arrested for domestic violence on Christmas morning, 2012.
Braves fans think the on-field part is a no-brainer. I get it, because 434 homers along with what’s considered an all-time elite center field glove is a pretty fantastic place to start. For a 10-year period between 1998-2007, only Bonds and A-Rod were more valuable, and that carries a lot of weight.
Of course, it didn’t end great. His last good full season was at age 30, though he kicked around for five seasons after that. The 111 career wRC+ is hardly legendary -- that’s Tino Martinez or Carlos Lee, in similar playing time -- and if you care about some of the older counting stats, well, “a .254 average and fewer than 2,000 hits” won’t get you there. All of this would drag down the standard of the Hall, and so it’s not just a new-vs.-old-stats argument.
There’s also some compelling data that his time as a truly elite center fielder was a lot shorter than the Gold Gloves he kept winning would indicate, though I’m not going to quibble much about how incredible he was at his peak -- only how long that peak lasted. Ten Gold Gloves are a lot! And also: Keith Hernandez has 11, with better offense. He’s not in the Hall and isn’t likely to be any time soon.
Ultimately, I’d land on “yes” here, because of the heights of his first decade, and the power/defense combo, and because I probably can’t give Félix Hernández a pass for offering nothing in his 30s yet also kill Jones for being merely-OK at the same time. It makes more sense for him to be in than out. So it’s a soft yes, particularly with the off-field problems.
We’re now at 10 names, the max allowed. So for the last two, the question is: Do I feel strongly enough about you to bounce someone ahead? It’s a deeply unfair question -- but it’s the way the rules are written.
(2) The really good infielders with injury-shortened careers.
- Dustin Pedroia (NO)
- David Wright (NO)
Now it gets really tricky. Wright was a star for most of nine seasons, through age 30, before back trouble ruined his career. For Pedroia, it was 10 seasons, through age 32, before a 2017 knee injury led to a premature ending. Neither of them rate with Utley, for me, as he played several hundred more games than either, at a higher all-around level of play.
Can I really say it’s OK that Hernández and Jones did little or nothing in their 30s while also penalizing these two for injuries? I cannot. At the same time, there’s just not room for everyone. I think where I’m at here comes down to this sort of decision tree:
- Would you check the box in an unlimited ballot?
I don’t know. Borderline. I could probably go either way here. I think maybe yes, but I don’t feel strongly on it.
- Are they more worthy of a spot than some of those starting pitchers?
Maybe. It's not clear. For now, I think the starting pitcher conversation needs more time to percolate.
- Could you give Jones’ spot to either one?
Also maybe. But then I also have to pick which one here, and that’s just not a distinction I can make. Yet, anyway. I think both of these guys stick around for future ballots, so I’ll have a chance to reconsider -- and maybe I will.