FanPost

My 2015 Ballot: the Position Players

Yeesh. The pitchers really wore me out, however I've only scratched the surface, there are plenty of position players to talk about. For simplicity I'm going to divide this into two sections.

1. The "Steroid" Guys

2. The "Clean" Guys

I'm using quotation marks because (besides McGwire) we don't know with 100% certainty if any of these guys were roiders or not. The whole issue is a mess, which only makes this infuriatingly complicated system worse. I will try to follow the same patter, so bare with me.

The "Steroid Guys"

Barry Bonds:

Pretty much everything I said about Roger Clemens can be copied and pasted here: Bonds has a case for the greatest position player ever. He won more MVPs than any player in history, holds the all time home run record, and won TONS of Gold Gloves in left field. In his early years, he could run, in his bulked up years he could simply smash the ball. I remember watching him in the All-Star games and wondering how anyone could possibly get this guy out (although of course they did...sometimes). He started his career in Pittsburgh and took off in 1990, winning his first MVP, a Gold Glove and a Silver Slugger. Even at a young age, he could hit (.301/.406/.565) with over 30 homeruns. His combination for all skills (he stole 52 bases) is perhaps unique in baseball history. He continued to destroy the National League for years, winning MVPs in 1992 and 1993 (finishing 2nd in 1991 to Terry Pendleton, he should have won that year too). He would continue to play well. He would hit .300 or so every year, get on base over a .400 clip (with power) along with plenty of stolen bases and good defense. He won 8 Gold Gloves in his career. In 1993 he went to San Francisco, and dominated there too. Everything seemed fine until 2000, then things got ridiculous. He hit 49 home runs, the next year he hit 73. He was unstoppable, and the solution was to simply walk him. He led the league in walks five years in a row (setting the Major League record in that statistic) including 688 intentional walks. He was intentionally walked 120 times in 2004. People talk about Jim Rice as the most feared hitter in the '80s, but there is no doubt in my mind no player was as feared as Barry Bonds. Essentially your position on Barry Bonds is your position on steroids, and I don't think steroids should disqualify a player for the Hall of Fame, prior to them being made explicitly illegal. Bonds may have been the best player to walk the earth, and I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

Verdict: Yes

Mark McGwire:

Big Mac was underrated. He hit 583 homeruns, and yes, was underrated. Why? Because nobody values walks enough. Mark McGwire always had two skills, he could walk and he could hit homeruns, and boy was he good at them. He started playing in 1986, and after that cup of coffee exploded onto the scene in 1987. He hit 49 homeruns, leading the league, collecting 71 walks along the way (collecting a Rookie of the Year Award). The next year? 32 home runs, 76 walks. After that? 33 homers, 83 walks. The next year he led the league in walks, walking 110 times, along with his customary power (39 homeruns). His tenure in Oakland cemented him as one of the game's top power threats typically hitting over 30 home runs, while also getting on base over a .370 clip. His age 29 and 30 seasons made it seem like he slowed down, as he couldn't stay on the field. At age 31 he came back and hit another 39 homeruns (88 walks) before having his first monster season in '96. He hit 52 homeruns, leading the league, with 116 walks and led the league in on base percentage (.460) as well. That was his last year in Oakland, he left for St. Louis and took his power to new heights. He was traded to St. Louis in 1997, after hitting 34 homeruns in Oakland, and proceeded to hit 24 more in St. Louis. The next year he and Sammy Sosa chased Roger's home run record, and belted 70 home runs in a season for the ages (he should have won the MVP too but somehow they gave it to Sosa, who not only hit fewer homeruns but got on base less frequently). He hit 65 more in '99 but after that the magic was lost. He couldn't stay on the field, although he still hit home runs (32 in 2000 and 29 in 2001) before retiring.

Criticism of McGwire's career largely stem from his lack of skills beyond homeruns and walks. His hit total is low (1,626 for his career) and he didn't hit for much of an average. He wasn't a good first baseman (though he surprisingly won a Gold Glove in 1990). I compare Big Mac to Harmon Killebrew, who similarly had tons of value in his bat but little else, he did manage to play a passable first base in his career. Looking at WAR doesn't always help Big Mac much. He's behind the career and peak WAR for first baseman, but ahead of the median. He's probably the best first baseman not in the Hall of Fame, and was certainly the best, or near best, player in the league frequently during his career. Mark also has another intangible: he hit homeruns at a higher clip than any player in baseball history. I would vote for him to join the Hall of Fame.

Verdict: Yes

Gary Sheffield:

I'll be honest, I hated Sheffield when he played. Partly because I remember him from the Tigers, and I hate the Tigers. He always had that menacing look on his face, and I wont forget his scuffle with Fausto Carmona. However, there is no doubt he was a good hitter in his time. Sheffield played for 8 teams in his career (possibly because he was so unpleasant to be around) and could always hit. He would swing his bat around his head with a glare that could kill, daring pitchers to throw to him, before smashing the ball. His first good year was for Milwaukee in 1990, when he hit .294/.350/.421. His power didn't develop until two years later. He led the league in hitting for San Diego in 1992, batting .330 clubbing 33 homeruns. In 1993 he was traded by San Diego, to Florida, where he continued his good play. He ranged from solid to good for a few years before breaking out again in 1996, batting .314 and walking 142 times, 90 more than the previous year. He was part of the 1997 World Series winning team for Florida (grumble) and continued to be a feared hitter for years. He went to Los Angeles, and hit (his 160 OPS+ for Los Angeles was the best mark for him for any team). He then went to Atlanta, and hit (39 homeruns his second year). He moved onto New York, and hit (averaged over .290 batting average and 35 homers) and then ended up in Detroit, where he continued to hit. At 38 he batted .265/.378/.462 in front of Magglio Ordonez (who had his career year). The next year he struggled, at 39, but still walked enough to be passable. At 40 he had 499 homers and signed with the New York Mets to chase 500, ending his career with 509, and yes he hit well in limited duty for New York, batting .276/.372/.451 in over 300 plate appearances.

While Sheffield could bat, he wasn't a good fielder for his career (-28.6 dWAR according to Baseball Reference) which balanced out his excellent hitting. He could run as a young man, and ended his career with 60.2 WAR, which puts him in the conversation for Cooperstown (Mark McGwire, for example, had less). However, historically Sheffield doesn't quite match up with the best outfielders of all time. He began his career as a shortstop and a third baseman, but couldn't stick there, finally moving to the outfield in 1994 (mostly in right field, then left field as he aged). Is Sheffield one of the best outfielders of his era? I wouldn't say so. Ken Griffey Jr was better, Kenny Lofton was better, Manny Ramirez (steroids and all) was certainly better. I think Albert Belle was a better hitter in the 90s (but aged less gracefully) as was David Justice, although neither were particularly good fielders either. Tony Gwynn (who overlapped earlier in his career) was better. Ichiro Suzuki (still active) was better in fewer seasons. When I think of outfielders who aren't in the Hall of Fame, Tim Raines belongs in the Hall of Fame, and is still waiting. Kenny Lofton was better and is still waiting. Larry Walker was better, and is still waiting. Overall, I think Sheffield could convince me, but as of this year, I'll have to pass.

Verdict: No.

Sammy Sosa:

Sammy Sosa reminds me of Sheffield in some ways: he was a good hitter, and baserunner (as a young man) but lacked value in the field. Their value manifested itself in different ways, Sosa had enormous power, but couldn't get on base. Sheffield was more balanced. He had power, to be sure, but walked a lot later in his career. Sosa hit 60 homers three times (more than any other player) and knocked over 600 out of the park in his career. However, his career OBP (.344) is mediocre, especially in the crazy steroid era, where balls flew everywhere and batting averages were inflated. Sammy started his career in Texas, before going to Chicago (both the White Sox and the Cubs). He broke the 20 homer barrier for the first time at 24, hitting 33 for the Cubs and proceeded to break 20 homers every year for the next 12 years. He broke 60 in '98, chasing Maris with McGwire, and stole an MVP from the same player. He hit 60 again in '99 and lost out to Bonds. He finally led the league in 2000 with 50, before hitting 60 again in 2001. He faded the next two years, before losing his power in Baltimore in 2005. I remember watching him at Camden Yards, and being disappointed, he wasn't the exciting young man any more. After taking a year off he came back to Texas in 2007, broke 600 homers and retired.

Sammy Sosa's case really comes down to those 600 home runs. He wasn't a great fielder, and wasn't a great baserunner later in his career. His hitting skills beyond homers were mediocre, at best. he only hit 379 doubles and 45 triples. He wasn't a good average hitter (.273 in his career) so he had to knock balls out of the park to find value, which he did. Again, is Sosa the best outfielder not in the Hall of Fame? No, all the players I listed for Sheffield apply here as well, and honestly the difference between Sosa and Sheffield is minimal, at best. As an overall weapon, I'd rather have Sheffield in my lineup than Sammy. I'll revisit him later too.

Verdict: No

The "Clean" Guys

Jeff Bagwell:

I don't understand the confusion about Jeff Bagwell, he was best hitter in the NL for years. Playing entirely for Houston, he compiled a .297/.408/.540 career stat line (barely missing inclusion in the elite club of players with at least a .300/.400/.500 slash line). The only reason I think there's even a debate on Bagwell is whispers about alleged PED use (which Bagwell denies). I don't know if Bagwell used or not, and I don't care. He was a well above average hitter his entire career, until he retired after 2005 (and he just missed the mark at 94 OPS+ that year too). If he was stubborn, moved to the AL and played a few more years he may have made it to 500 homeruns and been selected immediately, his MVP campaign i 1994 was a masterpiece. He had a 213 OPS+ with 300(!) TB for crying out loud (all that in 110 games by the way). Bagwell lost ground last year, which is a shame, I'd vote for him this year.

Verdict: Yes

Craig Biggio:

For some, Biggio's candidacy can be summed up into two words: 3,000 hits. However, Biggio's quest to reach this fabled promised land is only one small part of his candidacy, and frankly undervalues his career. Craig was a great player in his prime, one of the best second baseman in history. Biggio was drafted, and played his entire career, in Houston. At first Biggio was a catcher, before moving into the outfield, he only made his way to second base later in his career. In fact, in his first full season, he won a Silver Slugger...at Catcher. Biggio found his groove in 1991, when he hit .295/.358/.374 (only 2 HBP, we'll get to that) in an All-Star campaign, again at catcher. In 1992 Biggio moved to the Keystone full time, and rewarded Houston with another solid, All-Star campaign. 1994 marked the beginning of Biggio's prime. Biggio hit .318/.411/.483 including 44 doubles, 39 stolen bases (leading the NL). In his prime Biggio did not get much MVP consideration, although he was probably every bit as good as the winners every year. In 1994 Frank Thomas dominated the league. In 1995 Barry Larkin took home his only MVP (although it's arguable that Biggio was just as good, although Maddux may have deserved the award). 1996 was a down year for Biggio, but he came roaring back in 1997 for his best campaign, hitting .309/.415/.501 with a whopping 34 hit batsmen. Biggio lost out to Larry Walker, in a close fought race (along with Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell). Biggio again had a great year in 1998, but that was the year of the homerun, and Sammy Sosa took home the gold. Biggio declined after '98, and moved to Center Field (at 37) then a mix of left and center at 38. In 2005 Biggio returned to second, as part of the Houston World Series run, and hit well in the NLDS and CS before cratering in the World Series (Houston got swept by Chicago). He would hold on for two more years to collect the 200 hits he needed to reach 3,000, as a replacement level player (or worse in 2007).

Unfortunately, many remember Biggio as a compiler, and forget his prime in the mid '90s as a truly great player, and in his later career Biggio indeed was a compiler, holding on long enough to reach the fabled 3,000 hit mark. He, ironically, doesn't qualify in Jay Jaffe's JAWS system because of his 2007 campaign, when he was worth -2.4 WAR on the season. I don't penalize Biggio for hanging on long enough to reach 3,000, I'm sure it was a magical moment for Houston fans (who weren't going to the playoffs anyway in 2007). He just missed election last season, and would get my vote today.

Verdict: Yes

Nomar Garciaparra

Nomar was the third part of the great triumvirate of shortstops during the late 90s and early 2000s in the AL, along with Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez. In fact, there was talk that Nomar could be the BEST of the three over the long haul. Nomar started his career in Boston, and won the Rookie of the Year award in his second season in the MLB. For eight seasons he was a premier shortstop in the AL, particularly with the bat, hitting .313/.370/.553 (good for a 133 OPS+). He was abruptly traded to Chicago in a four team trade, after disputes with management (a trend in Boston, I get the feeling) in 2004. He finished the year well, batting .297/.364/455 in Wrigley Field. However, Nomar (now 30) was in the decline of his career, we just didn't know it yet. Nomar was hurt in 2005, only playing in 62 games. Now a free agent, he signed with the Dodgers, and came back with a good season in 2006, resembling his old self again for one more year. However, it was his last good year, he struggled for two more years in Los Angeles before signing with the Oakland Athletics as a utility player. He signed a one day contract with Boston, and retired a few years later.

Nomar as a great player in his prime, he averaged over 6 WAR for Boston prior to 2004 (and 2001 when he was hurt). However, he couldn't stay on the field, for his career he only came to the plate 6,116 PAs. His career numbers are relatively unimpressive: 1,747 hits, 229 homeruns, 370 doubles and 927 runs scored. He wasn't particularly impressive with the glove either, he never won a Gold Glove, nor did he take home any major accolades (only the Rookie of the Year and a Silver Slugger). Had Nomar managed to stay on the field, or had his prime lasted a little longer, he would have a stronger argument. However, as impressive as him prime is, he didn't last long enough.

Verdict: No

Jeff Kent:

I was high on Kent's case last year, he has a solid case as the best hitting second baseman since Rorger Hornsby. However, as Joe Posnanski points out, much of his hitting prowess comes from his time period, not his personal greatness. When I think of the greatest second baseman not in the Hall of Fame, Bobby Grich and Craig Biggio are hands down ahead of Kent on this list, with others in the wings. Further, he already has two second baseman in his era who were better. Roberto Alomar is arguably the best second baseman in his era, and Biggio (in my opinion) is also better. Can we have three second baseman from one era? Possibly. Kent did have an MVP Award in 2000, which neither Alomar nor Biggio has, but his is a borderline case, and in a crowded year like this he's easily edged out. I look forward to looking at this next year.

Verdict: No

Edgar Martinez:

With all due respect to David Ortiz, Edgar Martinez is the greatest designated hitter of all time. His record as a hitter is insanely under appreciated as he was overshadowed in his time in Seattle by first Ken Griffey Jr and then by Ichiro Suzuki. Here's a question: would Edgar Martinez be a better Hall of Fame candidate if he had struggled at Third Base (and lost value) instead of hitting incredibly well at DH? I don't think so, for his career he hit:

.312/.418/.515 with 514 doubles, 309 homers, 1,219 runs scored, more walks (1,283) than strikeouts (1,202) and an incredible 147 OPS+. I could talk about his insane prime, where he AVERAGED an OBP over .430 for seven seasons (including an absolutely insane .479 OBP in 1995 nobody was within 20 points). We can debate whether or not a DH belongs in the Hall of Fame, but Paul Molitor breezed into the Hall (with his 3,000 hits) and he was NOT NEARLY as good a hitter as Edgar. Molitor was a steady hitter, Edgar was a transcendent one.

Verdict: Yes

Mike Piazza:

Piazza's case can be summed up in one sentence: greatest hitting catcher who ever lived. His case, I think, is an interesting parallel to Ivan Rodriguez, the other seminal catcher of his era who has an argument as the greatest DEFENSIVE catcher who ever lived. Both players have a strong argument. Piazza burst onto the scene in 1992 winning a Rookie of the Year award and hitting 35 homeruns. Piazza always had great power for a catcher, he holds the record for most homeruns in a season for a catcher, and the most homeruns in a career for a catcher. He finished second in the MVP award in back-to-back seasons losing to Ken Caminiti in '96 and Larry Walker in '97. He would continue to hit well throughout his career, first for LA, then for the Mets, before ending his career in one years stints with the Padres and finally as Oakland's part-time DH in 2007.

Like Bagwell, how you see Piazza's case probably largely stems from your thoughts on his steroid use. If you think he used steroids (many do) than you wont vote for him, if you're unconvinced you probably vote for him. It looks like he's been trending in the right direct, and may take a big leap forward this year. He's helped by not having any other catcher's on the ballot, but should hurry up as Pudge Rodriguez arrives on the ballot in a few years.

Verdict: Yes

Tim Raines:

Raines is an unfortunate holdover, and an incredibly underrated player during his career and today. As it has been pointed out before, the difference between Tim Raines and Tony Gwynn are enormous, but puny, at the same time. Both players offered similar value, but in different ways. Gwynn put up big batting averages, and collected 3,000 hits. Raines, however, walked a lot and stole a ton of bases. In a similar number of plate appearances (10,359 for Raines, 10,232 for Gwynn) Raines reached base more 3,935 for Raines, 3,931 for Gwynn. If this were the only difference between the two it could be argued that Gwynn provided more value, as hits are more valuable than walks, but if you add up their total bases and their stolen bases (and subtract their caught stealing), you find they were really similar players (4,433 for Raines, 4,453). Raines also had greater power, relative to his batting average. Raines isolated slugging (0.131) was greater than Gwynn's (0.121). Unfortunately many people couldn't get over the massive difference in batting average between Raines and Gwynn, and thus miss the greatness of Raines. Historically, there aren't any outfielders who are better than Raines waiting to go in, in my opinion, as he's the best in his class. I'd put Raines into the Hall of Fame.

Verdict: Yes

Alan Trammel:

I used to be confused on Alan Trammel's candidacy, but over the years I've been worn down by the endless comparisons of Trammel and Barry Larkin. I do think Larkin was the better hitter, and possibly the more impactful player during his career. However, neither of those things mean he was a particularly better player. There is a decent argument Trammel was a somewhat worse player than Larkin, but not enough to exclude him from the Hall of Fame. The Hall is inundated with shortstops, some poor candidates (Rabbit Marranville comes to mind) and some of the best as well. It's unfortunate that the end of Trammel's time of the ballot coincides with the glut of players currently on the ballot, as he may have had an opportunity to gain some momentum. However, I don't believe he has any chance now, and his lack of attention may harm his chances with the Veteran's Committee in the future, but he should have gone in a lot earlier.

Verdict: Yes

Larry Walker:

Walker's value came from his all around play, however, he truly was an excellent hitter. In 10 seasons at Colorado he batted: .334/.426/.618, granted all of this playing at Coors Field for a home park. However, some overstate the effects of Coors Field (and also underestimate the effects other parks have on a player's overall batting line). Besides being a good hitter, he also was an excellent fielder in right field, he won 7 Gold Gloves over his career, and a good baserunner (Baseball Reference has him 40 runs better than average at avoiding double plays and 10 runs better than average on the basepaths. However, many have criticized his ability to remain on the field, he only played more than 150 games once in his career (in 1997 the year he won an MVP). Many also doubt his true value due to the effects of Coors Field (where he was a much better hitter than away). Neither Fangraphs nor Baseball Reference seem to think this diminishes his value, they place his career WAR 68.9 at 72.6 respectively.

When I look at Larry Walker's competition historically, I find the pickings slim, at this stage. The best corner outfielder not in the Hall of Fame not named Larry Walker is Tim Raines (who belongs in the Hall of Fame). After Raines, Dwight Evans is probably the next best outfielder not in the Hall of Fame. The question becomes if you believe the Hall of Fame line is at Walker or at Evans. I tend to think Walker is well above the Hall of Fame line, unfortunately, I don't think Walker's case is going to be heard at this point, as better players have overshadowed his career.

Verdict: Yes

FanPosts are reader-generated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Covering the Corner or the Covering the Corner staff.