You hear it on ESPN. You hear it on FOX. You here it every time the Giants roll into town. Omar Vizquel is a Hall of Famer. Dusty Baker and others go so far as to categorically declare Omar a "first ballot" Hall of Famer. Let’s look at his qualifications.

He’s an eleven time gold glove winner at a critical defensive position. Besides Jim Kaat, is there a greater individual GG haul still outside Cooperstown’s golden door?

In some circles, Vizquel is seen as the heir apparent to Ozzie Smith, a nearly unanimous first ballot inductee, who won thirteen gold gloves while redefining the position.  Their careers are fun to compare since they played a similar number of games (Smith 2511 v Vizquel 2579) and neither was a particularly strong hitter.

In terms of fielding, perhaps the first thing that jumps out at you is that the incomparable Wizard of Oz (281) committed 100 more errors that Vizquel (181). Was Omar actually better than Ozzie with the leather? Well, over his career, Omar made 0.29 plays (putouts plus assists) more than an average contemporary shortstop. That’s 748 outs that the average shortstop didnt get to. Add Ozzie’s 100 "extra" errors, and Omar’s up 848 outs on the Hall of Famer. The problem is that Ozzie made 0.93 plays per game more than league average, or 2335 plays over average. That’s 1487 more plays than Omar, even after the extra errors. Fifteen hundred hits turned into outs? Heck, that’s a decent offensive career. Regardless of the relative number of gold gloves awarded, or certain perceptions, Ozzie Smith had a far greater defensive impact than Vizquel.

Offensively, they were comparable. Smith 87 OPS+. Omar 84. ( For some perspective, Rafael Furcal is currently 95 and Alan Trammel was a 110, both of whom had better range numbers than Omar but neither in Ozzie’s league.)  Ozzie stole 580 bases; Omar 380. Smith made 15 All Star teams and finished in the top 25 in MVP voting six times. Over nineteen years, Vizquel made only three All Star teams and finished in the Top 25 MVP voting a grand total of…once…a 16th place finish in 1999, the only year he ever hit above league average (111 OPS+).

Maybe that’s the part I have the biggest problem with. Certainly not everyone in the Hall has to be Willie Mays. But do you really want to induct a player who was never a Top 10 MVP vote getter? Not even once. People fuss about Phil Rizzuto’s selection, but he not only won an MVP, he finished in the AL’s top ten MVP voting seven different seasons. Granted, smaller league…but still.   

Omar is actually one of my favorite modern players. As a forty something myself, I harbor affection for any man who moves the way he does at his age. Forget Steve Finley. Vizquel is a beautiful athlete to watch. Smart too. And, of course, as entertaining as they come. But those qualities dont add up to today’s Hall of Fame.

A generation ago, maybe they did. In the late 1950′s, a shortstop much like Omar Vizquel arrived on the scene with great fanfare. He won a slew of gold gloves, stole a ton of bases and didnt hit much (82 OPS+). Like Vizquel, he was from Venezuela, and his name was Luis Aparicio. I’m not convinced Aparicio was truly a better ballplayer than Vizquel, but his reputation among contemporaries was certainly better. In the White Sox magical 1959 season, Aparicio finished second in the MVP vote, behind double play partner Nellie Fox. The Sox were an exciting story, stealing bases and playing a new kind of ball. There were far fewer Latin major leaguers then and I imagine the lightning quick Aparicio was seen as something of an oddity, a trailblazer, perhaps like Ichiro was a few years ago. At any rate, he was a popular, highly valued player of his time.

A lot has changed over the years. We have a more in depth understanding of the game and relative player value now. In retrospect, maybe Aparicio doesnt belong in Cooperstown, at least not by the modern standard, but no one’s going to unnail his plaque now. The least we can do is not make the same "mistake" twice. 

News of John Smoltz’ 200th victory and hints of a date with Cooperstown underscore how HOF pitchers arrive in distinct waves, like immigrants, at least according to the baseball writers.

Consider that the most recent starting pitcher to embark on his Hall of Fame career was Tom Seaver – forty years ago. Since his 1967 ROY season, no subsequent HOF starter – not one – has debuted in the majors (assuming Eckersley is a hybrid/closer).

In stark contrast to those forty years, the mere eight years preceding Seaver (1959-1966) produced no less than ten HOF debuts (Gibson, Marichal, Perry, Neikro, Palmer, Catfish, Carlton, Fergie, Sutton, and Ryan). That was the first great wave of dominant pitchers after the war, or at least starters who the BBWAA deemed great, followed by this enormous sixteen year trough between Seaver(1967) and Clemens(1984).

Three HOF relievers began careers in this depression – Fingers(1968), Eck(1974) and Sutter(1976) – but no starters to date. The hopeful standard bearers of this unprecedented dry spell are Bert Blyleven and Jack Morris – other contemporaries with little chance of induction include Ron Guidry (170-91), Dennis Martinez (245-193), Orel Hershiser (204-150) and Bob Welch (211-146).

I like Luis Tiant and Jim Kaat as much as the next guy, but after you’ve inducted a dozen of their contemporaries and totally shut out the subsequent generation of starters, maybe it’s time to reevaluate traditional statistical analysis in favor of a more contextual approach to determine the greatest pitchers of all time and account for the game’s evolution.

Holding one’s breath on this matter is not recommended, however, because the second wave, led by Roger Clemens, is almost upon us and may soon wash away any such discussion. Clemens, Maddux, Big Unit, Pedro and Glavine are not only Cooperstown locks, as are closers Rivera and Hoffman, but they also tend to recast Blyleven and Morris in a relatively dimmer light.

Moreover, a worthy second tier of bubble boys, headed by Smoltz, Mussina and Schilling may further serve to undermine historical candidates. Are these pitchers who began in the 1980′s (and the sixties) genuinely better than the starters of the 70′s, and if so, by how much? Or are they riding a wave of favorable underlying conditions on their way to the Hall of Fame at the expense of their elders?

(photos courtesy of surfrider.org and Gregory Smith/AP)

While the Veteran’s Committee appears poised to recognize the usual big market suspects (incl a deserving Ron Santo) later today, Diamondhacks peacefully counter demonstrates by highlighting three seldom discussed candidates who clearly wont get in  – but who should.

If a pitcher had five twenty win seasons and a career 2.92 ERA, would you believe he’s not in the Hall of Fame? What if his 207-126 lifetime mark was more games over .500 (81) than Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax? Or more than Nolan Ryan and Bert Blyleven combined, and he still wasnt in Cooperstown? You might say I’m nuts, but I’d say his name is Carl Mays.

The submarining Mays, infamous for fatally beaning Ray Chapman in 1920, was not as spectacular as those initial stats suggest. He pitched on several marvelous teams when ERAs in the threes and twos wasn’t unusual – and when four man rotations facilitated 20 win seasons. So he wasnt Christy Mathewson or Roger Clemens – but that’s not the standard with which the Veteran’s Committee is tasked. Their job is to determine second rung Hall of Famers, a station that Carl Mays comfortably occupies, alongside deserving HOFers like Jim Bunning, Bob Lemon and Bruce Sutter.

When a pitcher wins 200 games and finishes 81 games above .500, there oughtta be a law he gets in regardless. It’s somewhat analogous to a batter who accumulates 2000 hits and hits .350 lifetime – at some point the context slips away and you’re left with a heckuva player who shouldn’t be denied recognition.

Another statistically deserving but unpopular candidate is **** Allen.  It seemed Allen was always at odds with fans or teammates or managers or the press, but he could really, really hit. A few months ago, BoSox partisans regaled us with tales of and how universally feared Jim Rice was. I remember. I was there.

I’m also old enough to know he wasnt nearly as scary as **** Allen was over the span of their respective careers. Allen’s career park adjusted OPS+ was 156 – the same as Willie Mays and Hank Aaron. He obviously wasnt the all around players they were, nor was his career as long, but he was an MVP caliber player in six separate seasons, winning just once. Allen finished in the league’s top ten in OPS+ in ten different seasons, and on that basis was likely one of the fifty or so greatest hitters of all time.

It must be hard for Allen, who’s been snubbed by the writers and the Veteran’s Committee, to listen to fans of Jim Rice and Andre Dawson caterwaul about the injustices of the BBWAA system. The truth is that Rice and Dawson, good as they were, couldn’t launder Richie Allen’s jock.  He was as far above them, as hitters, as they were above Khalil Greene and Orlando Hudson.

The third underrated oldtimer deserving a shout is Cuban Minnie Minoso. Best known for playing in five different decades, the speedy White Sox leftfielder was a remarkable Hall of Fame caliber player. Minoso (pictured, far right) actually wasnt a very good base stealer(61%), but here’s what else he did. Three gold gloves. Seven all star teams. He led the AL in HBP ten of eleven years and was Top 10 in AL OPS+ eight times, which is as often as Jim Rice and Andre Dawson combined. A Top 10 performance was easier when the league had fewer teams, but bear in mind that, due to his race, this unusually well rounded, efficient player didnt play regularly in the bigs til age 28.

In 1955, Ted Williams said of all the sluggers, Minoso had the best shot to hit .400 and Bill James rates Minnie as the tenth best left fielder ever, between enshrinees Stargell and Billy Williams. What is the Veteran’s Committee thinking, warming up to Bill Mazeroski and Tommy LaSorda, while leaving giants like Minnie out in the cold?

Minnie Minoso

Carl Mays

**** Allen

Ron Santo

Perhaps the least consequential blowback in the wake of individual BBWAA vote disclosures, is bloggers’ call to ‘ban’ pretty much any sportswriter who disagrees with them in the slightest.

Voted for McGwire? You’re history!

Voted against Jim Rice? Outta here!

You sent in a blank HOF ballot? You, sir, are banned!

Diamondhacks pines for that gentler, phonier time in our nation’s history when the fiercest comeuppance a rogue writer had in store was a spitefully inserted Bazooka wad in the ribbon spool of his Smith-Corona. Or a Letter to the offender’s Editor, tersely cancelling offendee’s subscription.

But to be banned, by edict of a betrayed blogger?!?

Populace! I pray you, chop off my head,

Than from thy HOF vote, be banish-ed!

Good gosh. It just seems so…serious.

Maybe, instead, we could discuss our disagreements, learn from one another, and fashion mutual understanding, like in, ya know, the sixties. If that doesnt work, we could "agree to disagree"

For example, the San Francisco Chronicle’s Ray Ratto denied McGwire his BBWAA vote because, Ratto said, Big Mac didnt churn out "enough consistent seasons" statistically, regardless of any steroid suspicions. Within this new, cooperative framework, I "agree to disagree" with Mr Ratto  – and he in turn, as a courtesy mind you, would endeavor to never, ever vote in this fair land again.

  Expect birds Rich "Goose" Gossage and, most likely, Andre "Hawk" Dawson to be both  ‘Coop‘-ed up tomorrow, if MLB.com’s thirteen BBWAA members/ HOF voters are any indication of the overall BBWAA vote. All thirteen chose to induct Gossage, along with shoo-ins Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. Dawson, the Expo/Cub star, captured 11 of thirteen votes (84.6%). No other candidate collected 55% in the small sample, when a minimum of 75% yes votes across the BBWAA body are required for election.

It’s hard to say just how representative MLB.com’s stable is of the entire BBWAA, but judging from the disparate rationales offered by MLB’s baker’s dozen, it appears to encompass a wide range of views worthy of extrapolation. Gossage makes every one of these otherwise diverse ballots and Diamondhacks believes this bodes extremely well for Goose. We agree with MLB’s Mike Neuman’s observation that Bruce Sutter’s 2005 selection "pave(s) the way for this deserving candidacy".

Dawson’s selection seems probable but far less secure, based on this data. One hunch is that MLB.com writers, being more intimately involved with the game’s promotion than many of their journalistic brethren, may place more "yes" votes than their hard boiled counterparts. It’s just speculation, of course, but we’re projecting that Andre earns between 70% and 77% of available votes and we’d be very surprised if Jim Rice garners as many votes as The Hawk – although he’ll receive more than his 53% showing here.

Anyone who saw Jim Rice rake in those wacky ’70s can understand why his HOF candidacy, to date unsuccessful, arouses such bewildered passion. He was a memorable hitter who smacked the ball awfully hard and parlayed eye popping single season numbers into an impressive career.

Most impressive was his strength. He once broke a bat on a check swing that missed the ball and his blistering golf drives led to an assortment of apocryphal yarns. Besides anecdotes, Rice was a Top 5 MVP vote getter six times, and won the award in 1978, when he became the first ALer since 1937 to collect 400 total bases in a season. Eight all star teams. Three home run titles. Altogether first rung Cooperstown credentials. To this day, some of my generation insist that Jim Rice was the greatest hitter they ever saw – and unlike some other recent HOF wannabes ( Blyleven, Lee Smith, Molitor, Sutter and Gossage), broadcasters gushed from early on in Jim’s career about his likely induction.

It’s from these lofty origins that folks today are flummoxed by the BBWAA’s apparent disrespect for Rice, and blame his twisting in the Lake Otsego wind more on writers’ retribution for Jim’s abrupt demeanor than on much substantitive evaluation of his performance. The inductions of cheerful backslappers like Tony Perez and Kirby Puckett help fuel this theory, and it may be true to some degree – but it’s also impossible to prove or refute, so instead let’s render the alleged conspiracy moot.

Rice stopped being an effective player after 33. No shame in that, but it truncates one of the strands by which many voters deem HOF worthiness: career stats. Rice hit 382 dingers as HOFers Murray, Schmidt and Reggie surpassed 500 – and Winfield hit 465. Other contemporaries not in the Hall, each with more homers than Jim, include Nettles, Kingman, Dale Murphy, Galarraga, Dawson, Baines, Joe Carter, Darrell Evans and Dwight Evans. They werent all better players than Rice, but fair or not, his #52 ranking on the all time HR list ( tied with Frank Howard, pictured, who is also not in the HOF), doesnt exactly scream "one of the greatest sluggers of his generation".

Secondly, a baseball revolution took hold as Rice was winding down his career. Despite less savory, concurrent efforts by Jose Canseco, this revolution didnt enhance performance as much as measure it in more meaningful ways, and perhaps no player’s legacy was more threatened by its advent than Jim Edward Rice. The revolution was sabermetrics, which reached beyond anecdotes, myth and convention, and illuminated Rice’s career in the harsh light of his contextual advantages.

You’re likely familiar with components of this argument; the fact he didnt walk much and had a middling OBP(.352) – or that he GIDP more often(per PA) than any established player in history. Those shortcomings, however, dont prevent him from being a HOF lock. The revelatory bombshell that justified Rice’s "snub" was the quantification of park effects.

Jim Rice played half his games in Fenway Park, which provided an enormous statistical advantage to Red Sox hitters in the days before newer, smaller parks were constructed. How enormous? In Rice’s prime(1975-79), Fenway runs were almost 20% over the AL league average, which itself was rising thanks to the DH. It was a fortuitous time and place to be batting third at Fenway, amidst Boston’s DH powered lineups. To be sure, Rice was a vital cog in the Sox success, but he wasnt this superlative driving force, this mythic colossus some insist on perpetuating. Snip 9 or 10% off Rice’s seasonal marks (for park adjustment), and it reveals an excellent, durable player – five 100 RBI seasons instead of eight, possibly one 200 hit campaign. Instead of his actual AVE/OBP/SLG/ OPS of:

.298 .352 .502 = .854 OPS,

in a neutral park you get something close to

.277 .330 .459 = .789 OPS,

which are his precise lifetime stats away from Fenway. Compare this with the road OPS of 70s stars like George Foster(.812), Hal McRae(.786) or Fred Lynn(.780) & Dwight Evans(.798). Fine players, but none in the Hall. Is it a stretch to see that, after one incorporates defense and intangibles, that Jim Rice was – at least arguably -the third best outfielder on those good Red Sox teams.

During all of Rice’s years in Beantown, he led the league in OPS once, in 1978. During the same sixteen years, on the same Fenway grass, Dewey Evans led the league twice in OPS, and in shorter Fenway stints, Fred Lynn led the league twice in OPS and power-poor Wade Boggs led the league twice in OPS . Forget about the league, Jim Rice only led his team in OPS twice, while those "other guys" led the Sox fourteen times. Hall of famer Boggs won five batting titles, reaching base more than 300 times a year for seven straight years, setting Jim Rice’s table. Lynn won a title – so did Carney Lansford. Rice hit for some nice inflated averages, but never won a batting championship.

None of this proves Rice wasnt a terrific player and that’s not the intent – he was indeed a very good, consistent hitter. It does suggest, however, that a) he was playing under historically favorable, run-rich conditions and b) he was not nearly as dominant as observers, then and now, locked into superficial, non contextual BA/HR/RBI valuations, would have you believe.

That era, as others, is full of less remembered players better than Jim Rice. Bobby Grich (.792 career road OPS) won four Gold Gloves at second base, Will Clark(.854 road) – heck, Jack Clark(.857 road) was a better hitter and comparable player to Jim Rice. Darryl Strawberry, whose career was a bit short for Cooperstown, was a much better hitter than Jim Rice. And there were plenty of others. No less an authority than Bill James records that even mildly regarded Yankee LF Roy White had similar career value and, get this, higher peak value (after park and era adjustments) than his ballyhooed Boston counterpart! That’s hard to absorb for many and the point isnt really whether you believe James or not, but rather to more broadly consider the context, the value of Rice’s gaudy stats, and to ask whether the early adulation is consistent with subsequent scrutiny.

In terms of MVP shares, Rice absolutely warrants induction, however MVP voters ( many of whom tabbed Jeff Burroughs MVP in 1974, for example) were not as informed as we are today regarding player value. It’s not a travesty if Rice gets inducted – lesser selections are made every decade, particularly by the Veterans Committee – but in time his will be seen more and more as a flawed selection. The uncomfortable question Rice poses is this: Should we accept a candidate’s contemporary legacy more or less as is, or reinterpret it as new information becomes available – even when it conflicts with the game’s rich lore and our cherished memories?

Is there a more fitting way for unutterably lonely souls to mark the cusp of another annum than by summoning what’s left of sober attention to wrestle with Bert Blyleven’s Hall of Fame bona fides? 

Readers can decide whether I paint too rosy or too bleak a picture of baseball’s Dutch master with this brush, for I mostly aim to illustrate how HOF balloting is, like the sport it sometimes arbitrarily honors, a game of inches.

Blyleven, for example, barely missed an automatic ride to Cooperstown with 300 victories, yet he recorded the thirteenth most wins since WWII ( 26th all time, going back to the 19th century). Perhaps that doesnt warrant a first ballot selection, but considering that seventy pitchers have been inducted to date, it’s an impressive figure.   

Thirty four HOF hurlers won fewer games than Blyleven. The only retired modern pitcher not inducted with more wins than Bert(287) was Tommy John(288), who latched on with a fortuitous run of playoff caliber teams through his 26 year career. Rik Aalbert Blyleven debuted in 1970, toiling for mediocre, small market ballclubs until he hooked up with 3 playoff teams over a nineteen year span, including the "We Are Family" Pirates of 1979. He started six postseason games, winning five with a 2.47 ERA.

His 3701 strikeouts rank fifth all time, sandwiched by Steve Carlton and Tom Seaver, and he sported a better K/BB ratio than either contemporary CYA fixture. He threw sixty shutouts, fourth most since the demise of the dead ball. Nolan Ryan (who started 88 more games than Blyleven) and Seaver (who pitched in Shea in the 1960′s) each threw 61. Consider these career shutout totals: Bob Gibson 56, Carlton 55, Palmer 53, Clemens 46. Bob Feller had 44 shutouts and Randy Johnson 37.

He pitched 4970 innings, thirteenth all time – not an all time innings hound like Neikro, Ryan or Gaylord Perry, but more than Clemens, Maddux or Christy Mathewson. 

These selective stats dont prove that Blyleven was as good as any of these guys, but it does show how comfortably he flitted in and out of the statistical mix with first rung, iconic legends like Seaver, Ryan & Carlton. Does that, by itself, put him in Cooperstown?

Well, he lost 250 games too, which has probably hurt his HOF candidacy more than just falling shy of 300 wins. If, for instance, he had gone 287-230, with all those strikeouts, he’d already have a plaque. But he’s 37 games over .500 and only Eppa Rixey(pictured,right) and Nolan Ryan have a lower Win % amongst HOF starters.

He won 20 in just one season and never won a Cy Young Award. In 1984, he was the AL’s leading vote getter among starters, but lost out to a couple of closers. He contended in 1985 and 1989, but Bret Saberhagen won both times.

Perhaps the most eye popping stat from Blyleven’s career is that a pitcher of his caliber and longetivity earned just two All Star berths.  One reason is because his lifetime ERA before Aug 1st was closer to 4.00 than to 3.00 (and sub 3.00 after Aug 1). It’s also tougher for pitchers to string together AS appearances the way position players do – some excellent pitchers made the HOF with three or four AS selections.  Is there anything else, perhaps, to explain a pair of ASG’s for such a dominant player wielding the game’s best curveball?

Maybe.  Blyleven’s career was dogged by accusations of underacheivement and stats padding. I remember him fussing with managers out on the mound and he was characterized by broadcasters of the day as enormously talented but not terribly well liked or team oriented. I also recall Jim Palmer fussing endlessly on the mound with Earl Weaver and Steve Carlton’s icy relationship with the press – and neither derailed their quests for a plaque.

The clock is ticking on Bert Blyleven and I suspect he’ll come very close to induction, perhaps 70% or so. Tonight, the clock also ticks for each of us around the world, as we English say ‘Happy New Year!!’.

And in Amsterdam, ‘ Gelukkig Nieuwjaar!!’