HOF Ballots - Some Personal Thoughts

 HOF BALLOT

Well, it's that time of year.  The regular ballot for the HOF is out and there are 3 former Guardians players on it.  Let's look at their chance.  But first, an editorial

In my opinion players should be elected on their stats and how they were perceived when they played.  The latter includes things like Gold Gloves, All-star game appearances, MVP awards and other subjective things that indicate what MLB, players, front office people, writers and fans thought of that player.  Off-field stuff can only detract from the stats and perceptions.  In terms of how much non-baseball stuff should weigh on whether a player gets in the HOF, the ordering of how bad certain things are:

• Convicted of a significant crime > 
• convicted of a crime against baseball (e.g., gambling, PED use) >> 
• perceived but not proven crimes (e.g., sexual or physical abuse of others, especially women or children, PED use, gambling on baseball during a player's career) >> 
• perceived but not proven crimes of the same type AFTER a player's career.

I understand that this is not very Woke or Me Too but, to me, a player should be examined for being included in the HOF based on what happens during his career, not after it unless he is CONVICTED of a serious crime after his career.  Settling of civil suits does not constitute guilt.

I realize that this will be a very unpopular position but there is one way in which this disagreement between me and the rest of the civilized world goes away:

(1) MLB SHOULD GROW A PAIR AND MAKE ITS OWN DECISION TO KEEP PEOPLE OFF THE BALLOT, JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH JOE JACKSON AND PETE ROSE.

and

(2) THE BASEBALL WRITERS OF AMERICA (BBWA) WHO VOTE ON WHO ENTERS THE HOF SHOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED TO VOTE BASED ON PLAYER STATISTICS AND THE PERCEPTION CATEGORIES DESCRIBED ABOVE.

If MLB would just do this they would take responsibility and not put that responsibility on the writers.    In leaving people on the ballot who are questionable they are making the writers become moral gatekeepers and whenever you let a peripheral group act in this capacity you introduce incredibly unnecessary personal bias.

For the record, I think that all players proven to have used PEDs during their career should not appear on the ballot as their statistics are tainted by that use and never allowed in the HOF.  People who have been proven to have bet on baseball or accept money to throw baseball games should not be allowed in the HOF during their lifetime and should only be considered after they have passed away.  If they are elected by a veteran's committee, they should be enshrined without a ceremony.  This way they get in for their statistical exploits but don't get the honor of them, or their families, being part of a ceremony designed for people perceived to be good human beings.

All that being said, under the current system, here is what I think about the chances that the former Guardians' players on the ballot will make the HOF:

(1) Omar Vizquel -  As a player, statistically and by award perception, he deserves to get it as a player.  Unfortunately, under the current system, he will never be elected and may even fall off the ballot after this year due to the accusations he faces for alleged spousal abuse and sexual harassment of the batboy when he managed in AA.

(2) Manny Ramirez - If the PED usage charges during his career are proven, he will not and should not get in to the HOF.

(3) Bartolo Colon - Colon fits into the borderline category.  His wins and the rest of his statistics, on paper, could swing my vote to him but he is right on the border.  In most years he would have enough competition that he would likely fall short.  Maybe, in the future, a veteran's committee would find it in their hearts to enshrine him but, on this ballot, I don't think he has a chance.

There is one more player who I want to continue to mention in terms of the HOF who is not on the current ballot:

(4) Julio Franco - Franco made a series of financial decisions that likely are the only things keeping him out of the HOF.  Franco finished with 2587 hits in the majors playing mostly at SS (5 years) and 2B (4 years) with parts of other years at 1B/OF/INF.   However, likely because he was paid more and was guaranteed a roster spot, Franco played 6 years of international baseball including essentially 5 full seasons.  Even figuring 100 hits a season he would have easily reached 3000 hits and very likely would have gotten to 200 HRs, 300 SBs, 1000 BBs.  Now, Franco was never a great defender and, truth be told, has stats inflated by him playing in the majors until he was 48, but the guy belongs in the HOF.   

Franco's situation is a good one for the Guardians to remember, as well.  Had they just found a spot for him at DH in 1998-2001 they would have been able to put another statue outside of Progressive Field and had another HOFer in their team resume.

Just my opinion, especially on the social issues about election to the HOF.  Trying to be sensitive towards those issues but if MLB isn't going to take a stand, I don't know why any of the rest of us should judge these players.