I recently participated in the Hall of Fame voting process for a relatively new group called the Baseball Bloggers Alliance (BBA).

The result of this year’s BBA vote was the recommendation of Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven for the Hall of Fame Class of 2011. I voted for both Alomar and Blyleven, as well as five others, and I was happy to be able to take part in this process. I thought I’d share my votes here, as well as explain my justifications for each, in advance of tomorrow’s official announcement.

Roberto Alomar
Alomar is, undoubtedly, a player who produced a career worthy of first-ballot Hall of Famer status, but fell eight votes short of the 75% needed for induction in his first year of eligibility. Why he didn’t get elected last year is beyond me—well, actually it was likely due to an over-emphasis by voters on the “morality clause”—but there’s very little doubt in my mind he’ll make it this year.

Jeff Bagwell
There’s been a lot of debate in the blogosphere regarding Bagwell and a perceived new McCarthyism being employed by writers who have proclaimed they will not vote for him based on the fact that they suspect—based on no significant evidence—steroid usage. While I don’t have a problem with the idea of waiting a few years to decide on a particular candidate, in this case I wonder what it will take for these writers to be convinced that the lack of evidence exonerates Bagwell.

I’m not going down that road. Bagwell is a sure-fire first-ballot Hall of Famer and, as far as I know, nobody has any evidence that he cheated. If any of these writers has anything on him, they should make it public. Otherwise, as far as I’m concerned, I’m judging his career at face value. Unfortunately, I think enough voters are of a different mindset, which means we don’t really know if and when he’ll eventually receive his due.

Bert Blyleven
I’ll admit that it took me a little while to come around on Blyleven, but I think that’s OK. I think voters have a responsibility to remain open-minded and spend a few years reconsidering the borderline candidates they’ve decided against. Personally, that’s what I plan to do with the difficult decisions from the “steroid era.”

The main argument regarding Blyleven is whether or not he was an excellent player, or just merely very good. So, I’ll ask the question: If a player maintains performance that could be described as very good for considerably longer than most of his peers, does that elevate his career to greater than very good?

Personally, I think the combination of Blyleven’s longevity and the fact that he was at least a little underrated during his playing days are the difference between very good and the Hall of Fame. He gets my vote, and he will likely get enough BBWAA votes this year to get in.

Barry Larkin
I usually don’t use these awards as arguments, but Larkin won nine National League Silver Sluggers between 1988 and 1999. Meanwhile, a fellow named Ozzie Smith was winning all the Gold Gloves. Then, in 1993, Smith turned 38, and Larkin won three of his own from 1994 to 1996. He also was named to 12 All-Star teams.

Plus, he’s 10th all-time among shortstops in Wins Above Replacement (WAR), and two of the players ahead of him are Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez. That means there are 16 Hall of Fame shortstops behind him on the list. So, why did he only receive 51.6% of the vote in his first year on the ballot? I’m not sure, although I think he’ll get in eventually. But, probably not this year.

Edgar Martinez
There are some who refuse to vote for Martinez for the Hall of Fame due to an anti-DH bias. This is a joke. Whether you like it or not, the fact of the matter is the DH is a part of the game, and a legitimate position occupied by players whose teams consider it to be where they offer the most value.

Martinez wasn’t incapable of playing the field. In fact, when he did play the field, he was no worse than just below average. There are plenty of Hall of Famers who were just-below-average defenders. Martinez was a little older than most when he started playing full-time and suffered a few injuries in his early 30s that resulted in the Mariners’ decision to protect his health by using him as a DH.

Why? Because he was an incredible hitter. So incredible, in fact, that the only argument anyone can use to keep him out of the Hall of Fame is that he wasn’t a “complete player.” Hogwash.

Tim Raines
I don’t think I can make a better case for Raines than I did in my blog two years ago, but I will offer you a short list of the best speed-oriented leadoff hitters in the second half of the 20th century, in my opinion:

1. Rickey Henderson
2. Tim Raines
3. Lou Brock

Henderson and Brock were both first-ballot Hall of Famers. Enough said.

I’m curious to see if there is a significant increase in his support this year, his fourth on the ballot. Regardless, he only received 30.4% of the vote last year, so it’s unlikely he’ll reach 75% anytime soon, if ever.

Alan Trammell
Trammell compares pretty favorably to Larkin, except in his case he was going up against Cal Ripken for the American League Silver Slugger awards. In fact, from 1987 to 1990, Trammell won three out of four, while Ripken was in his prime. He also won four Gold Gloves, was named to six All-Star teams, and is 11th all-time among shortstops in WAR. Regardless, he’s a lost cause, having received just 22.4% of the vote last year, his ninth on the ballot.

I could probably write another post entirely about the candidates I didn’t vote for, but I’ll try to be brief.

The case for Jack Morris is largely based on his win totals and his defining moment, the 10-inning shutout he pitched in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. I’m sorry, but those arguments are not enough for me to support a pitcher who only had one year in his entire career with an ERA+ of better than 130 (30% better than average). Blyleven had six by comparison, and people say he wasn’t dominant enough.

Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro fall into the category of difficult decisions from the steroid era. I’ve written before that I think players from this period need to be viewed on a case-by-case basis, and I’m still deciding on these guys.

Lee Smith, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly, Dave Parker, Dale Murphy and Harold Baines are all players who have very good careers, but fall short of Hall of Fame status to me.

There are a few first ballot candidates who I need to take a closer look at before deciding, most notably Larry Walker. I hope the real voters are of the same mindset, judging by the fact that only 1 of 18 ESPN writers voted for him, which happens to be the same number who voted for B.J. Surhoff.

Regardless of the outcome, I’m eagerly counting down the hours to tomorrow at 2 p.m. ET.

Actually, what started out as an attempt to discuss the most significant players on the 2009 ballot, turned into an argument for the candidacy of one particular player. It just so happens that the player in question received only 24.3% of the vote last year, in his first year of eligibility. In fact, he received only one-third the amount of support as another player, who happened to play the same position that he did, and who is much less deserving of the honor. But, I’m not going to get into comparing these two players. If you’re interested, you can read about that here. I just want to make the case for the guy I feel is the second most deserving candidate on this year’s ballot.

So, since I actually intended to cover more ground in this week’s column, I’m going to give you this week’s Cooking with Chas in two parts–or more.

First, let me weigh in on a subject that can get a bit controversial. That is, the discussion of whether or not a player is worthy of first-ballot election or not. There are some who will complain that a Hall of Famer is a Hall of Famer, and why should it matter how many years a player has been on the ballot? Why does a less than obvious candidate have to wait it out and pay his dues–so to speak–until he’s elected? I thoroughly agree with these complaints, particularly when it comes to those voters who refuse to vote for a player in his first year of eligibility. However, when a player is not Willie Mays or Tom Seaver, voters are entitled to change their minds. I’ll admit to having changed my mind about a few players on this year’s ballot. I will also say that, when I change my mind, it’s usually in favor of a player. So, I think it’s somewhat understandable that the longer a name is on the ballot, the more there exists the opportunity for voters to consistently hear the arguments in favor of the player and be swayed to the positive side. This probably doesn’t explain how someone can jump from 29% of the vote to 72% in a span of ten years, but it does justify it to some extent.

With that said, let’s begin by taking a look at the players who I consider to be at the head of this year’s class.

Rickey Henderson, of course, is the most deserving player on this year’s ballot. Should I waste any time, or space here, explaining this selection? Probably not, so I’ll let the numbers do the talking: 1406 SB (1st all-time), 2295 runs (1st), 2190 BB (2nd), 3055 hits, .401 OBP, 127 OPS+, 535 win shares (400 means absolute HOF enshrinement, according to Bill James).

Tim Raines, while maybe not a first-ballot Hall of Famer, should be fairly obvious as well. In the 80s, he was the National League’s version of Rickey Henderson. That is, the best leadoff hitter in his respective league. He was not quite as good as Henderson, of course, but that’s certainly no insult. He had an OBP of .390 or better, which ranked in the top six in the NL, in seven seasons in that decade, despite not playing in his first full season until 1982. Also in the 80s, he ranked first or second in runs scored four times (six times in the top ten), and in the top four in stolen bases eight times, including leading the league for four consecutive years from 1981 to 1984. He also ranked in the top three in runs created for five consecutive years (1983 to 1987).

Raines had an excellent prime, but there was a bit of a drop-off after he left Montreal. Still, although his base stealing ability declined quickly from his early to mid-30s, he remained a good offensive player with a high OBP and decent power. He also played a significant part-time role for two World Series teams in his late 30s, and accumulated 390 win shares over the course of his career. I said earlier that Bill James, the creator of win shares, has stated that 400 is the plateau for automatic enshrinement in Cooperstown. James has also called 300 the level at which a player is more likely than not to enter the Hall of Fame. The last ten position players to be inducted have averaged 377, from Kirby Puckett’s 281 to Eddie Murray’s 437, with Wade Boggs (394) and Tony Gwynn (398) achieving the closest totals to Raines’ 390.

Raines also had a career OBP of .385, an OPS+ (park/league adjusted OPS) of 123 (23% better than average), and is 5th on the career stolen bases list with 808, at an outstanding success rate of 84%. By comparison, Rickey Henderson was successful 80% of the time, and Lou Brock’s rate was 75%. Speaking of Brock, baseball-reference.com’s similarity scores judge him to be the player whose career mostly closely compares to Raines’.

Brock is not only a Hall of Famer, but he was elected on the first ballot. I’m a strong advocate that we should never argue that one player deserves to make it just because another undeserving player did. I’m not saying Brock is undeserving, although he is over-rated and has nothing on Raines, other than 130 stolen bases–which is more than offset by having been caught stealing 161 more times–and the fact that he reached the artificially magical milestone of 3000 hits.

Raines beats him in win shares (390 to 348), and tops him easily in OBP (.385 to .343), OPS+ (123 to 109) and runs created per 27 outs (6.6 to 5.2), while maintaining fairly comparable statistics in other more traditional cumulative categories (39 fewer runs, 80 more RBI, 21 more HR). Furthermore, Raines never won a Gold Glove, but he was an above average outfielder, and Brock was a surprisingly poor defender, making 10 or more errors in 12 different seasons. Yes, you’re reading that correctly. He made 196 errors in 19 seasons, with a .959 fielding percentage, as an outfielder.

But, as I said, Brock’s shortcomings should not be an argument for Raines’ candidacy. However, I have no problem saying that Raines compares favorably with the two men considered to be the best speed-oriented leadoff hitters in the second half of the 20th century. In fact, if you asked me to rate them in order, I’d feel very confident rating Raines behind Henderson, but ahead of Brock. Therefore, Tim Raines is, without question, a Hall of Famer.

This Week on the Hot Stove

Since this is supposed to be a weekly look at the hot stove, otherwise known as Major League Baseball’s off-season, I’m going to make sure to spend a little time selectively discussing this week’s most significant developments.

Trevor Hoffman reportedly agreed to a one-year contract to take over as the Milwaukee Brewers’ closer. The career saves leader’s deal is worth $6 million and includes an option for a second year, which could give him a chance at reaching the 600-save plateau.

While neither deal has been confirmed, the Boston Red Sox apparently signed a pair of starting pitchers, both of whom are coming off of injury plagued seasons, but who could also prove to be tremendous bargains. John Smoltz, who will turn 42 in May, and Brad Penny, who will be 31 but is probably a bigger question mark, both are believed to have signed one-year deals in the range of $5 million plus incentives. It’s really hard to imagine Smoltz not being effective, if healthy, so I have to believe that he’ll make a contribution in 2009. However, Penny has some upside if healthy, but even in his best year (2007), he was an over-rated pitcher who benefited greatly from pitching in Chavez Ravine. That year, his K/BB ratio was unimpressively less than 2-to-1 and the 9 HR he allowed in 208 IP were an aberration when compared with his career numbers. Expect him to be a better–but not necessarily by much–version of last year’s Bartolo Colon.

The Chicago Cubs signed the much maligned Milton Bradley to a three-year, $30 million deal. Bradley will play right field and will add a run-producing bat to the heart of the North-siders lineup. He’ll also wear Sammy Sosa’s #21. The biggest question facing the Cubbies now will be, who will lead the team in temper tantrums–Bradley or manager Lou Piniella.

Pat Burrell signed a two-year, $16 million contract with the Tampa Bay Rays. The defensive-challenged Burrell will likely spend most of 2009 at DH for the defending AL champs.

Jason Giambi signed a one-year deal to return to his original team, the Oakland Athletics. The agreement is worth $4 million, with a club option for 2010.

Stay tuned this weekend for Part 2 of “Rating the 2009 Hall of Fame Class”, as well as a summary of some of the less significant hot stove transactions of the past week.