Bruce Sutter Hall of Fame

The most important thing about being a Hall of Fame voter

73 Comments

Bill and The Common Man from The Platoon Advantage make so much sense in their Rights and Responsibilities in Hall of Fame Voting post from over the weekend that the thing should be sent via certified mail to every eligible voter. Of their four rules for voting, the key, I think, is something I touched on in my Jack Morris/Bert Blyleven post last week: intellectual consistency.

Contrary to what some reactionary types will be saying in the coming weeks, there is no one who matters who seriously advocates some strict orthodoxy of who should be and who shouldn’t be a Hall of Famer and disdains all others who do not follow suit. I will disagree with a Hall of Fame voter if he votes for Jack Morris or Don Mattingly, for example, but I will not say they are stupid or irresponsible or wrong or out-of-touch or demand that their vote be taken away simply because they have voted for Jack Morris. It is their opinion. Unless they admit to the contrary — which some have, sadly enough — I will assume that their choice was a considered one. That they looked at the data available, made an informed choice and voted their conscience. Hall of Fame standards are broad enough that reasonable people can have considerable disagreement over who is a Hall of Famer and who isn’t. You like Jim Rice, I don’t. I like Tim Raines, you don’t. Unless your reason for voting for a guy is just really nuts — like a protest vote or it’s based on some narrow, random reason with no precedent whatsoever — it’s all good.

All that I ask is that those who vote do so in a consistent manner. That the standards you cite for Player A are applied to Player B.  If — to use a current example — you excuse Jack Morris’ high ERA because of how you believe he pitched in blowout games, consider how Bert Blyleven pitched in blowout games and apply the same credit to his account.  If you voted for Bruce Sutter despite the fact that his performance came while filling a newly-created and limited role in baseball history) (one-inning closer) don’t withhold your vote from Edgar Martinez simply because he filled a newly-created and limited role as a DH.*  If you give Dale Murphy extra-credit because you believe he eschewed steroids when they were pervasive in the game, give the same credit to others for whom you have similar evidence regarding their drug use. Similarly, if you won’t vote for Tim Raines because of his admitted cocaine use, please, dear God, do not vote for Dave Parker.

Unless you’re going totally nuts and writing in Buddy Biancalana, there are no Right and Wrong Hall of Fame votes.  There are right and wrong approaches to voting however.  If you have the franchise, please, keep that in mind.

*Which is not to suggest that Bruce Sutter was a Wrong choice or Edgar Martinez a Right choice. It simply means that their role, in and of itself, should not be the basis for withholding a vote for one of them if you didn’t do so for the other. Rather, simply be sure that your choice is made by comparison to other who fill those roles. Is Bruce Sutter a Hall of Fame one-inning closer compared to others. Is Edgar Martinzez a Hall of Fame DH compared to others.

Casey McGehee signs one-year deal with Yomiuri Giants

DETROIT, MI - AUGUST 19: Casey McGehee #31 of the Detroit Tigers singles in the fourth inning of the game against the Boston Red Sox on August 19, 2016 at Comerica Park in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo by Leon Halip/Getty Images)
Getty Images
3 Comments

Former Tigers infielder Casey McGehee has reportedly signed a one-year deal with the Yomiuri Giants of Nippon Professional Baseball, according to FOX Sports’ Ken Rosenthal.

It’s the fourth move the corner infielder has made in the last two seasons after seeing short-term stints with the Marlins, Giants and Tigers. He signed a minor league deal with the Tigers prior to the 2016 season, providing the club with some infield depth behind 24-year-old Nick Castellanos. When Castellanos hit the disabled list in August with a broken hand, McGehee was recalled from Triple-A Toledo for a 30-game stint and slashed .228/.260/.239 with one extra-base hit in 96 PA. His career batting line (.258/.317/.384 over eight seasons) isn’t too shabby, but his age and a long history of knee injuries puts a damper on his potential.

McGehee last appeared in the NPB circuit in 2013, when he signed a one-year, $1.5 million deal with the Tohoku Rakuten Golden Eagles. He spent the bulk of his season at the hot corner, batting an impressive .292/.396/.515 with 28 homers in 590 PA and appearing in the Eagles’ first and only championship run to date.

The deal comes with a club option for 2018, Rosenthal reports, though no figure has been specified.

Report: Dodgers could pursue three-year deal with Rich Hill

LOS ANGELES, CA - OCTOBER 18:  Rich Hill #44 of the Los Angeles Dodgers pitches in the first inning against the Chicago Cubs in game three of the National League Championship Series at Dodger Stadium on October 18, 2016 in Los Angeles, California.  (Photo by Harry How/Getty Images)
Getty Images
2 Comments

Free agent left-hander Rich Hill is rumored to be entertaining a three-year, $40+ million offer from the Dodgers, reports Peter Gammons. The Boston Globe’s Nick Cafardo corroborated the report, adding that Hill could receive somewhere between $46 and $48 million from his former team.

Hill, 36, pitched to a 2.12 ERA and 3.91 FIP in back-to-back stints with the Athletics and Dodgers in 2016. While a chronic case of blisters on his pitching hand limited the frequency of his starts, he still figures to be one of the most productive and noteworthy starting pitchers on the market this winter.

The Orioles, Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers and Astros have all been mentioned as potential suitors for the left-hander’s services, though Orioles’ GM Dan Duquette said the club has yet to make a play for Hill and ESPN’s Jim Bowden pointed out that the Red Sox are less involved in trade talks than other interested parties.