39°Good Morning
Angels pitcher Bert Blyleven throws a pitch against the Baltimore...

Angels pitcher Bert Blyleven throws a pitch against the Baltimore Orioles. (May 3, 1990) Credit: AP

Love Hall of Fame week. Enjoy the debates, the discussions, the flat-out vitriol that results from disagreements about a game.

This marked my fifth ballot as a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America, and while I vow to keep contemplating and trying to improve, I've taken on some basic principles when conducting my annual analysis.

With the results being announced Wednesday - like most, I'm predicting good news for Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven and no one else - and with more debate to come, here are the tenets that guide my choices. Call it "Things I've learned, Hall of Fame version":

1. Go by fact, not feel. In my exchange with Newsday and Newsday.com readers, I've seen one point made repeatedly: "If you've seen the guy play, then that should be your guideline." Or, similarly, "You shouldn't even have to think whether someone is a Hall of Famer."

Good gravy, do I disagree with that. Imagine you're up for a job evaluation - a promotion, even - and your boss says to you: "Ya know, it just doesn't feel like you're worthy. My sense is, you haven't made the grade."

"But look at my sales records," you respond. "I'm bringing in more revenue than anyone else here. I'm the most productive person in the office."

"Eh," your boss shrugs. "It's just a gut call."

If we are to take the Hall seriously, then don't we owe it to prioritize the candidates' actual accomplishments over their perceived performance? Larry Walker, for instance, was not solely a product of Coors Field. And Jeff Bagwell wasn't just another slugging first baseman in a slug-happy era.

I'm at the point now where I've seen all of the candidates play "live," either in person or on television. For the most part, I try to wipe out those memories when filling out my ballot. Or at least compartmentalize them as one tiny piece of the puzzle.

2. Ignore noise.The whole point of the five-year waiting period is to shake off not only your past impressions of the player, but others' as well. To take a fresh look.

So to cite any "human observation" data from the player's period is to introduce "noise" into the conversation. By that, I mean Most Valuable Player or Cy Young awards, All-Star Game selections, and assignments around Opening Day or the playoffs.

Yup, Jack Morris pitched in five All-Star Games; Bert Blyleven pitched in just two. You've seen how All-Star teams are selected, right? Not a great deal of science involved. In my opinion, Blyleven enjoyed a dramatically better career than Morris did. As often occurs, not everyone appreciated that disparity at the time it actually was happening.

3. Consistently apply rules. OK, illegal performance-enhancing drug time. The truth is that, before 2004, there were zero real-world consequences for ballplayers who used steroids.

Is it really fair that some cheating players have skated while others have gotten "caught" because they utilized the wrong dealer (Kevin Brown) or simply got called out by a publicity-seeking congressional committee (Mark McGwire)?

Not in my mind. Not when there was no bona fide, enforceable rule on the books. If you want to talk about Rafael Palmeiro failing a collectively bargained drug test in 2005, that's a different story altogether.

And for gosh sakes, to keep off Bagwell just because he looks like he used steroids, without any other evidence, that doesn't seem very fair at all.

4. Appreciate positional value, but don't marry it. Barry Larkin's and Alan Trammell's numbers are remarkable when you consider that they came from shortstops - strong defensive shortstops, at that. At the same time, Edgar Martinez's offensive numbers are so awesome that his DH-ness shouldn't take away from it. Same goes for Tim Raines, mostly a corner outfielder, and his ability to get on base.

Here's my 2011 ballot: Alomar, Bagwell, Blyleven, Brown, Larkin, Martinez, McGwire, Raines, Trammell and Walker. And I look forward to much more discussion and learning.

Video Player is loading.
Current Time 0:00
Duration 0:00
Loaded: 0%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 0:00
 
1x
    • Chapters
    • descriptions off, selected
    • captions off, selected
      Ronnie Tanner, a horse jockey in the '60s and '70s, and Kendrick Carmouche, a current jockey, spoke about the racism Black jockeys have faced. NewsdayTV's Jamie Stuart reports. Credit: Ed Murray, Jonathan Singh

      'I had to keep my mouth shut'  Ronnie Tanner, a horse jockey in the '60s and '70s, and Kendrick Carmouche, a current jockey, spoke about the racism Black jockeys have faced. NewsdayTV's Jamie Stuart reports.

      SUBSCRIBE

      Unlimited Digital AccessOnly 25¢for 6 months

      ACT NOWSALE ENDS SOON | CANCEL ANYTIME