Why Kenny Lofton Deserves to Be in the Baseball Hall of Fame

For the next several weeks, I will be publishing articles on this blog to showcase and highlight baseball players not in the Hall of Fame that deserve to be.

The perspectives will be from first hand accounts of baseball experts who have watched these players play the game at an elite level and seen then thrive in their era.

For our second piece, we will be looking at center fielder Kenny Lofton.

Vince Guerrieri of vinceguerrieri.com was kind enough to share his views on Lofton and what made him so special to the game of baseball.

In 1991, the Cleveland Indians moved the fences back at Municipal Stadium, making an expansive field — Babe Ruth said at its debut that outfielders should cover ground on horseback — even more cavernous. They wanted to take advantage of their speedy center fielder, a fan favorite from whom great things were expected: Alex Cole.

 The Cole experiment was a short-lived failure. But the center fielder they were waiting for was in the wings. Kenny Lofton was virtually stolen from the Houston Astros in a trade of back-up catcher Ed Taubensee.

And the Indians were in the cusp of greatness. The team’s offense was a murderer’s row. Albert Belle’s 1995 season was unparalleled — he remains the only player with 50 homers and 50 doubles in a season, and he did it in a strike-shortened year — with only his truculence costing him the MVP award. Eddie Murray was at the end of his career but still a dangerous hitter. The team was so loaded that Jim Thome and Manny Ramirez were relegated to the bottom of the lineup.

And at the top was Lofton, giving the Indians’ offense another dimension. His role was to be the runs batted in that the rest of the lineup earned. He was the right man for the job. A former college basketball player at Arizona (he’s one of just two people to play in a Final Four and a World Series,) Lofton ran like a gazelle and seemed to be capable of leaping tall buildings in a single bound (Cleveland IS the birthplace of Superman.)

There’s an old baseball joke that 2/3 of the world is covered by water, and the fleet-footed fielder of your choice covered the other third. That applied to Lofton. He once climbed the center field wall to come down with an out.

He dropped off the BBWAA ballot for the Hall of Fame after only one year. His numbers stand up to scrutiny, but it’s his almost balletic grace stealing bases or patrolling center field that made him so memorable.

Why Keith Hernandez Deserves to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame

For the next several weeks, I will be publishing articles on this blog to showcase and highlight baseball players not in the Hall of Fame that deserve to be.

The perspectives will be from first hand accounts of baseball experts who have watched these players play the game at an elite level and seen then thrive in their era.

For our first piece, we will be looking at first baseman Keith Hernandez.

Chris Bodig of Cooperstown Cred was kind enough to share his views on Hernandez and what made him so special to the game of baseball.

1. When did you first see him play and what, if anything, do you remember?

I first saw him play in the 1982 World Series with the Cardinals. It seemed like he was "on" everything (as a hitter) in the last couple of games of the series. The first time I saw him play in person was in September of 1984 at Shea Stadium. I don't remember anything Keith did, but I do remember starting pitcher Dwight Gooden pitching a one-hitter (only hit on a Mitch Moreland grounder that Ray Knight should have fielded at third).

2. What stands out about his talent?

What stands out about his talent was his glove work. I attended nearly 200 Mets games between 1985-1988, many of them with a bird's eye view behind home plate. Hernandez was a maestro at first base. He had cat-like reflexes, allowing him to stop ground balls others would miss. He was especially adept at going to his right, making a play and fluidly throwing to the shortstop with the speed required for the shortstop to finish a 3-6-1 double play. On bunt plays, he was fearless. Keith would charge uncomfortably close to the plate. On bunt plays with runners on second, he was so aggressive that he could field bunts down the third base line and fire to third to get the lead runner.

3. What made you a life long fan?

I became a life-long fan because of his brilliance defensively.

4. What is the reason(s) he deserves to be remembered forever?

He deserves to be remembered forever as arguably the greatest fielding first baseman in the history of baseball and that he was also an excellent hitter with a keen eye.

5. Why do you think that aren't in the Hall of Fame?

I'm convinced he's not in the Hall because he was a first baseman who didn't hit for power and because injuries ended his career prematurely, with only 2,182 hits.

6. Is there someone already in the Hall of Fame at the same position you would argue he's better than? If so, explain.

Hernandez is better than many first basemen in the Hall (most of whom played prior to 1950). I also believe that he was a better hitter than Tony Perez, even though the "Big Dog" had 550 more hits, 217 more home runs, and 581 more runs batted in. Perez also had 2,308 more plate appearances, which is the equivalent to about 4 seasons. Perez had the volume but Keith was a more pure hitter, with a batting average 17 points higher and an on base percentage 43 points higher. Therefore, his OPS+ is higher (128 to 122). Perez also struck out 855 times more and hit into 107 more double plays. But the #1 reason that Hernandez is a better overall player is because of his defense.

7. Do metrics like Wins Above Replacement, OPS+, ERA+ etc... need to play a larger role in determining Hall of Fame credentials over traditional numbers like hits, home runs and wins? Why or why not?

Metrics like WAR, OPS+ and ERA+ (specifically these three) definitely need to play a larger role in determining Hall of Fame credentials because they measure a player's overall worth. A lesser hitter can get to 3,000 hits while the superior hitter doesn't because they either managed to stick around long enough in late-career mediocrity or because they didn't draw walks. The milestone numbers are still important but they should represent only one track to the Hall of Fame. Players with hidden skills that are revealed by WAR or OPS+ should also have a track.

8. If you had to choose just one factor, what is the thing that should carry the most weight for Hall of Fame induction? Explain.

I'll answer this question is in regards to a borderline Hall of Fame candidate. If a player has a WAR over 70 or reaches a traditional milestone, that should be honored. When it's a player without one of those, I ask myself about the player's relevance in the history of baseball. When it comes to Keith Hernandez, his relevance is as the greatest fielding first basemen ever or at least of the last 50 years and that he was a key member of two teams that won the World Series.

If you would like to read more about why Chris believes Hernandez is a Hall of Famer, check out his article on Keith at Cooperstown Cred. 

The Hall of Fame is a Museum, Not a Shrine

With the Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2016 set to be announced tomorrow, there are many questions surrounding the announcement.

1. Will Ken Griffey Jr. be a unanimous vote and will he break Tom Seaver's record for highest percentage of 98.8%?

2. Will anybody else get in? Mike Piazza or Jeff Bagwell? How about Tim Raines?

3. Will Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens gain support?

4. Will players like Sammy Sosa, Gary Sheffield, Billy Wagner and Larry Walker even get the 5% needed to stay on the ballot?

There are so many questions, and with nearly 500 voters across the country, many people are answering those questions all sorts of different ways.

Thanks to @NotMrTibbs Baseball Hall of Fame Tracker, we do know how players have fared on 163 ballots so far.

@ 163 ballots: Jr. 100% Piazza 86.5% (net +9) Bagwell 79.8% (+22) Raines 78.5% (+13) Hoffman 62.0% Schilling 58.9% (+8) Mussina 53.4% (+23)

— Ryan Thibs (@NotMrTibbs) January 5, 2016

One of the problems with the voting process is the shear nature of voting in general. If I am given a vote, I can essentially vote however I want. The Baseball Hall of Fame gives every voter guidelines, but those guidelines are looked at differently by each person.

Players are not viewed based simply on statistics. We cannot just look at a players Wins Above Replacement and determine whether or not they are above the Hall of Fame line. If that were the case, deserving players like Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammell would have been elected long ago, and Bill Mazeroski, Roy Campanella and Lloyd Waner among others wouldn't have plaques. That's not how it works.

So let's look at these questions to figure out why we have more Hall of Fame worthy players than we have spots for them on a 10 man ballot.

First, we look at a player like Griffey. He's going to be elected on his first ballot. Just like many great players before him. For a ballot filled with question marks, there is no question Griffey was an all-time elite player.

More importantly, his skinny and frail looking frame that consistently got banged up and injured in the latter stages in his career proved to voters that he couldn't possibly have taken performance enhancing drugs. That's a much bigger reason for his 1st ballot status than any accomplishment. In the world we live in right now, players like Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Sheffield and others are losing votes because of reports of their cheating baseball by taking PED's.

So why would someone still leave Griffey off a ballot? Well, for one, no player in baseball history has ever been voted unanimously. Second, some voters feel that because nobody ever has, nobody ever should. Third, some voters have sent in blank ballots to protest the cheaters of the "Steroid Era." And finally, some have left obvious Hall of Famers off their lists in the past to try and help a player they feel deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but would be their 11th choice on a 10 man ballot.

In 1936, five legendary players were inducted into the Hall of Fame. Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Matthewson, Walter Johnson. Many voters have referenced this group as a Mount Rushmore of sorts for baseball, and because none of them were unanimous, nobody should ever be unanimous. The major flaw in this logic is that this was the first ever ballot for the Hall of Fame. There were literally hundreds of names to choose from on the ballot. Legendary players like Cy Young and Tris Speaker and legendary managers like Connie Mack and John McGraw weren't elected in 1936 and neither were so many other deserving candidates. That's what happens with a first ballot for any sport. The fact that players have suffered from this logic makes no sense to me. And this is also why Seaver has the highest voting percentage in baseball history despite not being the best player in baseball history.

So will Griffey be the only one elected? Maybe. Piazza, Bagwell and Raines all have a legitimate shot at election. Piazza has the best shot, having received nearly 70% last year and only needing 75% for induction. The question remains though whether or not any of the three will join Griffey in 2016.

The knock of Piazza and Bagwell, from some voters, is simply they were power hitters during the steroid era which makes them subject to PED accusations. Whether they used drugs or not, the fact that they are connected to them by hearsay has hurt them almost as much as if they had come out and said they used drugs. The court of public opinion may finally lose the case of Mike Piazza and soon after the case of Jeff Bagwell. It is possible we will see both sent to Cooperstown tomorrow.

As for Raines, the biggest knock on him is he wasn't Rickey Henderson. This is what Trammell has dealt with among others. In his case, it was for not being Cal Ripken Jr. or Robin Yount. Raines was one of the greatest leadoff hitters of all-time, one of the games greatest base stealers and his numbers stack up better than many Hall of Famers, including Lou Brock, who is considered the greatest base stealer not named Henderson. Although, as Baseball statistician @theaceofspader points out, "Rock" is better than Brock in several key categories.

Raines vs Brock BA: Rock OBP: Rock SLG: Rock OPS: Rock OPS+: Rock wOBA: Rock TOB: Rock HR: Rock SB%: Rock wRC+: Rock WAR: Rock HOF: Brock — Ace of MLB Stats (@theaceofspaeder) November 18, 2015

So what about Bonds and Clemens? The seven time Most Valuable Player and the seven time Cy Young Award winner are both on the outside looking in despite multiple years on the ballot. Arguably the greatest hitter and pitcher to ever play the game and certainly of their generation and so far, they are both several votes short. Nearly every voter has either voted for neither or both, as if they are the same person.

Ultimately, they may never get in. John Shea of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote today that if and when Piazza gets in, he could see other voters decide to start voting for Bonds and Clemens. Because none of these players were ever suspended during their careers for any PED use, the argument could be made that since Piazza has rumors surrounding him, how can we deny the greatest hitter and pitcher of a generation anymore? Will that convince 75% of the voters? That answer might take a few years.

And finally, will deserving players like Wagner, Walker, Sheffield and Sosa even be on the ballot next year? With so much of a log jam on the ballot because voters were hesitant to elect players they suspected could have done steroids or other PED's, the ballot has been crowded.

Rafael Palmeiro, despite being one of only four players in baseball history with 3,000 hits and 500 home runs, was removed from the ballot for not receiving the minimum 5% of the vote. Carlos Delgado, despite 473 home runs and eleven 30 home run seasons, is also no longer on the ballot. There are many other examples of great players being removed from the ballot altogether for not receiving the minimum. What is so frustrating about this 5% rule is that many voters have changed their minds over the years on players. Jim Rice, Bert Blyleven and Goose Gossage are some of the most recent examples of players who had to wait many years, but finally earned induction.

Despite not hitting a single home run or striking out a single batter during their retirement from the game, voters continued to change their minds on these players. Ultimately, after 15 years on the ballot, more than 75% of the voters finally agreed that they were Hall of Famers. So what changed? Why did voters say no for so long, and then suddenly decide they were worthy of the Hall of Fame?

Ultimately, this takes me back to the 5% rule. Would any of the players who have been removed from the ballot in the past because of this rule have had a similar fate as Rice, Blyleven or Gossage? There needs to be two major changes to the rules as far as I'm concerned.

Rule #1: No limit. Vote for however many players you choose to. We have seen several voters not vote for 10 despite the 10 limit rule. And we have also seen many voters say they would have voted for more than 10 had they been given the chance to. So why is there a limit? Either a guy is a Hall of Famer or he isn't. Despite the changes in opinions of voters throughout the years, the same question is asked of them: Is this player a Hall of Famer? If the answer is yes, there shouldn't be any other barriers for that particular voter.

Rule #2: No 5% rule. If a player receives a vote, a player gets to stay on the ballot. It seems to me that the only reason for the 5% rule as far as I can tell is to limit the ballot to one sheet of paper. I really can't see how it would hurt the voting process to keep players on the ballot who voters deem worthy of election. Yes, we have seen ridiculous voting in the past of average players getting a single vote, but that same voter may not vote for that player the following year. Players like Whitaker, Palmeiro, Delgado and others who have been removed from the ballot may never get in to the Hall of Fame. I don't see any reason why keeping them off the ballot is necessary.

As a life long baseball fan, I grew up watching every player on the current 2016 ballot. I want to be able to take my son to Cooperstown someday and show him the plaque of the greatest swing I ever saw in person in Bonds or one of the greatest pitchers I ever saw live in Clemens. And that despite mistakes Bonds or Clemens made, that they were still two of the greatest players this game has ever seen. After all, the Hall is a museum, not a shrine and I want to be able to teach my son about the greatest sport there is and everything about it.