{"id":506227,"date":"2026-01-05T13:33:11","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T13:33:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/506227\/"},"modified":"2026-01-05T13:33:11","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T13:33:11","slug":"if-i-had-a-hall-of-fame-vote","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/506227\/","title":{"rendered":"If I had a Hall of Fame vote"},"content":{"rendered":"

We\u2019re in the midst of Hall of Fame season. The public announcement that tells us whether any of the players on the current ballot join those currently in Cooperstown is coming on January 20, and Ryan Thibodaux and friends\u2019 ballot tracker<\/a> is going strong, at 123 ballots as I write.<\/p>\n

I do not have a Hall of Fame ballot, obviously. But I do care pretty deeply about Hall of Fame voting; those questions of where players fit historically are one of my favorite parts of fandom. Is this healthy? Probably not. A friend tells me frequently that I need to stop caring about an institution that includes Jeff Kent but not Barry Bonds.<\/p>\n

But this is who I am. I care, and I find the discussion fascinating, so I\u2019m going to share who I would vote for this year if I had a Hall of Fame ballot. But first, I\u2019d like to tell you how I approach the question of who does or does not make my personal Hall of Fame. I will try to be brief.<\/p>\n

A frequent question: big Hall or small Hall?<\/p>\n

Well, I actually think the Hall is about the right size. Including Kent, who was elected via the Veterans Committee in December, there are 279 players inducted, roughly the top 1% of all players to have ever played in the majors.<\/p>\n

The problem is not the size. It\u2019s how those players are distributed. For example, between 1924 and 1935, the league averaged about 50 active Hall of Famers per season, but there were only 16 teams and about 400 active players at the time, so roughly 12.5% of the league\u2019s active players ended up in the Hall of Fame. I think the sweet spot for the number of active players at any given time who should end up in the Hall is probably around 5%, which nowadays is about 40 players. This seems like a lot, but remember that this includes players at all phases of their careers: someone who debuted yesterday, a star player in the middle of their prime, or an aging legend who is barely hanging on. At 5%, that number from 1924-35 would be about half of what it is.<\/p>\n

Why am I harping on this? There\u2019s nothing I can do about the fact that the wrong 279 players are in, but Hall building is all about creating a line somewhere between players who are in and players who are out. For me, I essentially am asking myself: if I could build the Hall of Fame from scratch, would this player be in the top 275 or so? And if I answer yes, then I would vote for them.<\/p>\n

This has been the single biggest issue for the Hall since Mark McGwire showed up on the Hall of Fame ballot in 2007. There\u2019s never been any clear guidance from the Hall or from the Baseball Writers\u2019 Association of America (the body that votes on Hall of Fame elections), though it does seem that the Hall didn\u2019t want any of the steroid guys in.<\/p>\n

These waters became murkier when David Ortiz, who supposedly failed an \u201canonymous\u201d drug test in 2003, was chosen as a first-ballot Hall of Famer. There are some questions around that, but it kind of seems like for Ortiz, an extraordinarily popular player and one of the faces of 21st-century baseball, everyone just happily swept any doubts under the rug. Not so for lesser-liked but far better players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, nor players whose accomplishments were deemed to be largely fabricated by steroid use, like McGwire and Sammy Sosa.<\/p>\n

This question is still pertinent because there are three prominent players with ties to PEDs on this year\u2019s ballot: Alex Rodr\u00edguez, Manny Ram\u00edrez, and Andy Pettitte. (PEDs are also connected to the story of one of our fanbase\u2019s own, Ryan Braun, who debuted on the ballot this year, but he\u2019s a tier below.)<\/p>\n

Me personally? It\u2019s hard. If a player was clearly a Hall of Fame-level player \u2014 like Rodr\u00edguez \u2014 I would vote for them. If I don\u2019t see their case as particularly compelling, like for instance Sosa or Gary Sheffield, I let the drugs push them out. The tricky space is those guys in the middle, like Ram\u00edrez on this ballot: he\u2019s an obvious Hall of Famer if you ignore the steroid use, but not an all-timer the way that Rodr\u00edguez, Bonds, or Clemens are. This is where this question is hardest.<\/p>\n

There are different ways to measure the value of a career. Some will use WAR, straight up. Some put a premium on how many hits or homers a player had. Some just want to trust their gut.<\/p>\n

Trusting our guts is stupid. That\u2019s a good way to say that no amount of research-based information can sway you. Hubris.<\/p>\n

Counting stats? Meh. Longevity certainly matters, but I\u2019m not super interested in putting a player who was \u201cpretty good\u201d for 15 years in the Hall of Fame. (\u201cVery good\u201d for that long? Different story.)<\/p>\n

For me, I\u2019m most interested in how good a player was at their best, and how long they were at that level (which is different from how long they played). I have a variety of stats that I use (WAR rate, Wins Above Average, a little \u201cstat\u201d of my own I call Peak Score, how many times I\u2019d have put them in the top three of MVP voting, etc.) that I use for a baseline. I move players around based on other factors, too, but I am more interested in a player who was near the best in the league for an amount of time (or at least spent several years as one of the best players at their position) than a player who stuck around picking up hits.<\/p>\n

This is way too many words from me telling you how I\u2019d personally get to about the 275-ish players who I believe would clear the Hall of Fame line. Agree or disagree in the comments!<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll do this in the order that I would choose them. I wasn\u2019t sure I\u2019d get to 10, but I did \u2014 barely.<\/p>\n

Utley\u2019s case requires you to trust defensive metrics, which not everyone does (perhaps wisely). But if you do think that Utley was \u2014 as the metrics say \u2014 an excellent defensive player, then his five-year run from 2005-09 was the best by a second baseman since Joe Morgan in the 1970s. The fact that people don\u2019t blindly trust defensive metrics (and thus defer to the contemporary accounts, which did not consider Utley\u2019s defense to be all that special) is why Utley is not in already.<\/p>\n

Beltr\u00e1n is very likely to be inducted this year, based on early returns; it is his fourth ballot, and he received 70.3% of the vote last season, and he\u2019s thus far a perfect 20\/20 among first-time voters. The only reason he\u2019s not in already is his (central?) role in the Astros\u2019 sign-stealing scandal of 2017. There is no question of his caliber as a player: 435 homers, 312 stolen bases (with the best high-volume stolen base percentage ever), and a truly legendary postseason career.<\/p>\n

Speaking of defensive metrics, they tell us that Andruw Jones was the best defensive outfielder of all time. Combine that with the fact that he was a prodigious power hitter who had 434 career homers and once hit 51 in a season, and that\u2019s enough for me, even if his offensive game had some holes. Consider it this way: Ozzie Smith had an 87 career OPS+ and played the best infield defense of all time. If we think Jones is the best defensive outfielder of all time, then a 111 career OPS+ should be plenty.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s where stuff starts getting messy, but Rodr\u00edguez, at least, is not hard for me. Yes, steroids, bad image, etc. He is also, undoubtedly, one of the greatest baseball players ever, a high school legend who had a 9.4 WAR season when he was 20. Like Bonds, the talent was always there, and a Hall of Fame without him doesn\u2019t make much sense to me.<\/p>\n

This one\u2019s harder. Ram\u00edrez is one of the best hitters ever, a \u201cnatural,\u201d a freak who could do just about anything with a baseball bat. But where Rodr\u00edguez had other talents and played valuable defensive positions (well), Ram\u00edrez did not. He was one of the worst defensive players of all time, and he was bad on the basepaths.<\/p>\n

In an ordinary scenario, Ram\u00edrez\u2019s offensive prowess would easily be enough to get him in \u2014 he ranks in the top 30 in AL\/NL history in OPS+, making him about an equivalent hitter as, say, Frank Robinson. This is where my views about PED users make it a bit difficult, though. Given that Ram\u00edrez was only a hitter, that hurts him. However, I\u2019m willing to vote for him because his talent was, truly, freakish. This isn\u2019t a guy who got into the HOF conversation because he hit homers and did nothing else. He was a career .312 hitter with a great eye in addition to whatever power boost PEDs may have given him.<\/p>\n

Okay, now we get to the players who not everyone will agree on. Here\u2019s why I like Wright:<\/p>\n

His career was longer than you rememberFrom 2005-13, Wright averaged 4.9 WAR per season (and 5.5 per 162 games). That\u2019s a long time for a player to be playing at an All-Star level.Looking back, I\u2019d have given Wright the 2007 NL MVP. He finished fourth that season \u2014 Jimmy Rollins won \u2014 but his was the kind of all-around prowess that ironically tends to get players underrated, because they do a whole bunch of things well. Wright that season hit 42 doubles, 30 homers, stole 34 bases in 39 tries, hit .325, and won a Gold Glove and a Silver Slugger.<\/p>\n

Wright had nine seasons as a star-level player and was, at his best, an MVP-level player. That adds up for me.<\/p>\n

The case for Pedroia is very similar to the one for Wright. Had Pedroia stayed healthy, I think he\u2019d have had a first-ballot, inner-circle type career pretty easily; he was cruising toward 3,000 hits and 600 doubles when injuries effectively ended his career at age 33. Even still: 1,805 hits in just 1,512 games, 394 doubles, some pop, and excellent defense at second base for, essentially, 10 solid years: like Wright, he had his first \u201cgood\u201d season and his last \u201cgood\u201d season further apart than you\u2019d think, and over those 10 years (2007-16) Pedroia averaged 5.1 WAR per season and 6.0 per 162. He also won both Gold Gloves and Silver Sluggers, and a deserved MVP in 2008.<\/p>\n

The next three players are all very close to wherever my \u201cline\u201d is, but I\u2019ve decided that in this extremely high-stakes hypothetical exercise, I\u2019d vote for all three.<\/p>\n

Abreu put up crazy numbers that flew way under everyone\u2019s radar because they were mostly for bad Phillies teams in the late 90s and early 2000s. But from 1998-2004, this is what Abreu averaged per season: 156 games, 5.9 WAR, .308\/.416\/.525, 143 OPS+, 41 2B, 6 3B, 23 HR, 92 RBI, 29 SB, and 106 BB.<\/p>\n

Between his 2,470 hits and 1,476 walks (20th all time!), Abreu reached base almost 4,000 times in his career, putting him in the top 50 all-time. He stole 400 bases, and hit almost 300 homers and almost 600 doubles. He played during the steroid era, so it was easy to miss a lot of these numbers, but they are wild, and he was one of the league\u2019s most consistent players during his seven-year peak.<\/p>\n

Hamels\u2019 case may not be as strong if you have a preference for FanGraphs\u2019 version of WAR over Baseball Reference\u2019s. But this was another career, like Abreu\u2019s, that flew under the radar. When he was just 24, Hamels won the NLCS and World Series MVP for the Phillies, a team that many forget won before they acquired Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, and Roy Oswalt.<\/p>\n

Besides that, Hamels was just a reliably good pitcher for basically 14 years. Between his rookie year in 2006 and his last real season in 2019, Hamels was as solid and consistent as they come, always healthy, never bad. I recognize this is sort of against my \u201cpeak is the most important thing\u201d model, but that\u2019s just a preference \u2014 as I said, players who are \u201cvery good\u201d for a long time get in, too. Throw in that magical 2008 postseason run, and it gets him a vote.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve waffled on Hern\u00e1ndez. The reason he\u2019s getting so much support this year (and looks destined for future enshrinement) is that, between 2009 and 2015, he had a legitimate claim as the best pitcher in the league. Was he? Probably not, but he was in the conversation: he won the 2010 AL Cy Young and finished second in 2009 and 2014.<\/p>\n

The problem is that Hern\u00e1ndez wasn\u2019t all that consistent, and outside of those three seasons, there\u2019s not a ton of other great stuff. Hern\u00e1ndez\u2019s career as a good player was over by the time he turned 30, and in the years between his first good season (2007) and his last (2015), there were a few that weren\u2019t actually all that great, they were just \u201cpretty good.\u201d It wasn\u2019t the most consistent peak.<\/p>\n

I am going to say that he\u2019d get my vote, but I mentioned the 275 player thing, and in my (imperfect) ranking system, Hern\u00e1ndez comes in literally at number 274. (As an aside: Hern\u00e1ndez\u2019s case should start conversations about some other shorter career, high-peak pitchers from more recent times, like Roy Oswalt, Kevin Appier, David Cone, Dave Stieb, and Bret Saberhagen.)<\/p>\n

Pettitte is a borderline case before you consider his admitted PED use (which admittedly does seem less serious, but who knows). But ignoring that issue altogether, Pettitte\u2019s peak wasn\u2019t great, and despite a bunch of years when he got Cy Young votes because of inflated wins totals (the benefits of playing for the Yankees), I only saw him as a real contender once.<\/p>\n

Buehrle is the hardest cut for me: his career is like no other 21st-century pitcher, in that he had 14 straight seasons with 200-plus innings, a streak that ended in his last season when, at age 36, he threw \u201conly\u201d 198 2\/3. But while Buehrle was fun to watch and did have signature individual and team accomplishments (a perfect game and a World Series win), most of that time was as a good, not great, pitcher.<\/p>\n

Take Rollins\u2019 career and stick it in the 1960s, and you\u2019ve probably got a Hall of Famer. But Rollins played during the height of the steroid era, and his .264\/.324\/.418 batting line is a problem when viewed in that context. That could be made up for if you\u2019re an excellent baserunner (and Rollins was \u2014 he stole 470 bases at 81.7% success) and fielder. Rollins was a good fielder; he won four Gold Gloves, but he wasn\u2019t good enough to make up for a 95 OPS+. His career WAR rate and total (just 47.9) just aren\u2019t there for me.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s ignore the ugly stuff<\/a> and look at Vizquel purely as a baseball player. He racked up a ton of hits over a 24-year career, but had a career OPS+ of 82, which is really bad. Andrelton Simmons and Ozzie Smith both had a career OPS+ of 87. And yes, Vizquel was an excellent defensive player \u2026 but he wasn\u2019t Ozzie. Plus, Smith had a couple of years where he got his offense up high enough so that, when combined with his otherworldly defense, he was an MVP candidate. Vizquel had maybe one year (1999) where he could\u2019ve gotten into the fringes of that conversation, but he finished 16th in MVP voting, which feels about right \u2014 that was the only time he got votes. Smith appeared on MVP ballots in six different seasons and finished second once.<\/p>\n

Vizquel was a worse offensive player and a worse defensive player than The Wizard, who was a truly unique figure. Let\u2019s stop trying to pretend like Vizquel was in that class.<\/p>\n

Ah, the reliever question. There are nine primary relievers in the Hall, and at least three of those are probably mistakes.<\/p>\n

I wouldn\u2019t vote for K-Rod, but he\u2019s probably within the top 12-15 relievers in baseball history, which at least starts a conversation. If I had my way, we\u2019d talk about several others first, though, guys like Joe Nathan, Jonathan Papelbon, Tom Henke, and three active players: Aroldis Chapman, Craig Kimbrel, and Kenley Jansen.<\/p>\n

Hunter\u2019s defensive metrics do not match his reputation. He was a good defensive outfielder, but he needed to be a great one in order to make the Hall of Fame, and he just wasn\u2019t quite that. Hunter also had a major hole in his offensive game: he didn\u2019t walk. Good counting numbers with 2,452 hits, 498 doubles, and 353 homers, but not enough peak.<\/p>\n

Because it\u2019s a Brewers site, I do want to talk a little about Braun. Let\u2019s say he never used PEDs but had exactly the same career: does he get any discussion?<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think he does. He might deserve it \u2026 I have Braun in the top 50 or so players outside the Hall based on the way I look at it. That\u2019s a serious accomplishment. At his best, he was among the best in the league. But Braun\u2019s career after turning 30 was, unfortunately, not great. He had a couple of good years but several not-so-good ones. After appearing on MVP ballots in each of his first six seasons and winning Silver Sluggers and making the All-Star team in all but the first of those, Braun made only one All-Star Game in his last eight years and averaged under three WAR per 162 games in that time.<\/p>\n

There you have it. Way too many words about a thing that\u2019s not even real.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"We\u2019re in the midst of Hall of Fame season. The public announcement that tells us whether any of…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":506228,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2401],"tags":[5,136,843,59,38822,4280,4,3537],"class_list":{"0":"post-506227","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-milwaukee-brewers","8":"tag-baseball","9":"tag-brewers","10":"tag-milwaukee","11":"tag-milwaukee-brewers","12":"tag-milwaukee-brewers-commentary-and-analysis","13":"tag-milwaukeebrewers","14":"tag-mlb","15":"tag-mlb-news"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/channels.im\/@mlb\/115842751367778758","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/506227","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=506227"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/506227\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/506228"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=506227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=506227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rawchili.com\/mlb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=506227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}