Omar Vizquel with the Giants. - AP

Pirates

Kovacevic: Vizquel vs. Maz was toughest Hall call this year

By Dejan Kovacevic

Dec 21, 2017 • 12:00 am

6.6K

One often hears the term "first-ballot Hall of Famer" in the world of professional sports. Jesse James of the Steelers used it in our conversation just a few days ago when motioning over toward Ben Roethlisberger's locker stall. I've heard the same spoken of Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin and Andrew McCutchen.

It's not enough to just say Hall of Famer. It's "first-ballot Hall of Famer." Because that's extra. That's special.

I've never quite grasped why, though.

Below, I reveal my 2017 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot, as I do here this time every year. This is my fourth time voting, as a 14-year member of the Baseball Writers Association of America, and I'm proud to be one of the 425 members chosen. It's by far the best process when compared to the mostly shuttered one for football and the entirely shuttered one for hockey. Only a select few ever see or hear what happens in the latter two, whereas with baseball it's almost all out in the open.

That said, the public visibility of the baseball process contributes, I think, to some quirks. And the "first-ballot Hall of Famer" happens to be one of them. Because there are voters who openly acknowledge bypassing a worthy candidate on the first ballot or two just because they aren't seen as being deserving of that extra special status. They like to see the first-ballot results reserved for, say, a Ken Griffey Jr.

Well, I'm fairly detail-oriented about most things, and this isn't any different. Just as there's that controversial character clause we, as baseball writers, are required to consider -- and, in turn, I do -- there's also not a single syllable anywhere about the first ballot being more important than the second or, for that matter, the 10th.

If Edgar Martinez and/or Fred McGriff, the only two players on the current ballot who are in their ninth years of eligibility, eventually make it, they'll be no less honored than a new arrival will when he makes it on the first. There's no distinguishing, not on the inscriptions in Cooperstown, not anywhere except the headlines.

What's more, I don't like the urgency that gets added when someone's in the final year of eligibility. I had Tim Raines on my ballot for three years before he was elected last winter in his final year. I sure didn't add him because he'd just had a couple of fine years in 2015 and 2016 with the Expos. I had him because I thought he was worthy. And if I didn't have him before, it would have taken something extraordinary to add him at the end, not mere sentimentality.

Plain and simple. I choose the ones I feel are worthy at any point.

That said, for anyone who's new to this site, here are the three standards for voting I've set for myself that I share each year:

1. The research I've committed to this was my own. I studied my own finalists' histories in as many forms as I could find, from old stats to new, from major achievements to memorable impact.

2. The guidelines I've followed are those outlined for us by the BBWAA, which also happen to be the very same guidelines the Hall wrote for the very first vote in 1939. And again, that includes the character clause, which hasn't changed in the slightest all these years. (If you want to yell at someone about Ty Cobb being a bad dude, they're probably no longer around to hear it.)

3. The approaches to difficult decisions were based on a combined goal of careful thought, consistent applications of my own precedents, but also an open mind to conceding when I might have been wrong.

In other words, I didn't care what anyone else thought before casting this vote. And I sure as Harvey Haddix won't care now that it's cast.

Here's my 2017 ballot:

Chipper Jones

Jim Thome

Trevor Hoffman

Vladimir Guerrero

Edgar Martinez

Mike Mussina

A few explanations:

• A voter can choose up to 10 names. I obviously chose six for the simple reason that I saw six of them as qualified for a place in Cooperstown.

• Jones and Thome are the only first-timers of the 19 on the ballot. Jones doesn't need my written explanation for why he belongs. The only knock against Thome is that he spent a significant portion of his career as a designated hitter, but the man hit 612 home runs, and he was never even remotely attached to any suspicion of steroids. He was a great, pure slugger.

• I went hard at Omar Vizquel, both statistically and philosophically. As someone who supports Bill Mazeroski being in the Hall, primarily for his superlative defense, Vizquel is worthy of intense consideration.

He was a genius at shortstop, and he held that status for an amazing 24 years with 11 Gold Gloves. He slashed .272/.336/.352 with, obviously, very little pop, but he was at least better than the stereotypical light-hitting shortstop. In fact, that's better than Maz's .260/.299/.367 even though Maz had more pop. And, for that matter, his defensive WAR of 28.4 ranks 10th all-time among infielders, compared to Maz's 23.9 that ranks 22nd.

To date, the bar that's been set defensively is that of Ozzie Smith, the greatest defender at any position in the history of the game. As if anyone wouldn't already know that, his 43.4 defensive WAR towers over everyone. But that shouldn't make Ozzie exclusive when it comes to factoring in defensive brilliance, even if that tangibly brings less value to a team's chance of winning. It's a big part of the game, and it always should be respected.

So let's go back to Vizquel vs. Maz. The numbers above aren't flattering, but they also deserve further context, as with any comparisons between eras.

Bill Mazeroski in 1970. - AP

When Maz played, the infields weren't anywhere near as manicured as they are today. Players from the 1950s and 1960s will attest to that in colorful language, as a few of the great old Pirates still do down in Bradenton every spring. Vizquel played in a time where grass made a comeback over turf, but the grass and dirt were handled like a baby's bottom. That doesn't mean it was perfect, but it was far, far easier to run up a higher defensive WAR, which does not take eras into consideration.

The only fair comparison between eras, I've always felt, is weighing how that player fares against his peers in his time. In other words, because Honus Wagner was the best player in the National League in his time by a greater margin than anyone from the Pirates since, he's still the best player in franchise history. No stat-to-stat comparison is really even needed, just a rank among his peers.

Well, in 1958, Maz had the best defensive WAR of any player at any position in baseball, a status Vizquel never achieved. In Maz's 17-year career, he ranked among the 10 best in defensive WAR five times, finishing first, second, fifth, sixth and ninth. Vizquel did so four times, finishing second, fourth and twice eighth. And to stress yet again, that's within their own eras.

(As an aside, I'm purposely avoiding Maz's home run, as it theoretically shouldn't have been enough to get him in the Hall, but it's also prudent to remember sports memories are built on iconic moments, and no one's ever had a bigger hit in organized baseball.)

Much respect to Vizquel. I'll stay open-minded. With each passing year, there's more information, more data, and that's the one area I feel makes it mandatory to never slam the door on a candidate.

But not now.

• My other four choices -- Hoffman, Guerrero, Martinez, Mussina -- are holdovers. No changes were made. This was my column from last year.

• I don't make a habit of discussing players I leave off, as it can come across as unwittingly disrespectful. But it always merits repeating, probably, that some of the more notorious omissions aren't there because of -- yep -- that character clause.

Here's the official clause, verbatim:

“5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”

A few thoughts on that:

• When the Hall and/or Major League Baseball decides it wants the voters to stop weighing "integrity, sportsmanship, character," they can and must remove that clause. They're the only ones empowered to do that. Not the writers. Only them.

• It’s become the cool thing to dismiss PEDs as if they shouldn’t matter to the Hall. Which is insane. Cheating is cheating. It runs counter to the very fabric of sportsmanship, and thus, sport.

• It’s become equally cool to bash the BBWAA for acting as holier-than-thou or judge, jury and executioner. This is, of course, nonsense, for the reason I just outlined and for the fact the Hall and MLB are all too happy to pass the buck to the writers. They keep out the players they don't want in the Hall, and we get the grief.

Which, to be totally honest, is fine by me. I’ll follow the guidelines precisely as written and weigh “integrity, sportsmanship, character,” with an inclusion of those connected to PEDs, because cheating the public, your peers and the game doesn't exactly fit any of those three traits.

In other words, I’ll vote for Barry Bonds or his ilk only when the guideline is changed by the Hall and/or MLB. But I’m not holding my breath. They don’t want Bonds in the Hall, either. Unless, of course, they can explain why the former commissioner essentially refused to acknowledge Bonds breaking the most hallowed record in our nation's long sporting history.

Anyway, no need to end this on a down note. The Hall itself and America's pastime as a whole should be celebrated, and I extend best wishes to all six of the gentlemen above. The results will be announced Jan. 24, 2018, at 6 p.m.

WHAT'S BREWING

• Our Christmas gift subscriptions are here! Buy one! This is a big, big time of year for us, and we've still got a loooooooooooong way to to go reach 1,000! That's not some arbitrary goal, either. We budget for that many, and we'd love to be able to hit it like we did last year.

Thanks to everyone who's already bought one or more!

• If you missed it -- and not many did, judging by the massive response -- Matt Gajtka and Matt Sunday yesterday offered a wonderful Midweek Reader that's one of the best pieces we'll ever run. They traveled to Ohio to meet with Pittsburgh's own Ryan Malone, who's attempting a comeback like no other.

• I hosted full three-hour radio show yesterday on 105.9 the X in place of Mark Madden. Lance Lysowski, Christopher Carter and Matt Gajtka all contributed.

• Gajtka will be filing his Matt's Stats piece from tonight's Penguins-Blue Jackets game.

VIDEO

Gajtka and Bradford discuss the Penguins deals in today's Java: