YFSF

The Question of Deserving It

Tim Wakefield was selected today to his first-ever All-Star Game, joining five Boston teammates. The question, of course, is whether he deserves it. Wakefield is on pace for 20+ wins and leads the league in victories, but he has a 4.30 ERA that is right in line with what you'd expect from him -- and is actually worse than what he posted last season, as well as 1995, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005. He wasn't selected to the All-Star Game in any of those seasons. His ERA is good for a 108 ERA+, which isn't particularly All-Star worthy either.

But Wakefield is closing in on the Sox' records for most wins and most strikeouts, he had the bad fortune of having his 1995 season start too late to warrant All-Star consideration. He has been one of the most important parts of two championship-winning teams -- and has been consistently much better over his career than some of the flashes in pans that are selected each year to All-Star teams.

In one sense, Wakefield probably doesn't deserve to be on this All-Star team, but he deserves to have at least an All-Star apearance. I'm happy it's finally happening this year.

He joins more clear cut selections in teammates Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis, Jason Bay, Josh Beckett and Jonathan Papelbon.

On the Yankee side, Mariano Rivera, Mark Teixeira and Derek Jeter are heading to the All-Star Game.

Congratulations to all nine of the honorees.

On the Sheff

We've talked before about how crowded -- and controversial -- the Hall of Fame classes four to five years from now could be. Ken Griffey Jr. and Ivan Rodriguez have since found gainful employment, but that still leaves Bonds, Clemens, Lofton, Schilling and Sosa eligible in 2013 and Glavine, Kent, Maddux, Martinez, Mussina and Thomas potentially eligible in 2014.

Now maybe add another one to that list:

Gary Sheffield's milestone 500th career home run will have to come with a different team. The Tigers released the longtime slugger on Tuesday, a surprising roster move and a potential end to what may ultimately be a Hall of Fame career.

On the cusp of traditional greatness statistically (499 homers), Sheffield blows away the baseline HOF numbers on both the Standards and Monitors metrices. His No. 2 comp is Griffey, his 3-7 and No. 9 comps are all in the Hall of Fame. Nos. 8 and 10 are future Hall of Famers. His No. 1 comp is a borderline guy I would probably vote in, Fred McGriff. From 1992-2003, Sheffield posted a 156 OPS+, and if not for the 1994-95 strike -- seasons in which he posted an OPS+ of 145 and 176, respectively -- Sheffield would have long ago blown past the elusive milestone.  

I'm not so sure he'll be elected though. He has no team identity (four seasons and parts of two others in Florida, four in Milwaukee, three and part of one in LA, three in New York, two in Atlanta, two in Detroit, one and a half in San Diego) so no base to push for his candidacy. He didn't hit a milestone that even now is losing its luster, he wasn't well liked during his playing days, and -- worst of all -- he has the taint of steroids. Maybe he sails in easily -- he should -- but if he doesn't find another team, he'll find himself on a crowded ballot in 2014 with a stain that could be hard to wash off.

Musical Hall Chairs

The New York Times today points out the impressive number of players with impressive Hall of Fame credentials who remain unsigned with less than a month before pitchers and catchers are scheduled to report:

By then, perhaps Pedro Martinez, Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, Iván Rodríguez and Tom Glavine will have jobs. Or maybe they will still be searching for a place to play.

Retirement could be an option, too. (Jeff Kent will go that route Thursday.)

What is Greatness?

There has been much discussion around these parts (and elsewhere) about the merits of the Hall of Fame voting system.  Jim Rice's election yesterday has heightened awareness of that system, and based on yesterday's results it seems like a (perhaps minor and solely YFSF-based) groundswell is asking for this system to be "fixed".  But first something else needs to happen: someone needs to articulately spell out what, exactly, is "broken".  At that point then the proposition to "fix" it will serve some greater purpose. But nobody can define, lucidly, the parameters by which someone is judged to deserve enshrinement - the Hall as far as I can tell doesn't even do this, I've searched their website to no avail: they simply do not define "greatness", or, rather "fame".  In their mission statement they bullet the following:

• Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements

It leaves something to be desired, specificity-wise.  We can go back to the pornography discussion and apply it to the Hall, I suppose, you know it when you see it (sabermertricians put down those sabers!).  And that leaves a LOT of room, so much so that arguing that something is "broken" seems like a dead-end job. The Hall enshrines, by a fan's definition, those who are supposedly "great", but the standards by which we (and the record books) define greatness are ever-shifting, whether statistically or contextually. Had Rice played in an era where OBP was valued like it has been the last decade+ would his counting stats be that much more impressive? Would he have had more players to knock in? (Seriously - Jerry Remy and Rick Burleson hit in front of Rice, in 1978 they had OBPs of .321 and .295, respectively) Had Rice played in the "steroid" era would we be thinking of him not as great or even good but simply as an enormously inflated pariah and non-candidate?

I think there has been too much venom on this issue - from both sides. From those who think that Rice is undeserving -- Rob Neyer's "we won't need to make stuff up" comment about Tim Raines from yesterday was a particulary and uncharacteristically unprofessional swipe from a superb writer pointing towards Dick Bresciani, an historian of the game with proven credentials (full disclosure - he's a family friend). Just as some of Peter Gammons' comments about Neyer and the Rice non-supporters have been equally juvenile.

We shouldn't be so absolute in proclaiming to know the rightness or wrongness of the awarding of such a cherished yet vaguely defined honor - that goes for those supporting both election and rejection of any player's candidacy. 

For those who wish to take this discussion further, I'd be curious to know how people define "greatness", and how the Hall might legitimately define this vague term for future voters.  I have my doubts that it  could ever be done with any modicum of success.

The comments are obviously open for this debate.  And don't make it personal.

Jay Bell's Mom and Dad are Members of the BBWA?

Well, many may be outraged at Jim Rice's success today.  But the real outrage should be directed towards those who cast the following:

• two votes for Jay Bell

• one vote for Jesse Orosco

Even if you make an assumption that the writers who voted for these two guys also voted for Rice, and that these votes for Rice should be rescinded based on the fact that, JFC, they also voted for Jay Bell and Jesse Orosco, Rice still makes it.  Thank goodness he made it by seven and not two!

Rickey, Rice in the Hall

Jim Ed makes it.  Congrats to him.  He deserves it.  Or doesn't.  Or something.

Colonial bacon for everyone!

On Jim F. Rice -- In Which the 'F' Stands for 'FEAR'

I'm not going to get into the pros and cons. They've been gotten into, and at this point you're either a Rice supporter, a Rice opponent, or someone who is glad they don't have to decide one way or the other. By tomorrow afternoon, Jim Rice either will or will not join Rickey Henderson in the Hall of Fame.

If he's inducted, the Hall will not implode. If he's excluded, his life will go on, presumably by continuing to mangle sentences and talk too fast with Tom Caron before and after Red Sox games on NESN. All that said, I was once a strong Rice supporter. Then I was a reluctant Rice opponent. Now I'm back in the supporter camp, but with an acknowledgment that leaving him out would not in any way be a travesty. In other words, I agree a lot with Bob Ryan, who has a thoughtful, well written piece on the subject in today's Globe.

Ballot Time

Were it not for his awful testimony in 2005 before Congress, Mark McGwire would be in the Hall of Fame. He's a special case, so let's assume for a moment that he's in -- as arguably he should be.

Excepting him, which currently eligible Hall of Fame candidate has the fifth-highest batting average, third-highest on base percentage, highest slugging percentage and highest OPS+ among the 15 men eligible for the Hall this year?

Shoo-In vs. Shut-In

It's Friday. That means it soon will be time for me to order out for a couple two-liter bottles of Dew and three double-cheese, double-pepperonis (I have a coupon) for a 36-hour WOW session.

In the mean time, I will read and re-read Dan Shaughnessy and feel shame... at least until I get bored, have mom nuke me a quesadilla and some poppers, and drift over to the Maxim Hot 100.

Neyer has a well-reasoned response.

Not Robbed!

A picture split hair is worth a thousand words.

Or, according to Microsoft Word (and including the title), 1172.