McAdam: One writer's Hall of Fame criteria

634702.jpg

McAdam: One writer's Hall of Fame criteria

It's become fashionable in some BBWAA circles to lament the fact that voters for the Hall of Fame are limited to 10 players on the ballot annually.

If these voters had their way, Cooperstown would be building an annex every few years to accommodate all the immortals judged worthy of entrance.

Sorry, but I find such a stance laughable. The notion that more than 10 players on the current ballot are deserving of recognition as all-time greats, among the best to ever play the game, is beyond my comprehension.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That's both the beauty and the curse, I suppose, of surveying more than 500 eligible voters each December.

When it comes to voting for the Hall, I tend to fall on the other end of the spectrum. In more than a dozen years of voting, only once did I vote for more than three players in any one year. (That was in 1999 when I voted for Nolan Ryan, Robin Yount, George Brett and Carlton Fisk).

In other words, I am considered a "small Hall'' voter, as opposed to some of my colleagues who would be classified as "large Hall'' voters. My approach isn't meant to be punitive in any way. I merely believe the standards for Cooperstown should be set -- and remain -- very high. Others are more inclusive. Viva la difference.

Most years, I have voted for, on average, two players. Once, I returned a blank ballot (1998) and nearly did so again this time before I had a change of heart.

Among the newcomers -- led by Bernie Williams -- there was no one I gave any strong consideration. And given the fact that, a year ago, I voted only for Roberto Alomar, there were no holdovers for whom I felt compelled to vote.

Upon further review, however, I changed that.

After giving some consideration to voting for Jeff Bagwell in his first year of eligibility, I ultimately passed on him. Bagwell has been suspected of PED use and that was enough for me to exclude him from my ballot.

But the more I thought about it, the more that decision seemed wrong. After all, Bagwell was not mentioned in the Mitchell Report. He wasn't implicated by our great moral arbiter, Jose Canseco. He has no links to other notorious steroid-era figures such as Kurt Radomski or Brian McNamara. And he didn't lie to Congress or a grand jury.

The case against Bagwell, such as it is, is that he hit four homers at Double A, then "blossomed'' into a slugger when he reached the major leagues.

But there's no evidence whatsoever that Bagwell ever used PEDs. Baseball history is full of players who, for a variety of reasons, perform far better at the major leagues than they did in the minors.

Taken on his numbers alone, Bagwell is very much a worthy Cooperstown candidate.

In 15 full seasons, he hit 449 home runs, or precisely one shy of avergaging exactly 30 homers for his career. He sported a career .408 on-base percentage and a career slugging percentage of .540 for an OPS of .948.

He had double-figures in steals 10 times and scored 100 or more runs nine times, including a staggering 152 runs in 2000, the most for a player since 1936. In fact, he's one of just 22 players since World War II to accumulate both 1,500 runs scored and 1,500 RBI in his career.

Bagwell was also a terrific defender, regularly among the league leaders for assists and putouts at his position.

In short, Bagwell's numbers unequivocally make him a Hall of Famer. The lone black mark -- if you can call it that -- is his rumored involvement with PEDs, though there's not a shred of hard, actual evidence to support that.

Here are the rest of the most talked-about candidates and my reason(s) for not giving them my vote:

JACK MORRIS: Morris was a horse and a terrific big game pitcher (think no further than Game 7 in 1991). But his 3.90 ERA, compiled almost entirely before the steroid era, would be the highest of any starter in the Hall. Clutch? Yes. Dependable? You bet. But all-time great? I don't think so.

BARRY LARKIN: Of all the players I didn't vote for on this ballot, Larkin represented the toughest omission. He hit .295 for his career, which is quite good for a shortstop. But --- and this is where it gets tough to quantify -- I view Larkin as a very good player, but one who nonetheless falls shy of Hall of Fame status. At no time during his career did I consider Larkin one of the very best players in the game.

ALAN TRAMMELL: Like Larkin, he spent his entire career with one team and like Larkin, was incredibly consistent. But in 20 seasons, he finished in the Top 10 for MVP voting just three times and in the Top 5 just once. To me, that's a few great seasons and a lot of good-to-very-good ones, leaving him shy of all-time status.

TIM RAINES: For a period -- say, from 1982-1987 -- Raines was a spectacular player, a leadoff hitter whose talent and numbers compare favorably with Rickey Henderson. But for a player who was supposed to be such a terrific table-setter and baserunner, Raines scored more than 81 runs exactly twice in his final 14 seasons. Sorry, but his period of dominance was way too short for me.

Thursday's Red Sox-Angels lineups: Sox kick off road trip with Price

red-sox-david-price-062916.jpg

Thursday's Red Sox-Angels lineups: Sox kick off road trip with Price

The Boston Red Sox send David Price (9-7, 4.51 ERA) to the mound to kick of their long road trip against the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

The Angels will counter with righty Jered Weaver (8-8, 5.32 ERA).

The lineups:

RED SOX

Mookie Betts RF
Dustin Pedroia 2B
Xander Bogaerts SS
David Ortiz DH
Hanley Ramirez 1B
Jackie Bradley Jr. CF
Travis Shaw 3B
Sandy Leon C
Brock Holt LF

David Price LHP

ANGELS
Yunel Escobar 3B
Kole Calhoun RF
Mike Trout CF
Albert Pujols DH
Jefry Marte 1B
Andrelton Simmons SS
Jett Bandy C
Gregorio Petit LF
Johnny Giavotella 2B

Jered Weaver RHP

McAdam: Poor homestand puts Red Sox on tough road

McAdam: Poor homestand puts Red Sox on tough road

The Red Sox had their chance.

They could have beefed up during the just-completed homestand and taken advantage of the worst team in the American League (Minnesota) and another that was only three games over .500 when it came to town (Detroit).

Instead, the Red Sox were just 2-5 in the last seven games at Fenway, losing ground in the standings to the Orioles and Blue Jays rather than making the race tighter.

That's not to suggest the Red Sox played their way out of contention in the last week. There are better than two months remaining in the season and the schedule isn't yet two-thirds complete.

Moreover, there is no dominant team in the East, and, thus, no one capable of pulling away and leaving the rest of the teams in their wake.

Baltimore and Toronto are flawed, too, as the first 100 or so games of the season have demonstrated.

But what the disappointing homestand means is this: Because they didn't win as much as they should at Fenway in the last week, the Sox will have to make up for that on the road.

As has been talked about ad nauseum in the last week, the schedule is about to become more demanding for the Red Sox. It's bad enough that they're in the middle of a stretch that will see them enjoy one (1) day off in the span of 44 days. Making matters worse is that 41 of the final 63 games are away from home -- including the next 11.

Put another way: The Red Sox have not yet had a three-city road trip this season, but all four of their remaining trips are of the three-city variety, including two that include travel to the West Coast.

The Red Sox have played fairly well on the road (21-19) -- they're one of just four teams in the American League with a winning road record -- but the simple fact remains: It's harder to win on the road than it is at home. And that's before you take into consideration the toll that lengthy road trips can take.

Of the next three road opponents, one has a losing record, and another is just two games over .500. Only the Los Angeles Dodgers, next weekend's interleauge road opponent, are playoff contenders from among that group.

Then again, the Red Sox thought they could roll over the Twins last weekend and came away with a four-game split, so it's difficult to handicap these things.

It should help, too, that the Red Sox are getting healthier.

Junichi Tazawa returned this week, and Craig Kimbrel could be back as early as Monday in Seattle. Chris Young and Josh Rutledge could rejoin them before they head out on their next road swing in mid-August.

With all the talk of the daunting schedule and demanding travel ahead, Dustin Pedroia was having none of it.

"We can play just as well on the road as we have at home,'' said Pedroia. "That stuff (the schedule) is irrelevant.''

Maybe. But one way or another, we're about to find out.

Source: Sox seek smaller pieces, not big names, at trade deadline

Source: Sox seek smaller pieces, not big names, at trade deadline

BOSTON -- According to an N.L. talent evaluator who is familiar with some of the Red Sox ongoing talks with teams leading up to the non-waiver trade deadline, the Sox seem focused on adding a bullpen piece and/or back-end starters.

The need for the former is rather obvious, given the current injuries to Criag Kimbrel and Koji Uehara. The Sox can use some upgrades and another experienced arm to guide them through the final two months.

As for the rotation, it's not a surprise that the Sox aren't serious bidders for more glamorous names like Chris Sale, since that would require them to gut their farm system.

But the team's starter depth is perilous, with only Clay Buchholz in reserve. It makes perfect sense that the Sox would be seeking someone else to help provide them with insurance against further injuries or under-performance.