Dec. 30, 2009

Designated pioneer? Martinez's bat not enough to crack Hall ballot

By Danny Knobler | CBSSports.com Senior Writer
Follow Danny

There will someday be a designated hitter in the Hall of Fame. I will someday vote for a designated hitter for the Hall of Fame.

Actually, I guess I already have.

Edgar Martinez hit .312 with 309 HR and 1,261 RBI in 18 seasons in Seattle, mostly as a DH. (Getty Images)

By my count, 24 Hall of Famers spent at least one game as a DH, and 16 of them accumulated a full season's worth of games (130 or more) as a DH during their careers.

Paul Molitor played nearly half his games as, some would say, half a player.

And yet, yes, Edgar Martinez is different. He didn't play half his games as a DH; it was almost three-quarters of his games. He barely used a glove for the final 10 years of a very good 18-year career with the Mariners.

Edgar Martinez is on the ballot for the first time this year, and I didn't vote for him. I voted for Dawson, Jack Morris, Roberto Alomar and Mark McGwire (more on them later), but not for Martinez.

I didn't withhold my vote from Martinez because he was a designated hitter. Or at least, I didn't leave him off the ballot solely because Martinez was a designated hitter.

Does it matter that he didn't play defense for most of his career? Yes, just as it matters that Alomar was a 10-time Gold Glove winner. Defense is part of the game.

Yet, we elect players to the Hall of Fame who weren't brilliant defenders, players whose offensive greatness made up for their defensive weakness. We can elect a DH who was so dominating at the plate that we overlook the fact that he rarely did anything else.

For a while before the Hall of Fame ballot arrived, I thought Edgar Martinez might be that player.

The more I looked at it, the more I decided he wasn't.

I don't rely totally on stats, but 309 home runs and 1,261 RBI (Martinez's career totals) aren't enough to make him stand out. He made seven All-Star teams, but that puts him in line with Don Mattingly, Dave Parker, Tim Raines and Alan Trammell, other outstanding players who have not gotten my vote. He was in the top five in MVP voting only once. His postseason numbers were average at best.

The Hall of Fame tells us that only 1 percent of all major league players are elected, and that the Hall is the place where "excellence is honored."

As many have said, it's not the Hall of Fame for very good players. It's only for the best, those who were dominant in their era.

Edgar Martinez was very good, but just short of being dominant. He was one of the best clutch hitters I've seen, and just as I look carefully every year to see if I can justify voting for Trammell (and so far I haven't), I looked carefully at Martinez's career to see if I could justify voting for him.

Perhaps if that terrible knee injury hadn't ended his career as a third baseman and forced him to DH, I would have looked at him differently. It's impossible to say.

Perhaps in another year, I'll change my mind on him, or be convinced by arguments of others that I should include him.

Or perhaps enough others will vote for Martinez that he'll get elected without my vote.

For this year, though, he didn't get my vote.

There will be a full-time DH I'll vote for, I'm fairly sure of it. Just not this one, not this year.

Now, as for the rest of my ballot, a few quick notes:

•  I vote for Morris every year, and I strongly believe he deserves election. It's not only because he was the winningest pitcher of the 1980s, but yes, that does help (he was dominant in his era). It's not only because he pitched one of the best games in World Series history in 1991, but that helps, too (coming up big on the biggest stage is a sure sign of excellence).

I know people can't reconcile my vote for Morris with my lack of support for Bert Blyleven, but we judge Hall of Fame candidates on our own standards, and on my standards, Morris is a clear Hall of Famer.

•  Alomar is a first-time candidate, but I never make a distinction between those in their first year on the ballot and those who aren't. I believe you're either a Hall of Famer or you're not. When I change my vote from year to year, as I sometimes do, it's only because my feelings about a player's career has changed. Alomar deserves in.

•  McGwire is the toughest vote, even though it's pretty clear by now that my vote isn't going to put him in the Hall (it takes 75 percent of the votes to get in, and McGwire has had 24, 24 and 22 in his three years on the ballot).

I still can't say I feel great about voting for him, but so far, my view hasn't changed. That view is that if I disqualify McGwire for his almost-certain use of steroids (which would be the only reason not to consider him), then I can't feel right about voting for anyone who played in the steroid era. Not that they all used steroids, because obviously not everyone did, but the numbers were so high and the testing so lacking that we really have little idea who used and who didn't. Yes, we have a better idea that McGwire did use, but I don't feel comfortable with the sliding scale.

For now, he gets my vote, although I'll admit it's an easier vote to cast when I know so many others are so strongly opposed that he has no real chance of being elected.