Contemporary Baseball Era Hall of Fame Ballot for 2023

Fred McGriff slugging a home run for the Blue Jays.

Dale Murphy socking a dinger for the Braves.

 

On Sunday, a committee will vote on the 2023 Contemporary Baseball Era ballot for the Baseball Hall of Fame. There are 8 players on the ballot: Albert Belle, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Don Mattingly, Fred McGriff, Dale Murphy, Rafael Palmeiro, and Curt Schilling. Well, there’s no controversy with any of these players, so there’s not much to discuss. Oh, wait, never mind. Can they just add Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa to the ballot so we just get all of the controversy out of the way, please? 

This will be a fascinating election, as it’s the first appearance of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Curt Schilling on an Era Committee ballot. They aged off the BBWAA ballot a year ago. All 3 players came close to being elected by the BBWAA, and I’m fascinated to see what the committee will do with them.  

I really have no idea how the committee will view all these controversial players. Will they elect players like Bonds and Clemens, who were indisputably two of the greatest players ever, but who have been dogged by questions of steroid use? Or will the committee avoid any controversy and pick players like Dale Murphy and Fred McGriff, who both have sterling reputations?  

Let’s look at the candidates, in alphabetical order: 

Albert Belle: His career was cut short by a hip injury, but at his peak, Belle was one of the best sluggers in baseball. You could make an argument for Belle in the short peak category—think sluggers like Hank Greenberg and Ralph Kiner. The difference is that Greenberg and Kiner were universally liked and respected, and Albert Belle’s abrasive personality rubbed everyone the wrong way. From sportswriters to teammates, there are no shortage of stories about Belle’s bad behavior. Belle is similar to Dick Allen—both were home run hitters with short careers who got bad press and were very controversial players. When I was a kid, my view of Albert Belle was that he was a great hitter, but he was a jerk. Since this ballot was announced, I read Belle’s Wikipedia bio, I read his SABR bio, looking for any evidence that I might have judged Belle too harshly when I was a kid. I read nothing to change my mind that Belle is a jerk. I don’t think there’s any compelling reason to put Belle in the Hall of Fame. 

Barry Bonds: Unquestionably one of the greatest hitters ever. If you think that Bonds started using steroids in 1998, you could even make the claim that Bonds would be a Hall of Famer if he had retired in 1998. I remember looking at Bonds’ numbers for the 1999 season, 34 home runs in just 102 games, and thinking, man, if he kept that pace for a full season, he’d have a hell of a year. Of course, Bonds was able to do that in 2001, when he set the single-season home run record by hitting 73 home runs. I think that Bonds was on steroids, and I wouldn’t vote for him for the Hall of Fame. That being said, if he had achieved what he did and been clean, of course he’d be a slam-dunk Hall of Famer. It’s hard to say that the all-time home run leader, a 7-time MVP, shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame. It’s hard to make value judgments about things I don’t know for sure. I assume Bonds was on steroids, because of all the allegations, and the fact that his head changed size, for crying out loud. But do I KNOW that, for an absolute fact? Nope.  

Roger Clemens: See Barry Bonds. As a kid growing up in the 1980’s, Clemens seemed like a sure-fire Hall of Famer to me. And then Clemens struggled from 1993-96. His record was 40-39 over those 4 seasons, and I thought, well, it looks like he just ran out of gas, too bad. And then, mysteriously, Clemens got his mojo back, winning 20 games with the Blue Jays in 1997 and 1998. Like Bonds, Clemens was improbably good late in his career, and allegations of steroid use have swirled around him ever since. I assume that Clemens was on steroids, but I don’t really know that. And like Bonds, if Clemens was clean, he would be an obvious Hall of Famer. 354 wins, 7 Cy Young Awards, 3rd on the all-time strikeout list, no question Hall of Famer.  

Don Mattingly: Donnie Baseball! One of the best players from 1984-1989. Mattingly’s numbers are strikingly similar to Kirby Puckett’s. Mattingly played in 1,785 games; Puckett played in 1,783. Puckett had slightly more runs scored and hits, while Mattingly had a few more RBI’s. They’re almost tied in extra base hits: Mattingly had 684, Puckett had 678. Their slash lines are very close. Mattingly: .307/.358/.471/.830. Puckett: .318/.360/.477/.837. The big difference in their careers is that back injuries severely hampered Mattingly from 1990 onwards. From 1984-1989, Mattingly had 5 seasons of 4 Offensive WAR or higher. From 1990-1995, the highest Offensive WAR Mattingly complied in a season was 2.4. From 1986-1989 Puckett had 4 seasons over 5 Offensive WAR. From 1990-1995, Pucket had 4 seasons of 4 Offensive WAR or higher—with his last season falling just short at 3.9 OWAR. Anyway, Mattingly and Puckett are very similar players, more similar than I realized. Like many of the players on this ballot, Mattingly was a short peak player. Mattingly was one of the best players in baseball for 6 seasons, so he wouldn’t be a bad choice for the Hall of Fame. But I don’t know if there’s any compelling reason to add him to the Hall of Fame.  

Fred McGriff: The Crime Dog! McGriff was always one of my favorite players, and I’m shocked he didn’t get more support for the Hall when he was on the BBWAA ballot. I assume that McGriff was clean, another thing that I don’t know for an absolute fact. But as far as I know, there have never even been any rumors about McGriff and PEDs. I always thought that McGriff would get more support from the writers if they were looking for 1990’s power hitters who were above suspicion.  

I think something that hurts McGriff’s case for the Hall of Fame is that because he played for so many different teams, it’s hard to craft a narrative for his career. McGriff never played for one team for longer than 5 seasons, and he played the most games of his career for the Atlanta Braves, just 636 games. I tend to think of McGriff as a Blue Jay, but he wasn’t there for the Jays’ back-to-back World Series victories in 1992 and 1993. It’s just easier to craft a narrative for players who spent the majority of their careers with one team. I would love to see McGriff get in the Hall of Fame, so I’m hoping he does well in the voting. 

Dale Murphy: Murphy is the oldest player on this ballot, making his MLB debut in 1976, 6 years before Don Mattingly in 1982. Like Mattingly, Murphy had a stretch as one of the best players in baseball. From 1982-87, Murphy was fantastic. His average OPS+ for those seasons was 145. But after a great 1987 season, Murphy’s production just fell off a cliff. From 1988 onwards, Murphy’s highest OPS+ for a season was 106. From 1982-87, Murphy’s lowest OWAR was 4.4. From 1988 to 1993, the highest OWAR he put up was 1.7. I remember my Dad saying in the late 1980’s that he thought Murphy had a shot at hitting 500 home runs. Murphy ended up retiring in 1993 with 398 home runs.  

I wonder if the election of short peak guys like Gil Hodges and Tony Oliva will help Dale Murphy? I doubt committee members spend a lot of time sitting around saying, “Well, the committee last year elected Tony O and Gil Hodges, so we should put Dale Murphy in too.”  

Is there a compelling argument to put Dale Murphy in the Hall of Fame? I don’t know, but I’d sure like to see him in the Hall of Fame. From everything I’ve read about Dale Murphy he sounds like a fantastic person, and his off the field reputation is impeccable. Murphy’s squeaky-clean image could help him, especially in contrast to all the controversial players on this ballot. It feels weird to say that I’d rather see Dale Murphy in the Hall of Fame than Barry Bonds, when I know that Bonds was overall a better player than Murphy. Shouldn’t it be an impersonal discussion of the stats and what the players did on the field, without personality entering into it? But the reality of life is that personality does enter into it. Personality affects the kind of player and person you are.  

Rafael Palmeiro: Would have been an easy Hall of Famer except for the whole steroids thing. Palmeiro was kind of like Eddie Murray—both players never won an MVP award, but they were rock steady. Palmeiro was only a 4-time All-Star, a super low total for a guy who banged out 3,020 hits and slugged 569 home runs. I always liked Palmeiro when he was playing, and I was so disappointed when he failed a drug test in 2005. Looking at Palmeiro’s stats, I see he played in 31 games in independent ball in 2018. At age 53, Raffy hit 6 home runs, and batted .301 with a .424 OBP. Dang.  

Unlike Bonds and Clemens, Palmeiro only stayed on the BBWAA ballot for 4 years before falling under 5% and dropping off the ballot, so I don’t think he has much of a chance at being elected this year. 

Curt Schilling: Oh geez. Saving the best for last. Schilling is a jerk and an idiot, but he was a great pitcher. Schilling is a bit different from the other controversial players on this list, as he hasn’t been accused of cheating—all of the controversy surrounding Schilling has taken place off of the baseball diamond.  

So, there you have it, 8 super talented baseball players. My prediction, which will probably be wrong, is that the committee plays it safe and elects Dale Murphy and Fred McGriff.  

Movie Review: Elvis, Directed by Baz Luhrmann (2022)

Poster for Baz Luhrmann's Elvis, starring Austin Butler and Tom Hanks, 2022.

The real Elvis Presley, 1968.

 Baz Luhrmann’s fever dream of an Elvis biopic, titled simply and rather prosaically Elvis, is a mishmash of ideas thrown at the screen. I like Luhrmann’s films—I think Moulin Rouge and The Great Gatsby were fantastic—but Elvis just doesn’t quite work.  

First off, can biopics please junk the “cradle-to-grave" format? Inevitably, characters are streamlined, events are fictionalized, and timelines go to pieces under the burden of presenting someone’s entire life in two hours. (Or in the case of Elvis, 2 hours and 39 minutes.) I’d much rather see a biopic that focuses on a discrete time in that person’s life. For Elvis, you could choose from many periods, but the 1968 Comeback Special and his return to live performances in 1969 would be fascinating.  

I think Luhrmann made a fundamental error in having Elvis’ manager Colonel Tom Parker be the narrator of the story. Why should Presley’s story be Parker’s to tell? Having Parker be the narrator inevitably focuses more attention on him, which feels unfair to Elvis. Because Luhrmann chooses to characterize Parker as an evil, amoral carnival salesman, a stock villain instead of a three-dimensional character, Parker quickly wears thin. Parker wasn’t actually a Colonel—he was born in the Netherlands and was an illegal immigrant to the United States. Many Elvis historians have theorized that Presley’s seeming disinterest in performing internationally was due to the Colonel’s fear that his secret would be discovered, and he would be deported from the United States. I agree with this theory, as does Luhrmann. What’s missing from Luhrmann’s film is any sense of the Colonel’s fears of being deported—this is a man who is acting out of his own personal fear, and that doesn’t come across in the movie.  

Then there’s the woeful miscasting of Tom Hanks as Colonel Parker. Now, I don’t know what Colonel Parker sounded like—the only clip I’ve heard of him speaking is from a 1987 Nightline interview, where he betrays no hint of a Dutch accent. If Parker really spoke as Hanks does in the movie, no one would have believed that he was from West Virginia, as Parker claimed. Tom Hanks is a brilliant actor, of course, but sometimes instead of doing three hours of makeup to make Tom Hanks look like Colonel Parker, can’t you just hire an actor who looks like Colonel Parker?  

Austin Butler does a good job with the difficult task of playing Elvis Presley, one of the most handsome and charismatic entertainers who has ever existed. For me, Butler was more believable as the young, pre-Army Elvis than as the jumpsuited 1970’s Elvis. Part of that is Butler’s looks—he looks about a decade younger than 31, his actual age.  

By focusing more on Elvis’ relationship with the Colonel, short shrift is paid to Elvis’ music, unfortunately. For a more thorough look at Elvis as a singer and musician, check out the excellent 2018 documentary The Searcher. Elvis recorded 28 takes of “Don’t Be Cruel” and 31 takes of “Hound Dog” before he was satisfied with the final product. I want to see a movie about that guy—you could position him more as a Brian Wilson-type of eccentric genius trying to perfectly replicate the sounds inside of his head rather than a simple country boy.  

And don’t get me started on the historical inaccuracies in Elvis. It wasn’t a choice between “going into the Army or going to jail,” as the Colonel ominously intones in the movie. Elvis makes it seem as though Elvis was drafted immediately after his July 4, 1956 performance. In reality, Elvis was drafted in late 1957, obtained a deferment to film King Creole, perhaps his finest movie, and was inducted into the Army in March of 1958. The peacetime draft was commonplace in the period between the Korean and Vietnam Wars. And Elvis comfortably skates over any queasiness 2022 audiences might feel as 24-year-old Elvis meets 14-year-old Priscilla Beaulieu in Germany in 1959 by not mentioning her age and having 24-year-old Olivia DeJonge play Priscilla through the whole film. The movie also doesn’t really mention how Elvis then stashed Priscilla away at Graceland until they married in 1967. (Her parents were apparently okay with this.)  

I can’t imagine experiencing the kind of adulation that Elvis Presley was showered with every time he appeared on stage. It must have been intoxicating to have people treat you like something approaching a deity. But at the same time, I wonder if that wouldn’t wear off fairly quickly when you realize that people will treat you as a deity no matter how good or bad your own performance is. The effects of that kind of adulation on Presley’s personality would be fascinating to know.  

Elvis offers a flashy feast for the eyes that the real Elvis Presley would no doubt approve of. But too often, instead of a revolutionary way of examining the life and career of a truly revolutionary entertainer and artist, Elvis settles for the typical storylines of a generic biopic.  

Book Review: Murder for the Modern Girl, by Kendall Kulper (2022)

 

The cover of Murder for the Modern Girl, by Kendall Kulper, 2022.

Author Kendall Kulper

Kendall Kulper’s YA novel Murder for the Modern Girl is set in 1928 Chicago. The two main characters, Ruby Newhouse and Guy Rosewood, both have powers they are trying to keep hidden. Ruby may look and act like a typical flapper, interested in speedy boys, hot jazz, and dancing the Charleston, but look out Jack, because she can take one gander at you and peep right into your dreambox! She can read minds! And you wouldn’t give bland Guy a second look, even if you saw him working as a janitor in the county morgue. But if you did happen to give him another glance, Guy might not look the same, as he can change faces and shapes!  

Murder for the Modern Girl takes these fantastic elements and embeds them firmly in a real-world setting that is vibrantly described by Kulper. Ruby’s father is the Cook County state’s attorney, so she has a powerful sense of justice imbedded in her. Ruby has been using her gift of reading minds to discover truly awful people who are plotting nefarious crimes. Ruby then poisons them before they can commit these crimes. This reminded me a little of the futuristic world of the movie Minority Report, based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, where people can be arrested for “pre-crimes” before the crimes are actually committed. Most of the crimes Ruby prevents are acts of violence against women. The murders that Ruby commits are usually classified as simply alcohol poisonings and are quickly forgotten. But when Guy figures out that Ruby’s most recent victim was poisoned, an overzealous coroner tells Guy to start digging through other mysterious deaths in the city.  

The novel is told in chapters that alternate from Ruby’s point of view and Guy’s. It’s an effective technique, and Kulper successfully captures their different voices. I found Murder for the Modern Girl to be a fun and suspenseful read, and the themes that Kulper focuses on are thought-provoking. If you’re looking for an excellent YA historical novel, you should check out Murder for the Modern Girl.