The Baseball Story of Dale Murphy / Is Dale Murphy a Hall of Famer?

This article was founded in the following conversational sequence between myself and Other Joe:

Me: So you got any suggestions for people for me to look at as my next topic for either "The Baseball Story of..." or "Is He a Hall of Famer?"
Other Joe: Dale Murphy.
Me: Is Dale Murphy already a Hall of Famer?
Other Joe: Sounds like you have an article to write.

So I started looking into Dale Murphy (not already a Hall of Famer, by the way). And as I delved into his history, his stats, his awards, I became really uncertain as to whether or not he was legitimately a Hall of Famer.

My decision became that I'm going to write this article, not knowing where I'm headed at the end, and try to be open to whatever result to which my writing brings me. And because I want to get the whole picture, this is going to be a combination of an abbreviated version of "The Baseball Story of Dale Murphy" and "Is Dale Murphy a Hall of Famer?" You get like 1.5 articles for the price of one. Which is still nothing, but hey, the price is right either way.

Early Days

Dale Murphy was drafted by the Braves 5th overall in 1974, and was a September call-up in 1976 and 1977. He acquitted himself nicely in his second September (.316-2-14), and managed full-time at-bats for Atlanta in 1978, going .226 with 23 homers and 79 RBI. He also led the league in strikeouts with 145, the first of three different times pacing the league in that category.

From 1979-81, he'd have his share of ups and downs, batting anywhere from 2nd to 7th as he would average .270-22-65 per year. He'd settled in as a solid bat for the Braves, but was hardly a potential HOFer.

A Monster Stretch

From 1982-1985, Murphy was arguably the most exciting hitter in baseball. He played in every game for the Braves all four of those years, and earned MVP awards in 1982 and 1983. His average season was as follows: .296 batting average, 114 runs scored, 36 home runs, and 110 RBI. And remember, this is in an era when baseball went without a 50 HR hitter for twenty years.

Murphy picked up a bunch of that notable "black ink," the kind of stuff that would catch your attention on the back of a baseball card. He led the league in HR twice, RBI twice, SLG twice, and R, BB, and SO once each.

He had a down year in 1986, but bounced right back in '87 with a career-high 44 home runs as well as another season of 105+ runs and RBI. He finished 11th in the MVP voting with the Braves languishing towards the bottom of the standings.

Vanishing from Relevance

That was pretty much the end of his reign of terror, though. His free-swinging ways started to get the best of him, as he piled up 125+ strikeouts in each of his next three seasons, slipping back into the 6-hole all-or-nothing hitter he had been at the beginning of his career. He joined the Colorado Rockies for their inaugural season, but only managed 49 plate appearances, and didn't make much of them when he got them, hitting .143 with one double being his only extra-base hit. He played his last game in May of 1993.

Is Dale Murphy a Hall of Famer?

So, time for some comparables, right? That's how we judge people most effectively, against other people. Two people who come to mind pretty quickly are a pair of guys who also played for the Rockies, but with a lot more flourish.

Andres Galarraga was a solid middle-of-the-order hitter for the Expos in the late 80s and early 90s, though he shared Murphy's penchant for swinging and missing; he led the NL in strikeouts for three consecutive seasons from 1988 to 1990. He really took off after joining the Rockies in 1993, batting a scorching .370 in their inaugural season. He followed that with five years that matched Murphy's relative mastery, averaging a .305-102-39-120 line.

But the whole league was trending upwards, and he only finished as high as sixth in MVP voting. Let's try another guy, a pitcher this time.

Tim Lincecum had a pair of Cy Young awards in his second and third seasons, but trailed off mightily in the second half of his career. He reached the same heights as Murphy, though he had more team success and less longevity.

What's the Verdict?

I think Dale Murphy falls just behind Juan Gonzalez in my assessment of his Hall of Fame credentials. While Gonzalez may very well have been a beneficiary of illegal supplements, he has always denied that, and no legitimate proof has ever been produced to indicate decisively otherwise. And his production, particularly during his prime, was exceptional. He averaged .302-36-116 for ten years from 1992-2001, and earned a pair of MVP trophies himself. His lows were higher than Murphy's, and he had a longer, more productive career.

And all of that considered, I think Gonzalez (and as a result Murphy) falls short of the Hall of Fame.

While Gonzalez and Murphy had great years, and Gonzalez even had a fairly prolific 10-year stretch, baseball has always been a game about longevity. Cal Ripken Jr. is one of the legends of the game because he played every day for years and years and years. The big numbers in people's minds when they consider players for the Hall of Fame aren't 200 hits or 300 strikeouts or even 60, 61, or 70 home runs. The big numbers are 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, 300 wins. Longevity matters.

Hall of Fame status should be reserved for those players who embody what we love most about baseball, not just the highlights, but the grind.

Hank Aaron never hit 50 home runs in a single season, but he's lauded as perhaps the greatest home run hitter of all time, because he did it every year for many, many years.

Ted Williams is revered not just for hitting .406 in the third season of his career, but for somehow battering 521 home runs during a career that gave up perhaps its three best years to fighting World War II.

That's not to say that you can't be Joe DiMaggio and do something no one has ever done like hit in 56 consecutive games to solidify your spot in Cooperstown. But you have to already be close, and while Murphy and Lincecum Gonzo had a couple of MVP (or Cy Young) seasons, none of them has the "never-been-done-before" nature to it. Plenty of guys have won MVPs.

Wrap-Up

So anyways, that's the whole story about Dale Murphy. It was an interesting little investigation, though I wish I'd come back with a positive result. I feel like this whole series is becoming, "Why Doesn't XYZ Belong In the Hall of Fame?" Ah well, I'm sure there'll be an ebb and flow to it, as there is to all things.

Is Carlos Beltran a Hall of Famer?

In the spirit of revival, as I do my best to bring the blog back to relative activity, I'm bringing back a small feature I did that I like to call, "Is He a Hall of Famer?" It was started by Other Joe, as he posited that Jorge Posada was not deserving of a place in Cooperstown.

The question was brought up by a Twitter follow of mine, Josh Reese, who works in Houston sports:

Bonus #Astros question of the day.

Is Carlos Beltran a hall of famer?

— Pivoting 2 Video (@MrJoshua) August 17, 2017

The reaction among his comments was overwhelmingly in favor of Beltran's status as a surefire future Hall of Famer. My initial reaction was that he's a good player, but not ultimately destined for the Hall. Like any good baseball question, though, this is the kind of thing we figure out with statistics.

Arguments in Favor

Beltran's career triple crown numbers are...solid. He has a career batting average of .279 with 2,724 hits, 435 HR, and 1,587 RBI. The numbers are eerily similar to HOFer Andre Dawson (.279, 2,774 438, and 1,591). Obviously the numbers don't cross the magic thresholds of 3,000 hits and 500 HR (neither of which I expect Beltran to surpass before retirement), but they're very good.

He also raised his game during the playoffs, upping his average to .323 across 55 postseason games and mashing 16 home runs, including 8 bombs in two series with the Astros in 2004.

Beltran has been a big-time run producer, notching seven seasons of at least 100 runs and eight seasons of at least 100 RBI. Again, very good numbers.

Arguments Against

Of course, the Hall of Fame isn't for players who are "very good." It's for the ultimate elite in baseball history. Andre Dawson's numbers were accumulated in a much weaker offensive era, a period when baseball went from 1978 through 1989 without anyone hitting 50 home runs. During Beltran's career, 22 different seasons of 50+ home runs have been recorded.

Also worth noting is that the Hall of Fame, historically, has been meant to reflect the players who were at the top of the game during their careers. The players who most frequently are elected to the Hall of Fame are those who have league-leading statistical seasons, MVP seasons, Cy Young seasons, etc.

Albert Pujols is a great example. He'll undoubtedly be a Hall of Famer, and probably a first-ballot Hall of Famer. He finished first in MVP voting three times, and four other times he finished second or third. He led the league in HR twice, R five times, SLG three times, and a number of other top finishes. Beltran has led the league once...in games played. He did win Rookie of the Year, which puts him in such elite company as Raul Mondesi, of embezzlement fame.

Tying It All Together

In the end, the argument usually ends up somewhere in between. This time, we've got a pretty fair comparable player we can use to determine what we should think about Beltran: Gary Sheffield. Sheffield came into the league a little bit earlier, but his playing prime was right around when Beltran's was. He won a single batting title, but overall shared Beltran's lack for individual accolades. He generated impressive power numbers during a period when everybody was generating impressive power numbers.

His final tallies come in at a .292 batting average, 2,689 hits, 509 home runs, and 1,676 runs batted in. I think you can fairly compare the two players, and I think the final verdict is going to be that Sheffield, while a very good player, is not a Hall of Famer. He picked up just 13% of the vote last year, in his 3rd year on the ballot. I don't expect he'll get anywhere near the late surge that Tim Raines or Bert Blyleven got. In the end, he'll likely be left on the outside looking in, as a member of the Hall of Really Good.

That's my call for Beltran as well.

Verdict: Not a Hall of Famer

Brian Giles Deserved Better

First things first, I don't think Brian Giles is a Hall of Famer. I don't think you'd find many people who think he is. He was a really good player for about ten years on a couple of obscure teams, and he was a fantasy STUD in the old Sandbox system that rewarded players for drawing walks. He wasn't an all-time great, which is the designation that someone should have if they're getting named to the Hall of Fame.

That said, Giles was way better than Hall voters apparently think he was.

Earlier this week, the 2015 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot results were revealed, and Brian Giles received a whopping zero votes. Among the players who received at least one vote:

• Tom Gordon, whose claim to fame is having led the league in saves once, and being a pretty good reliever sometimes;
• Troy Percival, a solid closer who pitched for the champion Angels in 2002; and
• Aaron Boone, a career .263 hitter who had that one big home run.

I would say that these guys don't sound like Giles' peers, but they're not even; they're all considered deserving of a vote by at least one Hall of Fame voter, and Giles was not.

I will grant certain factors. Giles' power peak only lasted about five years, and he played in an era with inflated power numbers across the board, so his career-high of 39 home runs doesn't play as well as it might in today's game. And he wasn't particularly fast either, notching only 109 steals over a career that spanned more than 1,800 games.

But Giles was a consistent force at the plate. In eight different seasons, his on-base percentage was .396 or higher; Giles ended two out of every five plate appearances with a positive result. His career on-base percentage is .3998, lower than only four players: Joey Votto, Manny Ramirez, Albert Pujols, and Joe Mauer. Those are two likely Hall of Fame caliber players (Manny and Pujols), and two guys who should find themselves at least in the conversation if their next eight years go like their last eight years went. He consistently threatened .300, hitting at least .298 in seven different seasons.

He played in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and San Diego, so his media exposure was limited, as were his postseason opportunities. And the numbers suggest he was a below-average fielder. But in a world where you just know, you just know that Kevin Youkilis is going to get a couple of HoF votes, Giles deserved better than he got.

Is Kurt Warner a Hall of Famer?

I've had this conversation a few times with a few different people, and it's always been a tough nut to crack. Kurt Warner's career has had so many ebbs and flows that it's hard to think of it as one single entity. There's his time in St. Louis, when he won a Super Bowl with The Greatest Show On Turf. Then his forgettable stint with the New York Giants. Then his revitalization in Arizona.

But rather than try to pull the answer out of thin air, I'm going to try to pull it all together, compare the career in its entirety to other HOFers and non-HOFers, and see what comes out. My previous instincts have always been that he isn't a Hall of Famer, but I'll try to approach this with an open mind and come to a founded conclusion.

The Argument Against

I think a good starting point for the conversation is to look at how Warner's career stats stack up against other players. So here goes.

Warner rates 33rd in all-time passing yards with 32,344 (HOFers with asterisks, active players bolded):

30. Troy Aikman**
31. Ken Anderson
32. Philip Rivers
33. Kurt Warner
34. Sonny Jurgensen**
35. Mark Brunell

Obviously Rivers is still active, but the rest are an interesting bunch. Aikman is one of the winningest quarterbacks in NFL history, while Jurgensen had exactly one postseason game in his career. Sonny and Ken Anderson, however, were prolific in a different era. Mark Brunell was a fine quarterback with a couple of exceptional seasons, but had a mostly forgettable career, and obviously isn't a Hall of Famer.

Statistically, the player whose career is most similar to Warner's from this group is Brunell, simply because of its inconsistency. Brunell led the NFL in passing in 1999 (the year Warner exploded onto the scene with St. Louis), and had a couple of high-win seasons. But Brunell's offenses (outside of his record-breaking season) were mostly driven by a strong running game, featuring mostly Fred Taylor as well as a few other flashes. Warner was almost always the focal point of his teams' offensive strategies. So Warner was able to post his stats in 35 fewer starts. Warner also recorded more passing touchdowns than Brunell.

Dancing around the list a little bit, we find some other, more appropriate comparisons. Drew Bledsoe ranks tenth all-time in passing yards, with a similar level of fluctuation from year to year. He was a bit more healthy and entrenched as a starter than Warner, but they shared the same proclivity for interceptions. Rich Gannon is down at 46th, but had a similar career arc to Warner's. He was a solid starter for Minnesota, wallowed in Kansas City for a few years, then exploded in Oakland towards the end of his career. But he never won a Super Bowl, which Warner did, in addition to losing two others. Bledsoe and Gannon are not in the Hall of Fame.

One of the best comparisons I've found is Phil Simms. Simms rates 27th all time in passing yards, and won the Super Bowl in 1987 (he might've won another in 1991 if he hadn't gotten hurt; nobody can convince me that Jeff Hostetler did things Simms couldn't have). Simms never had the performance peaks that Warner did, but as far as overall stats and success in the postseason, they're similar.

Phil Simms isn't in the Hall of Fame. Now, that's not saying Simms will never be in the Hall of Fame. He's got enough of a name and presence, and the NFL process is enough of a mystery that you can never be sure. But he didn't get in before John Elway or Troy Aikman or Steve Young or Warren Moon, guys who played well after Simms hung up his spikes.

The Argument For

So does that mean that Warner, with similar general statistics, won't get in either? Well, no player can be summed up in just a few statistics or generalizations. But if you wanted to sum up Warner in a few statistics that made him seem like a likely Hall of Famer, you could probably do it. Let's try.

Warner is second all-time in total passing yards in the Super Bowl. He's ahead of Aikman and Peyton Manning who also played in three Super Bowls (so far), Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, and Jim Kelly, who each played in 4 Super Bowls, and ahead of Elway who played in five. He was clearly not phased by the bright lights of the big stage. Additionally, his lowest yardage total for a Super Bowl is the third-highest total of all time. For those of you who have trouble doing math, that means that his Super Bowl performances rank first, second, and third in terms of passing yardage. Not bad.

He also had higher "highs" than most of the non-HOF players I mentioned above. Three times he eclipsed 4,300 passing yards, and twice led the NFL in touchdown passes. He also led the NFL in completion percentage each of his first three years as a full-time starter, with the aforementioned "Greatest Show On Turf." He brought two fairly disappointing franchises out of the doldrums and into the Super Bowl, and that makes him noteworthy.

The Journeyman Aspect, and Injuries Abound

Towards the end of his time in St. Louis, Warner suffered a few injuries, and Marc Bulger took over the offense. And he was...pretty good. He threw a lot of picks, but he stacked yardage on top of yardage, and Warner became expendable. So he went to the Giants.

Warner's year in the Big Apple was a disaster. Every memory I have of him that year is of getting sacked, losing a fumble, or his eventual departure due to concussion (and the team's obvious intention to force Eli Manning down our throats).

He then left for the Arizona Cardinals, and it all just felt like him hanging on to a career that was as good as over. He couldn't stay in the lineup, whether because of injury, or because the team wanted to get a look at Josh McCown/Matt Leinart/anybody else but Kurt Warner. So when Warner entered 2008 as the starter, nobody expected it to stay that way. But you know the rest; they won a feeble NFC West, and clawed their way to the Super Bowl, where they were edged by the goddamn Steelers (sorry, momentary lapse of journalistic integrity).

Warner obviously earned another year, and went 10-5 as a starter in 2009 (Leinart earned a loss to the Titans in week 11 when Warner couldn't go). After one of the most excitingly terrible playoff games I've ever seen in which the Cards edged the Packers in overtime by scoring one million points, Warner called it a career.

In the end, he averaged just ten games a season, sometimes due to ineffectiveness, but most often due to injury. In his best six seasons (three each with the Rams and Cardinals), he totaled 24,365 yards, 181 passing TDs, and 98 interceptions, averaging out to 4,060/30/16. If, theoretically, he'd been able to stay healthy and put up a pace of at least 90% of that (which would even be low theoretically, since injuries took most of his age 31-35 seasons), he'd have unquestionable Hall of Fame credentials. Do we penalize him for injuries taking away some of the best years of his career?

The answer is, yes, we do.

Terrell Davis is the best running back I've ever seen. Better than Emmitt Smith, better than Barry Sanders, better than Adrian Peterson. But after a gruesome injury in 1999 ended his season, he was never the same. He was done as a full-time running back, and pretty much done altogether, never recapturing that magic from his early career. He was a Hall of Fame semifinalist a number of times, including this past season, but he remains a ways off from getting in. He likely never will.

I'm sure there are a dozen similar stories about great players whose careers were marred or ended by injuries. Warner's story has to remain with them, in my opinion. He had a few fantastic seasons, and a few magical playoff runs. He might've been an all-time great at quarterback if he'd been able to stay healthy. But as is, he remains just another very good player. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. Boomer Esiason was a very good player. So was Ahman Green. They just don't belong in Canton.

Verdict: Not a Hall of Famer

PS: By the way, there's one thing I didn't mention: Warner's best years coincided with the years when he had the most prolific offensive weapons around him. Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, Anquan Boldin, and Larry Fitzgerald were all fantastic when Warner played with them. The reason I didn't include them is that the skill level of your teammates doesn't seem to matter for the NFL Hall of Fame. Great players who played with other great players, if anything, are more likely to make the Hall, because they're more likely to have been on championship teams. So the caliber of Warner's teammates isn't really relevant to the discussion.

Washington's Chances at the Hall

Note: I'd like to preface this article by saying if you read this on BleacherReport or one of those other sites, it'd be spread out onto at least 5 different pages. I won't ever make you click for no good goddamn reason.

No, this isn't an investigation into the Hall of Fame chances of Leon Washington (zero) or Ron Washington (non-zero, but still really low). With the summer abuzz with Hall of Fame inductions, it got me thinking; what's it like to have someone you rooted for extensively go into the Hall of Fame?

The only Hall of Famer from one of my favorite teams that I could say that I watched a good deal was Cal Ripken Jr. But even that, I was mostly a kid when I watched Cal play. I didn't have the sports-watching history and dare I say expertise that I have now. And, for those who are more deeply entrenched in Washington sports (over Baltimore sports), Ripken doesn't really apply.

So, if you're a Washington sports fan, the most recent your HOF rewards get are Russ Grimm, Art Monk, and Darrell Green, three players whose heydays were in the 1980s. Adam Oates was elected in 2012, but his best years were in St. Louis and Boston. There's also Deion Sanders and Bruce Smith, but I don't think we can fairly define them as Washington Hall of Famers. Washington sports has been pretty lightweight of late.

So for kicks, I decided to do a little research and come up with some players from each of the four major sports franchises in Washington who would be most likely to be elected to their respective Halls of Fame. I judged the players based on their performance already, a reasonable projection of future performance, and the various criteria that go into each sport's review process. I did not include players who played mostly in the 1980s and who have already been eligible for the Hall for several years. Joe Jacoby is a player who fits this mold; he's been a semifinalist on HOF votes, so he's got a real shot at getting elected, but he's not a recent Washington player.

For this process, I took the following headline and asked myself if it would make sense: "Former Washington Great ________ Elected to Hall of Fame". If the team doesn't make sense, then no go. Then, I gave each of the top few possibilities a percentage chance of making the Hall. Anyone I put at over 50% I expect to make the Hall of Fame; anyone below 50%, I do not expect to be elected.

Without further delay, here's a team-by-team analysis of potential HOFers:

WASHINGTON REDSKINS
Franchise total championships: 5
Last championship: 1991

London Fletcher, LB, 1998-2013
Anticipated year of eligiblity: 2019
HOF chances: 40%
Fletcher is probably the best shot that the Skins have at getting someone into the Hall of Fame anytime soon, and even him I wouldn't bet on. He was a productive linebacker for a long time, but with only three career touchdowns and topping out at 5.5 sacks and 5 INTs in any given season, his impact on a game was more subtle. That can sometimes work, but more often than not, those guys are left wanting when it comes to the Hall.

DeAngelo Hall, CB, 2004-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2023
HOF chances: 32%
Hall is perhaps the polar opposite of Fletcher. Hall's production has been up and down, down enough in Oakland to get cut altogether. But since joining the Skins, he's been their unquestioned #1 cornerback. Furthermore, he's got those highlight reel plays, the return touchdowns and leaping pass deflections. I still think Fletcher's got a better shot, but Hall, with a few more years of high-level production, can get pretty close.

Clinton Portis, RB, 2002-2010
Year of eligibility: 2015
HOF chances: 13%
Portis qualifies as a Washington Redskin, playing seven of his nine years for the burgundy and gold. The problem is, while he had some really nice seasons, he doesn't really qualify as a "great." He was very good a few times, but never had a season like Terrell Davis' 1997 or 1998, and Davis remains outside the Hall of Fame looking in. He had more longevity than Davis, but didn't come close to Jerome Bettis or Curtis Martin, the models of "just run long enough and they'll have to let you in." Good, but not HOF good.

Santana Moss, WR, 2001-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2020
HOF chances: 4%
Moss, like Portis, is a qualified Washington sportsman, but also like Portis, falls short of "greatness." He's only had four seasons over 1,000 receiving yards, and only one season each of 90+ receptions or 10+ TDs. Fine player, probably a Ring of Honor player (or whatever the Skins' version is called), but not a HOFer.

Sean Taylor, FS, 2004-2007
Year of eligibility: 2012
HOF chances: 1%
Sean Taylor's career was far too short, and he was far too erratic in his first two seasons to make the Hall of Fame. But it's a tragedy that just as he was beginning to become one of the best safeties in the league, his life was cut short. You can't extrapolate his performance from a season and a half into a fifteen year career, so there's virtually no chance he gets in. However, he does have indisputably the best play in Pro Bowl history.

Worth Mentioning
Alfred Morris has had a strong start to his career. If he can put together ten more seasons like this, he'll be in the discussion. Robert Griffin III hasn't done anything to make me think he'll be more prolific than Michael Vick, and I doubt Michael Vick gets into the Hall. Brian Orakpo is putting up good sack numbers, but his impact on the game feels small for his numbers. If DeSean Jackson ends up with a Hall of Fame career, that would likely require him to post at least some of that production with the Skins, so he's got a shot.

WASHINGTON WIZARDS (BULLETS)
Franchise total championships: 1
Last championship: 1977-78

Antawn Jamison, F, 1998-present?
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2020
HOF chances: 38%
Word is that Jamison is still trying to play this year, and I think he'll get one more chance in the Association, despite being a non-factor last year for the Clippers. At his best, Jamison was one of the best mid-range scorers in the league and a good rebounder on both ends. He was never much of a passer, but hey, the guy's job is to score points. I think Jamison is a tough nut to crack as far as whether or not he'll be elected to the Hall, but in the end, I think his lack of a deep playoff push at any point in his career will be what keeps him out.

John Wall, PG, 2010-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2033
HOF chances: 30%
John Wall took a big step forward last year, improving on both offense and defense as the Wizards got into the playoffs for the first time since he was drafted. He also seems to be embracing his role as the face of a franchise that's headed in the right direction. If Kevin Durant were to come to town in two years and help the team to a title, that'd give Wall a big boost, but even just steady improvements on his own and regular playoff trips could be enough.

Bradley Beal, SG, 2012-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2035
HOF chances: 12%
Beal's fate is obviously tied strongly to Wall's, and their respective chances of election to the Hall will most likely rise and fall together, along with the Wizards' win total. Beal will most likely have a tougher time, since he has the ball in his hands less frequently than Wall, and Wall is the more highly touted talent. To me, Beal seems kind of like the Jeff Hornacek to Wall's John Stockton (though obviously Wall has a ways to go before becoming Stockton).

Gilbert Arenas, PG, 2001-2012
Year of eligibility: 2017
HOF chances: 9%
While Arenas will mostly be remembered for the bizarre gun-related incident in 2009, there's no denying he was a force on the basketball court. In three seasons, starting in 2004-05, he averaged 25.5, 29.3, and 28.4 points per game. But in an era of Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson, Arenas never led the league in scoring. He was never really the same after the combination of injury and suspension limited him to just 2 games in 2008-09. The best comparison for Arenas is Penny Hardaway, and that means he's no HOFer. His high was very high, but his lows were just way too low.

Rod Strickland, PG, 1988-2005
Year of eligibility: 2010
HOF chances: 4%
Strickland won't make the Hall of Fame, and that's correct. But he was a better player than a lot of people realize. He was a potent scorer as well as posting at least 7.2 assists per game in ten consecutive seasons. Strickland's real problem was that he wasn't a winner. In a 17 year career, he started in just 35 playoff games, or roughly one series every other year. That's not going to get you into the Hall. The worst thing Strickland ever did for the Wizards, though, was to get acquired for Rasheed Wallace. The Wiz could've used a little 'Sheed.

Juwan Howard, PF, 1994-2013
Year of eligibility: 2018
HOF chances: 2%
Don't let my percentage make you think that Howard wasn't a good player. He was a skilled scorer and a solid rebounder. But he never went beyond just being a good player. Even after being paired with his college teammate Chris Webber, the Bullets/Wizards made the playoffs only once during Howard's six years with the team.

Worth Mentioning
Richard Hamilton might top this list, but he'd likely be considered more a Piston than a Bullet/Wizard. Chris Webber was also prolific while he was in town, but his career really crested in Sacramento; that's where people will remember him playing. And both probably fall more into the "really good player" category than "all-time great."

WASHINGTON NATIONALS (MONTREAL EXPOS?)
Franchise total championships: 0

I elected to ignore players who spent the majority of their time with the Expos, even though they belong to the same franchise. This article is intended to investigate the Washington players who might make the Hall of Fame. I was a big Expos fan, but I doubt many other Washington fans were. So with apologies to Moises Alou, Javier Vazquez, and Vladimir Guerrero, they'll have to find another blog post to make their case. That makes this a pretty short list.

Jordan Zimmermann, SP, 2009-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2030
HOF chances: 23%
Don't look now, but Zimmermann is the best chance at the Hall that the Nationals have right now. His ERA has been exceptional, and he seems to be able to stand a good deal of innings. His strikeout numbers haven't been outstanding, which means he's basically Roy Oswalt in the making. If he doesn't make a leap, he'll have trouble making the Hall, but there's plenty to work with so far.

Bryce Harper, OF, 2012-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2036
HOF chances: 19%
There are plenty of highly touted guys who fall well short of Hall of Fame careers. Stephen Drew, J.D. Drew...lots of Drews. Delmon Young has also been a disappointment versus expectations. So there's certainly no guarantee Harper will be a legend. But his ability to handle major league pitching at age 19 was remarkable. You hope he becomes a better hitter; his strikeout and walk rates haven't improved since his rookie season. Hopefully he can stay healthy going forward, and hopefully staying healthy will help him improve his approach. But right now, he's still far from a sure thing.

Stephen Strasburg, SP, 2010-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2031
HOF chances: 15%
I would guess that a lot of people would expect Strasburg to be higher on this list than he is, but for a lot of the same reasons as Harper, he's got a ways to go. He's still very early in his career; he's in only what would be his third full season after losing most of 2010 and 2011 to Tommy John surgery. The other potentially larger issue, though, is that he hasn't been amazing. He's had flashes of brilliance, and his strikeout rate has been excellent since day one. But in 30 starts last season, he won just eight games. His career ERA is 3.11. Strasburg's got the tools, but as with so many Nationals, he has to improve to have a chance at the Hall.

Worth Mentioning
Gio Gonzalez is still building a resume, but he's got 76 wins at age 28, and is an innings-eater. Those are the guys who rack up wins. Ryan Zimmerman has been the face of the Nationals since nearly day one in DC, but he's only been a good player, not a great one. Ian Desmond may have a shade higher chance than Zimmerman because of his speed, but unless either one improves (unlikely at their ages in this steroid-testing era), it's doubtful either puts together a Hall of Fame career.

WASHINGTON CAPITALS
Franchise total championships: 0

Alexander Ovechkin, W, 2005-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2029
HOF chances: 99%
Well, now we're in business. Ovechkin is one of the most prolific scorers in NHL history. If you check out his hockey-reference page, some of the people it lists as being similar are Mike Bossy, Teemu Selanne, and Mario Lemieux. He's that good. I left open the possibility that he does something heinous to keep himself out of the Hall, like armed robbery or something, but realistically, he's already in.

Sergei Gonchar, D, 1994-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2018
HOF chances: 70%
It's been a long time since Gonchar's been in Washington, but all along the way he's been a strong scorer and a power-play quarterback. His numbers compare reasonably well with Scott Niedermayer, who's in the Hall of Fame, and Chris Pronger and Sergei Zubov, both of whom likely will be. Gonchar finished among the top ten in Norris votes on nine different occasions. He might still be on the borderline because of his sub-optimal defensive play, but his championship with the Penguins in 2009 seals the deal in my mind.

Peter Bondra, W, 1990-2007
Year of eligibility: 2010
HOF chances: 40%
Bondra is an interesting case, because if he'd left the Caps for a different team, he'd likely have a stronger resume. Playing on a fairly weak Capitals team for most of his career, he had mostly unexceptional talent around him, and as such didn't make it far in the playoffs, save the 1998 dash to the Stanley Cup Finals. His career stats are very good, and his year-by-year stats are very good, but he was a virtual non-factor in end-of-season awards. If he'd extended his career by a couple more years, he'd be Mark Recchi, who's likely to get in at some point. But for Bondra, he may be stuck as one of the greatest players not in the Hall of Fame.

Dale Hunter, C, 1980-1999
Year of eligibility: 2002
HOF chances: 38%
Hunter is a curious case. His playing career was absolutely noteworthy; he amassed 3,000 penalty minutes and 1,000 points, the only player to do that in, ever. He was an agitator in the truest sense of the word. But he's been on the ballot for a decade and hasn't been elected. So why do I have his chances as high as they are? Well, I think NHLers still appreciate his grittiness, and like an opposing sniper, he wears you down. Additionally, he's coached successfully in the OHL, and did an admirable job filling in for the Capitals on an interim basis. I could see him getting another NHL job if he wanted, and if he does, he's continuing to build his Hall of Fame resume. He's got a shot.

Nicklas Backstrom, C, 2007-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2031
HOF chances: 33%
Backstrom roared out of the gates as a rookie, finishing second to Patrick Kane in the Calder voting. He's averaging a point per game throughout his career so far, and as long as he and Ovechkin stay in sync, there's no reason to expect that to drop off. But I think Backstrom would be helped tremendously by a trip to the finals at least, and a Cup would push him over the top. He's a responsible two-way center who can score and he's a good hockey citizen. All that's left is to prove that he's a winner.

Mike Green, D, 2005-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2030
HOF chances: 12%
I was surprised when I looked at Mike Green's stats and saw he's coming into his 10th season in the NHL. He's spent so much time on the shelf in recent years, you forget he's been around for a while. You also might forget how good he was when he was at his peak. He was an offensive juggernaut who was so good at creating points that he finished second in Norris Trophy voting twice, even though he's at best an average defender. There's a lot of unknown with regards to Green's future, but if somehow he's able to play 75+ games each year for the next seven or eight years, he could put up scoring numbers that would be tough to ignore.

Alexander Semin, W, 2003-present
Anticipated year of eligibility: 2025
HOF chances: 9%
If it were the Hall of Talent Whether Realized or Not, Semin would be a shoo-in. But that's not the Hall. As is, Semin is a highly skilled scorer who should score more than he does, defend better than he does, and pass better than he does. All the talent is there, but there's something about taking talent and converting it to performance. Jonathan Toews isn't the most talented player in the league (or on his team), but he's widely considered an unmatchable franchise player. Semin would have to spike up to Ovechkin levels to get close to the Hall, and at this point, that's unlikely.

Worth Mentioning
Jaromir Jagr played for the Caps and is a surefire Hall of Famer, but he'll go in as a Penguin. Also he was pretty much trash in Washington. I still believe in the potential of John Carlson and Karl Alzner to be great, but it's obviously early for them. According to my friend Rick, Evgeny Kuznetsov is already a lock for the Hall. Most mentally stable people think it's too early to say that, but he's definitely talented. Olaf Kolzig was a solid goalie, and actually managed a Vezina Trophy in 1999-2000, but for the most part, Olie the Goalie was just Olie a Goalie.

Wrap-Up
So, in case you haven't been paying attention, the Capitals are way better than their city-mates. I feel like the Skins could've had some better options, but they have such frequent roster turnover that it's hard to get attached to anyone. The Nationals are still a fledgling franchise, so it makes sense that they'd have a short list for now. Hopefully that grows in the near future. The Wizards have, with few exceptions, been terrible for a while, but the future looks bright.

But there's no question that, for all-time star power, Alex Ovechkin is far and away your best bet from our home teams. So the next time you go to the Verizon Center to catch a Caps game, take some time to just watch Ovie play. That way, when he gets inducted to the Hall, you can say that you remember watching him.

I'm happy to say, I definitely will.

The Baseball Hall of Fame's Quiet War Against Barry Bonds

While the NFL was commanding the majority of controversial headlines with the Ray Rice suspension story, and while we baseball fans were all celebrating the greatness of several worthwhile inductees into the Hall of Fame, the Baseball Hall of Fame quietly released news that will have a thunderous impact on the future of the Hall.

Recently eligible and future players will now have 10 years of eligibility on the ballot, instead of the previous 15 years.

In a vacuum, I would support this change. ESPN posted a list of players elected in their 11th through 15th years of eligibility, and while they're all fine players, none is a guy who the Hall can't do without: Ralph Kiner, Bob Lemon, Duke Snider, Bruce Sutter, Jim Rice, and Bert Blyleven. In general, I would expect a true Hall of Fame player to be elected in their first couple of years of eligiblity.

So what's the problem? Well, true Hall of Fame players aren't being elected in their first couple of years of eligibility. Barry Bonds is literally the best player ever; alright, maybe not, but the list of guys who were better than him is shorter than ten. And he's unarguably one of the great players of his generation. Those guys get in.

But he's not the only one. Roger Clemens's career and season-by-season numbers are insane. He ranks third all time in strikeouts, ninth all time in wins, and first all time in career Cy Young awards (he won it seven different times). His all-time Wins Above Replacement is 140.3, good enough for eighth in the history of baseball. The number of pitchers he's behind is exactly two: Walter Johnson, and the guy whose award he kept winning, Cy Young.

I think personally that Mark McGwire belongs in the Hall of Fame too, but I'm not going to be able to explain why in a blurb here. Maybe that'll be an article down the line.

In 2014, Clemens and Bonds respectively received 35.4% and 34.7% of the vote, both small declines from the previous year.

The important point here is that these are legends of the game that now have five fewer years to have their infractions forgotten, their opponents' stances softened. Neither player was ever suspended for PEDs during their playing careers, most of which spanned the period during which baseball couldn't give a flying f- whether or not its players were juicing. But in the court of public opinion, they're currently serving a sentence of as-yet-undetermined length. Those five additional years would extend the window of time during which players like Bonds and Clemens could engage fans, speak with the media, and redevelop (or in Bonds' case develop for the first time) goodwill with the public at large. On a shortened timeline, it's unclear whether they'll get that chance.

Of course, when specifically asked, the Hall of Fame said that PEDs had no impact on the decision to shorten the gap. Their timing is conspicuous in its proximity to the beginning of "steroid era" players becoming eligible. But even if the decision isn't related, its impact is profound. I was always of a mind that, eventually, baseball writers would get over their faux outrage and acknowledge the greatness that we saw. But pride is a real thing, and that process takes time.

For Bonds and Clemens, the clock is ticking.

Halls of Fame

So this was originally going to be a post about Pau Gasol.

I was reading some article on ESPN about this year's offseason and the implications of various players signed, traded, or drafted, and the author passingly mentioned how Pau Gasol is a Hall of Famer. I tried to keep reading on, but that one point really stuck in my craw, so I did what Joe and Joe always do: I went to Basketball-Reference and pored over stats.

I reviewed similar players statistically, like Mark Agguire and Tom Chambers (non-HOFers) and Alonzo Mourning and Robert Parish (HOFers). The differences were unexceptional; usually it was a matter of championships. But can you really just declare that, because Mourning got a title as the 6th option on the 2005-2006 Heat, that puts him over the top? Seems inappropriate.

So, my investigation took me further, comparing this player to that player, trying to adjust across eras, and taking into consideration various players from the game today who are "lock" HOFers (Dwyane Wade, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett), and who oughtn't be but you could see people sticking up for (Lamar Odom, Antawn Jamison).

But as I try to get more information, more questions arise, and I have no answers. Will Chris Bosh be a member of the Hall of Fame when it's all said and done? He's likely to finish with numbers around Gasol's, and he's got a pair of titles with the Heat. Tim Duncan is a surefire Hall of Famer; what about Parker and Ginobili? They were obviously vital to the Spurs' success, but wasn't Horace Grant also instrumental to the Bulls' success in the mid-90s? Less than Jordan or Pippen, but still important. Grant went to one All-Star game in his career; Ginobili's been to two. And Jamison has scored an awful lot of points. Will that be enough to warrant immortality? It wasn't for Bernard King, but who knows.

Baseball used to be easy to wrap your head around. Certain statistics were benchmarks, but then came the steroid era, throwing that into the wind as well. So now, we rely on a combination of statistics, championships, anecdotes, and a "smell test" to determine who deserves to be enshrined forever. Is Alonzo Mourning on that list? Apparently. And if he is, I suppose Gasol deserves to be there too.

I'm not really sure where this blog post ended up. But I think you can count on more posts about the Halls of Fame.

Is Jorge Posada a Hall of Famer?

Joe emailed me late Saturday and posed an intriguing question: "Is Jorge Posada a Hall of Famer?"

This is a pretty good question. My initial thought without looking at anything is "No, Posada was a good player on some great teams, but was never Hall of Fame caliber". But since that was just my gut reaction, I took some time and looked into it.

Because the physical demands of the position are orders of magnitude higher than any other position on a baseball field, catchers can really only be compared against themselves. There have been three catchers admitted to the HOF since 1989: Johnny Bench, Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter (not counting the 2006 induction of former Negro Leaguers Biz Mackey and Louis Santop...sorry guys but I've got no point of reference for the Hillsdale Giants in the 1920s). Additionally, there is almost no doubt that Mike Piazza is headed to the Hall of Fame, since his offensive numbers would be good enough to warrant admission regardless of his position (400+ homers and a lifetime .308 batting average) and are better than Bench, Fisk and Carter. So with that in mind, to make Posada's case for the HOF his numbers should be in line with those four guys.

Here are the lifetime stats:

Bench: 389 HR, 1376 RBI, .267/.342/.476 in 8669 PA

Fisk: 376 HR, 1330 RBI, .269/.341/.457 in 9853 PA

Carter: 324 HR, 1225 RBI, .262/.335/.439 in 9019 PA

Piazza: 427 HR, 1335 RBI, .308/.377/.545 in 7745 PA

Posada: 275 HR, 1065 RBI, .273/.374/.474 in 7150 PA

From this comparison, it's easy to see that Posada clearly has the weakest offensive numbers of the bunch. This being a straight up comparison, it doesn't take into account the fact that Posada played in a much more favorable offensive environment (scoring was up approximately half a run per game than when Bench, Fisk and Carter played). By not being able to match the offensive numbers of recent HOF caliber catchers in a much more favorable offensive era, it's really hard to make the case that Posada is in the upper echelon of all time hitting catchers.

Of course as I mentioned at the start, there is more to catching than just hitting. Of the five guys I'm comparing, only Piazza and Posada lack a Gold Glove (Bench has nine, Carter four and Fisk one). While that may be an arbitrary award, it at least gives some idea of whether or not a guy is making a difference in the game defensively, something that can be very difficult to quantify. Something that is less difficult to quantify is career caught stealing percentage where, again, Posada is near the bottom of the list (Bench an unreal 43%, Fisk 34%, Carter 35%, Posada 28% and Piazza 23%). If you want a more "SABRmetric" view of their defensive abilities, only Posada (-2.9) and Piazza (-8.3) have negative lifetime defensive WARs, while Bench (6.5), Fisk (2.6) and Carter (10.0) were all improvements over the "average" defensive catcher. It may not be as clean as the offensive comparison, but by looking at several defensive minded stats and awards we can see that Posada was not a very good defensive catcher and was certainly not in the same class as Bench, Fisk and Carter (and who really cares if Mike Piazza was playing any defense with the way that guy raked).

Jorge Posada had a very good career and was part of four World Series champion teams, but ultimately both offensively and defensively he falls short of the elite receivers of the game. He also doesn't have a pop song named after him (but not at all about him) like Mike Piazza, something I hear the HOF committee puts a premium on.

Completing the Circle?

The Dream Team was honored at the Hall of Fame last week. Only two of the members of the 1992 Olympic basketball team are not already in the Hall as individuals: Chris Mullin and Christian Laettner. (Karl Malone and Scottie Pippen were inducted this year.) Should Laettner and Mullin be in the basketball Hall of Fame as well? Let's have a look.

Christian Laettner

Laettner had a nice NBA career, averaging 17 points and 8 rebounds per game over his first five seasons. But he played on some really bad teams, including the near-expansion Timberwolves and the donkey ass Wizards of the early 2000's. His only sniff of a championship caliber team came with the 2004-2005 Heat as a role player, his final NBA season. The team lost in the Eastern Conference finals to the Pistons.

But if Laettner were to be considered for the Hall of Fame, it would be based on his college performance less than his NBA career. He was the best player on the best team of his era, hitting clutch shots, and frustrating fans of the Michigan Wolverines and their "Fab Five" superstar recruiting class. He's the only player ever to start in four consecutive Final Fours. He holds the record for most points scored in NCAA Tournament play.

The logical comparison case is Bill Walton. Walton's NBA career bore a resemblance to Laettner's, featuring averaging about 16 points per game in his first five seasons, but he was definitely a better defensive player. Walton pulled down 12+ rebounds per game in each of his first four seasons, and had 2.5+ blocks per game in three of those four campaigns. Perhaps most importantly, his teams were a lot better than the Timberwolves ever were.

Walton also had a more illustrious college career, being the centerpiece of the unreal 88-game winning streak by UCLA in the mid-70s. And there's the main difference between Walton (a HOFer) and Laettner: hardware. Walton managed to garner an NBA MVP trophy in 1978 (not sure how, with just 19 points and 13 rebounds per game, and only playing in 58 games). He's also got two each of NCAA championships and NBA championships, and he was named Finals MVP in 1977 for the Portland Trail Blazers.

The reality is that Christian Laettner doesn't come close to Walton in terms of overall performance; Walton was a better college player, and a far better professional player than Laettner. Perhaps a better comparison to Laettner would be Vin Baker (who by the way was my favorite player in Electronic Arts' Live '95 game for Super Nintendo).

Verdict: Not a Hall of Famer.

Chris Mullin

I chose to review Mullin second because he's basically Laettner, except better. Mullin was a superstar at St. John's, winning Big East Player of the Year honors three times in his four years, as well as being named an All-American three times. Additionally, he won Olympic gold in 1984, eight years before he did it again with the Dream Team.

Mullin was drafted seventh overall by the Golden State Warriors in the 1985 NBA Draft, in a draft that saw power forwards or centers get drafted with 15 of the first 17 picks. He contributed immediately, sliding into the starting lineup by the middle of his rookie season, and 14 points per game. His scoring average increased over his first four years, up to a career high of 26.5 in 1988-89. He scored at least 25 points per game over the next four seasons as well, guiding the Warriors to five consecutive playoff appearances. He also made better than 50% of his field goals, remarkable for a spot-up shooter.

His performance over this period earned him his spot on the 1992 Olympic team, and he took full advantage. He may not have provided any memorable highlight reel dunks or passes, but Mullin was the 4th leading scorer on a team of legends, despite starting only two of the team's eight games.

Unfortunately, injuries took away parts of four seasons, as Mullin missed 140 games over that period, preventing him from building on his Olympic success. By the time he was fully healthy and able to play a full season's worth of games, he was 33, and his skills had begun to fade. He'd never again break 15 points per game, and his career faded out of memory.

So how do we judge him? Comparing him to Walton is pretty fair; he was a dominant college player who had success in the pros. Walton picked up an MVP trophy, but I'd say Mullin was more productive, so we'll call their NBA careers, production-wise, a wash. So the question is this: Does Mullin's Olympic and college success measure up to Walton's college dominance, and the NBA title he pulled in?

Answer: Almost. Walton's NBA championship is impressive, and he was clearly an integral part of the team, rating second in scoring and first in rebounds and blocks on that Trail Blazer team. But I can't give top credit to Mullin for either of his two Olympic golds, for the same reason I don't assign much value to Walton's second title with the Celtics in 1986. Mullin was important to his two gold medal teams, more important than Walton was to those Celtics, but not nearly as important as Walton was to the Portland team.

The final piece of the puzzle is this: While Mullin was a prolific scorer, he never led the league in scoring. Granted, this was during Michael Jordan's heyday, but if a player is going to be elected to the Hall of Fame as a prolific scorer who never won a title (in the NBA or college), he'll have to have led the league in scoring at some point. If Dominique Wilkins can't get in, neither can Mullin.

Verdict: Not a Hall of Famer

I think it's important to note that, specifically with Chris Mullin, this isn't a slouch we're talking about. He's one of the all-time greats, maybe the second-best player in Warrior history behind Wilt Chamberlain, and certainly their best player since moving out west. But the Hall of Fame isn't (and shouldn't be) about being a good player, or being the best player over a short period for one time. It's about being a legend. And we should reserve that for the elite.

And yes, I'm looking at you, baseball.

Steroids v. Rape

Mark McGwire has been demonized for having used steroids and (until recently) not admitting so. Barry Bonds continues to be shunned from baseball because the belief is that major league fans won't tolerate their team signing him, because of the assumption, most likely correct, that he used performance-enhancing substances during his career.

Lawrence Taylor is a member of the NFL Hall of Fame, despite a fairly long rap sheet. Will he be removed from it if this most recent (and most heinous) charge sticks? Is cheating at your job more horrible than rape? It can't be, right?

I'm trying not to rush to judgment, trying not to assume that Taylor is guilty before he's been given a chance to defend himself. But if he ends up being guilty of this crime, the NFL has to step up and say, "Despite his amazing on-field performances, we refuse to be associated with Lawrence Taylor any further. While his statistics will remain in our record books, he has been removed from the NFL Hall of Fame."

And the media needs to react with similar disgust. Otherwise, keeping McGwire and Bonds out of the baseball Hall of Fame is just petulant.

The Washington Redskins Offseason

Initially I was going to just talk about the Redskins' draft, but I figured there was no harm, and in fact something to gain by expanding the topic, so I did just that.

(Not So) Sexy Rexy

Rex Grossman was brought in, and while the company line was that Jason Campbell was still the starter, talk of an "open competition" festered, and the writing was pretty much on the wall. At this point, Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen looked like potential draft picks for the 'Skins, so the expectation was that either Grossman or Campbell would be a placeholder while the rookie got himself up to speed.

New Running Backs

Three new halfbacks are in town, and each of them has a level of intrigue.

Larry Johnson had back-to-back 1700+ yard seasons for the Kansas City Chiefs, but that was 4 years ago. It remains to be seen if he can recapture some of that magic.

Willie Parker was a home run threat for the Steelers during both of their Super Bowl runs, setting the all-time record for longest rush in a Super Bowl in 2006. But his productivity has slid recently, and last year he was relegated to a backup role when Rashard Mendenhall burst onto the scene.

Ryan Torain has essentially played in one game as a pro, and while he did well (12 rushes for 68 yards and a TD against Cleveland in 2008 as a member of Mike Shanahan's Denver Broncos), he obviously is unproven. Shanahan must like him, though, so you could see him breaking into the rotation.

These three acquisitions point to the Redskins potentially parting ways with Clinton Portis, or at least down-sizing his role. I'm not opposed to that, as Portis has been "too big for his britches" for a year and a half now.

Mc-Nabbing a Quarterback

You see what I did there? I incorporated the concept of theft into the title of this section, which is appropriate, because I really believe that the Redskins trade of their second round pick and a mid-round pick next year for Donovan McNabb is a steal. While he's not in the first tier of quarterbacks (where Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Aaron Rodgers reside), he's right behind them, and in watching the Eagles over the past few years, I think McNabb still has the ability to make a play at any time, which is something you haven't been able to say about a quarterback in Washington for...twenty years? Maybe more?

This was obviously by far the biggest acquisition the Redskins made this offseason, and I think it immediately puts them into wild card contention.

A Name Worth Mentioning

When Adam Carriker was selected by the St. Louis Rams in the first round of the 2007 draft, I didn't know much about him, but I knew he had the kind of name you'd expect out of an elite player, so I figured he must be pretty good. It's kind of silly to admit that, but seriously, when you hear names like Peyton Manning, Golden Tate, Knowshon Moreno, and Anquan Boldin, you just know they're football players. Carriker had that kind of name.

So naturally, when he struggled early on, I was pretty surprised. The Redskins dropped back 28 picks in the 5th round to pick up the former first rounder, and I won't lie, I'm a little excited about what he could do. I mean, the talent was there for him to be an early pick in the draft. Hopefully Mike Shanahan and Jim Haslett can turn around Carriker's career, even if it's just to the point of being a starter. The price was right.

The Redskins' Brief Foray Into NFL Draft

Washington held the #4 overall pick in this year's NFL draft, and I don't think I'm the only one who was really hoping the 'Skins would be able to trade down a few slots, get some additional picks, and still acquire one of the top four offensive tackles, someone who can protect McNabb. They went 1/2, staying at the #4 slot and selecting Trent Williams out of Oklahoma. Everything I hear is that A) Williams is a great fit for Shanahan's zone-blocking scheme, and B) Williams and Rutgers tackle Anthony Davis have the highest upsides of offensive linemen in the draft. I have to trust other people on evaluating offensive linemen, so I feel pretty good about the move.

I can't speak much to the rest of the draft, because they only took players I've never heard of. The Redskins traded down a couple times in the later rounds and acquired extra picks, which I approve of as a general policy. I hope that their two late offensive linemen selections, C Erik Cook and OL Selvish Capers, are uniquely suited to the zone-blocking scheme, and will end up being shrewd moves. But that's really just blind hope.

The Campbell Era Ends

As expected, the Redskins finally traded away Jason Campbell. Somewhat surprising, though, was the marginal price that he commanded in the trade market. The Oakland Raiders acquired Campbell in exchange for a 4th round pick...in 2012. It would have been nice to trade Campbell for a commodity that helps right away, but I guess you take what you can get. If there's no market, there's no market. And really, you can't expect there to be much of a market for a QB outside of the top 20, which Campbell most certainly is.

I think a lot of local fans have a slightly misguided concept of how good Campbell was, and how good he could've been "if he had an offensive line," as the line tends to go. As a direct comparison, I offer Aaron Rodgers, superstar QB for the Green Bay Packers.

• Rodgers - 64.7% completions, 4,434 yards, 30 TDs, 7 INTs, 50 sacks for 306 yards, 10 fumbles, 4 lost.
  
• Campbell - 64.5% completions, 3,618 yards, 20 TDs, 15 INTs, 43 sacks for 285 yards, 11 fumbles, 3 lost.
  

Rodgers received just as much pressure as Campbell, completed about the same number of throws, and was unequivocally a better quarterback than Campbell. I can't in good conscience say that Campbell was put into a position to succeed, but I'm generally of the opinion that QB talent will bear out, and with Campbell it just never did. I never saw a game where Campbell made me think, "Holy cow, this guy is good."

I do wish the best for him this season and going forward, as I do think he was put into a tough situation and handled it with class. But I never want him to be either of my favorite teams' starting quarterbacks again.

Going Forward

So that's what we're looking at so far. I don't think the Redskins are done just yet; I could certainly see them signing former Cowboy Flozell Adams for a year or two to add some offensive line depth. And I think they'll still likely look at other opportunities to trade disgruntled defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth. But even if no further changes are made, I think we're looking at a very productive offseason for the 'Skins. The addition of McNabb alone adds a couple of wins, and if Shanahan adds a couple more, we're looking at a playoff-caliber team.

And that's all we Washington fans want. We just want the opportunity to be disappointed in December and January. We want to care just enough to get slapped down by the hand of god.

And yes, I'm alluding to the Washington Capitals' crushing loss in seven games to the Montreal Canadiens. I'll try to talk about what happened at some point, but not now. I have not the heart to say. For me, the pain is still too near. But someday, when I've cooled off, we'll have a heart-to-heart about it, just you and me. Promise.

Abe Pollin

Washington Wizards owner Abe Pollin passed away yesterday afternoon at the age of 85, less than one week after I said that Ted Leonsis was more my kind of owner than Pollin. After reading about Pollin in several articles and hearing him lauded on local sports radio, I now see that I was unfair in my judgment of him, the longest-tenured NBA owner.

There's no question that Pollin loved the Wizards, and cared deeply about his players and his team. To preserve his team, he did something that no one else in the world has ever done: he fired Michael Jordan. Pollin related that Jordan had created an unfavorable atmosphere at the team, and had been as much a detriment to the team off the court as he had helped them on the court. Pollin knew he would take heat for the decision to sever ties with Jordan, but he was willing to take the PR hit for what he believed to be the right decision for his team. Jordan's Hall of Fame induction speech may have given us a glimpse into how right Pollin was.

Abe Pollin's true legacy, though, will be the Verizon Center. Pouring in millions upon millions of dollars of his own money, he chose to build a stadium downtown rather than take financing offers from suburban areas, because he knew it was the right decision for the city, and that the money would follow. The area now boasts brand new office buildings, restaurants, and one of the most advanced sports facilities in the world (just like the Capital Centre before it, which was the first major sports venue in the country to boast luxury boxes and electronic ticketing). Pollin's vision, and his execution thereof, single-handedly revitalized downtown Washington.

I still think Ted Leonsis is a fantastic owner, and perhaps one of the more underrated owners in all of sports. His passion for his team and his accessibility make him a fan favorite, and rightly so. But Abe Pollin's business acumen and loyalty were peerless. We were fortunate to have two wonderful owners in Washington, DC, and the responsibility now falls to Leonsis to carry the torch.

Good luck.

I, For One, Am Glad A-Rod Tested Positive

Joe already discussed the revelation that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for performance enhancing drugs in 2003. But since it's a pretty big revelation, I would like to expound upon one of the points he made.

Joe (no, not me, the other one) asked how the A-Rod positive test will impact the Hall of Fame selection of players from the steroids era. Well, luckily I'm here to tell you. It means that no longer can the members of the Baseball Writers Association of America pick and choose who gets into the Hall of Fame based on who they guess used steroids. Everyone who played baseball from roughly 1990 through 2005 has to be considered as player that may have used performance enhancing drugs. The argument used on Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and, eventually, Barry Bonds that "oh, man, that guy got really big during his playing career, so he must have used steroids" can no longer be used, since Alex Rodriguez (and, as Joe mentioned, at least 104 other players) wasn't a typical muscle-bound slugger.

In fact, A-Rod was the last bastion for pundits that thought they could differentiate between players that did and did not use performance enhancers. Prior to two days ago, these writers would point to Rodriquez and say "He's lean, agile, fast and proof that supreme natural talent and hard work can still succeed in the steroids-era". Whoops, that argument doesn't hold water anymore. Every single player in the steroids era (and especially those be considered for the Hall of Fame) has to be considered a user of performance enhancing drugs. Yes, this means Griffey, yes, this means Manny Ramirez and, yes, this means Greg Maddux too.

So writers, here's where it gets easy. Either a player gets into the Hall of Fame based upon his performance on the field (which we now have to assume was aided by performance enhancing drugs) or NOBODY from the steroids era gets into the Hall of Fame. If you are a voting member of BBWAA decide right now whether or not you think a player that used performance enhancing drugs is worthy of the Hall of Fame. If the answer is no, then punch "no" on your HOF ballot every time a player from 1990-2005 comes up. If the answer is yes, then vote based on the players accomplishments. It's just that simple and that's why I'm glad A-Rod tested positive.

A Revelation Inside A Revelation

As I'm sure everyone under the sun has heard by now, Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroid usage back in 2003, under the anonymous testing procedures Major League Baseball put in place to decide whether or not steroid usage was widespread enough to merit a large scale testing process (more on this later). Today, he gave an interview with Peter Gammons, explaining the extent of his use and offering the standard baloney about being young and naive, needing to be more conscious of what he was putting in his body, talking to kids about his mistakes, etc etc. He doesn't go into the details of how much he used of any particular drug, nor does he specifically name anything he used. It's fairly similar to the apology issued by Jason Giambi in 2005, where he apologized, but didn't say what he was apologizing for.

What's the relevance of this? Well, I've read through some commentaries on assorted blogs and websites, and I've got two things I want to discuss (and would like to hear other people discuss):

1. How does this revelation affect the steroid era players who've been tagged as steroid users and their fate with regards to the Hall of Fame? I've never been all that concerned with the "purity of the game" that so many commentators cite as their reasons for not casting a vote for Mark McGwire, which will presumably be similar to the votes they'll cast (or not cast) for Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, and other suspected or proven steroid users. But that's the argument that many BBWAA voters provide when asked why they wouldn't vote for McGwire. Does Rodriguez's admission mean that McGwire might be looked upon in a more favorable light? And, even if not...
2. ...why isn't the bigger part of this story the fact that 104 baseball players tested positive in 2003? I don't think all major leaguers were tested, but even if they were, 104 players constitutes 13.8% of active players (30 teams, 25 active players per team). And that's only the players who were too stupid to stop using steroids when baseball announced they'd be testing that year. People say that A-Rod, and any other steroids users, got an unfair advantage over their opponents through it, but when 14% of your opponents (and probably a lot more) are also using steroids, any arguments about fairness go out the goddamn window.

I'm not going to come down on A-Rod, because I've never come down on anyone for using steroids in the pre-suspension era in baseball. You can't get mad at someone in a system for acting within the constraints of the system without looking foolish, and A-Rod, McGwire, Bonds, and everyone else worked within the system. The system had no penalty for using steroids, so why should we suddenly hold the players accountable?

My cousin Nick made the analogy for A-Rod that any punishment from baseball, current or future, is like getting pulled over and given a warning, then five years later getting issued a speeding ticket. To me, both situations sound equally ridiculous, and I'll vehemently argue any opposition to Rodriguez's eventual Hall of Fame candidacy.

If He Retired Today....

Sam and I had an interesting conversation about a number of players and whether or not they would make it into the Hall of Fame if they were to retire right now. A few were no-brainers, like Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison, and it looks like LaDainian Tomlinson would probably be a shoo-in as well.

But no-brainers are no fun. So we encountered a few that we weren't too sure about, and I figured I'd open it up for debate.

First, Donovan McNabb.

His career QB rating is 85.2, and he sports a 152-72 TD to INT ratio. He is, in fact, the 2nd least intercepted quarterback in NFL history (Neil O'Donnell is #1, though, so don't know how much to take that into account). He has accumulated 22,000 passing yards, an average about about 3,400 per full season.

But that's part of McNabb's problem. Only three times in his eight-year career has he played all 16 games, which means that his individual seasons haven't been that impressive. He's got three seasons with 20 or more passing TDs, and four with 3,000+ passing yards.

Not helping McNabb's cause is his playoff history. He's had more 3 INT games (2) than 3 TD games (1). That's not to say he hasn't had his moments in the playoffs. 4th and 26 comes to mind, a game in which he threw for 248 yards and ran for 107 more. But he'll be best remembered for his failure in the Super Bowl against the Patriots when the Eagles offense inexplicably chose to not convert to a 2-minute offense, essentially throwing away the game. While most people attribute Terrell Owens' comments about McNabb being "tired" during that last drive to Owens' distaste for his (now former) teammate, you have to wonder if there's some truth to it. Every fan across the country knew it was crunch time, but the Eagles putzed along like they had all day.

In the end, we both agreed: as of right now, McNabb is out of the Hall.

Next, we viewed Torry Holt.

Holt was drafted the same year as McNabb, so the equal time under their belts makes this a slightly easier comparison. He's got 64 TDs, an average of 8 per season since his debut in 1999. He's picked up yardage by the ton, with two seasons of over 100 yards/game. Additionally, over the past four years, he's picked up at least 9 TDs and at least 1150 yards.

One advantage Holt has over McNabb is that he does, in fact, have a Super Bowl ring. Additionally, he was a crucial part of his team's success, one of the main pieces of the "Greatest Show on Turf." However, while Holt was an important part, he wasn't even the #1 receiver on that team. So while his statistics are impressive recently, his team's success, a strong determining factor in the eyes of many NFL Hall of Fame voters, has been minimal while he's been "the man."

Holt was also the fastest in NFL history to reach 10,000 receiving yards, so he's certainly at the very least on pace for a Hall of Fame career. But again, Sam and I agreed that, were he to retire today, Torry Holt would not make the Hall of Fame.

Finally, we reviewed Shaun Alexander.

Alexander was drafted in 2000, but as a running back, has likely completed more of his career than either McNabb or Holt. Alexander has been a touchdown machine, scoring 16, 18, 16, 20, and 28 from 2001-2005. He missed 6 games last year due to injury and scored only 7 touchdowns, and his yards per carry was down to a career-low 3.6, from 5.1 the previous season. He has 96 rushing TDs, and 107 total for his career.

He held the single-season rushing touchdown record....for a year.

While Alexander has been an outstanding producer for 5+ years, again, Sam and I both believe that he would need to add to his career statistics to justify a spot in the Hall of Fame.

In the comments for this post, give your input on these three players, whether you agree or disagree, and suggest other borderline players who you'd like to debate. I'm happy to look at stats and pass judgment on people far more athletic than me.