EVENTS
 Sportsman of the Year
 Heisman Trophy
 Swimsuit 2001

CNNSI.com GROUP
 Sports Illustrated
 Life of Reilly
 SI Women
 SI for Kids
 Press Room
 TBS/TNT Sports
 CNN Languages

COMMERCE
 SI Customer Service
 SI Media Kits
 Get into College
 Sports Memorabilia
 TeamStore

Q & A with SI's Tom Verducci

Winfield, Puckett no surprise, but Carter's left out again

Click here for more on this story

After Kirby Puckett and Dave Winfield were elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame on Tuesday, CNNSI.com spoke with Sports Illustrated's Tom Verducci, a member the Baseball Writers' Association of America. Verducci offered his thoughts on the inductees and other players who may have a tough time getting the required votes down the road.

CNNSI.com: Are you surprised Kirby Puckett and Dave Winfield were the only two players elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame this year?
Tom Verducci: I'm not surprised that each of them got in on the first ballot. To me, they were both the type of players who you didn't have to think long and hard about their candidacy.

CNNSI.com: Puckett played 12 seasons but didn't reach any of the traditional statistical milestones that guarantee automatic induction. Why did he get in?
Verducci: What really stands out to me is that seven times Puckett finished in the top 10 in MVP voting. Even though his career wasn't long by Hall of Fame standards, I thought he had enough Hall of Fame-quality years. I certainly put more emphasis on number of dominating years than on longevity.

CNNSI.com: Winfield was a shoo-in, so his induction was no surprise, correct?
Verducci: Winfield was a no-brainer. The Hall has a few magical numbers for entry. Certainly, 3,000 hits is one of them. He has been a lock ever since he got hit No. 3,000 [with Minnesota in 1993]. The only question now is: What hat does he wear on the plaque? My guess is -- and I think he should wear it -- a New York Yankees cap. He played the most years with the Yankees and had his best years in New York. Plus, the fact that George Steinbrenner has brought him back for first-ball ceremonies in postseason games tells me that Winfield has made peace with the Yankees owner.

CNNSI.com: Of the list of players who didn't receive enough votes, was there anyone you thought should have gotten in?
Verducci: Gary Carter obviously should be in the Hall of Fame, especially since Carlton Fisk is in. To me, Carter was the better player, but to anybody who wants to argue that point I'll say: Whatever the difference there is between the two of them is not the difference between one being in and one being out. Both catchers should be in.

It was encouraging to see the gain that Carter made in the voting [from 50 percent in 2000 to 64.9 percent this year]. I think that bodes well for him. Traditionally, guys who get near that two-thirds mark tend to get over the hump eventually. It may take a couple more years, but I think Carter is on the right track. Conversely, people below him have a much steeper hill to climb.

CNNSI.com: And who would those players be?
Verducci: Jim Rice, for one. He did gain some votes [from 251 in 2000 to 298 this year], but I don't see a grounds for more support for Rice. It's also interesting to watch what is happening with Bruce Sutter and Rich Gossage. They are kind of in lockstep. The Hall voters have yet to shake out how to evaluate relief pitchers. It's a very tricky segment of the game because relievers don't pitch a lot of innings, and the save statistic, upon which they're largely judged, is very often meaningless. It's hard to apply a value to that stat.

So I think Sutter and Gossage are going to have a hard time getting in. They seem to be picking up votes here and there, but they're not making that giant leap forward to get some momentum going.

CNNSI.com: This might be a difficult question because it requires you to get into the psyche of other voters, but how do others generally determine when a player is worthy? Is it based on a position-versus-position analysis or simply by overall statistics? Because Carter should be in if his numbers are compared against other Hall of Fame catchers. And he should be in if you compare his overall statistics to Puckett's.
Verducci: It's very subjective, obviously. And each voter has the right to establish his own parameters to determine what makes a Hall of Famer. I know some people who put a heavy emphasis on the final career statistics of players, and others who put a greater emphasis on how many dominant years that player had, even if he didn't play 20 years in the big leagues, for instance. Obviously, if you have the combination of longevity and dominant years, as Dave Winfield did, you're a no-brainer.

The borderline cases are the ones lacking in one or the other category. Carter's career wasn't as long as Fisk's, so he's missing that longevity. But he had better prime years than Fisk. I'm not sure how or why more voters haven't recognized this.

I think research is a very important thing. I know some people have said, "How can it possibly be that some players gain votes from one year to another when they haven't played in a baseball game for five to 10 years?" Well, this is far from being an exact science. ... We all should be open to more research, more analysis, more points of view. Lots of times the more you find out about a player the more you are convinced he's a Hall of Fame player.

I think what also happens is that -- and this really helped Tony Perez last year -- very influential people, especially former players, pick up a candidate's cause and champion that cause nationally and publicly. I know Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench and Sparky Anderson really helped Perez's candidacy. In the case of Carter and Rice -- Rice especially -- I haven't really heard anybody come out and back them. I know the Red Sox made a push for Rice, but in terms of individuals and former teammates coming out to support either of these guys, I haven't heard that. And that is something that could really help put a player over the top.

I'm convinced that's what happened with Perez. Rice was a much more dominating hitter and better player than Perez. He didn't play as many years as Perez. But in terms of their impact on the game, there's no comparison. Rice six times finished in the top five in MVP voting, and that is phenomenal.

CNNSI.com: How about Don Mattingly? Does he have a shot?
Verducci: I would say no. After getting essentially one-quarter of the vote -- as he did this year, his first year on the ballot -- he faces too big of a mountain to climb to get to the required 75 percent for induction. I covered Mattingly in his prime and really loved to watch him play. But the bottom line is that he didn't have enough dominating seasons to be a Hall of Famer. And I think the electorate recognized that. His vote total didn't surprise me at all. I didn't think he was going to get in, and now I'm convinced that he never will.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Tom Verducci covers the baseball for the magazine and is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com.

 

Related information
Stories
SI Flashbacks and photo galleries Winfield, Puckett added to Hall of Fame Tom Verducci's Insider Archive
Multimedia
Visit Multimedia Central for the latest audio and video
Search our site	Watch CNN/SI 24 hours a day
	Sports Illustrated and CNN have combined to form a 24 hour sports news and information channel. To receive CNN/SI at your home call your cable operator or DirecTV.

Copyright © 2001 CNN/Sports Illustrated An AOL Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines.