Let's play a game...

The game is called "Is This A Good Criterion for Being In The Hall of Fame?". Now, we need a contestant.

Ah, Bruce Jenkins. Always one of FJM’s favorite targets. And I think he knew it. Look at this title for his article “explaining” his HoF ballot:

Stats? Go with gut when voting for Hall.

That’s something you couldn’t have gotten away with back in the salad days (which is a great song, by the way) of FJM. And just because FJM is gone, that doesn’t make it okay.

Let’s look at some of Jenkins’ picks, as well as his “rationale” for making these picks, and determine whether or not he's basing these picks on

Jim Rice: Rice might have been the most feared...

Being "the most feared": not a good criterion for being in the HoF.

Honestly, when I think of players that I would “fear”, I don’t think of this guy: http://digitalderek.typepad.com/sawxblog/photos/2008/offseason/january/jim_rice.jpg

I think of guys like these:

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/mlb/2000/1026/photo/a_darryl_i.jpg
http://www.foxnews.com/images/197104/4_22_gooden_dwight2.jpg
http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2007/0815/mlb_a_offerman_275.jpg

Not Jim Rice.

He was a constant in the MVP voting, winning it in 1978

MVP voting: not a good criterion for being in the HoF.

Think about it. The same electorate that once made one choice, relying on that same choice to make another choice? That's like if there was a Hall of Fame for politicians, every US president would automatically have to be inducted. Even Benjamin "I Was Probably The Worst President of the 19th Century" Harrison, Herbert "I Was Probably the Worst President of the 20th Century" Hoover, and George W. "I Am By Default The Worst President of the 21st Century" Bush.

He fell just 16 votes shy of election last year

Failing to be inducted into the HoF: not a good criterion for being in the HoF

There is no Hall of Very Good. You're in or you're out. Using somebody's status as being out (even if they're close to being in) is not how you make the argument that they should be in.

and it's remarkable that he had four seasons of 200-plus hits.

Four 200-hit seasons: not a good criterion for being in the HoF

Bruce, you’re breaking your own rule here. 200 hits is a stat. And since you brought stats into the discussion, Michael Young has had FIVE seasons of 200-plus hits. Ha! Nobody’s “fearing” Michael Young, are they? No! Because he’s slightly above average with one exceptional season. Or, for short, a SAAWOES. If you’re a SAAWOES, you’re not a deserving HoFer. End of story. The two are mutually exclusive or something. Using 200 hit seasons to make a HoF argument is flawed, especially when a SAAWOES did it more times than the guy you’re trying to argue should be in the HoF.

Jack Morris: Defined the type of toughness lacking in so many starting pitchers today.

"Defining toughness": not a good criterion for being in the HoF.

If this was a reasonable argument, the Merriam-Webster dictionary would belong in the Hall of Fame.

He would have laughed at pitch counts, had they existed.

Laughing at pitch counts: not a good criteria for being in the HoF.

Example, scene one:

Giants fan: Hey Mr. Jack Morris, Tim Lincecum threw 131 pitches yesterday.
Jack Morris: HAHAHAHAHA!

Fuck the heck?

Big winner,

Getting credited with lots of wins: sort of a good criterion for being in the HoF.

Sort of in the sense that most pitchers from 1900 on who are credited with a lot of wins, not in the sense that these "wins" should be used as a criterion blah blah blah

who finished games (133 times)

Another stat. Bruce Jenkins, you're a hypocrite.

Complete games: not a great criterion for being in the HoF, but a decent secondary point.

Also, I'm showing Morris as having 175 CGs. FTH did 133 come from?

and was especially good in the postseason.

No, no he wasn't at all. A 3.80 ERA is not "especially good". If you want to be right, say "he pitched very well in three of his seven postseason series". That is less incorrect.

Also, pitching well in the postseason: a marginal at best criterion for being in the HoF.

I'd love to see a "no" voter try to look Morris in the eye.

"no" voters being thought to be unable to look candidate in the eye by "yes" voters: not a good criterion for being in the HoF.

What's that mythical creature that kills people by making eye contact with them? I can't remember the name, but I'm pretty sure it's not called a Jack Morris. So.... I doubt any "no" voter would suffer a lot of harm from looking Jack Morris in the eye.

Tim Raines: No. Did a lot of great things, but in every single category, he was a level down from Henderson.

Being at least as good as Rickey Henderson: not a good criterion for being in the HoF.

Rickey Henderson is, in the opinion of several esteemed baseball minds, a top 50 all-time player. How do you say Jim Rice, who doesn't even approach Henderson in any areas beyond home runs, belongs in the Hall when you use this logic to keep Raines out?

Bert Blyleven: If you were around at the time, following the game daily all season, you weren't likely to peg Blyleven for Cooperstown. Too many of his contemporaries had better reputations, and more presence. He did throw the best curveball of his day. But no.

Reputation: not a good criterion for being in the HoF.

Oh god. Reputation. I hate it when people use this as an argument. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE THINK SOMETHING IS ONE WAY DOES NOT MAKE IT THAT WAY. The earth had a reputation for being flat. Then some guy found out it wasn't. Atlantis had a reputation for existing. Then people discovered it didn't. Bert Blyleven had a reputation for not being a HoF-caliber pitcher. Then people invented better stats and found out that the people who thought Blyleven didn't belong in the HoF were wrong.

FTH is "presence"? Let's call on baseball Hall of Famer the Merriam-Webster Dictionary to help us out.

Take it away, Merriam!

1: the fact or condition of being present

2 a: the part of space within one's immediate vicinity b: the neighborhood of one of superior especially royal rank

3archaic : company

4: one that is present: as a: the actual person or thing that is present b: something present of a visible or concrete nature

5 a: the bearing, carriage, or air of a person ; especially : stately or distinguished bearing b: a noteworthy quality of poise and effectiveness presence>

6: something (as a spirit) felt or believed to be present

1 and 4 are basically the same thing. I don't think Bert Blyleven existed less than Jack Morris. I think they existed exactly the same amount. Those two can't be right. I'm not sure how you can have more of 2, so that's out as well. 3 is archaic. No thanks. So unless we're using haunting places as HoF criteria now... it's got to be #5.

Presence: not a good criterion for being in the HoF.

Thanks to my good friend (and deserving Hall of Famer) the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, I can now say that the way a pitcher carries themself has no effect on how good they are (unless the way they carry themself affects their pitching). So: not a good criterion.

Mark Grace and Alan Trammell: Rock solid. Like granite. Just too much stiff competition at their respective positions. No.

I legitimately laughed out loud at this. Grace, fine. Trammell, though? Stiff competition from who? The only other shortstop you even mentioned in this "article" is Jay Bell, and you only mention him as a throwaway. You must be imagining things.

"Stiff competition" from imaginary players: not a good criterion for exclusion from the HoF.

Final tally:

1 sort of good criterion
1 decent secondary criterion
1 marginal at best criterion
10 bad criterions

Thank you, Bruce Jenkins, for being a contestant on "Is This A Good Criterion for Being In The Hall of Fame?" Unfortunately, you lost. Better luck next time. Actually, you'd be better off with better knowledge of what makes a good HoF argument. Here's a hint: don't use anything you did here.