Hmm. I look forward to T.R. Sullivan ripping Poz a new one for this.

This is a good piece, but I think it misses a key, key element:

but I GET why some people don’t vote for Bert Blyleven for the Hall of Fame. He generally was not viewed as a great pitcher while he pitched. I GET why Lou Whitaker and Dan Quisenberry and Ken Boyer received limited-to-no Hall of Fame support while Ryne Sandberg and Bruce Sutter and Brooks Robinson have plaques in Cooperstown right now. The latter three had this aura about them that the former three did not. I get the concept of perception and gut reaction and that in some twisted away a Hall of Famer is supposed to represent something transcendent in our consciousness.

Do you know *why* some players have this aura? Why they represent something transcendent? Because the BBWAA *write about them in such a manner*. This aura is created by the media that covers them. That's what almost always makes a player better known than his numbers.

If the media suddenly wanted to hype a player, and his numbers weren't particularly differetn than someone else's you see a large jump in thei "aura". Just look at Ryan Howard's MVP vote last year. His seasonal performance was not good. He was well behind other first basemen in performance, not to mention a bunch of other players, but seriously challenged Albert Pujols for the MVP, and he wasn't anything like the MVP. If you get enough people in a position to write about something they don't understand very well (how baseball games are generally won), they will want to conjure up pretty images and create great stories. What's a great story about Albert Pujols? Nothing - he's just the best - that isn't any fun. So you get the BBWAA trying to create a story. Because they are writers, and that's what they want to do.

The same thing happened to Kent and Trammell and Whitaker. Those guys, to fans who studied the game and considered performance over poetry, were real HOF players.

The same for Bert Blyleven. You rightly note that he was underrated in his time. Who rated him? The BBWAA. Blyleven not making the HOF is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The makeup of the BBWAA is so full of, er, itself, it cannot recognize that since *they* didn't recognize how awesome Blyleven was at the time, they certainly cannot say he was great now. How would that make them appear 20 years ago? The same with Jim Rice. He was great poetry in the late 70s. His storybook seasons with Fred Lynn (but Rice stayed in Boston), and his being "feared". That was stuff made up by the BBWAA. So when he is voted for he becomes "feared". Not that he was feared, but that the BBWAA *wrote* that he was feared.

The BBWAA doesn't seem to recognize this. "We were wrong all those years ago" is a big matzoh ball to choke on. Accepting "why we need numbers" is also to admit failure for so many writers. They are often writers because math is hard, and poetry is unfettered with rules. They can spin a nice yarn, facts be damned. And lots of that is good - a yarn can be well-spun *with* correct facts, and about *any* player.

So, Joe, look inward for why some players have an aura or are transcendent. You create those myths.

So, Joe, look inward for why some players have an aura or are transcendent. You create those myths.

While I agree 100% with your post (and Joe's), I don't think lumping him in with the writers that create those stories, in spite of fact, is fair. He's very different, as evidenced by this blog post of his.

Ryne Sandberg and Bruce Sutter and Brooks Robinson

Great column overall, but one of these things is not like the others.

So, Joe, look inward for why some players have an aura or are transcendent. You create those myths.

Isn't that what he's saying? i.e., Try to look past what was said or thought (or what you said or thought) about a player when he was active, and look at him and his statistics with fresh eyes.

Chris ~ That reduces the fans to passive simpletons who merely receive the announced wisdom of the writers with regards to the players' mystique and aura. Certainly writers can influence how a player is regarded, but they don't operate in a vacuum. I tend to think that most writers are better at receiving the wisdom of the crowd than they are at shaping that wisdom. Of course it becomes a chicken and egg argument without proof, but it seems equally likely that the fan sitting in the stands watching on tv becomes excited by or frustrated with a particular player largely independently of media influence. I think this is particularly true outside NY where media is largely positive and supportive and yet fans still can turn on a player. One example from BTF is the difference between the fawning coverage of Jeff Francouer and the posters' repulsion towards him.

. His seasonal performance was not good. He was well behind other first basemen in performance, not to mention a bunch of other players, but seriously challenged Albert Pujols for the MVP, and he wasn't anything like the MVP.

The average fan still sees the HR and the RBI and they hear about the massive September. I think it's a pretty gross overstatement to say that Howard wasn't good. Howard was a good player in 2008, but most advanced metrics reveal that Albert Pujols was a MUCH better player. Besides, Pennant Probability Added would have given the MVP to Howard (before defense was accounted for) :P!

I do disagree about players having to have an aura manufactured by the media. If there were a universe in which no player was glorified, I would still stop to watch an Albert Pujols plate appearance. Furthermore, I would stop to watch Jose Reyes or Ryan Howard before I'd stop to watch Carlos Beltran because those are more exciting players. Reyes might bang out a triple and Howard might hit a ball 500 feet. I am far too young to remember Jim Rice's career, but I do not doubt that there was an element similar to this in play when Rice stepped to the plate. Certain players DO have an aura to them, and I happen to think that's part of what differentiates a Hall of Fame from a Hall of Merit.

Chris, what you identify as the key element missing from the article - that the writers are complicit in creating the image that the writers then cite as Hall credentials - isn't missing. It's the main point Poz is making. For example,

What really bothers me about Bert Blyleven is that his pitching brilliance wasn’t fully appreciated in his time, and BECAUSE of that, it’s not fully appreciated now.

Poz offers numbers as the antidote. Hard to fault that message.

It's the main point Poz is making.

Others make this point, so consider this a response to each.

I don't think he is quite doing that.

"What really bothers me about Bert Blyleven is that his pitching brilliance wasn’t fully appreciated in his time, and BECAUSE of that, it’s not fully appreciated now."

It's not fully appreciated by *whom*? The fans?

I do disagree about players having to have an aura manufactured by the media. If there were a universe in which no player was glorified, I would still stop to watch an Albert Pujols plate appearance. Furthermore, I would stop to watch Jose Reyes or Ryan Howard before I'd stop to watch Carlos Beltran because those are more exciting players. Reyes might bang out a triple and Howard might hit a ball 500 feet. I am far too young to remember Jim Rice's career, but I do not doubt that there was an element similar to this in play when Rice stepped to the plate. Certain players DO have an aura to them, and I happen to think that's part of what differentiates a Hall of Fame from a Hall of Merit.

And I disagree, because Ryan Howard is given an aura that Adam Dunn doesn't get (or a handful of other all or nothings).

Howard's performance in 2008 was "about average". That is not a "good player" (in 2008). He wasn't a bad player - he was about average. He may have been *about* the 50th best player in the NL. *50th*. He came in 2nd in the MVP voting.

That reduces the fans to passive simpletons who merely receive the announced wisdom of the writers with regards to the players' mystique and aura

Yea, I've noticed in sports and politics, people seem to give the media a lot more credit at forming public opinion than they should be given. We aren't mindless sheep willing to think whatever the New York Times or Sporting News tell us to think. Sometimes we just make stupid judgments on our own.

That reduces the fans to passive simpletons who merely receive the announced wisdom of the writers with regards to the players' mystique and aura. Certainly writers can influence how a player is regarded, but they don't operate in a vacuum.

I submit the casual fan is. Which is the vast majority of fans.

I tend to think that most writers are better at receiving the wisdom of the crowd than they are at shaping that wisdom. Of course it becomes a chicken and egg argument without proof, but it seems equally likely that the fan sitting in the stands watching on tv becomes excited by or frustrated with a particular player largely independently of media influence.

Without media influence? Where are they getting their information?

I think this is particularly true outside NY where media is largely positive and supportive and yet fans still can turn on a player. One example from BTF is the difference between the fawning coverage of Jeff Francouer and the posters' repulsion towards him.

I'll suggest that the media "turned on" Frenchy about the same time. And that he is still a fan favorite *to most fans*, not the ones here.

Sometimes we just make stupid judgments on our own.

I don't agree with this. Fans believe in BA/HR/RBI *because it is what they are taught*. Where do they learn it? The media.

But yes, you can take *any* player and create an exciting story around him. Any player. Make him a decent player, and you can create an MVP candidate.

Also, while it's true that to a certain extent the difference in perception between a Sandberg and a Trammell / Whitaker is a product of media creation, it also has to do with transcendent moments that some players "created" by themselves. For instance, Sandberg's legendary performance on national TV against the Cardinals in the middle of a year where the Cubs, even more than the Tigers, were THE baseball story. Trammell and Whitaker never had insanely publicized games like that, and while of course that alone won't make anyone a HoFer (as Bobby Thomson and Roger Maris's ghost will testify), in the case of a player with otherwise good qualifications it may be the thing that pushes him over the top in the minds of just enough voters.

The media may overly magnify moments like Sandberg's (and Brooks's in the 1970 World Series), but it doesn't "create" them. There's a difference between amplification and invention.

And of course Posnanski both sees this and rightfully decries it.

I don't think lumping him in with the writers that create those stories, in spite of fact, is fair. He's very different, as evidenced by this blog post of his.

The writers that are different should know they are different. My introspection reference is for the collective BBWAA. I think Joe is clearly an exception. He's an exceptional writer that can also recognize value. Nonetheless, his club is the guilty party here.

Trammell and Whitaker never had insanely publicized games like that

Who decided that? I don't know how it can be construed that I am saying that Ryno *didn't* hit his home runs and the media just claimed he did. His performance is what it is. Trammell's performance is what it is. Whitakers performance is what it is. How those performances are viewed are grossly skewed by the media. Given like coverage, and proper education to what makes baseball teams win (most of the time), Whitaker gets treated justly.

Roger Maris is a good example. His accomplishments were not glorified because the media wanted Mantle. Roger was less than friendly to the media during that season and after, and as such his accomplishment was marginalized (to the extent it could be).

And that he is still a fan favorite *to most fans*,

I'm not sure, I look at non-sabr blogs too, and a good chunk of the Brave fanbase, not just the primates here have turned on him- he still has his defenders who will endlessly point out that he drove in 100 runs in 2006 and 2007- but in 2008 he didn't just look like a bad player to Sabr fans he looked like a bad player to the casual fan- and he whined and complained... that's a clear recipe fro having a fanbase turn on you.

Of course if he goes out and replicates 2006, the casual fan will forgive him and flock back to his side...
Personally, I think he's on the Jim Presley career path.

Fans believe in BA/HR/RBI *because it is what they are taught*. Where do they learn it?

From their parents and older brothers/sisters?

I think it's totally missing the point to argue about how much role the media has in forming perceptions of players. The point is that, however those perceptions are formed, the role of the HOF is to honor the guys who actually were the best¹. This is why I am so thoroughly against the idea that "name value", "place in the narrative of baseball", etc. should be significant HOF factors. That's like saying "let's immortalize our mistakes." (Again, "our" here doesn't mean "writers", it means everybody.) We should put someone in because they've already been given too much credit and attention for their accomplishments? Being overrated is an actual, distinct qualification? It's just complete baloney IMHO.

Poz of course says this much better than I could:

The part that makes sense to me about the Hall of Fame is perspective, it is that a Hall of Famer’s career should stand up long after the trends and quirks of the time have faded, long after the camera has panned back. If a player’s career looks better in reverse — Bert Blyleven, Lou Whitaker, Dan Quisenberry, Ron Santo, Dwight Evans on and on and on — we should honor that, give them a fair Hall of Fame hearing, one that isn’t marred by hunches of the time that might not have been right in the first place. And if a player’s career doesn’t stand up to the scrutiny of the years, well, that’s why we wait five years before voting.

¹ assuming they didn't break any rules, obv.

I would have gone with "slack-jawed yokels" rather than "passive simpletons," but the latter formulation works too. For those who said that fans can form their own judgments, ask yourself this: based on what?

There are three things:
1. How the player looks on the field.
2. The player's numbers.
3. How the media describes him.

But the media does everything it can to undermine the second, and most fans don't see any particular player very often. (Only their hometown ones.). How many times do you think all the people who say that Blyleven didn't "seem" like a HOFer actually see him pitch? (By "people" I mean fans here.)

Fans believe in BA/HR/RBI *because it is what they are taught*. Where do they learn it?

From you, ok? I learned it from listening to you!

¹ assuming they didn't break any rules, obv.

Whoa...how did you do a footnote?

Also, while it's true that to a certain extent the difference in perception between a Sandberg and a Trammell / Whitaker is a product of media creation, it also has to do with transcendent moments that some players "created" by themselves. For instance, Sandberg's legendary performance on national TV against the Cardinals in the middle of a year where the Cubs, even more than the Tigers, were THE baseball story. Trammell and Whitaker never had insanely publicized games like that,

Ah, but it's whether or not they were "insanely publicized" which is the key.

The stats of two players, from September 1 on, each fighting for the lead in their individual division/league...

A: 33 games, 147 plate appearances, .417 AVG, .490 OBP, .677 SLG
B: 26 games, 109 plate appearances, .391 AVG, .486 OBP, .739 SLG

B's numbers are better, especially if one adjusts for the context of his era...

But B was a Gold Glove left fielder, A was a shortstop (who had won Gold Gloves previously, though he did not win in this year).

A's stretch run is well-known, part of the mythos about the player. If seems likely that B's stretch run has now been forgotten by a large number of fans, given that the original poster can talk about Sandberg's midseason excellence as transcendant and not think of any by Trammell.

That's the issue that Chris Dial (rightly, in my opinion) is discussing here. Trammell's 1987 was about as great an end of the season -- terrific offensively while playing a key defensive position and playing it well -- as you can get (the comparison to Yaz's 1967 isn't laughable) and yet this apparently doesn't help Trammell. And because the media didn't notice his transcendance to the extent it deserved at the time, they don't feel compelled to give weight to it now.

Trammell and Whitaker never had insanely publicized games like that

Who decided that? I don't know how it can be construed that I am saying that Ryno *didn't* hit his home runs and the media just claimed he did. His performance is what it is. Trammell's performance is what it is. Whitakers performance is what it is. How those performances are viewed are grossly skewed by the media. Given like coverage, and proper education to what makes baseball teams win (most of the time), Whitaker gets treated justly.

"Who decided that?" I suppose the folks who scheduled the Cubs and the Cardinals for GOTW that day, and the papers and highlight shows that ran with it. But given what he did, and given the context of that 1984 Cubs' season, how on earth could a performance like that NOT have been given "insane" publicity? No question that the fact that Sandberg was the leading Beloved Cubbie of 1984 didn't hurt, but this was a story that wrote itself. It didn't really need much thought on the part of the media to overplay its actual significance, just a sense of what sells.

Roger Maris is a good example. His accomplishments were not glorified because the media wanted Mantle. Roger was less than friendly to the media during that season and after, and as such his accomplishment was marginalized (to the extent it could be).

Chris, with all due respect, Maris's 1961 accomplishment was publicized like no other baseball record quest since Dimaggio and Williams in 1941. It was the major story of the day---every day---from about mid-to-late June right up to the end. I was at Yankee Stadium in the last week of July that year, and the fans treated him like a rock star.

And if the writers were truly interested in dissing him, it would seem that the MVP award would have been the natural forum to do that. After all, Mantle dwarfed Maris in every single category other than homers and RBI, and would certainly have been the MVP choice of any stathead of the time. And yet the writers chose Maris as the MVP.

What I think you're confusing is the well-publicized comments of a handful of writers at the time who kept harping on Maris's batting average, with the writers in general. But even for most of those "negative" writers, there was a huge amount of respect for what Maris was going through. It wasn't until 1962 that the reaction against him set in, caused by a nasty article written by a tabloid columnist during Spring Training that escalated feelings on both sides.

But it should also be noted that Maris adorned the cover of nearly every national Baseball Preview magazine for 1962, including Street and Smith and Dell, then considered the gold standards of such publications. The "writers' feud" with Maris was never extended much beyond the range of metropolitan New York, and even there it wasn't all-encompassing.

And Maris never got much HoF support for a pretty simple reason: He didn't have a HoF career.

I don't agree with this. Fans believe in BA/HR/RBI *because it is what they are taught*. Where do they learn it? The media.

When I originally became a baseball fan, the stats shown on screen towards the beginning of a player's AB (usually his first AB of the game only) were AVG HR RBI... (for pitchers it was W-L-ERA)
If a batter like Lou Brock was up, the announcers might say how many SB he had on the season... or they wouldn't bring that up unless and until he reached base.

Later the MSM TV and Radio announcers would spice things up- by reciting really stupid and useless crap like a batter's batting average against a specific pitcher. (I think they got stuff that from Elias- the TV production crew would cull tidbits like that before a broadcast...)

The Mets used to have a 2B named Doug Flynn, Flynn was basically Neifi before there was Neifi, he was good defensive 2B (who the MSM touted as being great)- with an anemic bat... back then the MSM mantra with regard to good glove 2Bs and SSs was "If he hits .250 it's a bonus")
Well one year the Mets blew some 600 PAs on Flynn, and by some miracle of timing, he drove in 50+ runs, late in the year, you would turn on a Mets game and see .250 and 50+RBIs in Flynn's stat graphic- and the Met announcers would start talking about how Flynn was some kind of unknown unappreciated STAR (He OPS+'d 60 that year and for his friggin career)

Personally I HATED FLYNN he symbolized all that was wrong with the Mets to me- but other Mets fans I knew actually thought he was a good player ("pitching and defense are how you win"). That's what they were told by the local media- endlessly...
Why did I hate Flynn when the average fan back then didn't?
2 reasons
1: I essentially missed the 1969 Mets- a fluke team that did win on pitching and defense- the archetype of a winning team to me was the Big Red Machine-
2: I had a little league coach who not only was an ex-minor league player, but who actually knew who Branch Rickey was- and also knew what OBP was (he called it OBA and put it on the team's stat sheet... this was the 1970s the casual fan did not know OBA or OBP from Adam)

Robert, Trammell's 1987 regular season stretch drive heroics were indeed every bit as glorious as Yaz's 1967 ones. And I'm a strong supporter of Trammell for the HoF. But you left one very important bit out: how their seasons ended.

The Red Sox won the pennant. Yaz then hit .400 with 3 home runs in the World Series.

The Tigers bowed out meekly in 5 games to a mediocre Twins teams in the ALCS. Trammell hit .200.

And that, sir, is the rest of the story.

Oh, and not to mention that Yaz also won a little thing called the "triple crown." You might have heard of it.

how on earth could a performance like that NOT have been given "insane" publicity?

The same way Trammel's comparable performance in 1987 was NOT given such publicity.

how on earth could a performance like that NOT have been given "insane" publicity?

The same way Trammel's comparable performance in 1987 was NOT given such publicity.

Wasn't at least part of the reason that he wasn't given the same publicity due to an even hotter hand on the same team? After all, that was the year that Doyle Alexander went 9-0 with a 1.53 ERA for the Tigers after being acquired for the stretch run, in the biggest year for offense in decades.

Ryan, it still doesn't explain or justify how the writers turned around and gave the MVP to GEORGE BELL, a one dimensional slugger whose personal performance and team were collapsing in epic fashion in September, at the exact same time that Trammell was leading his team to the division title.

And Robert, great post. I never realized that Trammell's numbers that stretch run were so comparable to Yaz, the common standard for carrying your team down the stretch. Of course, now I'm even angrier.

BTW, I am convinced that if Trammell wins the MVP in 87, he's in the HOF, which nicely illustrates the point we were discussing.

Robert, Trammell's 1987 regular season stretch drive heroics were indeed every bit as glorious as Yaz's 1967 ones. And I'm a strong supporter of Trammell for the HoF. But you left one very important bit out: how their seasons ended.

The Red Sox won the pennant. Yaz then hit .400 with 3 home runs in the World Series.

The Tigers bowed out meekly in 5 games to a mediocre Twins teams in the ALCS. Trammell hit .200.

And that, sir, is the rest of the story.

Oh, and not to mention that Yaz also won a little thing called the "triple crown." You might have heard of it.

You're doing it again, Andy. You're making up ad hoc "explanations" based on a single data point and then coming up with rationalizations for why all the contrary data points don't really count. Trammell's 1987 performance down the stretch doesn't count because the Tigers lost in the ALCS. But wait -- how did the Cubs do in the NLCS? Oh, they lost. (Yes, Sandberg had a good series. But the team lost.)

The fact that Sandberg once had a good name on national television does not explain why the fans think of him as a HOFer and they don't think of Whitaker as one.

Another reason is that right up until the Blue Jays collapsed, Trammell's run wasn't part of what was seen as a real race. In fact the biggest story was more Toronto's choke than the Tigers' heroics---the Blue Jays lost their last 7 games and blew a 3 1/2 game lead.

By comparison, Yaz's performance took place in what was rightly considered both then and now as the greatest four way pennant race in baseball history. Performances within contexts like that will always rate far more publicity than a similar show within the context of what was essentially a one week long division race, especially given the postseason aftermath that I noted in #26 above.

When would have reporters sent in their ballots? In a year like 87, if they sent them in one week before the end of the regular season as opposed to the last day, it would have made a real difference.

David, you can go nitpick with yourself this time. I'm not taking your bait. Your knowledge of baseball history in context is nonexistent, and you deal with that utter lack of knowledge by pretending that context doesn't matter. You're little more than the mirror image of the Chasses and the Mariottis, and like them, you're not worth the effort.

And Maris never got much HoF support for a pretty simple reason: He didn't have a HoF career.

Neither did Jim Rice.

I'd love to hear an interview with Doyle Alexander about that season, assuming he could stop screaming at the interviewer to get off his damn lawn long enough to conduct one.

I must say that David brings up a good point about straw man arguments. Being a long-time Braves fan (back to way before all the tomahawk-chopping idiots), I've noticed that Brave fans are some of the absolute worst about this. They do it with Andruw Jones, they do it with Francoeur (as has been mentioned here ad infinitum) and with pretty much anyone else who fits their singular mindset. This is not to say that they are the only ones that do this for their team or player, but theirs is often more egregious.

The problem with HOFers is that -- to me, anyway -- they should pass both the paper test (statistics) and the eyeball test. The reason a lot of today's baseball fans don't think of Blyleven, Whitaker or whomever as HOFers is because they never got the chance to apply the eyeball test. We've also gotten into a cycle where a lot of fans still believe that there are mythical milestones (300 victories, 500 homers, etc.) that "guarantee" HOF entry, when this is inaccurate.

If the HOF is ever going to be the body it should be, a lot of perceptions on the part of a lot of people are going to have to change.

When would have reporters sent in their ballots? In a year like 87, if they sent them in one week before the end of the regular season as opposed to the last day, it would have made a real difference.

Well, they're supposed to have them in before the end of the season, so a lot of writers probably did send them in when the Jays victory was seen as a foregone conclusion. Given that writers like to vote for winners, the Bell selection would be completely within the realm of the expected (0.308 BA, led the league in RBI, 2nd in HR and Runs, 1st in TB - a triumph of counting stats over rates), even though it was almost certainly wrong.

35, the puzzling thing is, to my memory anyhow, Trammell and Whitaker were usually perceived as future HOFers when playing.

35, the puzzling thing is, to my memory anyhow, Trammell and Whitaker were usually perceived as future HOFers when playing.

I have this same memory. I'm still trying to figure out when the perception on these two changed.

[Deliberately talking in mythological tones here to make a point]

At the time the 1984 Tigers were seen as an almost magical synergistic coming together of talent. The 35-5 start certainly grabbed everyone's attention, and certain heroics by a Messr Gibson in the World Series cemented their aura.

But for some strange reason it didn't stick in the public and media consciousness-at all. I don't know if it was because this seeming dynasty only got into the playoffs one last time (falling meekly in '87 as referenced above), and they came to be seen as something of a disappointment. Maybe it was the high drama of the next two World Series which stole much of the Tiger's roar-the insane comebacks of both the Royals and Mets (and Red Sox in the '86 ALCS). Perhaps everybody was expecting a Tigers/Cubs WS, and when we didn't get that the 4 game sweep of the Padres was seen as anticlimactic. For whatever reasons that 106 win team got as little subsequent respect as I've ever seen for a 100 win WS winner.

Being somewhat unaware of a lot of my baseball "surroundings" at the time of Trammell and Whitaker's run (I was barely into my teens during the '84-'87 run), was there a great sense of sentiment about Trammell and Whitaker being inextricably linked in terms of how people would remember them both? If people mentally tied Trammell to Whitaker -- or vice versa -- that may have had something to do with all of this.

That's all I've got.

At the time the 1984 Tigers were seen as an almost magical synergistic coming together of talent. The 35-5 start certainly grabbed everyone's attention, and certain heroics by a Messr Gibson in the World Series cemented their aura.

But for some strange reason it didn't stick in the public and media consciousness-at all. I don't know if it was because this seeming dynasty only got into the playoffs one last time (falling meekly in '87 as referenced above), and they came to be seen as something of a disappointment. Maybe it was the high drama of the next two World Series which stole much of the Tiger's roar-the insane comebacks of both the Royals and Mets (and Red Sox in the '86 ALCS). Perhaps everybody was expecting a Tigers/Cubs WS, and when we didn't get that the 4 game sweep of the Padres was seen as anticlimactic.

John, everything you're saying rings true, and you even inadvertently reinforce it by forgetting that the World Series actually went to five games....

David, you can go nitpick with yourself this time. I'm not taking your bait.

You can call it "nitpicking." I call it "paying close attention to what you're saying and pointing out that the facts don't actually match them." The problem is that you like to talk based on impressions instead of facts. And then when the facts come up, you insert so many qualifiers into what you said that it doesn't mean anything.

(As for ignorance of context, I'm not the one who didn't realize how good a stretch run Trammell had; that was you. Then you had to invent a new qualification ("His team failed in the postseason") to "explain" why your theory wasn't wrong. Except that Sandberg's team also failed in the postseason, something you must have forgotten when you tried to claim that this had something to do with Trammell's lack of support.)

EDIT: A much more obvious explanation is that Trammell was exactly the sort of player often overlooked: someone good at everything, but not great at anything. He hit for average -- but just .285. He hit for power (for a SS) -- but just 185 HRs. He stole bases -- but just 236. He didn't reach any milestones. He never led the league in anything meaningful. And he didn't win any awards. (If Trammell wins the MVP, I think he "seems like" a HOFer.) In contrast, Sandberg led the league a few times in things, including a glamour category (HRs), won that MVP, and retired as the all-time leader in HRs for a 2bman.

I know I'm stating the obvious, but this isn't black and white issue. It seems perfectly clear to me that the media plays a large role in creating narratives and shaping the public's perception of players. But it seems equally clear that the fans are not simpletons who simply parrot everything the media says and are incapable of forming opinions about players based on their own perceptions.

(As for ignorance of context, I'm not the one who didn't realize how good a stretch run Trammell had; that was you. Then you had to invent a new qualification ("His team failed in the postseason") to "explain" why your theory wasn't wrong. Except that Sandberg's team also failed in the postseason, something you must have forgotten when you tried to claim that this had something to do with Trammell's lack of support.)

The only problem with this is that I was comparing Trammell's stretch run to Yaz's, and not Sandberg's. The Sandberg to Trammell comparison I made had nothing to do with stretch runs, but with particular moments (i.e. single games) that stood out.

And of course your thought that I "didn't realize how good a stretch run Trammell had" is purely a product of your imagination, as are so many of your hyperventilating posts. I was glued to the set for both of those final two Tigers-Jays games and was wholly aware of what both Trammell and Alexander had done in the stretch.

But it seems equally clear that the fans are not simpletons who simply parrot everything the media says and are incapable of forming opinions about players based on their own perceptions.

If that's the case, then we should see examples of players whose image among fans differs from their portrayal by reporters. Is there some player who fans think of as a jerk even though the media loves him? Or vice versa? Is there some player who fans think of as being a choker, as not seeming like a non-HOFer, etc. even though the media tries to portray him as a winner, portray him as a future HOFer? Or vice versa? Surely if fans form their own opinions, they must occasionally come to different conclusions than the media.

I'm with Dial and Nieporent on this one. Obviously any individual fan can ignore/disagree what the media feeds him. But in general, fans don't, and since what the media tells them comprises about 97% of what most fans know about a sport, it's hardly surprising that they don't. That the media largely shapes the casual fan's impressions/understandings of the sport seems pretty clear.

That the media largely shapes the casual fan's impressions/understandings of the sport seems pretty clear.

Concur. It's always uncomfortable to me when I talk with someone who follows baseball casually because I don't want to spend the time and energy to engage them on the myriad of issues that I believe they misunderstand. These misunderstandings almost always reflect exactly what's been in the papers, or on ESPN, or on local sports talk radio.

35, the puzzling thing is, to my memory anyhow, Trammell and Whitaker were usually perceived as future HOFers when playing.


I have this same memory. I'm still trying to figure out when the perception on these two changed.

Yeah, when I was growing up, Alan Trammell was my favorite player and Lou Whitaker was my brother's favorite. This colors my perception, but it always just seemed to be a given to us that they were HOFers. I was really, really surprised when the tone people used to describe their careers completely changed in just a few years after they retired. Still makes me mad, and I don't think my brother has really gotten over it.

46. Steve Treder Posted: January 27, 2009 at 11:51 AM (#3061514)

I'm with Dial and Nieporent on this one.

Well, that's an unholy triumvirate.

Well, that's an unholy triumvirate.

A sign of the apocalypse, no doubt. I'd strongly suggest that everyone get their personal affairs in order.

Being somewhat unaware of a lot of my baseball "surroundings" at the time of Trammell and Whitaker's run (I was barely into my teens during the '84-'87 run), was there a great sense of sentiment about Trammell and Whitaker being inextricably linked in terms of how people would remember them both? If people mentally tied Trammell to Whitaker -- or vice versa -- that may have had something to do with all of this.

There was a lot linking them - they came up in the same year, were part of the same double play combo for almost their entire careers, played in the ASG together on multiple occasions, and were identified as career Tigers. I even remember talk about people wanting them to retire at the same time so that they could go into the Hall as a pair.

Then Whitaker dropped off the ballot in his first try, and everything went to hell.

If that's the case, then we should see examples of players whose image among fans differs from their portrayal by reporters.

During the innumerous steroids threads, David and Chris both suggested that Bonds' support from fans was dramatically different than it was with the media.

There have been other players that the media has fawned over apparently because of the ease with which they dispensed quotes - Mark Grace, Sean Casey, etc. - but my informal observation suggests fans are much cooler towards those players than are the writers.

Re: Trammell and Whitaker, the way I remember it is this.

When they came up together at the same time, they were universally predicted to become great stars. But each developed rather gradually, and as they failed to consistently reach the sort of shorthand statistical milestones DN references in #42, the media impression of them softened into "very fine players, but not greats, not quite what we'd hoped." This despite the fact that, of course, each was actually better than many if not most HOFers at their positions.

If the Tigers had been a good team when Trammell was managing them, let's say a Charlie Manuel level of managerial success, would be have gotten twice as many Hall of Fame votes, or three times as many? Discuss.

If that's the case, then we should see examples of players whose image among fans differs from their portrayal by reporters.

There are several problems with this comment. First, I can kinda, sorta buy that there's a single, identifiable "media" view of a player (even though the media is never in 100% agreement about any topic), but in most cases there's no such thing as a player's "image among fans." Fans often disagree sharply about a player's value, likeability, ethics, etc. -- even fans of the same team. Players like Bonds and Rose are good examples of this phenomenon; no one can seriously argue that the "fans" have a generic opinion about those players. There are some exceptions to that rule like Ripken or Gwynn, but even those players have plenty of critics and detractors. Second, even if we accept that the fans do have a collective opinion of many players, I think there are examples of players whose image among the fans differs from their portrayel by reporters: Eddie Murray, Bonds (a difficult case, but, as noted, public opinion on him was far more diverse than the media's), Mark Grace (I never got the sense that Cubs fans loved him nearly as much as the reporters), et al. Third, your presenting a false choice: Either the fans' view is consistent with the reporters, in which case they're sheep, or it's not. But as dlf noted in post 5, it's entirely possible that "most writers are better at receiving the wisdom of the crowd than they are at shaping that wisdom." So the fact that the fans' view might be consistent with the reporters doesn't mean that they're parroting the reporters. The reverse might be true. (As I said earlier, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.)

During the innumerous steroids threads, David and Chris both suggested that Bonds' support from fans was dramatically different than it was with the media.

There have been other players that the media has fawned over apparently because of the ease with which they dispensed quotes - Mark Grace, Sean Casey, etc. - but my informal observation suggests fans are much cooler towards those players than are the writers.

Whether or not these observations are valid, a few exceptional cases hardly constitute a refutation of the notion that the media directs and shapes the great preponderance of fans' perceptions.

During the innumerous steroids threads, David and Chris both suggested that Bonds' support from fans was dramatically different than it was with the media.

There have been other players that the media has fawned over apparently because of the ease with which they dispensed quotes - Mark Grace, Sean Casey, etc. - but my informal observation suggests fans are much cooler towards those players than are the writers.

I guess I owe you a coke.

A sign of the apocalypse, no doubt. I'd strongly suggest that everyone get their personal affairs in order.

If the apocalypse truly is upon us, what's the freakin' point of getting our affairs in order?

Is there some player who fans think of as a jerk even though the media loves him?

Hmmm... the media adored Pete Rose, but a fair amount of fans thought of him as a self-promoting full-of-himself jerk.

Steve Garvey got nothing but gushing press coverage throughout the 1970's, but he wasn't really all that popular with fans outside of southern California.

That's just two off the top of my head... but overall it's probably an uncommon phenomenon.

Hmmm... the media adored Pete Rose, but a fair amount of fans thought of him as a self-promoting full-of-himself jerk.

I don't think this was so true until th mid-80s. He was pretty well liked in the 60s-70s, and early 80s. Go to Cincy sometime.

I'd say that Rose is still not thoguht of like that. If "most fans" thought that, he could have a radio show, etc. He still gets lots of "should be in the HOF because he's the hits leader".

Whether or not these observations are valid, a few exceptional cases hardly constitute a refutation of the notion that the media directs and shapes the great preponderance of fans' perceptions.

We're just arguing about the definition of "preponderance." I can accept that the media directs and shapes most of the fans' perceptions, but David and Chris appear to be arguing that the fans have almost no ability to think for themselves.

The same with Jim Rice. He was great poetry in the late 70s. His storybook seasons with Fred Lynn (but Rice stayed in Boston), and his being "feared". That was stuff made up by the BBWAA. So when he is voted for he becomes "feared". Not that he was feared, but that the BBWAA *wrote* that he was feared.

Wow. They made it up, huh? They didn't interview players? Players never spoke of Jim Rice that way? Or if they did, was it only because they were manipulated by the BBWAA?

You can make an argument that Rice doesn't belong in the HOF. You can demonstrate to what extent any "fear" might have had on his stats, or the stats of those around him in the lineup. You can even say that the "fear" thing is overblown, overstated, and overdone. But that they made it up? Please.

I don't think this was so true until th mid-80s. He was pretty well liked in the 60s-70s, and early 80s. Go to Cincy sometime.

Well, the dynamics are different in a player's home city, of course. OJ Simpson had plenty of defenders among Buffalo Bills fans even as the walls closed in on his reputation.

I grew up in the 1970's, and Pete Rose was loved by some, loathed by others.

I'm trying to come up with the opposite situation -- a player the media hates but the fans love. That combination seems to be much rarer.

I'm trying to come up with the opposite situation -- a player the media hates but the fans love. That combination seems to be much rarer.

Rickey!?

Wow. They made it up, huh? They didn't interview players? Players never spoke of Jim Rice that way? Or if they did, was it only because they were manipulated by the BBWAA?

You don't understand, villageidiom. If some of these folks didn't have "the mainstream media" to blame whevever the public disagreed with them, they'd lose one of their most reliable one-size-fits-all arguments. No way they're ever going to give that up. In all this they sound more than a little like Sarah Palin and Noam Chomsky, whether they realize it or not.

And of course anyone who points this out is simply part of the brainwashed mass himself. You really can't get too far arguing against people like this.

You have to look at the context in which these players came to the national consciousness. For Sandberg, that 1984 game was his coming-out party after two unspectacular seasons as a regular; the fact that it was the Game of the Week (when that meant something) and that Whitey Herzog (not a member of the media) immediately pronounced him the best player in baseball meant that for a lot of people, their first perception of Ryne Sandberg was that he was a young superstar. Then the Cubs went on to complete their miracle season, with Sandberg not just their best player but the best player in the league, and his perception was complete.

Trammell, by contrast, took a much longer time to get noticed. As late as 1982, in his fifth year as a regular, he hit just .258 with nine homers. By the time he got really good, in 1983-84, his reputation was as a guy who was a decent shortstop, but not nearly as good as Cal Ripken. On that great 1984 Tigers team, he was considered at best their third-best player, behind MVP Willie Hernandez and Kirk Gibson.

Winning the MVP in 1987, which he absolutely deserved, might have changed that perception. Then again, it might not, since he didn't last much longer after that. The biggest problem with Trammell's HoF case might be how early he flamed out; he played in 120 games for the last time at age 32.

There are some exceptions to that rule like Ripken or Gwynn

Gwynn outlasted a pretty rocky period -- late 80s and early 90s. He was widely perceived as selfish (with Mike Pagliarulo going public)

The reason that Joe Carter was brought in was to try to straighten out a disfunctional clubhouse. And that demonstrated (to restate Jim Bouton) that you can't be a leader while having a bad season.

If the apocalypse truly is upon us, what's the freakin' point of getting our affairs in order?

You actually want a slovenly end of times? Jeez . . .

Obviously any individual fan can ignore/disagree what the media feeds him. But in general, fans don't, and since what the media tells them comprises about 97% of what most fans know about a sport

Bullcrud. Fans, like many people here, get their info from numbers.

Wanna know why Blyleven didn't have that glow? Here's what he did for the first several years of his career:

Went 10-9 for a team that went 98-64.

Went 16-15 for a team that went 74-86.

Went 17-17 for a team that went 77-77.

Went 20-17 for a team that went 81-81.

Went 17-17 for a team that went 82-80.

Went 15-10 for a team that went 76-83.

Went 4-5 before being traded midseason for a team that went 85-77 (who were 21-22 on the day of the trade)

Went 9-11 after being traded midseason for a team that went 76-86 (52-68 after the trade).

Went 14-12 for a team that went 94-68.

In all, Blyleven went 122-113 for a .519 winning percentage.
His teams went 655-629 for a .510 winning percentage. (For the year he was traded, only the 21-22 and 52-68 are counted).

Subtract Blyleven's decisions, and the teams were 533-515, for a .508 winning percentage. Which is to say, his teammates would be expected to go 119-116 over 235 games -- only three fewer decisions than Blyleven actually had in that many decisions.

Look, I know W/L record is far from perfect and badly flawed. But jeez, if you take 100 pitchers who pitched for an extended period of time for middling teams and could scarcely beat their teammates W/L percentage, you're going to find at least 99 journeymen. Expecting a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher to considerably exceed his teammate's mediocre winning record over an eight year period is by and large a perfectly reasonable expectation to make.

Blyleven didn't do it. What happened in those years has very little precedent in baseball history. As some around here might remember, I once did a lot of work on run support, and figuring out a way to adjust a pitcher's win/loss record by it. From 1970-77, Blyleven won 17 fewer games than one would expect given his RA/9IP and ACTUAL run support. He also could've won a handful more games if he'd had better run support, but the key thing is one would normally expected someone with the run support he received and his RA/9IP to go 139-96, not 122-113. It's one of the most extreme underachievements in history.

Those years were his prime, too. And it came when Fergie Jenkins finished off six straight 20-win seasons, when Palmer began his eight 20-win seasons in nine years, when Carlton won 27 for a last place team, and Seaver was Tom Terrific, and Gaylord Perry won 24 for a last place team, and Nolan Ryan emerged, and Luis Tiant recovered, and baseball as a whole averaged over ten 20-game winners a season.

It ain't some nefarious Society of Evil Sportswriters that hurt Blyleven. His own inability to win as many games as he should've or to even win at a better clip than his teammates did in his reputation, which was especially problematic because he did it in a golden age of big pitchers.

We're just arguing about the definition of "preponderance." I can accept that the media directs and shapes most of the fans' perceptions, but David and Chris appear to be arguing that the fans have almost no ability to think for themselves.

I think about it this way. Forget baseball, because we're all such geeks about it that we don't see it at all the way most fans do. Think about a different sport.

I'm a casual fan of football, basketball, and hockey. I enjoy them, watch them on TV fairly often but not religiously, go to a game once in a while. I follow my home teams 99 times more closely than I follow the leagues in general. I'm the quintessential casual fan.

What the hell can I possibly know about who the best players are, what teams are on the way up or on the way down, if not through what the media tells me in these sports? I have no capacity to come to an independent conclusion; virtually every scrap of information I have is that which the media has fed me. Moreover, I don't have the desire, or make the time, to conduct any kind of independent inquiry. I'm just a casual fan, it isn't that important to me. I'm happy to accept what the media tells me to believe.

That's the way it is for the huge majority of baseball fans, too.

I'm trying to come up with the opposite situation -- a player the media hates but the fans love. That combination seems to be much rarer.

The Boston media definitely had it out for Pedro in his last two years with the Red Sox, while he remained extremely popular with the fanbase.

Went 10-9 for a team that went 98-64.

Went 16-15 for a team that went 74-86.

Went 17-17 for a team that went 77-77.

Went 20-17 for a team that went 81-81.

Went 17-17 for a team that went 82-80.

Went 15-10 for a team that went 76-83.

Went 4-5 before being traded midseason for a team that went 85-77 (who were 21-22 on the day of the trade)

Went 9-11 after being traded midseason for a team that went 76-86 (52-68 after the trade).

Went 14-12 for a team that went 94-68.

In all, Blyleven went 122-113 for a .519 winning percentage.
His teams went 655-629 for a .510 winning percentage. (For the year he was traded, only the 21-22 and 52-68 are counted).

The typical sportswriter, let alone the typical fan, hasn't conducted nearly that detail of research into Blyleven's numbers. They would see doing so as laughably esoteric.

35, the puzzling thing is, to my memory anyhow, Trammell and Whitaker were usually perceived as future HOFers when playing.


I have this same memory. I'm still trying to figure out when the perception on these two changed.

Well, by the time 1992 rolled around, this is what Sporting News writers were saying about Trammell's chances:

"Alan Trammell - Here's how long Trammell has been in Detroit: The Tigers' last regular shortstop was Tom Veryzer. Trammell has been the No. 1 shortstop in Detroit for 14 seasons. A good offensive player, he has been helped by his ballpark but rates far behind his counterpart in Baltimore, Cal Ripken, in consideration for the Hall. He needs to make some magic in his last few years to rank among the elite."

(the BBTF thread) His ranking in that poll of "who has the best chance at the Hall" had him on the "slightly good chance" side of things. Interestingly, he had the same perceived chance at the Hall as Jack Morris and a better perceived chance than Eddie Murray, Dennis Eckersley, Dale Murphy, Andre Dawson or Goose Gossage. I suspect his long, injured decline phase has probably played a lot into his perception these days.

(I'm pretty sure Whitaker was on that poll too, but I don't have the magazine here with me at work to check)

Wow. They made it up, huh? They didn't interview players? Players never spoke of Jim Rice that way? Or if they did, was it only because they were manipulated by the BBWAA?

Let's think about how this comes about.

I have never seen a pitcher say he "fears" a batter. The closest that comes about is Barry Bonds. So, if you give a poll where some players are asked "who is the most feared?" then yes, that *is* a creation of terminology by the pollster.

Now, if you want to tell me that someone was interviewing most pitchers on their impending start against the Sox, and they replied, "I tell you, facing Jim Rice is terrifying." you might have something. Asking someone to tick a box isn't the same thing.

Bullcrud. Fans, like many people here, get their info from numbers.

Wanna know why Blyleven didn't have that glow? Here's what he did for the first several years of his career:

Why did those fans choose those numbers?

During the innumerous steroids threads, David and Chris both suggested that Bonds' support from fans was dramatically different than it was with the media.

There have been other players that the media has fawned over apparently because of the ease with which they dispensed quotes - Mark Grace, Sean Casey, etc. - but my informal observation suggests fans are much cooler towards those players than are the writers.

I may be misremembering what I wrote, but I don't think that's what I said about Bonds. I think what I said was that fans didn't care about the steroids issue as much as the media did (or even more precisely, as much as the media claimed that fans did). I certainly never claimed, I don't believe, that fans (outside SF) supported Bonds, or even liked him -- just that they weren't nearly as passionate as the media claimed on the subject of steroids.

As for Grace and Casey, I don't really recall noticing any media campaigns to make them out to be anything other than they were; indeed, I don't really remember noticing any particular coverage of Casey at all. Are you talking about local coverage of him?

The typical sportswriter, let alone the typical fan, hasn't conducted nearly that detail of research into Blyleven's numbers. They would see doing so as laughably esoteric.

They haven't necessarily broken it down to that level, but the typical sportswriter does look at W-L. Hell, it's the only thing that a lot of the old school writers look at. And for Blyleven, right or wrong, they judge him by his only slightly above .500 record in this category - to many of them, he's still an accumulator, rather than a star, and those records that Dag Nabbit listed just back up their perceptions.

If some of these folks didn't have "the mainstream media" to blame whevever the public disagreed with them, they'd lose one of their most reliable one-size-fits-all arguments. No way they're ever going to give that up. In all this they sound more than a little like Sarah Palin and Noam Chomsky, whether they realize it or not.

And of course anyone who points this out is simply part of the brainwashed mass himself. You really can't get too far arguing against people like this.

To whom are you referring? Have a pair.

Also, over the last 10 years, fans and the media have begun to embrace stats beyond BA and RBIs. But who did it first? Did the media start embracing stats like OPS because the fans did, or did the fans embrace it because the media did? There's no simple answer to this question. Many fans were influenced by James and others, including guys like Neyer and Poz. Neyer, Poz, and others started writing more about these stats, and more and more fans started paying attention. IMO, the mainstream press has started to pick up on this stuff because many fans are interested -- they're reading the market. But many fans got interested because of both the work of some members of the media and their own research. Trying to distill this process down to a simplistic view that "the fans follow the media" is pointless.

Expecting a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher to considerably exceed his teammate's mediocre winning record over an eight year period is by and large a perfectly reasonable expectation to make.

Except approximately *ZERO* fans have any idea what a pitcher's winning percentage is in relation to his team's percentage. Run that blurb for Jack Morris.

I have this same memory. I'm still trying to figure out when the perception on these two changed

I think it changed for Trammell when A-Rod, Jeter, Nomar, and later Tejada began putting up very good offensive numbers at SS.

Let's think about how this comes about.

I have never seen a pitcher say he "fears" a batter. The closest that comes about is Barry Bonds. So, if you give a poll where some players are asked "who is the most feared?" then yes, that *is* a creation of terminology by the pollster.

Now, if you want to tell me that someone was interviewing most pitchers on their impending start against the Sox, and they replied, "I tell you, facing Jim Rice is terrifying." you might have something. Asking someone to tick a box isn't the same thing.

So what you're saying is "That was stuff made up by the BBWAA" was just guesswork on your part, and not the definitive statement it appears to be?

the typical sportswriter does look at W-L. Hell, it's the only thing that a lot of the old school writers look at.

My point is that W-L, raw W-L, is indeed just about the only thing they look at. ERA too, and that's just about it. Not one in 500 would conduct the sort of comparative W-L breakdown vs. that of his teams, year-by-year, that Chris just presented. And the casual fan is even less likely to engage in that level of analysis.

I think you're wrong, Chris. Most fans back in the 1970s thought of Blyleven as a .500 pitcher on .500 teams. There were other pitchers working for primarily mediocre teams, like Perry and Ryan (and Seaver, though not to the same extent), who were perceived as being better than their teams.

A pitcher working for a perennial contender, like Morris or Catfish Hunter, is going to benefit from that when people look at his W-L. But most people cut pitchers some slack based on the team behind them.

I think about it this way. Forget baseball, because we're all such geeks about it that we don't see it at all the way most fans do. Think about a different sport.

I'm a casual fan of football, basketball, and hockey. I enjoy them, watch them on TV fairly often but not religiously, go to a game once in a while. I follow my home teams 99 times more closely than I follow the leagues in general. I'm the quintessential casual fan.

What the hell can I possibly know about who the best players are, what teams are on the way up or on the way down, if not through what the media tells me in these sports? I have no capacity to come to an independent conclusion; virtually every scrap of information I have is that which the media has fed me. Moreover, I don't have the desire, or make the time, to conduct any kind of independent inquiry. I'm just a casual fan, it isn't that important to me. I'm happy to accept what the media tells me to believe.

That's the way it is for the huge majority of baseball fans, too.

I'm also a casual fan of football and basketball, but because I'm such a casual fan, I don't follow the media coverage. Most of what I know about those sports comes from my friends who are serious fans. And I don't think their views are controlled by the media any more than my views of baseball are. Again, I agree that the media plays a big role in determining public opinion, but I don't think it's nearly as omnipotent as some are suggesting.

I don't think any of us would say that our opinions about baseball players are shaped solely or even largely by the media, and there are lots of other baseball fans like us out there. Sure, there are also plenty of yokels who believe everything they read in the Daily News, but there's a lot of space between those extremes.

Talk radio would suggest that half the fans parrot the media, and half the fans believe that the media are purblind imbeciles.

Actually I've never heard the phrase "purblind imbecile" on talk radio, but I've heard a number of synonyms :)

So what you're saying is "That was stuff made up by the BBWAA" was just guesswork on your part, and not the definitive statement it appears to be?

It doesn't "appear" to be anything definitive. Are you famliar with the internet? Do you require "IMO" after every post on the internet?

Produce some contemporaneous quotes of players saying as I said, or I'll believe that "most feared" is a media construct. I'm surprised that "most feared hitter" as a media construct is such a controversial position. My experience with professional athletes is that they aren't afraid of anyone. Pitchers that I know personally believe they can get anyone out, and have no fear of anyone, much less someone they never walk.

My point is that W-L, raw W-L, is indeed just about the only thing they look at.

This isn't true. Nolan Ryan (324-292) is seen as a much better pitcher than Don Sutton (324-256). Bert Blyleven (287-250), for all the cavilling around here, gets a lot more HoF support than Tommy John (288-231).

I certainly never claimed, I don't believe, that fans (outside SF) supported Bonds, or even liked him -- just that they weren't nearly as passionate as the media claimed on the subject of steroids.

Perhaps I misremembered or misunderstood your original position ... but even this clarified one seems to support my contention: the fans have a clearly different position (less "passionate" ) on an issue than does the media. That is, they are not "slack-jawed yokles" merely following the herd.

Nolan Ryan (324-292) is seen as a much better pitcher than Don Sutton (324-256).

Well, seven no-hitters might have had something to do with that particular case. Once again, identifying the exceptional case as a "gotcha!" hardly invalidates the larger point.

EDIT: And, to the larger point of the primacy of raw W-L, because both Ryan and Sutton surpassed the magical 300-win threshhold, both are seen as vastly better than either Blyleven or John.

Most fans back in the 1970s thought of Blyleven as a .500 pitcher on .500 teams.

*Why* did they think of him like that, rather than by his ERA?

Changing how the public thinks isn't a single gneeration conversion. Someone above said "they learn about BA/HR/RBI from their dad or oldr brother." And where did *they* learn that? The way you change that is by writing about how Blyleven was better than his record (when he is pitching) and not glorifying Ryan Howard's mediocre season.

The cycle cannot be broken while Ryan Howard's HR/RBI marks get him second in the MVP. Because he's a fun likeable guy in an interesting story.

The MSM doesn't have a duty to inform/educate the public? They do NOT have that duty? Isn't that what a lot of coverage of government is about? Educating the public with a poor dataset is a problem. Heck, don't despots control countries by controlling the media?

Produce some contemporaneous quotes of players saying as I said, or I'll believe that "most feared" is a media construct. I'm surprised that "most feared hitter" as a media construct is such a controversial position. My experience with professional athletes is that they aren't afraid of anyone. Pitchers that I know personally believe they can get anyone out, and have no fear of anyone, much less someone they never walk.

I don't know about "most feared," but I think there are plenty of instances of players and managers saying stuff like "Nolan Ryan is the hardest pitcher to hit in MLB," "Robbie Alomar is the best 2b in baseball," or "Joe Carter knows how to drive in runs." I think those kinds of quotes have a big impact on the public's opinion of a player, but they can't necessarily be described as the media editorializing or creating a narrative.

Well, seven no-hitters might have had something to do with that particular case. Once again, identifying the exceptional case as a "gotcha!" hardly invalidates the larger point.

But you haven't come close to proving the larger point.

This isn't true. Nolan Ryan (324-292) is seen as a much better pitcher than Don Sutton (324-256). Bert Blyleven (287-250), for all the cavilling around here, gets a lot more HoF support than Tommy John (288-231).

he said "about". They also like strikeouts and no-hitters.

I think there are plenty of instances of players and managers saying stuff like "Nolan Ryan is the hardest pitcher to hit in MLB," "Robbie Alomar is the best 2b in baseball," or "Joe Carter knows how to drive in runs." I think those kinds of quotes have a big impact on the public's opinion of a player, but they can't necessarily be described as the media editorializing or creating a narrative.

I agree. But *fear* was specific. Not just in my reference, but it was key to his election. Nolan Ryan, FWIW was the hardest pitcher in baseball to hit.

And yes, those quotes are right. But is it so hard to include that RBIs are a function of lineup slot?

Dag Nabbit (Chris Jaffee, right?), are you trying to give Rich Lederer a heart attack?

If I may, I'd like to point to comment 19 from the District Attorney, which says that the "role of the HOF is to honor the guys who actually were the best".

With all due respect, I don't see anything on the HoF's BBWAA rules for electing players that says this.

Mind you, the District Attorney's standard is a pretty good one, but I don't see it reflected in those rules (perhaps there's a HoF mission statement or some such somewhere that I'm not privy to, so I apologize, but all I can find is a FAQ which doesn't address this.).

The rules I do see are these:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.


That being the case, I can see some value in inducting players whose career included specifically great performances, provided that they at least straddle the borderline of what constitutes a HoFer (i.e., IMO, that gives a player a push over the line, though it should not push a Brian Doyle into HoF contention just because of good playoff performances).

I realize that works against the Blylevens of the world (and helps the Morris' of the world - though objectively, Morris' career was not good enough to be a borderline HoFer, so he doesn't get extra credit from me), but that's the way I look at the HoF.

There are several problems with this comment. First, I can kinda, sorta buy that there's a single, identifiable "media" view of a player (even though the media is never in 100% agreement about any topic), but in most cases there's no such thing as a player's "image among fans." Fans often disagree sharply about a player's value, likeability, ethics, etc. -- even fans of the same team. Players like Bonds and Rose are good examples of this phenomenon; no one can seriously argue that the "fans" have a generic opinion about those players. There are some exceptions to that rule like Ripken or Gwynn, but even those players have plenty of critics and detractors.

In a country of 300,000,000 people, you can find someone to express just about any opinion conceivable. (And, indeed, there are some people who enjoy being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, so even if there's one overwhelming view, there will be someone out there arguing the opposite). But I don't think you can find people who say, e.g., "Ripken never really seemed like a HOFer to me." (Of course, that doesn't prove much since it's a no-brainer issue.) Or "Gwynn, what a choker."

Second, even if we accept that the fans do have a collective opinion of many players, I think there are examples of players whose image among the fans differs from their portrayel by reporters: Eddie Murray,

Really? I think this helps prove my point. Eddie was a beloved clutch god in Baltimore, until he got hurt in 1986, and EBW and then the media turned on him, at which point fans did too, and there was actual booing of him. Eventually, the media and Eddie kind of declared a truce, but from that point on, the sentiment was pretty much that he needed to be shown the door.

Bonds (a difficult case, but, as noted, public opinion on him was far more diverse than the media's), Mark Grace (I never got the sense that Cubs fans loved him nearly as much as the reporters), et al. Third, your presenting a false choice: Either the fans' view is consistent with the reporters, in which case they're sheep, or it's not. But as dlf noted in post 5, it's entirely possible that "most writers are better at receiving the wisdom of the crowd than they are at shaping that wisdom." So the fact that the fans' view might be consistent with the reporters doesn't mean that they're parroting the reporters. The reverse might be true. (As I said earlier, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.)

I didn't ignore that possibility at all; I recognize that the causal arrow could be the other way (although I doubt it actually works that way because, well, until the rise of the internet, how would the fans even influence the media?) But unless you're arguing that the media never form an opinion without fan input, then there should be cases where they differ.


As for Grace, he presents in my mind a good test case: he was an NL player, which means I rarely paid any special attention to him. I may have seen an occasional game here or there, but the only play of his that stands out in my mind at all is the '89 NLCS. Now, unlike casual fans I do check the stats carefully, so I know what I think of his career as a player. But as a person, my view is pretty much whatever the media told me he was -- a good clubhouse guy, a respected team leader, yada yada yada. I'm not saying I blindly believe them; I don't. But I don't have any basis for a contrary view.

Once again, identifying the exceptional case as a "gotcha!" hardly invalidates the larger point.

The fact that the larger point is wrong is what invalidates the larger point. Blyleven, John and Kaat all have similar W-L marks, but only one of them gets any support in the Hall of Fame voting. Jack Morris has a nearly identical W-L mark to Bob Gibson; one is a Hall of Famer, and one isn't.

But you haven't come close to proving the larger point.

And you're insisting on some manner of algebraic proof that obviously can't be supplied. Every one of us is talking out of his a$$ here, dealing with macro-level, decades-spanning social-cultural phenomena. And in such broad-brush circumstances, precisely quantifying the level of preponderance is hardly the point; the existence of the preponderance itself is.

JRVJ: I don't think Chris is arguing against Blyleven belonging in the Hall.

I realize that works against the Blylevens of the world

Just so it doesn't get further misconstrued: I am not advocating Blyleven for teh HOF (one way or the other). I am just saying the BBWAA has to move forward and off BA/HR/RBI and reputation. Until they do, the majority of fans won't.