|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
If I wasn’t so worried about being clutch-slapped by a confuded Kurt Sutter…I’d say Bruce.
6. Remove the generally overrated.
Don Drysdale had some good seasons, no doubt. But in an era when 20-win seasons were the standard, he won 20 games only twice. He had fewer wins, more losses and a worse ERA-plus than Kevin Brown. He had about the same ERA-plus as Bert Blyleven and almost 80 fewer wins. Hal Newhouser was 29-9 in 1944 and 25-9 in 1945, both war years when the majors were so desperate for players that one of his opponents had one arm (Pete Gray). Newhouser pitched 17 seasons and had a winning record in only seven. As colleague and friend Jayson Stark points out in “The Stark Truth,” Hack Wilson had five great seasons and seven not-so-great seasons in which he barely combined to hit as many home runs as he did in his famous 56-homer, 191 RBI year. Catcher Ray Schalk’s career average was .253—the lowest of any Hall of Famer—and his best season was .281 with 60 RBIs and 57 runs, so he must have received huge bonus points for being one of the 1919 White Sox who did not take a bribe to throw the World Series. Catcher Rick Ferrell was a seven-time All-Star but hit .281 for his career, led the league in passed balls five times and was out-homered by his brother, Wes, who was a pitcher. Give them all the boot.
And finally, remove any overrated Yankees. That means you, Phil Rizzuto.
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, May 2012 (1832 - 1:32am, May 26)Last: baudibNewsblog: Boston.com: Curt Schilling’s 38 Studios lays off all staff (119 - 1:28am, May 26)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: HP: Baseball is leaving the human factor behind (56 - 1:15am, May 26)Last: The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow)Newsblog: T.R. Sullivan: Of Frank Robinson, Milt Pappas and Jim Palmer (8 - 12:40am, May 26)Last: The Gurus DO NOT BourbonSamuraiNewsblog: Wilmoth: Nate McLouth Designated For Assignment (12 - 12:25am, May 26)Last: TriponHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1973 Discussion (15 - 12:13am, May 26)Last: DanGNewsblog: Bud Selig -- No need for more MLB replay for now - ESPN (86 - 11:59pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: The Hall of Very Good: Former Cards Slugger Critical of "LaRussa's Regime" (4 - 11:26pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: CSN to host ‘Phillies at the Beach’ on Memorial Day (18 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: Fielder's the first baseman, Felder is the fielderHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1972 Ballot (28 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: lieiamSox Therapy: A Winning Ballclub? (20 - 11:24pm, May 25)Last: DanNewsblog: Matschulat: Did I Miss The "Paul Konerko Is So Overrated OMG" Bandwagon? (27 - 11:16pm, May 25)Last: baudibNewsblog: TBO: Nerdy Rays head north (17 - 10:07pm, May 25)Last: PreservedFishNewsblog: Himrich’s Top Ten Target Field Foods (6 - 9:57pm, May 25)Last: Long John McCaine Mutiny on the Bounty (scott)Newsblog: Dodgers want to host NHL's Winter Classic (22 - 9:38pm, May 25)Last: Cris E
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
haven't read the article yet, but it's not really Yankee as much as it is Veteran comittee back door dealings that leads to a lot of overrated guys, and yes many of them are Cardinals or Giants, more than Yankees.
Nobody. It's a one-way door, and it should be -- otherwise the Hall of Fame voting doesn't mean very much.
I'll forward your thoughts to the HoF Marketing Department. Maybe Cora Rizzuto can be talked into coming up there for a plaque removal ceremony.
agree with pretty much all points, I still don't really understand why Dizzy is in the hof(mind you I actually do, but around St Louis people seem to honestly believe that it is because he was such a great pitcher and had nothing to do with his story telling ability and radio career and personality) Surprised he didn't mention a part about getting rid of players that have reached magical numbers but not really hof career(of course the only real name on that list is Lou Brock I would imagine, although Damon may join that list soon enough)
I'll spell it out for you: T-h-e...H-a-l-l...o-f...F-a-m-e... is... N-O-T... T-h-e...H-a-l-l...o-f...M-e-r-i-t, in spite of what an overdose of BTF might lead one to believe. Sheesh.
Some people would also say Jake Beckley.
I don't, though. I think he belongs. For helping to perpetuate the hidden ball trick, if nothing else.
Speaking of Busch, has anybody read Final Call by Daniel Okrent? I'm reading it right now, and it's really interesting -- lots of good stuff about the Busch family.
Yes. Terrific book.
It's purpose is to confer fame onto players, not to reward famed players, No matter what happens in the future, Bo Jackson will not make the hall of fame.(well I guess technically it's a museum first and foremost, that has been able to do something other museums wish, in that they have created an annual ceremony that raises it's visibility and attendence)
I like the fact that it's voted on instead of automatic induction for milestone numbers(like Golf does) I love the fact that there are debates about players and that there are different viewpoints, but to think the hof is about fame is naive at best.
And the idea of leaving executives and other non-uniformed people out is beyond being both petty and stupid. The game as we know it today wouldn't have begun to exist without the supporting cast, and to refuse to honor the best among them is simply to deny the game's history. It's funny that while everyone realizes that they couldn't walk onto a field and hit a loud foul off David Price, the world seems full of people who think that they could have done what Walter O'Malley or Marvin Miller did.
That's not really the history of the "Hall of Fame" concept.
The original "Hall of Fame" was the "Hall of Fame for Great Americans", founded by NYU at its Bronx Campus (now Bronx CC). The Baseball HoF was based on this model.
http://www.bcc.cuny.edu/hallofFame/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_of_Fame_for_Great_Americans
It was decidedly for people who were already famous, i.e. recognizing fame, not conferring it.
Dizzy Dean's case comes down to peak value, being the star player for a great team, and contributions to the game off the playing field. He's nowhere close to one of the worst HOF selections. If there was a purge, he'd be pretty safe for a while.
I've got Drysdale with more WAR than Kevin Brown. And that doesn't even include his hitting.
Except for one thing: there's no replacement level for owners, at least in terms of ability. You and I are so far below replacement level for players that we'd never bother stepping to the plate against David Price. But what does it take (other than money and connections) to be Frank McCourt? Andrew Freedman? The guys who ran Pittsburgh a few years ago?
I don't think I could match the off-field achievments of the greats. But at the mediocre end, while I might not be able to put the bat on the ball against Scott Kazmir, I know for a fact I would not screw up a team as bad as a Ruben Amaro, Ed Wade, or Bill Bavasi.
I've never seen this work in person.
When's the last time it was pulled off in MLB? And how does it get scored?
and I more or less agree with the premise, but I think there has to be acknowledgement that there has been players who have been enshrined because of their fame/personality, and I think that Dean is the most glaringly obvious example of that, yes a very good pitcher for several years, not much difference between him and Gooden in some arguments. Neither had the career they should have had, but that is part of the game.
about the executive part, I just love his rant, and wouldn't actually advocate for keeping them out, but I do think it's ridiculous that O'Malley is in, and Miller isn't in. I mean I'm fine with putting executives who shaped the game for the good of it, even if it was something bad at the time (moving the Giants/Dodgers) I just don't see rewarding executives who's goal was to ultimately hurt the game to make more money for themselves. Or who treated the fans as wallets instead of fans. Heck I think for every owner in there, there should be consideration for a non-owner, pro-player type of guy to be included. Add Boras, Marvin Miller etc. The fact is that there are owners who are in basically because they owned the team for a long time, not because of anything they really did to make the game better.
There may be more recent efforts, but I know Lugo got Callaspo at second in 2007. I presume that play would simply be scored 6-U.
Far more impressive than Lowell's two successful conversions was the fact Ozzie Guillen was put out twice on hidden ball tricks.
And in most cases, the pitcher never has possession of the ball before the out is recorded, so I'm pretty sure it would simply involve an unassisted out recorded by the infielder applying the tag.
No, but when you hear the same argument that assumes some sort of equivalency between the HoF and the HoM, it does get a little stale.
Dizzy Dean's case comes down to peak value, being the star player for a great team, and contributions to the game off the playing field. He's nowhere close to one of the worst HOF selections. If there was a purge, he'd be pretty safe for a while.
He's not in the Hall of Merit, or even particularly close. I'd rather go back in time and watch Dizzy Dean than Babe Ruth, but I think his inclusion in the one Hall and not the other is a perfect illustration of my general point about the difference between them.
---------------------------
It's funny that while everyone realizes that they couldn't walk onto a field and hit a loud foul off David Price, the world seems full of people who think that they could have done what Walter O'Malley or Marvin Miller did.
Except for one thing: there's no replacement level for owners, at least in terms of ability. You and I are so far below replacement level for players that we'd never bother stepping to the plate against David Price. But what does it take (other than money and connections) to be Frank McCourt? Andrew Freedman? The guys who ran Pittsburgh a few years ago?
That's a decent argument, but then again who's suggesting that Frank McCourt belongs in the Hall of Fame? The bar of admission for executives is actually quite high, and for the general "contributors to the game" category it can get to the point of absurdity, as witness the case of Marvin Miller.
And no, I doubt if anyone here would have had the vision, the energy and the willpower to do what a Veeck or an O'Malley or a Steinbrenner actually did. It's just that it's easier to imagine yourself orchestrating a two team move to the virginal territory of California than it is to imagine either yourself or Michael Jordan hitting a Major League slider.
But that's exactly what I've been saying since Day One. Dean was a great pitcher who at his best was easily up to top level HoF standards, but if he'd had Carl Hubbell's personality to go along with his career log, he would have been a Denny McLain style footnote to history**, and wouldn't have gotten within a mile of Cooperstown.
**a better version, to be sure, but still known mostly for that one 30 win season
In our tabloid age, fame carries no connotation of merit, but was that true when the HoF was established?
NOTE: Found this list up to 1999 in the Internet wayback machine
http://web.archive.org/web/19980401-20040901re_/http://www.retrosheet.org/hidden.htm
even in that link, I don't see it saying it's honoring famous people, I see it saying honor prominent Americans who have had a significant impact on this nation's history. If baseball is following this model, you replace americans with ballplayers, nothing about fame except the word prominent, and in a baseball universe pretty much everyone who plays full time for several years is prominent.(not to mention it's one a year enshrinement which allows it to pretty much focus on the extremely best of the best, if baseball followed that model completly there would be only about 74 people in it)
Bud clearly belongs in by the standards they have set up, in fact I'm not too sure if there is any more deserving of a commissioner, yes he's an owners lackey more or less, and he gets in trouble for common sense stuff like the all star game ending in a tie, it's the managers who should have gotten in trouble for that, not him. The fact that he is willing to consider instant replay is a sign that he's got a clue, the awesomeness of the WBC is hopefully something that will be seen as a moment in history in 50 years(mind you the execution needs work, but everything has bugs to be worked out) and the foresight to implement interleague play(although the stupidity of not splitting the leagues up to 5 3 team division and having interleague all year long, and instead foisting on us the stupid unbalanced schedule might hurt his true value) The guy is a salesman, and he's done what a salesman does, make the company(MLB) money. Strengthen it's position as one of the top two sports, gone the longest string of years without a labor stoppage since the 70's, all while doing good for the players too. Yes he was slow to react to the PED issue, which is probably his biggest sin as a commissioner(the Expos fiasco is probably number two/one)
did he really make a list or just mention a couple of people to show the concept, and he mentioned players that the majority of the readers would know about.
True. One of the links actually says that "Fame" back them was closer to "Renown" today; i.e. known for significant accomplishments.
even in that link, I don't see it saying it's honoring famous people, I see it saying honor prominent Americans who have had a significant impact on this nation's history. If baseball is following this model, you replace americans with ballplayers, nothing about fame except the word prominent, and in a baseball universe pretty much everyone who plays full time for several years is prominent.(not to mention it's one a year enshrinement which allows it to pretty much focus on the extremely best of the best, if baseball followed that model completly there would be only about 74 people in it)
This is the first 29
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Daniel Webster
Benjamin Franklin
Ulysses S. Grant
John Marshall
Thomas Jefferson
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Robert Fulton
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Washington Irving
Jonathan Edwards
Samuel F. B. Morse
David G. Farragut
Henry Clay
George Peabody
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Peter Cooper
Eli Whitney
Robert E. Lee
Horace Mann
John James Audubon
James Kent
Henry Ward Beecher
Joseph Story
John Adams
William Ellery Channing
Gilbert Stuart
Asa Gray
The point is just that they are all really famous (or were in 1900). None of them had "fame conferred on them" by the Hall.
HoF's are more about recognizing renown/fame, rather than weighing whether than renown/fame was deserved.
I can agree with this. Whether you like his decisions or not, there is no question Bud has made a huge impact on the sport.
To be fair, he was using Rizzuto as just an example of an overrated Yankee, which was kind of a special category (and keeping with Caple's consistently and admittedly anti-Yankee POV). He wasn't really saying Rizzuto was among the most overrated among all HoFers.
Mickey Welch for sure. It also got Sutton & Niekro and maybe even Perry in - but those guys all deserved it. (Sutton wasn't great in his prime, obviously, but his overall career value is well high of any bar, even if W/L stats were never tracked).
**a better version, to be sure, but still known mostly for that one 30 win season
Jim Bagby or Jack Coombs might be a better name to use here, as McLain has plenty of other issues that make him more than a footnote (and further than Cooperstown).
Who among this list is the least known today? Gilbert Stuart? (Though everyone would recognize the Washington portrait.) Asa Gray, among people who've never taken a class on Darwin or the evolution controversy? Peter Cooper?
Who from the list would you like to strike? Morse is probably the worst person on the list. It's fair enough to say that we shouldn't judge people on our current standards, but at the time people thought it was crazy that a New Englander was such an adamant and hot-headed defender of slavery, a much more unambiguous partisan of slavery than people like Clay or Lee or Washington or Jefferson on the list. And he was an even more ill-tempered anti-Catholic, though there he had more company in the North. But he's obviously a big figure.
Maybe Channing?
And he's got a better case than at least three of the four commissioners in there. Bowie Kuhn might be the worst HoF selection ever.
I've posted this before, but a good way for a marginal candidate to get into the HOF, particularly via the Veterans Committee, is to be a broadcaster: Ashburn, Boudreau, Dean, Drysdale, Hoyt, Kell, Kiner, Rizzuto. Staying around baseball, in other words, which also helps explain Rick Ferrell, a long-time coach.
It's always hard to understand the past if you don't make an attempt to put yourself there, and instead insist on judging it by the present.
Dean was not vetted on the terms we here do now. He was seen more or less as Koufax later was. Great pitcher ( he won 20+ games four of his first five full seasons, and in the fifth one he won 18) who was disabled at a young peak. When he was elected, and for some time afterwards, he had the pitching equivalent to Ruth's 60-homer season; he was then the last pitcher to win 30 games and it didn't look like anyone was going to do it again. He was especially seen as ruinnng his arm by selflessly coming back too soon to help his team. He was the most famous National Leaguer (the "biggest draw") of his time, and Dean was just a wonderful ambassador for baseball during his prime retirement years. Even under standards now, he has a 131 ERA+, and that's counting those depreciating three or four seasons spent hanging on in heartfelt, but stalwart, denial that his arm would somehow magically come back. What, in light of the standards then in use, was there not to like or admire?
He does seem to lead them, though. He gets them on the same page and has managed, for the first time in baseball's modern labor relations, has them rolling the union back a bit.
One background thing he's done that's interesting: he elmiinated the league offices and turned two separate leagues reporting to one commissioner into essentially one giant league playing in two conferences (though they're still officially called leagues, not conferences).
This seems trivial, but it has profound repurctions [sic]. Is saw a SABR presentation on the '77 expansion and what was striking was how completely disconnected the two leagues were. I'm hazy on the details, but there were several points in that process where the AL had serious problems (including some legal issues at one point, I think) and could've used some help, but the NL did absolutely nothing. It was like trying to work through a difficulty while being handcuffed to a corpse - half MLB wasn't trying to help the other half's problems. There is something to be said about putting all 30 teams on the same page. Selig was actually a fairly young owner then, stuck trying to plow through the AL's difficulties. He's have reason to think the leagues should be combined more as a result.
And yet Santo remains on the outside.
Stuart would be well known by anyone familiar with American Art, and Peter Cooper is known to all New Yorkers because of the huge post-war housing development that bears his name and the Cooper Union.
Kent, Story, Channing and Stuart are the four I can tell you literally nothing about, or couldn't before you mentioned the Washington portrait.
Edit: checking the Wiki links, Channing seems the least accomplished (foremost Unitarian minister is a slim reed) and Kent is close. Story and Stuart are renown once you figure out what they did.
The only person who suggests this on a regular basis in HOF threads is you. Frankly, I think HOM is far too inclusive, and I would find it unacceptable for the HOF to follow their standards.
Dean was, as Morty mentions above, the Koufax of his generation, if more extreme. He had a three year run where he was in the discussion as one of the best players in the sport, and then his arm blew up and he squeezed out the minimum 10 seasons.
He was a legendary pitcher in terms of greatness (from the perspective of his time) and that's at least an argument for the HOF. This was a time period when 100 strikeouts put you in the top 10, and Dean was striking out nearly 200 per season.
You might not want Dean in the HOF because of how short his career was, but most players with one MVP and two other 2nd place finishes are at least worthy of some consideration.
No, but when you hear the same argument that assumes some sort of equivalency between the HoF and the HoM, it does get a little stale.
I agree. You should stop posting it in every HOF thread, and then we won't have to hear it any more.
To me this is critical. If you're "legendary" you belong in the HoF, regardless of how few WAR you have.
If Steven Strasburg runs off 4 straight seasons of 300 IP, 350 K, a 2.50 ERA, and 25+ wins in this era, and then hurts his arm and plays out the string as an average middle reliever to get the 10 years of service, I'd have no problem putting him in the Hall.
I much prefer my borderline HoFers to be short career, high peak.
Yes, and ironically, is not marginal but overqualified. Sigh.
**a better version, to be sure, but still known mostly for that one 30 win season
Jim Bagby or Jack Coombs might be a better name to use here, as McLain has plenty of other issues that make him more than a footnote (and further than Cooperstown).
I could accept that, and of course you're right about those other issues---too bad McLain couldn't have hooked up with E. Power Biggs in his last years, instead of enrolling in one of Cy Kendall's Crime Schools. I used McLain because he pitched in the lively ball era, but I agree that Bagby would have been a better Dean comparison.
-----------------------------
It's always hard to understand the past if you don't make an attempt to put yourself there, and instead insist on judging it by the present.
Dean was not vetted on the terms we here do now. He was seen more or less as Koufax later was. Great pitcher ( he won 20+ games four of his first five full seasons, and in the fifth one he won 18) who was disabled at a young peak. When he was elected, and for some time afterwards, he had the pitching equivalent to Ruth's 60-homer season; he was then the last pitcher to win 30 games and it didn't look like anyone was going to do it again. He was especially seen as ruining his arm by selflessly coming back too soon to help his team. He was the most famous National Leaguer (the "biggest draw") of his time, and Dean was just a wonderful ambassador for baseball during his prime retirement years. Even under standards now, he has a 131 ERA+, and that's counting those depreciating three or four seasons spent hanging on in heartfelt, but stalwart, denial that his arm would somehow magically come back. What, in light of the standards then in use, was there not to like or admire?
Morty, that may be the best one paragraph Dean explanation I've yet to read. I wish I'd written it myself. Every word of it is the stone truth.
Oh, I'm sure they were known at the time, I'm just saying as a fairly serious history buff, if I haven't even heard of you, you're not renowned any more.
Thanks. You do know how to turn a girl's head. :>
The only person who suggests this on a regular basis in HOF threads is you.
????? Suggests that the HoF should adopt HoM standards? Quite the opposite, at least for borderline statistical cases like Dean. I've always said unequivocally that Dean should be in the HoF, though for the HoM he's far more marginal.
Or suggests that Dean is the perfect example of the different standards? I don't think I'm alone in maintaining that. And the HoF roll call confirms it.
No, but when you hear the same argument that assumes some sort of equivalency between the HoF and the HoM, it does get a little stale.
I agree. You should stop posting it in every HOF thread, and then we won't have to hear it any more.
Pretty much every HoF thread here has taken it as a premise that the HoF's selections should mirror the HoM. In fact the whole bloody point of the HoM is that the HoF has come up with some horrible mistakes in both directions. If I didn't read that argument here all the time, I wouldn't bother responding to it.
From where do you get this? Here's the Hall of Fame's mission statement:
To say that the "purpose" is to bestow fame rather than recognize it is wishful thinking to fit your own values. The HoF wants to educate and also attract visitors. A good way to do that is to feature famous people who fans would know -- if not in the Hall itself, then at least in the museum.
As for Dean, his career was definitely short, but there was a helluva lot of quality in that peak. To say that he is only in because of his personality gives him short shrift. I'm not saying he's an inner-circle guy by any means or even a truly worthy guy (because of his short career), but you could trim a fair amount of HoF fat before getting to him.
Or what Morty said.
Give him a couple of Falstaffs and a slow game in the late innings.
That's perfectly fair, and I tend to agree with you. I would, however, strongly consider a guy like Tommy John or possibly Jamie Moyer (we'll see), because I think there is something exceptional about being able to start 700 games in a career. Remarkable durability is worth notice, at least.
The Hall of Merit is a marginal institution that practically nobody outside of this community has heard of, and one which a substantial percentage of posters in the community don't care about. I don't say that to disparage any of the voters or participants, because I respect the baseball knowledge and the effort, but to acknowledge its incredibly minor influence.
When someone says "X is not a good HOFer," they are most certainly not saying "X is not a good HOFer because the HoM wouldn't select him." The HoM doesn't even factor into the discussion.
Again, I do not want the HOF to resemble the HoM. I want the HOF to resemble the BBWAA selections, which are generally quite good, with a few corrections of inclusion and exclusion that I would call errors. I favor the 10-season rule, the HoM rejects it. The HoM forces voters to select 15 players on the ballot each year, and I disagree strongly with that requirement for the HOF voting process. (The previous sentence has been edited for clarity.) The HoM includes players who have committed unforgivable sins against the sport of baseball, such as Joe Jackson and Pete Rose, and the very concept of these players in the HOF is horrifying to me.
A claim that a player does not merit inclusion in the HOF on the basis of his statistical performance is not an endorsement for the HoM and its methodology, and no amount of repetition on your part will change that.
Todd Zeile would be a terrible HOF selection, and frankly, the case is so far from reasonable that we can make that determination entirely from the statistical record. That doesn't mean we always can or should do so, but it's perfectly reasonable without converting the HOF into the HoM, or worse, the Hall of Statistical Merit as Computed by Emotionless Machines.
John's real close to the border for me; wouldn't bother me to see him in.
Moyer's 104 ERA+ just ain't doing it for me, unless he pitches to age 50 and wins 300.
Remarkable durability as a good player does it for me. If you're simply average, I don't really care how long you're average for.
I do share your sense that the HOM is too big, Crosby. It's a terrific check on the work of the HOF voters, but by mirroring the size of the HOF, it "enshrines" players beyond my personal Hall size. It is useful to know that Willie Randolph was a much, much better player than Rick Ferrell, but I don't really want to look at a plaque of either of them.
The Hall of Merit is a marginal institution that practically nobody outside of this community has heard of, and one which a substantial percentage of posters in the community don't care about....
When someone says "X is not a good HOFer," they are most certainly not saying "X is not a good HOFer because the HoM wouldn't select him." The HoM doesn't even factor into the discussion.
I'm not sure why that's relevant, since my comment was clearly directed at those who (a) participate in HoF threads, and (b) use sabermetric arguments as their sole basis for their HoF preferences, which is precisely the sort of analysis that underlies the vision of the HoM. Whether or not they actually cite the HoM in their arguments is neither here nor there, if they employ mainstream sabermetric analysis and ridicule or discount any intangibles that can't be reduced to a statistic.
Again, I do not want the HOF to resemble the HoM. I want the HOF to resemble the BBWAA selections, which are generally quite good, with a few corrections of inclusion and exclusion that I would call errors. I favor the 10-season rule, the HoM rejects it. The HoM forces voters to select 15 players on the ballot each year, and I disagree strongly with that requirement for the HOF voting process. (The previous sentence has been edited for clarity.) The HoM includes players who have committed unforgivable sins against the sport of baseball, such as Joe Jackson and Pete Rose, and the very concept of these players in the HOF is horrifying to me.
I completely agree with all of that, and especially with that last sentence. That's one of the reasons I value the HoM as much as I do, so that people can have a way to rank and certify statistical achievement without having to pass judgment on the baggage.
A claim that a player does not merit inclusion in the HOF on the basis of his statistical performance is not an endorsement for the HoM and its methodology, and no amount of repetition on your part will change that.
You're losing me here. That sentence is subject to multiple interpretations, and I don't want to respond to the wrong one and have to start from scratch.
Todd Zeile would be a terrible HOF selection, and frankly, the case is so far from reasonable that we can make that determination entirely from the statistical record.
Why on Earth would you think I would disagree with that? The HoF / HoM split only affects the borderline cases, not the slum dunks like Ichiro** or Zeile.
That doesn't mean we always can or should do so, but it's perfectly reasonable without converting the HOF into the HoM, or worse, the Hall of Statistical Merit as Computed by Emotionless Machines.
I keep getting the feeling that you're confusing me with someone else. I've been consistently arguing against any such conversion ever since I first came onto the old
ClutchRandom Chance Hits™.**Hi, Ray!
Granted, his is a subtle, borderline case, but he's by no means a terrible selection. Bill James and many others have come around on him the closer they've looked.
He pretty close to making the Hall of Merit at this point, and he's ahead of roughly 50 other Hall of Famers in the last couple of elections.
Putting your other points aside, it doesn't seem to me that Hall of Fame voting has accounted for war absences. Cecil Travis says hi.
The Vets Committee gave us Arky Vaughan, Goose Goslin Johnny Mize and Enos Slaughter.
The BBWAA botches guys like Grich so bad they fall off the ballot.
Given the fact that they get first crack and all of the gimmy's, they've done a far worse job than the Vets Committee, outside of the Frisch years. The BBWAA has done better line is beyond myth.
That's a far bigger leap of faith, there's just not enough there for him. A great majority of HoM voters give military service credit of some kind and we haven't gotten behind him either.
His case doesn't prove at all that military service isn't credited by the Hall of Fame.
How about Rizzuto, Reese, Slaughter, Gordon just to name a couple - are any of them in the Hall of Fame without some extra war credit given? I doubt it. And that's why it took them to the vets committee, it's a more subtle case, one the BBWAA has proven time and again that it's incapable of making.
I know it's already been mentioned that somehow Santo is still not in the HOF. I'd like to point out the double-painfulness of this: he is still not in the Hall, and Cub fans still have to listen to his "broadcasting".
I understand personal Hall-size preferences. But the HOM essentially had to mirror the size of the HOF in order to fulfill its fundamental purpose of not merely being an inner-circle HOF, but of replicating the HOF's scope while improving its discretion.
Well, that's silly. Why would fame need to be recognized? If you are famous, you are already known. That's the definition.
I'm a bit confused what you mean by saying he lost "half his career." Travis had eight solid seasons before he left for the war, missed '42-'44 and part of '45, then was subpar in '45-47. If there was no war and he remained at his level of production during '42-'44, he would have had a pretty good case notwithstanding what he did later. (Of course, he likely would've been better in '45-'47 as well -- perhaps that's what you meant?)
Put another way, what the war did was deprive him of (needed) icing on what was shaping up to be an otherwise satisfying cake. It was Travis who Bill James once pointed to as the player whose chances were most hurt by the war.
Of course, this is all my opinion (and James's). (Can you tell that I've got him on my Lounge DMB League team. Let's swap stories at SABR!)
This misses my real point, though -- that if you're assessing Rizzuto in the actual Hall of Fame, you shouldn't be considering the absence due to military service anyway. The other guys you mention -- Reese, Slaughter, Gordon -- are all guys whose case was made notwithstanding the war years, and Rizzuto too.
Well, that's silly. Why would fame need to be recognized? If you are famous, you are already known. That's the definition.
Exactly. Moreover, here's what the Baseball HOF mission statement says:
"Honoring ... exceptional careers" is hardly the same thing as "recognizing renown/fame." If it were, Don Larsen, Bobby Thomson, Eddie Gaedel, Billy Sunday, Chuck Connors, etc. etc. would all be enshrined in Cooperstown.
The HOF absolutely tasks itself with weighing whether a ballplayer's renown/fame was deserved by the merits of his baseball career.
Yes, Steinbrenner "is", at least to a large degree, because he spent prodigious amounts of money to get players, and yes, he spent that money to get those players in the way that owners spend money to get players in the post-Flood era.
But Yankee teams of the past also spent prodigious amounts of money to get players, and were also highly successful. They just did it in a different manner, paying that money to people other than the players.
I don't see why Steinbrenner couldn't have been just as successful without free agency. There have always been MLB owners who were willing to act as, in effect, farm teams, if you would pay them to do so.
Travis played 15 games in 1945. That's a big 'part' of 1945.
He had a breakout (fluke?) season at age 27 and then lost 4 years. He came back and he was basically a replacement level player and was finished.
From the baseball-reference.com bullpen:
So the idea is that the war ruined the rest of his career and he should get credit for that.
I have zero issue with that. The only question is how much credit.
Was 1941 a breakout season? Or a fluke. Answering that goes a big way towards whether or not you think he's a Hall of Famer.
I tend to think not purely on the merits. But I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if he were elected. I think it would be a great symbolic gesture to elect him.
This is just flat wrong.
You think Joe Gordon is getting in with 1530 hits? Slaughter with 2300 hits and 169 HR? Reese maybe.
And if you are comparing across eras, you absolutely must account for military service, if not, you are systematically biased against an entire generation for things entirely behind their control. Which is lazy, poor analysis, not to mention unfair.
Cecil Travis, I dunno. I think, as a ballplayer, he was Michael Young. Young is one of those guys in the Renteria/Damon category: if he stays around absolutely forever at his basic level, he's close to some HOF counting totals. But how good was he? A fine hitter at his very peak, overmatched at shortstop, just about holding his own at 3B but less VORPy there. I don't think Travis was going in with a full career, frankly. But he was a very, very good ballplayer, of course.
The point, as some here have made, is that "war credit" for Travis extrapolates him level, or even upwards, from his amazing peak in 1941. But what if that was his Darin Erstad year? Then he's hardly in the conversation. We just don't know for sure. With Greenberg and Mize and even Rizzuto, we do know.
Yawkey
Yawkey
Yawkey
Yawkey
Yawkey
Funny thing to note: On his HoF plaque, Wade Boggs has nearly four times as many words under his name and list of teams as Ty Cobb.
And no line of any plaque can equal the final line on Christy Mathewson's: "MATTY WAS MASTER OF THEM ALL"
I know this is a dead horse, but if we're going to get semantic, surely "exceptional" is closer to "unusual" than it is to "good". Dizzy Dean and Nolan Ryan certainly had exceptional careers -- landmarks, stunning peak seasons, and/or unusual shapes. In comparison, Bert Blyleven had a very unexceptional career -- his career isn't really remarkable in any way, except that he was a very good pitcher. What's the most exceptional thing about Blyleven's career? The HR single-season record? I might even say that Catfish Hunter's career was more "exceptional" than Bert's.
(Yes, quite a bit of devil's advocate, but the HoF is a museum designed to capture the spirit of baseball through its eras and stars, and given that, characters and remarkable stories definitely do fit into its mission -- yes, I do know that they appear elsewhere in the museum either way.)
I'm not sure that I agree. If it's okay to correct errors of inclusion and exclusion, it's also perfectly okay to correct errors of size as well. "The HOF is too big" could have been one of the things they set out to fix.
I'm a small-hall guy, but my in-out line is about Andre Dawson for hitters (I'd leave him just out) and about Kevin Brown for pitchers (short career, nice peak; I'd put him in). I wouldn't call that inner-circle, but it's much smaller than the HoM.
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
How about Rizzuto, Reese, Slaughter, Gordon just to name a couple - are any of them in the Hall of Fame without some extra war credit given? I doubt it. And that's why it took them to the vets committee, it's a more subtle case, one the BBWAA has proven time and again that it's incapable of making.
I don't know that it's incapable so much as unwilling. How much war credit? I agree that they deserve something, but it's completely unfair to simply add in 4 prime seasons. Players sometimes get hurt, or have bad seasons, even in their prime.
Rizzuto: Rizzuto has a career OPS+ of 93. He would have to be Ozzie Smith defensively to even merit consideration, and Ozzie also was an incredible base runner with over 4000 more PA. Even with war credit, Rizzuto is a terrible HOF selection. Add 3 more copies of any season other than his best, and he's still not even close.
Reese: Reese is a much better candidate than Rizzuto. Even though he missed the same 3 years due to the war, he managed to put up around 2700 more PA. Rizzuto was a better defender, but Reese was very good, and he was a better offensive player and a better baserunner.
Slaughter: Without war credit, Slaughter is a worse offensive player than Jim Rice. Given credit, he's better, but like Rice, he is purely an offensive player, and frankly, I think he's also a lousy HOFer.
Gordon: Gordon is a great player. He was probably overlooked because a good deal of his offensive value is invested in walks, and he had a very short career. Better defensively than Rizzuto, and a much better offensive player. As a pure peak candidate, he probably got screwed more than anyone else by the war.
The only one of the four that belongs in the HOF is Gordon. Rizzuto is the worst of the 4, by far.
Only if you believe Ozzie's a borderline HOFer. Ozzie's career OPS+ was 87, so Rizzuto beats him on offense, loses to him on defense and baserunning. Put it all together and sure, Ozzie beats Rizzuto. But Ozzie's not a borderline HOFer. He was a fairly easy 1st-ballot HOF and HOM selection. Being worse than that doesn't immediately exclude somebody from consideration.
There's a lot that is exceptional about Blyleven's career.
Blyleven has an exceptional amount of strikeouts (5th in MLB history), an exceptionally high career WAR (13th all-time for pitchers), and pitched an exceptionally high number of innings (14th all-time). He's 9th in career shutouts (one fewer than Nolan Ryan).
Basically, he doesn't have a lot of exceptional peak moments, but that isn't the same thing as being unexceptional. He has less impressive strikeout and shutout totals than Nolan Ryan, but he's fairly close, and he actually provided more value over his career (Ryan had many more mediocre seasons despite pitching around 500 more innings).
Very good isn't fair. Blyleven is one of the top 15 pitchers in the history of the sport in career value. I'm a small-hall guy, but I don't see how you can exclude that on the basis that he's not flashy enough.
Damned close anyway. He was an amazing fielder.
He'dve had 3000 hits most likely without the war, or very close to it.
IIRC he was a first ballot HoMer.
Not at all. Ozzie Smith has a lower career OPS+, but in over 4000 more PA. That's a tremendous difference in career value. Even three years of war credit is not going to get Rizzuto close to that.
The offensive difference is fairly small, but the baserunning difference is tremendous. Ozzie has 580 career SB, good for 21st all time. Nor is the defensive difference marginal; Ozzie Smith is the greatest defensive SS of all time, and Rizzuto was a very good defensive SS. Nor the playing time; Rizzuto was effectively finished as a player by his age 35 season while Ozzie was still a very good player at age 37.
Basically, Ozzie Smith was so good at everything other than hitting, including playing for an exceptionally long time, that his induction is a slam dunk. Rizzuto is a player with a short career even with war credit, who was incapable of playing very far past his prime, with a lousy peak (for a HOFer). The two players are not remotely comparable.
As for "1st ballot HOFer," that just means it was clear. That doesn't indicate that Smith is near the top of the HOF on merit, that's he's some inner-circle guy. He's not even the best SS in the HOF, and it isn't particularly close.
Yo. S'up.
He didn't get the votes, but Walter Johnson was 1st or second in the league in WAR five years in a row (and had other top-2 finishes as well).
On second review, I think I short-changed Slaughter. He would be a pretty solid career candidate (as would Rice with another 1500-2000 PA of similar quality).
This is like saying Roger Clemens very good at getting strikeouts, in terms of understatement.
By what defensive metric? WAR puts him in the very good category but certainly not the inner-circle defensively.
I'm genuinely curious as to how you get there, because I'd be hard-pressed to say that Rizzuto was better than, say, Mark Belanger or Omar Vizquel.
I mean, Derek Jeter has 4 more GGs than Rizzuto. (I hope it is obvious that I'm joking about that last one.)
If you believe the WAR numbers on BB-Ref, they show Ozzie as accumulating 4.07 WAR per 162 games for his career and Rizzuto at 4.08 WAR per 162 games. Now, Ozzie has a 912-game lead - or about 6 full seasons, and war credit is only going to make up half of that. So, it's pretty reasonable to draw your HOF in/out line between them. But they actually strike me as pretty similar players.
Absolutely not. Even if Rizzuto was awesome defensively, he played less than 1700 games in his career. Even with war credit, you'd be hard-pressed to compare him favorably to very good defensive SS with long careers, in terms of career value.
It could have, but it wasn't. And it wasn't because errors of size isn't something nearly as widely agreed upon regariding the HOF as errors of inclusion and exclusion. You're obviously entitled to your opinion that the HOF is too big, but there are just about as many thoughtful folks who hold the opinion that it's too small. Its size is obviously arbitrary, but whatever size it turns out to be, the application of a sensible and consistent standard of inclusion/exclusion will always be the unavoidable challenge. It's the latter issue that the HOM has endeavored to engage.
I don't know that "same rate in 3 more full seasons" is really very similar at all. Take away 550 innings and 45-50 wins from Mussina and he goes from clearly a HOFer on merit to clearly not a HOFer on merit.
Also, as I noted before, it's not reasonable to just take three average seasons and plug them in for wartime credit. Especially for Rizzuto, who
wasn't anyone's idea of a iron man.often missed 10 or more games in a season. (EDIT: overstated the point a bit.)You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main