Hall of Fame rant
by 3460kuri on Jan 7, 2010 9:59 AM EST
Email
PrintThe biggest story surrounding the Hall of Fame vote yesterday may not be who was elected, but rather who came painstakingly close but fell just barely short of election. The whole thing leaves me...uneasy.
I don't like the ideological struggle that's going on between the stat-oriented, online community and the traditionalists. I don't know why we can't just take the best of both worlds, put them together and come up with some kind of reasonably objective guidelines for evaluating ballplayers.
Andre Dawson's Hall of Fame case was made on the fact that he had 2,700 hits, 400 home runs, 300 stolen bases, and 8 Gold Gloves. But Tim Raines had 2,600 hits, and actually got on base 500 more times than Dawson, at a much higher percentage rate to boot (38.5% to 32.3%). He only hit 170 career home runs, but his career slugging percentage was only 57 points lower than Dawson's. He stole 500 more bases than Dawson, but was only caught stealing 37 more times. He won 0 Gold Gloves to Dawson's 8, but Raines actually had a better career fielding percentage, fewer errors, more outfield assists, and more FRAA than Dawson.
So you can say that nobody cared about on-base percentage in the 1980s and you'd probably be right, but even in the 1880s players knew that not making an out was better than making one. Nobody knew about UZR or FRAA, but they did know that catching batted balls was important, so certain older, slower players were moved to less-demanding positions like first base or DH.
At worst, Tim Raines is either the 2nd or 3rd best leadoff hitter of all time. Roberto Alomar is one of the 10 best second baseman of all time. Is anybody really going to argue that Andre Dawson is one of the 10 best or even 20 best of any category? Despite this, Dawson is a Hall of Famer but the other two aren't.
The point of this all isn't to bash a player, or to criticize fellow fans, but rather a plea for understanding and objectivity. Somebody in another post said "it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Statistics" but some people want to have it both ways. It's impossible to talk about Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, or Nolan Ryan without mentioning statistics, so why can't we use them to talk about Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, or Ron Santo?
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well put.
The problem lies in your sentence, “I don’t know why we can’t just take the best of both worlds, put them together and come up with some kind of reasonably objective guidelines for evaluating ballplayers.” Those opposing the use of stats also oppose the idea of objectivity. It is the “I know a great player when I see it” mindset that is particularly rampant in older baseball writers that still make up a big portion of the HOF voting community.
The good news is that change is afoot. The MVP and Cy Young awards (with voting communities younger than the HOF community) showed real awareness of newer statistical techniques. Neyer and Law now have BBWAA memberships and while they won’t vote for the HOF for another nine years, it is a sign that change is coming.
Alomar and Blyleven will get in next year. I am worried about Raines falling through the gap though.
Raines
So the second best lead off hitter in history scored more than 90 runs only 7 times in his 22 seasons?
He can’t control who hits behind him.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
Neither of them are hall of famers imo
I made another post about this somewhere yesterday, but Dawson was just not a dominant player by any stretch outside of 2 or 3 years. He stugged .500 or better 5 times in 21 years, drove in 100 4 times, etc. etc.
As for Raines he’s another guy who was very good but not great. He may have been one of the top leadoff men of all time, but most leadoff men (with a few exceptions like Rickey and Ichiro) hit leadoff because they aren’t good enough to hit 3rd or 4th. I mean if A-rod hit 1st he’d be the best leadoff hitter of all time, but why would he hit 1st?
Anyway I agree with the premise that the hall of fame voting often has no rhyme or reason. To me, Alomar and Larkin not getting in is a joke, and the fact that Blyleven still isn’t in is befuddling. I don’t really know what the solution is, since any voting system isn’t always going to get it right, but seeing results like yesterday is really disappointing as a fan.
by Let's Talk About Tex Baby on Jan 7, 2010 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
true, but...
the ability to score has got to be a major factor for someone who is going to be the second best lead off hitter of all time. at some point all the speculative stats (adjusted ballpark with the wind blowing sideways compared to other lefties in the division) have to take a back seat to the fact for all those stolen bases, he didn’t score that much. runs counts, especially with a leadoff hitter. ultimately i understand the argument, if he played for the yankees starting in 1995 he would have scored more. but he didn’t. ultimately what happened happened.
You could say
something similar about Andre Dawson. For all those seasons he played, his impact was so great that his team won how many World Series? How many pennants? How many playoff appearances? After all, the goal of any baseball player is to win, and if he was so good, at some point it falls on his shoulders to find a way for his team to win. So how’d he do on that front?
Personally I think that argument is bogus, and so is yours.
"at some point it falls on his shoulders"
well, i don’t think that you can blame someone for a team not making a world series, but someone’s career stats are their stats. and to say, “oh, if only…” doesn’t cut it. yeah, if only derek jeter had been drafted by the reds then he might not have won a world series, may never have had opportunities to be “clutch”, etc. etc. but that isn’t what happened! life is life. and if you scored a lot, but not an amazing amount of runs, and your on base percentage was good, but doesn’t put you in the top 100 of all time, you never had 200 hits, you never had 100 walks, then you don’t have the numbers to justify being one of the two or three best lead off hitters in history.
also, i never said dawson should be in. i think he’s borderline.
I think they should vote next year.
to create a Hall of Very Good.
I’d say add a third Hall..the Hall of Roid..but that’s pushing it for that geezer Selig.
For real..it makes no sense for Andre Dawson to be in the same building as Willie Mays.
Or at least make a Wing for the very good’s.
N8 !
People see what they want to see
and make up bogus arguments to support that. It’s a rare gift for someone to look at things through the same lens of objectivity both when it favors him, and when it does not.
Here's the point...
…if you have to “make a case” for a guy being a Hall of Famer, he’s NOT a Hall of Famer. You’re either an HOFer or you’re not, and Dawson is not.
The first thing that I wish they could do is vote people out of the HOF every year. One completely undeserving HOFer gets his plaque removed, which also prevents people from making a case for another player using him as an example.
http://newyorksportsjerk.blogspot.com/
by New York Sports Jerk on Jan 7, 2010 11:43 AM EST reply actions
Part of the problem
is also that voters seem to feel like someone has to get in every year. That’s how Jim Rice got in last year. That’s Dawson got in this year. It’s how Bert Blyleven will get in next year. And I think it is wrong to feel like you ‘must’ elect someone each year.
Instead of every year they should make the voting every 5 years or so.
That way there’s a bigger talent pool which means more elite talent voted in. Of course they will never do that but we can dream.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Jan 7, 2010 11:55 AM EST up reply actions
You can rant all you want about stats but don't leave out the
subjective belief that many writers have that it is important when the player gets inducted. It took Dawson 9 years on the ballot to get in. Raines has been on the ballot for much less. If he is not in in 7 years then this argument can be made on a level playing field.
Dawson was among the best players in the game when he played
Raines deserves to get in, Blyleven does not. Bert was never that great, he was a compiler. I think it devalues the Hall of Fame when guys like that get in. When you think of hall of famers, you think Koufax, Gibson, Ryan, Seaver, do you really think Blyleven belongs in this group? I think Lee Smith deserves to be in before Blyleven. Relievers are a huge part of the game now, and they still dont get much love.
I agree with half of what you said...
When you think of hall of famers, you think Koufax, Gibson, Ryan, Seaver, do you really think Blyleven belongs in this group?
When I think of HOF outfielders, I think of Mays, Mantle, Ted Williams, DiMaggio. Does Andre Dawson belong in that group?
http://newyorksportsjerk.blogspot.com/
by New York Sports Jerk on Jan 7, 2010 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
I guess when you put it that way with Mantle, Williams, Dimaggio, and Mays,
how can you put anyone in the Hall after them?
I have mixed feelings about Andre Dawson. You look at his numbers and they are good numbers, he did a lot of things very well, he hit for power, stole bases, hit for average every once in a while, but that is the modern view of Andre Dawson and his stats. I think we have to remember that Andre played in the late 70’s and 80’s when the stats he put up were awesome stats. He played in a time when if you had 100+ RBI’s you were a monster. Unlike today when 20+ guys can do it. He was about as feared a hitter in baseball as there was. He was a rook of the Year he received top 10 MVP votes 4 times, winning it once, on a last place team.
I do not really care if he had 3000 hits, I say that because there are a lot of guys without that stat line. Look at the history of the Yankees, never have had a guy with 3000 hits. I believe the 438 HR’s he hit and nearly 1600 RBI’s are worthy of the Hall if you consider the era he played in. The Hawk was a dominating hitter. He deserves the nod.
Why should HOF entry be so cheap?
I want to go see the truly ELITE players in baseball history when I go to Cooperstown. The goal shouldn’t be to put more people in, it should be to elect the truly deserving.
Dawson was a fine player, but being a good player for 21 years doesn’t mean you belong in the Hall. His career OBP was .323. That’s pathetic.
http://newyorksportsjerk.blogspot.com/
by New York Sports Jerk on Jan 7, 2010 1:37 PM EST up reply actions
Well...
Andre Dawson and Ernie Banks had nearly similar Stats. Should Ernie Banks not been elected?
Banks
1125 games as short stop
1259 games at first base
Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.
Vin Scully
His best offensive years came at SS
He hit 248 HRs as a SS, behind only Cal Ripken among HOF shortstops and far beyond any of his contemporaries.
http://newyorksportsjerk.blogspot.com/
by New York Sports Jerk on Jan 7, 2010 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
That is an absurd comparison.
Do I even have to tell you the difference between a SS and an OFer?
And Banks is better in every major statistical category except SBs.
http://newyorksportsjerk.blogspot.com/
by New York Sports Jerk on Jan 7, 2010 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
I was just going off of
your argument of OBP. Dawson and his .323 and Banks with his .330.
Both equally terrible I would add.
Banks was great, I am not debating that. Dawson was great too for his ERA. That is all I am saying. I just do not think you can beat on Dawson because of his OBP when I bring up Banks whose career stats are nearly identical. When you say Banks was better in every statistical category that matters, I do not think a few points makes a difference between the two.
Games Dawson 2627 Banks 2528.
Runs— Dawson 61st w/ 1383 Banks 70th w/1305 .52-.51 per game
Hits— Dawson 40th w/2774, Banks 58th w/2583 1.05-1.02
Doubles— Dawson 32nd w/503, Banks 69th w/407 .19-.16
Triples - Dawson 71st w/98, Banks 79th w/90 .03 .03
HR’s— Banks 12th w/512, Dawson 21st w/438 .20- .16
RBI’s— Banks 20th w/1636, Dawson 25th w/1591 .64- .60
SB— Dawson 46th w/314, Banks 132nd w/50 .11- .01
BB’s— Banks 83rd w/763, Dawson115th w/589 .30- .22
SO’s— Dawson 14th w/1509, Banks 28th w/1236 .57-.48
BA— Dawson 121st w/ .279, Banks 128th w/ .274
OBP— Banks 143rd w/ .330, Dawson 147th w/ .323
SLG%— Banks 35th w/ .500, Dawson 48th w/ .482
OPS— Banks 80th w/ .830, Dawson 96th w/ .806
Again, Banks was a shortstop for 8 years.
He was THE PREMIER OFFENSIVE SHORTSTOP OF HIS ERA.
Comparing the stats at face value is a waste of time, but considering the difference in their positions, the fact that Banks is ahead in most is even more impressive.
http://newyorksportsjerk.blogspot.com/
by New York Sports Jerk on Jan 7, 2010 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
Dawson was among the games great players for years, Bert was average at best
I would never put Dawson in the group you mentioned, but during the years he played he was always among the top players in the game, Blyleven was like the Tim Wakefield of his generation. Serviceable but he was never an ace, and I dont think hitters feared having to face him. Pitchers feared what Dawson could do.
Interesting point
made by the great Tommy Lasorda on MLB radio today: he said that induction into the hall of fame is “supposed” to be performance and character. He understands why one writer “punished” Alomar for his spitting incident by not voting for him this year.
He said that he doesn’t think there needs to be any formal changes made to the voting system.
I’m just sick of all the BS from the writers that have agendas or only vote for their hometown guys. Even worse are the 5 writers who didn’t even submit a vote (at all) on their ballot. That could have been the difference between Blyleven or Alomar getting in or not. If you have a vote and don’t vote for anyone, you should lose your right to vote. Same for all the other writer selected awards.
Just my 2 cents.
I’ll try to find the actual voting guidelines somewhere and see if what Lasorda said was true about performance and character.
"If you have a vote and don’t vote for anyone you should lose your right to vote"
what if you honestly don’t think anyone should get in? you HAVE to vote for someone? that seems crazy. say, for example, alomar and bly had made it this year. the voters HAVE to vote for someone next year? raines? bagwell? if you don’t think there’s a hof on the list, you shouldn’t vote for anyone. it’s not crazy.
it's one thing to say there's no HoF on the list
but another to not even put even a #5 through #10 on the ballot, even just to say “I think they were good but not HoF caliber”
The truth is, almost every year there are HoF candidates that should get in. What’s the point of having a vote every year to begin with if people can just leave their ballot blank. At least make it mandatory that if they’re going to leave it blank, say why you left it blank.
This whole system is so messed up I don’t even believe in the HoF selection, Cy Young, MVP, All-Star, etc. anymore. I’ll stick to knowing myself who was good and great and excellent and whatnot. Even if I was a ballplayer, like Clemens said, I wouldn’t give a rat’s behind about making the Hall of Fame. Rings on my fingers are more important than anything else in baseball. I guarantee you that Derek Jeter couldn’t care less about someday making it to the HoF. He’s got rings.
Another thought
it is the hall of fame, the best players in baseball, across the board, in their era, in baseball history, etc. Why does it have to be “only the elite elite elite players who set every record”? Why can’t it be guys that were the best on their team and among their contemporaries even if they aren’t as good as Mantle or Ruth or Spahn or whoever else is on the pedestal.
Bert Really Doesnt Belong
Alomar not making it this year is sad. They will both get in though. I dont like that Bert campaigns to get in.
When you go to Cooperstown
When you go there….does it really matter if too many players are in it? The thing I remember the most from the HOF when I went at nine years old was a picture of a dude climbing the left field wall making the most amazing catch. He extended is glove over the wall while practically standing on top of the wall. It was a photo from a Japanese league.
I wish we could continue to just show up and play for no reason. No umpires, no scorers. Just show up and have fun.
-- Alex Rodriguez
Dawson was an all star
not a hall of famer. He was a clutch,feared hitter. But, when did the benchmark stats drop to 2700rbis, 400hrs. Doesn’t this automatically elect Mcgriff, Canseco, Bernie, etc
by jerseybillfromva on Jan 8, 2010 10:52 AM EST reply actions
Bernie? No. The Other Two? Yes.
McGriff was clean and put up great numbers year after year. If Rice is in, McGriff deserves it too. Canseco shouldnt be in for his playing days, but for how he changed the game. He did it for selfish reasons but every player he ever pointed the finger at, has turned out to be dirty. Because of Jose, baseball couldnt keep ignoring the steroid problem anymore.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on Pinstripe Alley
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
