The Baseball Hall of Fame's 2008 class will be announced next Tuesday. With a ton of columns being written by BBWAA members explaining their choices, I thought it would be a good idea to look at some of the infallible logic that went into their selections.
All of these arguments are from actual, real life Hall of Fame voters. Don't forget this.
8. Dave Buscema, against Bert Blyleven
"And I can let the mediocre win-loss record go a bit because he played for so many poor teams and excelled in the postseason when given the chance … but ultimately I still would have liked to have seen at least a little better winning percentage and/or more Cy Young votes, an ERA title and more than one 20-win season in 22 years."
I can let the mediocre win-loss record go, but I'm not voting him in because of the mediocre win-loss record and the mediocre win-loss record. I like how we're looking at Wins and Cy Young votes separately, as they're clearly
not related at all.
Buscema is a first-time voter. Welcome, you'll fit right in.
7. Dan Shaughnessy, for Jim Rice
"People who played and watched major league baseball from 1975-86 know that Rice was the most feared hitter of his day. Managers thought about intentionally walking him when he came to the plate with the bases loaded. "
This pretty much summarizes every Rice argument. He was feared, dangerous, dominant, etc. etc.
The fact that in 214 career PAs with the bases loaded he hit .302/.299/.483 with zero intentional walks isn't really helping the second argument.
It is actually entirely possibly that Rice was, in fact, the most feared hitter of his day; I was not alive in "his day". But if people actually "feared" Rice more than Mike Schmidt, they were not very good at allocating their fear.
Rice: 7754 PAs, 350 HR, .304/.356/.520, 133 OPS+
Schmidt: 7657 PAs, 440 HR, .270/.386/.545, 154 OPS+
Beyond that, if he really was the "most feared", I kind of doubt he would have been 33rd in IBBs during that period. At least he led the league in something over that span.
6. Jon Heyman and Mike Nadel, both against Bert Blyleven and for Jack Morris
Heyman:
"2. [in] Jack Morris. The ace of three World Series teams, it's an abomination he may never get in... 10. [not in] Blyleven. Stat gurus love this guy, and it's understandable. One of the great compilers of his generation, he's fifth all-time in strikeouts, ninth in shutouts and 25th in wins. There's no doubt he was a superb talent who played a long time. But he was rarely among the ultra-elite in his 22-year career."
Nadel:
"Blyleven won more than 17 games only twice in 22 seasons. John had a higher winning percentage than Blyleven but fewer strikeouts and shutouts. Jack Morris, a great clutch pitcher who had the most victories in the '90s, is better than both."
I went over Heyman's article last week. There are two main problems with the argument here; the thought that Blyleven was never among the "ultra-elite", and the obsession with Morris' "clutchiness".
Years with ERA+ above...
150: Blyleven 2, Morris 0
140: Blyleven 5, Morris 0
130: Blyleven 6, Morris 1
120: Blyleven 11, Morris 6
The fact that Morris has three 20-win seasons to Blyleven's one doesn't mean Blyleven was less dominant, or had an inferior peak. It means his teams scored fewer runs for him.
As for this whole clutch thing:
Morris, career postseason: 7-4, 3.80 ERA, 92.1 IP, 32 BB, 64 K
Blyleven, career postseason: 5-1, 2.47 ERA, 47.1 IP, 8 BB, 36 K
Blyleven pitched 45 fewer innings, that's the only aspect in which he's inferior.
These two aren't voting Blyleven in because he didn't pitch for teams with big offenses, thus not racking up big win totals. And Morris is getting in because of one game. It's absurd.
5. Bill Conlin, for Jack Morris
"Besides going 254-186, righthander Jack Morris won 20-plus three times, made 14 Opening Day starts and pitched one of the great World Series Game 7s of all time, the 10-inning, 1-0 victory over the Braves in 1991."
HoF credential #1: Pitching 240.2 essentially league average innings in 1992 (4.04 ERA, 102 ERA+) in 1992. The Blue Jays scored an impressive 5.56 R/G in his starts, so he managed to go 21-6.
HoF credential #2: Making 14 Opening Day starts. 100% meaningless. This includes 1989 (6-14, 4.86 ERA, 79 ERA+) and 1993 (7-12, 6.19 ERA, 70 ERA+).
HoF credential #3: One game.
Convincing.
4. Gerry Fraley, against Tim Raines"Raines’ case was hurt by his reluctance to run in all situations, as Rickey Henderson did. Raines seemed at times too concerned about preserving his stolen-base percentage."
In his career, Tim Raines stole 808 bases, and was caught only 146 times, good for a pretty incredible 85% success rate. We are holding this against him. If he was caught 47 additional times, bringing him down to Henderson's 80.8% career success rate, maybe he'd warrant consideration.
This is the extent of Fraley's argument. There is no further mention of Raines in his article.
3. Phil Rogers, against Lee Smith"I’m down to one this year, as Smith has been passed by Trevor Hoffman for the all-time save lead and my vote for Lee Arthur was based on his being the leader. Sorry, Lee."
Two years ago, Trevor Hoffman had 436 career saves, so Phil Rogers voted for Lee Smith to be elected to the Hall of Fame.
This year, Trevor Hoffman has 524 career saves so Phil Rogers is not voting for Lee Smith to be elected into the Hall of Fame.
Sorry, Lee.
Edit: OMDQ adds:
"I’m down to one this year, as Aaron has been passed by Barry Bonds for the all-time homerun lead and my vote for Henry Louis was based on his being the leader. Sorry, Hank."
2. Tracy Ringolsby, against Tim Raines"The biggest debates for me were Tim Raines, who obviously was overshadowed by Rickey Henderson, but also if you take Vince Coleman's five top years, I would say he outperformed Raines, too, and I don't see Coleman as a Hall of Famer."
In his top five SB years, Coleman stole 484 bases. In Raines' top five SB years, he stole 384. This is the only category in which Coleman outperformed Raines.
They were similar players in the sense that they were both fast, I guess. So maybe Ringolsby thinks the only thing that matters with guys who are fast is how many bases they steal? That must be it, since comparing Raines and Coleman as overall players is laughable.
Coleman, best 5 years: 3236 PA, .272/.330/.351
Raines,
career: 10359 PA, .294/.385/.425
It's not close. In fact, in the comments of
this post, tangotiger makes the amusing point that Raines'
worst five years were easily better than Coleman's best five. Tim Raines is
going to fall short of the Hall of Fame this year, and he has reasoning like this to thank.
1. Woody Paige, for Goose Gossage"During a visit to Yankee Stadium in the late 1970s, I wanted to talk to Goose but was told he was cruel and gruff to reporters. I sheepishly introduced myself and said I was from Colorado, his home state, and he talked pleasantly for 30 minutes. We've been good friends since. I would vote for him even if he wasn't deserving."
Not much analysis needed here, beyond
this. At least others were seemingly trying. Did you really expect someone else in this spot?
The Baseball Analysts (this post), BBTF (Fraley, Heyman, Buscema, Rogers, Conlin, Shaughnessy, Ringolsby), and Keith Law's blog were all vital to putting this list together.
