Hall of Fame Madness | Disciples of Uecker

Disciples of Uecker

We'd like to go to the Playoffs, that would be cool.

Hall of Fame Madness

By on January 10, 2013

If you’re upset about the results of the 2013 Hall of Fame ballot released on Wednesday, don’t worry: there are at least six future Hall of Fame statues on that ballot. If you tilt your head the right way, you might find more than 12. While most news sites and opinion pieces focused on the fact that the 2013 ballot is the first since 1996 to not feature a player voted into the Hall of Fame, they neglected to note that even that 1996 ballot featured six future Hall of Famers. That’s right; Phil Niekro, Tony Perez, Don Sutton, Ron Santo, Jim Rice, and Bruce Sutter. Sutter and Rice both received less than 36% of the votes in 1996, and Santo eventually made the Hall of Fame thanks to a special committee.

You’re probably saying, “that’s not the point!” Of course, most of us know that Hall of Fame voting is typically a drawn out process for most players enshrined in Cooperstown. If you’re like me, you’re upset that the Baseball Writers of America missed an opportunity to elect two clear cut, first ballot Hall of Famers, or missed an opportunity to place some fine players in the Hall that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Steroids Era.

“I think what it really comes down to is there is such an enormous split in standards being used by the various voters. For a period of about 20 years, people in the sport knew this was going on. That’s why I voted in context. Everyone had a sense. Maybe not exactly what was going on but this might have involved thousands of players in the minor leagues and major leagues. I don’t know exactly who did what – I just know this is what the history was. This is what baseball was in this 20-year period. I feel like my vote should reflect history and not dictate legacy.” –Buster Olney

First Year Ballot
It is the moral inflection of the 2013 ballot that makes it different from the 1996 ballot. In 1996, who can blame the writers for not electing anyone? They were probably tired! From 1988 to 1995, the writers elected TEN first ballot Hall of Famers:

1988: Willie Stargell
1989: Johnny Bench
1989: Carl Yastrzemski
1990: Jim Palmer
1990: Joe Morgan
1991: Rod Carew
1992: Tom Seaver
1993: Reggie Jackson
1994: Steve Carlton
1995: Mike Schmidt

Following that list of players, can you blame the writers for not jumping on the bandwagons of Niekro, Perez, Santo, Sutton, Rice, or Sutter? That list of six players that were headed to Cooperstown — but temporarily blocked in 1996 — were a fine group of stars that were feared hitters, some of the strongest players of their respective eras, or even cornerstones for some of the strongest teams in their decades (or history). But they weren’t as good as that list of First Ballot players from ’88-to-’95. This gets us to the Willie Stargell Hall of Fame versus the Jim Rice Hall of Fame argument; before morals, before whatever drugs favored by players in their days are considered, that big ‘ol question of whether the Hall of Fame should extend to very good players that played a long time, or only apply to the elite, always rages.

Surefire Hall of Famers
This is what angers me about the 2013 ballot — it’s full of players that match the strength of those 1988 through 1995 first ballot Hall of Famers. You thought Rod Carew was good enough to make Cooperstown on the First Ballot? How about Craig Biggio? Jim Palmer? Forget it, I got Roger Clemens. That group features the formidable Reggie Jackson and Carl Yastrzemski — easily two of the top players of their respective eras. What, then, do we say of Barry Bonds or Jeff Bagwell? We could go through that entire set of First Ballot HOFers and compare them to the players on the 2013 ballot; undoubtedly, we’d go back and forth, but the point is, the type of “elite” class exhibited by that 1988-to-1995 class matches the type of elite players found in this ballot.

Crowded Ballots
You might say that six players sounds like an awful lot of Hall of Fame players from one ballot. I’d agree, if it wasn’t for the recent ballots cast by the Baseball Writers. This is one of the reasons I think fans are upset with the 2013 ballot — it’s not simply that they didn’t vote in anyone from the 2013 ballot, it’s that they didn’t vote Roberto Alomar or Barry Larkin in on the first ballot. This group of of writers made their job in the coming years immensely more difficult for themselves by not voting the very best Hall of Fame candidates into Cooperstown as early as possible. Certainly, there are groups of strong players on each and every ballot, but the recent inductions for Andre Dawson (2010), Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven (2011), and Barry Larkin (2012) jammed up the coming ballots with more quality names. I think that’s part of the fans’ anger — don’t spend three years telling us Dawson and Blyleven belong in Cooperstown, but then say Bonds and Clemens don’t. In many ways, the seeds for the blank 2013 class were planted several years ago.

Classes of First Ballots
It might be difficult to think about lots of players making the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. Certainly, it is no one’s right to get in the first time; however, the fewer players that get in the first time, the more tough decisions writers need to make in the future, and, the more players that require special committees to get into the Hall. Furthermore, the quality Hall of Fame first ballot classes shift over time, which should make it easier for voters to immediately enshrine the very best players. For instance, look at the group of players the writers voted in after their string of 1996, 1997, and 1998 ballots:

1999: Nolan Ryan
1999: George Brett
1999: Robin Yount
2001: Dave Winfield
2001: Kirby Puckett
2002: Ozzie Smith
2003: Eddie Murray
2004: Paul Molitor
2004: Dennis Eckersley
2005: Wade Boggs
2007: Cal Ripken
2007: Tony Gwynn
2009: Rickey Henderson

Or, consider the decade prior to the 1987 ballot (which did not feature a first ballot HOFer):

1977: Ernie Banks
1979: Willie Mays
1980: Al Kaline
1981: Bob Gibson
1982: Hank Aaron
1982: Frank Robinson
1983: Brooks Robinson
1985: Lou Brock
1986: Willie McCovey

Again, these players keep great company with one another. Yet, if we scrutinize these lists against the 1988–1995 first balloteers, we can find some discrepancies. For example, Brock was a great player, but he was no Boggs; Boggs was great, too, but he was no Frank Robinson, and Robinson wasn’t quite as good as Aaron. We can do the same with the fielding-oriented players on this list, as well as the pitchers, or we could judge the classes within each fielding position. Although we can debate the specifics forever, the basic point is that there are levels within these classes of First Ballot Hall of Famers. Yet, they all entered Cooperstown on the First Ballot, which allows us to build a specific narrative about the type of player that makes the Hall of Fame; certainly, there was room in that list for Roberto Alomar or Bagwell or Larkin, and there’s certainly room in that class for Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, and others. Certainly, many of those players fall short of the ideal of the mid-1960s and early-1970s first ballot players:

1966: Ted Williams
1969: Stan Musial
1972: Sandy Koufax
1973: Warren Spahn
1974: Mickey Mantle

The Common First Balloteer
Overall, approximately 1/3 of players that entered Cooperstown thanks to the Baseball Writers entered Cooperstown on the first ballot. Which leads me to ask, why do some writers so vocally uphold this ideal standard of which players deserve entrance on the First Ballot? Frankly, the idea of First Ballot enshrinement is not all that rare, and it’s obviously not reserved only for the most elite players. Once enshrined as a First Ballot Hall of Famer, whether Lou Brock deserves it as much as Willie Mays, Brock and Mays are both part of the same class in that regard; we can use these classes and variations to form our opinions about future Hall of Fame votes. In this regard, Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, Biggio, and others still, are clear cut Hall of Famers.

“I did not for any of the steroid users or suspected steroid users. It’s a judgment call, obviously, which more than 60 percent of my brethren agreed on Bonds and Clemens. I don’t think this is necessarily a dark day for baseball. We’ve had times when nobody has gotten in. We’ve had decades where very few have gotten in. This is just part of the process. I suspect next year both sides will agree on at least three names being Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. I don’t think there will be any discussion on those. I think next year we’ll be celebrating.” –Pedro Gomez

After the First Year
One of the interesting reactions in comments sections came from “fans” that were excited about the lack of new inductees. These comments (a) focused specifically on the steroids issues (ignoring completely cases like Jack Morris or Bagwell or Edgar Martinez or Tim Raines or Trammell), and (b) frequently argued that now the writers need to remember to keep these players off the ballots in the future. Beyond the strong percentage of players that enter Cooperstown on the first ballot, another misunderstood area of voting is the progression from low first vote percentages to hall enshrinement.

Take a look at this list of players:

Harmon Killebrew (1981, 1st): First ballot 59.6%, currently in HOF
Juan Marichal (1981, 1st): First ballot 58.1%, currently in HOF
Don Sutton (1994, 1st): First ballot 56.8%, currently in HOF
Robin Roberts (1973, 1st): First ballot 56.1%, currently in HOF
Catfish Hunter (1985, 1st): First ballot 53.7%, currently in HOF
Fergie Jenkins (1989, 1st): First ballot 52.3%, currently in HOF
Tony Perez (1992, 1st): First ballot 50.0%, currently in HOF
Ryne Sandberg (2003, 1st): First ballot 49.2%, currently in HOF
Andre Dawson (2002, 1st): First ballot 45.3%, currently in HOF
Gary Carter (1998, 1st): First ballot 42.3%, currently in HOF
Hoyt Wilhelm (1978, 1st): First ballot 41.7%, currently in HOF
Rich Gossage (2000, 1st): First ballot 33.3%, currently in HOF
Eddie Mathews (1974, 1st): First ballot 32.3%, currently in HOF
Jim Rice (1995, 1st): First ballot 29.8%, currently in HOF
Early Winn (1969, 1st): First ballot 27.9%, currently in HOF
Luis Aparicio (1979, 1st): First ballot 27.8%, currently in HOF
Bruce Sutter (1994, 1st): First ballot 23.9%, currently in HOF
Billy Williams (1982, 1st): First ballot 23.4%, currently in HOF
Don Drysdale (1975, 1st): First ballot 21.0%, currently in HOF
Bert Blyleven (1998, 1st): First ballot 17.5%, currently in HOF
Duke Snider (1970, 1st): First ballot 17.0%, currently in HOF

I tried to only keep players on this list that entered Cooperstown via the Writers vote, and not Committees, but overall, this list should show the diversity of First Ballot fates suffered by Cooperstown-worthy players. Certainly, there is a whole new round of arguments we can make, perhaps noting that Eddie Mathews was better than Brooks Robinson and therefore more deserving of First Ballot enshrinement, or that Harmon Killebrew was better than Brock. Those arguments miss the overall point that a player is not always defined by his first vote for Cooperstown, and some extremely highly regarded players suffered low first ballot totals. My favorite example is a guy like Don Drysdale, who in retrospect seems fondly regarded as one of his era’s most dominant pitchers; he hardly cracked 20% in his first shot with the Baseball Writers. I feel the narrative with relievers has also completely been rewritten, with Rich Gossage and Bruce Sutter looking like obvious choices for Cooperstown as our familiarity with relievers advances.

As much as moralists would like to believe that the writers spoke shortly and swiftly of Bonds and Clemens, remember that they’ll both be back for another 14 years or so (I’ll place a future bet with someone that my student loans are paid off before they enter the Hall of Fame thanks to the voters). This takes us back to the earlier point about the writers dealing with jammed up ballots due to their sudden refusal to vote players in on their first try. If you thought the moralizing and arguments about the Steroids Era were obnoxious this year, think about how those arguments will pile up in year after year after year. While this might do some good — look at the way that we came to understand and appreciate what Blyleven accomplished in his career, for instance — it does not make Bonds, Bagwell, Clemens, Biggio, and Piazza more or less great.

Future votes won’t make the best players from the Steroids Era more great, but one might argue that we’ll be able to more fully understand that there are levels of players within the Steroids Era. The only problem with this argument is that we can already accomplish this with the 2013 ballot; certainly, we can already see that there are levels of players between Sammy Sosa to Mark McGwire to Barry Bonds (and in between, too). Clearly, we can look at players like Bernie Williams and Jeff Cirillo and Royce Clayton and know that there were players that were better than others over the last twenty years. We obviously don’t know if Cirillo, Clayton, or Williams used PEDs during their respective careers, just like we don’t know in the cases of the elite players, either; the performance-based vote for Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, Biggio, etc. should be as easy as the performance-based vote for Cirillo, Clayton, and Williams.

The Steroids Slope
One common flaw is to make sweeping arguments like, “Voting for suspected steroids users is a slippery slope because once one is in, they’ll all get in.” To which we can all reply, NO! Just, no. I don’t care what flowed through their veins, we can say, “Barry Bonds is better and more deserving of the Hall of Fame than Sammy Sosa.” We can do the same with a lot of these players; we can find very clear ways to say, “this player did these things well, and for that reason, he’s a Hall of Famer.” It’s rather simple, and we don’t need to take decades to figure it out.

One of the downfalls of figuring out what to do with loads more steroids era players as they jump onto future ballots is that the worthy players from those eras could end up keeping others from the Hall of Fame. This is my biggest problem with the “moral” celebrations of the blank 2013 Hall of Fame:

Tim Raines (2008, 1st): First ballot 24.3%, currently at 52.2% (on 6th ballot)
Lee Smith (2003, 1st): First ballot 42.3%, currently at 47.8% (on 11th)
Alan Trammell (2002, 1st): First ballot 15.7%, currently at 33.6% (on 12th)
Don Mattingly (2001, 1st): First ballot 28.2%, currently at 13.2% (on 13th)
Jack Morris (2000, 1st): First ballot 22.2%, currently at 68.7% (on 14th)
Dale Murphy (1999, 1st): First ballot 19.3%, currently at 18.6% (on 15th)

Blank Ballots
These are the guys that the writers truly failed. Forget about the worthy first ballot HOFers, or the true greats on this ballot; take a look at this group of players and compare their fate with the fate of those noisy steroids era first timers. While each of these players might not be worthy of the Hall — in fact, you might think that none of these guys deserve Cooperstown — these players were truly hurt by blank ballots cast due to the steroids era players. While I’m not saying that a protest vote — say, a vote for these players instead of Bonds, Clemens, etc. — would be more acceptable than a blank ballot, at least it would directly address the issue of whether or not these players belong in the Hall of Fame (or, could make further strides to get there). A completely blank ballot punishes Bonds and Clemens, indeed, but it also leaves uncertainty about the merits of these players. Are Bonds and Clemens better than each and every player on this list? You’d better believe it. Does that mean that these players deserve to be punished with blank ballots? No way. If you don’t want to vote for Raines or Morris or Mattingly or whoever, that’s great, but don’t do it at the cost of not voting for Bonds or Clemens or Bagwell or Biggio or anyone else. SOMEONE is a better, deserving HOF candidate on this ballot.

The Future
While great players such as Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas will appear on the 2014 ballot, and appear to be favored by the writers, the questions of the Steroids Era will not go away. Glavine, Maddux, and Thomas are not typically connected to the winds of cheating alongside that era, but they were a part of that era and their performances define some bounds of greatness in that era (shouldn’t they, too, be punished for not addressing the suspected issues of their peers? Were not they complicit with the steroids era by not reporting teammates?). One of the interesting questions is how a Hall of Fame can include Glavine, Maddux, and Thomas, but not Bonds, Bagwell, Biggio, and Clemens (among others). There is a potential for Glavine, Maddux, and Thomas to define performance parameters for this era; perhaps they define an elite class that will allow voters to determine which players from the steroids era deserve enshrinement.

Of course, while these votes occur, there will be players that stick around the ballots for years. Completing all 15 cycles of balloting without enshrinement is not as rare as one might suspect. Here are some notable players that spent 15 years on the ballot after the Baseball Writers once again began voting regularly in the mid-1960s:

Dave Parker (1997, 1st): First ballot 17.5%, finished balloting in 2011 with 15.3%
Tommy John (1996, 1st): First ballot 21.3%, finished balloting in 2009 with 31.7%
Dave Concepcion (1995, 1st): First ballot 6.8%, finished balloting in 2008 with 16.2%
Steve Garvey (1993, 1st): First ballot 41.6%, finished balloting in 2007 with 21.1%
Jim Kaat (1989, 1st): First ballot 19.5%, finished balloting in 2003 with 26.2%
Luis Tiant (1988, 1st): First ballot 30.9%, finished balloting in 2002 with 18.0%
Tony Oliva (1982, 1st): First ballot 15.2%, finished balloting in 1996 with 36.2%
Thurman Munson (1981, 1st) First ballot 15.5%, finished balloting in 1995 with 6.5%
Maury Wills (1978, 1st): First ballot 30.3%, finished balloting in 1992 with 25.6%
Harvey Kuehn (1977, 1st): First ballot 14.9%, Finished balloting in 1991 with 22.6%
Roy Face (1976, 1st): First ballot 5.9%, Finished balloting in 1990 with 11.3%
Roger Maris (1974, 1st): First ballot 21.4%, finished balloting in 1988 with 43.1%
Lew Burdette (1973, 1st): First ballot 3.2%, finished balloting in 1987 with 23.2%
Ted Kluszewski (1967, 1st): First ballot 3.1%, finished balloting in 1981 with 14.0%

The Committee Hall
Of course, finishing all 15 ballots without enshrinement does not always keep a player from the Hall of Fame. Notable players that completed balloting without enshrinement, but nevertheless entered Cooperstown, include:

Enos Slaughter (1985)
Red Schoendienst (1989)
Richie Ashburn (1995)
Jim Bunning (1996)
Nellie Fox (1997)
Orlando Cepeda (1999)
Bill Masers (2001)

Do Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, Morris, Piazza, Schilling, Smith, Trammell make the Slaughter / Bunning Hall of Fame?

Part of me wonders if this is the fate that awaits Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, Piazza, and numerous other players that excelled during the Steroids Era. Which brings us back to the short-sightedness about moralizing this 2013 ballot; it’s one thing to have the writers make a statement about how their voting will progress for players that worked during the Steroids Era, but it’s quite another to actually keep players from the Hall of Fame. In this regard, I am willing to bet that the desired sense of morality that some feel about this ballot will be overruled by a committee in the next 20-30 years (I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing happened to players like Morris and Raines, as a “1980s Committee” or something).

“I hear TV and radio announcers call a player “a surefire Hall of Famer” and I have no idea what universe they reside in that permits their mouths to form these words. There is no such thing as a surefire Hall of Famer any more.

Greg Maddux will be on the ballot next year. Frank Thomas will, too. If either of them fails, I will eat my cap. I will never, ever, ever refer to either as “a surefire Hall of Famer,” however, because that ship has sailed.

The voters have spoken, as politicians have put it. I know there are millions of you who hate the way it came out. I do, too. Baseball is not supposed to be a game in which nobody wins.” –Mike Downey

In the meantime, my last argument requires the eyeball test. As a baseball stats fanatic, I frequently hear counterarguments that implore me to trust what I see over the data. For instance, forget that the data shows that Rickie Weeks swings at fewer pitches outside the zone and walks at a higher rate than just about every member of the Brewers; we’re supposed to discern that he’s not a good hitter just by looking at him. In this regard, I favor statistical analysis because our memories are formed by what we want to believe and what we have experienced, and what we see cannot always be recalled perfectly by our minds.

On this occasion, though, I can say: I was there, baseball writers. I was in the stands while you were working in the box. I wasn’t questioning any of the players about what was in their veins, and for the most part, neither were you. I know Bonds was probably the best ever because I saw it — with two outs in an inning, I saw the way fans booed their own pitchers’ strikes when Bonds stood on deck (and then booed the intentional balls), longing for one extra chance to see him hit a home run. I saw the way fans tripped over themselves to catch one of his sacred homers. I know that Bonds was the best not only because of his statistics, but also because of the way everyone treated him. You, the media, are held to that standard, too. You’re the reason he’s the best, too. Same with Clemens, same with Biggio, same with a few others on the 2013 ballot.

I ultimately disagree with the 2013 ballot because I was there, right along side everyone, and I saw that these players were great. I saw that greatness that is one of a kind, regardless of what’s in anyone’s veins (which we don’t truly know, anyway). To punish these greats after the fact is deplorable, and it doesn’t match up with reality. Thankfully, fans have special committees to depend on, because frankly, some of us are losing any faith we had in the BBWAA voters reflecting what occurred on the field.

Baseball-Reference. Sports Reference, LLC. 2000-2013.
News researched from MLB.com. New York Times online, and Washington Post online. Articles from CNN and ESPN cited with links where quoted.

The recent work of Joe Posnanski, and the book, Politics of Glory by Bill James have also helped to form my understanding of the Hall of Fame.



Share Our Posts

Share this post through social bookmarks.

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Newsvine
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati


Tell us what do you think.

  1. Luke says: January 10, 2013

    Biggio, Bonds, Bagwell, Clemens all need to be in. Palmeiro has the suspension against him, McGwire admitted to steroid use, and Sosa’s career really isn’t showing anything impressive before he turned 30, basically Corey Hart. I’m fine with those 3 not getting in, but those other 4 need to be in regardless of what they did to boost their performances.

    • Nicholas Zettel says: January 10, 2013

      Right on! I think there’s a clear point where you can simply note that those particular players were the elite players in their era (and, all time, in many cases).

    • Chris says: January 10, 2013

      Biggio and Bagwell deserve to be in. But if they put Bonds and Clemens in, and continue to leave Pete Rose out, I will never go back to the Hall. What they did improved their performance and was far more damaging to the game that what Rose did.

    • Nicholas Zettel says: January 10, 2013

      I disagree on the Clemens/Bonds and Rose equation. Remember, Bonds and Clemens are not banned by baseball; Rose is banned. That reason alone differentiates their cases.

      I am not certain that steroids/PEDs use is more damaging to the game than gambling. Well, both have been around the game forever (gambling much longer, but PEDs have been in baseball since at least WWII or so).

      The difference between gambling and PEDs is simple: there is not clear-cut science about whether PEDs actually help with baseball-related activities; certainly, in elite cases, we might note that players become even better; but, what of Edinson Volquez or Alex Sanchez? Clay Hensley? There are enough bad players that used PEDs in some form that raise the question about how PEDs actually impact the game.

      But there is no question about what gambling on a game does to the competition in that game, especially when the gambling parties are involved in the games.

  2. Matt T says: January 10, 2013

    2 things about the arguments I hear surrounding these votes–

    1. Writers don’t get to hide behind an “opinion” that someone took a PED. Too often, we hear the excuse that “Well, it’s my opinion that he took something.” Sorry, you can’t have opinions about things that are facts one way or another; that’s like having an opinion that someone is left-handed. So if you are using your opinion, then you are judging someone guilty until proven innocent.

    2. If a writer keeps a player out of the HoF based on PED use, then he is NEVER allowed to vote for that player. Any write who simply changes his mind on a later ballot is a HUGE hypocrite; said player did not all of a sudden not be guilty of using.

    • Nicholas Zettel says: January 10, 2013

      I agree on (1), but I think there are good reasons (2) can change. I think there are a lot of writers who just don’t know what to do with suspected PED users yet; I appreciate their honesty a lot more than I appreciate the moralizing of other writers. I think there are cases where a voter could initially vote against a suspected PED user, but eventually change their mind.

  3. Mike S. says: January 10, 2013

    I know that this wont be a popular opinion, but I don’t think Biggio deserved to be voted in on the first ballot and I don’t believe that his career accomplishments are even remotely comparable to to those of Rod Carew. He was a very good ballplayer, and is a great person, but was more of an accumulator of statistics vs. Carew, who was one of the best hitters in the AL during the 70′s and who was also forced into early retirement because of owners illegally colluding against him.

    • Nicholas Zettel says: January 10, 2013

      I don’t think Biggio was an accumulator; rather, his value comes from a lot of below-the-surface things he did very well. He didn’t hit into double plays, he got hit by a lot of pitches, he stole bases well, and he had some good power.

      Carew’s surface hitting stats look better, I agree with that. But when you translate everything they do into runs (R. RBI, and/or runs created), Biggio matches up very well with Carew.

      I think that’s what draws me so much to support Biggio’s case — he’s not like most MLB players, and just seems to do a lot of things just below the surface. But, all that translated to runs that helped his team at very strong ratios compared to other great players. (For example, I strongly recommend Biggio vs. Griffey by Bill James in his New Historical Abstract).

      • Mike S. says: January 11, 2013

        I understand your point of view, and have read several pieces on the merits of Biggio making the Hall of Fame, I had just never seen anybody make the case that “Rod Carew was good enough to make Cooperstown on the First Ballot? How about Craig Biggio?” Carew was guy who’s value was very much above-the-surface… you didn’t really need to look too close to see how good he was throughout his career. I didn’t feel Biggio deserved to be in the HOF on the first ballot simply because a case can be made against him, unlike Carew. He wasn’t a good defender at any position he played, His OBP was only .363 despite being hit by more pitches than any player in the modern era, his batting average (3rd lowest) and OPS+ (2nd lowest) in the 3,000 hit club, he was able to accumulate impressive career numbers that make him worthy of the HOF, but he really wasn’t all that great for the last 8 years of his career, 6 of which were worth less than 2.0 WAR, and in total were worth 8.0 WAR. This was just not the case with Carew. That said, I hope he makes the HOF next year.

      • Nicholas Zettel says: January 11, 2013

        I agree on the end of his career; Joe Posnanski makes the great point that despite the “HOF range numbers,” Biggio might have been an even stronger candidate if he retired near the turn of the century and didn’t keep going.

        I don’t think his OBP and AVG are marks against him considering he played the bulk of his career in the Astrodome; during his peak seasons, he was playing in a ballpark that suppressed runs scoring by as much as 5%.

        The biggest thing, in my mind, is that he turned all of that into excellent run production:

        Biggio: .147 R/PA, .094 RBI/PA, 5.9 RC/G
        Carew: .135 R/PA, .096 RBI/PA, 6.2 RC/G

        Given the notable batting stat shortcomings between Carew (surface player) and Biggio (below the surface player), their end result is extremely similar production.

      • Nicholas Zettel says: January 11, 2013

        BTW, I do thank you for your debate because I will admit, Carew is better than I thought off the top of my head; it’s been quite some time since I analyzed his career.

  4. Mike S. says: January 11, 2013

    Thanks for your thoughtful replies… I sincerely appreciate all of the work done by you and others to produce the material on this site and also enjoyed giving the careers of both players another look.

  5. ben says: January 18, 2013

    Statistically and practically these were great baseball players. But the HOF is not based on greatness, but rather on “popularity” right now (ie whether each voter THINKS they should be in). If the HOF were based on statistics there would be no need for a vote. Same for MVP each year. But for many reasons its just not that way. Right now, in the voters’ minds, they don’t belong in the HOF and I respect that. Each and every voter is a singular voice and collectively those singular voices don’t agree these players should be in the HOF, I just don’t see how that can be argued against. Same for people who argue that Ty Cobb shouldn’t be in if it’s based on character. Well, in the voters minds back then, character was a different thing than it is now. And next year or in 10 years maybe PED use won’t be as big of a red herring as it is now. You can’t change that the vote is based on current cultural attitudes, that’s just how it is.

    • Nicholas Zettel says: January 18, 2013

      I disagree with the writers’ stance on culture specifically because the BBWAA were the ones to almost unanimously award players like Bonds and Clemens in ways that show they are among the greatest of all time. I think it’d be great if the writers were truly against PEDs, but that attitude does not correspond with their previous attitudes about these players. That’s what’s particularly upsetting — where was this diligence 20 years ago? Or 30? The steroids era has been going on for some time; why are the reporters just now reporting moral outrage?

      Beyond the steroids issue, I also think the culture of the writers has simply made it way too difficult to get into the HOF. Clear HOFers such as Larkin, Alomar, and Bagwell (among others) are not getting in on the first ballot, and that makes voting more difficult overall (just look at the class of players on this year’s ballot — there’s probably a dozen HOFers on that ballot). The writers had no problem voting in players on the first ballot for nearly 40 years; what changed?

      I think that it’s fair to say it’s a cultural attitude, but cultural attitudes can be wrong. For that reason, we can say that the writers have every right to hold their attitudes, but that doesn’t make them correct (or mean that their attitudes correspond to reality).

      • ben says: January 18, 2013

        I agree that their attitudes may not be “correct” or have a basis in reality. I don’t necessarily condone each voter’s decision, I’m just stating that there need be no correlation between the past and this year’s vote, or between the statistics and this year’s vote. If you leave it up to a person to vote based on abstract criteria, this is what you will get, ever-changing positions and an imperfect HOF. I understand your argument, it just seems more like an argument against the system of voting rather than the outcome of the vote. It seems the outcome of the vote is exactly what the system set it up to be — an imperfect accumulation of attitudes right now.

      • Nicholas Zettel says: January 18, 2013

        I understand your position better now — I think you’re dead on with the abstract criteria argument.

        I think my frustration comes from being a fan that lived through the era — but, looking at past snubs (Dick Allen, Ron Santo, among others), I think you’re ultimately right about the results of a system with abstract criteria.


Websites mentioned my entry.

There are no trackbacks on this entry

Add a Comment

Fill in the form and submit.