Hall Of Fame Is Why Awards Still Matter

by James Kannengieser on Nov 18, 2009 1:00 AM EST

For Internet baseball writers, cries of apathy have drowned out the usual complaining about the BBWAA Awards voting. What used to be "here's why Johan Santana was a much better choice for the Cy than Bartolo Colon" has become "holy crap I couldn't care less who wins the Cy Young Award". I touched on this awhile back but there is a significant reason why people should still care about getting these awards right - the important* Hall of Fame voting. Each Hall voting season, ballots are justified at least partially on past MVP and Cy Young Award voting. I won't recap a ton of examples but here's a classic one for illustration, from Sean McAdam about Bert Blyleven:

For a guy who pitched 22 seasons, he received Cy Young votes in four years. Put another way, only once every five years, Blyleven was considered one of his league's 10 best pitchers. Sorry, but that doesn't exactly scream "all-time great" to me.

The rationale is that this is a great way to gauge how a player was perceived during his playing days. This rationale is, of course, incredibly flawed. With better ways of evaluating players at our fingertips, I'm not sure why, for example, Alan Trammell's failure to win an MVP Award (despite deserving it in 1987) should hurt his Hall candidacy. This is not to say that all voters in the past were total fools. Advanced statistics were not readily available, and concepts like positional adjustments and the importance of defense were not prevalent. To their credit, BBWAA members generally have taken steps in the right direction, and it's likely that the major awards this season will be correctly handed out. Nevertheless, as long as the same group votes on both postseason awards and the Hall, past MVP and Cy voting will likely impact a player's entrance to Cooperstown.

Ideally, the BBWAA wouldn't have a say in the Hall voting process. The system stinks but it's going to be in place for the foreseeable future. Until the day when induction is determined by an objective SABR committee (or something similar) which realizes past mistakes by awards voters are meaningless, the MVP and Cy Young Awards should continue to be scrutinized. Several BBWAA members have modified their voting standards in the Internet age and I like to think public analysis of past mistakes played a small role.

* - I feel that the Hall of Fame is very important but if you don't, that's fine. And you probably won't agree with this post at all.

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Personally

I want to see how the HoF voters deal with the Steroid era. Of course I also want to see Pete Rose in finally so my feelings on the Baseball HoF and who gets in is up in the air.

by Mark D on Nov 18, 2009 5:10 AM EST reply actions

Those people are going to start making their way through the system, so it'll be interesting to see what happens when they arrive en masse.

McGwire is the only one right now, really, and they’ve been stalling on his vote. I, personally, think he’ll get in in a year or two now that he’s returned to baseball with the Cards. But, down with Pete Rose being in the Hall. And here’s to Gil Hodges getting in…

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 18, 2009 9:10 AM EST up reply actions

The importance of the hall

Zev Chafets deals with this in his book “Cooperstown Confidential”. One of the things he brings up is the financial benefit to players of being in the HOF. This probably makes less of a difference now since anyone who is close to getting in has probably made tons of money, but for some of the borderline older players it’s a big deal.

by Reg Dunlop on Nov 18, 2009 9:19 AM EST reply actions

The thing about it is...

The BBWAA are more concerned with getting it right from year to year and for the most part they do. The hall of fame voters and particularly the veterans committee look at things like if a particular player dominated his era which is totally different. It also falls upon them to evaluate the games evolution from decade to decade. In he 1930’s, considered to be baseballs best offensive decade, you have many career .300 hitters who will probably never see the hall of fame. The system has many flaws, but I think it has been fair.

Also, it appears to me that up until 15 years ago, the criteria for a hall of famer used to be much higher, and I find that the HOF has been diluted in our generation.

Today, they would never consider not electing someone, anyone into the hall of fame. They are compelled to elect someone every year because of the promotion and marketing revenue it generates.

In 1960, 1958, 1950, etc. no players were voted into the HOF because none were deemed to be deserving or were able to garner the minimum votes.

You would never see that happen in todays voting, when they manged to squeeze Niekro and Sutton in just so they could have their induction ceremony.

Because of the steroid era, I don’t believe players should be punished, but I do believe that 500 homers should NOT automatically be a meal ticket to Cooperstown. That mark used to mean something when less than 1% of players were able to reach that milestone.

Today it’s not even a magical feat anymore. As long as most sluggers stay healthy and play for 15-18 years they all have a chance at 500. The same thing goes for .300 hitters. It used mean something when league batting averages were .245, but now that they are 15 points more or higher than that, it doesn’t seem like a mark of distinction anymore.

Anyway, one thing I’m curious about… Is Edgar Martinez a Hall of Famer?

by Joe D. on Nov 18, 2009 9:55 AM EST reply actions

I agree about the 500 homer thing

I’m not so sure that Sammy Sosa deserves to be in the hall, and I don’t even give a damn about steroids in relation to hall voting. I think the hall is very important, but it has been deluded significantly. Off the top of my head, Rice, Mazerowski, and Rizzuto don’t belong.

"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."

by Evan_S on Nov 18, 2009 10:12 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

ew, Rizzuto

talk about a guy who got in because he played for the right team

by JoshNY on Nov 18, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions

Holy Cow, you went there!

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 18, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions

I think you have to differentiate

between a) the BBWAA voting, which is hundreds of writers and is somewhat harder to make a consensus of 75% approval and b) the Veterans Committee and similar small groups which have tended to be more of an old boys network and IMO has been more responsible for the more ridiculous HOF selections over the years.

by StorkFan on Nov 18, 2009 10:14 PM EST up reply actions

Semantics

One some level, it’s called the Hall of “FAME”, rather than the Hall of Players With Better Numbers Than Most Other Players.

I’d rather see some famous good player get in, rather than some guy who no one has ever heard of, but has some numbers close to some other guy who got in. (Jim Rice)

Example: How could Roger Maris not be in the Hall of Fame? He wasn’t a great player, but he ended up being one of the most “famous” players of that era.

The number 61 was a lightning rod for baseball arguments for decades.

I guess that’s how I think of the HOF. If it turns into “anyone who hits 500 HR gets in”, then who the hell cares.

by Mex_17 on Nov 18, 2009 8:06 PM EST reply actions

Roger Maris isn't in because outside of those 2 seasons,

he didn’t have a very notable career. It shouldn’t be about how famous/well-known the players are. In fact, that’s about the worst argument for induction. It would arbitrarily punish players who spent most or all of their careers in small markets, or on lousy teams. HOF credentials are (or should be) only about how good a player was, fame be damned.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Nov 18, 2009 8:53 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

Well put

by James Kannengieser on Nov 18, 2009 10:29 PM EST up reply actions

well

the museum upholds the “fame” part. it’s a tiny & wonderful little place and won’t get overly concerned with the career of jim rice, don’t worry.

by Pack Bringley on Nov 18, 2009 9:35 PM EST up reply actions

Right

You can put up 100 pictures of Jim Rice and Roger Maris and Bruce Sutter and explain the impact they had on the game in the museum part of the Hall. That’s the best part of visiting Cooperstown. But as far as player induction, with the ceremony and the plaques, etc., let’s leave it to players who earned it with their outstanding performances.

by James Kannengieser on Nov 18, 2009 10:27 PM EST up reply actions

I think you just like being argumentative.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Nov 18, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions

Maris isn't in because he was on steroids

Paul Lo Duca was his dealer.

by TheBigStapler on Nov 19, 2009 9:49 AM EST up reply actions

Who's going to the Hall when Piazza gets in? AA needs to send a contingent.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 19, 2009 12:23 AM EST reply actions

If he gets inducted as a Dodger

I’m going with a dynamite vest on.

by TheBigStapler on Nov 19, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions

He can't be inducted as a Dodger.

He can’t be inducted as a Dodger. Until 2001, the HoF deferred to the players, in letting them pick what cap they wanted to represent. If that was the case, I believe Piazza is “on the record” saying that of all of the places he played, he liked New York the most. That said, though, in 2002, the HoF changed their policies and have “ruled” in the only two “controversial” inductions- Carter and Boggs- that their playing time trumped the other accomplishments on the other teams, in which they spent less time on. In Piazza’s case, he accomplished great things while on the Mets and Dodgers. He spent six years (plus or minus, adding his couple of September games in 1992 and his 40 games in 1998 before he got traded to Florida), a week in Florida, seven-and-a-half here, one in San Diego and one in Oakland. His spending more time in New York, and being synonymous with the late-’90s/early 2000s New York Mets, puts him over the edge on our side of the divide- he accomplished a little more while with the Dodgers, in terms of production and awards, but his number of awards, MVP votes, and All-Star games with the Mets are surprisingly close.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Nov 19, 2009 10:23 AM EST up reply actions