Sunday, January 29, 2006

Eye of the Beholder

Hall of Fame votes are usually, if not always, subjective. Perhaps that explains why no one -- not Hank Aaron, not Willie Mays, not Ted Williams, to cite just three examples -- has ever been a unanimous pick. Subjectivity I can understand. Randomness is something else.

Maybe part of the problem is that elections are handled exclusively by the Baseball Writers Association of American (BBWAA). According to the BBWAA, "only active and honorary members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, who have been active baseball writers for at least ten (10) years, shall be eligible to vote." To mention just two obvious problems with this, broadcasters and other members of the non-print media cannot vote (you think, for example, Vin Scully knows a thing or two about who might be a Hall of Famer?), and there appears to be no requirement that those voting, after meeting the 10-year requirement, need do anything more than pay their annual BBWAA dues.

Take the most recent election, in which 520 people cast votes. Election requires being named on 75 percent of the ballots (this year, 390). Bruce Sutter was the only player to reach the 75 percent level, getting named on 400 ballots or 76.9 percent. I have already made clear (see post of January 16) my view that Sutter should not be in the HOF and that he was not even the best relief pitcher on the ballot (that would be Rich Gossage). But back to my point on randomness.

Sutter was elected this year even though he had been rejected for the HOF the 12 preceding years (you stay on the ballot for 15 years). And with the exception of last year's vote, when Sutter received 66.7 percent of the vote, it was never even close. Sutter first appeared on the 1994 ballot. Here are the percentage of votes he received from 1994 to 2004, rounded to the nearest whole number: 24, 30, 29, 27, 31, 24, 38, 48, 50, 54, and 60.

For six years in a row, fewer than one-third of voters thought Sutter belonged in the HOF. As recently as the 2002 election, only half the voters gave him the nod. Yet, somehow, 400 baseball writers -- most of whom I would bet also voted in 2002 -- voted for Sutter this year. That simply makes no sense.

Here is another interesting example (and, to be clear, I am not the first person to make this comparison). Here are the career statistics for two famous players of the 1980s and 1990s. One was elected to the HOF in his first year of eligibility with 82 percent of the vote. The other has been on the ballot six times, receiving a high of 28 percent of the vote, a low of 11 percent, and an average of 16 percent.

Games: 1785 ------- 1783
Runs: 1007 ---------1071
Hits: 2153 ---------- 2304
Doubles: 442 --------- 414
HRs: 222 ----------- 207
RBI: 1099 ---------- 1085
Avg: .307 (one batting title; 7 .300 + seasons) --------- .318 (one batting title; 8 .300+ seasons)
OBP: .358 ---------- .360
Fielding %: .996 ----- .989

The statistics on the left belong to Don Mattingly, who will need some Sutteresque magic to get to Cooperstown. The statistics on the right belong to Kirby Puckett, elected in the HOF in 2001.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the subject of the Hall of Fame, how come there has been no comment on the great Jason Michaels being traded? What is Pat Gillick doing? What kind of a GM trades their stud fifth outfielder, right after signing him to a $1.5 million dollar deal? Some would say that Gillick overpaid for Michaels, but I would say otherwise. Gillick was only showing a little compassion for Michaels since he needs the extra cash to pay the fine for beating up that cop.

Bell 4 MVP

4:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home