The Hardball Times:Rating the BBWAA (Part 1)

8
0
Votes
The Hardball Times:Rating the BBWAA (Part 1) Links2
The Hardball Times:Rating the BBWAA (Part 1)
The Hardball Times The Hardball Times found this 7/21/2008 on www.hardballtimes.com [flag]
So ... how good a job has the BBWAA really done selecting Hall of Famers? [link]

Tags:

Comments (7)

  • ger8ry ger8ry
    +1

    Good stuff. I eagerly await Part 2.

    A couple of comments. I don't think the writers ever had the option of voting in Cap Anson et al. I think that even in the very first election, responsibility was split among two groups, with the writers getting everyone this side of 1900. It is said that Cy Young didn't get in with the first intake because the way his career straddled 1900 neither selection body was sure whether it was meant to vote on him or not.

    And I think you'll find that Pee Wee Reese is in.

    Posted 7/21/2008 [reply] [flag]
    • birtelcom birtelcom
      +1
      Reese is in, but via the Veterans Committee (1984) not the BBWAA.  I've always been impressed by how good a job the writers and their voting system have worked to elect the best players to the Hall.  So good a job that a very good case can be made that the BBWAA inductees can be treated as the true "inner circle" of the Hall, the recognized top 100 or so players of all time, with a few mistakes, as Chris Jaffe is outlining nicely.  Though Chris you kind of lost the courage of your convictions there with Sisler; certainly Richie/Dick Allen's on-field credentials are stronger than Sisler's, and Keith Hernandez is one multi-dimensional player who might replace Sisler's one-dimensionality 
      Posted 7/21/2008 [reply] [flag]
      • Chris Jaffe Chris Jaffe
        +1

        "Though Chris you kind of lost the courage of your convictions there with Sisler"

        I take exception to this.  I stated my conviction -- if no one makes a compelling argument against a player's qualifications to be in Cooperstown until 70 years after his retirement, then he should be there regardless of of how compelling the counter-argument is. 

        Posted 7/21/2008 [reply] [flag]
  • antinous antinous
    +1

    I really enjoyed the article and I'm frustrated I have to wait for the second half. ;) I would protest that Will Clark needs to be in the first base discussion, as he was better than Perez and Mattingly. I wouldn't put any of the three in, but I think he merits mention.

    Posted 7/21/2008 [reply] [flag]
  • ger8ry ger8ry
    +1

    Many years ago I suggested that first basemen Tony Perez, Orlando Cepeda, and Don Mattingly should be voted in together, as Tony, Orlando, and Don.

    If you're too young to get the joke, see www.friends-of-toad.com/

    Posted 7/22/2008 [reply] [flag]
  • elsupe07 elsupe07
    +1
    interesting article.  It seems to me if Tony Perez was voted in, then Gil Hodges should have been, statistics very similar.  Hodges also lost  a couple of years to the Marines in the south Pacific.  Seems like there is a Hall of Fame bias against players like Hodges and Joe Torre who were excellent players and managers, but maybe not dominant at either.  I know they vote on players and mangers separately, but I would like to see some credit given to managing as well as playing.
    Posted 7/22/2008 [reply] [flag]
    • antinous antinous
      +1

      You're right, it is a difficult category. I'm certain that Torre will get inducted as a manager in due time. More difficult cases are Dusty Baker and Felipe Alou (I swear I pay attention to more teams than just the Giants, it's coincidence that they both managed here), who were good-but-not-great players with long careers as well as managers with long careers.

      Hodges and Perez were very similar players, but I would question the assertion that Hodges lost anything to military service. He had only a cup of coffee in 1943, at age 19, and didn't become a regular until 1948, with 1949 as his first productive season. I could understand the argument that he was robbed of a crucial two years of minor league development, but this really isn't the same as Ted Williams or Willie Mays serving in the armed forces in the primes of their careers.

      Posted 7/22/2008 [reply] [flag]

Links (2)

Daily Links - 7/21/08
Published 7/21/2008 by roarke (noreply@blogger.com) at Watching the Game
... One of the great arguments in baseball is about who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I am of the opinion that the Hall of Fame should be reserved for the greatest of the great and guys like Gary Carter, Bruce Sutter, Andre Dawson and Jim Rice (two in, two not in, but get a lot of support) should be left out. Dawson and Rice were great, but were they really in the same conversation as Mays and Musial? Anway, this post looks into the job that the BBWAA has done in electing Hall of Famers. ...

GREAT, Part II
Published 7/22/2008 by Joe Posnanski at Joe Posnanski
... The excellent Chris Jaffe wrote a story the other day breaking down how the Baseball Writers have done voting for the Hall of Fame. He wrote that the BBWAA missing Arky Vaughan was “probably the biggest mistake the BBWAA ever made,” and I would concur. Second was letting me in. ...