An Observation on a Bill James Observation

[Fuzzy Bear]

Bill James has said, many times, in more than one of his writings, that, as time passes, a player's chances to be enshrined in the HOF rest more and more on his statistics, and, particularly, his batting statistics. The reason, James says, is that over time, the image of the player fades in the mind of observers; the reason why the player was so great becomes less clear. However, the stats are always there, frozen in time, on paper (or computer screen), unchanging, cold and analytical. Whether people will remember the Jose Canseco who was the best player in baseball for a short period of time, or the Jose Canseco who was an oft-injured DH-type, he will, forever, have triple crown stats of .266, 462 HR, 1407 RBI (unless he comes back, which is probably unlikely, so let's pretend that this is it).

I have repeated this mantra of Bill James many times. Over time, I have come to question some of his ideas of who WILL (not SHOULD, but WILL) be enshrined, and how they will get there. This is one of them.

I believe that the idea that a player's chances for the HOF being progressively dependent on his batting stats is true while he is eligible for election by the WRITERS. The writers did not play with the player; they watched and researched (or, at least we HOPE they researched) things.

However, when a player becomes eligible for review by the VC, I believe that the IMAGE of the player becomes more vivid in the minds of the electors, for good or ill, and that batting stats, at that point become less important.

The last eight (8) player selections for the HOF by the VC (not counting Negro Leaguers and 19th Century Players) are:

Bill Mazeroski
Orlando Cepeda
Larry Doby
Nellie Fox
Jim Bunning
Richie Ashburn
Phil Rizzuto
Hal Newhouser

Are these guys within the standard for selection for the HOF? Of course they are; they all are. Each of these guys are well within the gray area. They may, or may not, have been "first in line", but none of these guys cheapen the HOF. (If pressed to, I can defend each of these selections.)

That's not the point, though. None of these guys got in by stats, and none of them got in by contributions other than their play on the field. Each of them got in because of a "specialness" characteristic that was, I believe, in the minds of the VC electors. To-wit:

Maz: The greatest ever at turning two
Cha-Cha: The first unanimous MVP
Larry Doby: A complete player who was better than his stats, and a victim of segregation. (That image, IMO, is not entirely accurate; Doby was a 24 year old rookie.)
Nellie Fox: Part of the greatest DP combo in the AL, and could hit a little; a great bunter
Jim Bunning: The first man to win 100 in each league, and he pitched a perfect game.
Hal Newhouser: A dominating pitcher during the war
Richie Ashburn: The sparkplug of the Whiz Kids
Phil Rizzuto: The "Scooter", etc., the great defensive SS

I would make the observation that to be a VC selection, two things have to occur:

(A) You have to be memorable! All of these players listed here were unusually memorable. Maz did something the best ever (turning two). Fox did something the best ever (bunting). Cepeda did something for the first time (unanimous MVP). Bunning pitched a perfect game. Rizzuto won an MVP on shortstopping, not on hitting 40 HRs. Ashburn was an announcer long after his career ended. Doby integrated the AL, and was, arguably, the best player on the 1948 World Champion Indians (although it is certainly arguable). Newhouser was the best pitcher in baseball during the war.

(B) Peak value counts! The VC is where PEAK value is recognized; it is where players who were truly the best in baseball, if only for a short time, or who had short careers, will be recognized. The VC will remember Dale Murphy's back-to-back MVPs. The VC will remember Don Mattingly's 4 year run as one of the top 2-3 players in all of baseball. The VC will remember because THEY PLAYED WITH THESE GUYS, AND THEY PLAYED AGAINST THESE GUYS! This creates a much different memory of a player's career than that of a sportswriter who, though knowledgeable and having the benefit of the stats, does not always allow a player's PEAK to fully impact his decision-making process.

I am not discussing the merits of the VC; there are both positive and negative aspects of VC selections. I personally think that the VC, factoring out the Frisch years, is unfairly maligned.

I DO wish to say, however, that there comes a point where a player's chances for enshrinement change, in that they become LESS and LESS dependent on stats, and more and more dependent on the image they forged for themselves with their peers, while active.

[WiredTiger]

I think you are right on with your analysis. Once a player goes to the VC then he has a better chance of being elected if he was a likable and memorable player.

[Skip]

Makes sense to me. The guys with the obvious stats rarely, if ever, make it to the VC. The marginal candidates go to the VC and get in on 'adequate' stats and image/name recognition/etc.

[SmedIndy]

Carl Mays is a good case in point - a pariah that is definitely better than several HOF pitchers.

[pathogan]

...the changes in the VC selection process should be interesting..BTW I didnt think that any of those guys really deserved in,and some{Maz, RScooter, Bunning,Fox even Doby} no way .no way...

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Carl Mays is a good case in point - a pariah that is definitely better than several HOF pitchers.

That the VC takes into account things that make a player memorable is not necessarily a bad things. Defensive play is something that is, often, more memorable than offensive play. (We remember Willie Mays more for a catch he made on a Vic Wertz fly ball than for any individual home run he ever hit, don't we?) Defensive stats are not as reliable as offensive stats in measuring player's value, but that doesn't mean that a Bill Mazeroski, at his peak, isn't as good as Bobby Grich at his peak. The FULL value of defense is not as well measures as the FULL value of offense.

Mays, by the way, IS better than several HOF pitchers, and is not in mainly due to his unsavory reputation, which goes beyond the Ray Chapman beaning. I still wouldn't put him in ahead of John, Kaat, and Blyleven, although he is disticntly better than many of his direct contemporaries who have been enshrined (Marquard, Pennock, Hoyt, possibly Faber).

The VC also recognizes peak value. Active players of the 1950s are more likely to retain their awe for Al Rosen than a sportswriter would. Al Rosen turned in perhaps the best season ever by a third baseman in 1953. Peak value gets shorter shrift in baseball than in most sports, perhaps because of the length of careers in general, but it shouldn't, IMO. At least not to the extent that it is shorted by the writers.

[KCBOOMER]

The prevailing method of VC selection has been the cronyism of former players on the VC committee toward players they played with. If you wish to say they are voting on "image" sobeit, but its cronyism pure and simple.

As for lowering the standards of the HoF some of these guys definitely did. Mazeroski would be a good case. On the Black Ink test he scores 2 out of an HoF average of 27. On the Grey Ink test he scores 12 out of an HoF average of 144. On the HoF Standards test he checks in at 15.9 out of 50. Only on the HoH monitor does he rise up to 50% of average posting a 62 against 100. There is no way on earth "turning the double play" brings this guy up to remotely average. And if you are not average you are lowering the average.

The only time the VC has shown a willingness to use the numbers is on the pre-1900 guys who, of course, by 1936 were pretty much "out of the image" for the VC.

James is right that the longer you go the more important the numbers are but there is a threshhold that Fuzzy is referring to. It may well be 50 years after a guy hangs'em up that only the numbers are left.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
The prevailing method of VC selection has been the cronyism of former players on the VC committee toward players they played with. If you wish to say they are voting on "image" sobeit, but its cronyism pure and simple.

As for lowering the standards of the HoF some of these guys definitely did. Mazeroski would be a good case. On the Black Ink test he scores 2 out of an HoF average of 27. On the Grey Ink test he scores 12 out of an HoF average of 144. On the HoF Standards test he checks in at 15.9 out of 50. Only on the HoH monitor does he rise up to 50% of average posting a 62 against 100. There is no way on earth "turning the double play" brings this guy up to remotely average. And if you are not average you are lowering the average.

While I am not enamored of the Mazerozki selection, given that Grich, Gordon, Sandberg, Doyle, Pratt, Myer, and perhaps a few others are not enshrined, Mazeroski is a special case. I agree that Maz gets a bit too much credit for "turning the double play" but it is also possible that Maz is the greatest defensive player of all time at any position. Plus, Maz could be considered, for a part of his career, to be the best 2B in the NL, and he generated some middle infield power in a pitchers park during a pitcher's era, so his offensive stats are better than they seem. (If he walked more, his case would be MUCH better.)

Perhaps Maz needs a thread of his own!

I realize there is cronyism in the VC, but I think it is overstated, thanks to the Fordham Flash & Co.

There are often reasons that a player was "famous" or "likeable" or "memorable" in his own time that is not obvious in the stats but has something to do with winning. This is dangerous ground, I know; we could enshrine Bud Harrelson if we go too far!