Home Sports Talk

Joe Posnanski on the HOF

markj111markj111 Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
Free Bert Blyleven

11 Mar 2009 Baseball Print This Post


While doing final rewrite of my book — and I’m STILL trying to getting those last words right — and writing an SI cover story and running around the country like mad for, you know, my day job, I have also been tinkering with this rather extensive Hall of Fame piece. I know, this blog absolutely does not need another Hall of Fame piece. But this one comes at the Hall of Fame from a whole other angle, one that considers if maybe the Hall of Fame needs to be a whole lot bigger for modern players. in this one, Andre Dawson and Jim Rice and, yes, Jack Morris look a lot more like Hall of Famers. It’s kind of a devil’s advocate thing to the 3,403,483 words I’ve already written on the subject.


Of course, in this Hall of Fame light Bert Blyleven looks even more like a Hall of Famer. There has never been any doubt about Bert’s place in the Hall of Fame on this blog — I figure I’m standing right behind this guy — but when you look at the Hall of Fame in a bigger way, I don’t see how you can help but think “HOW IN THE HELL IS BERT BLYLEVEN NOT IN THE HALL OF FAME?” And now that he is the pitching coach of a Holland team that just stunned the hell out of the Dominican Republic in the World Baseball Conundrum, you have to believe there are no questions left, no room for doubters, put the guy in already. I mean, seriously.

5th all-time in strikeouts.
9th all-time in shutouts.
27th all-time in wins.
A 2.59 ERA in postseason.
A 2.35 ERA in the World Series.
Greatest curveball ever.
Pitching coach for one of great upsets ever.

Damn. Free Bert Blyleven.

* * *

The general point of this exercise is something that’s probably pretty obvious to everyone: The Hall of Fame has been much, much, much, much, much, much kinder to players from the 1920s and 1930s than it has been to players or more recent vintage. That’s obvious, and there are obvious reasons for it too.

1. Those players got two chances to get into the Hall of Fame. They had the writers, and then they had a Veteran’s Committee that was, at various times, well, let’s call it “generous.”

2. The Hall had fuzzier entry requirements in the early years. Those requirements, as we have seen, are plenty fuzzy now, but the standards for earlier players were not set.

3. There was was romance to baseball in those days that cannot be regained. There was little footage of those players, and statistics were not nearly as advanced. Players were chosen more from the heart.

There are other reasons too. But my point is this: While I always knew that players from the 1920s and 1930s are better represented in the Hall of Fame, I never knew to what extreme. And, let me tell you: It is extreme.

Let’s compare 1930 and 1980. Now, you probably know that 1930 was a great, great offensive year. Bill Terry was the last National Leaguer to hit .400 that year. Hack Wilson drove in 191 RBIs. Someone named Adam Comoromsky had 23 triples. And so on. And 1980 was not a particularly good offensive year, though that is the year George Brett challenged .400. But for our purposes here, there are bigger difference between 1930 and 1980.

– In 1930 there were 16 teams. In 1980 there were 24 teams. Keep that in mind — 50 percent more teams in 1980.
– In 1930, black players — African Americans, dark-skinned Latins and so on — were not eligible to play in the Majors.

OK, with that, here is a list of the Hall of Fame Players from 1930 and 1980:

First base
1930 (5): Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Bill Terry, Jim Bottomley, George Sisler.
1980 (3): Eddie Murray, Tony Perez, Rod Carew.

Second base
1930 (3): Charlie Gehringer, Frankie Frisch, Tony Lazzeri.
1980 (2): Joe Morgan, Paul Molitor.

Shortstop
1930 (3)*: Travis Jackson, Joe Cronin, Rabbit Maranville.
1980 (2): Robin Yount, Ozzie Smith.

*It’s actually four, but Leo Durocher, while he did get enough at-bats, did not get in as a shortstop.

Third base
1930 (3): Joe Sewell, Freddie Lindstrom, Pie Traynor.
1980 (2): Mike Schmidt, George Brett.

Outfield
1930 (15): Hack Wilson, Babe Ruth, Chuck Klein, Goose Goslin, Al Simmons, Chick Hafey, Mel Ott, Earl Averill, Harry Heilmann, Kiki Cuyler, Heine Manush, Lloyd Waner, Paul Waner, Earle Combs, Sam Rice.
1980 (4): Reggie Jackson, Dave Winfield, Jim Rice, Rickey Henderson.

Catcher
1930 (4)*: Gabby Hartnett, Mickey Cochrane, Bill Dickey, Rick Ferrell
1980 (3): Gary Carter, Carlton Fisk, Johnny Bench.

*Actually, it’s five if you count Al Lopez, but he went in primarily as a manager. Which brings up a whole other point: I never realized how preposterous it is that Al Lopez was inducted into the Hall of Fame as a manager. He never won a World Series. Can you be a Hall of Fame manager without winning the World Series? He managed the ‘54 Cleveland Indians, who did win 111 games but then, of course, got swept by the Giants in perhaps the greatest choke job in World Series history. Later he managed the Go Go White Sox, who lost to the Dodgers in the ‘59 World Series. I guess Lopez is a rare case of someone getting elected for his lifetime achievement — he was a solid catcher for a long time and he was a solid manager who finished second a lot (10 times in his career). However, it does make you think that Whitey Herzog has a helluva case.

Pitchers
1930 (14): Lefty Grove, Dazzy Vance, Red Ruffing, Carl Hubbell, Burleigh Grimes, Ted Lyons, Jesse Haines, Red Faber, Herb Pennock, Eppa Rixey, Waite Hoyt, Lefty Gomez, Pete Alexander, Dizzy Dean.

1980 (12): Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Don Sutton, Dennis Eckersley, Jim Palmer, Goose Gossage, Tom Seaver, Bruce Sutter, Rollie Fingers.

OK, that makes 33 everyday Hall of Famers from 1930 and only 16 from 1980. Half. Think about how amazing that is for a moment — we’re supposed to accept that there were twice as many Hall of Famers in 1930, even though there were significantly fewer teams, even though black players did not play, even though baseball players in 1980 had 50 years of evolution in order to get better. It’s ludicrous. And more pitchers from 1930 than 1980 too? Really?

Of course the way that most people would respond to this absurdity — the way I would respond — is to say that the 1930 standard is ridiculous and they should throw people out of the Hall of Fame. It’s not like anyone but family would miss Freddie Lindstrom and Jim Bottomley and Jesse Haines — few people even realize they are in there now.

But let’s face it for a moment: They’re not throwing people out of the Hall. So,the question for me is: Are my standards simply too high for the Hall of Fame? I mean, it’s true that almost half of the 33 players in the Hall are Veteran’s Committee choices, and it’s easy to say: Hey, the writers didn’t vote in Earle Combs and Travis Jackson and Rick Ferrell and Eppa Rixey. If the Hall of Fame wants players like that in the Hall, they need to re-think the Veteran’s Committee or lower than 75% entry requirement or whatever. At the end of the day, writers may vote but it’s the Hall of Fame itself that establishes the standards.

But I wonder if that’s entirely right. Even if you took out the Veteran’s Committee choices — and some of those were pretty clear misses by the writers — it still means that the writers voted for more everyday players from 1930 than 1980, and that just seems way out of whack for me. True, there are no laws that state there are the same number of Hall of Fame players in every era. I do realize that. It is not impossible that there were more Hall of Fame caliber players in 1930 than in 1980. But when considering the circumstances of the times, when considering how many more teams were around in 1980 and how much more open the game was, I find it pretty much impossible to believe.

Will this change the way I vote? I don’t know. It’s just something I’ve been thinking about. I still think Andre Dawson’s on-base percentage was too low, and Jack Morris was a durable but not exceptional pitcher, and Steve Garvey simply had too many holes in his game. Of course, I also believe in some others from the era who have not gotten much Hall of Fame support — Lou Whitaker, Alan Trammell, Dan Quisenberry, Dwight Evans, Darrell Evans. The only thing I do know for certain is that Holland pitching coach Bert Blyleven should be in.

Comments

  • There were also far less people born in the U.S. in 1900, compared to 1950...the years which these guys 30 years later would be playing MLB in 1930 and 1980. Heck, Geronimo was still alive in 1900.

    The population of available baseball talent was millions less in 1930, compared to 1980.

    South of the border players from those populations were also chosen from as well for the 1980 guys.

    What occured was that the 1930 stars were basically men among boys. The 1980 stars had more players closer to their ability becaue there were far more people to choose from, and the science of sport was also enhanced.

    The result was that the 1930 guys put up mind boggling numbers over and above their peers, while that is an impossibility for the 1980 guys to achieve.

    Think of it in school terms. It would be similar if a 1930 star were an eigth grader playing in a league with mostly 6th graders, while a 1980 star was an eigth grader playing with mostly similarly talented 8th graders. Sure, there are some 6th graders who are as good, but in general, they are not.

  • jaxxrjaxxr Posts: 1,258 ✭✭
    Interesting post Mark,

    The OF comparison from the 30's to the 80"s, is probably the most glaring, and two of the 80's representatives were elected just this year.

    Bert Blyleven is still an odd case, his numerical stats should certainly outweigh his lack of fame and popularity, only 2 AS game selections, and never better than 3rd in CY voting. Somehow, and unfortunately, fame does not alway equate to quality. I still feel the HOF will give Bly his proper due eventually.

    The HOF was started back in 1936, the players from the 30's were obviously more popular and fresh in voters' minds, as regular and "veteran" voters decided upon them, at that time and in the years following.
    The Pro potential for an athletic young man back in the 30's was almost exclusive to baseball without any diluting expansion teams, plus the NFL was not too popular, there was no NBA at all, and individual sports like golf and tennis were not truly professional to a large degree. The actual increase in positions available in professional sports, grew at a larger rate than the US population did, from 1930 to 1980. The competition for a mere 400 major sport postions, was pretty intense and fomidable, despite racial shortcomings.

    image
    This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
  • BoopottsBoopotts Posts: 6,784 ✭✭
    A fine analysis, although I'm still shocked by the amount of energy and brain power that goes in to criticizing the HOF. Let's face it-- the whole thing is a farce. It's like railing about the methods for judging college football teams. The people doing the judging have no idea what they're doing. Since any institution of this sort is only as credible as the people who determine admittance, why even bother getting bent out of shape over it? Baseball writers are dumb-asses; less than 15% probably have any idea what really makes the game 'tick'. As long as they're running the circus it's best to just ignore it.


    My feeling is that when it comes to sports-- or the analysis of sports-- there are about 150 other topics that are far more intriguing,and have far, far more usefulness,than fretting over HOF selections. This writer seems quite intelligent, and it's a shame to see his energies focused on such an uninteresting (and not particularly useful) topic.
  • It was quite easy for stars to dominate their peers in the pre war times. Their peers were easy to dominate...they were inferior compared to the peers of the 1980's players.

    Pre war years baseball had to compete with work. Many a kid or young man didn't have the option to pursue a baseball career, because their family had to eat, so they had to work....even children.

    1980's players were also drawn from the populations of south of the border.

    It isn't a coincidence that an unproportioned of history's most dominant years came from that time, and less from the 80's time frame. It was men amongst boys back then.

    It is definately weighted to the 30's players. This is the only reason why it doesn't bug me as much when guys like Jim Rice or Bruce Sutter somehow get voted in over better players from their own era. At least it starts to balance out the Hall a bit.

  • jaxxrjaxxr Posts: 1,258 ✭✭
    The baseball HOF is the oldest major sports hall. While it is fruitless to analyze or complain about the selections, it is usually interesting and entertaining.
    The fact that baseball has had no major rule changes since the inception of the Major Leagues, it is more consistent to evaluate the players, than other sports.

    None of us has a time-machine and cant say with absolute certainty, how each era was composed via quality and competition, although several players who started in the 30's, performed well after WW2, Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams, Early Wynn, and Lou Boudreau come to mind. Obviously a typical healthy youth in 2008 has many more medical, diet, and and training advantages, when compared to one from 1938, or 1908, however, the overall balance or parity, is not necessarily much different.

    image
    This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Sign In or Register to comment.