Baseball's Hall of Fame

Last fall I read a book, The Cooperstown Casebook by Jay Jaffe.  Its subtitle tells it all: "Who's in the Baseball Hall of Fame, Who Should Be, and Who Should Pack Their Plaques."  The book piqued my interest, esp as those who know me at all, because of my strong belief that Ted Simmons belongs in the Hall.

But the book raised some good questions, made some good points, and provided food for thought.  No doubt some of it is controversial, both for and against.  And, as usual, I have spent some time, months later, thinking about it.

Has Baseball's Hall of Fame become a "Hall of Very Good" or even a "Hall of Good?"  I don't mean to diminish the achievements of any of these players.  From a personal level, I realize how skilled they were.  In fact, I appreciate the skill levels of even the last players on the benches or in the bullpens.  Most people probably don't recognize how good even these players are.  Try to remember the best players you ever played with or against.  Did any of them play in the Major Leagues?

Back to Jaffe's book.  He suggests that, for many people, the Cooperstown as become a Hall of Valuable.  Hmmm......  Is that bad?  Isn't "value" a large part of "fame?"  What about sentimentality, emotion?  Do they water down the Hall of Fame?

But the best parts of the book are the analyses of players, "Who's in...Who Should Be...Who Should Pack......"  Yes, Jaffe favors he admission of Ted Simmons.  Hooray!  But we all have our favorites, too.  A recent newspaper article about Detroit Tiger Bill Freehan led to questions of why he doesn't have a plaque at Cooperstown.  Maybe he doesn't have gaudy stats, but Freehan was an All-Star 11 of the 15 years he played, 11 of his last 13 years.  That is, he was the premier American League catcher of his time.  I suppose some might say that was because of other, weak catchers of those years.  But somebody from then thought he was pretty darn good.  And how do we compare players and their statistics with those of different eras?  The game changes, from the ball, bats, and other equipment to the height of the pitcher's mound to the way the game is played/managers manage.  In reality, the only fair comparison is with others of who played at he same time.

Some of Jaffe's picks are controversial.  Yes, Simmons, Freehan, and Lou Whitaker should be in and he is critical of a Hall that doesn't include them.  Some, such as Andruw Jones of the Braves and Jack Morris, are maybes.  Those who he thinks should be "packing their plaques" include Red Schoendienst, Bill Mazeroski, Phil Rizzuto, George Kell, and even Lefty Gomez and Catfish Hunter.  No doubt, in some of these instances, election was based on emotion.  Think Bill Mazeroski and the '61 Series.  I'd guess others had to do with keeping names up front, for instance Rizzuto and Kell as long-time team announcers on radio/television.  Did Jim Bunning's tenure in Congress affect his election?  That doesn't mean these players aren't Hall worthy, although Jaffe thinks so.

Is longevity a factor?  After all, Sandy Koufax had a relatively short career and, in fact, had only five seasons that were outstanding.  Of  course, during those five years he was probably the best pitcher baseball has ever seen.  I recall one Series game, in '63 I think, when he threw a three-hit shutout vs the Yankees, using just his fastball due to an arm problem.  And the Yanks knew that, that Koufax was throwing only fastballs.  After whiffing for the fourth time, Mickey Mantle returned to the dugout, threw his bat into the bat rack, and swore "How're we supposed to hit that sh*t!"  Indeed.  By the way, I think Koufax is a no-brainer; he is deserving.  But what about Nellie Fox?  He played all or parts of 19 seasons and was one of the toughest batters to strike out in MLB history.  But he wasn't a career .300 hitter and didn't amass 3,000 hits.  He accumulated only 35 home runs.  Hmmm......

Many now use Sabermetrics to evaluate players.  Sabermetrics is an empirical analysis of the game, applying statistics to evaluate players, including those of different years.  But, as noted above, the game has changed many times over the years.  Ty Cobb led the league in HRs only once and the most he ever hit in a season were twelve.  At one time, stealing bases was deemed more important than power hitting.  How about the reliance on "relief pitching by committee," with "closers," "set-up men," and, I suppose, "set up men to set up men?"

One final word on sabermetrics and statistical analyses.  I think this leaves out some intangibles, things that can't be measured.  For instance, sabermetrics, if I understand this correctly, holds that teams should forgot sacrifice bunts, that runners score more often when not sacrificing.  But doesn't that discount what could happen, what can't be quantified?  If the threat of a bunt is there, all sorts of things happen.  Pitchers have added pressure, to throw the ball high.  Getting the ball up might make it easier for a potential bunter to hit rather than bunt.  After all, unless the defense is stealing the other teams signs, it must prepare for the bunt.  There is also added pressure, esp on the infield, which must hurry the play on a bunt.  And, with a bunt in question, the defense must move in, playing out of position.  Again, with the infield out of position, playing more shallow, if a batter doesn't bunt, how many ground balls would sneak by the fielders into the outfield?  There's no way to quantify the "what ifs?" 

Regardless, I recommend Jaffe's book.  It is well written and provides a lot of food for thought, as well as sometimes evoking anger--grrrrrr!