I am not a baseball fan-- I suck at the game, and it's boring as hell on tv-- but I can't help noticing occasional bits of baseball news. such as, for example, yesterday's announcement of the Hall of Fame voting, which prompts the post title. Eight writers did not vote for Cal Ripken to get into the Hall of fame.
Let me say that again, in bold: Eight writers did not vote for Cal Ripken.
This has to be one of the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Leave aside for the moment that Ripken holds what may be the most impressive record in the sport, playing in 2,632 consecutive games. And forget the fact that Ripken was the epitome of class through the whole thing. The only thing that matters is this: Cal Ripken saved baseball.
Or, let me put it another way: Without Cal Ripken, baseball is the NHL. The year he broke Gehrig's record, baseball was coming off a strike-shortened season that cancelled the World Series, and alienated huge numbers of fans. Ripken's streak brought people back-- hell, he got me to watch baseball that summer, and the ovation he received when his record-breaking game became official was one of the coolest things I've seen in any sport, ever.
And eight writers didn't vote for him to be in the Hall of Fame. Morons is too kind.
- Log in to post comments
All I can think about Ripken being inducted into the Hall of Fame is... crap, I had his ROOKIE YEAR baseball card! (I grew up in B'more.) One more fact that puts me firmly into the category of "Old Guy".
Either they had a burr up their backside about not getting an interview, or they just didn't want him to be unanimous. The latter is a rare honor indeed, I can see that.
Sacrilige content - Cal should start the "hall of really really good for a long time" :-) He was one of the first power hitting shortstops, and a very good fielder, he belongs for sure
There are two things going on with that. The first is that there are some voters who believe that if guys like Babe Ruth, Joe Dimaggio, or Willie Mays weren't unanimously elected, then no one should be. I don't agree with that stance, but there is a certain charm to not having anyone in the Hall unanimously.
The other thing this year is that at least one writer publicly announced that he isn't voting for anyone who played in the steroid era ever, apparently using similar logic to what Kennesaw Mountain Landis used in banning Buck Weaver from baseball (Weaver knew of the Black Sox conspiracy, but took no part), that even the players who didn't use steroids had "guilty knowledge" of those that did, and thus should be excluded. It sounds more like an attempt at self-aggrandizement than any sort of principled stance to me. If he has that big a problem with the way baseball was run over the last twenty years, he should just turn in his ballot and resign from the BBWoA.
Plus there's the whole thing where Tony Gwynn was actually the better player of the two electees. ::Lights match...::
There are two things going on with that. The first is that there are some voters who believe that if guys like Babe Ruth, Joe Dimaggio, or Willie Mays weren't unanimously elected, then no one should be. I don't agree with that stance, but there is a certain charm to not having anyone in the Hall unanimously.
Yeah, I've heard that as an explanation. I think it's idiotic, but not atypical of baseball people.
The other thing this year is that at least one writer publicly announced that he isn't voting for anyone who played in the steroid era ever, apparently using similar logic to what Kennesaw Mountain Landis used in banning Buck Weaver from baseball (Weaver knew of the Black Sox conspiracy, but took no part), that even the players who didn't use steroids had "guilty knowledge" of those that did, and thus should be excluded. It sounds more like an attempt at self-aggrandizement than any sort of principled stance to me. If he has that big a problem with the way baseball was run over the last twenty years, he should just turn in his ballot and resign from the BBWoA.
Exactly.
The statistics need to be adjusted to be scientific. For instance...
Baseball-reference.com measures OPS+, a measure of how a player's on base plus slugging compares to a park-adjusted measure of the league. This applies to Eddie Murray (Hall of Fame 2003, with 85.3% of the vote). By that yardstick, Murray was at least 30 percent better than the average hitter in the league on 12 occasions, and at least 20% better his first 12 straight years in the league. "Steady Eddie" wasn't just a none-too-clever rhyme; Murray missed more than 11 games in a season only once in his first 18 seasons in the league, and that one time he still managed 578 plate appearances.
Then there's the Pythagorean Theorem of Baseball. This applies, for instance, to
Rich "Goose" Gossage (Hall of Fame, 2003, with 42.1%). From 1977 to 1984, an 8-year span, the Goose's teams exceeded their "Pythagorean Projections" - the number of games they'd be expected to win based on their runs scored and allowed - by 21 games, almost 3 full games a year. The biggest effects came, generally, in some of the seasons when the Goose pitched the most - 1977, 1980, 1984. (Dan Quisenberry has a similar, even more impressive record: for the six seasons of his prime, from 1980 to 1985, the Royals exceeded their Pythagorean record by 20 games.) Bruce Sutter's teams exceeded their Pythagorean records by 19 games over 9 years (1976-84), although the biggest damage (+7) was done when he was a rookie setup man; the numbers break down to +16 for his first three seasons and +3 for the next 6 years when he was mostly used in save situations, albeit with a much heavier workload than the modern closer. Does this prove anything? Logically, you expect teams with great bullpens to win the close ones. It's noteworthy in Gossage's case that the biggest seasons were the ones when he was paired with other good relievers (Kent Tekulve, Ron Davis). I think some studies have shown a slight overall effect for teams with good bullpens (witness the Braves this year), but at a minimum, it's an extra feather in a guy's cap if his team won an unusual number of close games when he owned the 8th and 9th innings.
Above data from:
http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2003/01/baseball_2003_h_1.php
"There are two things going on with that. The first is that there are some voters who believe that if guys like Babe Ruth, Joe Dimaggio, or Willie Mays weren't unanimously elected, then no one should be. I don't agree with that stance, but there is a certain charm to not having anyone in the Hall unanimously."
I think there are also a few writers (possibly overlapping) who don't think anybody should get in on their first ballot.
What's more annoying to me is that both Jim Rice and Goose Gossage didn't get in, especially with regards to Rice. Granted, he's just a little short of some "automatic" milestones, but for a ten year span he was probably the most feared hitter in the American League, and his career stats from the mid-70s to the mid-80s are just about the best there are over that period.
Ripken put the streak above the good of his team. He frequently played while injured or in a slump, when it would have benefited the Orioles to play someone else. His effect on the clubhouse was also less than beneficial at times.
That's not to say he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame-players with lesser accomplishments have already been admitted. But he's hardly the selfless, saintly player sportswriters like to portray him as.
"What's more annoying to me is that both Jim Rice and Goose Gossage didn't get in, especially with regards to Rice."
I totally agree with you on both these guys. Rice suffered initially from the fact that he didn't get on well with the writers, and then later because his numbers weren't as impressive as the juicers. Goose should've gone in with Sutter. Next year there are no marquee guys on the ballot, so they should both have good shots at finally getting in.