There was a sketch that was popular on SNL where Dana Carvey played a grumpy old man who opined for the past and had a catch phrase “That’s the way it was and we liked it.” This is how I feel about most baseball fans and sportswriters who claim to be historians of the game and ‘purists’ when they talk about hall of fame voting. The system is broken, but it has been so ingrained in us that it is the ‘best and only’ way that we have just learned to accept its limitations. Whenever I tell a so called ‘purist’ this, their inevitable response is “Then how would you fix it?” And of course they assume I will just fumble over my next words and just agree with them. Unfortunately for them I have taken great pride in spending countless hours preparing for this argument out of competitiveness, (compulsive maybe, diabolical perhaps).
As a kid, (before excel) I used to hand-make my own baseball card with my career statistics on the back. When I did this at 7-8 I was a Hall Of Famer (think Barry Larkin). By 9-10 I had downgraded my ceiling to 3 time all-star (think Edgar Renteria), and when I was 11-12 I came to grips with my coordination, lack of size and athleticism, and landed on serviceable role player who hung around out of grit and hustle (think Tim Bogar). By 13 I had completely given up on the idea of being a Professional Baseball Player and thought it foolhardy to continue with this practice of fantasy. The reason I mention this story is to point out that as we get older we should get wiser and become more self-aware and use knowledge and information provided to us so that we may evolve and make better decisions as we improve upon what has already been established. People are innately opposed to change. What most people do with knowledge and information is they use it to further affirm opinions they have already established rather than using it to evolve their opinions into new or better ones. I mean, there was a time when I thought that gay was a choice and that you could put a calzone in a regular toaster, point being, you live and you learn.
Baseball purists were taught that the most important statistics in the game are: Batting Average, RBI’s, Homeruns, and Runs. These are the “sexy” stats, its’ not exciting to walk. Think about this; if you finger your girlfriend to climax, or have sex with her to climax, either way she is pleased and you have fulfilled your responsibility. It’s a different sensation plus a greater feeling of self-accomplishment with sex than it would be with a line drive single, but really, you have done the same thing.
I’m not saying these statistics are not good measures of a players’ worth or value to the team, they are, but thanks to new technology and Baseball stat geeks such as Bill James, we now have better measures of a players worth. Does this mean we should throw out Batting Average, RBI’s, and Homeruns and label them obsolete? In a word no, but it does mean we should weigh them in with the other stats to get the full picture of any players contribution to the team. In my mind I am thinking of a score like a QB rating. Bill James has already established something similar to this http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/hof_standard.shtml which I think is a great start, although I do also feel his formula has room for improvement, just as everything in society does. There is a reason we no longer use VCR’s and watch HD TV’s. The issue is there are ‘purists’ saying things like WAR and BABIP are not useful or may be incorrect. This has created the equivalent of a Baseball filibuster, which is keeping it from moving things forward.
The second issue that comes with the Hall of Fame is the subjectivity it’s voters. This is not a new issue as it has always been the case. Mickey Mantle only received 88.2% of votes to get into the Hall of Fame, Ernie Banks 83.8% and Cy Young at 76.1%. This makes absolutely no sense. How can 11.8% of voters look at Mickey Mantle’s career in comparison to those before him and not induct him in with 100% of the vote? Robbie Alomar had to wait until his 2nd year of eligibility which was a travesty to the process. All these players had different reasons for not getting the votes they deserved, but none of the reasons were particularly good. Alomar, I would assume, was the spitting incident, Banks because he played on bad teams, Cy Young’s first year of voting and they were setting the precedent for stupidity? And I’m sure Mantle was for his carousing. None of this in my opinion has anything to do with their eligibility to the Hall of Fame.
“But Justin what about those filthy steroid cheaters who sullied the game?” people will ask. These are the same people who get mad at players for not hustling, but don’t feel the hypocrisy that they are posting that on an internet forum while they are supposed to be working. If you had the opportunity to make 800-1000% more at your job and deserve kudos when all you had to do was stick a needle in your ass every once in awhile, wouldn’t you consider it? If you were living in an impoverished area and you could do great things for your family and the community with money that could be obtained without really hurting anyone, wouldn’t you be selfish enough to rub some cream on an injury to make it heal faster? Just as baseball has always been stat driven, it has also been cheater driven. “If you’re not cheating you are not trying.” Whether it was stealing signs and corking bats, or spit balls and greenies in the 80s, it has always been part of the game. I say, if they meet the metrics above, then they are in, if they were caught cheating then there should be a basement level where their plaques will be behind bars like a prison. If they weren’t caught or it wasn’t illegal in the game at the time, then they are in. We do live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty, which doesn’t seem to apply to sexual cases or steroid abuse.
Ok, now that I have explained the issues with the Hall of Fame process, how do we fix it? Well first thing is create a system that holds players to the same standard when deciding their worth:
60% – An improved formula similar to James’ which better weighs the period in which they played, defense, SABR metrics and position they played
25%- MVP shares, World Series, All-Star games, Silver Sluggers, etc. The same formula that is used for the 60% would also be used for deciding MVPs and awards to assure subjectivity is not an issue. This will keep us from having another Trout vs Cabrera fiasco.
15%- Writers vote. This is my compromise because I don’t feel it holds any weight because our eyes and personal opinions can limit the effectiveness of voting. I do have 2 caveats though. First, the writers will not simply vote yes or no on a player, they will vote on a scale of 0-15 of how deserving the player is for induction. Second, if the voter’s value is 30% different than the norm, then there vote is discounted either way. This will keep away “Homerism” on one end and personal issues with a player on the other. Also, voters will be held accountable if they are consistently more than 30% off on players, I’m sorry you lose your ability to vote and we can’t trust you. Under my system Bonds, Clemens, and Piazza would be in this year. Bagwell, Biggio, and Sosa would have just missed and unfortunately Todd Walker still fell woefully short.
I don’t believe my system is the best, but it is much better than what we have now and it will send us in the right direction. If you read this and vehemently disagree then you have missed the point and you can have fun watching baseball games through non-hd lenses on a VHS. Enjoy.
J. Senno
Trash Talk Sports
TrashTalkSports 