Somehow I missed this piece in the New York Times about the "Hall of Merit." Years ago, I had a similar idea -- that is, I consider some players members of the "Hall of Almost Famous."
What these folks are doing is admirable: they're trying to evaluate players from the whole of baseball history using the benefit of a broader array of statistics. No one really cared about on-base percentage until the mid-1980s, for example. Correction -- most baseball writers didn't care about on-base percentage. Or WHIP for pitchers. That is, walks plus hits per innings pitched.
It's not as though people didn't think of those things, however. I remember listening to Ralph Kiner announcing Mets games when Jerry Koosman was pitching for them in the late '70s. He'd talk about how his record was bad, but he was pitching well. "You can tell that because he's given up nearly a hit an inning," the ol' power hitter said. I've often felt Kiner was an underrated announcer. I'd like to see him considered for the Hall of Fame as an announcer as well as a player.
But back to my point. The Baseball Think Factory has reevaluated all the game's players and allowed their small group to vote players into their own Hall of Merit. Players like Joe Adcock, Bert Blyleven, Jim Kaat, Tommy John, Vada Pinson should be reconsidered. I think they'd probably all remain in the Hall of Almost; I've not checked yet what Baseball Think Factory has determined. I'd say Gil Hodges too, though I know there's a strong contingent of Brooklynites and Dodger fans who'd like him in the actual Hall of Fame.
I've read several arguments about whether Tim Raines belongs in the Hall of Fame; he's eligible this year for the first time. I watched him play a lot when he was an Expo, and he was an excellent ballplayer. I'd have loved to have him on the Mets. Back in the '80s. I don't know if it was all the running he'd done early in his career, all the years on the turf in Montreal, or the drugs he did in the '80s, but once he turned thirty, his career went into a slow but steady decline. When he arrived in New York as a Yankee, he remained a solid complementary player. The question, then, is whether his years as the best leadoff man in the National League were enough to warrant his induction into the Hall.
The Hall of Merit says yes. Matt's Hall of Almost Famous puts him on the bubble. If I were a voter, I'd strongly consider him. But I don't think he should gain immediate induction. Others disagree with me, but I think players voted in during their first year of eligibility are more special, more worthy. I think there's a major difference between Tom Seaver and Phil Niekro. Niekro had more wins and played mostly on worse teams, but Seaver was simply on a different level. And it's not simply because Seaver threw a great fastball and slider and Niekro was a knuckleballer. Lots of people don't even think Niekro should be in the Hall at all.
The article also says Dave Stieb should be in the Hall of Fame. I thought he was a very good pitcher, and it's a shame that he just missed out on a perfect game, but I just don't think he's a Hall of Famer. He pitched in an era with lots of mediocre pitchers, it's true, but he never came close to winning the Cy Young Award, never won twenty games in a season... How can you say he was one of the best pitchers of his era? Because he had a good WHIP? That's true, but is that really enough? Ask Jerry Koosman. His ERA was better than Stieb's, posted a nearly identical WHIP, won 222 games (while playing for some really abysmal Mets teams), and came in second in the 1976 Cy Young Award voting. Where's the hue and cry for putting Koos into the Hall?
Koosman was a darn good pitcher. But he's not a Hall of Famer. Neither is Dave Stieb. Was Tim Raines better than Lou Brock? There's lots of statistics that would say yes. But Brock may have been a more important player. I think that matters too -- at least to Hall of Fame voters.
Well, I suppose I should read the Factory site. I'd enjoy a good baseball argument tonight.
No comments:
Post a Comment