Some Peripheral Factors Influencing Making the HOF

[Calif_Eagle]

Outlier seasons help... (Phil Rizzuto, Hack Wilson, Yaz, Joe Medwick) Although my Medwick thread and poll resulted in a resounding vote of something like 29-0 in favor of his selection to HOF, by many of the BBF's most knowledgeable members, I still tend to feel that if his career skipped from 1936 to 1938 and his Triple Crown season wasnt part of his record; Medwick would have had a LOT tougher road to reach the HOF.


Playing in NY helps, or in Brooklyn-LA (Combs, Rizzuto, Drysdale, Reese ).


A distinct achievement helps, (is Jackie Robinson a HOF-er with his career numbers if he is white? Is Mazeroski in if he doesnt hit the 1960 WS winning homer?)


Playing for one team only helps a LOT in my view. If Bobby Bonds played only for 1 team he'd probably be in by now. His fanbase and constituency would be much more focused. If simply he posted the career numbers that he did, solely playing for the NY Yankees; he'd have been in long ago. This probably applies to Dick Allen and Bert Blyleven too. If Yaz played for 4 or 5 teams he might not be in. He probably would, but what if you took his Triple Crown season away too? Would it be as clear cut then as most think? Sabermetricians would probably still love him for the HOF, but I wonder about the general fan base.


Playing in lots of WS helps too. Note that Phil Rizzuto had 1 outlier Great year, played a long time & only for the Yankees, played in a lot of WS and was their broadcaster too for many years, staying in the public eye. (another peripheral factor of no small importance.) Its no wonder to me that he made the HOF eventually. Its interesting to me, though that playing his whole career in Chicago, and broadcasting too; apparently isnt helping the deserving Ron Santo get in. Maybe Chicago, big as it is, just isnt quite enough the media center that NYC or LA are.


Does anyone have any thoughts on incidental elements like these, or any suggestions for other little things that help or harm the HOF candidacy of players? Not really looking for a PEDS discussion here, but rather for the more mundane types of things.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

If Jackie Robinson were white he would have been in the majors probably six years earlier and would have had much heavier career numbers.

[dgarza]

War is another peripheral factor. A negative one, to say the least. And not so mundane.

[jjpm74]

There is another category that sometimes garners consideration and that is archetypes. Players like Bruce Sutter who, despite career numbers well off the pace for a typical HOFer get consideration not just because of his innovation (split finger fastball), but also because he was one of the first true dominant closer in baseball.

Behavior off the field also factors in in some instances. It's no coincidence that players like Jack Morris despite being dominant in his era has consistently been snubbed for several years while less deserving players have gained entry into the hall.

[Captain Cold Nose]

There is another category that sometimes garners consideration and that is archetypes. Players like Bruce Sutter who, despite career numbers well off the pace for a typical HOFer get consideration not just because of his innovation (split finger fastball), but also because he was one of the first true dominant closer in baseball.

Behavior off the field also factors in in some instances. It's no coincidence that players like Jack Morris despite being dominant in his era has consistently been snubbed for several years while less deserving players have gained entry into the hall.

Exactly what has Jack Morris done off the field to warrant his poor showing in the voting? Yeah, he's not the nicest guy you'd meet, but that's hardly his downfall. Dominating in a historically weak era (did he really dominate? I was there, he was good, but never the best) while having a high ERA (he played for good teams for the most part throughout his career, thus the stellar W-L record) is why he hasn't gotten in. I don't think the writers have voted in anybody less deserving that Morris, a very good pitcher for a long time.

[jjpm74]

Exactly what has Jack Morris done off the field to warrant his poor showing in the voting? Yeah, he's not the nicest guy you'd meet, but that's hardly his downfall. Dominating in a historically weak era (did he really dominate? I was there, he was good, but never the best) while having a high ERA (he played for good teams for the most part throughout his career, thus the stellar W-L record) is why he hasn't gotten in. I don't think the writers have voted in anybody less deserving that Morris, a very good pitcher for a long time.

I was just using him as an example of how attitude can influence behavior. You don't think off the field behavior, including how a player interacts with the media plays a role in the voting? I'm not saying it should, but it most definitely does.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I was just using him as an example of how attitude can influence behavior. You don't think off the field behavior, including how a player interacts with the media plays a role in the voting? I'm not saying it should, but it most definitely does.

It does, to an extent. Morris was a grump, sure, but if a player is truly qualified, ala Steve Carlton or Eddie Murray, they'll get in, no problem. If the problems extend beyond media interaction, than it can cause a headache. But lack of media saavy it and of itself won't sink or stall a campaign too much.

I wonder what Morris's relationship with the players is like now, since he's a broadcaster and a member of the media now.

[Brad Harris]

Along the lines of "achievement", just being linked to an achievement can help catapult a candidacy. If Tommy John compiled exactly the same numbers but hadn't been the subject of the first successful "Tommy John surgery", would he receive half as much support? If Curt Flood's career had just retired rather than fought a losing battle in the Supreme Court, would he receive as much mention? To me the so-called accomplishments of these men off the field had no bearing on whether or not they were great players so I, personally, don't consider them as part of the Hall of Fame argument. I know a lot of people who do, though, and for many of them, that something extra makes the difference. Another case in point is Gil Hodges. Minus his '69 Miracle Mets and managerial career, how many people would still think his case merits the kind of support it receives?

I'll point out the "best ever at what he did" argument which is what got Ozzie Smith into the Hall of Fame and the reason I don't support guys like Concepcion, Marion or Vizquel. That isn't to say that the greatest defensive player at each position belongs (though that's not an illegitimate argument), and its especially not an argument to find the greatest bunter, greatest changeup artist, greatest pinch hitter, etc. as being worthy of the Hall, but the argument that a guy is the greatest defensive player at the most valuable defensive position on the field certainly carries weight.

Another argument is the "ambassador for the game" which is what makes a 12-year career along Kirby Puckett's line into a first-ballot selection. Ozzie Smith falls under this category too, as have guys like Cal Ripken, Brooks Robinson, etc. I think Garvey would have received a lot more support over the years - rightly or wrongly - had he not tarnished himself on this one issue with the paternity suit towards the end of his career.

Conversely, the "team cancer" image has certainly hurt well-qualified players like Dick Allen and Albert Belle. Steroids, of course, is a whole other aspect of the "character" issue, but as we all know many examples of, that definition has been stretched to keep people out far more than it's been stretched to let people in.

[dgarza]

War is another peripheral factor. A negative one, to say the least. And not so mundane.
Negative...unless you're Hank Gowdy

[Captain Cold Nose]

Negative...unless you're Hank Gowdy

Ok, you're clarifying your previous statement, right?

[dgarza]

Ok, you're clarifying your previous statement, right?
Yeah, clarifying, not quite contradicting

[Captain Cold Nose]

Yeah, clarifying, not quite contradicting

Ok. For a second there I thought we might have two dgarzas on the loose. Which it of of itself isn't a bad thing, but . . .

Is that why you think Gowdy received the support he did?

[dgarza]

Is that why you think Gowdy received the support he did?
I was under that impression. Are you suggesting that the support he received was all "baseball" based?

[Captain Cold Nose]

I was under that impression. Are you suggesting that the support he received was all "baseball" based?

Oh, no. I'm under the same impression, what he did during the war helped, although I think he does get some credit for 1914 much like Pepper Martin did for his World Series heroics.

The strange thing is Gowdy is hardly the only player with such a record. Hank Bauer comes to mind, but did he receive any support at all. Maybe some of the romanticism died out by the time Bauer reached the ballot.

[KCGHOST]

You just never know. When human's vote any thing can effect them.

[Brad Harris]

Sad, isn't it?

[dgarza]

Sad, isn't it?
Sad? I think it makes life interesting!

[Brian McKenna]

If Jackie Robinson were white he would have been in the majors probably six years earlier and would have had much heavier career numbers.

Robinson was in college until age 21 (MLB at 28). If Robinson was white, he may have been more inclined to seek inclusion in the NFL at a younger age than MLB.

After college in 1941, it's my assertion that he could have made more money in Negro league baseball but he chose a youth organization and semi-pro football instead.

He enlisted in 1942 and remained in uniform until 1944. He played pro baseball forthe first time in 1945 and later that year signed with the Dodgers. Not sure at what point prior to 1944 Robinson would have had enough chance to impress a major league executive.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Robinson was in college until age 21 (MLB at 28). If Robinson was white, he may have been more inclined to seek inclusion in the NFL at a younger age than MLB.
Perhaps. Jackie was a great football player. But if Jackie were white many major league teams would probably be scouting him at a younger age as well and would have seen his baseball potential.

He enlisted in 1942 and remained in uniform until 1944. He played pro baseball for the first time in 1945 and later that year signed with the Dodgers. Not sure at what point prior to 1944 Robinson would have had enough chance to impress a major league executive.
Jakie did play a lot of baseball as a youth. He played football and baseball at Pasadena junior College and was named All-Southland Junior College (baseball) Team and selected as the region's Most Valuable Player in 1938. Being the MVP of the all LA area junior colleges would have caught the attention of some baseball scouts. Then he played baseball at UCLA through 1941. I haven't been able to find his baseball stats from Pasadena Junior College nor UCLA. I think they would shed some light as to whether he would have gained the attention of scouts in his early 20s.

[jalbright]

Sad? I think it makes life interesting!

Your use of the word "interesting" above reminds me of a Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times". If you have a reasonable knowledge of Chinese history, you'll understand why this could be a curse.

[leecemark]

If Jackie Robinson were white he would have been in the majors probably six years earlier and would have had much heavier career numbers.

If Robinson were white in would have been WWII which delayed his career (which it did his Negro League career). His color maybe took 1 year off his career.
Edit: I guess I should have kept reading before responding - I see this has already been pointed out.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Anything that truncates a player's career hurts their chances at the HOF. Some of the things that truncate a career are:

(A) Position shifts, especially shifts to an easier defensive position.

(B) Lack of consistency from year to year, especially having peak seasons mixed in with lesser seasons. (More common with pitchers than position players.)

(C) Injuries that result in significant periods of missed playing time.

(D) Trades, particularly trades to a much different playing environment (e.g. a contending team to a loser, an extreme hitter's park to an extreme pitcher's park).

(E) Playing in Colorado for a significant time of one's career.

(F) Significant time spent as a DH.

Players who are shifted from a difficult defensive position to an easier defensive position often see their HOF chances plummet. And rightly so; hitting 20 HRs a season is a MUCH bigger deal if you're a middle infielder than if you are an outfielder, and a much bigger deal if you are a CENTER fielder than if you are a CORNER outfielder. Chipper Jones salvaged his HOF chances by moving back to 3B; had he stayed in LF, I don't know that he would be viewed as strong a candidate as he is now.

[plask_stirlac]

If a player gets a reputation it's hard to undo. Miss 80 games one year and 100 the next, he's injury prone even if he plays at least 145 for 4 years after. Or people just decide if a guy is a HOFer or not.

It's also good to be an elite college player or HS phenom and live up to it.

This is sort of a peripheral factor... even if a player is (or isn't) one of the generation's best, there's still going to be a bias from the raw numbers. I'm not sure if voters give any credit to Santo's 1968 since he hit .246/.354/.421, but that's well above average. Guys like Lanier (.461 OPS) and Unser were getting starting roles and slugging in the 200s, and Santo was also a top-notch glove. Even as the "year of the pitcher" the crude adjustment in that might be insufficient... he was quite good.

[Chickazoola]

Batting average and RBI's are seen as more important than OBP and Runs Scored.

If a player has a stigma of being one-dimensional or limited in someway it takes alot to over come that. ie bad defense or strikes out too much. Adam Dunn will not be seen as viable Hall candidate because he strikes out alot and hits for low average, despite his general greatness as an offensive player.

Also playing for a consistently bad team is difficult to overcome, as many writers still cling to the idea that a given player either knows how to win or doesn't.

Being outgoing and charismatic is obviously good. Being outspoken even when justified is often seen as a negative.

Playing in Canada or in a smaller market is generally bad. Vlad Guerrero would not be talked about at all(except by knowledgeable fans) if he stayed with the Expos, and would probably be seen as a less viable Hall candidate.

Also I think Latino and Black players still have a stigma about them being "naturally gifted", so writers are less willing to ascribe their success to their work ethic and growth, and more to just their natural talent. This makes it difficult for minority players to be viewed honestly as any slump or off-year is seen as a result of a poor work ethic. Black and Latino players are often seen as not living up to their potential even while producing at a very high level. ie Darryl Strawberry and Jose Canseco. A white player who hit like either guy would be given the key to city.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Batting average and RBI's are seen as more important than OBP and Runs Scored.

If a player has a stigma of being one-dimensional or limited in someway it takes alot to over come that. ie bad defense or strikes out too much. Adam Dunn will not be seen as viable Hall candidate because he strikes out alot and hits for low average, despite his general greatness as an offensive player.

Also playing for a consistently bad team is difficult to overcome, as many writers still cling to the idea that a given player either knows how to win or doesn't.

Being outgoing and charismatic is obviously good. Being outspoken even when justified is often seen as a negative.

Playing in Canada or in a smaller market is generally bad. Vlad Guerrero would not be talked about at all(except by knowledgeable fans) if he stayed with the Expos, and would probably be seen as a less viable Hall candidate.

Also I think Latino and Black players still have a stigma about them being "naturally gifted", so writers are less willing to ascribe their success to their work ethic and growth, and more to just their natural talent. This makes it difficult for minority players to be viewed honestly as any slump or off-year is seen as a result of a poor work ethic. Black and Latino players are often seen as not living up to their potential even while producing at a very high level. ie Darryl Strawberry and Jose Canseco. A white player who hit like either guy would be given the key to city.

I agree with most of this. I do think that Vlad is performing at a level to where he's a first ballot pick, and might be if he blew out his knee next spring and his career ended. The thing about Latino and Black players being stigmatized seems to be true in the case of Lou Whitaker, who was one and done, while Alan Trammell, though not in the HOF, is still on the ballot.

Guys like Adam Dunn do poorly, but I'm not sure how unjustified it is. Dunn hits for a low BA, which is a sign that he will age poorly. More importantly, a low BA means a player is on base less; he may walk a lot, but he doesn't HIT a lot.

Dunn's career OBP is at .669; pretty good for a first baseman, but just below borderline HOF level, unless a guy plays for close to 20 years and brings some defense to the equation. If Dunn gets his OWP up to .700 and keeps it there for a long career, he'll be a great player. Right now he's a guy with a hole in his skill set, just as surely as Mark Grace was. Dunn's better than his BA, but he's below par for the HOF so far, even with his HR totals.

[jalbright]

Dunn's career OBP is at .669; pretty good for a first baseman, but just below borderline HOF level, unless a guy plays for close to 20 years and brings some defense to the equation. If Dunn gets his OWP up to .700 and keeps it there for a long career, he'll be a great player.

I believe you meant to say for the section highlighted in red that it was Dunn's career OWP that was .669. If his career OBP in the majors was indeed that high, I'd be touting him for the HOF right now.