Yes, it does appear that people play silly games. One wonders how many ballots Bonds would have been on when eligible if he wasn't clouded by the steroids issue.

My assumption with Belle is that he didn't play long enough. FWIW, Dayn Perry made the case for Rice at FOX.

I still have trouble with the Belle/Rice comp. If Belle posted numbers similar to Rice's in less time, doesn't that imply he was a better player than Rice?

I thought Blyleven should be a lock.

There's definitely a breakdown in the logic applied used by sportswriters to prospective HOFers. No one's arguing about the highest tier, the sheer greats who can't be denied. This year, that included Ripkin and Gwynn. Inexplicably, the writers then inflict punishment on the 'near great' tier, presumably by comparing them (unfairly) to all-time greats. This ignores the fact that the Hall is populated by many players who merely reached the 'near great' plateau. In my era, Billy Williams and Robin Yount come to mind, both wonderful players who deserve to be in the Hall, yet whose careers are hardly distinguishable from others currently standing on the 2nd tier (Gossage and Blylevin, e.g.) Williams and Yount never reached Ripkin or Seaver levels of excellence. But they were nonetheless worthy.

Bottom-line, sportwriters need to have a bigger tent.

Could it also be that sportwriters, like ordinary Joes, are star-struck, incapable of picking out a gem like Blylevin because he wasn't a celebrity who played on great team? Just a thought. (That doesn't explain why Gwynn, not a high profile player, got a 1st ballot nod). BTW, I scanned rilkefan's link on Blylevin: 5th all-time in strikeouts and the guy's not in the Hall? What does a guy have to do?

Sorry to comment again- but this comment evoked a thought: (although Gwynn represents, by far, the most overrated HoF player archetype: high-average singles hitters). In contrast, Rilkefan's link refers to the most underrepresented group- 3rd basemen and catchers. Imagine that- HofF voters have unexamined biases and prejudices.

Bill James has done some good work regarding the dearth of 3B in the Hall. He came to the conclusion (although this was several years ago and he may have changed his mind since) that because 3B is a position that requires a unique balance of glove work and hitting, voters have a hard time locating the good 3Bs. HoF voters are good at identifying single areas of greatness. That's why high-average singles hitters get to walk into the Hall while Ron Santo still has to buy a ticket. But voters are less good at identifying greatness along multiple axes. He wasn't a 3B, but Dwight Evans is a good example of this. Evans will never be in the Hall, but there's an argument to be made he was every bit as good a player as Rice. The problem being, Evans did lots of things well, but none of them as well as the one thing Jim Rice did well.

To put it in another language, HoF voters like hedgehogs, not foxes.

Your Santo comments are spot on. They also apply to catching, which requires multiple talents such as calling pitches and managing pitchers. Baseball Analysts, the link above, discusses Dwight Evans v. Jim Rice, a comparison of which I knew nothing. In a broader sense, the human perception issue (in this case, single v. multiple axes) is a fascinating one because it reveals the dominance of our preconceptions- one of your favorite and consistent themes. Reminds me of the "Moneyball" discussion regarding scouts, who tend to make generalizations in assessing talent (i.e., 'speed is important') without regard to lesser known skills (ie., walks = singles). It's damn difficult to identify, much less admit, one's own preconceptions- in any endeavor. Great stuff, Major.

Some guy named MD wrote this comment at Baseball Analysts:

Unless you're a no-brainer, there are reasons to vote for someone and reasons not to, and most of the writers seem to avoid the cognitive dissonance and rely on the ones that support their gut instinct.

That's what I meant to say- it just took me 5 times longer to say it.

Well, that's how the majority of us make most of our decisions, so I suppose it's not surprising. It is, however, frustrating.

Evans was better than Rice.

Thanks, rilkefan. I recall having read some assessments that went that far, but without the data in front of me I didn't want to make that claim.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: