Hall of Fame

In general I have little interest in the Hall of Fame. The standard set by the Hall's voting process is simply too inconsistent to be of any real intrigue. On the other hand, from the standpoint of a historical study of the Hall, it is interesting to discuss the contradictory voting records and to watch incidents like this year’s where one player, Bruce Sutter, is elected over a comparable but seemingly better player, Goose Gossage (David Pinto makes the point concisely).

Because these discrepancies are so common—and because Gossage will likely be elected in the next few years anyhow—it is hard for me to be as upset about this as some seem to be. In fact, I am not convinced that the Hall would be missing anything if neither player was ever inducted. Nor is it setting a grotesquely low standard for relief pitcher inclusion with the inclusion of Sutter. However, the seeming contradiction is interesting as an indication of both the ambiguity of the Hall’s standards and of the generally sporadic practices of the voters.

As a specific example of odd voting practices see this article by Tom Verducci, who has a vote. He addresses another such contradiction (the Mattingly/Puckett issue) toward the end. He says:

Okay, final stats don't always tell a complete story, which is why Kirby Puckett is a Hall of Famer and Don Mattingly is not, even though they nearly are statistical doppelgangers.

A more likely explanation is that Puckett’s unfortunate retirement won him a sentimental edge and extended news-worthiness, advantages Mattingly does not have. Actually both Puckett and Mattingly would be far from the worst Hall of Famers at their respective positions and we would not be committing a grievous error to induct them both. Also, if Verducci is going to mention Fred McGriff as a probable or use Tony Perez as an example Hall of Famer than Mattingly seems to deserve more of his respect. Or why not Will Clark, who made it onto 4% of the ballots this year, enough to get him dropped in his first year of eligibility. Bill James rates Clark 14^th on his first-basemen list, one behind Perez, two behind Mattingly, a controversial rating but not anywhere near the stretch perpetrated by some Hall of Fame voters.

Verducci, however, seems to have no reservations about his—and the other voters’—assessment of Puckett and Mattingly. Conversely, I tend to think the question is less clear cut. This, I guess, is my main beef with the Hall voters.