Hall of Fame Hokum

Larkin's a HOFer, Trammell still is not.

Larkin’s lifetime WAR is 68.9, Trammell’s is 66.9.  Their overall stats are very similar.  The small difference in WAR cannot justify the difference in HOF outcome.  One wonders – if the stats of the two players were reversed, would the HOF outcome be any different?  I doubt it.  I suspect that a Larkin with Trammell’s stats would be “in” and a Trammell with Larkin’s stats would still be “out.”  Something else is going on.

The Larkin vs. Trammell thing brings to mind Kirby Puckett vs. Don Mattingly.  Puckett was a first ballot Hall-of-Famer (!!!), while Mattingly hasn’t come close, despite having very similar numbers.

True, one can make some arguments in favor of Puckett over Mattingly: a longer peak, a more demanding defensive position, more post-season exposure, and some sympathy for the sudden retirement due to eye problems.  Mattingly’s slow, pathetic decline in contrast looked worse, and there many be an anti-NY bias there as well.  Puckett was ahead of Mattingly in lifetime WAR., 44.8 to 39.8; on the other hand, Mattingly, even with his long decline, ended up with a slightly better adjusted OPS than Puckett, who avoided the decline.  One can argue, reasonably, that Puckett was a bit better as a HOF candidate than Mattingly.  No argument that Puckett > Mattingly.  But not by much.  No way justifying first ballot vs. not even close.

There’s something more there.  All of the above could explain why Puckett is “in” while the similar Mattingly is “out.”  However, unless one invokes some bizarre binary threshold “in/out” barrier to Hall of Fame enshrinement (which historically has not been the case), the huge difference between the Puckett and Mattingly outcomes should raise eyebrows.  It’s not that Puckett got in, after years of trying, and then just narrowly beat out Mattingly.  It’s instead that Puckett got in at his first try – like the all-time greats – and the similar Mattingly, the very similar Mattingly, hasn’t even come close.

I suspect that if the careers were switched, if a CF Mattingly with the longer peak and 44.8 WAR suddenly had to retire and the 1B Puckett with the 39.8 WAR had the long decline, Puckett would still be “in” and Mattingly “out.”

What am I getting at?  It may be controversial to some, but I’m saying that white liberal sportswriters favor non-white candidates over white candidates, out of a spasm of “moral superiority.”  More specifically, many of these sportswriters worship the black athlete.  In many cases, it may even be unconscious, and the writers would be outraged if it was put to them like that.

But, I’m sorry, if the situation was reversed, Puckett partisans would bring up the race issue if Donnie baseball was “in” and Kirby were “out.”  Therefore, it’s only fair to speculate if the HUGE difference in outcome to what are essentially very similar – admittedly not equivalent – players has in part to do with sportswriters’ attitudes on race and society.  The harassment of Luke Scott as well as the orgasmic pontifications about the holy year of 1947, and the differences in how John Rocker was treated compared to Bonds and Sheffield (never mind the disgusting attacks on an elderly Stan Musial for a Curt Flood restaurant incident), demonstrates that sportswriters are obsessed with this topic, and raises the question as to whether it influences Hall of Fame voting.

In summary: I am not saying that Mattingly should be in the Hall, nor am I criticizing the idea of Puckett “in”/Mattingly “out.”  I am questioning the enormous difference in outcome – first ballot vs. not close – for two players with similar career stats.  It’s not like we are comparing Mattingly to Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle.  It’s Puckett.  If Puckett is a HOFer than he’s a “just made it” type, not a first ballot all-time great.  Yeah, maybe with healthy eyes, he would have got 3000 hits.  Maybe with a healthy back, Mattingly would have got 4000 hits.  True, one can argue, as Verducci does, that a sudden end trumps a slow decline.  But, again, it’s not the “in/out” than bothers me, it’s the “first ballot/not even close” comparison.  Many great players never got in on the first try, players a hell of a lot better than Puckett (or Mattingly for that matter).  And yeah, maybe Donnie baseball should have stayed away from Bob Shirley and maybe he should have had back surgery like Winfield did.  On the other hand, did Puckett ever go to a damn eye doctor?  If the high eye pressure been diagnosed early, it could have been treated with medication and/or laser surgery, and the eye damage would never have happened.  All sorts of “what ifs” – but for the likes of Verducci, only Puckett derives the advantage from these considerations.

And, by the way, I think Dale Murphy with 44.2 lifetime WAR was a better player than Jim Rice with 41.5 lifetime WAR, and that’s besides Murphy having a better “team man” reputation than the surly Rice.  But guess who’s“in” and who’s “out.”  

They fought for Red Sox slugger Jim Rice. Of course they did. The baseball media loves nothing more than Boston-New York, and so when Rice received just 29.8 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot in 1995, and then dipped to 29.4 percent in '99, the front-running media was mobilized. His vote tally steadily increased until he made it into Cooperstown last year, and I'm not here to tell you Jim Rice doesn't deserve it -- he does. I'm here to tell you Dale Murphy deserves it just as much. 

Stats can be manipulated any way you want -- Murphy had more home runs than Rice (398 to 382), Rice had a much higher batting average (.298 to .265) -- but Murphy was a more versatile player. He had more stolen bases (161 to 58) and more Gold Gloves (five to none). You can tell me Rice is better. Maybe he is. But better to the point where last year he received 76.4 percent of the votes, and Dale Murphy got 11.5 percent?

No. He's not that much better.

Surprise! (and no, I don't think it's about "Boston-New York")

But those who flagellate themselves while reading about the holy year of 1947 are not expected to vote objectively and fairly, are they?