Don't blame Maz
As you may have heard, the newly configured Veteran's Committee has failed to vote anyone into the Baseball Hall of Fame this year. This really isn't surprising as the new rules instituted in 2003 make it likely that nobody will ever be elected via this means. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.
What IS a bad thing is the
AP story that reported the HOF vote and concluded with the following paragraph:
The old Veterans Committee, which met annually, had 15 members in most years and was criticized for cronyism. The Hall changed the system after Bill Mazeroski, a career .260 hitter with a great glove, was elected in 2001.
On the way in to work today, I heard 2 national radio commentators (copy readers) report this story and then opine that the rules were made tougher as a result of Bill Mazeroski's induction in 2001. One went so far as to refer to Mazeroski as "Bill Mazeroski, of the .260 lifetime average." I don't know how much the average middle-aged national sports reporter knows about Maz (after all he never played for the Red Sox, Yankees, or Dodgers) but I can't think of too many other players for whom their lifetime batting average is a worse description of their achievements.
Now I have no idea who wrote this story for the AP. But whoever it was obviously feels as though ol' #9 doesn't belong in the HOF and was inducted due to cronyism. The commentators I heard obviously took their cues from the article. As you might surmise, I have a problem with this.
First, let's tackle the obvious. Does Bill Mazeroski belong in the HOF? That's something that can only be answered subjectively, but Maz certainly didn't lower the standards of the HOF. Still, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so if someone wants to think that Ozzie Smith is a first ballot HOFer yet Bill Mazeroski doesn't belong, then they are entitled to be wrong.
What really burns my britches is the allegation of cronyism. You can argue that Maz doesn't fit the bill based on his performance, but there's no basis for arguing that his election was fraudulent. If you want evidence of cronyism, take a look at the elections of Pee Wee Reese or Phil Rizzuto, two guys who stretch the limits of the Hall's credibility who had teammates on the VC. Who did Maz have in his back pocket on the Veteran's Committee?
Whether or not you think Maz belongs (and he does belong), let's not blame him for keeping the Santos and Hodges of the world out.
3 Comments:
Pick up a copy of Bill James' "What Happened to the Hall of Fame" if you like this kind of debate. I think it's Bill James...could be Neyer...their paths cross a lot in the literary world. Anyway, Pittsburgh bias aside, how can you not have the greatest fielding infielder ever in the Hall? If we use the "Moneyball" arguement, Maz saved a lot more runs than he produced, but isn't a run saved worth more than a run earned (or is that a penny saved is a penny earned?). He opened the doors for the likes of O. Smith . Mark McGwire is a mediocre fielder at best but his offensive numbers will put him in the hall - that and the whole home run thing - so why can't a mediocre hitter with excellent fielding ability be in the Hall? We've moved to an age of specialization and it needs to be recognized, because let me tell you, there's a lot of players like Rizzuto who shouldn't be in there but are b/c of the Yankee factor. Rizzuto is like Steve Kerr of the Bulls era - good player on a great team.
Good comment. What irritates me most of all is that there WAS a measure of cronyism on the old Veteran's Committee, but Maz's election had nothing to do with cronyism. It was a well-known secret that Maz's election was opposed for years by Ted Williams, who (probably rightfully so) wielded undue influence on the committee. It's not a coincidence that Maz's election took place the very first year that Williams was too infirm to take part in the committee debates.
The Maz induction is really the first HoF victory of the sabermetricians....................Total Baseball's evaluation method made Maz the #1 defender of the 20th century as measured by Fielding Runs. There was a vicious dialogue on SABR-L that ran about a year as cyncis and a few legit skeptics threw up questions and counters. There were a lot of studies, and it appears the numbers were pretty spot on....................I'm not a giant fan of Mazeroski (his base-coaching for the Mariners was legendarily awful), but he deserved to be in. He was the best at what he did which was something important. End of argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home