Here’s a brief history lesson.
The Veterans Committee for the Baseball Hall of Fame has gone through numerous iterations in its long, tortured history. First it was known as The Centennial Commission, and was tasked with considering only players from the 1800s. In reality, under this name the Committee didn't induct a single player. After selecting five executives and managers in 1937 and another two in 1938, the group was re-named The Old-Timers Committee and starting loading up the Hall with players.
At first, one would think it impossible for them not to do a good job. After all, they could choose from literally every player who played all or a majority of his career during the 19th Century. Two of the first four players the Committee elected in 1939 were Cap Anson and Old Hoss Radbourne, and you won't find many, if any, baseball historians and SABR members who would disagree with those choices. Sadly, the other two players chosen were Buck Ewing and Candy Cummings, and thus began the long, mistaken-ridden path this committee would follow for the next 60-odd years.
Next week, when the Hall of Fame announces the results of this year’s Veterans Committee voting, we’ll get a glimpse of the next bend in that path, and it’s a near certainty that it won’t be for the good.
There are two primary reasons for this. First, and most obviously, is the history of the committee, which has allowed the likes of Highpockets Kelly and Tommy McCarthy to grace the halls of baseball’s greatest shrine. They’ve certainly inducted some deserving players, and in many cases the committee's poor selections were merely an attempt to follow the lead established by the BBWAA, as noted previously, but their history of electing stinkers is too prominent to ignore.
The second reason why we should have little confidence that they will elect one or more worthy souls is relatively new. In the most recent reinvention of the committee, it was decided that the ballot of candidates is completely determined by the BBWAA. That’s right; the one part of the election process that was outside the control of the writers is now managed by them.
While it’s true that the Veterans Committee that does that voting is comprised only of living members of the Hall of Fame, plus Ford C. Frick and J.G. Taylor Spink Award winners, the ballot itself is determined by the BBWAA. First, the writers appoint a Historical Overview Committee that is tasked with developing lists of 200 former players and 60 former managers, executives and umpires. The majority of that subcommittee are writers themselves. Then, with those lists complete, a screening committee consisting of 60 members of the BBWAA is selected to winnow those lists down to a final ballot. Only then do the Hall members take over and do the actual voting (and let’s not forget that the J.G. Taylor Spink winners are all BBWAA members themselves).
This is so important because the writers are using their same old shoddy methods for determining who should be on the ballot in the first place. For instance, which of these guys would you imagine is on the ballot:
Let me also state that Pitcher A won a world championship while Pitcher B’s teams never reached the post-season, and that Pitcher A also scores better on the infamous Bill James Hall of Fame Standards and Hall of Fame Monitor tests. On top of that, he’s still the better pitcher when we neutralize their stats as well. In fact, he’s significantly better:
Well, it’s Pitcher B, Wes Ferrell, who the BBWAA has decided to put on the Veteran’s Committee ballot, while they feel that Pitcher A, Jack Stivetts, apparently doesn’t make the cut. And before you throw out the argument that Ferrell was one of the best hitting pitchers ever, allow me to note the following:
See, Stivetts was none too shabby with the stick himself, hitting well enough to get regular playing time in the outfield and first base when he wasn’t pitching.
The really sad part about all of this is that Stivetts wasn’t even among the larger group of 200 players that was considered for the final ballot. The Historical Overview Committee has such a narrow overview of baseball history that they didn’t feel Stivetts was worthy of consideration by the broader screening committee. If you were to poll the ten members of the Overview Committee, my guess is that more than half of them would have never even heard of Jack Stivetts. If so, why would they choose to leave him off the eligibility list while including the following pitchers:
The Veterans Committee for the Baseball Hall of Fame has gone through numerous iterations in its long, tortured history. First it was known as The Centennial Commission, and was tasked with considering only players from the 1800s. In reality, under this name the Committee didn't induct a single player. After selecting five executives and managers in 1937 and another two in 1938, the group was re-named The Old-Timers Committee and starting loading up the Hall with players.
At first, one would think it impossible for them not to do a good job. After all, they could choose from literally every player who played all or a majority of his career during the 19th Century. Two of the first four players the Committee elected in 1939 were Cap Anson and Old Hoss Radbourne, and you won't find many, if any, baseball historians and SABR members who would disagree with those choices. Sadly, the other two players chosen were Buck Ewing and Candy Cummings, and thus began the long, mistaken-ridden path this committee would follow for the next 60-odd years.
Next week, when the Hall of Fame announces the results of this year’s Veterans Committee voting, we’ll get a glimpse of the next bend in that path, and it’s a near certainty that it won’t be for the good.
There are two primary reasons for this. First, and most obviously, is the history of the committee, which has allowed the likes of Highpockets Kelly and Tommy McCarthy to grace the halls of baseball’s greatest shrine. They’ve certainly inducted some deserving players, and in many cases the committee's poor selections were merely an attempt to follow the lead established by the BBWAA, as noted previously, but their history of electing stinkers is too prominent to ignore.
The second reason why we should have little confidence that they will elect one or more worthy souls is relatively new. In the most recent reinvention of the committee, it was decided that the ballot of candidates is completely determined by the BBWAA. That’s right; the one part of the election process that was outside the control of the writers is now managed by them.
While it’s true that the Veterans Committee that does that voting is comprised only of living members of the Hall of Fame, plus Ford C. Frick and J.G. Taylor Spink Award winners, the ballot itself is determined by the BBWAA. First, the writers appoint a Historical Overview Committee that is tasked with developing lists of 200 former players and 60 former managers, executives and umpires. The majority of that subcommittee are writers themselves. Then, with those lists complete, a screening committee consisting of 60 members of the BBWAA is selected to winnow those lists down to a final ballot. Only then do the Hall members take over and do the actual voting (and let’s not forget that the J.G. Taylor Spink winners are all BBWAA members themselves).
This is so important because the writers are using their same old shoddy methods for determining who should be on the ballot in the first place. For instance, which of these guys would you imagine is on the ballot:
| W | L | PCT | IP | H | R | ER | BB | SO | ERA | WHIP | ERA+ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitcher A | 203 | 132 | .606 | 2887.6 | 2905 | 1836 | 1199 | 1155 | 1223 | 3.74 | 1.406 | 120 |
| Pitcher B | 193 | 128 | .601 | 2623.0 | 2845 | 1382 | 1177 | 1040 | 985 | 4.04 | 1.481 | 117 |
Let me also state that Pitcher A won a world championship while Pitcher B’s teams never reached the post-season, and that Pitcher A also scores better on the infamous Bill James Hall of Fame Standards and Hall of Fame Monitor tests. On top of that, he’s still the better pitcher when we neutralize their stats as well. In fact, he’s significantly better:
| W | L | PCT | IP | H | R | ER | BB | SO | ERA | WHIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitcher A | 300 | 103 | .744 | 3743.3 | 2811 | 1059 | 954 | 1113 | 1533 | 2.34 | 1.068 |
| Pitcher B | 196 | 117 | .626 | 2892.0 | 2708 | 1129 | 1016 | 990 | 1084 | 3.16 | 1.279 |
Well, it’s Pitcher B, Wes Ferrell, who the BBWAA has decided to put on the Veteran’s Committee ballot, while they feel that Pitcher A, Jack Stivetts, apparently doesn’t make the cut. And before you throw out the argument that Ferrell was one of the best hitting pitchers ever, allow me to note the following:
| AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stivetts | 1991 | 347 | 592 | 84 | 46 | 35 | 357 | 133 | .297 | .344 | .438 | .782 |
| Ferrell | 1176 | 175 | 329 | 57 | 12 | 38 | 208 | 129 | .280 | .351 | .446 | .797 |
See, Stivetts was none too shabby with the stick himself, hitting well enough to get regular playing time in the outfield and first base when he wasn’t pitching.
The really sad part about all of this is that Stivetts wasn’t even among the larger group of 200 players that was considered for the final ballot. The Historical Overview Committee has such a narrow overview of baseball history that they didn’t feel Stivetts was worthy of consideration by the broader screening committee. If you were to poll the ten members of the Overview Committee, my guess is that more than half of them would have never even heard of Jack Stivetts. If so, why would they choose to leave him off the eligibility list while including the following pitchers:
| W | L | PCT | IP | H | R | ER | BB | SO | ERA | WHIP | ERA+ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Podres | 148 | 116 | .561 | 2265.0 | 2239 | 1026 | 025 | 743 | 1435 | 3.68 | 1.317 | 105 |
| Osteen | 196 | 195 | .501 | 3460.3 | 3471 | 1435 | 1268 | 940 | 1612 | 3.30 | 1.275 | 104 |
| Erskine | 122 | 78 | .610 | 1718.6 | 1637 | 830 | 763 | 646 | 981 | 4.00 | 1.328 | 101 |
| Raschi | 132 | 66 | .667 | 1819.0 | 1666 | 828 | 752 | 727 | 944 | 3.72 | 1.316 | 105 |
Hmmm. Three Dodgers and a Yankee. Do I hear a "New York Bias" anyone? And I haven't even gotten into the questionable inclusion of Mel Stottlemyre, Dixie Walker, Don Newcombe, Eddie Lopat, Bobby Thomson, Bob Meusel, and a whole host of other New Yorkers on the Historical Overview Committee's list of 200.
If we give them the benefit if the doubt that there is no such bias involved, then it begs the obvious question of why some of these guys were chosen to appear on the final ballot. Jack Stivetts versus Wes Ferrell is not an isolated case. The writers have constructed a ballot that is comprised, in nearly every case, of players that aren’t as good as eligible players that were passed over. They list Roger Maris but not Jackie Jenson or Hank Sauer. They list Cecil Travis but not Johnny Pesky, and Luis Tiant but not Billy Pierce. They included Don Newcombe but not Nig Cuppy or Ray Kremer. Lefty O’Doul is on there but not Mike Donlin. How about these two:
| G | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player X | 1877 | 6679 | 1033 | 1814 | 297 | 21 | 390 | 1236 | 997 | .272 | .366 | .498 | .864 |
| Player Y | 1914 | 6716 | 1004 | 1953 | 269 | 36 | 420 | 1299 | 864 | .291 | .373 | .529 | .902 |
Player X is Rocky Colavito, and he’s on the ballot. Player Y, the better player, is not. That’s Frank Howard. Okay, these are neutralized stats, and it’s a near certainty that the guys on the committee have never once considered anything other than a player’s raw number. Context? What’s that? Even so, I don’t get why Colavito makes the cut and Howard doesn’t:
| G | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colavito | 1841 | 6503 | 971 | 1730 | 283 | 21 | 374 | 1159 | 951 | .266 | .359 | .489 | .848 |
| Howard | 1895 | 6488 | 864 | 1774 | 245 | 35 | 382 | 1119 | 782 | .273 | .352 | .499 | .851 |
If someone could explain what makes these guys different, I would really appreciate it.
What’s that you say? Home run titles, all-star appearances, stuff like that? Okay, let’s take a look:
Well, I guess two extra All-Star games and one more extra-base hit and times-on-base title MIGHT equate to an extra homer title, a Rookie of the Year Award and a World Championship, but I’m having a hard time seeing it. Who knows? Maybe Colavito’s world-renowned mediocre corner outfield defense put him over the top. That’s as good a guess as any.
The reality is that there is no good reason for one of these guys to be on this ballot without the other, but this is the yearly insanity ritual we must live with when the BBWAA is involved.
Kinda sickening, isn’t it?
What’s that you say? Home run titles, all-star appearances, stuff like that? Okay, let’s take a look:
| Colavito | Howard | |
|---|---|---|
| All-Star Appearances | 6 | 4 |
| Top-10 MVP Finishes | 4 | 4 |
| Rookie of the Year | No | Yes |
| Home Run Titles | 1 | 2 |
| RBI Titles | 1 | 1 |
| Other Hitting Titles | 7 | 5 |
| World Championships | 0 | 1 |
| Playoff Appearances | 0 | 1 |
Well, I guess two extra All-Star games and one more extra-base hit and times-on-base title MIGHT equate to an extra homer title, a Rookie of the Year Award and a World Championship, but I’m having a hard time seeing it. Who knows? Maybe Colavito’s world-renowned mediocre corner outfield defense put him over the top. That’s as good a guess as any.
The reality is that there is no good reason for one of these guys to be on this ballot without the other, but this is the yearly insanity ritual we must live with when the BBWAA is involved.
Kinda sickening, isn’t it?
