Hall of Fame Voting: should it be correlated to MVP/CY?
by
Kenneth Matinale
Last updated: Jan. 3, 2011
Bert Blyleven’s impending election to the Hall of Fame caused me to notice the disconnect between the annual voting for Most Valuable Player (MVP) and Cy Young (CY) awards and the fifteen year period in which the same organization votes on candidates for the Hall of Fame. This is especially true for the Cy Young award, which is not confused by the MVP calculus in which a player must play for a good, but not too good, a team, with some good, but not too good, teammates; a sort of inverse correlation. The best player is the most valuable, period. The voters seem to have a never ending and losing battle with this obvious and basic concept. The Cy Young award goes to the best pitcher in the league, period.
All that voting is done by the Baseball Writers' Association of America.
Why this group does not police itself is a mystery but why hasn’t anyone asked about this previously?
Blyleven as case study:
Friday, December 31, 2010 Hall of Fame candidates.:
Blyleven will probably get elected, not because he should be but for some odd reason his Hall of Fame vote percentage has increased in recent years as memory of his accomplishments fades. Blyleven's best CY finishes: 3,3,4,7.
http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/bbwaa-voting/player?player=Blyleven,++Bert.
Blyleven has gone from a low of 14.1% in year two (1999) of his 15 years of eligibility to a high of 74.2% in year 12 (2010). Why? Did his performance improve? Writers who voted for the CY award didn't think he was so great while he was pitching. Blyleven's ERA+ rank: #142. Those who knew him best had him well below 20% for his first three years of eligibility. Those who know him least have him above 60% in years ten, eleven and twelve. That disconnect should be explained. Maybe players should be eligible for only five years. That might mitigate the memory factor. I don't think any player has received 70% without eventually being elected. I think voters feel guilty if a player misses by one or two votes and don't want to feel that he/she personally prevented that individual's election.
Some say we now have newer, more sophisticated stats to judge players. Yes, but the meat and potatoes stats should have been enough to influence writers when Blyleven pitched. ERA was not new. The newer ERA+ rank for Blyleven among pitchers since 1901: #118. Yes, there are some Hall of Fame pitchers below rank 118 but that does not justify electing Blyleven. Most of those marginal Hall of Fame pitchers generally have some additional credentials, which Blyleven lacks. Blyleven had nothing to distinguish him. No 300 wins, perfect game, one WS (I didn't even remember he won the game he won), records, etc. If you cannot explain his credentials in basic terms to an average baseball fan, there's a problem. Blyleven was an accumulator like Don Sutton except that Blyleven did not finish accumulating, i.e., win 300 games.
Blyleven had little black ink (leading the league in something), too.
I see a HOF plaque that would read as a parody: “Bert Blyleven: two time runner up to the runner up for the CY award who might not be the worst post WWII pitcher elected”.
Runner up to the runner up does not even include what is supposed to be Blyleven’s best season, 1973 when Blyleven was 7th in CY voting. In 1973 Blyleven lead the league in ERA+ for the only time in his career with 158. Jim Palmer (ERA+ 156) won with 74% share of the points and 14 of 25 first place votes; Nolan Ryan had 9, Catfish Hunter 1. Blyleven had 1% share, zero first place votes. Palmer was certainly not a bad choice; Palmer was second in wins, so it wasn't purely based on wins.
Blyleven’s 1973 Twins (81-81) were 6th in runs scored (708); AL average: 693. Blyleven’s run support was at least decent.
Maybe if Blyleven had done like Steve Carlton the previous season, when his Phillies scored 503 runs, and Carlton won 27 of his team's 59 wins then maybe Blyleven would have won the 1973 CY. Too many losses. That's the problem with his entire career.
There are 21 Hall of Fame starting pitchers (excluding Bob Feller) since 1942 (includes Newhouser, Wynn, Spahn) with at least 2,300 innings (includes Sandy Koufax; unfortunately, it also includes Dennis Eckersley). Here are the leaders and where Blyleven would fit. Note: this list excludes four pitchers who won their 300th game (Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine) after Blyleven retired, plus Pedro Martinez; all five are certainly Hall of Fame calibre and probably generally considered better than Blyleven. There is also Tommy John who won one more game than Blyleven.
Innings: #1 Phil Niekro 5,404. #7 Blyleven 4,970
SO: #1 Ryan 5,386. #3 Blyleven 3,701
SO/9: #1 Ryan 9.55. #7 Blyleven 6.7
BB: #22 Ryan 2,795. #13 Blyleven 1,322
Starts: #1 Ryan 773. #6 Blyleven 685
CG: #1 Spahn 382. #10 Blyleven 242
SHO: #1 Spahn 63. #4 Blyleven 60
Wins: #1 Spahn 363. #8 Blyleven 287
Losses: #22 Ryan 292. #19 Blyleven 250
W-L%: #1 Ford .690. #22 Blyleven .534. #23 Ryan .526
Hits: #22 Phil Niekro 5,044. #17 Blyleven 4,632
HR: #22 Roberts 505. #17 Blyleven 430
HR/9: #22 Hunter .98. #14 Blyleven .8
ERA: #1 Ford 2.75. #17 Blyleven 3.31
ERA+: #1 Newhouser: 137. #11 Blyleven 118 (#142 all time)
Some “average” data is only valid back to 1950 and reduces the the career data of some and eliminates two others.
BA: #1 Ryan .205. #19 Blyleven .248. #20 Roberts .254
OBP: #1 Koufax .275. #16 Blyleven .301
SLG: #1 Ryan .298. #15 Blyleven .367
OPS: #1 Koufax .594. #15 Blyleven .668
OPS+: #1 Koufax 69. #13 Blyleven 86
In 1973 pitching for Minnesota Blyleven lead the league in ERA+ for the only time in his career with 158. Blyleven's second best ERA+ was 151 in 1977 with Texas.
Among pitching seasons by Hall of Famers since 1942, Blyleven's 158 would rank #33. Bob Gibson had 258 in 1968 followed by: Newhouser 195 1945 (war year), Ryan 195 1981 (strike year), Seaver 194 1971, Koufax 190 1966.
Among all pitching seasons by since 1950, Blyleven's 158 would rank #150. Gibson’s 258 is topped by: Pedro Martinez 292 2000, Maddux 271 1994 (strike year), Maddux 262 1995 (strike year). There were another 12 seasons 200 or over, none in strike years.
More stats on my blog:
Thursday, January 6, 2011 Bert Blyleven elected to Hall of Fame: say it ain't so!
Note: Maybe the reason I don't remember Blyleven as anything special is his poor record against the Yankees:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=blylebe01&year=Career&t=p
Yanks and Yankee Stadium had third best AL OPS v Blyleven.
Blyleven’s worst win percentage against any AL team: .406 (13-19) v Yanks. ERA 3.56 v
Yanks. Blyleven had worse ERA against Tigers, Blue Jays, Twins, Red Sox, Indians
in AL.
Summary:
During his pitching days the writers collectively established Blyleven as good but not great, as evidenced by his mediocre CY record. Now new writers may overrule that. They may also overrule many previous years of Hall of Fame voting, which occurred much closer to Blyleven’s pitching career. The burden is on them to explain this disconnect. How does a Hall of Fame candidate go from 14.1% in year two to 74.2% in year 12? That’s a huge increase, over five times as much.
So there are two disconnects relative to the Hall of Fame:
1. annual CY voting for the active player
2. annual Hall of Fame voting for the retired player.
Yes, there are different individuals voting and there are different rules and criteria.
CY voting is based on performance. At least half of the criteria for Hall of Fame voting is based on character. Here are the basic rules:
Electors may vote for as few as zero (0) and as many as ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election... Any candidate receiving votes on seventy-five percent (75%) of the ballots cast shall be elected to membership in the National Baseball Hall of Fame.
There is the silliness of a player implicitly being judged against the players who happen to be candidates each year. However, if a player is passed over for TWELVE years, what does that say about his candidacy? Or about those voting?
The same organization cannot be allowed to disavow one aspect of its voting without explanation. There may be valid reason for the change but it should be addressed and explained, somewhat like what the Supreme Court would do.
*** The End ***