Any bad BBWAA HOF selections?

[Triad]

Have there been any bad BBWAA Hall of Fame selections? Not so much how soon or how late they were selected, or what percentage they received, but just who was selected. Here's the entire list:

1936 Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson
1937 Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, Cy Young
1938 Grover Alexander
1939 Lou Gehrig, Eddie Collins, Willie Keeler, George Sisler
1942 Rogers Hornsby
1947 Mickey Cochrane, Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Frankie Frisch
1948 Herb Pennock, Pie Traynor
1949 Charlie Gehringer
1951 Jimmie Foxx, Mel Ott
1952 Harry Heilmann, Paul Waner
1953 Dizzy Dean, Al Simmons
1954 Bill Dickey, Rabbit Maranville, Bill Terry
1955 Joe DiMaggio, Gabby Hartnett, Ted Lyons, Dazzy Vance
1956 Joe Cronin, Hank Greenberg
1962 Bob Feller, Jackie Robinson
1964 Luke Appling
1966 Ted Williams
1967 Red Ruffing
1968 Joe Medwick
1969 Stan Musial, Roy Campanella
1970 Lou Boudreau
1972 Yogi Berra, Sandy Koufax, Early Wynn
1973 Roberto Clemente, Warren Spahn
1974 Whitey Ford, Mickey Mantle
1975 Ralph Kiner
1976 Bob Lemon, Robin Roberts
1977 Ernie Banks
1978 Eddie Mathews
1979 Willie Mays
1980 Al Kaline, Duke Snider
1981 Bob Gibson
1982 Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson
1983 Juan Marichal, Brooks Robinson
1984 Luis Aparicio, Don Drysdale, Harmon Killebrew
1985 Lou Brock, Hoyt Wilhelm
1986 Willie McCovey
1987 Catfish Hunter, Billy Williams
1988 Willie Stargell
1989 Johnny Bench, Carl Yastrzemski
1990 Jim Palmer, Joe Morgan
1991 Rod Carew, Ferguson Jenkins, Gaylord Perry
1992 Tom Seaver, Rollie Fingers
1993 Reggie Jackson
1994 Steve Carlton
1995 Mike Schmidt
1997 Phil Niekro
1998 Don Sutton
1999 Nolan Ryan, George Brett, Robin Yount
2000 Carlton Fisk, Tony Perez
2001 Dave Winfield, Kirby Puckett
2002 Ozzie Smith
2003 Eddie Murray, Gary Carter
2004 Paul Molitor, Dennis Eckersley
2005 Wade Boggs, Ryne Sandberg
2006 Bruce Sutter
2007 Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn

I guess everyone can have their own definition of what a "bad" selection might be. I would think if there were somewhere between 5-10 more worthy eligible candidates at that position who are not in the Hall of Fame (times 4 for starting pitchers), then that would indicate someone didn't belong in the Hall.

[WilsonC]

There's very few that I'd consider particularly "bad" picks. Sutter's iffy, especially with relievers like Gossage and Smith still on the ballot - relief pitchers seem to be an area that the "bar" is still being established. There's a few that I may not have voted for - Kiner comes to mind - and a few early guys who were high-average hitters that may not score as well under modern advanced metrics. I think overall the BBWAA has done a pretty good job, with no real head-scratchers and more mistakes on the part of omitting deserving players than letting in embarassing selections. Almost all of the "mistake" picks seem to be Veteran's commitee ones.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by WilsonC

There's very few that I'd consider particularly "bad" picks. Sutter's iffy, especially with relievers like Gossage and Smith still on the ballot - relief pitchers seem to be an area that the "bar" is still being established. There's a few that I may not have voted for - Kiner comes to mind - and a few early guys who were high-average hitters that may not score as well under modern advanced metrics. I think overall the BBWAA has done a pretty good job, with no real head-scratchers and more mistakes on the part of omitting deserving players than letting in embarassing selections. Almost all of the "mistake" picks seem to be Veteran's commitee ones.

I agree on Sutter. Gossage was way better, and he'll finally get in this next time. Sutter did have a better peak than Smith. I don't understand why Quisenberry didn't get more support. I see him as Sutter's equal. They're numbers are very similar. Sutter reached the magical 300-save plateau, and then he popularized the splitter, which is what garners him so much attention. I don't know why that would enhance his worthiness. Either elect him on his playing ability or his pioneering, but not part of each. Meanwhile, Quisenberry was all but ignored.

[WilsonC]

For that matter, I'd put Henke in the same class as Sutter, too. I'd have to agree that I don't see much difference between Sutter and Quisenberry, at least in effectiveness. Sutter had better stuff, but they were similar in performance.

At any rate, I have more of an issue with the exclusion of better relievers - particularly Gossage - than with Sutter's inclusion. If Sutter ends up being the 'bar' for relievers, I don't really take issue with it as long as we get the better pitchers in.

[Triad]

I'd call these two fairly suspect:

Herb Pennock
Rabbit Maranville

Pennock's probably worse than several active pitchers who probably won't get in the Hall of Fame, such as Andy Pettitte, David Wells, Kenny Rogers. Mike Mussina and John Smoltz.

Maranville was a great fielder, but a mediocre batter. Probably along the lines of Omar Vizquel. Not a terrible choice, but there are so many more that would be deserving.

I don't think Keeler, Terry, Sisler or Traynor are deserving either, especially as BBWAA selections.

I think the two worst picks in the last fifty years have been Phil Niekro and Ozzie Smith. Smith should've been a Veteran's Committee selection later on, and Niekro should've just been a veteran.

[WilsonC]

Pennock looks a little questionable, I suppose, looking over his numbers. He looks to have been a good pitcher who benefitted from one of the best hitting dynasties of all time. I don't really know much about him.

Not so with Maranville, however. I see Maranville as a player who's very easy to underrate the impact he had, through most statistics. There are a couple important things to remember in evaluating him:

1. His best years were toward the end of the deadball era. There were not many shortstops other than Wagner who could hit much in that era, let alone impact hitters. Maranville was a below average hitter, but probably a slightly above average hitting shortstop.

2. Strikeout rates and power were much lower during those years. It was a contact game - hitters were successful by putting the ball in play a lot more. The impact of an excellent fielding shortstop during those years was much higher during those years, and Marranvile was terriffic.

What that means is that there was really no significant offensive trade-off to get the benefits of his tremendous defensive skills in the lineup, as there is today. It's tough to quantify how much value his glove was worth, but I do feel his impact is vaslty underrated by most metrics. It was a different game during his best years, and even his offense is probably a little underrated, as his decline years carry into the lively-ball era overshadowing his best years.

Traynor is a player who, while he can be overrated as a hitter, is a clear HoFer. What's important to ask is this: At the time of Traynor's retirement, who had been a greater thirdbaseman? Frank Baker probably. Jimmy Collins maybe, depending on how much his defense was worth. John McGraw? Per game, sure, but he didn't really have enough full seasons to compare. When Traynor retired, he was one of the two or three greatest third basemen in the history of baseball. Don't forget that this was the era when thirdbase was a defense-first position for the most part.

Sisler is a similar case. He's somewhat of a transitional player. There were a few big hitters in the 1800's who were probably better, but in a less developped league. He was probably the best dead-ball firstbaseman, though, and was on the downswing of his career before the first modern power-hitting firstbasemen came along.

That's one thing that's important when looking at older players. We can't fairly compare Traynor to guys like Schmidt or Matthews or Brett or Boggs. Most of the big hitting thirdbasemen came along after the positional paradigm shifted from more defensive to more offensive. Likewise, Sisler was well into his career before Gehrig or Foxx came along. It's doing him a disservice by comparing him to the sluggers who came after. We have the benefit of over a hundred years of history to suggest that some HoFers are inferior to some guys not in the HoF, but that history is a very important part of the HoF, and players like Sisler and Traynor, while they may seem overrated compared to modern sluggers, were greats compared to those who preceded them, and are an important part of that history.

[jtur88]

I think up until Mathews, Traynor was the only 3B in the hall It is inconceivable that in half century of baseball, only one HoF calibre player was ever put in that spot in the infield. If 3B was considered a predominantly defensive position, who were the outstanding gove-men who played there, who could hit at least as good as Tinker and Evers. Lindstrom was added after Mathews. What about Heinie Groh? There were some good 3Bs in the late 30's, most of them nicknamed Pinky (Higgins and Whitney) as well Harlond Clift and Stan Hack.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by WilsonC

I see Maranville as a player who's very easy to underrate the impact he had, through most statistics. There are a couple important things to remember in evaluating him:

1. His best years were toward the end of the deadball era. There were not many shortstops other than Wagner who could hit much in that era, let alone impact hitters. Maranville was a below average hitter, but probably a slightly above average hitting shortstop.

I would take this to mean that shortstop wasn't as valuable long ago as it later became. Wouldn't it be better to measure him against the league than a few shortstops who might have been suspect? Why should the number of good shortstops in the league at the time affect how we measure Maranville? What if there had been an unusually high number of good shortstops at that time, but not many quality second basemen or third basemen? Would that mean his value would be less?

I'd say Ray Chapman was more productive than Maranville, as were Joe Sewell and Travis Jackson. They all were regularly over 100 OPS, and Maranville was usually in the 80s and 90s, only getting above 100 twice. There seems to be a big gap between them and Maranville.

I noticed that in the 1933 NL MVP voting, Maranville somehow finished 12th with a 60 OPS, while Arky Vaughan finished 23rd with a 146 OPS! Vaughan had 57 extra base hits, while Maranville had 19.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

2. Strikeout rates and power were much lower during those years. It was a contact game - hitters were successful by putting the ball in play a lot more. The impact of an excellent fielding shortstop during those years was much higher during those years, and Marranvile was terriffic.

I can go along with that. I believe the value of fielding fluctuates over different periods. To what degree, I guess that's the question.

For the eight seasons we have CS data on Maranville, which was mostly in his prime, his SB pct. was a measley 62%.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

Traynor is a player who, while he can be overrated as a hitter, is a clear HoFer. What's important to ask is this: At the time of Traynor's retirement, who had been a greater thirdbaseman? Frank Baker probably. Jimmy Collins maybe, depending on how much his defense was worth. John McGraw? Per game, sure, but he didn't really have enough full seasons to compare. When Traynor retired, he was one of the two or three greatest third basemen in the history of baseball. Don't forget that this was the era when thirdbase was a defense-first position for the most part.

I think Baker looks quite a bit better than Traynor. And Heinie Groh looks better too. Tommy Leach was certainly comparable, along with Jimmy Collins. It's not a stretch to say Traynor was one of the four or five best 3rd baseman up through 1930. But what kind of claim is that? Baseball was still pretty young at that time, about 40 years into having fairly competitive leagues. If we looked at the last 40 years today, how many HOF-worthy third basemen could you find? Schmidt, Brett, Boggs, C. Jones, A. Rodriguez, B. Robinson, Evans. After that, it starts thinning out. So in a 24-30 team league which has been more competitive and 3rd baseman has had more impact, do you think we'd produce 6-7 HOFers while Traynor's time would still produce 4-5? That seems awfully generous to me. I think 3rd base wasn't as important of a position back then as it later became. I don't think it was being maximized to its potential.

Originally Posted by WilsonC

That's one thing that's important when looking at older players. We can't fairly compare Traynor to guys like Schmidt or Matthews or Brett or Boggs. Most of the big hitting thirdbasemen came along after the positional paradigm shifted from more defensive to more offensive. Likewise, Sisler was well into his career before Gehrig or Foxx came along. It's doing him a disservice by comparing him to the sluggers who came after. We have the benefit of over a hundred years of history to suggest that some HoFers are inferior to some guys not in the HoF, but that history is a very important part of the HoF, and players like Sisler and Traynor, while they may seem overrated compared to modern sluggers, were greats compared to those who preceded them, and are an important part of that history.

Good points. OK, at the time Traynor and Sisler probably looked like Hall of Famers, but in retrospect, we can see that the view was somewhat nearsighted.