Quote:
Originally Posted by markf31
Not sure HOF voting can be used for much of a barometer, or it should be taken at least with a grain of salt. Lou Crigar received 8% of HOF voting in 1937 and Johnny Kling garnered 10% of voting in 1937, both receiving more votes on the 1937 ballot than 31 other eventual HOF members and nobody would argue that either Crigar nor Kling were better than those 31 eventual HOF members. Some of those names include Evers, Chance, Simmons, Roush, Clarke, Crawford, Baker and Gehringer.
|
Disagree. When someone is overwhelming elected it means a lot. Out of 226 voters, with the chance to vote for anyone in baseball's history, Matty had 205 vote for him. That is significant. To put it in prospective, Ruth only got 10 more votes. A guy getting 20 or 16 votes vs. 10 is irrelevant. Matty getting more votes than WaJo doesn't mean he is better, it just means he is one of the greatest pitchers of all time.
The next year with the top 5 not taking votes away, Young barely made the cut. He only got 153 votes out of 201 and finished 3rd in voting, behind Lajoie and Speaker (He had finished 8th in 1936 behind Lajoie and Speaker) again.
I believe the award was named for Cy Young because he had won the most games at a time when wins were the most important stat. I think today we know better. Jacob deGrom is currently 8-9. By past standards, no one would vote for him because there are several pitchers with 17, 16, 15 wins and winning records. Today, he is a serious candidate to win the Cy Young because we don't value wins, but value ERA, WHIP and adjusting them for things like park, team defense and level of competition.