Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
"One thing we really can't control for is the esteem his peers had for him. I think that carried a lot of weight, and we have no way of factoring that in. We can't talk to those players, unfortunately, since they're no longer alive. But I think the consensus was that Hafey was one of the very best hitters of that generation, and they believed his production backed that up. "
That is a circular argument because it applies by definition to anyone who was voted in by a Veterans Committee composed of peers. So are you saying let's just take their word for it, and exclude the possibility of cronyism which is at least as logical an explanation?
|
Oh, I think Cronyism played a part in his election. There's no doubt about it. But I don't think it's a circular argument. I don't believe every single player voted in by the Veteran's Committee was held at the level Hafey was. Branch Rickey said if he'd been healthy, he could have been the greatest right handed hitter the game's ever seen. I bet if you searched the net for quotes about the other 20 or so players inducted by the veteran's Committee, you wouldn't see that same statement made about any of the others.
What is said about a player's peers has to weigh into the discussion. Factors beyond a player's statistics has to be considered.
Imagine if the only thing that was considered about Jackie Robinson was his final numbers. Jackie was a career .311 hitter with an .883 OPS. He had 4,877 career at bats. He won one batting title. He lead the league in OBP once, and in stolen bases twice.
But what about the Tests? Jackie has a much better Hall of Fame Monitor Test score, 98 to 69. But should there be this difference? Robinson won an MVP, Hafey did not. That's 8 points for Jackie. Robinson got 3 points for each of the six All Star selections he got. Hafey got the first hit in the first All Star Game, but he only played in that one game. Why? Because that was the first time the game had ever been played. It's not that Robinson was that much better a player. Context. Robinson gets 18 points and Hafey gets 3, simply because of the eras they played in. The All Star game only existed at the end of Hafey's career. Then, again, Robinson won the MVP the year he won the batting title. But Hafey, the year he won his batting title, hit for a higher average. He had a higher OPS. He had a higher OPS+. But there was no national surge of emotion supporting Hafey.
Basically, there's 23 points of the difference between Robinson and Hafey. One player winning an MVP where the other does not. And one player being elected to six All Star Games whereas the other player didn't have a chance to go to the All Star Game in his prime...simply because it did not exist. Oh, and one more point for Robinson winning the Rookie of the Year Award in the award's first year. The award did not exist in 1924, when Hafey was a rookie.
Should Robinson really have a higher Hall of Fame Monitor Test score? No, of course not.
Context.
But you wouldn't take anything but the flat numbers into consideration. Jackie Robinson was an incredible, exciting player, and he broke the color barrier that had existed since the late 1800s.
But if numbers are all that matter, then Jackie Robinson shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, either. Even though he had 252 more career at bats than Hafey, Hafey had more doubles, triples, home runs, RBIs, a higher batting average, slugging percentage, OPS, and OPS +. Robinson had more runs scored, more hits, more stolen bases, and a higher OBP.
And while Jackie Robinson had to deal with hatred everywhere he went, he never had to battle vision problems. But, neither of those things matter. We shouldn't listen to the stories about Jack Robinson getting death threats. People repeatedly yelling the N word at him from the stands, those stories told by his teammates, should have no bearing whatsoever.
It's the numbers only. And if Chick Hafey doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, then Jackie Robinson doesn't belong, either.
05-02-2014, 01:07 PM
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
