Golden Era Hall of Fame Ballot announced

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Except he really didn't. Yaz put up a ton of .270/18/75 seasons. In all honesty, he really wasn't an elite player for pretty much the entire last 13 seasons. He had a couple very good years but nothing great. Basically, he was great for 3, maybe 4, years and that's it.

I guess that we just have a different opinion of what a "very high level" is. I think the fact that he received MVP votes in 14 different season and played in more All-Star games than anyone except Aaron, Mays, Musial and Ripken is pretty impressive. Plus, he has 7 Gold Glove awards and the few times that played in the postseason, he excelled.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

I guess that we just have a different opinion of what a "very high level" is. I think the fact that he received MVP votes in 14 different season and played in more All-Star games than anyone except Aaron, Mays, Musial and Ripken is pretty impressive. Plus, he has 7 Gold Glove awards and the few times that played in the postseason, he excelled.

At a point the All Star game just became an entitlement for Yaz. He made it for example in a season where he was 12-68-.264. And the year before that he was 15-70-.254. And lest you think these were token appreciation-type votes at the end of the career, uh uh. These were at age 31 and 32.

[Kenny Cole]

As I've said before, the problem with Allen is that he was widely viewed as a clubhouse cancer during his playing days. I'm not saying that viewpoint is right or wrong because I simply don't know, but I do believe that it has negatively impacted his HOF candidacy ever since he became eligible.

In many respects, Allen is the 1960-70's version of Albert Belle. Amazing offensive stats but no chance of ever being elected by the sportswriters.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

At a point the All Star game just became an entitlement for Yaz. He made it for example in a season where he was 12-68-.264. And the year before that he was 15-70-.254. And lest you think these were token appreciation-type votes at the end of the career, uh uh. These were at age 31 and 32.

Yeah, he had a couple of mediocre years when his end of the season stats did not back up his All-Star selection, but what about the 12 years when he was in the top 20 in MVP voting? Also, all of his 7 Gold Gloves came in these 12 seasons, so you cannot overlook has defensive value either. To me, being in the top 20 of players in your League is pretty significant.

Obviously, Yaz's lifetime stats benefited from his longevity, but if you were to exclude the last 5 or 6 years of his career, he would still be in the HOF. Basically, I do not feel that he solely made it into the HOF based on his lifetime numbers, but also because he was thought of at the time as one of the top 20 players in his League for a run of 12 out of 17 seasons during his prime.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Yeah, he had a couple of mediocre years when his end of the season stats did not back up his All-Star selection, but what about the 12 years when he was in the top 20 in MVP voting? To me, being in the top 20 of players in your League is pretty significant.

You mean like 1978 when he was 17th in MVP voting and was 17-81-.277? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Yaz is not a first ballot HOFer, in fact I brought him up initially with quite the opposite point in mind, to counter Lichtman's claim that guys whose stats are mostly longevity stats shouldn't be in. But it is a fact that Yaz had only a few great years.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You mean like 1978 when he was 17th in MVP voting and was 17-81-.277?

Yeah, but he was still voted the 17th most valuable player in his League. To me, it is all relative to the others players who he played against and how he was perceived at the time. Stats can be deceiving. At the end of the day, his All-Star appearances and MVP voting convince me that he was considered to be a top player of his day.

[Greg Sonk]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Yeah, but he was still voted the 17th most valuable player in his League. To me, it is all relative to the others players who he played against. Stats can be de dining and matter what they were, he was regarded as a top 20 player in 12 different seasons.

This is a perfect example of stats with no context being useless, so thank you.

What the voting record actually shows was that post 1970, Yaz was a good player, but no longer elite. This is not an insignificant accomplishment, as you can't forget his peak existed, but if we want to use MVP voting records as evidence of value, we need to dig deeper.

Yastrzemski's MVP voting totals after 1970 are as follows
1973: 9 votes for a 3% share
1974: 14 votes for a 4% share
1975: 1 vote for a less than 1% share
1976: 28 votes for an 8% share
1977: 25 votes for a 6% share
1978: 17 votes for a 4% share

So to review, once he reached the other side of his peak, he never received more than 8% of the possible vote totals in MVP voting. These totals in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY show that he was a top 20 player in any of those years. It shows that a vast minority of the voting population thought he was a top player. Those are different issues entirely. How many of those people do you think were from New England?

[JollyElm]

Personally, I think the Hall is way too bogged down--Sutton and Blyleven immediately come to mind as neither was anywhere near dominant in their time--but from your list, and as a son of diehard Brooklyn Dodgers fans (my parents never went to another game--outright refused to go--after the Bums left town, except when my dad relented and agreed to take my brothers and me to Shea in 1976), then it's Gil Hodges for me. Just an RBI machine for a good decade and ridiculously loved and admired as a teammate. I truly hope number 14 is called this year, but after being in consideration for 40 something years, it doesn't seem very likely. That .273 career batting average is such a large speed bump to get over.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But it is a fact that Yaz had only a few great years.

Peter, you're not considering the era that he played much of his career in. A lot of those years were absolutely dominated by pitching.

If I told you that Yastrzemski hit .301 with 23 HR and 74 RBI in 1968, you'd immediately say that was an ok season. And it's that same judgement that you're applying to his career.

Yaz was the only hitter in the American League to hit .300 that season. The second place finished in the batting race hit .290. That was a great season when you consider what all the other hitters in the American League did that year. With a .301/23/74 line, he had a 10.4 WAR, which is MVP level.

Yaz had three seasons which, by WAR, rate as MVP seasons: 1967, 1968 and 1970. He had 5 other seasons with a WAR 5.0 and above, which are strong All Star seasons. And he had another where his WAR was 4.9. Now, I'm not the biggest WAR proponent there is. I'm just going by this because it's easy for the sake of a quick discussion. That's 8 seasons where he played at a strong All Star level or higher, really 9 if you consider 1965. Should 1965 be considered? He only had a 4.9 WAR, but in 1965, Yaz led the league in doubles, on base percentage, slugging, OPS, and OPS +.

And that was his ninth best season.

Yaz was a tremendous player for much of his career. In 1977, at age 37, he was still hitting .296 with 28 home runs and 100 + RBI. Now, he had a few seasons that weren't at that level before then, but he was still a very productive player. In 1962, he had only a 4.4 WAR. Would you take him to play on your team that year? 99 runs, 191 hits, 43 doubles, 19 home runs, 94 RBI, .296 AVG. Of course you would.

I think it's a misnomer to say he had only a few great seasons.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

If I told you that Yastrzemski hit .301 with 23 HR and 74 RBI in 1968, you'd immediately say that was an ok season.

It was a fine season under tough conditions. Good for 9th place in MVP voting behind Denny McLain, Willie Horton, Bill Freehan and Ken Harrelson.

Originally Posted by the 'stache

And it's that same judgement that you're applying to his career.

By any standard, the .264/12/68 Yaz put up in 1972 was not great. Or the .254/15/70 the year before.

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I think it's a misnomer to say he had only a few great seasons.

Obviously, since I said it, I disagree.

Fact is, we're talking about a corner outfielder who played 23 seasons yet topped 30 HRs just 3 times. He topped .300 just 6 times. And for all his defensive prowess in left field - a position so defensively important in Boston that Manny Ramirez manned it for nearly a decade - he played barely 60% of his career in LF. And, as mentioned, .264/.357/.422 on the road for his career. That's not even remotely in the elite category.

Really, he's a guy that looked like an elite player up through 1970 and then coasted on that rep for another 13 years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

It was a fine season under tough conditions. Good for 9th place in MVP voting behind Denny McLain, Willie Horton, Bill Freehan and Ken Harrelson.


By any standard, the .264/12/68 Yaz put up in 1972 was not great. Or the .254/15/70 the year before.


Obviously, since I said it, I disagree.

Fact is, we're talking about a corner outfielder who played 23 seasons yet topped 30 HRs just 3 times. He topped .300 just 6 times. And for all his defensive prowess in left field - a position so defensively important in Boston that Manny Ramirez manned it for nearly a decade - he played barely 60% of his career in LF. And, as mentioned, .264/.357/.422 on the road for his career. That's not even remotely in the elite category.

Really, he's a guy that looked like an elite player up through 1970 and then coasted on that rep for another 13 years.

I'm obviously a Red Sox fan being from Boston, and it's sacrilege to say it, but I agree. He did have a couple of seasons I would categorize as excellent in the late 70s, but his typical post-70 season (he played through 83)-- even in the context of the times -- was just above average for his positions.

[Greg Sonk]

Dick Allen has baggage that very well may keep him out forever, but what he accomplished on the field was outstanding. It almost feels pointless to debate because the only thing that matters is how the voters view his off the field issues. "He's a jerk!" versus "Who cares?" turns pedantic quickly, with no one changing his or her mind.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

At a point the All Star game just became an entitlement for Yaz. He made it for example in a season where he was 12-68-.264. And the year before that he was 15-70-.254. And lest you think these were token appreciation-type votes at the end of the career, uh uh. These were at age 31 and 32.

Yaz may be taking the brunt of it in this specific case, but you can apply this completely logical argument to so many others. All-Star appearances, Gold Gloves and the like are subjective awards given by people who quite frankly didn't know any better in a lot of cases. They are not evidence of play, but rather of reputation and should therefore hold little weight when compared to what the athletes actually did on the field. The Gold Gloves are particularly egregious with the repeated Jeter awards, Michael Young winning at Shortstop in 2008, the all-timer Palmeiro award in '99, etc.