Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera
Sure, "idiots" may be a bit of a stretch. How's "ignorant" suit you? Many of the awards they have given and players (Rafael Palmeiro's GG in '99, Pete Vuckovich winning the Cy in '82, and the list goes on...) they have left out of the HoF (Bert Blyleven, Ron Santo), would point to some sort of collective ignorance among the BBWAA.
|
There's a difference between awards which are more or less explicitly intended for the "most valuable" player in a given role (and thus the debate is only on which measures are most appropriate to use), and the HOF, which has always been more abstract. Other than the first class (who were all superlative in both measures), it has always been questionable on how much value is
and should be assigned to statistical "value" versus less quantifiable elements of famousness (like, say, having played for NYY).
For example, I may say (for example) that Joe Jackson and Pete Rose should be in the HOF
because they were (great players) expelled in disgrace, and the expulsions and the disgrace are essential to baseball lore, in a way that someone being very competent for a number of years just isn't.
You may well disagree, but it's an entirely different territory of debate than the question of which measures are appropriate to identify a given season's best pitcher, given that everyone agrees the Cy Young
is for the best pitcher.