Who belongs in the Hall of Fame? Should the players who are there really be there? More importantly, what standards should be used to determine whether someone belongs in the Hall of Fame?
Fortunately for those of us who love to yuck it up about baseball, the Hall of Fame rules provide a blessedly ambiguous statement about what voters should consider:
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
The question of who should be in the Hall of Fame was one the seeds that launched the idea for Church of Baseball. And the Hall of Fame will come up frequently in our posts.
The recent election of Wade Boggs and Ryne Sandberg to the Hall of Fame affords us a unique opportunity to start our discussion. Why? Boggs and Sandberg are perhaps polar opposites as players with respect to the likely reasons behind their selections. And this raises some interesting questions about the standards that apply to Hall of Fame contenders.
BOGGS
It's a Hit
More than anything else, Boggs is in the Hall of Fame because of his remarkable eye and effective swing. As a pure hitter Boggs was easily one of the best. Let's review:
Boggs is a career.328 hitter (#34 all time), had 3,010 hits (#23 all time), had 578 doubles (#15 all time), a .415 OBP (#26 all time) and was on base 4,445 times (#18 all time).
Boggs' lifetime statistics are even more impressive when he is compared to contemporary players. When compared to players who retired after 1950, Boggs' performance as a pure hitter really stands out: He rises to #4 behind Ted Williams, Tony Gwynn and Stan Musial for batting average, up to #16 for hits, #9 for doubles and on base percentage and #12 for times on base.
Boggs also holds the AL records for consecutive seasons with 200 or more hits (7) and for consecutive seasons leading in intentional walks (6). And his 3,000th hit was a home run. He is the only player with that distinction.
Boggs' hitting statistics are even more impressive when considering that his great years were in the 80s - not a decade like the 90s, which was a veritable boon for offensive play. He hit over .350 five times in the 80s - and he only played from 1982. No one hit more than .330 three times (Puckett) in the 1980s except for Boggs - 6 times. In fact, in the 80s his batting average never slipped below .325. He led the league in on-base percentage from 1983 to 1989 (except for 1984, where he held the #2 spot), and he led the league in batting 5 times.
In the 90s, Boggs slowed down, hitting above .330 only twice and falling below .300 three times. His offensive dominance as a pure hitter dissipated, although he was still dangerous, hitting .332 in 1991, .342 in 1994, .324 in 1995 and a respectable .311 in 1996.
Boggs had great plate discipline, which resulted in his racking up 4 seasons with 100+ walks and never striking out more than 68 times in a season. In fact, he walked nearly twice as much as he struck out.
But Wade Boggs, for all of his hitting prowess, had a number of deficiencies. He was slow (but smart) on the base-path. This limited his ability to capitalize on his hitting prowess. With his average and on base percentage, one automatically thinks of Boggs as being a classic lead-off or #2 hitter. But lack of speed kept him from being exactly what you look for there.
And Boggs never hit for real power (Boggs' doubles numbers are impressive, but he played a good long time at Fenway). Boggs went through his career thinking that the homers would come, but they rarely did. Imagine Boggs with real pop in his bat.
Early in his career Boggs was a mediocre fielder at best. Long work rectified that, and he eventually won two Gold Gloves.
Boggs also never came truly close to winning an MVP, coming in #4 in the voting in 1985. This reflected the fact that Boggs was never a real team leader. He certainly contributed greatly to the teams on which he played, but he pretty much did his job, and not much else. And he never produced a lot of RBIs, although his lifetime .344 batting average with runners in scoring position demonstrate that Boggs could produce. (Keep in mind that Boggs' job was rarely to produce runs.)
Oh yes; and Boggs' affair did not do him well in the press.
In short, one aspect of Boggs' game got him into the Hall of Fame. The other aspects of his play and his character didn't hurt him (much), but they didn't really help all that much either. Gold Gloves are nice, but if he never won one, I doubt he would have had trouble getting into the Hall of Fame.
Should one or two dimensional players be in the Hall of Fame, even if their performance in those limited areas is exceptional?
SANDBERG
Could be a Double, Could go All the Way
Sandberg is in the Hall of Fame for a completely different reason. Sandberg was the dominant offensive and defensive second baseman of his day in the National League and probably in major league baseball.
Sandberg was no pure hitter, but he hit well. He had a respectable batting average for his era, but never reached higher than #4 on the leader board, with a career high .314 batting average. His on base percentage was not quite as respectable, but solid. He kept his strikeouts fairly low, and maintained a decent strikeout to walk ratio.
Sandberg also had speed, routinely stealing over 20 bases a year and 54 in 1984. He also scored over 100 runs in 7 seasons - same as Boggs, though in fewer seasons. And Sandberg hit for power, racking up 403 doubles, 76 triples and 282 home runs (he hit more than 25 home runs in 6 seasons, and a league leading 40 in 1990).
Sandberg stood out defensively. He won the NL Gold Glove from 1983 to 1991.
Sandberg also garnered respect and was recognized for the value he brought to his team. In 1984, Sandberg won the NL MVP, and reached #4 in the voting two more times.
Why is Sandberg in the Hall of Fame? He's there because he was the premiere second baseman in the National League (and probably all of baseball) - and a five category player who did everything well.
So what's the downside? Well, Sandberg doesn't really stand out all that much, except for his stellar defensive work. Put Sandberg's offensive numbers against, say Jim Rice's (who was not elected into the Hall of Fame) and you can see a big difference. And what about Dale Murphy (who won two MVPs and five Gold Gloves)?
This is not to say that Rice or Murphy were better than Sandberg or that they belong in the Hall of Fame. The point here is that while there is no doubt Sandberg was a great player, there is doubt as to whether he was better than others playing the game around the same time he did.
No one aspect of Sandberg's game got him into the hall of fame. If he had a lifetime .240 average, had no real pop in his bat and had average speed, I'm not sure we would be talking about Sandberg in the Hall of Fame, even with his defensive prowess.
Should a very good, five category player be in the Hall of Fame?
Here's another perspective.
DIMAGGIO
Bye-Bye, Baseball
The Yankee Clipper was voted into the Hall of Fame in 1955. (In his third year of eligibility!)
DiMaggio won three MVP awards, was batting champ twice, led the league in home runs twice, led the league in RBIs twice and struck out only 8 more times than he hit home runs while playing in a pitchers park all of his career (center-left field 457'). His walks to strikeout ratio is better than 2 to 1. DiMaggio owns a remarkable hitting streak of 56 consecutive games, which has been a record for over 60 years. DiMaggio had great speed on the basepath, and would have stolen lots of bases, had he played in an era when stealing bases was valued. DiMaggio's defensive play was outstanding. His career numbers should include a recognition that he lost 3 peak years to World War II.
DiMaggio was on the leader board in just about every category in almost every year he played. He either won or was in the top ten voting for the MVP in 10 of the 13 seasons he played.
Here's what they say at BaseballLibrary.com: "The Yankee Clipper could do everything well. He may have been the best all-around player ever, with a generous dash of class added in. . . . Many experts consider Joe DiMaggio the best player in the history of the game. He is admired not only for his achievements but for his refusal to rest on his natural skills, working instead to constantly improve his play. He was responsible to himself, his teammates, and his fans. He had pride. He was more than an exceptional athlete; he was the consummate professional."
Here's what some of his contemporaries said:
Joe McCarthy (Joe D's manager): "He's the most complete player I have ever seen. He can hit, hit for power, run, throw, and play the outfield." Asked if DiMaggio could bunt: "I'll never know."
Red Ruffing (Pitcher and teammate): "You saw him standing out there and you knew you had a pretty darn good chance of winning the baseball game."
Yoggi Berra (Catcher and teammate): "He never did anything wrong in the field."
DiMaggio brought everything to the game, and then some - discipline, power, speed, production, defense and respect - in great quantities. What Boggs did as a pure hitter, DiMaggio did with every aspect of his game. What Sandberg did with every aspect of the game, DiMaggio did better (or just as well).
Is it fair to compare Boggs and Sandberg to someone who probably should be considered one of the 10 or 15 greatest players ever to have played the game?
Do Boggs and Sandberg deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?
Do they deserve to be in next to DiMaggio, Cobb, Schmidt and Ruth?
No comments:
Post a Comment