A common sighting this time of year

‘Tis the season for ill-conceived Hall of Fame columns, and today I beg to differ!)? If that’s the case, wasn’t it Jenkins’ job as a writer to make people pay attention? And where does Ron LeFlore fit into all of this?

Mark Grace and Alan Trammell: Rock solid. Like granite. Just too much stiff competition at their respective positions. No.

Maybe that’s true about Grace — the falloff from elite first basemen to Grace is pretty dramatic — but not Trammell. You got, what, Wagner, Vaughn, Banks (for a while), Yount (for a while) Ripken, Smith, Jeter, A-Rod, Larkin, and that’s pretty much it, isn’t it? While he’s no Wagner, I think Trammell fits in pretty well with that group.

As usual, that gets us nowhere. I just need to go off on one or two of these things each year to get it out of my system.

Print Friendly
 Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone
« Previous: Shoulda stuck with “California” in the first place
Next: First Chinese Democracy, now this »


  1. Rob said...

    Not to defend the guy—his explanation of the Mattingly vote alone is enough evidence that the guy doesn’t understand the concept of voting—but I read his comments on Dawson to mean that despite playing in an outfield that had no other star power, he didn’t shine brightly enough.

    One problem (of many) with these arguments is that guys who toiled away on mediocre teams are the very ones that are not likely to be talked about during a season, while guys who drive in the winning run on a lucky hit for the 100-win team are likely to be the lead for the evening news.  To say that this logic over-emphasizes contextual statistics would be a dramatic understatement.

  2. Jason @ IIATMS said...

    Craig, these are your best types of posts.  The kind that I can just read along, nod my head in agreement and say “well, he said it all”.  Nicely done.

  3. Matt Sullivan said...

    I think it is sad that this guy (jenkins) gets a HoF vote when so many more diligent, dedicated writers are left on the outside of the process looking in.

    If you believe that Morris has a “dominant presence” and Blyeven doesn’t, you should be able to find BOTH stats AND in-game evidence to support that claim. Otherwise it’s fiction- pure and simple.

    When did the days of constructing an argument with relevant data, insightful interpetation and logical conclusions give way to the buzz-word laden sophistry that bombards us each day.

    In the words of John Lennon, “Give me some Truth”


  4. smsetnor said...

    I’ll still never understand why people are so excited about Rice but show no love for Dawson.  And I still think Dawson’s numbers say HOF.  Especially considering he KILLED himself and his knees in Montreal and then played incredibly well on those knees for years.  And the fact that no one paid attention to him?  What about that MVP while playing on a last place team?  Come on!!!

    And as much as I love Grace, he’s no where near Trammel.  He should be in the Chubby Chicks on the Prowl HOF for introducing so many to the secret of a slump buster.

    slump buster-n. an unattractive woman sought by a man for sexual relations in order to improve his sports-playing abilities or his involuntarily inactive sex life

  5. Chipmaker said...

    I cannot tell what that “133” stat for Morris is. He had 175 CG, apparently 111 CG victories. Blyleven, meanwhile, had 242 CG and 167 CG victories. Bert was such a slouch next to Jack.

  6. Daniel said...

    It’s not that I mind voters using the “gut feel” method to help them vote.  It is the Hall of Fame, so I’m okay with that.  To a certain extent.

    Because the problem with using it exclusively is that you over-rate guys who play on teams like Boston (Rice) and under-rate guys who play on teams like Montreal (Dawson).  You vote for guys who play on championship teams (Morris) and exclude guys who played on mostly poor to mediocre teams (Blyleven).  When your method of voting excludes players for a reason that is no fault of their own, you need to supplement the process with some other analysis.

    I’m probably more tolerant of the gut feel stuff than most statistically inclined persons, but I can’t condone someone who completely ignores all other evidence.

  7. Aaron said...

    I always challenge people to make the Rice case without using the word “fear.” I look at his career, and sometimes and genuinely wonder-

    What the hell were they afraid of?

  8. Erik said...

    What I really can’t believe about this article is that this moron doesn’t think CRAIG BIGGIO belongs in the Hall of Fame.

    Nevermind the fact that everything he said about Jack Morris can be applied twofold to both Phil Niekro and Bert Blyleven, neither of whom belong according to this guy.  Also, Jack Morris threw 175 CG’s, not 133, which is still less than both Bert and Phil. 


  9. MJ said...

    @Chipmaker: on BBTF it was posted that 133 is the number of Morris’ CGs in the 1980s (I guess, to go along with his league-leading 80s win total?)

    I just seriously question the sanity of anyone who says Morris – In, Blyleven – Out. I don’t see how you can compare their careers and come up with that decision. Blyleven pitched 1000+ more innings, and pitched them significantly better. And Blyleven didn’t nearly sabotage one team’s postseason like Morris did for the Jays in ‘92 (if postseason is so important…)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>