Next time someone tells me that objectivity is a journalism tradition, my answer will be: Roger Maris.
Again Thursday, baseball writers blocked Maris’ entry to the Baseball Hall of Fame because of their biases and personal feelings. The Golden Era ballot of eight players and two executives to be considered for entry to the Hall of Fame by the Golden Era Committee, announced Thursday, included no one as famous as Maris.
Here’s how selection to the Hall of Fame works: Five years after a player’s career ends, he goes on the ballot for election by the Baseball Writers Association of America. A player is elected if he wins 75 percent or more of the votes. A player can stay on the BBWAA ballot for up to 15 years. Then after a wait of five more years, he can be considered by the Golden Era Committee (known previously as the Old-Timers Committee and the Veterans Committee). The Golden Era Committee is a mix of Hall of Fame members, baseball executives and writers, with 75 percent of the committee required for election. But a committee of writers still picks the ballot for the committee. So writers can keep a player out of the Hall of Fame at both levels.
Maris offended the writers during his pursuit of Babe Ruth’s single-season home run record. He was a shy and surly man and, under the pressure of chasing a hallowed record that writers didn’t consider him worthy of, he grew more shy and surly. And fifty years later, writers born after he set his record still hold it against him. Like war correspondents feel like they are following in Ernie Pyle‘s footsteps and investigative reporters uphold the traditions of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, today’s sports writers uphold the biases of previous generations.
I won’t make the full case here for why Maris belongs in the Hall of Fame. I did that two years ago on my Hated Yankees blog. As I noted earlier this year when the 50th anniversary of his 61st homer of 1961 approached, few Hall of Famers did anything so famous that its anniversary was noted 50 years later. What I want to show here is that by objective measures, Maris is notably more famous than the 10 finalists chosen by the writers for consideration this year.
If the Hall of Fame standards required longevity or surpassing milestones such as 3,000 hits or 500 career homers, Roger Maris would not belong. But great players whose careers were cut short by injury, such as Sandy Koufax and Dizzy Dean, have been voted into the Hall of Fame by the writers. Maris’ career was cut short by injury (and by misdiagnosis of his injury by team doctors). His greatness was gone by age 30 and his career finished by the time he was 33.
But because these supposedly objective journalists didn’t like him, they and the journalists who followed have kept him out of the Hall of Fame.
Maris’s case for belonging in the Hall of Fame is not based solely on his breaking Babe Ruth’s record of 60 homers in a season. He was a two-time Most Valuable Player, a Gold Glove outfielder and a three-time World Series champion. But yes, his fame is rooted in his successful season-long pursuit of Ruth’s record in 1961. And any objective person would have to say that his fame has stood the test of time.
If writers doubted his fame shortly after he retired, it was unquestionable in 1998, when the pursuit — and eventual breaking — of his record by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa was the biggest thing that had happened in baseball for years. Even losing the record after 37 years didn’t dim Maris’s fame. He became the subject of a critically acclaimed 2001 HBO movie directed by Billy Crystal. As allegations (and an admission by McGwire) of performance-enhancing drugs tarnished the achievements of the three players who passed Maris (Barry Bonds broke McGwire’s record), many said Maris should still be recognized as the single-season homer king. And, as I noted, observances of his 50th anniversary underscored his enduring fame.
You could make a good case for any of the people on the Golden Era ballot to join the Hall of Fame. Some of them will eventually. My argument here is not against any of them. The five hitters all have more impressive career batting totals than Maris. If longevity is the only measure, they all should be ahead of him, though none of them reached the milestones that ensure automatic enshrinement. All five played at least 15 years (Maris was finished after 12). But this is a Hall of Fame. Fame is so important it’s in the name.
Here are some objective measures of the fame of Roger Maris and the 10 people on the Golden Era Ballot:
Google hits: Ron Santo 3,090,000; Maris 1,330,000; Allie Reynolds 543,000; Gil Hodges 326,000; Luis Tiant 234,000; Tony Oliva 223,000; Jim Kaat 189,000; Ken Boyer 154,000; Charlie Finley 96,000; Buzzie Bavasi 37,600; Minnie Miñoso 24,200. For online fame, Maris has more fame than eight of this year’s finalists combined. And he died in 1985, almost a decade before the World Wide Web was developed. Each of those Web mentions is a measure of his enduring fame. Only Hodges and Boyer have been dead longer than Maris and four of the players are still alive. The only person surpassing Maris in Internet attention, Ron Santo, played for one of the most popular teams, the Chicago Cubs, then spent two decades as a Cubs broadcaster for that team and became a national advocate for diabetes research when he was battling that disease, before dying last year, 25 years after Maris died.
YouTube clips about them with 10,000 or more views: Maris 14 (I didn’t view them all, but didn’t count a couple that from the descriptions seemed to be primarily about McGwire), Santo 6, Tiant 6, Hodges 5, Oliva 2, Kaat 2, Miñoso 1.
Movies about them: Maris 61* and Safe at Home (an awful movie he and Mickey Mantle made during their careers), Tiant The Lost Son of Havana; Santo This Old Cub; Hodges, a mention in Field of Dreams.
Most Valuable Player Awards: Maris 2, Boyer 1.
Major league records: Maris held the single-season home run record for 37 years. Reynolds shared the record for World Series wins for eight years. Kaat held the record for most Gold Gloves for 30 years. Miñoso holds a novelty record, playing in five decades. His legitimate career started in 1949 and concluded in 1964. He donned a White Sox uniform for three games in 1976 and two in 1980 (at age 54), just to set the record.
World championships: Reynolds 6, Bavasi 4, Maris 3, Finley 3, Hodges 2 (plus one as manager of the 1969 Miracle Mets), Boyer 1, Kaat 1.
League championships: Bavasi 8, Maris 7, Hodges 7 (plus one as a manager), Reynolds 6, Finley 3, Kaat 2, Boyer 1, Oliva 1, Tiant 1.
Home run titles: Maris, 1.
RBI titles: Maris 2, Boyer 1.
Slugging titles: Maris 1, Oliva 1.
World Series homers: Maris 6, Hodges 5, Oliva 1.
Highest percentage in BBWAA voting: Hodges 63.4, Oliva 47.3, Santo 43.3, Maris, 43.1, Reynolds 33.6, Tiant 30.9, Kaat 29.6, Boyer 25.5, Miñoso 20.9.
There are other measures that favor other players (Oliva won three batting championships). But that’s a lot of objective measures by which Maris was clearly more famous than all or most of the 10 men on the Golden Era ballot this year.
Objective journalists could not have left Maris off that list. So don’t tell me objectivity is a core value of journalism.
[…] If journalists were objective, Roger Maris would be in the Baseball Hall of Fame Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
LikeLike
I agree completely with your assessment. I am, alas, a Yankee fan; so my compliment might not be regarded as entirely objective. I think the larger issue, one a lot of newspaper people don’t discuss, is that in many newsrooms, a different standard for writing, reporting, and–yes–objectivity rules in sports departments from those elsewhere.
LikeLike
And hating the Yankees is the most acceptable bias in journalism, alas.
LikeLike
Steve, I love baseball, but I’m not an expert. However, I think your point falls short on a few counts. I have no grudge against Roger Maris; in fact, I feel a lot of sympathy for him. (Billy Crystal’s TV movie “61*” makes a good case that he deserved more support than he got.) I consider him the single-season home run champion, just as I consider Hank Aaron the all-time champ. But that doesn’t mean he’s not in the Hall of Fame because of some ancient bias. In fact, I doubt that the lack of voting for Maris has much at all to do with some hereditary hatred passed down from generation to generation of sportswriters.
First, your argument that Maris belongs in the hall because of his famous feat is not a good argument. I don’t think anyone is in the hall because they were famous for one thing. Johnny Vander Meer had two consecutive no hitters. Don Larsen had the only World Series perfect game. Neither are in the Hall of Fame.
Your comparison to Koufax and Dizzy Dean as players whose careers were cut short doesn’t hold up either.Here are Koufax’s numbers:
ERA W L G IP SO BB
2.76 165 87 397 2325 2396 817
Those are spectacular numbers over his entire shortened career. Dizzy Dean isn’t as good, but he still had good numbers:
ERA W L G IP SO BB
3.02 150 83 317 1967 1163 453
On the other hand, Maris had a career .260 batting average, 275 home runs and 850 runs batted in. Not stellar. He had essentially two good years.
My colleague and lifelong Red Sox fan Mark Brackenbury notes that other players who were disliked by writers have gotten into the hall: Ted Williams and Jim Rice. Williams is a no-brainer, but Rice isn’t, and he got in.
And there are plenty of people who arguably should be in the Hall of Fame who aren’t.
Finally, using a vote by reporters, who are being asked to express their opinion, is not a good argument for a lack of objectivity by “journalists” as a whole. It’s trendy now to say there’s no such thing as objectivity, but I wonder what people are trying to say: that we shouldn’t try to be objective? That we can’t be trusted because we’re letting our biases show?
As a reporter, here’s what I do: I seek out all sides of a story, even if I feel strongly one way, and question my own biases and those of others. If someone makes an argument that beggars common sense, I ask someone about that, and challenge the person making the statement. I challenge all positions when I’m reporting, so that sometimes people think my questions show I’m on the other side. I tell them I’m doing the same thing to the other side. And my story shows that I’m fair to all.
A blogger or a columnist need not do what I do. Those are different animals. But people read my stories expecting them to be balanced.
Objectivity is an ideal we strive for. We’re human, so we fall short. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
LikeLike
Ed, I appreciate your argument about objectivity. Please see my response to Barney Lerten.
As for Maris, you can’t compare a yearlong performance under incredible media pressure to the one-game or two-game moments in the sun of Larsen and Vandermeer. The Koufax and Dean comparison is actually dead-on. Just as Maris’ 275 homers are way below the 500 threshold that ensured automatic enshrinement before the steroid era, Dean’s and Koufax’s win totals of 150 and 165 are way below the 300-win milestone. Now, sluggers with fewer than 500 homers make it, but not with as few as 275 (some singles hitters, base stealers or defensive stars in the Hall of Fame have less). Similarly, there are quite a few starting pitchers with fewer than 300 wins, but starting pitchers with 165 wins just don’t make the Hall of Fame. The voters made exceptions for Dean and Koufax based on their short-term impact.
LikeLike
Well, I happen to be a lifelong Red Sox fan but that doesn’t stop me from believing that Roger Maris has earned a place in Cooperstown. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Doesn’t it say something about the merits of the case when Hall of Famers such as Henry Aaron, Reggie Jackson, Whitey Herzog, the late Mickey Mantle (to name just a few) and other baseball notables such as MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, Ralph Terry, Bob Costas, and many more have called Roger’s absence from the Hall baseball’s worst injustice? Think about it.
LikeLike
Thanks for your outstanding effort on behalf of Roger Maris, Jay.
LikeLike
I disagree with your thesis statement that if journalists were objective Roger Maris would be in the Hall of Fame. By almost any objective measure, Roger Maris does not belong in the Hall of Fame. Of course, that doesn’t mean journalists are objective. Just that the Roger Maris Hall of Fame case doesn’t prove anything about their subjectivity.
I want to argue against Maris, and I’m going to be long-winded about it, but before I do, here’s where I’m coming from. I hate the Yankees. When I wrote a sports column, I was always open about that — before “transparency is the new objectivity” was hip! — and I’m comfortable with my record of writing fairly about them. I’m also a Cardinals fan, secondary to my Giants fandom, having lived in St. Louis for a while, and Maris helped the Cardinals win a World Series too. This is all before my time.
I admire Roger Maris for all the reasons everyone else admires him for. And finally, I really don’t care if Roger Maris ever gets into the Hall of Fame. I would vote no, as I’ll make clear, but my goodness, it’s no skin off my nose if he gets in. Or anybody else, for that matter. It’s an interesting intellectual exercise to me and I like arguing, but I’m not that interested in the actual voting and who gets enshrined. I don’t think Jim Rice or Andre Dawson were Hall of Famers, but good on ’em for getting in. I think Tim Raines and Ron Santo are slam dunk Hall of Famers, but I won’t lose any sleep if they never make it.
About Maris, first of all, you premise your argument on the idea that “fame” is a factor in Hall of Fame voting, pointing out that it’s right there in the name. But the voting rules are pretty clear that the Hall of Fame should include the best, not necessarily the most famous, players. It’s a bit of an unfortunate name, but it comes from a time when media and fame were different, and it was probably reasonable to equate fame with greatness.
The rules include these two instructions on voting:
5. Voting: 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.
6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.
You point out that you’re not arguing for Maris based on his 61-home run year, but I include that because some people do. But nowhere does Rule 5 mention fame.
You do base your argument, partly, on his two MVP awards, which are voted on by the very sportswriters you say are denying him the Hall of Fame because they didn’t like him. An objective look at the 1960 and ’61 seasons would reveal that Maris was a decent choice in 1960, though several others were just as worthy, and that the hands down best player in the American League in 1961 was not Maris but his teammate Mickey Mantle.
Mantle’s “triple slash” line (average/on-base percentage/slugging percentage) was .317/.448/.687. Maris: .269/.372/.620. Mantle’s OPS-plus — which compares his OPS (on-base plus slugging, a good rough measure of the basic jobs of a batter, getting on base and moving other runners along) to the league average while accounting for ballpark effects — was 206, meaning his OPS (adjusted for ballpark) was 206 percent of the league average. Maris, at 167, was fourth in the league.
Sabermetrics experts, whose mission is to assess baseball objectively, through statistics and the scientific method, are pretty much unanimous that Maris doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame.
There is a stat called Wins Above Replacement (WAR), which Baseball-Reference defines as “A single number that presents the number of wins the player added to the team above what a replacement player would add. ” A replacement player is a statistical model representing a player freely available on the waiver wire. That is, the borderline minor league-major league player. In 1961, Mantle led the league at an astonishing 11.9 WAR — 5 WAR is an All-Star-type season, 7 WAR is an MVP-candidate season. Maris was tied for fifth in the league at 7.2.
You write that Maris’ fame, based on his home run record, has stood the test of time, but why is that? Isn’t that a subjective thing? Lots of ballplayers have broken records without making the Hall of Fame. Ever heard of Earl Webb? He set the record for doubles in 1931 and it still stands! How about Chief Wilson? He set the record for triples in 1912 and it still stands. It’s subjective, not objective, to place more weight on Maris breaking the home run record and holding it for 37 years than on Wilson breaking the triples record and holding it for 99.
As for World Series titles: They’re irrelevant. Luis Sojo and I combined to win five World Series rings. Ty Cobb, Robin Roberts, Ernie Banks, Carl Yastrzemski and Rod Carew combined to win zero.
Maris had two very good seasons, 1960 and ’61, plus two other fine but not spectacular seasons, 1962 and ’64, and three seasons when he played pretty well, but missed a lot of time, 1959, ’63 and ’67. Compare that to Ron Santo, who is on the ballot. He had eight seasons with a WAR of 5 or more, compared to two for Maris. He never won an MVP, but it would be pretty hard to make much of an objective case for anyone but him in the National League in 1967. He was probably the best hitter AND the best fielder in the league. But the writers gave the award to Orlando Cepeda because he played on the pennant winner and led the league in RBIs. Again, MVP awards are not a good part of an objective argument.
For his career, Maris was 39.8 wins above replacement. None of the just people above him (Schoolboy Rowe, Wally Berger, Larry French, Gil McDougald, Ed McKean, Al Orth, Jesse Tannehill), just below him (David Justice, Boog Powell, Tony Fernandez, Ned Garver) or tied with him (Don Mattingly) are in or near the Hall of Fame.
Dale Murphy, with 44.2, is an All-Star season’s worth of WAR above Maris. Like Maris he was a two-time, back-to-back MVP. An outfielder like Maris, though he played the more difficult center field, he led the league in home runs, RBIs and slugging twice each, and OPS, total bases and runs once. His top five seasons for WAR were 7.5, 7.2, 7.1, 6.3, 5.3. (Maris: 7.5, 7.2, 4.2, 4.2, 3.7.) He was a seven-time All-Star (Maris 4). The sportswriters freakin’ LOVED him, and still do. He never got more than 23.2 percent of the vote.
Frank Howard, an outfielder, led the league in home runs and total bases twice each, and RBIs, walks and slugging once. He also led the league in intentional walks twice, a measure of the “fear” factor that helped Jim Rice get in a few years ago. His top five seasons of WAR were 6.3, 5.7, 4.7, 4.4, 4.2, a bit south of Maris but comparable, and his career total was 39.4, just 0.4 below Maris. He wasn’t a good fielder but I think we can all agree the writers have mostly ignored that except to reward the greatest fielders like Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazerosky. He was gregarious and well liked by writers. He got 1.4 percent of the vote his first year of eligibility and fell off the ballot.
Rocky Colavito, an outfielder and contemporary of Maris, led the league in total bases twice and home runs, RBIs, walks and slugging once. His top five WAR seasons were 7.9, 6.7, 5.8, 5.4, 4.0. His career total was 46.4. He was a six-time All-Star. He never even got 1 percent of the Hall of Fame vote.
Note: Throughout here, I’m using Baseball-Reference’s version of WAR. There are other versions that are slightly different because they use different formulas, but while they spit out different numbers, they tend to agree in the big picture sense. For example, Fangraphs’ WAR has stat gives Colavito 59.0, Murphy 47.3, Maris 44.3. Baseball Prospectus, which calls its stat WARP (Wins Above Replacement Player) has Colavito 50.0, Murphy 39.9, Maris 38.0.
According to Baseball-Reference, the 10 batters whose career was most statistically similar to Maris — a pretty objective measure — were, in order: Bob Allison, Hank Sauer, Jay Buhner, Tony Armas, Jesse Barfield, Dean Palmer, Eric Davis, Danny Tartabull, Matt Stairs and Sid Gordon. None of them are in or anywhere near the Hall of Fame.
You mention Sandy Koufax and Dizzy Dean, and in fact you can make a decent case that the writers were a little overzealous for both, especially Dean. Koufax was aided by his ballpark and era, but he was still dominant in a way that Maris never was, for much longer than Maris’ peak. Koufax led the league in ERA five times in a row, and his career ended after the fifth — Maris’ effectiveness and career may have been cut short by injuries (I’m taking your word for that), but he was not struck down in the middle of a historic prime, as Koufax and to a lesser extent Dean (and Kirby Puckett) were. Koufax led the league in innings twice, strikeouts four times, ERA-plus (like OPS-plus, it compares him to league average and takes ballpark into account) twice and WHIP (fewest baserunners allowed) four times. He won three Cy Young awards and, rare for pitchers, an MVP.
Maris was a fine player. To the extent that he’s remembered just for breaking Ruth’s single-season record, which I think is largely the case, he is underrated. He was a good hitter for more than just that year, and he was also a fine outfielder. That list of comparable players is a list of good players. And if you look at his most comparable players through the age of 30, when he really started to fade, it’s a better bunch — Matt Williams, Willie McCovey and Gil Hodges show up.
But, objectively speaking, he was not Hall of Fame caliber. The main arguments that he should be considered — he broke Babe Ruth’s home run record and he won back-to-back MVP awards — are both largely subjective, based on the value we place on the single-season home run record as more important than other, similar records, and the very subjective nature of MVP voting — by reporters.
LikeLike
King,
I am flattered, humbled and most appreciative that you have written such a detailed response. I would not appreciate it any more if you had agreed with me (and I’m sure it wouldn’t have been as long). But you are wrong. Point by point by point, you either misstate my point or make a mistaken point yourself.
I am fascinated that you have compared Maris to, if I count correctly, 46 players but somehow omitted perhaps the best comparison: Hack Wilson. Like Maris, he had a few really good years, but played only 12 years and was not great his whole career. But that really good stretch included a year for the ages when he set an enduring record with 190 RBI. And that was enough to elevate him to the Hall of Fame, not on the first pass (his best showing was 38.3 percent, lower than Maris’), but through the Veterans Committee.
Your comparison to Boog Powell, Tony Armas and Danny Tartabull and most of the other non-Hall of Famers you cited is ridiculous. Which of them them led the league twice in RBI? And yes, you diminish RBI in favor of triple slash and WAR and other stats that no one understands. What was his quarterback rating? Here’s the fact: Runs win ballgames. If any of those guys ever led the league in runs and RBI the same year, let’s talk. Throw the rest out.
Let’s consider the criteria for the Hall of Fame that you cited: “record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
1. Record: Well, Maris got a huge one for 37 years. You have to ignore his record to argue that he doesn’t belong in Cooperstown.
2. Playing ability. Who ever played better under more pressure? Jackie Robinson (who had fewer career homers and RBI than Maris). Who else?
3. Integrity? Modern players had to cheat to break his record. He’s the one with the integrity. By the way, flagrant cheater Gaylord Perry is in the Hall of Fame.
4. Sportsmanship. Maris was sterling. No showboating. He hit his homers, put his head down and trotted around the bases. He didn’t speak ill of his opponents or show them up. How many hot dogs and trash talkers are in the Hall of Fame?
5. Character. Again, a sterling character. Quiet family man who was admired by teammates and opponents alike. Seriously? Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle (I’m a huge Mantle fan) made it into the Hall of Fame. We know that electors for the Hall of Fame ignore whole categories here to elect people who belong in Cooperstown.
I’ll get to the sixth standard momentarily, but you are right that fame is not mentioned on that list. Neither is longevity, but that is a huge de facto standard, bigger than at least #s 3-5. So I feel comfortable saying that actual fame should be a standard for the Hall of Fame.
But let’s get to #6: Contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. Wait a second: You cite that requirement and then tell me: World Series titles are irrelevant. Nice Luis Sojo drop, but that’s what’s irrelevant. I’m not saying Maris should be elected to the Hall of Fame solely because of his championships. All I want is for them to get some consideration as required in the criteria. World Series titles are irrelevant in Baseball Hall of Fame voting only because of the widespread anti-Yankee bias. In the Halls of Fame for basketball and pro football, championships are one of the biggest considerations. Compare the dynasties of the Celtics, Lakers, Knicks, Packers, Steelers and Dolpins and their Hall of Fame selections to how the Yankee dynasties do. The Knicks teams of the early 1970s have more Hall of Famers than the Yankee dynasty that ruled from 1949 to 1964, winning all but two AL championships and nine World Series.
The Yankees have won more than twice as many championships as any team, and they are third in the number of Hall of Famers. They must be amazing over-achievers. Maris was, along with Mantle and Whitey Ford, the most important player in the Yankees’ 1960-62 teams that won two championships and lost another in the ninth inning of the seventh game. And he was a contributor to two more World Series losers for the Yankees and two (one of them a champ) with the Cardinals. As you quoted to me, contributions to the teams are right in the voting criteria. You can’t dismiss Maris’ contributions to championship teams.
I won’t respond to every single point (though I’ll address Dick Allen briefly at that comment). I’ve had my say, and I appreciate your thoughtful and lengthy responses. But I’ll make one more point.
You can’t be serious likening the home run record to the doubles and triples record. Objectively, homers are at least twice as big a deal as doubles and 33 percent bigger than triples. And in the baseball culture, homers are huge. Bill Mazeroski, who had an identical batting average to Maris (and a stellar glove, certainly) is in the Hall of Fame in large part for a single homer. Whenever, if ever, someone makes a run at Earl Webb or Chief Wilson, do you think it will captivate baseball the way that Sosa and McGwire did in 1998 or Aaron did in 1974 or Maris did in 1961?
The home run record is cherished in baseball, except when it comes to considering Roger Maris for the Hall of Fame.
LikeLike
I agree with every point in this post except the note on “record.” I don’t think that standard refers to his holding a record, like most home runs in a season. I think it refers to overall record, and I still think that makes him at best, on the bubble for the hall. It comes down to honoring his single-season achievement (which I agree is a highlight of baseball history) vs. his career record. He hit .260. The only guys in the Hall of Fame with BAs that low are great defensive catchers or shortstops. You make a good point about Hack Wilson, who didn’t have as many homers as Maris in the same number of full seasons. He was voted in by the Veterans Committee. Many have criticized that committee for its lack of objectivity. I’ve also heard proposals that the Hall of Fame have a special category for players who are notable for one record or achievement but don’t measure up as a career Hall of Famer. Hack Wilson probably belongs there. So does Mazeroski. And so does Maris.
LikeLike
So, Maris is most comparable to one of the weakest members of the HOF (Hack Wilson), a guy who is a clear mistake, and this is a point in his favor?
LikeLike
Actually, Maris is not comparable to anyone, and that is the point in his favor. Hack Wilson faced no notable pressure in compiling his record. He wasn’t chasing a hallowed record. He didn’t have the whole press corps and even the commissioner rooting against him. I was just calling King out on his absurd comparison to players who had careers nothing like Maris but who ended up with similar career totals. Maris’ accomplishments were unique and those comparisons were ridiculous. The Wilson comparison was more appropriate because it shows a precedent of exceptions from the Hall’s slavish devotion to longevity (which is not in the criteria, except for a minimum standard that Maris met) and the career totals that it produces. As King notes, Wilson was certainly more worthy than several contemporaries who were swept in when Frankie Frisch was running the place. In a Hated Yankees blog post, I compared him to his contemporaries who are in the Hall of Fame, all of them. In this blog post I compare him to this year’s Golden Era ballot. Unless you compare career totals (and I conceded the longevity case up front), Maris is unique in baseball history. And his achievement is still famous (and actually much better appreciated) 50 years after his heyday. And Fame is actually still the name of the building. And he belongs there.
LikeLike
Someone up thread called me a baseball geek, and that’s right. I’m happy to argue about Roger Maris all day and night. I’d also be happy to take the other side of the argument if that were necessary, though it’s the side I’m arguing that I agree with. It’s funny, and telling, that this thread has devolved into an argument about Roger Maris’ worthiness for the Hall of Fame, rather than about your point, Steve. Does not the very existence of this argument — and I’m making a very mainstream sabermetric argument against Maris for the Hall, so it’s not like it’s just me, lone kook, arguing against him — disprove your thesis that if journalists were objective Maris would be in the Hall? That is, your argument is that objectively speaking, Maris is a Hall of Famer, and once you strip away the anti-Maris bias of the sportswriters who found him surly, there’s no arguing to keep him out. But I, and many like me, don’t share the sportswriters’ anti-Maris bias. In fact, if I’m biased against anybody, it’s against the sportswriting mainstream, who I’ve said and written for years vote like a bunch of morons in these matters more often than not. I love disagreeing with them. But I think they got this one right.
We can argue and argue about Maris. You think he’s a Hall of Famer, and that’s fine. It’s a perfectly legitimate thing to think. I disagree with it, and I think the numbers more than back me up, but I’m probably never going to convince you (although, in the next comment, I’m going to try, because that’s fun for me). But the idea that if baseball writers were objective Maris would be in the Hall is, I think, clearly off base.
LikeLike
I’m happy to compare Maris to Hack Wilson. Wilson, as you say, led the league in RBIs twice, including that record-setting season. He also led the league in home runs four times, and slugging, OPS and OPS-plus once each, all in the year he broke the RBI record. From 1926 to 1930, and then again in 1932, he was a very good player. He had a couple more very good seasons than Maris. His top five seasons of WAR were 7.4, 6.7, 6.3, 5.1, 4.7. Again, Maris: 7.5, 7.2, 4.2, 4.2, 3.7. His career total was 39.1 to Maris’ 39.8. Fangraphs has Wilson at 45.6, Maris 44.3. Wilson played the more difficult position center field while Maris played right, but Maris was a good right fielder and Wilson wasn’t a good center fielder. They’re too close to call for someone of my analytical skills. I think, all things considered, I’d rather have Wilson’s career than Maris’ career, but you’re right, they’re very comparable in a lot of ways.
And Wilson’s in the Hall of Fame. But the same writers — or at least the same organization, the BBWAA — that kept Maris out of the Hall of Fame also kept Wilson out. He never got more than 38.3 percent of the vote, barely half of the required 75 percent. He got in because of the Veterans Committee, which, unlike today, was at the time ushering them in by the truckload. As Bill James documents in “The Politics of Glory,” the Frankie Frisch-led committee of the ’60s and ’70s swept in their buddies from the 1920s and ’30s. Most of the least-qualified Hall of Fame inductees, guys like Lloyd Waner and High Pockets Kelly, come from this period. Wilson didn’t get in during that sweep because Frisch didn’t like him and didn’t think he was that good, even though he was better than a lot of the guys Frisch let in. But, as James wrote, “the elections of [Chick] Hafey and Kelly — directly competitive players with vastly inferior credentials — created public pressure for the selection of [Chuck] Klein and Wilson. How can you explain why you would put Hafey in the Hall of Fame, but not Klein? You can’t.”
Wilson’s a Hall of Famer, but he’s a prime example of subjective judgments dominating the selection process.
Your dismissal of stats other than the traditional baseball card ones as “stats that no one understands” doesn’t become you, Steve! A lot of people understand them, including, nowadays, the people who run baseball teams. I’d be happy to try to help you understand them. But you can’t say you don’t understand them and then claim that you are winning an objective argument over them. How do you know you’re right and I’m wrong, objectively, if you don’t know what I’m saying?
Runs win baseball games, you’re right, and that’s why the stats I’m talking about, Wins Above Replacement and Runs Created, are built on runs. RBIs and runs scored are not great measures of a player’s contribution to a team. I’ll show you in microcosm. In one game, Albert Pujols bats four times with the bases empty. He hits four doubles. All four times, the players behind him fail to drive him in. Skip Schumaker also bats four times. He strikes out twice. Once he comes up with a man on third and drives in a run with a groundout. The other time he singles, and then scores when the next batter homers. On the day, Schumaker has one run scored and one run batted in. Pujols has no runs, no RBIs. Who had the better game? Who, if he repeats that game 161 times, would have had a better season? Schumaker got a run and an RBI because of what his teammates did around him. Pujols played better — he had four doubles! — but didn’t get any runs or RBIs for the same reason.
Runs created is an attempt to measure these performances. There are a lot of versions of the equation, you can add in or take out lots of different events, but the basic formula is (hits+walks) times total bases, divided by (at-bats plus walks). It’s a pretty good predictor of runs scored. Plug any team’s stats into it, and it’ll spit out a number pretty similar to that team’s runs scored. For example, looking at this year’s World Series teams, the runs created formula predicts that the Cardinals would score 795 runs, the Rangers 880. Their actual totals were 762 and 855, off by 4 and less than 3 percent respectively.
So in our hypothetical game, Schumaker created (1)*(1)/(4) = .25 runs. Pujols created (4*2)/4 = 2 runs.
What that’s saying is that, even though it didn’t work out so well in this game because of the situations — that is, what his teammates did — if Pujols keeps doing what he’s doing, he’s going to have a spectacular season. He’s going to create an incredible 324 runs, which is ridiculous, but then again four doubles every night, 648 for the year, is ridiculous. Chances are excellent that he’ll threaten the runs scored and RBI records, if not shatter them. Schumaker, having his 1-for-4 every night would produce about 40 runs for the year. Schumaker played about 2/3 time this year and created 42 runs. He’s obviously better than a guy who’d hit .250/.250/.250 on the year or he wouldn’t be in the big leagues. Pujols, who once created 176 runs in a season, created 107 this year, ninth in the league.
Would you not say that runs created does a better job of assessing how good Pujols and Schumaker were in that game than runs and RBIs? Because of circumstances beyond the control of either player, Schumaker turned out to have a greater effect on the outcome of that one game. But Pujols was the better player that night, by far.
That effect works over a whole season or career. Some players have more opportunities to score and drive in more runs because their teammates are better than other guys’ teammates, so they are on base to be driven in, and those teammates drive the player in a lot once he gets on base. Those runs scored and RBI totals are not a great measure of the quality of a player. You have to be a good player to get a lot of runs and RBIs, because you have to play a lot and you have to get on base and drive guys in. But how many runs and RBIs you pile up is largely dependent on what your teammates do. A guy in a great lineup can get 100 RBIs, and a guy in a lousy lineup can be a much better player and only get 75.
When you ask, “Who ever played better under more pressure? Jackie Robinson (who had fewer career homers and RBI than Maris). Who else?” you’re making a subjective judgment. “Pressure” is subjective. Who played under more pressure than Maris? I don’t know. How about Hank Greenberg? Or maybe Mickey Mantle, who was chasing Ruth the same year Maris was, and for much of the year looked more likely to break the record. His hair didn’t turn white, but maybe he just handled the pressure better than Maris. Isn’t that a skill?
But whatever. My point here is: An objective approach would be to ask: What did he accomplish on the field? Giving him extra points for overcoming pressure, well, that’s subjective. Why do we give Maris points for overcoming pressure but we don’t give Dick Allen points for overcoming racism? Maris was exactly as good as he was. How difficult it was for him to be that good has nothing to do with how good he was. That’s just narrative, which is subjective.
And yes, I cite the contributions to the team requirement and then call World Series titles irrelevant for the exact same reason. The stats I like to cite, WAR and runs created, measure contributions to the team. A player can make tremendous contributions to a lousy team, after all. Nobody made more contributions to a National League team with a bat this year than Matt Kemp, and his team was not very good.
The Yankees weren’t overachievers for winning all those championships. They had more good players than anybody else. Maris played a big part in two pennants and a World Series win, and a smaller but still significant role in another Series and three more pennants, plus a Series win in St. Louis. But many players have played just as well as he did in those years without winning championships. That’s not a mark against them. It just means their teammates weren’t as good as Maris’ teammates.
In 1962 Maris, playing for the champion Yankees, hit .256 with 33 home runs, 92 runs and 100 RBIs. His “triple slash” line was .256/.356/.485. One of the guys he was traded from the Kansas City A’s to the Yankees for, Norm Siebern, outhit him by 52 points. Maris had eight more homers but Siebern had 17 more RBIs and 12 more runs. Maris had nine more doubles but Siebern had five more triples. Siebern’s line was .308/.412/.495. Who was better? I think Siebern. You might say Maris. Could be. But what if everything were exactly the same except that they’d never been traded for each other? What if Maris had had that season in Kansas City and Siebern had had his same season in New York? Would the A’s have won the championship and the Yankees not? Not likely. Even if you argue that Maris was better, the Yankees beat the Twins by 5 games that year. The difference between them certainly wasn’t 5 games. The A’s finished in ninth place. Maris wasn’t going to get them anywhere near the pennant.
So why give Maris credit, in the Hall of Fame sense, for playing on a championship team, and by necessity if you’re going to do that, punish other guys for not playing on championship teams? That’s my point about Luis Sojo. Of course Maris had a bigger effect on the Yankees winning championships than Sojo did. But the fact that he won championships doesn’t really say anything about him as a player.
In other words, I don’t dismiss Maris’ contributions to championship teams. I just don’t give Maris credit for having good teammates. If Maris had done the exact same thing in each and every one of his 5,846 career plate appearances, but had done them all for the crappy Cleveland Indians or Kansas City A’s, you would have to mark him down in your Hall of Fame assessment. I wouldn’t. He’d have been the exact same player, but less worthy of the Hall of Fame under your standards. That doesn’t seem fair to me, or objective. Why would you blame him for the fact that, say, Heywood Sullivan was behind the plate instead of Elston Howard? He didn’t sign anybody.
LikeLike
We’re going to have to agree to disagree, King. I have a busy weekend planned and can’t continue this argument endlessly. And we both know that baseball disagreements can be argued endlessly. That’s why it’s so much fun.
I read all the Bill James books for years. I’m not a sabermetrician, but I do understand the statistics (I call them hypothetical statistics) that you cite. They are projections of what would happen in a pretend world that doesn’t exist. You see, here’s the difference between Runs Created and Runs and RBI: Runs Created projects imaginary runs. Runs count times you actually cross the plate and help your team win the game. Runs Batted In count the number of times you drive home runners who are actually on base. Homers count the number of times you actually drive home yourself and anyone who might be on base. Maris did that more times in a season than anyone who’s ever played the game fairly. Actual wins are more important to me than the pretend Wins Above Replacement. That’s why the Oakland A’s of Moneyball never won more than one division series: They were concocted around imaginary statistics and weren’t good enough to win actual post-season games.
Your point about pressure just ignores historical reality. Most of the country, including all the press corps and even the commissioner, was openly rooting against Maris. To dismiss that is to dismiss human nature. People didn’t want anyone to break Ruth’s record, but if anyone did, they wanted it to be Mantle (whom I adored). But Mantle didn’t make it to the finish line. Did pressure or stress have anything to do with his reaction to that injection that kept him out of the final two weeks (or with the reason he needed the shot in the first place)? I don’t know. But I know Maris kept playing and hitting homers, no matter what. Just as I don’t place a lot of value on hypothetical statistics, I can’t credit Mantle for the games he didn’t play in 1961 (you could make a case for him being the greatest player ever if you could just project all the games he didn’t play).
Maris’ accomplishment under all that pressure appears more remarkable than ever 50 years later. And that deserves recognition in the Hall of Fame, unless they finally decide to rename it to the Hall of Frankie Frisch Cronies and Pretty Good Players Who Played a Long Time.
I’ve truly enjoyed debating this with you, King, and I appreciate the time and thought you have put into your comments. But I’m going to have to move on. I’ve made my points and you’ve made yours. I know your arguments have not been at all persuasive. And I accept that mine haven’t either.
LikeLike
Objectivity IS a core value of journalism, Steve, and I’ll say that to my dying breath. That said, sports journalism is its own breed of cat.
Reporters are not automatons. We are not columnists. We ferred out facts and opinions and try to present them as faithfully to the issue as imperfect humans can.
Voting on the Hall of Fame is a subjective issue worthy of vociferous bar debates. But to use it to scoff at journalism objectivity is to compare apples and chromium, IMHO. In this day when slants are presented as ‘facts’ on blogs and we are slammed as the ‘lame stream media,’ a CLOSER hewing to time-honored efforts at objectivity is the only salvation. Not throwing up our hands, saying ‘you’re right’ and turning everyday news into opinion columns full of analysis from reporters.
Again, IMHO.
LikeLike
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Barney. I disagree. I think that news judgment, which journalists prize, is a human and subjective matter. I have written before about the myth of objectivity and the importance of journalists recognizing and embracing our humanity: http://bit.ly/8y7y5a http://bit.ly/HvMvG http://bit.ly/FPWjQ
I respect a lot of journalists who disagree with me, but I think you can be transparent about your own biases, opinions and involvements and still write fair, factual journalism.
LikeLike
You said: I think you can be transparent about your own biases, opinions and involvements and still write fair, factual journalism.”
Yes, but the public, even today’s Net-savvy public, is still not used to a journalist sharing their viewpoints and many still don’t believe it doesn’t color your ‘fair, factual journalism.’ Why do so many believe we are liberal pinkos ‘in the tank’ for Obama, to this day?
I moderate a lively news-site discussion forum and it’s inescapably true. Just today, when I shared my background and views on an issue, someone accused me of violating ‘journalism ethics 101.’ I said they were only right if those views became reflected IN my news writing, not what I say as a comment moderator.
100 percent objectivity IS a ‘myth.’ Every word we choose, fact we put in or leave out, information arrangement is a human, subjective decision. But people respect those decisions far more if we strive for the GOAL of objectivity. When we give up on that, we give them the nails to slam shut professional journalism as we’ve known it. We became no more or less than the rabble and armchair quarterbacks we are trying to inform. IMHO;-)
LikeLike
Canseco is famous, too. Should he be in the Hall? Don’t forget the Black Sox as a group. Morganna the Kissing Bandit was pretty famous at one time, too. Steve Garvey used to lead the league in votes for the All Star game and was on Carson a lot, so he must be pretty famous. Don’t forget that Castro is often spoken of as having been a ball player…
This is one of the DUMBEST articles I have ever read, and I teach freshman composition! You are not elected or due because you are famous. The sense of the word “fame” when the hall was formed was akin to “worthy of honor and accolades,” just as “infamous” does not mean “unknown,”
Please do us all an objective favor and never write about baseball in public again.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, Marshall. Actually, the discussion in the comments here seems to prove your comment wrong. I didn’t say that Maris’ case is based solely on his fame. He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame based on his great play, on his excellence under pressure that only a few players (maybe just Jackie Robinson and Hank Aaron, both Hall of Famers) experienced. My point is that his Fame is way more than this year’s 10 Golden Era finalists, none of whom is an automatic player based on career play. Canseco is worth mentioning here: As King points out in his comment, integrity is part of the criteria.
Again, thanks for your comment. I worry a little about those freshmen you’re teaching, but I always welcome feedback, even criticism.
LikeLike
It just occurred to me that this might have been a better argument:
“If journalists were objective, Dick Allen would be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.”
Allen was a better player than Maris. A pretty borderline Hall of Fame case, better than a lot of players who are in. He led the league in homers and on-base percentage twice, triples runs and RBIs once, slugging percentage and OPS-plus three times, OPS four times. His five best seasons of WAR were 9.3, 9.1, 7.8, 5.9, 5.9 and his career total was 61.2.
The players just above him in WAR, going up, are Graig Nettles, Dwight Evans, Yogi Berra, Ryne Sandberg, Amos Rusie, Joe Cronin, Juan Marichal, Ted Lyons, Joe Jackson, Goose Goslin, Jim Palmer, Mark McGwire, Jackie Robinson, Gary Sheffield and Bob Feller. Everybody on that list from Berra through Feller who is eligible for the Hall is in except McGwire, who probably would be if not for the steroid thing. Just below Allen, going down, are Harmon Killebrew, Keith Hernandez, Jake Beckley, Buddy Bell, Carlos Beltran and Willie Keeler. Killebrew, Beckley and Keeler are in and Beltran’s still playing.
Allen was seen as a surly black man in his day, the ’60s/early ’70s, and was disliked by sportswriters to a far greater extent than Maris ever was, though they had little choice but to vote him A.L. MVP in 1974.
I’m not sure that Allen is not in the Hall because of sportswriter bias, but that’s more likely to be a part of the reason for him than it is for Maris, who much more clearly than Allen does not meet the standards.
LikeLike
King, I actually could make a case for Allen, and I would have no problem replacing one of the hitters on this year’s Golden Era ballot with him.
On correction before I address this matter: His MVP year was 1972, not 1974.
Allen is another victim of the Hall of Fame’s bias toward longevity. Yes, I would vote him in over pretty good players who hung around longer and accumulated bigger career totals.
Was the racial harassment of Allen a greater pressure than the press, the fans and the commissioner all rooting openly against Maris? Maybe so. I will grant a valid comparison there.
Here are some differences: Allen was a lousy fielder. Allen didn’t win championships (which do matter, despite your denials). Allen didn’t have an achievement for the ages.
I’ll have no argument if they put Allen in the Hall of Fame someday. But not ahead of Maris.
LikeLike
There is no objective case for Maris being the Hall of Fame. None.
LikeLike
Well, that’s just laughable. People can disagree, but there’s an objective case for any two-time MVP and any holder of a significant record. You reveal your bias when you make such blanket, indefensible statements. I recognize the case against Maris, which is based on longevity. If you can’t recognize the case for Maris, you make my point for me. Thanks.
LikeLike
But Steve, as I said in my long-winded comment above, you can’t make an objective case based on MVP awards, because MVP awards are *extremely* subjective. If MVP voting was objective, Maris would certainly have no more than one award (1960), and there’s a good chance he wouldn’t have that one.
And anyway, Juan Gonzalez and Dale Murphy both have two MVP awards and they’re not in the Hall of Fame, nor have they been close.
LikeLike
Steve, I really don’t think the case against Maris is longevity. As I pointed out, Koufax and Dizzy Dean (and Joe DiMaggio too) had short careers compared to people like Henry Aaron and Willie Mays. But Koufax had a brilliant career. The problem with Maris is that, aside from two good seasons and one famous record, he was not a great player. He played 12 seasons. Take away 1961 and he hit an average of fewer than 20 home runs a year. His BEST batting average was .283, in 1960. And as kingkaufman (clearly a baseball geek) pointed out, there is a rule that specifically bars someone like Maris, who did one great thing in an otherwise middling career, from being elected.
I have to say, though, that I can’t imagine how the Kissing Bandit got into this discussion!
In any case, your point was that Maris not being in the Hall of Fame somehow shows that journalists are not objective. Since his worthiness is at best arguable, and his election would be by a subjective vote, I think you’re going to have to find a better case study to show a lack of journalistic objectivity.
LikeLike
Actually, Ed, Koufax is a nearly perfect comparison. He sucked for his first six years, then had a brilliant but short run. Koufax was an All-Star in six seasons, Maris in four. So he was good for a little longer but not as long as nearly every pitcher elected to the Hall of Fame. A two-time RBI king and four-time All-Star can’t be dismissed as having a middling career. And, by the way, you can’t set aside the record. (I’ll deal with this more in my response to King.)
Your objectivity argument might hold water in why Maris didn’t get elected earlier along with contemporaries who were pretty good for a long time (Al Kaline, Billy Williams) but never reached the greatness Maris did for a shorter time. Clearly that’s a matter of weighing longevity versus peak performance, which is certainly subjective. But when you compare him to the hitters on the Golden Era ballot, it gets pretty blatant. Anyone else on that list have two RBI crowns? Then does it really matter that they got more RBI in 15 (or more) years than he did in 12? The only way you can leave him off that list is to decide every matter against Maris or only to count longevity. We’re not comparing him to Koufax here, but to Jim Kaat.
LikeLike
Well wait a minute. RBI crowns? Maris led the league with 112 RBIs in 1960. Ron Santo never led the league in RBIs, but three times he had more than 112. Maris’ Yankees and Cardinals teams were mostly great hitting teams, and most of Santo’s Cubs teams were lousy.
RBIs are a measure of opportunity and quality of teammates more than a hitter’s own ability, but it’s not just longevity that hurts Maris here. Maris got 850 RBIs in 1463 games. After the first 1463 games of his career, Santo had 890 — again, playing in lineups that weren’t as good as the ones Maris played in.
LikeLike
Well Ron Santo is the Best Player Not in the Hall of Fame. I agree Maris deserves to be on the Golden Era Ballot as much as some of the other nominees but deserves election no more than they do.
LikeLike
Actually, King, Santo played with two offensive teammates who were Hall of Famers, Ernie Banks and Billy Williams. Same as Maris’ Yankees (Mickey Mantle and Yogi Berra) and Cardinals (Lou Brock and Orlando Cepeda). And each of those teams also had one Hall of Fame pitcher: Whitey Ford and Bob Gibson as Maris’ teammates and Ferguson Jenkins as Santo’s. And Santo’s teammates included other All-Stars: Randy Hundley, Glenn Beckert and Don Kessinger that I can think of.
You seem not to care about the actual winning of games and championships, but I do. With all that talent, Santo’s teams never won a championship and actually had a historic collapse that resulted in the “Miracle Mets” label. And with similar talent, Maris’ teams won again and again. That alone doesn’t make him a Hall of Famer. But it’s part of a compelling case. You can be sure that the guys who put Gil Hodges on the Golden Era ballot cited all of his championships as a player and a manager. But for some reason, Maris’ championships don’t count.
LikeLike
I am in awe and utter delight with this discussion. The scholarship, passion and downright over-the-line geekery is, for me, the core of baseball’s entertainment value.
I raise a glass to you all. Love it!
LikeLike
What you’re saying is that we’re all hopelessly nuts (as are you for reading it). Thanks, Mark!
LikeLike
Mr. Buttry,
I am late in seeing your post but must say that I totally agree with your position on Roger. While I believe that players on the list for the Golden Era vote are all fine players. Roger should have been put on the top of the list. I did not know that the list was still created by writers. That approach to me defeats the whole purpose of having another chance for players overlooked by the initial writers’s voting. I can’t tell you how disappointed that I was when Roger was not on the list. Maybe someday he will get the recognition that he deserves. Thanks for an excellent article. Greg.
LikeLike
[…] blog gets better traffic than my Hated Yankees baseball blog. I blogged about the continuing bias by baseball writers against Roger Maris. The traffic, 522 views, was modest for this blog, but more than any of my Hated Yankees posts has […]
LikeLike
[…] question about whether it’s better to be first or to get your facts right. I noted that the biases of baseball writers continue to keep Roger Maris out of the Baseball Hall of Fame. (I was pleased, by the way, to Ron Santo, nowhere near as great or as famous as Maris, but a […]
LikeLike
[…] If journalists were objective, Roger Maris would be in the Baseball Hall of Fame […]
LikeLike
Very interesting discussion. I find the comparison of Roger Maris to Norm Seibern amazing and typical of stat conscious bb fans. Which hitter do you think AL pitchers would have prefered pitching to in 1962? Likewise all-star appearances is unfair to include in a players worth, Maris was limited in appearances due to the almost automatic selection of Al Kaline as the AL right fielder. He was a major run producer until injuries robbed him of his power. He broke the most glamorous sports record in America, besting the Babe, Mickey Mantle, Ford Frick and the hostile NY media and fans. I never saw a more courageous performance than Maris showed in game 154. If that’s not HOF worthy, I don’t know what is!
LikeLike
While I appreciated the exchange with King, the Siebern comparison was ridiculous. His best three seasons combined didn’t total 61 homers.
LikeLike
Steve, you’ve got to be kidding me. Read what I said about Siebern again, and then tell me how what you’ve just said is in any way a rebuttal.
I didn’t compare their careers. I compared their 1962 seasons. Siebern was very good in 1962. He had 25 home runs, 117 RBIs and 107 runs scored. Those are stats you like.
I said their 1962 seasons were of fairly similar quality, and that I thought Siebern’s was a little better. This is not a ridiculous statement. Siebern finished 7th in the AL MVP voting that year. Maris was not in the top 10.
I also said that if Siebern had played for the Yankees that year, and Maris for the A’s, it’s very likely the Yankees would still have won the championship, and not even possible that the A’s would have won. This was by way of showing that World Series victories are not a particularly useful measure of a player’s quality, as they are hugely dependent on the quality of his teammates.
Someone reading your comment without having read mine would think that I had compared Siebern’s career or Hall of Fame qualifications with those of Maris. In other words: I’ve been misquoted — on a journalism blog!
LikeLike
C’mon, King, you not only haven’t been misquoted; I didn’t quote you at all. I said the Siebern comparison was ridiculous, and it was. It was cherry-picking. You could do that to any Hall of Famer: pick a year that wasn’t one of his best and find a non-Hall of Famer who was better that year. In 1974, Jeff Burroughs outplayed everyone playing that year who made the Hall of Fame. That doesn’t weaken the argument of anyone playing then who belongs in the Hall of Fame because it’s irrelevant. The weakness of the arguments against Maris help make his case. He’s not in the Hall of Fame because sports writers won’t let him in. Period.
LikeLike
Again: The point about Siebern was to show how citing World Series championships won by an individual player is not a useful way of assessing the quality of that player. I was not cherry-picking a guy who had a better season than Maris. I was pointing out, again, that the fact that Maris won a World Series championship that year is not proof of anything in relation to how good a player he was. This is the same point made when pointing out that Luis Sojo won five championships and Ted Williams won zero.
You can call it a ridiculous point, but that doesn’t make it one.
LikeLike
We’re getting back on familiar ground here, King. The point of the game is to win championships. Baseball is the only sport where championships count for nothing in Hall of Fame voting. Great dynasties like the Packers and Steelers and Knicks and Celtics send loads of players to their Halls of Fame, but not the Yankees.
The Yankees’ string of championships was broken in 1959. The trade that returned them to greatness, to being a team many regard as the greatest of all time, was the trade to acquire Roger Maris. Yet the 1961 Yankees had as many Hall of Famers (Mantle, Berra, Ford) as the 1961 Cubs (Banks, Santo, Williams, and I could count Brock, but he only played four games). When you liken Maris to Luis Sojo, you render the rest of your argument irrelevant, because Sojo was a role player. Maris was one of the greatest acquisitions of all time, turning a team in decline into a team on the rise, winning back-to-back MVPs, making five World Series in a row, winning two World Series and breaking the most hallowed record in the game. Any player on any other team or in any other sport who did anything similar would be a first-ballot Hall of Famer.
LikeLike
[…] @jeffedelstein Should that matter to journos who choose the Hall of Famers? stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/if-… […]
LikeLike
[…] to add to the Hall of Fame would be Roger Maris, whose case I’ve made in three different blog posts. He’s Exhibit 1 for the case of anti-Yankee bias in Hall of Fame voting, a two-time MVP who […]
LikeLike
In support of anti-Yankee bias in HOF selection, compare Sandy Koufax career stats to Ron Guidry. Except for K’s, the stats are very comparable. While Guidry may not be deemed a worthy candidate for HOF consideration, if you just look at statistics he appears to be as worthy as Sandy. That’s part of the problem with the stat geeks who have tunnel vision looking at WARS and such. Maris career stats may be comparable to some lesser players but few had an impact on baseball history as profound as Maris. Maris came to the third place Yankees in 1960 and they reeled off 5 straight AL pennants, He went to a Cardinal team that finished sixth the previous year and, they too, won two consecutive NL pennants. They sank to fourth in the NL East after Maris left in 1969. Mickey Mantle always claimed that Maris was one of the best all around players he had ever seen, that, in itself, proves to me that Maris is a HOFer.
LikeLike
[…] If journalists were objective, Roger Maris would be in the Baseball Hall of Fame […]
LikeLike
There are tons of reports of Mr. Maris’ intelligence for the game of baseball, his observance of the entire field when he was at the plate – his hard work in the outfield – he is more than a record – he is more than his character – he is an entire baseball package, and had he been supported appropriately, I would bet he would have had a longer career with more big numbers for you – we cannot go back and undo what we did to him – but we can fix the fact that he is not in the Hall of Fame. For your review, my current running column, Number 9, a consideration for Roger Maris. Please share. http://www.thekmfp.com/cardinals-baseball-test-post/
LikeLike
Excellent points. He absolutely belongs in the Hall of Fame.
LikeLike
If journalists were truly objective, this would all be a moot point as they would not be participating in anything that rewards the very people they are supposed to be objectively writing about.
That being said, I think that Roger Maris would make a fine addition to the Hall. We can argue his merits all day long. The fact is, the Hall of Fame has never really had a set standard for induction, and if it ever did, it has been continually changed, and it hasn’t gone up. Make of that what you will.
I think the one real question is whether a players induction is to the benefit or detriment of the Hall. I think Maris in the Hall is a benefit. So get him in, the sooner the better. End of story.
LikeLike
Thank you. I have often wondered why Roger was left completely off the 1962 A.L. M.V.P. voting. How can people be so prejudiced and still be be objective? Thanks again
LikeLike
I enjoyed very much reading these Maris comments. I was a Maris fan based on 1961 only. Prior to that, I had no idea who he was. After that year Maris was an afterthought. His bat is in the HOF and the ball too, I think. He will always be an honorable mention if that counts for anything. Baseball fans know his name and that means something. His number 9 is retired and that’s special. HOFamer or not, Roger Maris was a good player.
LikeLike
Wow! Reading all these threads about Roger Maris’s H-O-F consideration is as exhausting as watching a fantasy championship tennis match between Martina Navratilova and Serena Williams!
LikeLike
[…] https://stevebuttry.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/if-journalists-were-objective-roger-maris-would-be-in-t… […]
LikeLike
[…] over two Hall of Famers who played right field for the Yankees in their prime. As I’ve noted again and again, Maris belongs in the Hall of Fame. But his placement here is based on performance, not […]
LikeLike
Dick Groat was explaining a game he was in, Gibson was pitching with a 2-0 lead, and the two batters ahead of him went out on two pitches. Groat proceeded to take and foul off pitches for enough time for Gibson to get a normal amount of time between half innings and the game went on with the cardinals winning. What a lot of people don’t understand with statistical arguments, is that, there is more to winning baseball games, series, pennants, and championships than homeruns, strikeouts, or even runs. Take for example Joe Jackson. Jackson hit .375 in the 1919 world series, but his hits came in insignificant atbats. Jackson was the main hitter, and 4th hitter in the lineup. In 1917 McGraw used exclusively left-handed pitching only to neutralize Collins and Jackson, and in 1919, despite Jackson’s .375 average, he participated in the teams intentional loss of the series.
So why would Roger Maris be a winning player on the 1967-68 cardinals, but a losing player on the 1965-66 yankees? It’s because baseball is a team sport, and a situational sport, and playing with good teammates changes what skills contribute to winning.
Any argument that so and so is a hall of fame player or better player has situational elements.
Koufax and dean are in the hall of fame because they led their teams.
This is why allie Reynolds should be in the hall of fame.
This is why another 40 or 50 players who are not in the hall of fame should be in. joe carter, roger maris, rocky colavito, bert campaneris, maury wills, edgar Renteria, jose Canseco, albert belle, etc….
People who make fun of jose Canseco or minimalize him as a joke or aberration were not paying attention to his career up until and including 1988 when his grand slam put the athletics ahead in the first game 4-0, and they eventually lost on gibson’s homer. Why is eckersly in the hall of fame, not Canseco?
People say it’s just one game. All the games are played to determine the championship. The purpose of the sport is to win the title.
This is not to say that ted Williams was not one of the best players. This is to say that joe carter and roger maris deserve additional credit for their postseason performances, and allie Reynolds, orel Hershiser, and curt shilling deserve extra recognition for theirs.
Let’s look at colavito, cash, maris, cepeda, mccovey, mantle, mays, aaron, frank robinson, brooks robinson, powell, stargell, clemente, oliva, killebrew, Allison, Matthews, and howard during this 15 year time frame……1955-1970
Mantle stands far above the others offensively, but colavito, cash, and maris generated more runs per out than most of the others. Cepeda struck out far more frequently and walked far less frequently than any of these 3, but cepeda is in and the others are not. They all had shorter careers.
But there is no reason for the hall of fame to be about long careers.
Hack Wilson had a short career. And several others.
I find it funny someone who said hack Wilson is not a high level hall of famer. He was simply a hard core alcoholic who drank himself out of his capacity to perform in that sport. It doesn’t diminish what he did at his peak. Others who performed at peak far far above their career averages include caminiti, maris, Canseco, and wills.
Is it imaginable that wills stole 104 bases and scored 130 runs in 1962, but in addition has good career numbers, but is not in the hall of fame?
Campaneris. One factor against him, is that his best offensive numbers were in 1968, so that his offensive prowess is skewered by the low scoring context of his times.
Campaneris, Renteria, and wills all performed significantly better than rabbit maranville, pee wee reese, or phil Rizzuto.
I am not saying maranville, reese, and Rizzuto should not be in the hall of fame. I am saying campaneris, Renteria, and wills should all be in too.
In finance, there is something called prorating.
If one will prorate cash, colavito, and maris to the amount of offense they generated per 400 outs, one sees that they were among the top players of their times. The differences in run production by the 10 players who ranked below mantle were not that great. Cepeda would be near the bottom of the top performers, mostly because he took very few walks. Maris would be in the middle, a lot closer to mays and aaron than one thinks.
The problem maris has, is he was a low average homerun hitter. His best 3 to 5 years are as good or better than mays and aaron, but the rest of his career he was far far below mays or aaron. The question concerning maris is because he was only great for 5 years, and below average for the rest of his career, should he be penalized? The 1967 world series is a good answer for that. Maris hit .385, and was probably the cardinals 3rd most valuable player after Gibson and brock. In world series play, mays, mccovey, and cepeda produced almost no offense at all. A glance at maris’ world series records would indicate that his performances were subpar, but the world series scoring levels during that era were very low, and hitting was far more difficult that the historic norm. in context maris’ postseason record, particularly his runs scored, is very good.
Roger Maris is an obvious hall of famer.
No bias whatsoever. I am not a yankee fan.
LikeLike
Good points. I made the case for Wills to be in the Hall of Fame last year on my Hated Yankees blog.
LikeLike
additionally, one commenter makes some interesting comparisons with siebern. at siebern’s peak, his offensive contributions were comparable to maris for about a year and a half. i don’t see any joke about norm siebern. baseball is a difficult sport, and he was one of the best players for a very short time. this is not in the least bit unusual. we see this sort of thing happen in this sport very often. it is one of the things that makes the sport interesting. it is obviously a very difficult sport.
LikeLike
lastly quite clearly there are a large number of baseball players who have been excluded from the hall of fame without any reasonable evaluation of their contributions. but this sort of thing is not unusual in life. jerry kramer is not in the football hall of fame. if you saw the packers when they almost never lost, their line was considered the key to the team’s success, their sweep was considered their key play, and kramer was the key blocker leading the sweep.
jerry kramer should be in the football hall of fame. i don’t know how many other football players. it is a different sport, and the quarterback affacts the game to a very high degree. the pitcher does the same in baseball, but since they don’t play every game and rotate through, their influence is similar to the influence of the great offensive and defensive performers. the best run producers, defensive stars, and star pitchers, in baseball, seem to have similar value.
LikeLike
[…] Twice on Hated Yankees, I have made the case that Maris belongs in the Hall of Fame. And I did it once on The Buttry Diary, blasting the clear biases of these sports writers who in other contexts sing the praises of […]
LikeLike
[…] Twice on Hated Yankees, I have made the case that Maris belongs in the Hall of Fame. And I did it once on The Buttry Diary, blasting the clear biases of these sports writers who in other contexts sing the praises of […]
LikeLike
[…] Maris, the widow of Roger Maris. I have written repeatedly for years about why Maris belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame. And this fall, I learned that a grandson of Maris is in a colleague’s writing class at LSU. I […]
LikeLike