For Baseball’s Hall of Fame, Do Statistics Alone Still Matter?

Rare is it for the excellence we search for not to show itself in long term numbers. But for some, we have substantial reason to believe that the numbers lie-Clemens and Bonds lead the group. The drugs magnify the numbers like a magnifying glass makes everything look bigger than it really is. So, members with a hall of fame ballot, please do not lose faith that excellence needs a helping hand. Keep the frauds out. Let them enjoy their riches knowing that all that glitters is not gold.

I always admire Doug's writing, and here he makes what I interpret to be a case for Mattingly, though his raw numbers didn't impress the voters enough.

Doug may be glad to know that I, as a fan of AA Biscuits, like to take note of achievements that won't show up in the box score -- bad hops fielded cleanly, bunts placed perfectly, pitchers who work briskly. So much excellence cannot be quantified. It's like a semi-secret joy when attentive fans witness these little gems of excellence that doesn't make the box score.

Baseball statistics are much more dependent upon the characteristics of the ballpark dimensions; the playing surface: the weather and climate and altitude (Arizona and Denver): time player spent in military service; etc. The defensive strength of the team distorts pitching records and the offensive strength of the rest of the lineup distorts batting records. These factors can be argued to have much more effect on baseball performance than any drug enhancement.
It is always amazing to me how baseball fans are so moralistic about drug use in a sport where strength is of dubious value, especially for a hitter or fielder. It is the home run that ignites debate. I’m not an expert on drugs but I thought steroids were a standard recovery treatment for muscle strains and other such muscle damage. A muscular baseball player who is prone to missing games due to muscle pulls and such might benefit by taking steroids as a preventive measure. Pitchers have more to gain by arm and leg strength than batters and a liability on defense. If strength were so important to pitching then more pitchers would be more muscular through serious weight training.
But the unspoken key issue that no one is talking about is the one proven competitive advantage that is unnatural: The so-called Tommy John surgery for pitchers where a ligament is taken from the leg and placed in the arm. This bio-engineering procedure should never have been allowed and its advantage is much more definitive than any drug.

"It’s supposed to insulate our silver-lined dream clouds with the spray foam of pragmatism." What a life: major league baseball player and wonderful writer. Thanks for sharing!

What comes through to me by Glanville's excellent article is that the baseball players themselves always know who is the best player. They know from the field of play. This knowledge, this understanding, based on actual experience, should be, should have been, incorporated into the HOF protocols a long time ago. Sports writers have at best a distant view of actual performance and are not the best judges of ability.

I loved this column and always look forward to Doug Glanville's pieces. As I read what he had to say about Tim Raines whom I'm delighted to see voted in I wondered what his thoughts might be about Brett Butler. Butler was a consistent 400 percentage on base ball player. He was a master bunter and base stealer and had a long career as a top of the order catalyst for the Braves, Indians and Dodgers. He's the type of player who would never have gotten a look previously because he had no power and only an average arm for an outfielder but in this era might well be worth a second look.

Of course statistics still matter. What a ridiculous argument.

You think there weren't very good players in other decades that just weren't good enough to make it? Of course there were. They just weren't good enough or consistent enough to make the HOF.

When (our beloved) Edgar Martinez is (finally) inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame, we can both celebrate along with most everyone in the Pacific NW (maybe including some folks in BC--they come to Seattle to see baseball games even if the Blue Jays aren't playing--and AK too?)

Thanks for acknowledging Edgar who is not only a world-class baseball player but also the kind of man you'd want to have living down the block from you--a true gentleman.

Bonds, Clemens and the other steroids cheaters should never be admitted to the Hall. Permanently stained the game. If they had any honor, they would hand back any awards won and World Series rings from their steroids years. For example, assuming Bonds hadn't started juicing yet, he keeps the MVP award from 1990 with the Pirates. Clemens keeps his '86 Cy Young Award and '86 AL Championship ring but not the Cy Youngs from the Blue Jays and Yankee years after he began doping. All the doping hitters from the era should also never get a whiff of the Hall, not just Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire & Canseco.

Just as shameful and outrageous as Lance Armstrong and his cheating. In the same way that USPS justifiably sued Armstrong for his lying cheating to demand repayment of unjust gains, these players are very lucky MLB did not push for ownership to sue the players & force them to pay back their stolen money. But politicians like LBJ and Bush-Cheney paid little price for their lies and scheming that killed people so what can you expect in something like "professional" sports.

Kudos to Doug Glanville! You have a gift of a great style of writing, please continue to inform us on the best sport, Baseball.

I've never read an article by this guy that I didn't enjoy and learn from. His insider's perspective is fascinating for a crummy player like me.

The first premise ought to be is what the Hall of Fame is. First, it is a tourist attraction based on a lie to please a rich old man who appointed his own commission and told it to find something that wasn't there--the American inventor of baseball. Second, it is populated by friends of the electors, players whose stats look like this: a batting average of .258 with 28 home runs and 884 RBI or an average of .253 with 1,354 hits and 594 RBI. Honored to be in their company?

Teams don't "look deeper, beyond the numbers for meaning" when they pay many of these players millions of dollars, and I don't think the HOF should either.

Statistics matter but one must weigh statistics in the context of the Era. Messina's 270 wins and 3.84 ERA in the face of batters that were on steroids makes the 270 like 310 wins. He should be in. Rock Raines has great numbers but was also a caption in the club house. You must look at the context.

As usual, great column. Speaking of steroids and statistics and character, who can name the hall eligible players who made an all star team at least 11 times and haven't made the hall?
There's rose, bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGwire,and......bill freehan. Best American League catcher of his era. Annual gold glove winner. Hit 260 or so in a pitcher dominant era. Never even gets a mention for the hall.

Statistics alone should not be the only measure. Whether we like it or not, professional sports are entertainment. Potential spectators have many leisure options besides watching pro sports. Baseball must be at least somewhat entertaining to attract fans. While many will say that Winning is the ultimate level of entertainment, not every team can win the World Series in a given year. The other teams must be entertaining in order to draw and retain fans.

There are some players who don't meet the modern "sabermetric" standards of statistical greatness yet who had the skills, the competitive drive, the mental toughness, and the charisma to change the course of a ball game and do so for many years. In addition, it is not really fair to judge players who played before the 1990s based on sabermetrics, because perhaps those players would have changed their style of play to achieve those new standards if the standards had existed then. Even today, it is not possible to quantify joy. Yes, we do "risk overlooking players whose contributions should not be quantified." Most of these players of course are not HOF candidates, but some are (or should be).

The Baseball Hall of Fame is the one among all the sports which matters. Statistics matter but so do so many variables. Where was this player among his peers? What could he do that very few others were capable of? How did he impact his team's? Did he produce in the post season? Did he hit but not field? Does fielding matter, if so how much? What of the relievers? How was this player regarded among his peers? Was he a product of greatness or did he ride the crest of a wave which carried an entire era? What of PED's?

Those who enter the Hall of Fame with this class are all very deserving. As for the players mentioned by Glanville, when do they enter the fact that it is not an easy mountain to climb makes reaching the summit all the more special. If entrance could be reduced to statistics and formulas it wouldn't be nearly as interesting or as much an honor.

If you could reduce the Hall to stats alone a spreadsheet in a PC would spit out the name Vladimir Guerrero from the first year he was eligible, but where would the fun in that be? It would deprive us of remembering him for a few years and talking about his great throwing arm, how he ran the bases, and all those 100 RBI seasons. Like everything else in baseball, Guerrero's time will come when it comes. That's baseball and that's probably just how it should be.

Don't know how to answer your question Doug, but I will tell you what matters now in MLB, since around 1990, greed and PEDS.

Pre Jackie, the ugly stain of segregation past a pall on MLB but it was an institution not a ugly act by any one man.

The glory yrs of baseball were from circa 1946-1990 before greed and PEDS.

PEDS and greed have made baseball and the HOF a joke. Decisions by individual men to use drugs that they knew were dangerous after the 1976 Olympics to get a major advantage over non users and ticket prices and player salaries at obscene levels so lower income people and kids can't afford to go to the game.

The inauguration of President Whozis made yesterday such a dark and grim day.

But this morning I came across a Doug Glanville essay on baseball (and re-read it this afternoon). As John Fogerty famously sang, "the sun came out today..."

Steroid use was unofficially sanctioned for years in MLB. And it was celebrated and rewarded by the greatest statistic of all -- money for owners and players! Now with Bud Selig in the HOF, who presided over the steroid era, how can the players be excluded.

And how do you measure the effect of steroid use? Consider Barry Bonds, who not only hit home runs, but had amazing numbers of walks with modest strike outs. Opponents were petrified of pitching to him, issuing huge numbers of intentional walks -- he has six of the ten highest seasons of intentional walks and is the career leader by more than 2X the next hitter!

Rodriguez was accused of using steroids. So much for the character argument.

Having seen all of the current inductees and those mentioned in this play in person I agree on their elevation to the Hall of Fame.

I went to Expo games in Chicago to see Tim Raines, Vladimir Guerrero and Andre Dawson play.

While I am fine with recognition of relief pitchers exploits I do not accept the AL designated hitter as a real baseball player. While hitting can get a poor fielder into the Hall of Fame, fielding alone can not do so.

Then there are the cases of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens who were destined for the Hall of Fame PED steroids or not and did not gamble.

I saw Doug Glanville and Harold Reynolds play too. They are doing what they were destined to do. Little fame in the hall of sports media.

What a wise and witty column - maybe, the Times should consider (a la sports broadcasters using people WITH "real world" experience more - a lot more!

I'd just like to observe that Mr. Glanville's prescription for staying in the "bigs" for a few years when one lacks HOF prowess - one must "sharpen the tools in his toolbox" - is not worlds different (it wasn't always "cheating," and maybe we should look at "drug use" as more like cutting a corner on one's 1040 than grand larceny) from the "shortcut" some players (great and not) took with this or that substance.

One CAN, I think, cite imperfect information and not well developed analytic skills - hey, MLB players are NOT rocket scientists, most of them, almost the opposite - in the defense of those who ingested this or rubbed on that, but my point is that we are in a society that - now more than ever, although sports was always thus - worships numbers.

Who hasn't heard or seen the immutable truth that if you reward (in a big way, particularly) this or that outcome, no small number of those affected by that decision will alter their behavior. (Wells Fargo, e.g.!)

This isn't climate change - more like "deflate-gate." Has anyone suggested that A-Rod would have had his batting average nicked for 20 points or his HR total by 100?! ... I'm guessing that if "sports scientists" massaged the numbers as best they could, their best guesses would be much more modest!

The Hall is not an "Honor Roll" - never was and shouldn't be now!

I would only disagree with one thing, Mr. Glanville's comment with regard to closers being largely kept out of the HOF.
The modern closer, i.e., a pitcher coming in almost always only for one inning or at the most two at the end of game the team is winning, is a fairly recent concept. For years, relief pitchers, who often worked 2-3 innings and came in whether their team was ahead or not, were either former starters who had aged or, as he notes, failed starters, or going further back were starters who were also called at time to relieve in important games (and not just World Series).
Thus, although we can recognize the superiority of a Mariano Rivera, it has yet to play out the relative significance of career numbers of most of the rest. For years 400 home runs was considered a HOF measure; now it's almost insignificant unless the player displayed excellence in some other aspects of the game. 500 or 600 saves may seem terrific now but soon be seen as common place.

PED users SHOULD NEVER be allowed into the HOF. They are cheaters, albeit with tremendous natural talent, but cheaters nonetheless. What does it teach future players if you let them in?

Shouldn't Tim Raines' cocaine use have an impact on his entry to the Hall of Fame? Is it hypocritical to exclude steroid Serbs but include Raines?

Doug, I remember when my son Scott played first base for the Dumont summer league team against your Teaneck squad back when you were 16 (he's 2 years younger). We could tell then that you were the "faster" and "stronger" one and it was fun to watch you reach the major leagues and then become an interesting, informative writer.

A well written and timely article as usual by Mr. Glanville.

Your column makes interesting reading, but I don't think even you believe the argument you seem to be making. The players you remember for exceptional abilities or fearsome presence, but without the career stats, are never going to be consensus picks of the Hall of Fame voters. Those players have qualities that are too subjective to be recognized by a wide and diverse pool of sports writers. Although statistics are flawed, no one has yet come up with better objective criteria.

However, one filthy blot on the statistical record can easily be fixed, and it surprises me that you have not campaigned more forcefully against it. Of course it is the steroid stain. Any player who has admitted to or has been judged to have used steroids should be excluded from inclusion in the Hall of Fame. Since we know that career stats or longevity are the main criteria for inclusion, by what reasoning should some players be given an advantage?

Is there a Hall of Fame category for sportswriting? Doug Glanville is my nominee.

It would now be once again pertinent to point out that proven and admitted cheaters are inching closer to Hall of Fame eligibility, and that the commissioner who oversaw the cheating is now actually in the Hall of Fame, but that Pete Rose—a proven and admitted gambler but never a cheater—is not.

Will someone please put "Shoeless" Joe Jackson in the Hall of Fame.

And will someone please let Pete Rose a chance to be considered ?

Maybe, Doug, you'll make the Hall as a writer.

But without Bonds, Clemens and Rose it will hardly be a hall of fame.

Statistics still matter, Mr. Glanville. But the ones that mean the most to the newer generation of BBWAA voters are no longer the simple counting stats but more arcane measures, like WAR, OPS+, and UZR. There's even a metric to rate HOF members and candidates: JAWS. Even ideas that were cutting edge in the 1980's, like the work of Bill James and Pete Palmer, seem to have gone the way of the buffalo.

While I'm on the 1980's, there is something that bothers me. If you look at the roster of every World Champion, there seems to be at least one Hall of Fame member, even if it is only the manager. The 1988 Dodgers, perhaps one of the weakest teams ever to win a World Series, had Don Sutton on the 40-man. He didn't contribute much, but he's there.

It amazes me that the only Hall of Famer on the 1984 Tigers is the manager, Sparky Anderson. In my view, there should be three more: Jack Morris, Alan Trammell, and Lou Whitaker. This team went 111-59 including the postseason. How they could win so many games with "no" Hall of Fame players is a mystery.

Something is wrong with the system.

Benchmarks are very important even though threshholds may change. But the most important thing is domination - a player must be dominant for a decade, or have at least 15 years of high level performance that falls short of dominant. Further, if not a pitcher you must play a position for your full career. Sorry, but DHs need not apply. Thus Paul Molitor, with half his hits as a DH, is out. Ortiz, Edgar Martinez, out. Anyone with a steroid past or hint, out. Friends of voters - Rizzuto, Reese, Mazeroski, out. Moments, social stance, after career - out. The HOF is in danger of becoming the NFL HOF - just a popularity contest. Why must someone get in every year? It should be exclusive - very exclusive and not some silly "inclusive" experiment.

"...what stays in our souls from watching these players over time is a feeling, a moment, a memory that is often independent of math....
Greatness is now the summation of your work." Gil Hodges.

The character clause in the hof criteria is a hypocritical joke. Any hofer who drank a beer between 1919 and 1933 took an illegal drug. Aaron copped to greenie use. Any member of the 51 Giants was a cheater (say hey) who undermined the integrity of the game just as much as the Black Sox did.
Cobb and Judge Landis were prominent racists Purge them all or drop the pretense.

The players who we think were juiced up were great players before the imbibed. I cannot condone their lack of character for juicing, but here is what we might do. Look at their production prior to the time they juice and then extrapolate forward what they might have continued to do if they were not juiced. This should be statistically possible. Then look at the numbers. If they are hall-of-fame numbers reconsider their status. Of course, if character is a major consideration then they are probably not worthy of the hall-of-fame anyway.

Though we will never fully know who did and who did not during the "steroid era," we do know the period tainted the game. Those who were caught chose wealth and fame and traded in their Hall of Fame opportunity for the immediate rewards they received. Shed no tears for them. While there is scant evidence that character matters much and while baseball can never erase the stain of its own racist past, it can move forward if it at least tries to distance itself from the drug abusers who sold the sport down the river for 30 pieces of silver.

If the measure of induction into the Hall is consistent excellence and longevity of those who are faster, stronger, smarter through a combination of natural talent and dedication to honing skills then there is no cause to celebrate those who would seek entry by artificial enhancement.
That MLB tolerated steroid use isn't rationale for the Hall to condone it. Players who took the shortcut to fame and fortune and the owners and management who reveled in the feast - well, that was their time. The Hall is not the Game. Posterity owes them nothing.

Also, drug induced stats are lies, and we know little about who were on drugs , and when.

I appreciate your subjective ideas, but it may be time to retire the Hall of Fame idea. It's an illusion.

The last paragraph sums it all up. While you cannot indict an entire generation,
It must be noted in the Hall of Fame that the player played during the so called
"Steroid Era. Including a before and after photo of players who clearly bulked up is justified in my view. (It will never happen.)
The real crime in my view is how the cheaters have ruined it for all the players
Who did not cheat and how now the entire generation is tainted

Doug - I predict that one day you will be elected to the Hall of Fame as a writer.

Thank you for a much needed respite from the dismal state of our politics. Another wonderful column cutting to the essence of baseball & humanity, while allowing me to laugh out loud for the first time in weeks. Hoping for more frequent columns from Mr. Glanville.

I think Doug Glanville needs to be in the Hall of Fame for the quality of his baseball writing. Of all of the writings of former players I have read, his are the best shaped, easiest to read and understand, and are even occasionally poetic.

He has my vote, how about you?

The HOF is a meaningless honor so long as Pete Rose is not inducted.

Great quote about pitching to Martinez. It was amazing to watch him hit.

Hasn't the math changed primarily because of cheating? Five hundred HRs is still a good measure - it explains why Jim Thome, with more than 600 and no accusations of cheating - will get into the HOF someday.

As a secondary cause, hasn't the game changed to prevent 300 wins from being a similarly useful measure? As a threshold for voters, it is likely to come down to 250 or 225 to help Mike Mussina or, someday, Clayton Kershaw, look worthy.

That change in the game - LaRussa-fueled - will help Hoffman and Rivera get in, but those with other huge saves numbers - John Franco, Lee Smith - get little attention.

The game changes in almost all ways over time.

Perhaps the one exception is the perception that players earn too much, which was noted by Albert Spalding in the late 1800s as a sure sign of the game's eventual ruin.

He was quite wrong.

Thoughtful, well written, what a pleasurable read to brighten a Saturday morning - thanks to you

Beautifully written. Thank you for the perspective.

Thanks for this on a winter morning. But, to address your last questions, isn't it likely that many players still are relying on PEDs?

Thank you as always Doug, for your insights and wisdom. Particularly in this phrase: " it is hard to learn humility by taking shortcuts to greatness." As a longtime Giants fan, I watched Barry Bonds, loving his offense and the fear he engendered. But yah, his thick neck and bulked up body told me that he took the shortcut, needlessly so. No humility either.

That same phrase came to mind in the ceremonies that took place yesterday in the Capitol; " it is hard to learn humility by taking shortcuts to greatness." Shortcuts and lack of humility. Feh.

Dear Mr. Glanville: You bear a grudge, and, like many sportswriters, you are groping for a way to define and celebrate greatness but only in the way you want. The elisions in this essay--the silences and allusions to asterisks--are not about moving forward but back into an arbitrary past where sportswriters played favorites by bestowing honor without honor. I speak, of course, of both Roger Maris in the past and of Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and others in the future. They were all great players, and they have all been slighted not by fans but by a preening, pious, and ridiculous group of self selected experts who continue to fail themselves and the game. Get over it already. If you truly want to celebrate greatness, then the Hall has to include Bonds, Clemens, and all the others whose names we dare not speak. Then let the Hall contextualize not just their careers but all players, including those who in the past used amphetamines and barbiturates, and stop seeking purity. Otherwise, you and the Hall will continue to be a bit laughable, as are the parts of this essay where you can't quite bring yourself to full articulate what needs to be said. I guess it's safer to be thrown out while running the bases than admit the full implications of greatness.

what a nicely written article. the author had a baseball career. what a lucky man he is. i think every boy my age (63 now) dreamed once of facing Sandy Kofax or Bob Gibson. hey we were young too. i remember seeing the pirates in the playoffs and the announcer saying then oh sure Bonds will take you to the prom. he just wont make sure you get home. well shortly after he was traded to the giants. they never got to the home dance till after he left the team. his numbers stand as well as that announcer's proclamation that day. thank you for taking my mind off other things with this read.