Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame - Softcover

DRYSDALE AND PAPPAS

Don Drysdale won 209 games in his career, and lost 166.

Milt Pappas, Drysdale's contemporary, posted an almost identical won-lost record, 209-164.

Don Drysdale was selected to the Hall of Fame, by the BBWAA, in his tenth year of eligibility.

Milt Pappas received so little support (five votes from 324 ballots) that he was dropped from the ballot after one turn.

Pappas, an outspoken fellow, was very unhappy about this, and has been known to compare his own record to Drysdale's in an occasional interview, so this comparison between them is well known:

It is truly a travesty to have Don Drysdale elected to baseball's Hall of Fame. When Milt Pappas was not listed on the Hall of Fame ballot, his protests were met with howls of derision. He won only 209 games and had a winning percentage of only 560, they said. Not good enough for the Hall.

Now, here's the new Hall of Famer, Mr. Drysdale, who won the same 209 games pitching for the best team of the era....If there's a sub-basement at Cooperstown, I suggest the plaque be hung there.

-- Randall Kendrick

Baseball Digest, May 1984

There are many distinctions which can be drawn between Drysdale and Pappas, and many similarities. Presenting first the full record.

Drysdale was more of a power pitcher than Pappas, recording 758 more strikeouts. He had better earned run averages and better ERA components (control, opposition batting average). Drysdale pitched for more championship teams and more teams that were in the pennant race. He was a better hitter, and he established a well-known record in 1968, since broken by Orel Hershiser.

Almost all of those issues have another side to them (if he pitched for better teams, shouldn't he be expected to have posted a better won-lost record?), and I'll discuss all of them later, in Chapter 31. I wanted to deal here with what I think is really the key difference between them, which is the issue of consistency versus peak performance.

One of the most dependable patterns in Hall of Fame voting, both in the BBWAA vote and from the Veterans Committee, is that players who have big seasons are much more likely to be selected than are players of equal overall accomplishment, but greater consistency. Drysdale, who had 27 points in the Black Ink Test, had many more big seasons than Pappas, who had 5.

I could give countless examples to demonstrate this. It is an overstatement, but not much of one, to say that every marginal Hall of Famer in history had some big seasons with eye-catching numbers, while every marginal player who isn't in the Hall of Fame didn't have those big seasons. I'll give you four examples:

1. Jack Chesbro and Jesse Tannehill. Chesbro won 199 games in his career, lost 131. In his best season, 1903, he threw a wild pitch on the last day of the season that cost his team the pennant, and that made him one of the most famous big-game goats of the first 25 years of this century. He was selected to the Hall of Fame in 1946.

Jesse Tannehill, who was born in the same year as Chesbro (1874), was Chesbro's teammate for much of his career, first in Pittsburgh (1899-1902) and later with the New York Yankees, then called the Highlanders (1903). His career record (197-116) is very similar to Chesbro's (199-131), but distinctly better -- yet he is not in the Hall of Fame.

In fact, the four pitchers who were the Pirates' rotation when they won the National League in 1901 (Chesbro, Tannehill, Sam Leever and Deacon Phillippe) all had extremely similar career records.

Chesbro had probably the poorest career record of the four, Sam Leever the best, yet Chesbro is the only one who is in the Hall of Fame. Why?

You all know the answer. He had the big year.

2. Dazzy Vance and Lon Warneke. Dazzy Vance, a National League pitcher of the 1920s and 1930s, won 197 games in his career, lost 140. He's in the Hall of Fame.

Lon Warneke, a National League pitcher who came along a few years later and also threw very hard, won 193 games and lost only 121.

Warneke's record is a little better, but in 1955, when both pitchers were eligible, Vance drew 205 votes and was elected. Warneke didn't draw a vote. Why?

Vance had some monster years. He went 28-6 in 1924, led the league in ERA at 2.16 and struck out more men than any other two pitchers in the major leagues. He also went 22-9 in 1925, 22-10 in 1928 and in 1930, at the age of 39, led the National League in ERA.

Warneke had some good years, too -- 22-6, 22-10, 20-13 -- but just not quite at the same level. Big years get you in the Hall of Fame.

3. Roger Maris and Bob Allison. Bob Allison's career totals are very similar to Roger Maris's.

Neither Maris nor Allison is in the Hall of Fame yet, but Maris drew strong support, peaking at 176 to 184 votes each year from 1986 to 1988.

Bob Allison was the most feared baserunner of his time. He played center field when he first came up, played it well -- yet his vote total peaked at zero. Why?

You know the answer. Maris had the big year.

4. Ron Guidry and Sandy Koufax. You may be surprised to learn that Ron Guidry's career record is comparable to Sandy Koufax's.

Koufax's ERA is a little better, but half of that difference is created by league ERAs.

Koufax, of course, flew into the Hall of Fame because he was the dominant pitcher of his time, 1963-1966. Guidry had only one year of comparable dominance, and certainly cannot expect to sweep into the Hall of Fame as Koufax did.

Another example, which I won't use in the same way because I'm not sure what the Hall of Fame voters are going to do, is Don Sutton and Steve Carlton. Don Sutton, believe it or not, has a career record that is substantially similar to Steve Carlton's.

Steve Carlton had big seasons, and because of this he found the Hall of Fame door as open as Madonna's...uh, arms. He was elected on the first ballot when he became eligible in 1993. Sutton, who plodded along at an annual pace of 17 or 18 wins, will still provoke an argument despite his overwhelming credentials. Carlton scored 69 points on the Black Ink Test; Sutton scored at 8.

Bob Carroll, whose writing I enjoy very much, commented on this phenomenon in his 1985 article for the National Pastime ("For the Hall of Fame: Twelve Good Men"). "Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds," wrote Carroll, "but it can also make certain ballplayers nigh unto invisible. Indian Bob Johnson never had one of those super seasons that make everyone sit up and whistle. While phenoms came, collected their MVP trophies, and faded, he just kept plodding along hitting .300, with a couple dozen homers and a hundred ribbies year after year...like a guy punching a time clock."

His specific point has merit. Johnson's career numbers, in the context of their time, are probably better than Hack Wilson's, but Wilson had the big year. Carroll, at least, is rational on the subject; some guys get really carried away with it.

Anyway, to state first the argument that this is an injustice...think of the player's career record as if it was a season's record. Suppose that Ken Griffey, Jr., winds up this season with 37 homers, 118 RBI and a .326 average, but Juan Gonzalez posts even better numbers. Some people will argue that Griffey should win the MVP Award because he's a better defensive outfielder, some people will argue that Griffey should win because the Mariners had a better year, somebody might argue that he should win because he's a better baserunner and hit better in the clutch. But would anybody argue that he should be given extra credit because he hit .437 in July? It's obvious, isn't it, that if he has better numbers in July but poorer numbers overall, he must have done worse some other time?

The seasons of a career, we might argue, are like the pieces of a season -- individually interesting, but not fundamentally relevant to value.

Now let's look at it from the other side. You know the old saying about a statistician...if you have one foot in a block of ice and the other in a fire, a statistician will tell you that on average you're comfortable. This problem is like that: It is dangerous to ignore fluctuations in performance, and assume that the aggregate total reflects the impact of the elements.

But in this case it is held against the player if he stays at a comfortable temperature. The players who put one foot in a block of ice and the other in the fire get extra credit for it. Is that fair?

Because pitchers are less consistent than hitters, this is a more common problem in evaluating pitchers than it is in evaluating hitters.

The analogy that seasons are to careers as months are to seasons, it seems to me, has one major flaw, which is that it doesn't account for pennant races. A pennant is a real thing, an object in itself; if you win it, it's forever. If a pitcher goes 7-0 in June and puts his team into first place, that's just June; if he then goes 1-5 in July and the team slips to fourth place, the end result is pretty much the same as if the hot streak had never existed.

This is not true of seasons. If a pitcher goes 24-5 in one year and leads his team to a World Championship, that flag is going to fly forever. If he goes 5-17 the next year, they don't take the flag down.

On the other hand, we cannot assume that the pitcher who has a big year and then a bad year has had a positive impact on his team's chances in the pennant race. Bill Singer went 20-12 with the Dodgers in 1969 and 20-14 with California in 1973, but in between went 10-17 and 6-16. He never played with a championship team. If he had just been a nice, consistent 14-14 every year, his teams would have won at least one pennant and possibly two. The 1969 and 1973 teams were so weak that they weren't going to win no matter what Singer did, but the 1971 Dodgers, for whom he went 10-17 with a 4.17 ERA, missed the National League West championship by one game. There's no question but that a decent year by Singer would have put them over the top. The 1972 team, for whom he went 6-16, missed...