Defending Jon Heyman’s HOF Ballot
By Mike Silva ~ December 28th, 2009. Filed under: Hall of Fame, Mike Silva.
Jon Heyman had this to say on Twitter last night
“just mailed Hall of Fame ballot, beating deadline yet again. voted for alomar, dawson, larkin, parker, morris & mattingly”
As usual, it was met with an outcry from many individuals about how Jon is wrong for his choices and the methodology of picking his selections. This type of behavior not only annoys me, the arrogance displayed by those who disagree with Heyman is reprehensible. It’s a combination of snarky, arrogant, and disrespectful. Unfortunately, and I hate to generalize, but the worst perpetrators of the behavior are those that use advanced metrics to make their case. Once again they act as if they have absolute answers and the only methodology acceptable in making a decision. This doesn’t surprise me as this site has been the victim of vicious attacks for its opinions in the past. When I suggested that Mark Teixeira was the MVP over Joe Mauer I had people go as low as to compare my rationale to Marge Schott claiming Hitler wasn’t all bad. It was some of those same people who twisted my words when I suggested baseball today needed a leader with the absolute power of Kenesaw Mountain Landis. In the end, Jon Heyman selected the players based on what he values as a sports writer. Just because this doesn’t include advanced metrics doesn’t make it wrong.
Let me go on record as saying I disagree with Heyman’s selections. If I had a vote I would select Edgar Martinez, Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Jack Morris, and Mark McGwire. I am on the fence with Raines, Trammell, and Larkin and decided to stay that way this year. My criteria combine number of Hall of Fame seasons, consistency, benchmarks, and precedence from prior results. For example, Bill Mazeroski has opened up second base for a number of other players, who normally wouldn’t qualify, to be considered for the Hall. When I make my decision I don’t use FIP, WAR, or most any advanced metric. I do, however, use ERA + or OPS + (which all of a sudden are “flawed” metrics I am told) because it weights those players numbers versus league and season. This is particularly helpful for a guy like Blyleven who I didn’t see pitch until very late in his career. Even then, a 10 year old kid can’t comprehend the performance at the same level as an adult. I also value players with longevity so, when he retires, I might support the inclusion of Jamie Moyer into the Hall for his ability to pitch effectively into his late forties.
This doesn’t make my ballot any better than Heyman’s. Jon went on record saying he used a combination of stats and the impact the players had on their teams. Heyman actually, unlike me and most of those criticizing him, followed the careers of Morris and Blyleven. I believe that gives him a unique perspective that would be lacking from someone, like me, who supports Morris more on his 91′ heroics than anything. Heyman was subjected to personal attacks on Twitter and, instead of debate, it became a “free for all”. Jon handled it with class and actually gave us insight into how he votes for the Hall. That will never be enough for some people, but it sure was good enough for me.
If there is one thing I have learned is that baseball discussion has become very much like politics. It has the same fire and passion that leads to debate, but often can get polarizing, and sometimes, downright nasty. Isn’t diverse opinion what makes talking about this game so great? You don’t get the same kind of dialogue with basketball, football, or hockey- at least in my opinion. I defend Jon Heyman’s right to use whatever methodology he wants to make his Hall of Fame and award selections. I said the same about Keith Law and Will Carroll when they were subjected to similar abuse for their Cy Young votes.
No one has the market cornered on the methodology of discussing baseball. If someone doesn’t want to use advance statistics that’s just as good as if someone wants to use WAR or FIP to put Blyleven in the Hall of Fame. A committee full of diverse thought will only make for better debate and discussion. In the end you, the reader, wins.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Well said Mike. While I also dont agree with Jon’s full ballot, I have noticed the same vitriol from stat heads, especially on the RAB site. The stat heads truly believe the game is played on paper and that the human eye is in inferior in its ability to recognize talent.
I too consider myself someone who pours over stats. I was probably reading Bill James while most of these guys were going out with cheerleaders (GF1 reference). However, this over reliance on every new stat that comes out via fangraphs or baseball prospectus gets treated like manna from Heaven while those who have actually seen someone play and developed an eyewitness account of that player’s ability is deemed a “flat earther.”
There needs to be a balance in evaluating players both past and present.
December 28th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Vin
Glad to hear from you. I am not “anti stats” as some people try to portray me, I just prefer to go trough life looking at things from a balanced point of view. I also don’t subscribe to an ideology and pigeonhole myself into theories. Unfortunately, many of the aforementioned are college kids and below that don’t have very much real world experience and baseball becomes an extension of what they know – the classroom.
The guy who create these metrics, of course, feed that industry with the hopes it becomes the ultimate methodology to assessing players, awards, and the Hall of Fame. That is where the whole money/power theory I preach comes from. If it weren’t true they would simply ignore me, but they respond with anger and personal attacks.
I use stats as part of my decision making. I was playing Strat O Matic when I was 9 years old. Just like you I see value in Bill James theories, I just don’t bow at the alter of an ideology.
Personally I believe the silent majority are like you and the loud minority attack people like Jon Heyman
December 28th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I will admit to be somewhat of a quasi-sabermetrician, so I very much agree with those people that think Morris has no business in the HoF, while Blyleven (among others) should be a slam dunk. But, true, the rhetorics can be a bit much sometimes.
The problem with Heyman is, that he is every bit as snarky as the “VORPies”, especially in regard to Blyleven v. Morris. It doesn’t take advanced metrics to tell that Bert overall was quite a bit better than Morris, but because he witnessed both pitchers, Heyman, according to himself, was magically able to decide that Morris was better and had more impact. To make it worse, Heyman cherry-picks negative stats to drive his point home, even though he slams the “VORPies” for relying too much on stats.
In short, it’s not Heyman’s picks alone, it’s also his reasoning that people can’t stand and he certainly should be questioned for that, even if some occasionally go overboard.
December 28th, 2009 at 9:59 am
stat geeks are the absolute worst
if u dont agree with them u are hitler
they are also the type of guys who never played the game except when they were 11
December 28th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I happened to stumble upon the Heyman “discussion” and decided to jump into the fray. What I found were the typical Blyleven “supporters” who, instead of giving their own insight…rehash the same Pos and Lederer articles everyone cites and throw out Bert’s WARP.
If you mentioned Jack Morris…you were wrong.
If you mentioned Bert being a “compiler”…you were wrong.
If you mentioned personal thoughts you had while watching Bert’s career…you were wrong.
Unfortunately, I think the fervor that some people express about Blyleven’s induction are turning some people AGAINST the cause. Perhaps I’m a contrarian…not sure. What I know is that I never thought of Blyleven as a Hall of Famer when I watched him play and I’ve since been positioned firmly on the proverbial fence.
That being said, some of his supporters and their passion for arguing (rather than ACTUAL support) are pushing me to the “no” side.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Mike,
Nice reasonable column. Sure, there is too much vitriol on the internet. Many of us say things online in a manner which we would never would with friends or family. I strongly disagree with Heyman and his methodology because it doesn’t match up to the facts. I’m not one who believes voting should be cut and dried and only based on one specific number or anything like that. However, one can not completely ignore the stats if they don’t support one’s memory. If given the privilege of voting for this honor one should take it seriously. Only Heyman knows how seriously he treats his ballot. He became the poster boy for derision as an uninformed voter based on the dismissive way he rejected the idea of Blyleven being elected on the MLB Network last year. So, while people probably shouldn’t be so insulting to the guy, I think he brought some of it on himself. I can understand a voter not voting for either Blyleven or Morris. I can accept someone voting for both. I don’t for the life of me understand the mental gymnastics required to justify voting for Morris and simultaneously deciding a much better pitcher, Blyeven does not merit that honor.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Just keep on painting with broad strokes. Remember never substantiate claims. Most of all make huge generalizations without any proof. You got it!
PS Only in baseball would treating things like a classroom be a negative. Teach your kids to learn, to be smart, and to think analytically but as soon as they touch your sacred cow they’ve gone to far. Question everything… except baseball!
December 30th, 2009 at 6:55 am
People don’t even use Sabermetric arguments to advance Bert’s candidacy! The most commonly cited terms are ERA, strikeouts and innings pitches. If you look at those, and compare to players in an out of the hall, Bert should be a lock. Even if you look at bulk win totals, Bert should be a lock. The only thing that people hold against him is loss totals. That stems from A) him playing on a lot of bad teams, and B) him pitching a sh-tload of innings.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Hey Mike, usually I don’t respond to your trolls, but I will this time.
Heyman said via twitter that if Morris wasn’t on WS winning teams, he wouldn’t be a Hall of Famer. Think about that. He’s putting a career slightly-above-average starting pitcher into the Hall for going 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA in 7 games.
And as a fan, I want, no, I DEMAND, that the people that control the entry to the most hallowed ground in the sport, treat the process with some consistency and respect. Heyman’s voting based on luck and perception. That’s wrong. Sure, everyone should have their opinions on who and what a Hall of Famer is, and I’m on board with him for some of those picks. However, guys like Blyleven, Raines, soon to be Martinez, are going to get the constant shaft for no reason but a bias from voters like Heyman. Because Blyleven and Raines were underappreciated in their day means their career is moot?
Also, quit crying about mean stat bullies, Mike. The reason you got mocked for calling Teixeira the MVP was because he wasn’t even the MVP of the Yankees, that was Jeter. You could’ve stuck about a half-dozen other guys at 1B for the Yankees and not have noticed the difference. Teixeira was very good, but Mauer hit for a higher average, OBP, SLG, played in a tougher hitter’s park, and played a far, FAR more important defensive position. You get criticized not for having an opinion, but lazily throwing around unprovable terms or cherry picking 1 or 2 numbers to make your case.
In closing, though, congratulations Mike, you’re getting yourself numerous cheap hits through part trolling, part biased blabber, part conspiracy theorizing, part victimization, and part arrogant dickheadedness. Like you told Tom Tango, follow that money trail, right?
Heyman is constantly snarky, arrogant, and in the case of mentioning Blyleven, almost mean-spirited.