I just read this article, where a man with a PhD lays out the argument for the 2007 Hall of Fame ballot. It calmly and clearly illustrates a system based on win shares, and compares it to the elections of the last ten years.
What I like about it is this: it clearly explains why human beings like Dave Parker belong in a very elite category of good baseball players, but why human beings with stats like Dave Parker do not belong in what should be the most elite category of baseball players... the Hall of Fame. I feel like I'd always said to myself that Dave Parker didn't belong in the HOF thanks to his measly 339 career home runs. Now I have proof that I was not discriminating against you, Dave Parker, or any of the other borderline candidates for the Hall.
Dave Parker had this to say in 2006:
"There were a couple of years where my numbers probably weren't what they should have been. But for the majority of those 10 years, from 1975 to '80, I was probably the best player in the game.... I should be in the Hall of Fame. Ain't no doubt about it."
Dave, Michael Hoban and I do have doubts about it. Congratulations on your 1978 NL MVP and all, but your status as window-gazer places you exactly where you belong. Why you ever got as much as 24% of the vote baffles me.
This article, also by Mr. Hoban, lays out an argument about Derek Jeter's fielding. It is calmly laid out, supported at every turn with factual and statistical analysis, and makes the obvious case that the Gold Glove awards (in particular Jeter's 2004 prize) are meaningless.
The article quotes Derek Jeter: "
But I couldn't really care less what some mathematical equation comes out with." "How do you rank defensive shortstops?" Jeter said. "I don't see how a formula can evaluate how somebody plays.
I'm sure Derek understands how formulas evaluate how people play: his batting average routinely evaluates some aspect of his performance. He's just happy because he's quite good at a performance-evaluating category that people can understand (well, it only involves one math operation) and that people are so pleased with his performance in that category that they award him things in other categories.
The larger point is: Michael Hoban, PhD and 35-year professor of mathematics, is better at writing a simple and effective argument than the vast majority of those who are
paid - most likely more than a professor - to do exactly that. The problem with baseball journalism is that it can be produced by people in other occupations in their spare time (for example, Michael Hoban)... and the quality of their journalism is as good, and often better, than that of the men who are paid to analyze and report on the game.
