BBWAA Logic

It’s Hall of Fame season again for baseball, which means it’s the time of year when we start to see some really mind-altering arguments made by people who apparently never had to take a course in logic on the way to their journalism degrees.  I don’t want to dwell on this kind of thing, but from time to time one of the arguments is so painfully bad that it makes my head hurt if I don’t say something.

This is one of those times.  Bruce Jenkins of the San Francisco Chronicle posted his Hall of Fame ballot today.  I’m not going to get into the individual merits of all the players in question, I just want to point out the horrific logic Jenkins used on a couple of them.

First, Jenkins gives a brief overview of his personal criteria for evaluating players.  Whether or not individual writers should apply their own subjective criteria is a subject for another day.  For now, let’s just read what Jenkins has to say about longevity as a criterion for Hall of Fame worthiness:

One must take heed of longevity. There hasn’t been a more exciting, explosive, Cooperstown-worthy hitter than Will Clark in his early years with the Giants. Like the late Thurman Munson or the classy Don Mattingly, he simply didn’t do it long enough.

Okay, fair enough.  Whether that’s a good criterion or not really doesn’t matter.  All that matters, for now, is that Jenkins thinks career length matters, and that guys like Will Clark, Thurman Munson and Don Mattingly simply did not play long enough to be deserving of the Hall of Fame.  Got it.

So we move along to Jenkins actual ballot, and we find this entry:

Don Mattingly: Yes, if only to make a point. Mattingly has no chance, because of the persistent back injuries that essentially had wrecked his career by the age of 28. But he was the epitome of greatness in the late 1980s, the very essence of “ballplayer.” He needs some votes, just to know that people remember.

Well, now, wait a minute.  You just said, Bruce, that Will Clark was one of those guys like “the classy Don Mattingly” who you could never support for the Hall of Fame because they “simply didn’t do it long enough”.  Now, about 300 words later in the same column, you say you’re supporting Don Mattingly.  What the hell?  Why the double take on Mattingly?  I don’t give a damn about him being the “epitome of greatness” (especially since that’s, you know, a bunch of malarkey), it’s simply not fair to waive your own personal longevity rule for one guy and not the other, particularly when the guy you refused to waive it for, Clark, was a better hitter than Don Mattingly.  Don’t take my word for it, just look up the career numbers:

Will Clark – 1976 games, 2176 hits, 1186 runs, 1205 RBI, 284 homers, 937 walks, .303 AVG, .384 OBP, .497 SLG, 137 OPS+

Don Mattingly – 1785 games, 2153 hits, 1007 runs, 1099 RBI, 222 homers, 588 walks, .307 AVG, .358 OBP, .471 SLG, 127 OPS+

Other than five measly points of batting average, Will Clark was a better hitter than Mattingly in every way.  He wasn’t as good a fielder, but he was still very good, and he was an excellent post-season player, too.  He even managed to stay on the field for a couple hundred extra games, since that seems to be so important to you, Bruce.

I guess I just don’t get it.  Not only did Jenkins flip-flop within the same column, but he did so on the lesser player.  Real baseball writers, like Joe Posnanski and Jayson Stark, who are genuinely conscientious about their voting privileges, must read this kind of thing from one of their voting brethren and cringe.