More Strange HOF Voting
January 25, 2008 by Michael Hoban · 3 Comments
Maury Wills came onto the BBWAA ballot in 1978.In that first year, he got 115 votes (30%).Luis Aparicio, another shortstop, joined him on the ballot in 1979.Wills got 38% of the vote in 1979 compared to 28% for Aparicio.In 1980, Wills got more votes than Aparicio again – 38% to 32%.In 1981, Wills bested Aparicio again – 41% to 12%
So, for the first three years that Luis was on the ballot, Maury did better than he did.Note that Aparicio fell from 32% in 1980 to only 12% in 1981.That would seem to imply that he was losing support and was in a downward spiral.Or so it would seem to the average fan looking on.But the weird voting patterns of the writers was about to kick in again.In 1982, Aparicio suddenly jumped to 42% (from 12%).What happened?Had he suddenly become a better shortstop?I hardly think so.
But wait – it gets better.In the next two votes, Aparicio got 67% in 1983 and 85% in 1984 when he was elected to the Hall of Fame.In other words, having gotten just 12% of the vote in 1981, Luis Aparicio was in the Hall just three years later.And what happened to Maury Wills?
When Wills got 41% of the vote in 1981, that was more than three times as many votes as fellow shortstop Aparicio got.Yet, Aparicio was in the Hall just three years later and Wills’ 41% in 1981 was the best he ever did.He remained on the ballot through 1992 but never got 40% of the vote again.
Is there any explanation for such strange voting patterns – especially for two solid players at the same shortstop position?Bill James, in his book The Politics of Glory ,seems to suggest that some articles written around this time may have had some impact on the voting.Leonard Koppett, writing in the Sporting News in February of 1979 suggested that Aparicio, PeeWee Reese and Phil Rizzuto were outstanding defensive shortstops who deserved to be in the Hall.And he suggested that Aparicio was the best of the group.And in March of 1982, Dave Anderson wrote an article in the New York Times entitled “Five Forgotten Shortstops.â€In it, he argued that Aparicio, Reese, Rizzuto, Marty Marion and Maury Wills should all be in the Hall.
These articles (and others) do seem to have had some impact.But, if anything, that would just illustrate how capricious the voting for the Hall of Fame really is – if so many of the voters can be influenced so easily.
The NEWS monitor shows that neither Luis Aparicio or Maury Wills has
| Player | CWS | CV | NEWS |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Maury Wills
|
253 | 218 | 227 |
|
Luis Aparicio
|
293
|
193
|
218
|
It does seem to be a shame that more of the people who vote in the Hall of Fame elections do not take this privilege more seriously.
For more info on the NEWS HOF Gauge, see BASEBALL’S BEST: The TRUE Hall of Famers on this site.
Interesting. I would have thought Aparicio was a much stronger candidate than Wills. Defensively, I think he definitely belongs. He is in the Bill Mazeroski category of defensive greatness. Is Marty Marion still not in the HOF? He is the one defensive player my father told me a few times about that should be considered, as well as his own old favorite, Joe Gordan. I doubt he is in the hall either.
Marion is not in the Hall of Fame and I doubt he’ll ever be inducted. The most similar player to Marion over the last 20 years is Scott Fletcher and I doubt anyone thinks Fletcher is a Hall of Famer. Marion was a better glove man, though. (Bill James gives him an A+ in his Win Shares book and gives Fletcher a C+). James has Marion ranked 45th among shortstops in his Historical Baseball Abstract.
He has Aparicio ranked 13th and Wills ranked 19th. By most measures Wills was a better hitter, but Aparicio was better on defense (one of the best ever) and was a better base stealer , recording a 78.7% success rate vs. a 73.8% success rate for Wills. Besides, Wills was an asshole. That may have affected the voting somewhat.