Hall monitors: Where's the line for getting in to Cooperstown?

Bill Mazeroski has a plaque in the Hall of Fame. So why doesn't Frank White? AP

In the end, it's probably self-defeating to play the "If he's in, then HE should be in" Hall of Fame Game. It's fun to play, no doubt, and it allows us Frank White fans to unleash all sorts of moral indignation because his career is virtually IDENTICAL to that of Bill Mazeroski*, and yet Maz is in the Hall while Frank never even got close. There's something unfair about it all.

*When I say identical, I mean it's hard to imagine two players being so similar. Both were brilliant defensive second basemen who won eight gold gloves. Maz hit .260, Frank .255, and Maz walked a touch more (neither walked much), but Frank had 100 more doubles and 20 more homers. Maz hit one of the most famous homers in World Series history, Frank was the first ever ALCS MVP. Maz made seven All-Star Games (not counting the years that had two All-Star Games) to Frank's five, but Frank stole 150 more bases. And so on and so on.

The "He's in" game is fun to play, but the truth is that it has pretty much nothing to do with how the Hall of Fame works. The Hall of Fame has been around since 1939, and the standards are constantly shifting because the game is constantly changing.

I remember there being a bit of hand-wringing in the mid-1980s when Dave Kingman passed the 400-homer mark ... up to that point (if you can believe this) EVERY SINGLE ELIGIBLE PLAYER who hit 400 homers was in the Hall of Fame. Every one. So the question was: What would the voters do? Kingman was a .238 hitter! He struck out three times more often than he walked! He made twice the league average in errors! He sent a reporter a rat! Now he had 400 homers! What would the voters do??

Well, of course, Kingman's name came up on the ballot, and he promptly got three votes -- all as jokes, no doubt -- and was gone from the discussion forever. It really wasn't that hard. See, Hall of Famer voter don't go based on anything as plain as "400 homers," or "3,000 hits" or "300 wins" though those play into the thinking. Hall of Fame voters go on some nebulous combination of statistics, memory, gut reaction, testimony, moral judgements and ego. It's a messy process, not at all the orderly and logical thinking of "Well, if Ozzie Smith made it first ballot and Barry Larkin is as good as Ozzie Smith, then Barry Larkin will make it first ballot too." That's just not how it goes.

So, up front let me say: That's not what I'm trying to accomplish here. I'm not saying that because Luis Aparicio is in, Dave Concepcion should be in or how absurd it is to have Catfish Hunter in the Hall but not Bert Blyleven.

No, I'm trying here to figure out the Hall a little bit, to find that ever-moving line (if there is one) between the Hall of Famer and the not quite. So here's what I've done ... I've paired up a few Hall of Famers with non-Hall of Famer who played pretty much the same position (except in a couple of cases) and is more-or-less from the same time (repeat: "More or less"). In my mind, the non-Hall of Famer in each case has a reasonable case for being as good or almost as good as the Hall of Famer.

So what kept those people out? I think it comes down to three categories: Longevity, Perception and Uniqueness.

Let's see if it works.

Hall of Famer: Luis Aparicio.
Non Hall of Famer: Dave Concepcion.
Difference: Uniqueness.

In my book (and did I mention I am writing a book about the 1975 Reds?), Concepcion was a better player than Aparicio. He hit a little better and with a little more power (88 OPS+ to Aparicio's 82) and from all my intensive research, he was every bit as good a defensive shortstop, possibly even better. But, Aparicio came along first, and he was unique, he led the league in stolen bases every year from 1956 to 1964 and he won the Gold Glove pretty much every year just after they started giving out Gold Gloves.* Concepcion also stole a lot of bases and won Gold Gloves, but Aparicio came along first, and as such he's in the Hall of Fame.

*For some reason this sentence brought to mind an all-time classic commercial line  I know I just mentioned "Two great tastes that taste great together." Well how about "Four out of five dentists recommend Trident gum for their patients who chew gum." Or was it Dentyne?

Hall of Famer: Jim Bottomley
Non Hall of Famer: Bob Johnson
Difference: Perception
Note: Bottomley was a first baseman and Bob Johnson mostly an outfielder, but for the point of this comparison I don't think that matters very much.

One of the key things, in my mind, that makes up baseball perception is the statistic of choice. For years and years -- even now, though to a lesser extent -- baseball players with high batting averages have had the potential to be wildly overrated. Pitchers with a lot of wins had potential to be wildly overrated. Recently -- and this is still VERY true -- closers with a lot of saves have potential to be wildly overrated.

Now, let's get this right: This is not to say that all players with high averages, a lot of wins or a lot of saves ARE overrated. That's not even close to true. Babe Ruth hit for a high average and is, patently, not overrated. Tom Seaver won a lot of games and is, unquestionably, not overrated. Mariano Rivera has a lot of saves and is, in my humble opinion, not the least bit overrated either.

No, what I'm saying here is that players who excel at those popular stats have the potential to be overvalued because while those stats do illuminate some parts of the game, they leave other parts very much hidden in the dark.*

*Love of mine/someday you will die/but I'll be close behind/I'll follow you into the dark. No blinding light/or tunnels to gaze of white/just our hands clasped so tight/waiting for the hint of a spark. If heaven and hell decide/that they both are satisfied Illuminate the No's/on their vacancy signs. If there's no one beside you when your soul embarks Then I'll follow you into the dark

Sorry, I just happened to be listening to that song while I was typing in that last sentence. Awesome song.

So, Jim Bottomley hit .310 for his career. He twice finished second in the batting race, he won the 1928 MVP award (probably deserved it though Rogers Hornsby hit .387 with a .632 slugging percentage that year), led the league in doubles twice and homers once and so on. Bottomley also drove in 12 runs in one game.

Indian Bob Johnson, meanwhile, hit .296 for his career. So that's obviously not as good. He had about 250 fewer hits and almost 150 fewer RBIs than Bottomley. He never won an MVP award, and only once finished in the Top 5 and that was when he was 38, and it was during World War II.

So what does Bob Johnson offer? Well, he walked 400 times more than Bottomley, and he smashed about 70 more homers. His on-base percentage is 20 points higher, his slugging percentage is higher, he stole almost twice as many bases. Johnson didn't make it to the big leagues until he was 27 -- it was just very hard for outfielders to break through to the big leagues in his era. That doesn't necessarily add to his case, but it just adds a little perspective.

Most people couldn't even tell you that Jim Bottomley is in the Hall of Fame, and fewer people care. So I doubt that it has given him much more fame than Indian Bob Johnson. But he is in, and I would say it is for his average and RBIs ("Superb clutch hitter" are the first three words on his Hall of Fame plaque). If people had been more interested in on-base percentage and runs scored, everyone would have believed Bob Johnson was a better player.