All-star appearances in HOF arguments: pointless?

[FedEx227]

The awesome reputation that comes from fan voting.

You have seen the starting lineups on some of those All Star Games, right? You do realize Gil Meche and Mark Redman made All Star Games based off the 1-player per team rule? It's like using Pro Bowls as a measurement when they count people that were initially voted in and all the people that got in later because those original people didn't really feel like going.

Sily. There's so many other things to look at, why look at how many times someone had a good half year?

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

The awesome reputation that comes from fan voting.

You have seen the starting lineups on some of those All Star Games, right? You do realize Gil Meche and Mark Redman made All Star Games based off the 1-player per team rule? It's like using Pro Bowls as a measurement when they count people that were initially voted in and all the people that got in later because those original people didn't really feel like going.

Sily. There's so many other things to look at, why look at how many times someone had a good half year?

Shut up, nerd.

Who is talking about Gil Meche or Mark Redman? Who did they keep out of the Hall of Fame because they sucked the least on a sucky team at the halfway point of the season?

Do tell.

You miss the forest for the trees, dweeb.

The perfect example of reputation surpassing ability was already mentioned...the Joe Namath of modern baseball, Derek Jeter.

[FirstTimer]

The awesome reputation that comes from fan voting.

You have seen the starting lineups on some of those All Star Games, right? You do realize Gil Meche and Mark Redman made All Star Games based off the 1-player per team rule? It's like using Pro Bowls as a measurement when they count people that were initially voted in and all the people that got in later because those original people didn't really feel like going.

Sily. There's so many other things to look at, why look at how many times someone had a good half year?

While I see the point...I think the bigger picture is that Gil Meche wasn't making 10 consecutive All Star games. I would think a guy making multiple All Star games would mean a lot more in proper context and is worth more of a discussion than "Pff All Star games mean jack, Gil Meche made one once". Kind of the same principle behind while GG's may be flawed they can give an overall feel and if a guy wins a bunch of them it's more than likely telling you something relevant to the bigger picture and shouldn't be disregarded because Jeter has won a couple he shouldn't have.

I just think compeltely discounting a guy like Ken Griffey Jr's 13 All Star games or Ron Santo's 9 All Star games as an accomplishment because Gil Meche made one is rather odd and too large a step to take.

[nwfisch]

If I'm going to say one is/isn't worthy of Hall of Fame consideration/admittance, All-star games are worth noting, but that's it.

A player's stats have always been the determining factors regards to hall of fame admittance.

[NAHSTE]

Kind of the same principle behind while GG's may be flawed they can give an overall feel and if a guy wins a bunch of them it's more than likely telling you something relevant to the bigger picture and shouldn't be disregarded because Jeter has won five he shouldn't have.

Fixed.

[Senser81]

While I see the point...I think the bigger picture is that Gil Meche wasn't making 10 consecutive All Star games. I would think a guy making multiple All Star games would mean a lot more in proper context and is worth more of a discussion than "Pff All Star games mean jack, Gil Meche made one once". Kind of the same principle behind while GG's may be flawed they can give an overall feel and if a guy wins a bunch of them it's more than likely telling you something relevant to the bigger picture and shouldn't be disregarded because Jeter has won a couple he shouldn't have.

I just think compeltely discounting a guy like Ken Griffey Jr's 13 All Star games or Ron Santo's 9 All Star games as an accomplishment because Gil Meche made one is rather odd and too large a step to take.

To use Larry's tired metaphor, I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

The point isn't "Griffey made 13 all-star games, but that doesn't mean anything". The point is that for guys like Bill Madlock and Jack Morris who missed out on appearing in 10+ all-star games wasn't really through any fault of their own. You shouldn't look at a guy's HOF resume and dismiss it because he only made the all-star game 4 or 5 times.

[FedEx227]

Exactly. I'm not arguing the obvious legendary guys. Of course making 13 All-Star Games is an accomplishment but it's really a smaller notch on an already great resume, but fringe guys have this come up all the time and it's really not fair at all.

[NAHSTE]

To use Larry's tired metaphor, I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

The point isn't "Griffey made 13 all-star games, but that doesn't mean anything". The point is that for guys like Bill Madlock and Jack Morris who missed out on appearing in 10+ all-star games wasn't really through any fault of their own. You shouldn't look at a guy's HOF resume and dismiss it because he only made the all-star game 4 or 5 times.

This is a good call. So many times HOF arguments straddle the line between "peak value" and "longevity" ... That's where 2 or 3 additional all star games can make the difference between a guy staying on the ballot every year around 20-30%, or being in danger of the 5 % drop range.

Dale Murphy isn't a great example, because other than his 7 all star appearance I can't find any years when he was egregiously snubbed, but say there was a guy like Murphy, who had a great peak but people said he didn't put together enough "good years" ... if he's got 10 ASG appearances instead of 7, plus the pair of MVPs, maybe people (read=dinosaur voters) are more likely to forgive his rapid decline since his resume has a few more shiny bullet points on it.

That is why it is stupid and should be discounted. All Star Game appearances are just one more flawed component of the nebulous criteria that dictates HOF voting. For as much shit as sabers get for removing the human element of the game, holding so rigidly to archaic values as counting milestones and awards/all star games by the dinosaurs robs the game of just as much nuance.

You are telling me the HOF would be worse off with guys like Rich Allen and Dale Murphy? I thought we were telling the story of the game. For a decent amount of the 1980s, Dale Murphy was arguably the best all around player in the majors. THAT SHOULD BE IN THE STORY!

(crap didn't mean to turn this into a soap box for Murphy, just to highlight the gaps in HOF voting logic, and why there shouldn't be such rigidity with its standards)

[Senser81]

If there is one thing I can't stand, its nebulous criteria.

[shag773]

The Bill Madlock Situation


Bill Madlock led the league in hitting 4 times, yet he was an all-star only 3 times. In 1976 he batted .339 with a .412 OBP and a .500 SLG, yet he did not make the all-star game. He was beaten out by Pete Rose (.323/.404/.450) and Ron Cey (.277/.386/.462). Oh, and Mike Schmidt was also on the 1976 all-star team, and he would go on to appear on the 1989 all-star team with a .203 batting average.

I would contend that Madlock not being in the HOF has less to do with AS apprearances and more to do with not reaching certain milestones. He didn't get 3,000 hits or hit 500 homers. Plus, he only played more than 150 games twice.

[FirstTimer]

I agree with your point overall Senser I just don't agree with discounting ASG's completely. Sure it's part of the resume but it's a minor one at that and shouldn't be the tipping point for the guy getting in or being left out. I don't feel they are pointless...just feel that they shouldn't be given a ton of weight

[FedEx227]

How are they worth anything though? You mentioned guys that are clearly lock Hall of Famers based off their resume. I doubt anyone would look at Ken Griffey and go "Yeah but how many ASG did he go to?... Oh okay... then yeah I guess he was good".

[Warner2BruceTD]

Minor part of the picture. I understand what FT is getting at, but he is having problems conveying it.

My biggest gripe isn't even with the lame selection process. My gripe lies in the fact that the selecions are based on half seasons.

I'd be interested to know just how many truly awful selections happen per year. Is it a case of really loud noise over a small percentage of bad picks? I bet historically, there have been fewer really bad selections than we think.

As for snubs, the rosters are gigantic now, which kind of eiminates guys getting snubbed so Evan Meek can rep the Pirates.

I dont know what any of this means, though. Still a minor piece of the puzzle, if any.

[NAHSTE]

I hate when Senser quotes one of my posts. It's always nebulous whether he's being sarcastic or sincere.

[FirstTimer]

How are they worth anything though? You mentioned guys that are clearly lock Hall of Famers based off their resume. I doubt anyone would look at Ken Griffey and go "Yeah but how many ASG did he go to?... Oh okay... then yeah I guess he was good".

I also mentioned a guy like Santo who was clearly a borderline candidate to many people. His 9 ASG's should count for something in the evaluation of the player. They shouldn't be rendered worthless because Gil Meche was an AS once. I think intelligent people can weigh and measure the value and context of a guys ASG appearances. Morons likely can't but they suck anyways......so who cares?