Tweet
In an effort to bolster their claim that a favorite player is “HOF worthy,” some members of this Forum have argued that because the player was selected for the All-Star Game “five years in a row," or "seven times in his 10-year career,” he was “highly regarded by his contemporaries as one of the best at his position.” And therefore that stat (number of All-Star game selections and frequency over a career) should be considered when evaluating a player’s HOF credentials.
Well…maybe. And maybe not. At the very least, we should consider the WAY in which a player was selected for the All-Star Game, because the method has changed several times over the years, and, in my opinion, leads to different conclusions as to the reliability of those All-Star game stats as a criterion for Hall of Fame consideration:
Specifically (from the All-Star Game section of the baseball almanac website):
All-Star teams were originally selected by Managers and fans for the 1933 and 1934 games.
From 1935 through 1946, Managers selected the entire team for each league.
From 1947-57, fans chose the teams’ starters and managers selected the pitchers and remaining players.
From ’58 through ’69, managers, players and coaches made the All-Star team selections.
In 1970, the vote again returned to the fans for the selection of the starters for each team, and remains there today.
So depending on the era in which a player performed, he COULD have been the choice of his peers (’33-’46, ’58-‘69) or the beneficiary of overzealous fans voting in a popularity contest (’47-’57; ’70 through today).
In 1957, fans in Cincinnati stuffed the ballot box, electing EIGHT Reds to the starting lineup and leaving Hank Aaron and Willie Mays on the bench. The player who was elected by the fans to center field was Gus Bell and the player selected to right field was Wally Post. However, due to the unexpected avalanche of votes Commissioner Frick named Mays and Aaron to the starting positions on his authority!
As for using All-Star game selection stats as a measure of HOF worthiness, I’d put more weight on players who were selected by managers and other players rather than by the fans.
Well…maybe. And maybe not. At the very least, we should consider the WAY in which a player was selected for the All-Star Game, because the method has changed several times over the years, and, in my opinion, leads to different conclusions as to the reliability of those All-Star game stats as a criterion for Hall of Fame consideration:
Specifically (from the All-Star Game section of the baseball almanac website):
All-Star teams were originally selected by Managers and fans for the 1933 and 1934 games.
From 1935 through 1946, Managers selected the entire team for each league.
From 1947-57, fans chose the teams’ starters and managers selected the pitchers and remaining players.
From ’58 through ’69, managers, players and coaches made the All-Star team selections.
In 1970, the vote again returned to the fans for the selection of the starters for each team, and remains there today.
So depending on the era in which a player performed, he COULD have been the choice of his peers (’33-’46, ’58-‘69) or the beneficiary of overzealous fans voting in a popularity contest (’47-’57; ’70 through today).
In 1957, fans in Cincinnati stuffed the ballot box, electing EIGHT Reds to the starting lineup and leaving Hank Aaron and Willie Mays on the bench. The player who was elected by the fans to center field was Gus Bell and the player selected to right field was Wally Post. However, due to the unexpected avalanche of votes Commissioner Frick named Mays and Aaron to the starting positions on his authority!
As for using All-Star game selection stats as a measure of HOF worthiness, I’d put more weight on players who were selected by managers and other players rather than by the fans.
Comment