The Worst HOF Argument You Can Make

So stop making it…

THE WORST HOF ARGUMENT ONE CAN MAKE

“I saw Joe Shlabotnik play, and lemme tell you something, [ROLEN] is no Joe Shlabotnik!”

“I’ve watched baseball for 40 years. I’ll rely on my own two eyes. [VIZQUEL] was the best I’ve ever seen, and the eye test doesn’t lie!”

Here’s the thing: Unless you’ve played at the major league level, or have been employed by a major league team in talent evaluation and acquisition, you’re not qualified to assess player ability — certainly not at the very highest levels.

It doesn’t matter how many games you’ve watched on TV. It doesn’t matter how many times you’ve made a pilgrimage to the Stadium.

You’re not qualified.

Even if you played in college; even if you were good enough to make it to the minors.

You’re not qualified.

You’re just not.

And even if you WERE a major league scout with decades of experience — hell, even if you head up player development for a major league team, your “eye test” tells us nothing — nothing — about player production.

Don’t get me wrong: There’s nothing more enjoyable than watching a game. Witnessing the fluid grace of Will Clark’s swing, the ice-pick stab of Ron Guidry’s slider, the feverish poetry that is Javy Baez in the field. But the aesthetic quality of a player’s game tells us nothing about how good he was; tell us nothing about his resume.

It’s production we use to assess a candidate’s HOF qualifications.

And for that, we rely on…

Yep. The numbers.

We rely on the numbers because our “eyes” are really our memories. And our memories are selective; our memories are biased; our memories lie.

Our memories play favorites; our memories bring us joy and surface pain. Our memories are everything, everywhere, all at once.

But they’re not informed, and they’re not reliable.

The “eye test” is rigged; stop taking it.

Put another way: For god’s sake, Clemente was NOT better than Mantle!