Hall Pass

I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time. - Blaise Pascal

That sums up this post, in which I went a bit long.... I mean really long.  See if it holds your attention.

Hall of Fame mebership requirements is a recurring subject in just about all sports, and I find myself often thinking back to Bill James' voluminous writing and analysis of the baseball version thereof.  That's especially appropriate here, as in assessing the World Golf Hall of Fame the great Jaime Diaz leans heavily on baseball analogies.... though his grasp of that game may not be up to his usual standards.

Here's his lede:

Consider the following 20-name roll call: Tom Weiskopf, Corey Pavin, Mark Calcavecchia, David Duval, Graham Marsh, Mike Souchak, Jug McSpaden, Johnny

Revolta, Dutch Harrison, Jim Ferrier, Bill Mehlhorn, Doug Sanders, Johnny Farrell, Macdonald Smith, Max Faulkner, Bobby Cruickshank, Willie Macfarland, Hal Sutton, Susie Berning, Jan Stephenson, Sandra Palmer. 

It’s a list, surely random to nongolfers, but also probably underwhelming to most golfers brought up in our current celebrity culture. Among the men, none won more than one major, and only Marsh (who had one PGA Tour victory but 45 more on assorted international tours) had more than the 24 official victories of the major-less Smith. But by definition, or at least my estimation, all are or were great golfers. And, very likely, in coming years most if not all will be inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame.

Regular readers know that I think quite highly of Jaime, and one of our few rules in this joint is that you read his entire piece when I link to him.  That said, if he's making the case that Jan Stephenson, who remains best-known for photos like the one below, belongs in the WGHOF, we're going to have to dissent:

Not that there's anything wrong with that...  And while the attractive Aussie did have an actual career, winning sixteen LPGA events including three majors, one of those majors was something called The Peter Jackson Classic.  One assumes it's not this Peter Jackson, but one doesn't really care...

OK, so we've availed ourselves of some morning cheesecake, let's let Jaime finish his thought:

To some hard-line golf historians, including some former players, the new criteria is too

watered down and accommodating, so that golf’s pantheon has at best become a “Hall of Very Good.” 

However, it’s a narrow-minded view. The practical reality is that golf, like any major sport, needs a vibrant Hall of Fame. The problem is that golf long ago ran out of truly iconic players to be enshrined. They all got in a long time ago, unfortunately in bunches. In 1974, the WGHOF's first induction class included 13 such icons: Patty Berg, Walter Hagen, Ben Hogan, Bobby Jones, Byron Nelson, Jack Nicklaus, Francis Ouimet, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Gene Sarazen, Sam Snead, Harry Vardon and Babe Zaharias. The next year, 11 greats of slightly lesser fame and accomplishment went in. Talk about blowing your savings account. 

In comparison, baseball inducted only five players in the first Cooperstown class of 1936: Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson.

Did he just call me hard-line?  For thinking that maybe, perhaps Johnny Revolta is not Hall of Fame material?   I'm sorry, this isn't even close to Jaime's best work.... And that difference in first-year classes can be explained by all that occurred between, say, 1936 and 1974.

But here's the serious point that James has been so good on and that Jaime elides, we can have great intellectual discussions about where the line should be drawn.  From his list above, I'm open to persuasion on guys like Weiskopf and Duval, as I was open to Couples and Montgomerie.  Each involves specific accomplishments measure against the perception of his (or her) era.  The challenge is that each time you make an exception, you've effectively lowered the bar....

Shall we let Jaime continue digging?

There is no doubt the WGHOF has set minimum victory requirement that is lower than what had unofficially been imposed. But it had to. While 15 lifetime victories seemed

like a pittance when the game’s giants—several with more than 60 victories and in some cases double-digit majors—were being inducted, it’s also become clear that winning 15 times in the post-1975 era is a greater achievement than it would have been before, much like a .280 lifetime batting average is now more worthy of a spot in Cooperstown. 

Recognizing the greatness in players who were stalwarts but didn’t win as much as the very best helps one understand the immense challenge of the game. Lowering standards increases appreciation, and keeps up the supply of candidates. It’s all good.

Wow, I'm really fit to be tied at this point...  His basic premise would seem to be that golf's greater depth argues for relaxing standards (and he's appropriately drawn the distinction that wins are about the only stat we have in golf), and I agree.  Though he doesn't seem interested in making the case that fifteen is the right number....  Amusingly, Hal Sutton won fourteen PGA Tour events, and he doesn't remotely seem to this observer to be the kind of guy demanding a bronze bust....

This is also what I meant by Jaime misunderstanding baseball, as he seems to think that batting averages move only in one direction.  The great insight that Bill James brought to bear was to analyze a player's output compared to the standards of the day.  A .280 batting average in 1968 was an achievement, in 1935 it was barely average.

But it's that last 'graph that has me grinding my teeth, as lowering standards is, well, lowering standards.  It's not all good, it diminishes the accomplishment....  again we can have a spirited debate about the optimal standard, but Jaime completely elides the damage done by lowering them.  And one can easily see the reductio ad absurdum argument of why fifteen?  How about anyone that's won on Tour?  How about anyone that's played on Tour?  That would really increase appreciation and you'd have an endless supply....

Jaime makes a series of very specific arguments, which I'll discuss in brief.  he takes the Hall to task for honoring players in their forties who aren't done, such as Phil, Ernie and Vijay.  That is indeed an unforced error, and just made the Hall look silly.  But again, perhaps that's why there's a supply issue....

Additionally he makes the case for specific players, with this being the most interesting to me:

The Hall’s veterans committee should not delay in voting in the late Calvin Peete (above), before Woods the greatest golfer of African-American descent in history, who with a completely self-made game won 12 times including a Players.

Hey, at least he hasn't called me racist.  This is a difficult case because of golf's unfortunate ties to exclusivity....  Peete did just enough that his case isn't laughable, but it's also not quite the level one would like.  But I'd like the Hall to recognize Peete, I'm just slightly uncomfortable with it being purely on his playing record.

But then he makes a series of cases that have my eyes rolling uncontrollably:

Take for example Doug Sanders. OK, he didn’t have a major among his 20 victories (though he was second in majors four times). But not only was Sanders one of the great shotmakers of all time, he was a genuinely colorful and charismatic character who brought fans to the game.

You're kidding, right?  Is there a single human that watches golf because of Doug Sanders?  I mean if colorful is the standard, then I guess Billy Horschel is a lock.... he makes a similar case for Bubba the shotmaker, but two green jackets opens my mind more in that case (plus the little detail that he might add to the total).

He also makes the arguable case for Euro stalwarts Westy, Sergio and Stenson, that remind of Colin Montgomerie.  These are no doubt serious players who should be considered, but my point is to understand how Monty's selection becomes the pivot point in considering these guys.  

I'm also amused that the one name missing in all this is John Daly....  a man with two majors but only five Tour wins....  But great shotmaker: check.  Long hitter: check.  Colorful: Jesus, are you serious?

I've always assumed that Daly was the guy that would ultimately undermine Hall standards, but regular readers know how he's always irked me for his squandering of talent.

In any event, I think this is an interesting subject for the off-season wraparound portion of the schedule and an important lesson for us all.  Even the best occasionally shank one.