A Hall of Fame Wish

Very shortly, Rickey Henderson will give his Hall of Fame speech. Rickey, of course, played many years with Jose Canseco on the Oakland A's. Without turning this into a Raul Ibanez thing, let's just acknowledge there's a probability greater than zero and less than one that he took steroids.

So here's my wish for his speech: Rickey gets announced, walks up to the podium, basks in the applause for a few minutes, coaxes a little more to draw it out, adjusts the mic, flashes a huge grin, and says, "Hey, guess what? I took steroids. You voted me in. Nothing you can do about it now. Suckers!"

Of course, this all rests on the premise that he actually took steroids and would be willing to throw away lots and lots of future monies. That said, he's one of the few people in the history of baseball who'd be crazy enough to pull it off.

Read more...

A little something more on the Veterans Committee

Right away, thanks to reader "TR" for tipping us off to this ESPN Radio 1000 clip of a Bruce Levine interview with Joe Morgan (feat. mystery woman). Listen and continue reading.

First off, it's a shame we don't get more of this interview because this tiny clip doesn't represent Levine's position very well. Having said that, the clip doesn't make Levine or Morgan sound very good. As far as we can tell, Levine is a) upset that the Veterans Committee didn't vote Ron Santo into the Hall of Fame, b) displeased with the VC because they haven't voted in anyone the last three times they've convened, and c) in favor of discarding the Veterans Committee altogether.

Morgan, on the other hand, gets offended by Levine's challenge to the Committee's qualifications without offering any reason why they are truly qualified. Then by admitting he lacked knowledge of an eligible candidate, Morgan conveniently illustrates why we should question the committee's qualifications.

Morgan's assertion that the committee shouldn't be obligated to elect someone just because they convene is correct. The biannual convening of the baseball deities is an opportunity to veto a flagrant ommission by the writers; it necessitates no particular action, other than a careful review of eligible candidates. The three consecutive meetings without an election does not in itself signify a flaw, as some have oddly suggested. If a Bill Mazeroski-type had been elected each of the last three rounds, now that would signify a flaw. When Maz got elected in 2001, the VC was doing their job too well, so to speak.

The suggestion that the VC has outlived its purpose baffles me as well. I tend to think that a body with veto power over the writers' vote will always be useful. Whether it should be solely populated by Hall of Fame players is an altogether different question--the answer to which is, "Probably not."

I guess my point, if I have one, is this. Neither the writers nor the VC are very qualified to vote on the Hall of Fame. Baseball fans should feel uncomfortable knowing that Hall of Fame induction goes by way of Yankees-obsessed MSNBC columnist Mike Celizic--better known as Fire Joe Morgan's "Hatguy" (pictured above right, in different hat)--and that his opinion is checked by the likes of Morgan. The problem with the VC is not that they elect too few players or that their function is obsolete. The problem is that they may be as biased and uninformed as the writers. And if that's the case, why should they have veto power?

Are members of the VC as biased and uninformed as Chuck Beatwriter of the Minneapolis Star who only got his position because Harry Editorinchief is his uncle? Not likely, but I doubt there are many Rob Neyers in the bunch. And perhaps more important than the individual merits of the members is the collective bias inherent in the fact that the VC members are all Hall of Famers themselves. That's kind of a problem too.

Joe Morgan is right--it means something that the writers voted a guy down for fifteen straight years. But if a VC member (i.e. one like Joe) justifies voting for no one on this basis, then it altogether defeats the purpose of the committee. Judging by the vote totals this week, most of the members are not so stupid. Which is encouraging.

Until Peter Gammons and Rob Neyer's votes count for ten each, the HOF does need some kind of veto power on the writers. But if Joe Morgan thinks that the living Hall of Famers--with their lack of commitment to research and their inherent bias--are best qualified to serve this role, then he is an arrogant fool. But we already knew that.

(One last thing--is it just me or does Celizic look like a completely different person with a change of hat? Observe:

Judging by his proclivity to contradict hiself in his columns, a reasonable theory is that he morphs into different people depending on what hat he's wearing.)

Read more...

"Ohhh...Geez!"

So the pompous old men on the Veterans Committee--the same pompous old men who believe Bill Mazeroski is a Hall of Famer--passed on the everyone's favorite Square-D Electronics spokesman Ron Santo yet again. And as a Cubs fan whose uncle was once driven home from Wrigley by Santo when he was thirteen (true story folks), I'd feel I was neglecting my duty if I didn't complain.

I guess what amazes me about Santo's repeated snubs is that it so plainly contradicts most criteria used by Hall of Fame voters--even the bad ones. Lots of All-Star appearances--he has those. Best at his position during his prime--he was that. Excelled on both offense and defense--he did that. Reputation as a "gritty" player--he had that too. The one bad criterion he doesn't pass--postseason performance. Of course, if a voter counts team accomplishment against a player for Hall of Fame candidacy--and many voters do--he should have his privileges stripped. But life ain't fair.

As far as statistics, Santo's are pleasing to all tastes. Tons of walks (in an era when walking was rarely encouraged) and RBIs--those are numbers both Earl Weaver and Dusty "It's called hitting, not walking" Baker can appreciate. They may not be Willie Mays, but they are Joe Morgan.

It really does make you wonder--how much is the voting process skewed by personal grudges, or at least personal distaste. A lot of Santo's contemporaries thought he was a brash jerk; Mazeroski was everyone's darling because he was a gamer and a glueguy...and clutch!

But for all of Santo's qualifications, one factor should never enter the argument. And that's his diabetes. I realize that many writers bring it up merely to augment his case with dramatic flair or emotional appeal. But strictly regarding his qualifications, overcoming diabetes to excell at baseball--while incredible--should be viewed no differently than, say, injury struggles, below-average eyesight, or anything else that hinders one's ability to play baseball. When a writer tries to use Santo's diabetes as a criterion for his induction or as a means to rescale his numbers, it devalues Santo's accomplishments, undermines the argument, and--worst of all--patronizes Santo.

If Santo's as humble a guy as everyone says, he probably doesn't get too annoyed by the frequent allusions to his condition (after all, it does bring attention to his charity). At the same time, I'm sure he doesn't want to be a charity case himself. Like everyone else, he just wants to be rightly acknowledged for being really good at playing baseball. Fortunately, that mysterious upward trend by which retired guys get better with time is on his side right now. Let's hope it continues for one more round of voting.

Read more...