Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Not in My House

I'm not sure what the Hall of Fame Veterans Committee is trying to accomplish, but they're sure not going about it very well. Now that the committee has failed to vote anyone into the Hall for the third consecutive time, talk has begun of revamping the process. But that's the wrong solution. They should simply do away with the committee.

I have written before of my bafflement regarding players who seem to grow in esteem the farther they get into their retirement years. Players get on the ballot five years after their final seasons, then remain subject to judgment for 15 years so long as they reach minimum vote totals. I have never quite understood why a player who has failed to convince 75 percent of HOF voters -- most if not all of whom have seen the player in the prime of his career -- within 20 years that they should get in should continue to be considered for who knows how many more years. I would make an exception, of course, for the Negro League players who never received real consideration from the baseball writers. Some process also would have to be created so that managers and other non-players could be considered. But that could easily be accomplished within the context of the regular voting.

And it's not like the current Veterans Committee has distinguished itself. Of the 81 voters, only 51 voted for Marvin Miller, the former head of the players union. You can make a compelling case that Miller is the most significant baseball figure of the past 40 years. Anyone who says he is not among the five most significant figures during that time period simply has no idea what he is talking about. He almost single-handedly, for better or for worse (better, of course, for all the millionaires he created), revolutionized the sport by freeing players to sell their talents on the open market. I love some of the writers and broadcasters who have been voted in recently, but there is a serious problem with a Hall of Fame that includes Harry Kalas or Ernie Harwell but not Marvin Miller.

I also find it puzzling that the committee votes on umpires, like Doug Harvey, who inexplicably received more votes (52) than Miller. What, exactly, is the standard by which one judges whether someone is a Hall of Fame-caliber umpire? It can't just be longevity, any more than a long career means that a player gets in. Tony Gwynn was, by any objective measure, a better hitter during the prime of his career than 99 percent of his peers. By what objective measure is Harvey being measured?

The other advantage of doing away with the Veterans Committee is that it would end the biennial whining that occurs when Ron Santo does not get elected. I am old enough to remember a good chunk of Santo's career. He was a very good player, as these number show, but he does not belong in the Hall of Fame. Simply put, he was not great, and he hasn't gotten any better just because he has stayed in the public eye as a Cubs' announcer. If anyone has a gripe it is Jim Kaat, who pitched for 25 years, won 283 games, and might be the best fielding pitcher ever, having won 16 Gold Gloves, including an astonishing 12 straight.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home