Thursday, March 29, 2007

Hall of Fame Grumblings

Originally posted on Friday, January 12, 2007

The Hall of Fame voting came and went this year...
Once again Jim Rice got hosed. Once again I need to grumble.

- A lot has been made about the fact that no player has ever been elected
unanimously. But it is still mind boggling.

Some sports writers actually looked at his ballot and said "Babe Ruth... I don't
know... we're reserving this for the BEST players."

More than one person thought "Willie Mays? Not sure about him. He was a one
dimensional player."

"Jackie Robinson... not sure. Did he have the intangibles?"

"Joe DiMaggio... nah. Not a dominating player."

"Hank Aaron? He's a nice player but did he do anything to be placed among the best?"

Anyone who DIDN'T vote for Ripken and Gwynn should have their voting rights
immediately rescinded and those voting privileges sent to me.

- Almost as crazy as not voting for Ripken is the fact that someone DID vote for Jay

Jay Buhner. A decent power hitter who struck out too often and hit behind Ken
Griffey Jr and Edgar Martinez and Alex Rodriguez. Seemed like a nice guy with a
shaved head and not a bad guy to have bat 5th or 6th.

How the hell did HE get a Hall of Fame vote. I really hope it was a sportswriter
friend of Buhner who said "Hey! He's a nice guy! He doesn't deserve a zero next to
his name. What's the harm in giving him one vote?"

I really hope someone didn't look at his stats and say "Wow! This guy had like 3
pretty good seasons. LET'S IMMORTALIZE HIM!"

And while there is no real harm in that vote... imagine if a bunch of sportswriters
all did that. Imagine if there was a likable guy like Buhner and the required number
of sportswriters, unbenownst to each others plans, put a check mark next to Buhner.

And suddenly Buhner is on the podium with Stan Musial and Hank Aaron looking on. His
plaque would read "Um... he had three pretty good seasons."

And Pete Rose is put on suicide watch.

- It always baffles me that writers say things like "He's a Hall of Famer... just
shouldn't be in on the first ballot."

Anyone who thinks that is an admitted a-hole.
They are basically saying "You've earned it... I just won't give it to you yet." And
then diabolically laughs while petting a white cat.

If someone is good enough, they are good enough. What are they going to do in
between ballots? Play again and pile up some more hits? This isn't Mr. 3,000 for god

- If getting into the Hall of Fame on your first ballot is so important, then why
not have first ballot members in a special wing. And the more ballots it takes you
to get in, the worse your spot is in the Hall.

Bruce Sutter's would be over one of the urinals.

- What always sucks about the Hall of Fame process is more time is always spent on
who DIDN'T get in rather than celebrating who did. Whether it was Pete Rose's book
coming out when Molitor and Eck got it, Buck O'Neill's snubbing and now McGwire's
non election... it seems the way to get people's attention is to NOT get voted in.

My pal Ritchie Duncan, whose site should be
visited by everyone, hockey fan or not, says the hockey hall of fame is the best.

His reasoning is sound. They don't worry about morality. Cheats, drunks,
criminals... they all are let in.

- Next year is a light year for the Hall's new class. I mean if Jim Rice can twist
in the wind, then Tim Raines and David Justice can too.

It looks good for Rice and Gossage for next year. Sadly Buhner is off the ballot.


  1. I came across several blogs like this one today as I was browsing for dental baseball . I read your blog and I found it interesting. Seeing the step by step process of sportswriters was quite delightful. By the way, the modernistic blogger design is wonderful.

  2. It is quite hard to fit someone without criteria. You have to limit your election to something that it has well define boundaries.