More Hall of Fame Madness
January 2, 2008 by Geoff Young
Filed under Hall of Fame
Vegas Watch has compiled a list of reasons voters have offered in support of their selections for the Class of 2008. Some of them are pretty funny if you’re willing to separate yourself from the fact that these folks are entrusted with something that a lot of people hold sacred.
Jeff at Brew Crew Ball goes so far as to claim that he hates the Hall of Fame. That’s a bit strong for my taste, but I totally understand it.
Here’s how I look at the situation. For me, baseball is almost like religion. The ballpark is my church, and Cooperstown is my Mecca. Okay, technically we’re talking about two different religions now, but just bear with me.
I’ve been to the Hall of Fame twice in my life: once in August 1988, and again this past summer to see Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. inducted. It’s one of the coolest places I’ve ever visited, and I’ll go again the next time it’s feasible for me to do so.
The building, the environment, the history — I’m down with all that. What doesn’t really work for me is the poor attention to details that ought to matter. Doubleday Field? It’s named after a Union general in the Civil War whose connections to baseball are dubious at best rather than, say, the guy who invented the sport.
When I see voters give absurd reasons for letting guys into the Hall or keeping them out, it doesn’t bother me all that much. I figure they’re just keeping in the tradition of poorly documenting our national pastime’s legacy.
Well, okay, that does bother me. But not enough to keep me from enjoying the place when I visit. Does that make sense? Eh, probably not…
I’ve never been to Cooperstown but if they’re still sticking to the Doubleday myth, well that’s just silly.
As far as I’m concerned, all the arguments are about marginal players. As long as they get the Tony Gwynns and Cal Ripkens right I’m not going to gripe too much. I would like to see them raise the bar a bit but it’s like Steve Garvey’s retired number at Petco: once it’s done you can’t undo it. And if you raise the bar you’ll still have the same arguments, it’ll just be about better players.
Well, it is called the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Baseball Hall of Accuracy. There will always be debates over what players should or shouldn’t be inducted into the Hall of Fame, just as there have been, and always will be, arguments over what players are better than others, i.e. is Bonds a better player than Aaron, or Cobb better than Wagner, etc., etc. To my mind, the Hall is more like the Smithsonian. It’s a repository of baseball information, accurate, inaccurate, or mythological, and is influenced by everyone involved in baseball from the owners down to the most casual fan. In the future, historians will have lots to chew over, and that is how it should be.
Anthony: For the most part, I agree that it’s about marginal players. However, when guys like Goose Gossage and Bert Blyleven (and probably Tim Raines) are denied entrance, that’s kind of a problem from where I sit. The voters can hem and haw about Andre Dawson and Jim Rice for eternity for all I care, but enough with arguments from voters for Jack Morris over Blyleven.
Doug: Yeah, I can see that to a degree. Visiting the place totally changed my perspective; it really is magical if you love baseball. That said, I’d like to see the folks in charge of determining who is enshrined do a better job at it. Like, I’m really not looking forward to the day Bud Selig gets voted in.