Hall Rage?

[The Commissioner]

I was wondering how many of you were actually greatly upset about there existing members of the Baseball Hall of Fame that you don't believe deserve to have been inducted? Personally, I find myself tending to get a lot more upset, realtively speaking, concerning players that I feel merit induction but have been overlooked. While I can definitely see the arguments against certain individuals being in Cooperstown that have already been enshrined there, not one single person in the Hall has ever left me feeling passionately bitter about the fact that they were inducted. How would you quantify the extent of your personal rancor at the Hall in regards to this one specific issue?

[leecemark]

--I don't know that I would say I'm bitter or outraged about anybody who is in or out of the Hall of Fame. Its fun to talk about, but in the grander scheme of things who is in or out of the Hall doesn't make or break my day. There are enough things that actually effect my life to worry about that I can't get too emotional about the Hall. If my arguements seem emotional, thats just my style of debate. I'm having fun, not getting ulcers.
--To answer your specific question, I agree that seeing deserving players who have been overlooked get into the Hall is more important to me than weeding out the questionable cases. Nobody is hurt by the presence of George Kelly or Jesse Haines in the Hall. The fact that they are in and men of equal or greater accomplishments are not is intellectually troubling more than anything else. I don't like to think of the Hall as a lottery where a few good, not great players get their numbers drawn from a pool of dozens of similar players.
--As far as the real Hall of Fame is concerned, my first priority would be to elect the most deserving, overlooked and living candidates. Ron Santo and Minnie Minoso would be first on my list on that criteria. Next would be deserving men who still have living fans and/or children.
--I would be opposed to actually removing already inducted members from the Hall of Fame. No real purpose would be served and they were all at least good players who don't deserve that kind of public shaming. I would be more interested in seeing an "Inner Circle" to give additional honors to the true all time greats. Say statues rather than plaques.
--I do hope we are more selective in putting players into the BBF Hall of Fame. If we ever get to the point of considering Kelly it should be because we have already agreed that the 30 or 40 better firstbasemen were worthy and have inducted them. Not because someone made a good case for him and he leapfrogged clearly more deserving men. I sincerely doubt we'll ever dig that deep, but if we do I hope we've hit every stop along the road. Fair and logical is more important to me than where we happen to draw the line.

[Brad Harris]

Let's leave the "big picture" out of this for a minute. We're talkin' baseball here. And in baseball terms, there are few things I find more upsetting than the poor judgement of Hall of Fame electors.

Years ago, it would ruin my week to see Tony Perez or Don Sutton or Phil Rizzuto elected. I'd write "letters to the editor", call in to radio talk shows and generally rant-'n-rave to anyone within listening distance. I lived in Cincinnati at the time Perez was elected and the city had one big happy "love fest" over the whole thing. It made me sick. Certain members of my family still get a rise out of me at family gatherings by making some sly remark about a ballplayer like: "he may be good, but he's no Tony Perez." I admit that I still fall for the bait, too. I must make quite a scene.

Nevertheless, the greater sin, so far as I'm concerned is the one of omission, already brought up in the previous two posts. Guys like Santo and Minoso seem so obviously qualified for the Hall of Fame it is mind-boggling how they haven't been elected.

As more poor(er) selections are made in the face of legitimate candidates, I seem to be less full of "angst" (as one family member puts it) about the topic. It seemed almost reasonable, to me, that Mazeroski and Ozzie were elected recently, given the full history and lower-than-the-public-actually-realizes standards of the Hall of Fame.

I suppose the difference between my reactions 5-10 years ago and my reactions now are simply this: I've been desensitized to the carelessness and thoughtlessness of the selections because of overexposure to them. I've come to realize that these aren't exceptions to a standard ought to exist, but rather these selections are based on the (lower) standard that does exist! And with the acceptance of that fact has come at least a little peace of mind.

If I were king for the day, I'd make it clear to the voters that there's another 25-50 retired players who probably belong with the group already in there and then set up a system for creating an "inner circle". No one should be kicked out (in real life. In hypothetical exercises, thought, that is a lot of fun). But I'm not king and I won't be so in terms of actually doing something about recognizing baseball's greats and relegating Jesse Haines and Ross Youngs to the forgotten pages of a print encyclopedia, I have thrown my energy into "mock Hall of Fame" exercises, like the Baseball Fever Hall of Fame.

I maintain the feeling of "needing" to do something because I think that, in the scheme of things, who Organized Baseball chooses to bestow its highest honor on actually matters. It's the highest honor a player can receive. It is a permanent and lasting honorarium and I believe that is more important than any award from an individual season or fading distinction that was once spoken or written about a player. Any player ought to consider membership in the Hall of Fame to be the ultimate symbol of his having a successful career.

It's a shame the people administering that award haven't been as successful in their duties as the people receiving it.

Disclaimer: all of this is only "baseball". And I happily lend my voice to the fact that "it's only a game." But it's a game I dearly love and treasure and one I feel an attachment to and, therefore, I feel the need to likewise serve and protect it. Baseball, in so many ways, has meant so much to me over the years and if I can give just a little bit back to the game that has given so much to me, then I will feel contented to have stood at the plate and given my all when it was my turn to bat.

Call me silly. Call me sentimental. But for me, it's more than just a game. And the Hall of Fame should be more than just baseball's answer to the "gold watch."

[tibber]

my recent jesse haines thread not withstanding, my general rule is that with even the most borderline hall of famers, i can see their hall of fame merits. i mean yeah, i'd rather not have phil rizzuto or joe tinker or chick hafey in there, but they are, and all of those guys did at least something to merit consideration from someone. i mean, i have no real problem with guys like ross youngs and rick ferrel, as oft-criticized as their selections are.

and that brings me to another point: all the time we see these "who should be taken out of the hall" threads. i don't believe anyone should be taken out. i mean, it's one thing to talk about it, but actually doing so would be wrong.

[Cougar]

I concur with just about all of the above sentiments. While I acknowledge there's a handful of players in the Hall that probably don't belong, I think the only thing to be done about it is to learn and ensure that such mistake don't recur. Harping on a given player's inadequacies past a certain point frankly seems cruel to me.

The much bigger sin is omission, and that's what I focus my energies on.

[Eddie Collins]

I often used to get a little angry when certain players were elected, but then I realized, the general public will not even remember that Jesse Haines, Chick Hafey, or even Bill Mazeroski were ever elected. The only people who will remember are the true fans, and the true fans already know that Babe Ruth and Wille Mays were on a whole different plane than the likes of Haines, Hafey etc.

Another aspect that makes me love our HOF is tyo look at the ones for the other major sports. The basketball hall of fame(basketball being my first love), for example, is a disgrace. It is so unorganized, electing pioneers, modern players, barnstormers, globetrotters, female players, college players and coaches(that can be elected seperately as players) without any designation. With this system, guys like Bill Bradley(marvelous college player, just 12 ppg as a pro for some great teams) get elected while the likes of Dominique Wilkins(one of the definitive players of his era), David Thompson(top 10 college player all time, plus a great pro career), Adrian Dantley(30 ppg for 4 consecutive years, 2 rings) and Chet Walker(19 PPG/7RPG for one of the greatest teams ever) are still left waiting. If I was in charge, I would have made a Modern Pro Basketball Hall of Fame, electing players from 1946 NBA/ABA to present, and perhaps make a seperate collegiate hall. (Hey that might be a fun poll somewhere)

[ElHalo]

I actually get much, much more upset (though I wouldn't call it rage... this really is just baseball, guys) about undeserving players being in the HoF than supposedly deserving players being left out of the Hall.

If somebody like Ron Santo or Bert Blyleven or Sherry Magee is left out of the Hall, then the only people likely to be upset are the left out players themselves, and their fans. If they'd had enough fans to begin with, they would have made the Hall. So there's not that many people really being adversely affected here.

However, when a bad player (well, undeserving... there's no truly bad players in the Hall) makes the Hall, it cheapens it for everybody. It pulls down the standards for the Hall, and it makes being admitted to the Hall less of an honor for every subsequent player to be inducted.

Imagine this: Mark McGwire gets a letter in the mail one day saying he's been admitted to the Hall of Fame. He gets all happy about it, goes and tells his wife and his son "Hey guys! Guess what! I made it to the Hall of Fame!"

To which his son replies "You're in the Hall of Fame? So what? So is Jesse Haines."

And McGwire then goes into his study, and thinks on what his son just said. McGwire thinks to himself... "I've been working my entire life, destroying my body, spending weeks at a time on the road away from my family, all to gain the highest honor that my profession can possibly bestow on a player... and that honor is to be told that I'm just as good as Jesse Haines? What have I been doing with my life? What kind of useless honor is that for me to have slaved away and dedicated three decades of my life chasing?"

At which point the shame of the whole thing leads to him to believe that he can't go on living any more because of the horror over the pointlessness of his chosen life path, and so he kills his wife and son out of desperation before turning the gun on himself. All because Jesse Haines is in the Hall of Fame.

In short, leaving deserving people out of the Hall of Fame only causes emotional difficulties for those people and the few (at least less than 75% of the voting public) who love them.

Putting undeserving people into the Hall invariably leads to murder/suicides and destroyed families.

It's a much greater crime to have undeserving people in than leave deserving people out.

[Brad Harris]

ElHalo - and I hate to admit this - does have a point. ;) Since induction to the Hall of Fame is a permanent thing and no candidate is ever permanently ineligible (with apologies to Rose, Jackson and Cicotte), the "sin of omission" can always be corrected. The deserving, but overlooked player can always get in next time or the time after that.

Once an undeserving player is elected, the mistake cannot be reversed.

[The Commissioner]

Putting undeserving people into the Hall invariably leads to murder/suicides and destroyed families.

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Charlie Starkweather just really irked about Schalk's selection three years earlier?

[ElHalo]

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Charlie Starkweather just really irked about Schalk's selection three years earlier?

Actually, he had a brain tumor that led to his insanity, but it's a little known fact that Schalk's admission to the Hall caused a spike in brain cancer that wasn't seen again until Travis Jackson's admission... I'd have to do more research on the subject to find out the exact number of deaths this has led to.

[The Commissioner]

I could swear that if you look carefully at the photos from Dealey Plaza taken on Nov. 22, 1963, you can see Frankie Frisch in uniform on the grassy knoll.

[KHenry14]

Yeah, and Charlie Whitman up in the tower in Austin had a crumpled up Ted Williams baseball card, undoubtedly upset that the Splinter wasn't elected unanimously in 1966. :crazy

[abolishthedh]

The Hall of Fame, IMO, was originally set up to promote baseball, and nothing else. I also believe one of the initial motivations behind the effort was the brevity of the remaining lifetimes for retired major leaguers, as a person's expected lifetime happened to be in the 1930s. This fact hastened the effort to honor a few players who were perceived by former major leaguers (Veterans Committee) and the baseball press to be worthy of enshrinement. These parties pereived the HoF as a Hall of FAME, not a hall of accomplishment.

As such, I don't agree with ElHalo, as usual. I wouldn't be upset either way, but it is a greater injustice to be excluded without justification than included without justification.

One of the steps I expect baseball to take in my lifetime (within say, 30 years) is to take up Bill James' idea of concentric circles of honor. I'll capitalize that as Concentric Circles of Honor (CCH) into Circle A, Circle B and Circle C. This might be done in the name of further promoting MLB, and it could be done in the name of serving baseball on a larger scale. For example, why not honor Circle A with Athletic Scholarships in their name to various universities? The schools could be in the U.S. or abroad. This would provide the proper flair to justify the hoopla which baseball would expect. Scholarships would be far better than statues! Once Corporate America signed on, anything would be possible.

It would be a substantial way to promote baseball, promote its history, rectify who is in who doesn't really belong without kicking them out.

How's that? Have I had too much caffeine again? :coffee :D

[Eddie Collins]

It's amazing to me how vastly the Hall's standards would have risen had it not been for Frank Frisch helping this batch get elected:

Jesse Haines
Chick Hafey
Travis Jackson
Fred Lindstrom
Dave Bancroft
Ross Youngs
George Kelly
Jim Bottomley


Seriously, take them out, and the Hall instantly looks a whole lot better.

[four tool]

I find trying to decide who is deserving a hard question to answer, I can see Maz in there for his defense, but I am not convinced about Santo, Minoso or Blyleven--and maybe I am being an idiot for that combination of deserving and maybe-maybe nots.

TIERs as well as TEARS people, we need both but so far only have the TEARS of GRIEF and TEARS of RAGE--as Dylan put it.

With tiers or levels, I could see the Blylevens and Minosos and Mazeroskis not only enshrined but enshrined properly according to their merits vis-a-vis Cobb, Babe, Mays etc.

[four tool]

PS I agree with abolishthedh about not kicking anyone out as well the circle idea (obviously). we can call them circles or tiers or levels or whatever, but the real question is which circle do the players belong in?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Years ago, it would ruin my week to see Tony Perez or Don Sutton or Phil Rizzuto elected. I'd write "letters to the editor", call in to radio talk shows and generally rant-'n-rave to anyone within listening distance. I lived in Cincinnati at the time Perez was elected and the city had one big happy "love fest" over the whole thing. It made me sick. Certain members of my family still get a rise out of me at family gatherings by making some sly remark about a ballplayer like: "he may be good, but he's no Tony Perez." I admit that I still fall for the bait, too. I must make quite a scene.

Nevertheless, the greater sin, so far as I'm concerned is the one of omission, already brought up in the previous two posts. Guys like Santo and Minoso seem so obviously qualified for the Hall of Fame it is mind-boggling how they haven't been elected.

As more poor(er) selections are made in the face of legitimate candidates, I seem to be less full of "angst" (as one family member puts it) about the topic. It seemed almost reasonable, to me, that Mazeroski and Ozzie were elected recently, given the full history and lower-than-the-public-actually-realizes standards of the Hall of Fame.

I suppose the difference between my reactions 5-10 years ago and my reactions now are simply this: I've been desensitized to the carelessness and thoughtlessness of the selections because of overexposure to them. I've come to realize that these aren't exceptions to a standard ought to exist, but rather these selections are based on the (lower) standard that does exist! And with the acceptance of that fact has come at least a little peace of mind.

If I were king for the day, I'd make it clear to the voters that there's another 25-50 retired players who probably belong with the group already in there and then set up a system for creating an "inner circle". No one should be kicked out (in real life. In hypothetical exercises, thought, that is a lot of fun). But I'm not king and I won't be so in terms of actually doing something about recognizing baseball's greats and relegating Jesse Haines and Ross Youngs to the forgotten pages of a print encyclopedia, I have thrown my energy into "mock Hall of Fame" exercises, like the Baseball Fever Hall of Fame.

I maintain the feeling of "needing" to do something because I think that, in the scheme of things, who Organized Baseball chooses to bestow its highest honor on actually matters. It's the highest honor a player can receive. It is a permanent and lasting honorarium and I believe that is more important than any award from an individual season or fading distinction that was once spoken or written about a player. Any player ought to consider membership in the Hall of Fame to be the ultimate symbol of his having a successful career.

Call me silly. Call me sentimental. But for me, it's more than just a game. And the Hall of Fame should be more than just baseball's answer to the "gold watch."

I believe that BASEBALL'S Hall of Fame is the Hall of Fame of Halls of Fame. It is special, in a way that the football, baseketball, hockey, and other Halls of Fame will never be. Don't ask me why; that just is. (One of the few "just is's" in my existance, by the way.)

In his 1984 Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James gave four possible working definitions of what quality of career would constitute a "Hall of Famer":



Definition A: A Hall of Famer is any player who could reasonably be argued to be the greatest ever at the position he played. Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, and Walter Johnson would be typical Hall of Famers at that level.

Definition B: A Hall of Famer is a player who is one of the greatest ever at the position he played. Such a player should be the dominant player at his position at the time that he is active, with the exception of the relatively rare occurrence of talent doubling up at a position, such as Mantle and Mays. A Hall of Famer should be the biggest star on the field at almost any time. This definition would let into the Hall of Fame such players as Joe Morgan, George Sisler, Al Kaline and Joe Cronin.

Definition C: A Hall of Famer is a player who is consistently among the best in the league at his position. Such a player would ordinarily be the biggest star on his team unless it was a pennant-winning team, in which case he would be regarded as one of the most valuable members of the team. This definition would make room in the Hall of Fame for such players as Billy Williams, Willie Stargell, Billy Herman, Fred Clarke, Johnny Evers, and Harry Heilmann.

Definition D: A Hall of Famer is a player who rises well above the level of the average player, a player who would be capable of contributing to a pennant-winning team, and would be one of the outstanding players on an average team. This definition would include such players as Joe Rudi, Wally Schang, Lloyd Waner, Eppa Rixey, and Tommy McCarthy.


I believe that, out of those four possible definitions of a "Hall of Famer", Definition C describes what the standards for the REAL Hall of Fame are. Most (though not all) players that meet Definition C are in the HOF. Definition D describes the HOF gray area of the HOF, where some guys are in, while others who are comparable are not. (There are lots of Definition D guys who are not in the HOF, and have no reasonable chance of getting there, while others have viable dark-horse candidacies that, for various reasons, are stronger than they appear.)

The standard for HOF induction has NEVER been Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, and Honus Wagner. It has been, since the early 1940s, Alan Trammell, Ted Simmons, Jim Kaat, and Albert Belle. You may not believe this, but if I substitued Rabbit Maranville, Eppa Rixey, Harry Hooper and Larry Doby, you'll see my point. (Actually, Maranville, Rixey and Hooper are BELOW Simmons, Kaat, Trammell and Belle; they are all Definition D cases that made it, while my four are Definition C cases that didn't.)

I get more frustrated with those people who bemoan this and that selection as being a weakening of HOF standards, and that the HOF is "only for the greatest". I get MORE frustrated when this nonsense is spouted by sportswriters; these are the guys that ought to know better. And I get frustrated with those who, knowing this, believe that the HOF should just jack it's standards up to the level of the Ruth/Cobb/Grove only standard. While I agree that there have been mistakes, I also believe that doing this is (A) doomed to fail, (B) highly unfair to both scores of players, and (C) highly unfair to the fans of those players who would be denied the HOF by a ridiculous jacking up of standards beyond what they EVER were, just because it's somebody else's idea of what the HOF should be.

[KCGHOST]

The problem all along is how slapdash the HoF was put together. The election criteria has never been much more than "played in ten seasons" and got 75% of the vote (either BBWAA or VC). This certainly leaves a lot of leeway for human error.

Since no systematic election process was setup in the beginning we started out with a sixty year backlog of players. We also had nothing but memories to go on. Tricky boogers memories. Sadly the VC committee has always been poorly structured and led to the induction to most of the players who were mistakes.

I would love to see the guys who were missed get into the HoF no matter when they played. I have never understood why the HoF hasn't set up a committee of baseball historians and experts (can you say SABR) to review all past players to select those who should be in. Or at least use them as a screening process.

A word about the BBWAA. While they have elected a few mistakes they have tended to err on the side of exclusivity. In the number of mock internet elections I have taken part in the last 5-10 years the internet electorate is usually a more lenient in granting admission.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I actually get much, much more upset (though I wouldn't call it rage... this really is just baseball, guys) about undeserving players being in the HoF than supposedly deserving players being left out of the Hall.

If somebody like Ron Santo or Bert Blyleven or Sherry Magee is left out of the Hall, then the only people likely to be upset are the left out players themselves, and their fans. If they'd had enough fans to begin with, they would have made the Hall. So there's not that many people really being adversely affected here.

Can't agree with this at all.

If there's one thing Ron Santo has, it's fans. Lack of fans is NOT why he's not in the HOF. He's not in the HOF because the baseball writers could not place him in the proper historical context.