Hall of Fame Expulsions

[Bill Burgess]

I am curious as to what the members feel about an interesting subject. Should there be a mechanism to remove members from the Hall of Fame for 'Just Cause'?

I have 2 separate categories in mind.

1. Players who simply do not come up to Hall stat standards.

2. Non-Players who are found to have committed serious wrongs against the game. Such as supporting a color ban, suppression of fair player rights (free agency), or other serious acts or positions.

I will soon add a poll, after doing a little research. But I will see how the membership feels about the removal of such prominent BB personages as Judge Landis, Charles Comiskey, Ban Johnson, etc.

And even if one supports the above persons remaining in the Hall of Fame, do you support a general mechanism for weeding out the bottom of the Hall Barrel?

I hope this turns out to be an interesting, popular discussion subject. Although some may suggest this thread is better hosted in the Hall of Fame Forum, I think it still is an historical discussion too.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

If were start to remove players because they were "weak" selections you open a can of worms. How do we determine if a player is "unworthy"?

[Bill Burgess]

At the end of the 1921 trial of the Black Sox players, Commissioner Judge Ken Landis wrote this famous standard, for continued participation in organized baseball.

""Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ballgame, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ballgame, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball!"

Now, since this learned gentleman/scholar wrote this standard for players, it begs the question that a similar standard should also apply to non-player baseball personell, such as commissioners, owners, managers, coaches, etc.

I suggest a similar standard should apply to them. And here it is.

""Regardless of the verdict of juries, no Commissioner, Owner who defrauds the public, unfairly denies a player his fair right to participate in the 'national game', no person that undertakes or promises to deny baseball opportunities, no person that sits in conference with a bunch of unethical other persons and where the ways and means of denying deserving ballplayers their opportunities to play the national game are discussed and does not promptly resist these public frauds will ever be honored in the Baseball Hall of Fame."

[OleMissCub]

Landis was a fascist. His plaque should be tossed into an active volcano. Comiskey's too.

[jalbright]

Perhaps they shouldn't be, but as a practical matter, it would be disastrous for the Hall to allow folks already inducted to be booted out, at least absent a criminal conviction for something like fixing games. Creating after the fact standards for playing quality or known behavoir would make the honorees question the honor. That would weaken the Hall's bonds with a key constituency: the honorees themselves. Honorees attract folks to the Hall, especially at induction time, and they provide much of the memorabilia on display. It's already difficult to get such memorabilia when there's real dollars attached to this stuff today, and it would only get harder if a after the fact standard would be allowed. It's a potentially disastrous move, with very little counterbalancing positives from the Hall's perspective. I don't think the Hall's management is that stupid, especially when doing the stupid thing runs counter to another cherished Hall tradition: hew to the status quo! The Hall loves nothing so much as "tradition", and certainly what you ropose is not "traditonal".

Jim Albright

[Bill Burgess]

In another thread, the proposition that Joe Jackson forfeited his rights to the Hall of Fame, as well as his right to play the game, came as a result of his 'defrauding the public'.

So, with that standard in mind, I'd like to apply an equally stringent standard to the man (Judge Landis), who sat in moral judgment of him, and other seemingly fair-minded gentlemen who happened to own teams, and see what the membership thinks.

So far, the following are just some of those now enshrined in the Hall of Fame for reasons other than playing.

Ken Landis, Ban Johnson, Charles Comiskey, Albert 'Happy' Chandler, Ford Frick, Warren Giles, Clark Griffith, William Harridge, Larry McPhail, Branch Rickey, Bill Veeck, George Weiss, Tom Yawkey, Connie Mack.

[dgarza]

I am curious as to what the members feel about an interesting subject. Should there be a mechanism to remove members from the Hall of Fame for 'Just Cause'?

Can you imagine rearranging the plaques if a removal would happen?

[jalbright]

In another thread, the proposition that Joe Jackson forfeited his rights to the Hall of Fame, as well as his right to play the game, came as a result of his 'defrauding the public'.

So, with that standard in mind, I'd like to apply an equally stringent standard to the man (Judge Landis), who sat in moral judgment of him, and other seemingly fair-minded gentlemen who happened to own teams, and see what the membership thinks.

So far, the following are just some of those now enshrined in the Hall of Fame for reasons other than playing.

Ken Landis, Ban Johnson, Charles Comiskey, Albert 'Happy' Chandler, Ford Frick, Warren Giles, Clark Griffith, William Harridge, Larry McPhail, Branch Rickey, Bill Veeck, George Weiss, Tom Yawkey, Connie Mack.

Bill,

I'll be less diplomatic this time. Your proposal is an invitation to turn the Hall into a political football, and have whatever current version of political correctness and/or standards (statistical or otherwise) of judging the worthiness of inductees holds sway booting out those already inducted, thereby inviting counter "revolutions" reinstating at least some of those excluded, in an endless cycle. How could such a scenario possibly be a positive for the Hall?

Jim Albright

[brett]

I will soon add a poll, after doing a little research. But I will see how the membership feels about the removal of such prominent BB personages as Judge Landis, Charles Comiskey, Ban Johnson, etc.

I don't like to "destroy history" and that is what this feels like. Personally I think the HOF is for the fans, not the players. If I had total control I would probably put Rose, Bonds (potentially) and Joe Jackson in a special wing discussing their faults-though that would open the door for lawsuits.


Maybe what we need is a Baseball History Hall. Is there any such thing?

[Bill Burgess]

Perhaps they shouldn't be, but as a practical matter, it would be disastrous for the Hall to allow folks already inducted to be booted out, at least absent a criminal conviction for something like fixing games. Creating after the fact standards for playing quality or known behavior would make the honorees question the honor. That would weaken the Hall's bonds with a key constituency: the honorees themselves. Honorees attract folks to the Hall, especially at induction time, and they provide much of the memorabilia on display. It's already difficult to get such memorabilia when there's real dollars attached to this stuff today, and it would only get harder if a after the fact standard would be allowed. It's a potentially disastrous move, with very little counterbalancing positives from the Hall's perspective. I don't think the Hall's management is that stupid, especially when doing the stupid thing runs counter to another cherished Hall tradition: hew to the status quo! The Hall loves nothing so much as "tradition", and certainly what you propose is not "traditional".

Jim Albright

Jim,

I am pleased that you joined this thread. I think you have misunderstood the intention of this thread. This thread is not a petition to the Cooperstown folks. The Clarke family estate is a fairly conservative bunch, and would never, never, NEVER, seriously entertain such a politically-explosive, volatile thing as I'm discussing.

No, Jim. This is a hypothetical exercise to see what WE, Fever members think. This is for our benefit, and not intended to launch a real life Crusade.

But it was something you said in the Jackson Innocence thread that got me to thinking. Since you strongly, staunchly, and probably permanently support the banning of Joe Jackson from the Hall, for his entertaining/considering a 'wrongful' thought, for about a week, why should the man who banned him get off scot-free, for 20 years of 'conspiring with crooked owners' to defraud black Americans from their inherent rights to participate in 'the national game'?

See where I'm going with this? See where I'm headed? I despise hypocrisy, and for a learned, educated man to sit in pompous moral judgment of a simple-minded illiterate ballplayer, and then spend the next 20 years, defrauding an entire class of ballplayers of their rights to participate in the American Dream, is rank hypocrisy of the highest order.

And he wasn't alone. There were at least 16 other team owners at all times. Some were educated, others self-made. But they were wealthy, powerful men, and it is a certainty that they colluded, and 'sat in conference, with other crooked owners, and discussed the ways and means of defrauding black Americans' of their rights.

And the black ballplayer wasn't the only one defrauded. The true sports fan was defrauded too.

Should those who administer the laws be above that which they control?

I am not saying we exhume the remains of these power brokers. I am simply asking if it is appropriate to honor them with Baseball's highest honor.

You assert that in the case of Jackson, many times. I think its time we asked the same standards of basic human morality be applied to the raging hypocrite who judged him, with his over-zealous law and order extremism.

Who defrauded the game more, Jackson or Landis?

[Bill Burgess]

Bill,

I'll be less diplomatic this time. Your proposal is an invitation to turn the Hall into a political football, and have whatever current version of political correctness and/or standards (statistical or otherwise) of judging the worthiness of inductees holds sway booting out those already inducted, thereby inviting counter "revolutions" reinstating at least some of those excluded, in an endless cycle. How could such a scenario possibly be a positive for the Hall?

Jim Albright

OK, Jim. That is an excellent and important subject. There are some institutions that once a person is voted in, it is a lifetime membership.

Two such institutions come to mind. The Catholic Church's roster of saints, and the Baseball Hall of Fame. Perhaps other sports Halls of Fame is the same. Or the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland.

But in all fairness, this is no more than a hypothetical Fever exercise. Like I said, the Clarke family would NEVER entertain such a possibility as this.

But just for our own purposes, let's grant this argument its full scope. Why is permanent membership granted to Hall members? We all know full well that errors of judgment took place, some due to Frankie Frisch's influence over the Veterans Committee. He lobbied for too many of his former Giants' team mates from the 20's.

But besides that, some Hall members are just very good players and not truly among the elite greats. Why not have a mechanism to weed out the relatively unworthy?

Instead of insulting the truly great, I believe it would enhance the stature of the better ones. And we should be more concerned with honoring the truly great, and less concerned with protecting the marginal status of the border-line cases.

And I'm not clear why 'pioneers' get in. Maybe a permanent exhibition for them. Why wouldn't that be enough?

[KCGHOST]

A while back we did a series of polls on which players we thought were mistakes. A very similar idea to what is being proposed here. I suspect that the number of non-players in the HoF who would be considered mistakes would generate a much higher rejection rate.

[EdTarbusz]

Judge Landis, Commissioner, 1920-44
Ban Johnson, AL President, 1901-27
Charles Comiskey, White Sox owner, 1901-32
Ford Frick, NL Pres., 1934-51, Comm., 1951-65
Warren Giles, NL Pres., 1951-69
William Harridge, AL Pres., 1931-59
Clark Griffith, Senators' owner, 1920-55
Tom Yawkey, Red Sox' owner, 1933-76
Larry McPhail, Yankees' owner, 1945-47
Walter Briggs, Tigers' owner, 1936-52
John Heydler, NL Pres., 1918-34
Cap Anson>>>>>>>

I can't think of a single reason to remove any of the above from the Hall of Fame. Fifty years from now, who be on the expusion list when the standards of 2057 are used to citicize people from the past.

I agree with Jim Albright that being inducted into a Hall of Fame that you could later be kicked out of when social mores change is not much of an honor.

[leecemark]

--Bill, I can not participate in your poll because you failed to include a "none of the above" option.

[Bill Burgess]

I can't think of a single reason to remove any of the above from the Hall of Fame.

See post #10. I gave excellent reasons. Fraud.

[Bill Burgess]

--Bill, I can not participate in your poll because you failed to include a "none of the above" option.

See post #10.

On the one hand, you exclude Joe Jackson for a week of wrong attitude and sterling ballplaying, yet you forgive a Commissioner (and others) for 24 years of defrauding millions of black ballplayers, and millions of fans.

Good logic. Nice and consistent.

[Chickazoola]

Morgan Bulkeley is the only person I strongly advocate removing from the Hall, simply because he didn't do anything to be there.

[EdTarbusz]

See post #10. I gave excellent reasons. Fraud.

I don't see any evidence of fraud. I see evidence of someone pontifivating with 75 years of hindsight about business decisons that were made in a radically different culture. You bring up black ballplayers. 75 years ago, who exactly would have thought that integrating the game would have been a good idea?

[Bill Burgess]

I don't see any evidence of fraud.

If there was no fraud, then why weren't blacks allowed to play in the big leagues? Do you think that no one was responsible? Was it just one of those things? Some people might say the color ban was a big lie, started by trouble-makers.

I see evidence of someone pontificating with 75 years of hindsight about business decisions that were made in a radically different culture.

Why are those who criticize wrongness pontificating? Did you know that many, many, many black organizations and individuals lobbied and worked hard to tear down the wall of segregation? Were they pontificating too? I don't know why the critics of segregation are the bad guys. Why can't the segregationists receive some heat for being mean-spirited? It's time they stopped getting a pass, and it's time we stopped being called politically correct for being clear-eyed and bold.

You bring up black ballplayers. 75 years ago, who exactly would have thought that integrating the game would have been a good idea?

Did you know that after John McGraw died in 1934, his wife found among his personal papers, a list of all the black players he wanted to hire but wasn't allowed to? So, start with John McGraw, Babe Ruth, and later, Ty Cobb.

Plus every single fair-minded, heart-centered American, plus every single black person, dark-skinned Latin person, and probably Asian-Americans too.

Taken altogether, they might comprise a sizable component of American society. According to go-slow social conservatives, Jackie Robinson was way too soon & Branch Rickey was a pontificating opportunist.

Here are some relevant posts from the past, that speak to this issue. http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=61

The MLs were so facile, so dishonest, that they hired the most high-powered marketing whores to write up, who came up with this apologist sop. Truly pathetic, embarrassing stuff. August 28, 1946: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=33

Not picking on you, my friend, because I think you speak for many. So, I'm trying to help you move forward.

[EdTarbusz]

If there was no fraud, then why were blacks allowed to play in the big leagues. Do you think that no one was responsible? Was it just one of those things?


Why are those who criticize wrongness pontificating? Did you know that many, many, many black organizations and individuals lobbied and worked hard to tear down the wall of segregation? Were they pontificating too? I don't know why the critics of segregation are the bad guys. Why can't the segregationists receive some heat for being mean-spirited? It's time they stopped getting a pass, and it's time we stopped being called politically correct for being clear-eyed and bold.

Every single fair-minded, heart-centered American, plus every single black person, dark-skinned Latin person, and probably Asian-Americans too.

Taken altogether, they might comprise a sizable component of American society. According to go-slow social conservatives, Jackie Robinson was way too soon, Branch Rickey was a pontificating opportunist.

I doubt if anyone here is saying segregation was a good thing, but attacking a guy like Landis for his views without looking at the time he lived in is wrong in my opinion. I doubt if many blacks, or minorities in general, were that interested in integration during Landis's tenure. I think they were more interested in putting the equal into seperate but equal.

World War II, in my opinion, was the catalyst behind the civil rights movement. I'd be a lot more comfortable criticising Landis if he were holding the line against blacks in 1957 and he was sharing space in the paper with the Little Rock Seven. I don't agree with the segregation of baseball, but I think I understand the reasoning behind it. When noises were begininng about integration in the late 1930s, the loudest voice pushing for it was from the Communist Party. What do you think the odds are that Landis would have involved himself with something supported by CPUSA? Based on his actions against the IWW, I would say it would be zero.

For the record, also, I think Branch Rickey did the right thing in signing Jackie Robinson. I also think that Branch Rickey was a pontificationg opportunist. His treatment of the Negro Leagues was shabby at best and criminal at worst.

[Bill Burgess]

I doubt if anyone here is saying segregation was a good thing, but attacking a guy like Landis for his views without looking at the time he lived in is wrong in my opinion. I doubt if many blacks, or minorities in general, were that interested in integration during Landis's tenure. I think they were more interested in putting the equal into separate but equal.

World War II, in my opinion, was the catalyst behind the civil rights movement. I'd be a lot more comfortable criticizing Landis if he were holding the line against blacks in 1957 and he was sharing space in the paper with the Little Rock Seven. I don't agree with the segregation of baseball, but I think I understand the reasoning behind it. When noises were beginning about integration in the late 1930s, the loudest voice pushing for it was from the Communist Party. What do you think the odds are that Landis would have involved himself with something supported by CPUSA? Based on his actions against the IWW, I would say it would be zero.

For the record, also, I think Branch Rickey did the right thing in signing Jackie Robinson. I also think that Branch Rickey was a pontification opportunist. His treatment of the Negro Leagues was shabby at best and criminal at worst.

I agree with you that WWII was the catalyst which caused many people to rethink the racial climate in America. But I also feel that if there had been strong leaders much earlier, Americans have shown time and again, that they can respond to rightness, if presented in the correct moral context. Women's suffrage came much earlier, and so did the repeal of Prohibition. It took a war to end slavery, but not all wars are visible to the eye.

I know you are not a racist or a bad person, and I hope you don't feel unduly criticized. But I am using you as my everyman, to whom I am addressing my issues. Hope you realize that.

It is the duty of leaders to lead, even if no one is following. If leaders do the right thing, and rightness is not always easy to discern, the people will at least have a chance to follow. If no one leads, the people will not have that beacon from the Lighthouse in the Darkness to find their way.

My standard piece on Judge Landis http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpo...4&postcount=65

If you really doubt that Negroes supported baseball integration, try reading the writing of the following 2 black sports writers.

He was asked on a very regular basis, by such stellar sports writers as Wendell Smith, of the black Pittsburgh Courier, 1937-47, and Sam Lacy, of several black newspapers, when baseball would integrate.

[EdTarbusz]

I agree with you that WWII was the catalyst which caused many people to rethink the racial climate in America. But I also feel that if there had been strong leaders much earlier, Americans have shown time and again, that they can respond to rightness, if presented in the correct moral context. Women's suffrage came much earlier, and so did the repeal of Prohibition. It took a war to end slavery, but not all wars are visible to the eye.

I know you are not a racist or a bad person, and I hope you don't feel unduly criticized. But I am using you as my everyman, to whom I am addressing my issues. Hope you realize that.

It is the duty of leaders to lead, even if no one is following. If leaders do the right thing, and rightness is not always easy to discern, the people will at least have a chance to follow. If no one leads, the people will not have that beacon from the Lighthouse in the Darkness to find their way.

My standard piece on Judge Landis http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpo...4&postcount=65

Before WWII, I think most black leaders were interested in getting rid of discrimination, but were not very interested in the idea of integration. I think the biggest concern that black leaders had during Landis's tenure was getting stronger anti-lynching laws passed.

I think leaders have a duty to lead, but I also think that someone in a position like Landis also has a duty to protect ownership. Landis wasn't working for the public or the game. He was working for the owners. They knew what they getting. Landis was a Progressive, and he acted like a Progressive. I also think that if an owner would have challanged Landis and tried to sign a black player, Landis would have ultimately backed down, especially if that owner threatened to go to court over the issue. Landis was still alive when Rickey started scouting for black players and did nothing to stop it. This led to Larry MacPhail calling Landis soft on segregation. I think some of the owners were undoubtably racist, and others never really thought about race relations much, but figured it would be bad for business.

When it comes to something like segregation, I think it's more important to try to understand it than to merely criticize it. I think understanding something goes farther to eliminate it than merely by criticizing it.

I don't feel criticized by you. I know that you are talking about the issue and not me personally.

[EdTarbusz]

If you really doubt that Negroes supported baseball integration, try reading the writing of the following 2 black sports writers.

He was asked on a very regular basis, by such stellar sports writers as Wendell Smith, of the black Pittsburgh Courier, 1937-47, and Sam Lacy, of several black newspapers, when baseball would integrate.

I think the majority of the people who read these guys thought that integrating the game was a pipe dream and that if it ever happened it would be a long time away. I know a few white writers were pushing for it too, but I don't think they were taken very seriously.

[zahavasdad]

I voted to expel Anson, truly the BIGGEST disgrace in the HOF.

While Landis might not have allowed integration of the major leagues, it was more passive racism.

Anson actively campaigned to expel blacks.

I would have also added Enos Slaughter

[Erik Bedard]

See, the one guy who I wouldn't mind if he had no plaque isn't even on the poll. And that is Morgan Bulkeley.