Don’t Blame the Hall of Fame
by Chuck
Invariably throughout the year there arises a debate surrounding the Baseball Hall of Fame, specifically who is, or isn’t, enshrined in its hallowed halls. In January we have the BBWAA vote, followed by the enshrinement ceremonies in July, followed by the various Veterans’ Committee considerations during the Winter Meetings in December.
And every year it’s the same ol’, same ol’: “That guy stunk”, or, “how could he not be elected”, or, “he’s only a Hall of Famer because he played in New York.”
Or my personal favorite: “What is the Hall of Fame thinking, putting that guy in/leaving that guy out.”
The Hall of Fame has nothing to do with whose plaque hangs on the wall or who is outside peeking through the window.
The responsibility (lol) for those decisions lies with the Baseball Writers Association of America, (BBWAA).
The Baseball Writers’ Association of America (BBWAA) was founded in 1908 as an organization to improve working conditions and salaries for sportswriters – an early, organized union, if you will. Today, the BBWAA, due to the advancement in electronic media, and the corresponding decline of its partners in print, has expanded its reach into the world of the internet.
During its heyday, from 1920’s into the late 1960’s, membership in the BBWAA was the ultimate goal of any baseball beat writer. With an over-saturation of newspapers, (there were 13 dailies in New York City; for example), the competition for readership and profits was intense.
The organization’s primary function now is as it was then, to work with Major League Baseball and individual teams to assure clubhouse and press-box access for BBWAA members, as well as conduct the voting process for the yearly award winners and the electorate of the Baseball Hall of Fame.
All writers with ten years of active BBWAA membership, including those retired with the same status, are eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame.
In the days prior to national television contracts and internet broadcasts, the members of the BBWAA were considered the leading authorities on baseball and the most likely to carry out this immense responsibility. Until the Dodgers and Giants moved west in the winter of 1957, the St. Louis Cardinals and Kansas City Athletics were the two teams furthest from the East Coast. Baseball fans living in Phoenix and Dallas and throughout the west could only get their baseball stories from the occasional radio broadcast, their local papers, which picked up the game stories through syndication, or The Sporting News.
At the time the Hall of Fame opened in 1936, having BBWAA members do the voting was the only real option available. The writers were the only people who saw the players on a day to day basis and who had, assumedly, an un-biased opinion.
Criticism has been part of the voting process since the very first election, with Babe Ruth receiving fewer votes than Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner and with Cy Young being passed over altogether. There have also been rumors of writers by-passing election rules, colluding to elect/omit players for personal reasons or even accepting “favors” in return for votes.
Yet Hall of Fame President Jeff Idelson remains unmoved by the criticism, as has many of his predecessors. “Voting has been entrusted to the BBWAA since 1936, and we have no regrets,” Idelson says. “The voters by and large have incredibly high standards, which we applaud, and a few have stratospheric standards.”
Seventy-three years after the first election it’s clear the original voting process and rules have become antiquated. But when you consider change, you run the risk of the solution becoming worse than the problem, even though, on paper, things appear better.
The Hall of Fame controls the voting process, as governed by the elected Board of Directors:
Amendments: The Board of Directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. reserves the right to revoke, alter or amend these rules at any time.
The Hall of Fame CAN change the voting criteria, and also make changes to those who vote.
I believe living Hall of Famers should have a vote, but an overwhelming sweep of the process and the more changes that are made would also increase the likelihood of deeper problems surfacing down the road. And if one were to look at the HOF roster, those elected by the BBWAA, with a few exceptions of course, are legitimate choices. Most of the players we fans question are Veterans Committee selections, chosen by an old time “good old boy’s” network, comprised of retired, out to pasture writers electing their drinking and carousing buddies.
Regardless of what we think about Andre Dawson’s qualifications as a Hall of Famer, and whether or not his selection has “lowered the Hall of Fame’s standards”, be assured the HOF had no say in it.
The Hall of Fame is a Museum, nothing more, nothing less. It is a group of buildings in upstate New York built to honor and house a century’s worth of history and memorabilia.
The most important part of that history is contained on the first floor, in the Hall of Plaques. Hanging on the wall are over 200 plaques honoring some of the greatest and better known players in the game’s history.
The only responsibility the Hall of Fame has over those plaques is paying somebody to drive the nail into the wall so they can be properly hung, and to occasionally dust them.
That’s it.
Whether you believe Andre Dawson should or shouldn’t be enshrined, or Ron Santo, or Dick Allen isn’t the fault of anyone living or working in Cooperstown, New York.
For that you have to blame the six hundred or so individuals spread throughout the country who seemingly hide behind a set of outdated rules and responsibilities and a BBWAA membership card.
Leave the Hall of Fame alone.
Especially if you’ve never been there.
Tags: BBWAA, Hall of Fame
January 9th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Nice article Chuck.
You hit the nail on the head about two things:
1. That the overwhelmingly Puritan BBWAA writers are the main problem with their bias and prejudices.
2. And that it’s in Idelson’s best interest not to change things. There’s enough pissing and bitching about the way things are now that it keeps the Hall and the vote quasi-relevant enough.
If that ever changes, and I think it will in about 5-10 years when all of the 300 win, 500 save, 500 homer guys are enshrined and you either will have ‘Roid guys with big numbers or guys like Doug Jones to elect, than you will see the Hall move to modify things real quick to retain interest.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
But if the Hall of Fame has a say over who gets to pick… you can’t say they lose all responsibility because the selections were poor.
You always hear people say something to the effect of “most picks are correct!” That’s because most picks are no brainers. Rickey Henderson. Nolan Ryan. Cal Ripken. Ozzie Smith.
On the less obvious choices, their percentage isn’t nearly as good.
If I rent out a room to a guy, and he cooks up some meth… when the cops coming knocking on my door I don’t get to say “Don’t blame my room… blame the person who made the decision of what to do with it!” Who cares? You knew the guy was cooking up meth, and you didn’t do anything about it. You can’t blame the room, but you can sure as hell blame the landlord who knew better.
January 10th, 2010 at 12:23 am
Went to the HoF last summer, looks a lot nicer then when I went 3 years ago. They had a great exhibit on the Negro Leagues, and an exhibit on Hank Aaron.
January 10th, 2010 at 4:57 am
leave dawson alone he is worthy of the hall take out morris and his 104 era plus
January 10th, 2010 at 5:54 am
How f’ing dare anyone out there make fun of Andre after all he has been through.!
He lost his aunt, he went through a divorce. He had two f’ing kids.
His husband (sic) turned out to be a user, a cheater, and now he’s going through a custody battle. All you people care about is….. readers and making money off of him.
HE’S A HUMAN! What you don’t realize is that Andre is making you all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about him.
He hasn’t performed on field in years. His song is called “give me more” for a reason because all you people want is MORE! MORE-MORE, MORE: MORE!.
LEAVE HIM ALONE! You are lucky he even performed for you BASTARDS!
LEAVE ANDRE ALONE!…..Please.
Bill Plaschke talked about professionalism and said if Andre was a professional he would’ve pulled it off no matter what.
Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to publicly bash someone who is going through a hard time.
Leave Andre Alone Please…. !
Leave Andre Dawson alone!…right now!….I mean it.!
Anyone that has a problem with him you deal with me, because he is not well right now.
LEAVE HIM ALONE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc
January 10th, 2010 at 6:48 am
Err, you wearin’ makeup Hoss?
January 10th, 2010 at 7:56 am
LOL. I got nothin to say after that, I’ll just start a slow :Clap:
January 10th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Good article. I went to the youtube posting expecting, maybe, Dawson’s reaction to being picked for the Hall of Fame…boy, did I get a wrong number.
January 10th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Jack Morris is not in the HOF (nor is Hall Morris).
January 10th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Great article. I think its important to differentiate between the Hall of Fame Museum at Cooperstown and the actual Hall itself. While they are obviously closly linked, the museum itself is a wonderful place that I’ve never heard many complaints about (and most complaints I’ve heard is that people want more!). All the controveries surrounding inductions and who should be in and out is something that rests solely with the writers.
January 10th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
The hysteria of the clip & poking fun of it is one thing. But read some of the comments: many are pure hate-homophobic, gay bashing. That is no better than racism. The name calling is no better than racial slurs.
Many still need to be called on this. That the rising feeling of contempt & ridicule that they feel when someone is not ‘gender normative’, esp. an effeminate man, is their own issue, their own sickness. So folks need to be educated that the hate speech is just about exactly as brave & honorable as that emanating from the KKK.
January 10th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
It was a joke.
Words like those only have as much power as people let them, and you’re letting them have a lot.
January 10th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
This is a country where tradition trumps sensibility.
The writers will always vote to elect Hall of Famers. And they shouldn’t.
What’s that line about those who have power?
…..
January 11th, 2010 at 2:04 am
Hoss, sometimes you do not attend to details much. I was not critiquing you-I did not see homophobia in your recapitulation of the absurd overreaction in that video. Yet I wanted to counter what many others felt & did, through verbal violence, in the comments section.
Words have power over people’s perceptions, besides wounding individuals. Few who are members of oppressed groups would be able to be indifferent to vicious attacks-heck, even those in the “over” groups tend to get triggered by angry personal attacks.
If we do not condemn something, like, say, ni**er jokes, it creates a hateful & oppressive attitude. Silence is bad. So while I fault you not for putting the irrelevant link in-I like non-sequitors & the surreal-I just wanted to counter the malice shown by many of the commentors there.
January 11th, 2010 at 2:54 am
No worries Mike. We certainly agree at the base level. I find bigotry, and prejudice to be disgusting, and anyone who would express those ideas to be revolting.
I apologize for misunderstanding why you were saying what you were saying.
This isn’t the place, so I’ll be as brief as possible, but in my opinion it reinforces the purpose of bigoted jokes/statements to cry out against them just as much as it does to laugh along with them. Those people are looking for a reaction, and the best thing you can do is to listen, give the person a curious look, and walk away. The type of person who would profusely apologize after being called out for making a misguided off-hand comment isn’t the type of person we really need to worry about. It tells me a lot about the true nature of the American progressive liberal that the ENTIRE INTERNET is Liberal (i.e. Democrat), and yet when given the opportunity for anonymity, those exact same people are racist, sexist, and nationalistic.
I’m done with this subject though, and I apologize to anyone who might have been upset by my pointless digression.
January 11th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Good history lesson, Chuck.
I think most savvy enough to seriously argue for or against a players’ Hall of Fame credentials also realize it’s the BBWAA and the Veterans’ Committee who do the voting. I just don’t know how many people blame the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum if they strongly disagree with a player’s enshrinement or non-enshrinement.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:17 am
I’ve been there a bunch of times. It’s a fabulous museum, but the plaques are the least interesting thing in it. Ted Williams’ locker is cool. Plaques tell me very little, and aren’t cool at all.
January 11th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
I agree with Hossrex, and disagree with Chuck. The Board of Directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum (the Hall of Fame’s full name) has authorized the BBWAA to hold annual elections. The Board has also created the Veteran’s Committee (comprised of all living National Baseball Hall of Fame members) to elect players whose careers began in 1943 or later and a separate 12-member pre-World War II Players committee.
At the end of the day, the Board is responsible for the choices made. If the people to whom the Board delegates the job fail at it, it is the Hall of Fame that suffers. Suppose for example, that none of the current electoral bodies elected anyone for a five year period. The town of Cooperstown would be denied the tourism dollars that an induction ceremony entails, the Hall of Fame would make less money and interest in the Hall of Fame would probably dwindle as a general matter. The Hall of Fame Board has a vested interest in making sure elections occur periodically and in making sure that elections are conducted fairly and consistently. If these goals are not being met, the Hall of Fame Board should change the election process.
January 11th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
The BBWA is a group of individuals who vots theri own liukes and prejudices. Exept for screwing Blyleven for another year they werent too far off.
Don Zimer in his autobiograpy put in HOF plugs for both Andre Dawson and Jim Rice…adn he managed both players. Rice was selected last tyar and Dawson this year. I od think that anyone who played in Montreal and succeeded there should get some ocnsideration if they are on the HOF ballot. I would rate both players ar their posotions as C level…A being the pantheon, the no brainer first ballots, the B level the exceptinal players who were among the very best at the position and the Cs are the borderlines, you can make a case for them because they have some numbers….but at the same tme you can compare them aginst others and say why him…and not him?
I think Dawson is a C, he played aobut 21 years and averaged a bit under 20 HRS and a bit over 75 RBIS a year…he was a graceful fielder….He got the mnod this year. but was he a better player then Dwight Evaas or Tony Oliva? Personally I odnt think so…and I can make a case for them.
Roberto Alomar is in my mind a very, very high B, and came within a whiser of getting inon his first ballot. He was just a smidge less versatile then Joe Morgan and Morgan was the best all around seocnd baseman I ever saw and in his prime say 74 through 78 he may have been the best all around player in baseball.
As for Bert Blyleven, he gets closer and closer…next year will be his time and I also hope for Ron Santo as well. it owuld be great to see those two who have been passd over for years get their day in the sun. I saw Blyleven pitch and his curve was a holy terror and Santo was also a very, very high B player, the ebst at his position in the NL for a bunch of years and anong the top 4 or 5 every day offensive players in the ÑN during his era. when you ocnsider the first 4 or 6 were Mays, Aaron, Clemente, and maybe Stargell, that s quite a statement to make about Santo. He was in my mind every bit as good and offensive player a shis teammate Billy Williams.
Jack Morris gets more support every year, I think htat he will get in within the 15 years. I think he was a good sometimes great pitcher, but I can make a case for others and if I had a chance between say Mike Musisna and Morris, my vote is for Musisna.
January 11th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
The biggest problem I have with writers is that they often hold grudges, make up lotheir own rules like not voting him in the first time.. or taking moral stands.. A former NY writer did not vote in Alomar because of the 96 incident with Hirschbeck, who forgave him and he served a suspension. The writer also stated he dogged it with the Mets .I saw him play and while he was not the ALomar of old , he did look like he was trying… And you got the other guys who make it a point not to vote a guy in the first shot because he is not worthy…that’s garbage.. And then there are the putzes that miss votes… how can MAYS and AARON not get in unanimous… ? Never mind the guys they put in and leave out… Some of the guys on the Veteran’s Committee were just as bad.. Frisch got Kelly and Young in.. Gehringer got in one of the worst: cathcer Rick Ferrell whose brother , pitcher Wes Ferrell hit more homers and deserved the Hall more.,,,These guys gotta holdback personal feelings when judging a player and judge them by their merit and the era they played in. Noone can convince me that Vinny Castilla was a better pwer hitter than Joe D and Teddy Game because he had the same amount of 40 homer seasons as those 2 greats combined.. Era is important.. the AL had a spell in the 70s where noone cracked 40 homers and two seasons 71, 72, and 73, the leaders hit 33, 37, and 32… meanwhwhile the NL leaders had 48, 40 and 44…. 30 homers was a big time power hitter up until the late 90s…
January 12th, 2010 at 2:05 am
Thanks for the kind words Hoss, & we just have a difference of opinion of how to handle bigotry. Some want a reaction, but many would be happier to have their words either supported, or tacitly so through silence. If you do not condemn what is done, & show you will not tolerate it, it is enabled. Though the look/walking away may accomplish this, it cannot be done on the Internet. Opposition to hate & cruelty must be explicit & uncompromising (but not abusive, unlike “them”).
I just have no idea why you believe that the whole Internet is liberal! Not only are big media often owned by Conservatives/editorially so, but look atso many sites, like AOL: it skews Conservative. The Internet is a huge pool, I cannot imagine how anyone can say it is dominated entirely by any one ideology & party. And am mystified why you would say Dems/liberals are disproportionately racist/xenophobic/sexist…
I mean, these are problems associated with SOME Conservatives, but A) I would not claim that most are so, or significantly so, & B) Again, these biases can be found all over.