Sunday, December 24, 2006
By MIKE SCHMIDT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
One of the most popular discussions in all of sports relates to the baseball Hall of Fame -- who's in, who will be, who should be and who isn't.
As a member, I am always intrigued by the members' meetings in Cooperstown when we discuss the Veterans Committee ballot.
Everyone has their guy, their crony, a past teammate they feel is being underrated. That's great that so many people, including the members, are concerned about the guys who just didn't make the grade -- not to mention the real vote by the baseball writers, who now have to consider juiced balls, bats and bodies.
Having said that, ponder this question I posed at a recent meeting: Doesn't a voter's opinion on a particular player have a great deal to do with how the voter himself perceives the Hall of Fame?
No one truly believes the Hall is exclusive to the all-time greatest, and no one believes the Hall should honor mediocrity. There is a happy medium somewhere, and where you fall in that range should determine your voting philosophy.
You can't have strict criteria when judging one man and then flexible criteria when judging another. You can't allow politics to enter into it in any way, but in many cases it has made the difference. With all due respect to current members Ryne Sandberg and Bruce Sutter, how can Dale Murphy and Lee Smith be kept out? Their careers are identical and in certain areas, better.
Jim Kaat, again with due respect: How can a guy with 283 wins, 16 Gold Gloves and 24 years as a player and another 30 as a baseball ambassador not be a lock choice? Don't get me started on comparisons related to Kaat! He's even got all the politics covered.
The big issue confronting the writers voting this month concerns Mark McGwire. He was baseball's superman. The public wanted to see his giant biceps and long bombs, and could care less what he was putting in his milk.
Now you want to vilify him because he doesn't want to own up, or admit, or even refute an involvement with steroids? Whoa! I'd ask the voters to look past the basic question -- did he or didn't he? -- and consider the era and what fueled it.
So what does "Hall of Fame" say about a player? How good does one have to be? How can certain guys slide in and others with similar careers can't?
Originally when opened, there were fewer players, a smaller game, so picking Hall members was easy -- the best of the best.
Everyone knew the Hall of Fame was for Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Foxx and Young. Then it was for DiMaggio, Williams, Mantle, Musial, Mays, Aaron and all the Robinsons. And as the game grew bigger came Koufax, Seaver, Palmer, Kaline, Killebrew, Jackson, Bench, and then Ryan, Brett, Carlton. Now Gwynn, Ripken and on and on, the best of the best.
That was the plan, but someone decided the baseball writers' vote slighted a few players along the way and the Veterans Committee was created to right what was apparently wrong.
No longer was it cut and dried. If you were passed over you got a mulligan. In the first round, your career was just a little short of HOF caliber; in round two, for some reason, the career got better.
That's OK, because it's a subjective vote and a lot of little things go into it. Maybe you didn't play in New York, maybe you were quiet and didn't look for attention or weren't as cooperative with the media as some.
No comments:
Post a Comment