Baseball DIY
Redcross.orgEstablished 2004.
If you'd like to join as a poster, let us know.
Thanks for reading!
Monday, August 08, 2005
Does Baseball Really Need a Hall of Fame?
Ever notice that, 90% of the time, VH1's programming consists of some variation on the "Top 10/50/100 Whatevers" theme? After a while, you see "Epic" ranked ahead of "Give It Away," Nirvana ranked ahead of Led Zeppelin, or The Soft Bulletin left off of a Best Albums of the Millenium list, and you realize that, hey, this feels pretty arbitrary.
That's kind of how I feel about baseball's Hall of Fame. The recent flap over Rafael Palmeiro's steroid use brings me back to one thought, over and over: even if he is inducted, will I really feel any different about his career? Isn't it really more of an honorific for Ryne Sandberg to be able to sign his name followed by "HoF '05" than a validation of his playing career? In the Hall or not, we'd all know that Babe Ruth (or, if you prefer, Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, etc) is the greatest there ever was or will be. By contrast, Ray Schalk is in the Hall of Fame, and it just makes me think "I wish I could have been the one not to throw the 1919 World Series; then I'd be in the Hall of Fame, without even really being that good of a player." I realize that any best-of list will include some head-scratchers, but sometimes I think it would be best to not try to make such definitive statements. Why not let the current public opinion determine the value of Joe Tinker, rather than try to instruct us (whatever the cost to the institution's credibility) that he's one of the best ever?
Another thing that annoys me (and that's all this is, my way of griping about something that I have no power to change) is the emphasis on statistical cut-offs to determine a player's HoF candidacy. Though the scale keeps sliding, it's generally agreed that 500 home runs and/or 3,000 hits for a batter or 300 wins for a pitcher are automatic tickets in. If a player hangs around long enough, he can achieve those numbers without ever really being the best for any stretch of time (to beat up on Palmeiro some more, he scores an 8 on the Black Ink test, while the average Hall of Famer racks up a 27), but he's still got the numbers. Albert Pujols has been, if not the best, then the second-best player over the last 5 years; if he gets hurt and can't play for the required ten years, his HoF chances are shot, even though his Black Ink score was 15 going into this season. The Hall of Fame seems to think that it's better to fade away than to burn out.
Audible sigh...
I'm just saying that "So-and-So: Hall of Famer or Not?" is a really boring, meaningless discussion in which I hope I never have to participate. If I had my way, and if the interested parties were eager to lose some publicity and revenues, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum would transmogrify into, simply, the National Baseball Museum.
Let's focus on the game, not the celebrities.
That's kind of how I feel about baseball's Hall of Fame. The recent flap over Rafael Palmeiro's steroid use brings me back to one thought, over and over: even if he is inducted, will I really feel any different about his career? Isn't it really more of an honorific for Ryne Sandberg to be able to sign his name followed by "HoF '05" than a validation of his playing career? In the Hall or not, we'd all know that Babe Ruth (or, if you prefer, Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, etc) is the greatest there ever was or will be. By contrast, Ray Schalk is in the Hall of Fame, and it just makes me think "I wish I could have been the one not to throw the 1919 World Series; then I'd be in the Hall of Fame, without even really being that good of a player." I realize that any best-of list will include some head-scratchers, but sometimes I think it would be best to not try to make such definitive statements. Why not let the current public opinion determine the value of Joe Tinker, rather than try to instruct us (whatever the cost to the institution's credibility) that he's one of the best ever?
Another thing that annoys me (and that's all this is, my way of griping about something that I have no power to change) is the emphasis on statistical cut-offs to determine a player's HoF candidacy. Though the scale keeps sliding, it's generally agreed that 500 home runs and/or 3,000 hits for a batter or 300 wins for a pitcher are automatic tickets in. If a player hangs around long enough, he can achieve those numbers without ever really being the best for any stretch of time (to beat up on Palmeiro some more, he scores an 8 on the Black Ink test, while the average Hall of Famer racks up a 27), but he's still got the numbers. Albert Pujols has been, if not the best, then the second-best player over the last 5 years; if he gets hurt and can't play for the required ten years, his HoF chances are shot, even though his Black Ink score was 15 going into this season. The Hall of Fame seems to think that it's better to fade away than to burn out.
Audible sigh...
I'm just saying that "So-and-So: Hall of Famer or Not?" is a really boring, meaningless discussion in which I hope I never have to participate. If I had my way, and if the interested parties were eager to lose some publicity and revenues, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum would transmogrify into, simply, the National Baseball Museum.
Let's focus on the game, not the celebrities.
Comments:
<< Home
Do we need a Hall of Fame in Baseball.........
Yes!!!!
It is nice to look up those long gone players and wonder over them. It is a lot better than reading about the new dumb horror on the front page of our newspapers everyday.
It is very tough to hit a 96 mph fast ball or 70 mph change up for that matter. And when you do it over a 15 year period or more it is a true test of skill and a pleasure to read about. The drama of a well played baseball game is still the best show in town for me and many others in spite of carping of newspaper scribblers.
When you think of all the wannabe that tryout every year and never make it at all or a few who finally make to the big leagues for couple of at bats or even a mediocre ten year career of sub 250 batting averages. And you put it against Palmaro or what ever. 3000 hits, 500 home runs that to my mind is impressive. Steroids or not.
And all you second raters out there, [you know who you are.] Still can not bring down that achievement or RP
Go to it Raffie, and Pete Rose for baseball commissioner. Fire second rate Celig.
Health, Love, and Baseball. BV
Post a Comment
Yes!!!!
It is nice to look up those long gone players and wonder over them. It is a lot better than reading about the new dumb horror on the front page of our newspapers everyday.
It is very tough to hit a 96 mph fast ball or 70 mph change up for that matter. And when you do it over a 15 year period or more it is a true test of skill and a pleasure to read about. The drama of a well played baseball game is still the best show in town for me and many others in spite of carping of newspaper scribblers.
When you think of all the wannabe that tryout every year and never make it at all or a few who finally make to the big leagues for couple of at bats or even a mediocre ten year career of sub 250 batting averages. And you put it against Palmaro or what ever. 3000 hits, 500 home runs that to my mind is impressive. Steroids or not.
And all you second raters out there, [you know who you are.] Still can not bring down that achievement or RP
Go to it Raffie, and Pete Rose for baseball commissioner. Fire second rate Celig.
Health, Love, and Baseball. BV
# posted by 
: 8:33 PM
: 8:33 PM<< Home
Archives
November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006
