A vote for sanity
First off, congratulations to Jim Rice for making it to the Baseball Hall of Fame, a journey finally complete after years of debate, hand-wringing, and campaigning on behalf of the Red Sox.
Also, thank you to the baseball writers for finally completing a 15-year stretch in which they cheapened the voting process to the point where fans can have little faith in their decisions on the whole going forward.
That’s not to say that Rice isn’t a Hall of Famer. I certainly will take issue with those that claim Rice’s induction makes Cooperstown the Hall of “Very Good.” You know the arguments as to why he does or doesn’t belong, so we won’t rehash them here for the 1,909,876,768th time. But it makes no sense to me – zero – how a guy can make up 46.6 percent of the vote despite not having picked up a bat for 20 years.
Yes, yes, the steroid era helped voters re-think their positions, but please. If that were the overwhelming factor in Rice getting elected, shouldn’t he have been inducted one, two, even three years earlier? My favorite was in 2006 when Bruce Sutter made it into the Hall in his 13th year on the ballot, a development that, at the time, prompted some writers to claim, “That makes it look good for Rice down the road.”
Down the road? What, were they expecting one more run at a batting crown?
Rice looks no better – or worse – today than he did in his first year on the ballot, way back in 1995. He dominated his era, a factor that many writers apparently were blind to until 2009. For a group that maintains how “serious” they take this privilege, many writers have managed to make fans dubious about their thought process. That includes the whole, “Babe Ruth wasn’t unanimous, so nobody else should be” nonsense, a group that might have included Corky Simpson, a retired Tucson Citizen columnist who “forgot” to vote for Rickey Henderson.
Simpson did, however, remember to vote for Tommy John and Matt Williams. Matt Williams. He’s even objective enough to call him, “Matty.” How cute.
After listing his 10 choices, Simpson did “remember” to at least mention Henderson: “Others honored with nomination this year and who may well be voted into the Hall of Fame, include Harold Baines, Jay Bell, David Cone, Ron Gant, Mark Grace, Rickey Henderson, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, Jesse Orosco, Dave Parker, Dan Plesac, Lee smith [sic], Greg Vaughn and Mo Vaughn.”
So, the man had Henderson lumped in with Dan Plesac, Jay Bell, and Mo and Greg Vaughn. These are your Hall of Fame voters.
Now, not everyone votes as carelessly, of course. Locally, we can claim to have some pretty dedicated writers who perhaps take the job even more seriously than is really necessary. But no matter how much they treat it as if he or she is determining the fate of who controls the Gaza Strip with one vote, we at least can be assured there’s no flippancy.
That's not the case elsewhere, where too many retired writers maintain their lifetime vote, even if they watch the game these days as much as they do "The Hills." Think about it, 28 writers didn’t vote for a player who is the all-time base-stealer, and scored more runs than anyone else in the game’s history. Makes sense.
ESPN’s Jayson Stark calls it “embarrassing,” and he’s not alone in the simmering boil that some writers are beginning to show for their clueless colleagues.
Stark writes:
You all need to think long and hard about why you're even participating in these elections. If you're not voting for Rickey Henderson, you've been watching the wrong sport.Seriously, by what standard is this man NOT a Hall of Famer?
He scored more runs than any player in the history of baseball.
Do we even need to list ANY other qualifications?
That answer is no.
Well, Hank Aaron hit more home runs than any player in the history of baseball for a time, and he wasn’t unanimous either. As Larry Stone points out in the Seattle Times today, Greg Maddux won’t be unanimous in five years, despite the word “steroids” never being associated with him over his brilliant, slam-dunk Hall of Fame career. It’s gotten to the point where we shouldn't be surprised over the ignorance of some of the game’s esteemed journalists.
Or is it agenda?
But just think, now that the whole Rice affair is over, we only have another decade-plus to continually hear why Mark McGwire doesn’t deserve to make it. Which can only mean he’ll be at Cooperstown for his induction in 2021. It's called "re-examining the facts," don't you know?
Yes and no. I don't dispute that the process may be flawed, and that some voters may not take their jobs seriously enough. I do, however, disagree with your premise that a HOF player should be first ballot. History changes perspective. It always has. More significant shifts in perspective have occurred than Rice's HOF credentials. By writing and reading about history, the common consensus of the meanings of events evolves. One might argue that it tends to become less true to the facts, not moreso. I think it's usually a little of both. I'm too young to remember watching Rice play, so I won't take a position on his credentials. But I think it's not right to say his credentials are the same today as they were 15 years ago, because with the benefit of hindsight we can have a better perspective on them.
Even though perspective can change and increase and decrease the "worth" of historical events and acheivements (McGwire an Bonds now being held in different light). It reminds me of Atlas Shrugged where a composer gets heckled debuting an opera at 24 because it was felt he "hadn't paid his dues" regardlesss of the quality of the performance but critically acclaimed with the same opera 15 years later because "he'd earned it" . If you think someone is a hall of famer, vote for them, if you don't, don't, All this "i wont vote on first ballot" is stupid, unless enshrinement was limited per year, and you could only vote for one or two candidates. There should be no argument for Rickey and I agree that if you didn't vote for a plaer , who in his role, was by far and away the greatest leadoff man in history then who are you going to vote for?
I think that Jim Rice did not hit a milestone that the writers feel are milestones for certain Eras. I think most ballplayers, prior to the "steroids era" had to hit 400 homeruns or get 3,000 hits to be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Do not count a guy like Dave Kingman, his other numbers were awful. Rice was not a second baseman, so you cannot lump his stats with those types of players. Plus, Rice tapered off at a relatively young age, around 34.
Take a guy like George Brett, who broke in at about the same time as Rice, he was more durable. Less power, but he was still productive when he got older and was able to pad his overall stats. He hit the milestones the voters needed and he was more likable. Jim Rice was more dominant for a period, than Brett, but Brett definitely had the more Hall worthy career.
We can all say numbers are numbers, but how you act is important as well. I have to play the game at work and in my social environment to be successful, so why should the bar be lowered for Rice? Treat people poorly and it may come back to bite you in the rear. Right? I know we can all bring up a jerk like Ty Cobb, but was Rice really a no-brainer like Ty Cobb? Rice was not a Ty Cobb caliber player, so how he acted was more important. Period. Do not discount that aspect.
By the way, I remember watching Jim Rice and he was awesome. But, if I took my vote really seriously (if I had one), which some of these idiots do not, I would struggle with voting Rice to the Hall.
nice tribute. Now, how bout a long-deserved poke at the G-"men"?
Mo Vaughn in '24!
The Baseball HOF voting process is a joke.
It may have made sense back in the days when there was no television or national radio and the baseball writers that travelled with the teams (or stayed local and saw visiting players only when in town) were the eyes and ears for the nation.
It's simply not the case these days with 24/7 media coverage and dissection of the players. The voting mode is simply outdated and is now being usurped by dubious writers, at best, to make a name for themselves.
It needs to change, lest the entire Hall become a mockery of the sport - not a tribute to it.
J-Bone, Mo is off the HOF ballet effective immediatly. He got less than one percent of the vote. You need to have at least five percent to remain on the ballet if not elected to the HOF.
The Hall of Fame voting lends the same credence to Sports Writing that Nancy Grace brings to Broadcast Journalism. And I will go no further than exploiting ESPN's Pedro Gomez for his vote for Jay Bell, and not Jim Rice. That simply defies explanation.
You are all ignoring the primary issue ... the criteria for entering the HOF are not well enough defined. As long as the criteria are fuzzy, no one can be faulted for their judgment. All votes are, by definition, correct and valid.
What everyone is saying is essentially "I think I have the best set of criteria, and I think you should apply them."
And we can simplify the process by having one voter each year submit a blank ballot. That way, no one can ever be elected unanimously, and the writers won't have to worry.
The BBWA shouldn't be entrusted solely with the Hall of Fame vote. There are too many people who deserve inclusion that are NOT in the Hall to say that the BBWA has done a good job. The sportswriters gave up any claim to be arbiters of excellence and guardians of the game when they voted four MVPs to Barry Bonds as a Giant when it was obvious he was on the juice. In fact, it was known for years that the players were juiced, just as it is now know that many of the balls used in play after the 1994-95 strike had off-centered "pills" that boosted homerun production. (There's a story that has been ignored in the interest of the game, i.e., in boosting audience friendly offense, and balance between pitcher and hitter be danged!) A new way of Hall of Fame voting should be implemented, but as long as Bud Selig, who has the heart & soul of the used-car salesman he was, in charge of the game....Fat chance.
I suggest following the link to the Corky Simpson article. Mr. Simpson has created quite a reaction. If you thought boston.com commenters were tough . . .
By the way J-Bone, Mo didn't get enough votes so he's off the HOF ballot.
Look, from 1937 to 1987 3 people played left f for the sox; Williams, Yaz, Rice. What other team in MLB history can say that? Plus Rice did do some things that others today havent, led leg in triples and home runs same season, 3 stright 39hr 200 hit seasons, 406 total bases, nobody has done that in the AL SINCE. He didnt have the longevity numbers but had some streches and season that no one else has had. Even with today cheaters......Redsox Management; RETIRE #14
wrd3: no amount of vagueness in terms of qualifications can account for omitting Henderson. I don't think setting out terms would be a good idea, either. Greatness shouldn't be limited to strict objectivity because you get situations, from steriod allegations to clutch hitting, that are difficult to weigh. What you really need is accountability. Perhaps every writer who votes for someone who gets less than 1%, or who doesn't vote for someone who gets over 90%, should have to justify themselves or have their voting rights temporarily suspended. It's an overly Bureaucratic solution, and suceptible to petty politics, but when 5% of voters won't put Henderson on the list, the only reasonable conclusion is that the process is already petty and political.
28 people who don't belong as HOF voters. Henderson was a great player, and even greater when you factor in his high walk total. I had him on my Strat-O-Matic baseball team back using the 1980 season.
Were there any ballots voting for Rice and not Henderson? Someone focused only on home runs?
At least Rice will stop campaigning for himself, which was incredibly tacky.
Who really cares?
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
by eric wilbur
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com