Tuesday, the National Baseball Hall of Fame announced their inductees for 2008. There were several qualified names on the ballot, but only one man gained entry: Rich “Goose” Gossage, who (as I’m sure many of you recall) was a dominant reliever in the 70’s and 80’s. Gossage was a great reliever and deserved to be enshrined; however, the process that led to his enshrinement, and that denied that honor to others, is flawed and needs to be examined. In today’s column, we’ll take a look at that process and some ideas to fix it, as well as a quick look back at the Steelers’ short playoff run and a look ahead to this week’s NFL action.
At present the system for Hall of fame induction is this: If a player has a career that spans 10 years or more, after he is retired 5 years a committee reviews their career and decides whether to put them on the ballot for the Hall of Fame. This list tends to be almost all-inclusive – this year’s newcomers included such mediocrities as Shawon Dunston, Todd Stottlemyre, and Travis Fryman. Still, I like that they are generous with the cutoff point, better to give the voters too many choices than too few. No, the problem is with the voters themselves. Voting is conducted (as it has been for 70+ years) by the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA). The list of voters currently stands at 450+, and many of these people don’t even cover baseball (The membership list can be found at: <http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1765&Itemid=111>’/>this ). This year, for the first time, the BBWAA invited 16 internet-based writers to join but did NOT invite some highly-respected baseball analysts, particularly ESPN.com’s Rob Neyer and Keith Law. The reason given was that these gentlemen are baseball “analysts” and don’t actually attend enough games. That is a ridiculous argument…Law and Neyer have forgotten more about baseball, its history, and its players than many on the BBWAA roster will ever know. But it’s their club, and they play by their own rules. When it comes to the voting itself, however, there appears to be NO rules. There are no set baselines or requirements that voters are told to consider, and since ballots are mailed in and there’s no discussion, there tends to be a wide divergence of just what defines a hall-of-fame player. If backed up with facts, I can surely respect that – truth is, there are many marginal candidates whose qualifications can be reasonably debated on both sides. However, too many voters eschew facts and defend their votes by saying “[Player X] just FEELS like a hall-of-famer to me”, and since it’s his ballot he can do what he wants. This represents absolute laziness to me, if you are entrusted with something as important as a hall of fame vote I think you owe it to the players, the fans, and the game to do your homework and research the players involved. Personal accounts can be a good tiebreaker, but the numbers should drive the discussion.
Also, players are kept on the ballot for 15 years unless they are inducted or receive less than 5% of the vote. This leads to a lot of very strange voting habits. No player has EVER been a unanimous inductee…not Babe Ruth, not Tom Seaver (though he was closest, with 98.84% of the votes), not Ted Williams. If a player isn’t considered to be of absolute top caliber, often voters will NOT vote for them in Year 1 of eligibility but change and vote for them later, feeling that 1st-year induction is a special honor and that there’s some value to separating 1st-year inductees from others. Other very marginal players get ‘courtesy’ votes, most famously Jim Deshaies several years ago who openly campaigned to get one hall vote. This trivializes the process, in my mind, and makes it seem as if the voters do not take their job seriously.
Another popular voting habit is players nearing the end of their eligibility receiving a large upswing in support. Why?? The voters have had all the memories, numbers, and analysis they need for 20 years. After all that time, you somehow come to a different conclusion?? In that case, maybe you didn’t really look very hard the last 19 years? These habits lead me to conclude 2 things: 1.) Players should only be on the ballot a few years, 5 at most. This will force voters to make more informed, timely decisions since they won’t have 15 years to flip-flop and temporize. The player’s career totals don’t change in 5 years or 15, they are what they are. 2.) Voting privileges should be monitored closely, and a smaller group of writers should be entrusted with the ballot. 70 years ago it made sense for the voters to be beat writers, with no TV and no internet it was hard for anyone else to really see these guys. Statistics were harder to come by as well. Today, all the info you really need to make in informed decision is available online. There is no logical reason that the voting membership is constrained to beat writers and ex-beat writers. A panel of 100-150 voters, representing baseball journalists from many backgrounds, would seem to me the ideal number. If these voters seem too careless with their votes (i.e. a voter omits a player who get above 90%, or displays overt personal bias in his or her voting) he or she should be removed from the process.
So, my recommendations are: allow a larger variety of voters, but a smaller overall number of voters; restrict players’ time on the ballot to 3-5 years; and legislate responsible voting habits. How much of this will ever happen? None of it, I’d guess, but we can dare to dream.
On to the NFL playoffs, and I admit I was very disappointed to be 4-0 in my picks last week. Pittsburgh could have, SHOULD have made me 3-1 but careless play by Ben in the first half and some highly questionable coaching decisions in the 2nd half led to defeat. The decision that vexed me the most was going for the 2-point conversion after a holding call moved the ball to the 12. I’d estimate you have about a 1-in-8 success rate on that play, compared to about a 99.5% chance of kicking the point. Points are very valuable things, and you have to collect them and treat them as valuable. Coach Tomlin chose to take the risk and it really cost his team. The QB draw on 3rd-and-6 was coaching “not-to-lose” at its worst. Mike Golic asked, “If Brady or Manning were faced with 3rd and 6 with the game at stake, would you see them run a QB draw”? Of course not. Ben had a great season and a great 2nd half against the Jaguars…he should have been entrusted to throw a pass there to clinch the game. Again, with Tomlin being a rookie coach one can only hope he learned a lesson there.
For 2008, Pittsburgh will have to acquire some O-line talent. Sean Mahan is simply not the answer at center, I saw him getting soundly beaten in every game the last half of the season. With the probable departure of Alan Faneca (a subject we will address another day), the aging of the defensive line, and the inconsistency at left tackle, I believe Pittsburgh needs to draft at least 2 offensive linemen and 1 or 2 defensive linemen to give themselves a shot in 2008. In my opinion, the lines are the least-noticed but most-important element of football success; let’s hope Tomlin feels this way as well.
Quick picks for this week’s games: The home team in this round has an astounding historical advantage, winning 78% of all games since 1990, according to ESPN’s Gregg Easterbrook. Hard to buck those odds, and all 4 home teams are favored by 7 points or more. New England should easily handle Jacksonville, whose pass defense was mighty suspect against the Steelers. Look for Moss to run wild and Brady to have a field day, I’ll say Pats by 18. San Diego stopped Vince Young, but they can’t stop Peyton Manning, and they don’t have enough passing weapons to get into a shootout. Colts by 10. Green Bay seems like a team of destiny, I look for them to get it done against Seattle by 7…and the “upset Special”, the Giants will ride their momentum (and the injuries to T.O. and Romo) to a big upset in the heart of Texas…Giants by 3.
Dave Glass lives in Clearfield with his wife, Suzanne, and their six children. He can be reached at buggyracer@verizon.net