Are You a True Hall of Fame If Your Greatest Aren’t There?

KenGriffeyJr

On Wednesday, the Baseball Writers Association of America (for some reason abbreviated as the BBWAA instead of BWAA, but I digress) announced the players who had earned the requisite number of votes for entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Named on all but three of the ballots returned to the BBWAA – for a 99.3% tally, the best all-time – was outfielder Ken Griffey, Jr., in his first year of eligibility. He will be joined by catcher Mike Piazza, who has been waiting for a few years when he too should have been a first ballot entry (we’ll get to that in a moment). Other deserving players such as Tim Raines, Jeff Bagwell, Trevor Hoffman, Lee Smith and Curt Schilling came up short and will have to wait until next year for another shot.

MikePiazza

The problem with the BBWAA – and with the electorate for other Halls of Fame in other sporting arenas – is that those involved with electing those who would be enshrined into such rarefied air seem to want to serve as some sort of “arbiter of the game” or “Lord Protector” of what is holy about a sport. You get past the four names at the end of the paragraph above and you see other names that, in their own right, arguably should have been elected the first time their names appeared on the ballot. Roger Clemens (received 199 votes, 45.2%), Barry Bonds (195 votes, 44.3%), Mark McGwire (54 votes, 12.3%) and Sammy Sosa (31 votes, 7%) are all quite a distance from reaching that magic 75% threshold and, in McGwire’s case, are running out of years left on their eligibility for being voted in by the BBWAA (a player has to be retired for five years before being considered; said player then has ten years to garner the 75% votes for election to the Hall before being removed from the ballot, as McGwire will be next year).

All of these men have put up some of the greatest individual achievements in the history of the game. Clemens has won the Cy Young Award seven times while striking out 4672 batters (third all time). Bonds not only took the single season home run record away from McGwire, he also eclipsed the career home run record of the legendary Hank Aaron while winning the MVP Award seven times. McGwire was a former Rookie of the Year who won two World Series titles and was a 12-time All-Star while earning the best home run-to-at bat ratio in the history of the game. Perhaps the only weak link is Sosa, who could only claim one MVP award and seven All-Star appearances over his career.

So why are these guys not in the Baseball Hall of Fame? And is your sport’s “pantheon” of greatness a true Hall of Fame if your greatest players/contributors aren’t there?

In baseball’s case the BBWAA, when they were tasked with the duties of electing people to the Hall of Fame, were given criteria for consideration, if you will, as they pondered their decisions on who to elect. Under the BBWAA Method of Election subsection entitled “Voting,” the criteria states, “Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.” (Highlights by the writer.)

Therein lies the problem with Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and a host of others from the Steroids Era of baseball. Although they were never caught – hell, in most cases it is believed that baseball turned a blind eye towards the usage of steroids so the players could bulk up, smash home runs and bring fans back to the game – they live under the scarlet “S” of suspicion of using steroids over their careers. Bonds (never admitted but somewhat proven in a court of law) and McGwire (confessed eventually) have danced around the issue while Clemens has vehemently denied ever using anything, despite having his close friend and former teammate Andy Pettitte admit his usage and allege Clemens’ (Clemens said his wife used steroids, which doesn’t look good when your supposed “personal trainer” is allegedly stabbing your wife’s backside with ‘roids, but not you). Sosa conveniently forgets the English language when the subject comes up.

By the literal reading of the criteria for the BBWAA, then those that have been found to have been users (we’re talking to you, Alex Rodriguez) or are from a preponderance of the evidence believed to have used (Bonds, Clemens, et. al.) should not have a seat among the greatest in the game, the pantheon known as the Hall of Fame, for violating the sportsmanship and, perhaps more importantly, the integrity and character of the game. It is the same reasoning that has been unfortunately used for more than two decades on one man and for almost a century on another (wrongly, but we’ll get to that).

PeteRose

Another story during baseball’s Hot Stove league was baseball’s pariah, its Lost Son, Pete Rose, applying for reinstatement to the game. Having been banished from baseball in 1989 for gambling on the game (something that will lead us to our second case), Rose had survived at its periphery but was unable to fully receive all the accolades he truly deserved for his lifetime achievements. Because of the banishment (more on this in a second), the BBWAA would not consider him for the Hall of Fame – despite the fact that Rose is one of the game’s all-time great players and its all-time leader in hits with 4256, three World Series titles and 17 All-Star appearances. He also couldn’t work in any capacity with any Major League Baseball franchise, meaning his managing career was over.

With a new Commissioner of Baseball in place, Rob Manfred (who succeeded Bud Selig as the 10th Commissioner of the game), Rose felt that the time was right to take a stab at being reinstated, perhaps to reach that elusive goal of the Hall of Fame, maybe to perhaps get into that front office job or work as a scout for a team (strangely enough, Rose had done work with the Fox Sports 1 as a baseball analyst during the 2015 MLB Playoffs). After some investigation – which allegedly found that Rose still gambles on baseball and other activities – Manfred refused to reinstate Rose to the game and, thus, his odyssey continues.

JoeJackson

The situation where it has been used wrongly is in the case of the unfortunate “Shoeless” Joe Jackson. One of the outstanding players of the early 20th century, Jackson was accused (along with seven of his Chicago White Sox teammates) of throwing the 1919 World Series to the Cincinnati Reds. Although Jackson and his teammates were acquitted in a trial in 1921 of any wrongdoing in the case, the first Commissioner of Baseball, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, banned all from the game.

The problem with this is that Jackson, or at least his performance during the 1919 World Series, was doing everything apparently that he could to win the Series. He was the best hitter on both teams, batting .375, and hit the only home run on either team. He threw out five baserunners from left field and handled 30 fielding chances without an error. The seven other players, following Jackson’s death in 1951, stated that he was not a part of the plan to fix the 1919 World Series, but Jackson to this day is banned from the game and, thus, from the Hall of Fame.

Perhaps the situation will begin to change over the coming years, however. Manfred, when announcing that Rose would not be reinstated to the game, indicated that the BBWAA reticence to induct players who have run afoul of baseball’s rules is simply a way for them to dodge having to deal with how to induct them into the Hall. In his official statement announcing that Rose would not be reinstated to baseball, Manfred said, “It is not part of MLB’s authority or responsibility here to make any determination concerning Mr. Rose’s eligibility as a candidate for election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame,” and “any debate over Mr. Rose’s eligibility for the Hall of Fame is one that must take place in a different forum.”

Depending on the transgressions, a person is usually entitled to either a second chance or, lacking that, a firm examination of their work and recognition for it with the explanation about their actions. For example, in the steroids case, Bonds, McGwire and Clemens could have a simple statement placed on their plaques that recognize they played in an era where usage of “chemical enhancement” was rampant. For Rose and perhaps Jackson, a similar statement could be made regarding violating one of the base tenets of the game of baseball, to not bet on its outcome (even though it doesn’t appear Jackson did). Other players in the Baseball Hall of Fame utilized spitballs, were racists, even allegedly killed during their careers…but they’re in the Hall of Fame. To keep these men out just doesn’t seem to fit the crime.

Perhaps the answer to the question we asked earlier – in the case of the Baseball Hall of Fame, at least – is that some of your greatest players cannot be a part of your Hall of Fame, yet it is still the pantheon that it is supposed to be. But perhaps, at some point, the change will come and the powers that be – whether it is the sportswriters, broadcasters, the “Veteran’s Committee” or perhaps a young boy or girl watching the game today – who will look back at the cases, names and achievements of men like Jackson, Rose, Bonds, Clemens…and say, “Why not? Why AREN’T they in the Hall of Fame?”

Goin’ South: Pick For the Next NASCAR Champion and Why NASCAR’s Popularity Died

Irwin Tools Night Race

After a week like the one the world has been having, everyone just needs to step off this weekend and let their minds dwell on less testy matters. The start of college basketball season has been a nice salve for me as it is always interesting to watch the next crop of multi-million dollar NBA pros ply their trade…I mean, play for the honor of the school they are attending. Add in the NFL, the NBA and NCAA college football and the plate is pretty full.

I happened to glance at the calendar and realized this weekend is “Championship Weekend” for NASCAR, the venerable stock car racing body in the United States. On Sunday, four men (and we will get to details on them in a moment) – four-time champion Jeff Gordon, defending champion Kevin Harrick, “wild child” Kyle Busch and “steady Eddie” Martin Truex, Jr. – will be eligible to win the NASCAR Sprint Cup championship in the final race of the “Chase for the Sprint Cup (oddly enough, also its final race…a new sponsor takes over in 2016).” Usually I would have been all over this – who doesn’t like a good stock car race? – but, as I have grown older (and NASCAR has made mistakes), it isn’t a priority to me anymore.

One of the problems with NASCAR is that the season lasts WAY too long. Beginning at the start of February with preparations for the Daytona 500, NASCAR only takes about three weeks off between then and almost the end of November, when they conduct the season finale at Homestead-Miami Speedway in Florida. That’s nine months of week-in, week-out events and they all can’t be “edge of your seat” entertainment. There’s more times than not that the product put on the stage is more a solution for insomnia than bringing somebody back to life.

Secondly, there is this manufactured “Chase for the Cup” as a method of determining a champion. About ten years ago, NASCAR thought they needed to add some drama to their method for determining a champion. Some years a driver would win so much that, by the end of the season, said driver had already locked up the championship and made the final race of the season a snooze fest, something that didn’t set well with NASCAR brass from a fan perspective as well as a television (advertisers) perspective.

To counteract this, NASCAR came up with the “Chase.” Using a variety of different point qualifying methods over the years, essentially after 26 races (leaving the final 10 as a “playoffs”) the top ten racers would be separated from the field and deemed the “only” drivers who could win the Sprint Cup. This “playoff” system has been derided by many old school fans of the sport but can be given credit for drawing some eyes towards the battle for the championship over the years (usually after some big crash has caused a fight between the drivers while in the pits).

Thirdly, if you haven’t seen a race on television lately, the reason is that it is harder to find than a virgin in the infield at Talladega. With the current television contract (split between the Fox Television Network and its Fox Sports 1 cable outlet and NBC and their cable side, NBCSN), there are at least four different networks you’d have to search over to find the race. If you don’t have the proper cable package, you might not get NBCSN or Fox Sports 1; that means you’re going to miss some races that have been shuffled off of the major network to these cable sister stations.

Finally, have you looked at attendance at the tracks over the past couple of years? There is hardly anyone in the stands for some of the biggest events on the schedule. It is almost expected that some areas like Kansas, Kentucky or even California might not be able to fill the grandstands (due to location or just plain boring racing), but when such popular racetracks as Talladega and Bristol have empty seats, something is going wrong.

The problems facing NASCAR aren’t exclusive to that sport alone, however (OK, having races somewhere in Kansas might be, but we’ll let that alone for now). Much like the National Football League, with the advent of HDTV and internet services, fans are more likely to stay at home – where they can see pretty much everything going on rather than just when the race screams past them for the umpteenth time – and kick back in their recliner to watch the event. Count in cheaper beverages, not having to pay for a ticket (a family of four could spend as much as $400 to attend one race) and not having to deal with pre- and post-race traffic, it isn’t hard to see why attendance is down and, perhaps, even viewership (due to the television contracts and the different stations).

OK, if you’ve reached this far, you’re probably interested in a prediction on who will win the Ford 400 (look, you have to have a bigger name for your Championship Event than this!) on Sunday. Let’s break the four contenders down in their “Pros and Cons.”

Jeff Gordon

PROS:  This Sunday is the final race in what will eventually be a Hall of Fame career for Gordon. The four-time NASCAR champion would like to go out on top with a fifth championship and there is a sentimentality factor for the fans to send him out that way.

CONS:  For the past few years (he won his last NASCAR championship in 2001), Gordon has been hanging on the edge of the game. Sure, he gets a win once in a while and, for the most part, always was in the Chase for the Cup, but he never was a serious contender. If Gordon was to win the championship, the screams of “FIX!!!” would be heard at racetracks from Fontana to New Hampshire.

Kevin Harvick

PROS:  The defending champion of the series, a likeable character nicknamed “Happy” (once a tongue-in-cheek ode to his temperamental outbursts), Harvick would demonstrate that his 2014 title wasn’t a fluke. He’s been at or near the top of the leaderboard all season long and has won three races over the course of the season.

CONS:  While leagues may like dynasties, NASCAR fans don’t (just ask six-time NASCAR champion Jimmie Johnson, who won five of them in a row). Harvick also rubs some people the wrong way with his attitude towards other drivers, especially when he uses the same tactics. Thoughts are if he hadn’t caused a huge wreck at the end of the November Talladega race, he wouldn’t even have made it to the Round of Eight in the “Chase.”

Kyle Busch

PROS:  One of the most winning drivers in NASCAR and its different racing series over the past decade. Huge talent that has never been this close to claiming a championship. Has a racing pedigree with his brother, Kurt, also winning a NASCAR Cup title. Won four times over the course of the season.

CONS:  Bratty, arrogant, pompous – these are a few of the kinder adjectives used to describe Busch. All those wins hasn’t exactly bought him a great deal of respect from the fans, either. Missed a great deal of the season after a crash at Daytona in February broke his leg; he needed a waiver from NASCAR (and a bit of hard work on his part) to even make the “Chase” to begin with.

Martin Truex, Jr.

PROS:  The epitome of hard work. A single car team from outside the South (the Furniture Row team Truex drives for is based in Denver, CO), Truex has been able to bring this team to the precipice of the goal of any competitor – being a champion. One of the most popular drivers with both fans and fellow drivers in the garage…don’t think that anyone would begrudge him winning the title.

CONS:  Who? Truex isn’t exactly the fan-favorite like Dale Earnhardt, Jr. and he nor his team have the history of being among the best in stock car racing, a field that is dominated by three or four large teams for the most part (racing teams operated by Hendricks, Gibbs and Childress, for the most part). If he were to win the title and not win on Sunday (the champion will be determined by who finishes the highest amongst these four men in the race), his one win would be the least by a champion since Matt Kenseth in 2003.

I’ll probably tune in for the final 20 laps or so of the race on Sunday, but I certainly won’t be glued to it as I might have been in the past. While the story of Gordon is nice, the story of the “underdog” Truex is a better story, so I’ll be rooting for him. Hey, it isn’t like they won’t be starting the next season in a month or so anyway.