Today’s column …


is on why baseball writers have little business deciding on the Hall of Fame’s entrants. My peers won’t love it, but I’m pretty sure I’m right about this one.

Fight the power.

7 thoughts on “Today’s column …”

  1. Interesting column.

    Though I think you need to dig more, you start out by explaining that sportswriters are/were kind of losers, but you don’t really follow up on that.

    Did they not elect Alomar because they are trying to get back at their old jock nemesis?

    Did they not all elect Henderson because they now have what they never had (power) and can’t handle it?

    Like I said, I think that this was a good idea and you did well with it, but it could have been better.

  2. I appreciated the opening. I’m always amused when sportswriters throw around words/phrases like “nerds”, “geeks” and “mother’s basement” to describe bloggers or stats-guys; as if the sportswriters have maintained permanent residency at the cool kids’ table.

  3. I don’t think you’re totally right about all of this, Jeff, but I don’t disagree with all of it.
    I do think that, due to our tendency to overanalyze trades and players and the like, we sportswriters tend to have a little bit of valuable baseball knowlege that does make us uniquely qualified to discuss and make decisions about the worthiness of baseball players to receive the greatest honor they can possibly get.
    However, for reasons that you cleverly outlined, we shouldn’t be the only ones who get to make such decisions.
    I think the Hall Of Fame voting should be divided equally between the writers, managers/players, and regular fans. With the Internet, this kind of thing should be easy to do.

  4. I think the voting should be limited to the retired players, managers and general managers.
    They either played with, or watched his performance and as peers are best qualified to judge the merit of whether he should be elected or not.

    Human nature will always play a part in the voting, and the more popular player will have a better chance. I recall Ted williams was not elected when first eligible because he was not liked by the Boston Press.
    On the other hand, Derrick Jeter will be a first ballot selection for the opposite reason. Regarding alomar. While deserving of a place in the Hall, he was not in the top three or four players at his position. More likely, he’ll get in next year with Bleyleven, and hopefully, Jack Morris who has been rejected because of his ERA. I think anyone who shines for the better part of a decade should receive strong consideration for the HALL.

  5. Nice piece. I’ve written before of my objections to your Hall picks, so I guess none of us will be truly satisfied. I guess that’s what makes it fun to argue about, though.

    My theories on the Alomar slight: 1) the spitting incident cost him votes.
    2) some only vote for slam dunk cases in their first year of eligibiity.
    3) Alomar never had that memorable moment or season that people still talk about. For instance, Dawson and Rice’s MVP seasons still linger in the minds of the voters, and they use that as their basis rather than looking at the numbers for Raines and Alomar.

Leave a Reply