Back to the Hall

Some don't need to buy a ticket

The Hall of Fame chat of the other night got my brain churning.

Plus I continue to see incredibly shortsighted commentary, such as the one talking about Phil Rizzuto.

Look, I get it on The Scooter, but the poster on social media kept saying the same thing: "1500 hits, 38 home runs." OK, you also realize the shortstop position was not one of power until Ernie Banks and, later, Cal and A-Rod made it fashionable, right?

You also know Rizzuto lost three years to World Way II?

But Scooter was as much the heart and soul of the Yankees of the 40s and 50s. Mantle and Berra and DiMaggio were the superstars. But Rizzuto was no slouch. To ignore the (now lost) art of bunting along with his 1950 American League MVP is to show that you lack fundamental knowledge on the topic.

There's an often wrong notion of "if/then" in sports. It's flawed for sure but there are exceptions.

It goes like this: "IF Keith Hernandez is a Hall of Famer, THEN Don Mattingly has to be." That one works, for instance. I've often wondered about Mattingly versus Kirby Puckett (their numbers are identical) but one played center field and the other played first base. One has postseason success and won two rings and the other got one playoff series.

Well, Pee Wee Reese got into the Hall of Fame in 1984. Pee Wee and Phil Rizzuto were the shortstop royalty of New York. Now, I realize Reese earns social bonus points for his embracing of Jackie Robinson -- literally and figuratively. Character does matter in the Hall of Fame, but that alone does not a Hall of Famer make. Still, Pee Wee's case was not a "no-brainer."

Reese's stats are better than Rizzuto's, sure, but both had their support to get them in via the veteran's committee. In Rizzuto's case, there was no less than Ted Williams, who vociferously made the point that Rizzuto was a huge reason why the Yankees were better than the Red Sox in those years.

Case. Closed. Rizzuto is a Hall of Famer, like it or not.

But given our man on social media wants the whole shooting gallery reopened with the inclusion of Negro League stats being merged into the Major Leagues (and still confusing people), let me remind you (again) that this was already done back in 2006. I know, I wrote that two posts ago.

But, if you have a subscription to The Athletic*, Joe Posnanski is doing all the week for you. He has created a series on those outside the Hall of Fame. Now, granted, this is purely for discussion purposes. Joe is a brilliant writer. Truly. He has his flaws (as do I). He has opinions that I very much disagree with. But that also makes a lot of his work appointment reading.

*Paul Silverfarb gave me a free subscription for a year and I have to say that, so long as I can afford it, I will be a paying customer. The writing -- the reporting -- is what Sports Illustrated and Sport and The Sporting News and Inside Sports and Baseball Digest and Yankees Magazine and Steelers Digest used to be for me.

He broke down over 100 players over a series of posts and is currently going through the top 25. Mattingly is in there, though I think he's a little hard on "Donnie Baseball" but Joe is also decidedly pro-analytics to the point of overusing them. I look at WAR as a nice thing to glance at but I still tend to be an "eye test" guy. Thus, Mike Trout: Hall of Famer. I don't need numbers but they're nice filler.

Larry Walker? Good player. Very good. Didn't really pass the eye test with me, but the voters put him in.

Like it or not, we found a breaking point with the Hall of Fame when Harold Baines got the nod, and I know there's a notion that we've gone over the falls in the barrel, so just let everyone in! No, I still think there should be standards.

Despite the obvious flaws of the system.

We'll still have to deal with other issues. There's the no-shot but still talked about topic of Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose (both pass the eye test but both fail the gambling thing). I've long said you can put them in, note their flaws on their plaque and, if Pete is still alive, don't let him give a speech. I suspect there will be a conversation about hanging his plaque as soon as he's dead, quite honestly.

Then we have the steroid users. I'll make this clear: some are already in, and you're not being honest if you don't believe that. The names are obvious. So let's stop being hypocrites, shall we? 

Most applauded Bonds and Clemens and A-Rod and McGwire and Sosa and Palmiero and on and on and on. Most knew what was going on. I knew it in '98 as McGwire was going after Roger Maris (we'll come back to him).

We all knew Bonds wasn't clean as he went after 755 home runs. It's no coincidence the Giants let him walk after he broke the record. Get the moment of glory, sell the merchandise, and get it over with. Ring those registers! Then? Nobody wanted him.

Obvious.

My point is, overall, we're all complicit. So let's stop "protecting the game."

Back to Maris. Roger had good years, including two MVP awards. He was renowned for being a terrific defensive player, baserunner, and hitter. I'm not going to build a case for him otherwise, but there are those players who have the cultural moments (again, Pee Wee Reese). Factor the impact and Roger's 61 in '61 makes him a HOFer just because of what he endured that year. Now, again, I'm not creating a plaque. However, don't tell me that Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers, and Frank Chance are in the Hall for true baseball excellence.

They're in the Hall because of a poem:

These are the saddest of possible words:
"Tinker to Evers to Chance."
Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds,
Tinker and Evers and Chance.
Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble,
Making a Giant hit into a double –
Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble:
"Tinker to Evers to Chance."

Ozzie Smith is in, partially, due to his personality and backflips. Puckett is in because he smiled a lot and people loved him. You know these are all true. There are variables to this stuff; writers aren't robots.

Personality goes a long way.

We know Mariano Rivera shouldn't have been the first unanimous Hall of Famer due to those writers' flaws. Babe Ruth should have been, but he had only retired a year before the first voting cycle in 1936 and some used that against him.

What makes me bat-bleep crazy is the number of people who don't do the research and just blather on. In 2020, Google is your friend. That's why Ruth wasn't unanimous. Other unique issues created the scenario where Joe DiMaggio didn't get in on his first try.

And, no, being a Yankee doesn't get you in. Ask Ron Guidry, Roger Maris, Thurman Munson, Don Mattingly (need more proof?). Posnanski, in fact, pointed out how being with the Yankees or in a major market doesn't help as much as you think. I've been saying that for years. Go look at personal awards and get back to me. Justin Morneau? Bartolo Colon? Pat Hentgen? Anyone?

There's a whole history to this stuff. Read more than the headlines, people!

Anyway, I've babbled on here. Posnanski's work is brilliant (and, partially, wrong, but those are opinions for you!).

And I really need another trip to Cooperstown.