Are You 98% Sure, Or Just 77%?

Goose Gossage was finally inducted in to the Baseball Hall of Fame over the weekend. Its hard to believe that a guy with his numbers, a guy that helped revolutionize relief pitching in baseball, was on the ballot nine times before being inducted (insert Ferris Bueller Mr. Rooney imitation here). And here lies my problem with the Hall of Fame- what makes Goose Gossage a Hall of Famer this year that didn't make him a Hall of Famer the previous 8 years? He didn't pitch anymore, so why now? If he's Hall of Fame worthy (and I think few would argue that he's not), why did it take 9 years?

I caught the most recent Costas NOW on HBO where they had a live round table discussion on the current state of baseball; their first live round table discussion was on Sports and Media and gave us the following exchange from Buzz Bissinger (writer of Friday Night Lights) and Will Leitch (founder of Deadspin.com):



The baseball round table wasn't nearly as heated, but it did have Bissinger and Leitch sitting side by side in the audience, sharing a hot dog and a beer. On the program, they had a number of Hall of Famers, such as Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Bob Gibson, and they also had, via satellite, Pete Rose.

Now, I'm a big Pete Rose apologist, always have been, always will be. But this post isn't about Pete and why he should be in the Hall of Fame. No, it's about a point that Pete brought up during this round table. He asked, rhetorically, what it means to be a "first ballot" Hall of Famer and how its any different from being a "regular" Hall of Famer. Pete argued, and I whole-heartedly agree, that there's no different and that a guy is either a Hall of Famer or he's not. First ballot, second ballot, ninth ballot, it doesn't matter and it shouldn't matter. It doesn't matter to the players in the Hall (to them, a Hall of Famer is a Hall of Famer), so why does it matter to the writers? I think its because a number of baseball writers are idiots.

There are two things that bother me regarding the Baseball Hall of Fame. The first is voting (or not voting) for players in their first year of eligibility.

I've read there are baseball writers that don't vote for any player in their first year of eligibility because they believe that no player should ever be elected to the Hall of Fame with 100% of the vote on the first try. I've read that it might have something to do with the fact that Babe Ruth, the greatest baseball player of all time, didn't get 100%, or that no one in that inaugural class got 100%; either way, it's ludicrous. Who cares if a player gets 100% of the vote? A Hall of Famer is a Hall of Famer, you're either worthy or not. Do the writer's really think that people will look at the vote tally and decide who was the greatest player based on that? Does anyone really think that Tom Seaver (with 98.84% of the vote, the current highest) is the greatest baseball player of all time? No, that's still Babe Ruth. So what's the difference between 98.84% and 100%? Nothing.

The title of this post comes from a line of Miller Lite commercials from a few years back (2000, maybe?) featuring pairs of retired athletes discussing the merits of Miller Lite and their own careers. This line comes from the George Brett-Robin Yount commercial, where Brett alludes to the pair's Hall of Fame induction percentages (Brett at 98% of the vote, Yount 77%). Clearly, it was meant in jest for the commercial, but in the end, they're both in the Hall, so it doesn't matter.

Writer's claim that not voting for a guy in his first year is a way for them to comment on a guy's career. But if he's worthy of the Hall and is going to make it eventually, who cares? It means the same to the player if they go in on year 1 as it does on year 10, so what comment are you making? They don't make mention on your plaque that it took you 7 tries before you were voted in, so why does it matter? I think it matters to the writers because they need to say, "Look how important I think I am!!"

The second thing that bothers me about the Hall is having an unofficial "cap" on the number of inductees that writers will put in a class.

Even though some moronic writers hold off on voting for them, players still get into the Hall in their first year. Going back to the title of this post, George Brett, Robin Yount, and Nolan Ryan all went into the Hall in the same year, all in their first year of eligibility. Now, that it was much of a surprise; I remember when they retired, people were saying, "There's your Hall of Fame class in 5 years. No one else is getting in that year [by the writer's vote] ." They said the same thing when Cal Ripken, Jr. and Tony Gwynn retired. "That's it, that's list. No one else will get in that year because these guys are shoe-ins."

How stupid is that? Sure, Ripken and Gwynn are Hall of Famers, no one doubts that. But why does having them on the ballot prevent you from voting for, say, Jim Rice or Andre Dawson? And yet, guys like Rice and Dawson only get significant numbers of votes when there aren't "shoe-in" names on the ballot. Few people seem to doubt that both Rice and Dawson deserve to be in the Hall, but they are still on the outside looking in. There's no limit to the number of players that can be inducted in a year, so if a guy's deserving of the Hall of Fame, why wait?

A Hall of Famer is a Hall of Famer. The writers think they are making a statement when they cast their votes for the Hall. The only comments on a guy's career that matters are the ones that appear on his plaque. The 9 writer's who didn't vote for Hank Aaron should've lost their votes forever. Same with the 11 that didn't vote for Babe Ruth. The should be only one reason not to vote a player into the Hall of Fame- he wasn't good enough. That's it, that's the list.