Hall of Fame controversies
Big Hall or small Hall?
I recently went on a road trip across part of our great nation and noticed a proliferation of signs that said, “visit our historic downtown”. From small villages to medium sized cities, it seems every downtown is now a historic one. About ten years ago someone at a Chamber of Commerce convention must have done one hell of a sales job to convince every town that they have a historic downtown. What we really have is a misunderstanding of history. Did your downtown host any presidential speeches? Maybe a historical event happened there at one time? No? Then it’s not historical, just old. Downtown Boston, historical. Downtown Cedar Falls, Iowa? Charming, but just old.
The same thing goes for this column. Most of what I write about is just a rehash of old stories. Occasionally there is something that is historic. A Royals pitcher throwing a no-hitter? Historic. George Brett vanquishing the Yankees? Historic. The Royals winning the World Series? Historic. A recap of the 1972 season? Old, but not historic.
Talking about old, here’s a thought that blew my mind. The Royals started play in 1969. From 2024, that’s as far away from us as the start of World War One was to 1969. Now I really feel old.
A writer named Leo Drutman recently wrote a piece about what is called nostalgia bias, which is remembering the past as being better than it was. He also said that we often think about the present as worse than it actually is, which is called negativity bias. Covering the past Royals teams and the 2024 team encompasses both. The 2024 Royals got off to a fabulous start, one of the best in team history. Does that mean they’re a better team than the 1977 team that won a still club record 102 games? Probably not, but time will tell as the summer plays out. I’d be thrilled to see this team win 100+ games. I’d be thrilled to see them win 90 games. How cool would that be? Can these guys do it? Probably not, but they do have a chance, however slim it may be.
When talking about history, and old stuff, specifically the Hall of Fame, there is an accepted consensus that there are a few players who are not worthy of being enshrined in Cooperstown. Let’s take a look at a couple of them.
Take this example:
Pretty close, right? Who would you want on your team? They both played the same position, and one is in the Hall of Fame, while the other is not. Player A is Bill Mazeroski. Player B is our own Frank White. Frank has a slight advantage in home runs and a large lead in stolen bases. They both won eight Gold Gloves. Mazeroski was inducted to the Hall of Fame in 2001 courtesy of the Veterans Committee. Does this mean that White should be in the Hall? Probably not. Understand, I was as big a Frank White fan as there was, and always felt that Frank was in the Hall of Very, Very Good. Same with Maz. Very good player, but not Hall worthy. But Maz as you well know, hit one of the most famous home runs in baseball history and that carried a lot of water with the Veteran’s committee.
While we are stoking controversy, how about these two players:
Both are really good players with long careers. Their stats are very similar yet, one of these guys is in the Hall while the other has no chance at induction. Player A is one-time Royal Johnny Damon. Player B is Harold Baines. Baines was elected to the Hall, somewhat controversially, by the Today’s Game Era committee in 2019. He remains the poster boy for bad Hall choices. Again, understand, I have no animus about Baines. He was a terrific hitter for many years. Is he Hall-worthy? Not in my book, but I didn’t have a vote. I do believe that Damon deserves consideration for the Royals Hall of Fame, but his chances at the National Baseball Hall of Fame are slim and none and I think I see Slim riding out of town. Both players should be in the Hall of Very, Very Good.
One more comparison and I’ll return to writing about old stuff. Both of these players were terrific pitchers. One is considered an All-Timer, while the other is, in my opinion, overlooked, even by his own fan base. One is in the Hall, the other has no chance.
Player A is Kevin Appier. Appier was a hell of a pitcher for the Royals. He got screwed out of the 1993 Cy Young (Jack McDowell took it with his shiny 22-10 record) even though Appier was a significantly better pitcher. Appier was also consistently overlooked for the All-Star game. By my reckoning, he should have had at least five and possibly as many as seven or eight All-Star appearances. He hasn’t played in 20 years and it’s easy to forget what a force of nature he was in his prime.
Player B as you’ve possibly guessed is Sandy Koufax. I have no quarrel with Koufax being in the Hall. He was an All-Timer and his six-year prime between 1961 and 1966 is still looked upon as the gold standard for pitchers. He threw four no-hitters and shocked the baseball world by walking away at the age of 30 due to chronic elbow pain. No, this essay is just to illustrate how good Appier was.
Of all the major sports, the Baseball Hall of Fame is consistently the most controversial. Baseball fans are passionate about who gets in and who doesn’t. I rarely see arguments arise about who gets inducted into the football, hockey or basketball halls. Baseball? It’s an annual barroom brawl. One change I would like to see is the results of all voting made public. Make the voters stand by their choices.
The Baseball Hall of Fame has long been beset by grudges carried by voters. If a voter doesn’t want to vote for Barry Bonds because he used steroids, which is an advantage, or Jeff Kent because he was a complete jerk, then so be it. Make your ballot public and give an explanation. Sunlight is always the best disinfectant.