Hall of the Marginally Great

Recently some players were elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame and some weren't, touching off another round of sports columns lauding the inductees and arguing about whether So-and-so should get in spite of the suspicion that he chewed Bubbilicious for most of his career instead of Big League Chew. There are several events like this each year, when every columnist in America feels the need to weigh in on why Tony Gwynn was such a great player or why Jim Rice shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame or why Peter King is a jackass. The same thing happens right before they announce the league MVP or the All-Star game rosters or which reporter gets to follow Barry Bonds around for a year. As much as I enjoy reading these nuggets of wisdom (and I really really do), maybe we need to draw straws so only one person gets to write this homerun of a column. A better idea would be to stop inducting people into the Hall of Fame altogether.

Back when it was first created, there were only five people in the Hall of Fame and they were pretty famous. After a couple of years, the number rose to 10, then to 34, and then it took awhile but it eventually stopped at 117 (then secretly added another 163 people last month). The point is, no one remembers who the original five were and their plaques are buried in the Cooperstown basement next to the exhibit from A League of Their Own. I believe this is what they call "dilution" in finance and it's destroying the Hall of Fame from the ground up (or whatever floor they put the members on).

People who love the Hall of Fame and arguing about it would argue that people visit Cooperstown want to see all the greatest players and learn about the game. If we stopped inducting people, then the record of baseball is incomplete, they would argue. This is all well and good assuming that the Hall is built to withstand a nuclear blast and that people thousands of years in the future are going to wonder why Bert Blyleven doesn't have a shiny plaque next to Bruce Sutter. I would argue, based on my one trip to the Hall of Fame 15 years ago, that the exhibits, not the plaque room, are the most interesting part of Cooperstown. Sure it's fun to look at Babe Ruth in all his glory, but who cares about Cal Ripkin? We watched him play on television for years and I'm pretty sure Babe Ruth couldn't even have been photographed without the camera exploding, so we need that plaque up there or 10 years from now, everyone will think John Goodman is actually the Babe.

Since that proposal will never pass muster with the baseball writers who have a vote and those who don't but like writing columns that start "If I had a vote for the HoF, here's who I'd vote for," I propose a more limited selection process. Just like the World Cup and Olympics aren't held every year, the Hall of Fame elections (not just for baseball, but for every sport) should be limited to once every 10 years. Also, there should be a cap of 10 selections for every year, and once you fail to make it during one term, you're done. This would make the selection announcement into a huge media event, sparking weeks of promotion and columns from every writer in the country (on second thought, scratch that).

Also, isn't there something wrong with the writers voting for the inductees? Reporters and columnists aren't exactly objective people and they hold grudges and have big egos and hate athletes who don't give them good access and still use typewriters. Are we supposed to believe that these people are the best judges of baseball ability? If you have a Hall of Fame vote, that's one column in the bag each year. The Veterans Committee is no better since they'll either vote for their teammates or not vote for anyone at all. Instead of human voting, a formula should developed that would decide things on a purely objective level. It should be constructed so the resulting selections would reflect the top 5% of players who have played at least 15 years. Any use of numbers besides batting average, home runs, and RBIs may frighten some baseball people, but this is exactly why they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

That's three proposals on how to make the Hall of Fame better, more than any other column will give you today, especially since the voting was announced two weeks ago. With quality individuals like Robb Nen and Matt Williams coming up for induction soon, I have a feeling we might just see our first unanimous selection ever. Of course, since Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame, the whole thing is a complete farce! That guy is a true legend.