Excuse the corny headline.
And, excuse me while I go all cliche on you.
...Guess who's back? Back again. Guess who's back? Tell a friend...
OK. Sorry, had to get that out of my system.
What's inspired me to come here and write tonight is the idiocy of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Let me clarify. Not the Hall of Fame itself, but the voters are idiots. I'd love to visit Cooperstown someday. I'd be like a kid in a candy store. It's on my bucket list. I love history, and I love baseball. Combine the two, and you've got me weak in the knees.
I'm not a bitter Cubs fan here to cry about the fact that Sammy Sosa appeared on just 12% of the ballots this time around. I couldn't care less about Sammy. I've washed my hands of him, and I think a lot of Cubs fans have done the same thing. It was great while he was here, 1998 was unforgettable, as was 2003. But the way his career ended and now with the steroid allegations, I think most have soured on Sammy.
I also haven't decided how I feel about putting alleged steroid users into the Hall.
No, none of those things bother me. In fact, those are posts for a different day. Tonight, it's the fact that guys can be so unworthy of a spot one year, but in a few years, maybe they will be.
How does that make any sense to anyone???
Every time one of these Hall of Fame votes comes up, Dan Patrick always says on his radio show, "you're either a Hall of Famer or you're not". Thank you Dan, for having some common sense.
Take the baseball process for example. Once a player goes on the ballot, he's got 15 years to get in. That seems sufficient, right? Add in the five year waiting period, and any particular player has 20 years after he retires to get into the Hall of Fame.
First of all, do we really need 15 years to decide if a player is worthy of the Hall of Fame or not? I think we pretty much know when a guy retires whether or not he's going in. Secondly, if a player still isn't in after the 15 years, he moves to the Veterans Committee, where he's got more chances to get in.
Why don't we just give everybody a trophy and a pack of Gushers while we're at it. Thanks for coming out.
A perfect case of the travesty that is the Hall of Fame voting is our beloved Ron Santo. I've written and talked about this before. Santo absolutely deserves to be in. His numbers speak for themselves. Then you add in the fact that he played his entire career with diabetes, which nobody knew he had for a long time. The man had an incredible career.
Year after year, it was close but no cigar for Ronnie. He sat by the phone in his Cubs hat and waited for the call, but it never came. He died in 2010, and in 2011, was voted into the Hall of Fame. What changed with his death? He didn't pick up any more Gold Gloves, nor did he hit any more home runs. He had to die to become worthy of a spot in Cooperstown? Please. Keep it.
I've always said that Santo's election was a slap in the face to the Santo family and to Cubs fans everywhere.
That's just one example. Let's move to football. More on the process from Wikipedia:
The Selection Committee then meets the day before each Super Bowl game to elect a new class. To be elected, a finalist must receive at least 80 percent support from the Board, with at least four, but no more than seven, candidates being elected annually. If less than four candidates get 80 percent of the vote, then the top four vote-getters will get in that year. If more than seven get 80 percent, then only the top seven vote-getters will be inducted.
I fully support having a minimum voting percentage requirement. But what's the point of having one if you will induct candidates who receive less than the required percentage? I don't get it. If a guy gets the minimum percentage, he should be in. Doesn't matter if you induct one or ten. That goes for all sports.
In football, the voters might look at the pool of candidates and say Player A gets my vote, but Player B doesn't. Player B doesn't get my vote because he'll get in eventually, and I think others deserve to get in.
WHY!?!?!?! If a guy deserves to be in, put him in!!!
I also don't understand why writers take a stand against a guy just to prove a point. If you can't vote objectively, then don't vote.
I realize there's no perfect system, as the human part of Hall of Fame voting will always come into play, especially when it comes to how athletes treat the media (AKA the people who vote). But I think there are serious flaws, across all sports, with the way the voting works.
Filed under: Uncategorized