Friday, March 04, 2011
Question of the every other day or so: Hall evaluationsPosted by Mat Kovach
With the passing Dodger great and Hall of Famer Duke Snider, some people are comparing his career to Jim Edmonds'. I can understand much of the comparison—the numbers seem to match up. The fact that Edmonds, like Snider, had to co-exist with other great players playing his position is a good comparison.
The argument for entry to Cooperstown will lead to comparisons of people already in the Hall. The argument goes; Player X did a, b, c and he is in the Hall. Player Y also did a, b, c. Hence Player Y should be in the Hall. Q.E.D.
But why does everybody stop there? What about gamesmanship? Many Hall voters will throw the following out there:
Choose players based on their “record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team.”
Why are the players in the Hall not used for standards of "integrity, sportsmanship, character"?
Cheaters are in the Hall (Gaylord Perry)*. The level for sportsmanship, integrity and character of some very high profile players gets low marks (Ty Cobb).
* Spitballs are technically cheating, but an argument could be made that Perry was just promoting a safer alternative to split-finger fastballs. Okay. FINE. It’s cheating.
So, if voters are going to use current members of the Hall as the standard of "record, playing ability and contributions to the team," shouldn't those same voters also use current members of the Hall as standards for "integrity, sportsmanship and character"?
Indians note: Former bi-winning pitcher Rick Vaughn reportedly has not handled the death of former manager Lou Brown very well. Our thoughts and prayers go out to him.
Indians fan, member of the Duane Kuiper Fan Club, Spitball Researcher, Contact me on twitter, @siddfinch, via email or avian carrier