Whether you believe in his politics or not, Jim Bunning is one of only a handful of players who end up making a name for themselves in something other than baseball. Bunning, who decided to step down as the junior senator from Kentucky after not being able to raise money (read: not getting support from the Republican Party), has served in Congress since 1986, and was elected to Cooperstown by the Veterans’ Committee in 1996.

Why the talk of Jim Bunning? After reading Doug Glanville’s most recent addition to his column in The New York Times, it is evident how many players have a bleak future ahead of them after they leave the game. Additionally, it’s clear that Major League Baseball does very little to help this problem. After all, the teams are the ones who provide the incentives for the players to abandon their education, sometimes after high school, to cash in for their baseball talent. And for those who go to college, the focus is often put on baseball and getting drafted, rather than education. As an aside, the money dazes the players into thinking that they are set after the age of 40, when in fact they have 40 years ahead of them to give it all away.

As Glanville notes, players are also forced to deal with having tons of time on their hands. In my mind, that is the Brett Favre syndrome – players have nothing going on in their lives beside baseball, so they try to ride out their careers until no team wants them. Glanville is correct in saying that players have to learn how to spend not only their money, but their time.

The Hall of Fame could be at the forefront of post-baseball activities. Not only do the players need help, but baseball gets a black eye for every Willie Mays Aikens or J.R. Scott (however, both have turned their life around). Additionally, I’m sure the Hall of Famers themselves would have no problem competing in a celebrity softball game or two to help out former teammates. If Major League Baseball and the Hall of Fame can truly come to terms with the fact that players need help after their careers, they can truly “bring generations together.”

Cooperstown Confidential, written by Zev Chafets (see the link towards the top of the page) has generated a lot of publicity, and is probably the most important baseball book since Game of Shadows, which was published in 2006. Here are a few links for those interested in the book, which can be purchased here or here.

Chafets went on The Colbert Report before Induction Weekend, which produced some hilarious exchanges about monkey testosterone and the Grassy Knoll. Watch it here.

There have also been numerous reviews of Cooperstown Confidential, including reviews in The New York Times, The Village Voice (by Allen Barra,who wrote a great biography of Yogi Berra), The Austin American-StatesmanThe Hardball Times, The New Jersey Jewish News (by Ron Kaplan of Ron Kaplan’s Baseball Bookshelf). Chafets is also making a sports radio tour, check out the book’s websites for dates on that.

Also, here’s Chafets piece for ESPN the Magazine, and here’s his interview on National Public Radio, which came after this Op-Ed on Latinos in the Hall, originally written for the Los Angeles Times.

Finally, here’s a piece by Stephen Dubner, who is in the famed Freakonomics duo, about the incentives to get into the Hall of Fame. Written for the Freakonomics blog on NYTimes.com after Chafets’ piece in the Wall Street Journal about the ‘Haul of Fame,’ Dubner seconds Chafets’ theory that worthy old-timer’s are overlooked by the Veterans Committee due to the fact that their share in Hall of Fame profits will be diluted.

Tags: ,

Sunday was “the big day” for the city of Cooperstown and the Baseball Hall of Fame, as Induction Weekend wrapped up with three more players inscribed in the Hall: Rickey Henderson, Jim Rice, and Joe Gordon. Before we can discuss their speeches, let’s take a look back at some of the most important speeches throughout the history of the Hall.

In the first Hall of Fame induction in 1939, Walter Johnson attempted to set a precedent in terms of Hall of Fame speeches. His speech was short and to the point: “I’m very proud to have my name enrolled in the Hall of Fame. And I’m very happy to have my name enrolled with these men.” Every Hall of Famer has said basically the same thing since, except in ten to fifteen minutes, as opposed to 20 seconds.

In 1966, the Hall of Fame got its first wake-up call from an inductee, as Ted Williams called for Negro Leaguers (specifically Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson) to be inducted in the Hall of Fame. Unsurprisingly, the Hall’s Negro League Committee’s began inducting players by the end of the next decade.

Jim Bunning’s speech in 1996 is the only other speech that could compare to Williams’ in terms of its lasting effect on the game. A year after Mike Schmidt stated that baseball should reinstate Pete Rose (more on the Rose reinstatement tomorrow), Bunning chastised baseball for its strikes, scandals, and lack of leadership. (Bud Selig, who had been owner of the Brewers for years, was the acting commissioner at the time.)

There were no scathing criticisms on Sunday in Cooperstown, though. Both Rice and Henderson made cookie-cutter Hall of Fame speeches, which was somewhat disappointing. Henderson’s speech was a clash with the English language, especially in the frontiers of plurality, as The Man of Steal wasn’t going to show the true Rickey on this day. While he did give two amusing anecdotes about how he became interested in the game of baseball, he didn’t show the true zaniness that made him one of baseball’s biggest characters throughout his playing career. Henderson was known to talk to inanimate objects: during slumps, he would bargain with his bats: “Which one of you motherf***ers has got a hit in you?”

Similarly, Jim Rice forgot all about the 15 years of waiting that were attributed by many, including me to some extent, to his surliness towards the media. In the speech, Rice defended his behavior, saying his attitude towards the media was meant to protect his teammates, and not to be a “mouthpiece.” While that statement is of dubious veracity – he might just be a taciturn fellow – Rice wouldn’t want to create any more conflict with the BBWAA. However, Rice seemed content, if not jovial, at the podium, as the splendors of getting into the Hall (mainly the money) make it worth the while.

Joe Gordon’s induction speech, given on his behalf by his daughter, spoke volumes to just how important the Hall is to players. Joe Gordon never had a funeral, as the Hall was to be his “final resting place.” If Gordon was laid to rest today, his “consecration” was truly given by some of baseball’s elite players.

Tags:

The big Hall of Fame news from the All-Star Game festivities in St. Louis was that the BBWAA writers assembled in the Mound City voted down a proposal, made by Rick Telander of the Chicago Sun-Times, to “form a committee for developing guidelines on evaluating players from the steroids era in Hall of Fame voting.” The vote, which took place at the semiannual BBWAA national meeting, was 25 in favor, and 30 against. This comes as no surprise to me, as the idea of a committee deciding “how to evaluate players” screams “loss of power!” to the old guard at the BBWAA.

Telander’s argument is that the Hall needs some sort of consistent voting pattern on the players during the Steroid Era, as there will be players like Albert Pujols who have never failed a steroid test, but often have targets on their back, as their numbers are “too good to be true”. Telander is right, as we’ll never know all the players who juice, and that some clean players will get a raw deal. In my mind, that leaves only one option open: disregard steroids, and induct the best baseball players of the era. The baseball bigwigs, including Bud Selig, have to realize that all the steroid users can’t be caught (even national anti-doping organizations are coming around on this idea), and instead of speculation, MLB needs to turn the page on the PED Era.

The opposition to this argument is stated by Ken Davidoff (of New York’s Newsday), and, quite frankly, it’s a weak counter-argument. The title of the piece, “Hall of Fame Voters Can’t Legislate Morality” shines light on the flaws of Davidoff’s argument. Throughout history (and even in the recent past), Hall of Fame voters have judged a player’s morality many times, usually in the context of “this player had a great playing career, but was a KKK member/wife-beater/steroid user/gambler etc.” If that is not legislating morality, I don’t know what is. Davidoff’s plan is to use steroids as another factor when considering a player, which is the process that will probably be embraced by most writers. The major flaw with Davidoff’s approach to PED-users was best summed up by Zev Chafets in Cooperstown Confidential - “Nothing drains an institution’s integrity like fake claims of integrity.” Though writers who will use a similar voting process as Davidoff think they are electing the most deserving players, they are further diminishing the Hall’s flimsy claim that it is a place of players who played with high morals.

While Telander’s idea was voted down, there are some baseball writers who realize that change is necessary in Cooperstown. Chris De Luca, writing in the Gary Post-Tribune, states that the writers should give up their voting rights to the Hall of Fame, and hand the selection process over the players. De Luca thinks that the baseball writers are interfering with history, as opposed to covering it, and that most baseball writers rarely see national games. But would the players be any better than the writers? I think not. The Veterans Committee, made up of players, had made some of the most egregious Hall of Fame choices, as men like Frankie Frisch or Connie Mack came to dominate the committee and induct many of their peers, who were certainly not worthy. In fact, Frisch inducted eight of his teammates, including George Kelly, who Bill James called “the worst player in the Hall of Fame.”  On the other side of the issue, Sam Donnellon points out the many flaws of player voting in the Philadelphia Daily News, saying that having the newspaper writers vote is the lesser of two evils in the voting process. It’s good that writers have realized that there are major problems with baseball writers in newspapers voting. However, handing the decision over to the players creates a plethora of other problems. The Hall of Fame needs to adapt an electorate of not only newspapermen, but also include online baseball writers and bloggers and those who follow baseball on other mediums. New perspectives on the Hall of Fame are the only way it will survive, as the aging, white, male electorate in the BBWAA makes it baseball’s version of the Republican Party.

Since his retirement after an unsuccessful comeback campaign in 1992, Bert Blyleven has been a lightning rod for Hall of Fame voters, as his career was a mixed bag of record-setting performances, both good or bad. For instance, Blyleven finished his career with a 287 wins, a 3.31 ERA, and 3,701 strikeouts. On the flip side, he allowed 50 homers in 1986, only led the league in strikeouts once (1985) and never won a Cy Young Award. While many of the aforementioned statistics are certainly not the most precise or best to judge a player by, they are the ones that resonate in the minds of Hall voters. To the members of the BBWAA, Blyleven represents the classic dominance vs. longevity (alternatively called the Kiner/Ryan Scale). Blyleven fell 67 votes short in 2009, but there are some factors that suggest 2010 could be Bert’s year. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: ,

In the most recent edition of SABR’s Baseball Research Journal, a section is dedicated to Kenesaw Mountain Landis, a federal judge and the first commissioner of baseball. In the BRJ, the argument centers on whether Landis can be blamed for the segregation of baseball (a PDF is here), as many credit his reluctance to upset the American public as a main reason that baseball didn’t integrate sooner. Norman L. Macht, author of a biography on Connie Mack, makes the case that baseball, because of Landis, was ahead of the curve in integration.

Macht argues that Landis was not willing to break the ‘Gentleman’s Agreement,’ an agreement between team owners to keep blacks out of baseball, (started in part by Cap Anson, HoF class of 1939) but a quick glance at Landis’ career as commissioner shows that he was willing to break a lot more rules – including those of the American legal system. Landis, a noted jurist who served on the Federal Court of Northern Illinois as Teddy Roosevelt’s appointee, abused his power more than any other commissioner in baseball history, as his rulings consistently came into conflict with the founding principles of American law. Kenesaw Landis did not serve as commissioner judiciously – he was a witch hunter with power over the American Game.

The most well known example of Landis evading the legal system was during the Black Sox scandal of 1919. The scandal tarnished baseball’s reputation and Landis was brought in as commissioner because of it. Though a grand jury, convened in the fall of 1920, found Joe Jackson and Eddie Cicotte innocent, Landis still banned them from baseball, saying, “Regardless of the verdict of juries, baseball is entirely competent to protect itself against crooks, both inside and outside the game.” While Jackson was probably involved (and Cicotte confessed to it), they were let of the hook after their signed confessions were lost, and they subsequently recanted their testimonies.

A similar story occurred with New York Giants’ first baseman Benny Kauff. Kauff was known as “Ty Cobb of the Feds,” as he had topped the leaderboards in the Federal League (a third party challenger to the National and American Leagues that had a brief existence in the 1910’s). Though Landis wasn’t commissioner during the power struggle between the Federal League and the two established divisons, he did hear the court case in which the Federal League challenged the monopoly of the American and National League. Landis, a supporter of the status quo during his time on the bench, refused to hear the case for 11 months, which led to a settlement out of court. Therefore, it will come as no surprise that Landis banned Kauff from baseball even after he was acquitted of charges of car theft. Landis was quoted as saying, “That acquittal was one of the worst miscarriages of justice that ever came under my observation.”

Another example of Landis serving as judge and jury is during the oft-forgotten betting scandal involving Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker, who were inducted in the first two classes of the Hall (1937 and 1938, respectively). When Dutch Leonard (the lefty who posted a 0.96 ERA in 1914, not the righty knuckleballer who pitched a decade later), who had a career-long beef with Cobb, wrote to American League President Ban Johnson in 1926 about a betting scandal, Landis took over. According to Leonard, in 1919, Speaker’s Indians had already clinched second place, and a deal was made to enable the Tigers to win third in the last game of the year. Speaker, Leonard, and Smoky Joe Wood split $600 between them, as Cobb was late on making the bets. Johnson bought the letters (Leonard included letters from Cobb and Wood that mentioned throwing games) for $20,000 and suspended Cobb and Speaker until a decision could be made after the year. Though Cobb and Speaker were far from class acts, (Cobb was a virulent racist, and bragged about being a murderer; Speaker was in the Klu Klux Klan) banning them from baseball would be an enormous problem, as three major stars banned in seven years could have doomed the game. Luckily for baseball, the one man panel of Judge Landis found them innocent, evidence and all.

Let’s not leave out Judge Landis’ involvement with the Baseball Hall of Fame. While banning Jackson, and keeping Speaker and Cobb around was hypocritical, Landis also tried to silence those with proof that Abner Doubleday was not the inventor of baseball. Landis knew that the Hall of Fame was too good of an opportunity to be turned down (it was a huge publicity boost for baseball), so fudging the details probably didn’t lose him any sleep. When Alexander Cartwright’s grandson came to Landis with evidence that his grandfather wrote down the first rules of baseball (which would make the Doubleday story, and Cooperstown, a myth), Landis made sure that Cartwright was given a plaque in the Hall, quashing any conflict for the time being.

Looked at through the prism of these three baseball anecdotes, one part of Macht’s argument can be scrapped: the  idea that Landis had no power is doubtful. Landis ruled with an iron fist, and he would certainly have no problem telling the baseball owners that they have to acquire black players. The second part of Macht’s theory, that society wasn’t ready for integration, is disregarding a major fact: the values of baseball and America are intertwined. I think that if Landis were to integrate the game, many Americans (who look to baseball as an arbiter of social decisions) would have altered their views, at least somewhat, in favor of integration. While this may see unfathomable, it should be – no other American insitution has the kind of job that baseball does: provide entertainment, but also act as a moral compass for Americans.

This is the real reason why the Hall of Fame is important – who gets in and  who doesn’t is just as important as why they get in (or don’t). Not convinced? Think of Pete Rose. If Judge Landis hadn’t overstepped his bounds and started banning players left and right, with facts often coming in conflict with his decions, then Bart Giamatti, who would be without precedent, would have slapped Rose with a suspension, he would learn his lesson, and his plaque would be on the wall, right next to Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker: his true counterparts.

Tags: ,

Zev Chafets’ new book Cooperstown Confidential promises to be the most in-depth look at the Baseball Hall of Fame since Bill James’ classic The Politics of Glory. I had consulted Mr. Chafets on various aspects of this project, and I sat down with him recently to talk about his new book.

Baseball Shrine: While baseball serves as a host to some of the most important and best sports literature, why is it that only one great book has been written about the Hall of Fame (The Politics of Glory)? Do writers buy the idea that Cooperstown has some mystical “aura” that is not to be disturbed?

Zev Chafets: When I started researching Cooperstown Confidential, I was startled to see that so little has been written about the Hall, its secrets and the way it actually works.  There probably isn’t another iconic American institution that has had so little scrutiny.

I think a lot of writers do buy the idea that the Hall is a mythic place that shouldn’t be examined too closely.  That’s a shame, because it is a fascinating place, and although it has its faults, it is the heart of the baseball world.  But, like any heart, it requires some attention to keep it healthy. That’s what I hope Cooperstown Confidential supplies.

Baseball Shrine: Why has the Baseball Hall of Fame become such an American institution, while the Football Hall of Fame, say, is rarely discussed in the same terms?

Zev Chafets: Baseball is a game that looks backward (in a good way). Most American fans know more about baseball history than they know about any other kind of history.  Listen to three innings of a baseball broadcast and you will hear anecdotes and statistics and references to players and games going back a hundred years.  That’s why the Hall of Fame is so evocative. It is a historical museum and honor roll for a sport that loves history and practices ancestor worship.

Baseball Shrine: Who do you think is most responsible for the problems that the Hall of Fame is facing now, and will face in the future: the sportswriters in the BBWAA or the Commissioner’s Office of Major League Baseball?

Zev Chafets: Right now the main problem the Hall faces is what to do about the steroid issue. The writers, who covered-up PED use for decades (and were shown up by Jim Bouton and Jose Canseco) have now formed a posse to tar and feather the greatest players in the game.  If you can keep Mark McGwire out, you can ban Clemens, Bonds, A-Rod, Manny and on and on.  And who will care about a Hall of Fame like that? Or, for that matter, the game of baseball itself?

Scientific improvements – including chemical improvement – are here to stay. They are a part of baseball whether the writers or the commissioner or Congress like it or not.  The Hall needs to take a principled stand and say: If you love baseball, you must love it as it is.

If the writers can’t live with that, well, they vote at the pleasure of the Hall. Cooperstown can get along without a newspaper writer electoral college (there are many experts, including former and current players, SABR members, radio and television commentators, serious bloggers and academics who can replace them).   The Hall cannot survive with the greatest players of the past two generations (and the next ones, as well) excommunicated from the game and written out of its history.

Tags: ,