The Daily Something: The HOF Isn’t What It Used to Be (and Didn’t Used to Be, Either)

Or as Francesspool said yesterday…“McGwire, Sosa, and Rafael Palmeiro were all mediocre players until they started juicing!”

First, I agree generally that there are too many generally uninspiring players in the Hall, but my complaint is with the quality of players selected, not the quantity (though we could do with just a couple fewer Chick Hafeys and Freddy Lindstroms). Substitute Tim Raines for Jim Rice, Bert Blyleven for Bruce Sutter, Lou Whitaker for Tony Perez, etc., and I’m happy.

But my main point is this: getting elected to the HOF is exactly what it once, and always, was. People tend to have this vision of the Hall as a place that was intended for legends, the very best of the very best, a place that’s downright sullied by the inclusion of guys like Dawson or (God willing) Santo.

...So now we’re back to the 2000s. Maz, Rice, Sutter, Dawson, whatever. Hard to see how it’s any worse than what came before, and it’s a whole lot better than what they did between the sixties and eighties.

My point isn’t that it’s okay that Rice and Sutter are in the Hall (if you’ve read anything else I’ve ever written here, you probably know that’s not it). My point is that this isn’t anything new. The Hall of Fame has never been exclusively for the legends—at least not since 1938 or so. It would’ve been fine without Andre Dawson, but Dawson doesn’t do anything to cheapen it, either.

And Ron Santo certainly wouldn’t do anything to cheapen it. In fact, I’d say Santo would raise the bar just a tiny bit. Regardless, there’s no sensible argument that Ron Santo doesn’t belong in this Hall of Fame. You can argue that he doesn’t belong in your Hall of Fame—but just know that that’s what it is. If your Hall of Fame doesn’t have room for Ron Santo in it, then you’re dealing with an entirely different sort of institution than the one located in Cooperstown, NY.