Who should be in the Hall:by Mike Schmidt
MantleMarisFordBerra
Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
There's been a lot of talk on these boards about who should be in & who shouldn't, which members maybe don't deserve it...I thought this was a very interesting perspective by a guy who is in the Hall:Mike Schmidt.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/12/24/schmidt.hall.ap/index.html Text
If someone would be kind enough to link that up I'd be thankful!
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/12/24/schmidt.hall.ap/index.html Text
If someone would be kind enough to link that up I'd be thankful!
0
Comments
Schmidty Article
Steve
* C. PASCUAL BASIC #3
* T. PEREZ BASIC #4 100%
* L. TIANT BASIC #1
* DRYSDALE BASIC #4 100%
* MAGIC MASTER #4/BASIC #3
* PALMEIRO MASTER/BASIC #1
* '65 DISNEYLAND #2
* '78 ELVIS PRESLEY #6
* '78 THREE'S COMPANY #1
WaltDisneyBoards
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Great article, very interesting read from the perspective from one of the greatest players of all time. A fair and honest asessment, I thought. >>
No doubt about it. Curious, did he ever get involved in coaching? I dont believe he ever took on a managers role.
No doubt about it. Curious, did he ever get involved in coaching? I dont believe he ever took on a managers role.
I've never heard his name mentioned as a candidate for manager or coach. Not sure if he ever expressed interest or pursued a coaching position after retirement. I recall that he acted as a mediator some time back between Pete Rose and Bud Selig when he was trying to get Rose reinstated, but I believe he got ticked off by Rose when he released his book on the same weekend of the HOF inductions a couple of years back.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
http://mikeschmidtcom.blogspot.com/
he has been emailed to correct the spelling of McGwire
Fame and fortune
Schmidt: More players deserve Hall recognition
Posted: Sunday December 24, 2006 2:58AM;
Updated: Monday December 25, 2006 10:51PM
An unprecedented combination of power and defense molded Mike Schmidt into one of the game's greatest all-around third basemen.
John Iacono/SI
NEW YORK (AP) -- Mike Schmidt was elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot in 1995. A three-time NL MVP, the Philadelphia third baseman hit 548 home runs and was MVP of the 1980 World Series when the Phillies won their only championship. Schmidt will vote on the Veterans Committee ballot, with results announced Feb. 27. Results from the Baseball Writers' Association of America election will be announced Jan. 9.
One of the most popular discussions in all of sports relates to the baseball Hall of Fame -- who's in, who will be, who should be and who isn't.
As a member, I am always intrigued by the members' meetings in Cooperstown when we discuss the Veterans Committee ballot.
Everyone has their guy, their crony, a past teammate they feel is being underrated. That's great that so many people, including the members, are concerned about the guys who just didn't make the grade -- not to mention the real vote by the baseball writers, who now have to consider juiced balls, bats and bodies.
Having said that, ponder this question I posed at a recent meeting: Doesn't a voter's opinion on a particular player have a great deal to do with how the voter himself perceives the Hall of Fame?
No one truly believes the Hall is exclusive to the all-time greatest, and no one believes the Hall should honor mediocrity. There is a happy medium somewhere, and where you fall in that range should determine your voting philosophy.
You can't have strict criteria when judging one man and then flexible criteria when judging another. You can't allow politics to enter into it in any way, but in many cases it has made the difference. With all due respect to current members Ryne Sandberg and Bruce Sutter, how can Dale Murphy and Lee Smith be kept out? Their careers are identical and in certain areas, better.
Jim Kaat, again with due respect: How can a guy with 283 wins, 16 Gold Gloves and 24 years as a player and another 30 as a baseball ambassador not be a lock choice? Don't get me started on comparisons related to Kaat! He's even got all the politics covered.
The big issue confronting the writers voting this month concerns Mark McGwire. He was baseball's superman. The public wanted to see his giant biceps and long bombs, and could care less what he was putting in his milk.
Now you want to vilify him because he doesn't want to own up, or admit, or even refute an involvement with steroids? Whoa! I'd ask the voters to look past the basic question -- did he or didn't he? -- and consider the era and what fueled it. More about that on my Web site (www.mikeschmidt.com).
So what does "Hall of Fame" say about a player? How good does one have to be? How can certain guys slide in and others with similar careers can't?
Originally when opened, there were fewer players, a smaller game, so picking Hall members was easy -- the best of the best.
Everyone knew the Hall of Fame was for Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Foxx and Young. Then it was for DiMaggio, Williams, Mantle, Musial, Mays, Aaron and all the Robinsons. And as the game grew bigger came Koufax, Seaver, Palmer, Kaline, Killebrew, Jackson, Bench, and then Ryan, Brett, Carlton. Now Gwynn, Ripken and on and on, the best of the best.
That was the plan, but someone decided the baseball writers' vote slighted a few players along the way and the Veterans Committee was created to right what was apparently wrong.
No longer was it cut and dried. If you were passed over you got a mulligan. In the first round, your career was just a little short of HOF caliber; in round two, for some reason, the career got better.
That's OK, because it's a subjective vote and a lot of little things go into it. Maybe you didn't play in New York, maybe you were quiet and didn't look for attention or weren't as cooperative with the media as some.
Maybe you had a Hall of Fame career and voters didn't notice because several others at your position got all the attention. It used to be a small committee of nominated voters whose job it was to identify those the writers forgot. Now it's in the hands of HOF members, who are a might happy with their fraternity's current size.
Try convincing current members that they should relax their standards for entrance. Not likely. Most members I know are of the opinion if you're not a HOFer the first time around, why are you later on?
What's important? Is it keeping the egos of those members who were "no doubters" satisfied? After all, the harder it is to get in, the more the prestige of membership is preserved. Or is it more important how the Hall relates to the fans? It's supposed to be a place for them to appreciate and honor the game's history. Why are Murphy, Smith and Kaat fans made to wait?
The truth is, the members would like to open the doors only to those "no doubters" in the writers' annual voting. Fact is, we have failed to instate any veteran since we got the vote.
It's amazing how your perception changes once you're in! Here's the rub: The borderline guys, and there will always be a few, fought the politics of the voting. So in giving the veterans' vote to the members, the politics were supposed to have gone away. Yet with the politics gone, the members still haven't budged, and I'm one of them.
Again, what does "Hall of Fame" mean to you? Answer that for yourself, and you'll know for whom to vote. Is it the best ever, is it all-time greats, is it the best from an era, is it great defensive players, is it great ambassadors, a few unique careers, strong leaders, great umpires, on and on?
Yes, it HAS BECOME all of that. The Hall of Fame has evolved over time to what it is, all of the above. It is not just the best of the best. It can't be, there are too many great players and many on the fringes that deserve the recognition. Look around the room, there's always someone with stronger credentials than you and me.
So this year, in keeping with that evolution, why not let a deserving few sip our wine? Picture the members' dinner with a few more faces, the smiles will do your heart good.
More guys should get to experience the joy while they're alive. For sure, we can't keep Kaat out any longer and I hope the writers don't do it to Smith, the past all-time saves leader. They are welcome at my table Sunday night.
And consider Santo, Murphy, Herzog, and Harvey, and a vacant chair for Mauch, Hodges and Buck O'Neil (who by the way was just honored by President Bush as an American hero).
I didn't always feel this way. The first few years as a member, I felt very special and deep down, didn't want anyone who was borderline to infiltrate the fraternity.
I came to the philosophy above based on a personal experience. My answer to the big question on Hall membership? It's a reward for being a great player for a long time.
You may not have been the greatest, but you are among the greatest. You may not be the best all-time, but your name comes up in those debates.
More importantly, the experience I had involved a player who was passed over several times and finally got the call.
Gary Carter.
No player ever appreciated that call to the extent he did. The joy it brought him, his family, and friends, especially me, was so real and pleasantly genuine, I ate it up and still do.
He does not take it for granted. He will wear his emotion, from this election, on his sleeve the rest of his life. It's like he had to work for it. His induction actually made me appreciate mine all the more. The Hall of Fame is better for having him. His story could, and should, happen more often.
This year we members -- and the writers -- can bring a lot of joy to a few lives. Who's to have the final say on baseball greatness?
In the scheme of life, fulfilling a few more dreams should mean more than exercising your power to delay them.
Don't all of us now wish Buck O'Neil had gotten just enough votes? Isn't a Hall of Fame career a lot of luck, anyway? Heck, in 1971 I could have been drafted by Baltimore, where they had No. 5 at third base.
-
<<<<< No player ever appreciated that call to the extent he did. The joy it brought him, his family, and friends, especially me, was so real and pleasantly genuine, I ate it up and still do.
He does not take it for granted. He will wear his emotion, from this election, on his sleeve the rest of his life. It's like he had to work for it. His induction actually made me appreciate mine all the more. The Hall of Fame is better for having him. His story could, and should, happen more often.
This year we members -- and the writers -- can bring a lot of joy to a few lives. Who's to have the final say on baseball greatness? >>>>>
I think the world of Mike Schmidt, but come on Mike...stop being silly. The Hall of Fame voting should be made stricter, not easier. What Schmidt forgets to say is that there are plenty of player's items and listings in the Hall of Fame building - a player doesn't have to be inducted to be honored and mentioned in there. For example Roger Maris's 61 HR bat is always on display at the Hall even though Roger is not an inductee. There are numerous other examples of this.
-
<< <i> And, to answer another question, Schmidt did manage for one season with the Phils' Class-A squad in Clearwater. >>
Thank You, Suprised he never got involved at the Major League level, He is a very respected guy, wonder if he just wanted to enjoy life after baseball.
I enjoyed the article by Schmidt, I dont agree with all of it, but he made some good points.
**1500 th. Post! WoohOo!**
Wonder if Schmidt thinks Rose should be in?
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Nice read, thanks for the link. Growing up with baseball in the 1980's, it is hard to imagine Gary Carter did not get in the first time.
Wonder if Schmidt thinks Rose should be in?
Mark >>
<<<<< Wonder if Schmidt thinks Rose should be in? >>>>>
Of course Schmidt thinks Rose should get in - they are very good friends.