PART TWO:
There are great degrees of politics that go into the induction of players to the Hall of Fame. The following example is something that could have kept some of the greatest players in the history of the game out of Cooperstown. This example is to be considered rule number one: BE NICE TO THE WRITERS.
Rule five stands as the Hall of Fame’s “Character Clause.”
If the sportswriters of the 1930s and 40s would have been as judgemental as they are today, people like Ty Cobb may have never stood a chance; despite being mind bogglingly amazing players. If steroids can keep Barry Bonds out of the Hall of Fame, what would the penalty be for beating a handicapped fan nearly to death? I’d love to see that episode of Baseball Tonight…
Despite Cobb’s obvious talent, he was one of many southern-fried confederates who were not the voice of patience or tolerance. To say it plainly, racism was rampant in old time baseball – and may still be today. Players like Cobb, Tris Speaker, and Rogers Hornsby were great exemplars of this. Cobb, from rural Georgia, was known not to like the goodie-goodie media types unless they were there to tell him how great he was… and even then, he wasn’t all too friendly. Hornsby and Speaker were members of the KKK in Texas and weren’t known to have kind words for anyone. [Chafets, Zev; Cooperstown Confidential (Bloomsbury, New York: 2009) pp 52-57]
Still those players were first ballot Hall of Famers – Cobb was the first inductee ever. Their character flaws seemed irrelevant in comparison to their on-field accomplishments.
Babe Ruth was a sports writers dream, he was a childish narcissist who loved attention; that’s what sports writers basically need players to be these days. He just so happened to be the best player of his generation too. I think last year’s first balloter Rickey Henderson fit Ruth’s mold perfectly. Henderson was just a different sort of player.
Ruth had his troubles, but also had money to spend on bettering his reputation. Ruth was said to have a harem of writers on his payroll to be by his side for the sake of covering up the bad and to glorifying the good.
Babe Ruth with Children in Chicago, 1927 - Photo: Chicago Daily News/ Library of Congress
Sports writers were basically part of the team for more than half the 20th century. They would travel, dine, and stay in hotels alongside the players and would develop close relationships. The story of Ruth’s ‘employees’ was not necessarily a rarity in those times. It was seemingly an “I’ll scratch your back you scratch mine” relationship. If players granted the story, the writers granted the press and reputation worthy of creating a legacy.
Times have changed drastically in that matter. Media members and players rarely have the kind of relationship they used to. How likely is it that a contemporary reporter would help an athlete cover up their troubled side?
Today, player’s personal lives and brains are picked apart for the sake of a story; with no attention paid to the individual’s emotions. Players are forced to put on their happy faces and are somehow convinced that giving the writers a story is part of their job- rather than just a smart, voluntary gesture. As soon as a player stops being a story, they stop being a person.
With the death of print media as a primary means of news circulation, along with the rise of internet blogs and websites, it is far more difficult to be at the forefront of news. It seems impossible that one writer could have consistently unique angles for a specific beat unless they are the only one with player access. This being true, journalists have a harder job creating stories and so they have to dig harder. In some cases, the more a journalist digs, or the more he tries to make a player feel like they owe him something, the angrier he can make the player.
Even long before the internet days however, sports writers were able to get on the nerves of players. If the players’ anger eventually wound up being directed back toward the writers, said player could have been forced to suffer some damning consequences. You never know how much power the media has until you are forced watch players who once idolized you entering the Hall of Fame.
Jim Rice, the other 2009 inductee, was one of those players who were not a media princess. The writers questioned his intelligence and he was not going to cater to them at any cost. That cost wound up being fifteen election years without induction. Rice’s attitude toward the writers basically killed his chances of being enshrined while fans still knew who he was. A similar fate keeps Rice’s 1978 MVP counterpart Dave Parker out of the Hall. The same fate will likely befall players like Gary Sheffield. Attitude is everything, especially where the sports writers are concerned.
Jim Rice and Dave Parker from SI issue April 9, 1979
Dave Parker was the unfortunate soul who was primed to take Roberto Clemente’s place after his death on New Year’s Eve 1972. Parker took a couple years to develop into an All Star Right Fielder – having split time with Richie Zist for the 1973-74 seasons. Once he moved into a full-time starting role, Parker became the elite arm in the National League. He successfully filled Clemente’s shoes and came within one assist of Clemente’s career high of 27.
Parker finished his 19 year career with 143 outfield assists, 2712 hits, 339 home runs, almost 1,500 RBI and a career batting average of .290. He won the 1978 NL MVP to go with his 3 Gold Gloves and seven All Star team selections. He likely would have won more Gold Gloves had Andre Dawson not entered the NL elite in 1980. (Dawson may have had the strongest arm of any Center Fielder ever, before being moved to RF in 1984 to make room for Tim Raines.)
Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Dave Parker and Parker’s former teammate Willie Stargell are four very comparable players regarding their numbers. Though Stargell started his career a bit before the other guys, the numbers do stand in solid semblance. Race and defensive position do play a part as well. However, the fact that only one of these players is not currently enshrined in Cooperstown does as much talking as anything else.
Dave Parker, by all means, should be in Cooperstown. However, his inability to play nice with sportswriters, other players and, well, anyone else, keeps his name on an extensive list of character exclusions.
Parker was also involved in a major 1980’s drug scandal. His enshrinement may never happen as a result. Those are two huge strikes against him.
Drugs, addictions, performance enhancers and sexual misdoings (during certain eras) are other big Character Clause issues that may put major dampers on a players HOF chances – despite what they did before or after being clean of said indiscretion. I will get more into such issues in a later post.
Such a discussion will be a bit more fun and time appropriate given the recent Mark McGwire confession.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
I enjoyed reading your article. And like you said, it was a good time to write it as it coincides with Mark McGwire and his confession. To tag along with your topic, I recently read over this past summer a book that I unfortunately forget the name of, (if I remember it, I will be sure to post the title and author) about the hypocrisy of the baseball Hall of Fame. The book is amazingly well written and researched, with dozens of stories about hall of famers and scandals they have been in, which should have been questioned and considered before they were elected into the hall. I really urge any baseball fan to read this and I strongly recommend it. I will get the title for you. Nice article.