Congratulations to Andre Dawson on his razor thin selection to the baseball Hall of Fame.
After 20 years of being on the ballot, Dawson finally found himself as the biggest name available outside of Mark McGwire, and the writers graciously punched his ticket for a trip to Cooperstown this summer.
But is this the best way to select baseball immortality?
In 1989 Dawson received just 14 percent of the vote in his second year of eligibility and the prospects of Hall of Fame admission were slim.
But like Jim Rice last year, Andre Dawson has been able to hang around for more than two decades because baseball writers refuse to make the standard for eligibility a much higher threshold in terms of voter support from year to year.
Why doesn't the Baseball Writers of America (BBWA) simplify the ballot by eliminating any candidate who does not receive 50 percent of the vote in their first year of eligibility?
If you fail to receive 50 percent of the vote, how can you claim baseball immortality?
How do you grow support over the years from writers who did not see you play?
In the case of Dawson, what changed in his resume or body of work that garnered him over 75 percent of the votes this year, but only received 14 percent some twenty years ago?
If the very writers who saw you play don't think you're qualified for eligibility into Cooperstown, why would the opinions of writers 25 years removed from your playing days form a more informed impression of your candidacy to the most exclusive club of athletes in any sport in American history?
What compounds the admissions process is the Veteran's Committee that seems to be even more sympathetic to the plight of players who have lingered on the ballot such as Phil Rizzuto and Bill Mazeroski, both of whom in my mind are not legitimate Hall of Famers.
This ability to remain on the ballot for so long denigrates the process and becomes even more embarrassing when individuals such as Tommy Lasorda and Bert Blyleven actively campaign for admission as if they were running for public office!
Hall admission is not a popularity contest. It's enshrinement to the most prestigious of group of individuals ever to play the national pastime.
Let's keep it that way.
Unfortunately, it's turning into an annual argument as to who didn't get admitted, when in fact requirements for admission should be sacred, obvious, and without exception.
There should be no ambiguity as to who should and should not be selected.
Quite frankly, what does Babe Ruth have in common with Tommy Lasorda?
Increasing the eligibility requirement to 80 percent of all votes and eliminating all former players who fail to receive 50 percent of the vote will clarify and cleanse the process of any gray areas.
The dumbing down of Hall of Fame enshrinement does nothing for baseball.
Like everything else that's wrong with the game, quality is being trumped by quantity and an endless argument to keep players on the ballot who have no business being in the Hall of Fame.
Some things need to be reserved for baseball immortality.
That place should be Cooperstown, New York.
Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com
- Login to post comments