Thursday, December 13, 2018

Baseball's Hall Of Fame Was Busted Long Before Harold Baines Got In

It was terribly unfair of the “Today’s Game Era Committee” of the Baseball Hall of Fame to put Harold Baines in this position. When they elected Baines to the Hall on Dec. 9, the TGEC did him an honor, but also made him the foremost case study for the knowledge gap between those who control the Hall’s official validation process and the fans whose faith is the only thing that gives the Hall any relevance.
Baines was never really a MVP candidate and his bad knees meant that he spent 60 percent of his career as a designated hitter, but he was better at hitting a baseball than most humans who ever picked up a bat, and good enough at his impossible trade to stay employed until he was 42. His bad luck is that, thanks to sites like Baseball-Reference, FanGraphs, and Baseball Prospectus and the value statistics they popularized, it is very easy to put a selection of players into a lineup and figure out who doesn’t belong. This means that everything positive we can say about Baines can also be said of Kenny Lofton, Dwight Evans, Reggie Smith, Jim Edmonds, and many others, and that’s even if we’re just restricting things to Wins Above Replacement comparisons with fellow outfielder/DH types. The average fan knows this, now; the TCEG guys, who have no true historians or analysts among their merry band, apparently don’t.
That said, the election of Baines doesn’t damage anything that wasn’t already broken. The Baseball Hall of Fame was originally inspired by the Hall of Fame for Great Americans in the Bronx, New York*, an effort to do for American history what Cooperstown tries to do for ballplayers. The problem with that Hall of Fame, as with what shall henceforth be known as the Baines Hall of Fame at Cooperstown, is that “fame” is an awfully loose term. The Bronx Hall, for instance, had room for both George Washington and Robert E. Lee; the one in Cooperstown has enshrined both the legendary Babe Ruth and the legendarily obscure Bobby Wallace, as well as both the barrier-shattering Jackie Robinson and the barrier-maintaining Tom Yawkey. What does—what could—“fame” even mean, here? Your answer is as good as anyone else’s, and therein lies Cooperstown’s permanent problem.
Early on, voting for the Baseball Hall of Fame fell on the Baseball Writers Association of America. Quick quiz: Why did the BBWAA get this vote?
  1. They are super-qualified by virtue of their long experience questioning men in towels.
  2. What other 1930s-era group would you suggest? The Andrews Sisters?
  3. They asked.
  4. Judge Landis, the first commissioner, said they could, and what people who have been dead for 75 years says goes.
  5. All of the above, because even if 1) isn’t true, the BBWAA believes it is.
The BBWAA’s initial definition of “fame” was really strict. Once Ruth, Ty Cobb, Cy Young, and the initial gang were in, they couldn’t find anyone else worthy. After 1939, the Hall’s management restricted the BBWAA vote to once every three years. In 1942, with virtually every ballplayer in history still outside, they elected Rogers Hornsby and stopped there. After returning in 1945, they once again failed to elect anyone. Nonplussed, management reinstated annual elections, in effect saying, “Go vote, damn it, and keep voting until you elect somebody!” Thus charged, the Writers mailed in their 1946 ballots. This time no one even came close.
If you’re running a business like a Baseball Hall of Fame, this kind of persnickety posturing represents not a principled stand but a mortal threat to your personal economy. Very few people are going to drive to the hinterlands to spend money on a non-induction ceremony, or to visit a museum that hasn’t been updated in almost a decade. This was an emergency for the nascent Hall, and management overreacted accordingly.
It did so by empowering a smaller legislative body, the Veterans Committee, to elect players the BBWAA might have missed, which at that point was literally everybody. Players started flowing in pell-mell. Sometimes these selections were good, because the BBWAA really did err in punting on early players like Rube Waddell, Wahoo Sam Crawford, and Sliding Billy Hamilton. The rationale for many others, from Roger Bresnahan to Rick Ferrell, has been much harder to divine, and that was even before those aforementioned value stats became available. As actual-historian Bill James wrote in his 1995 book Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?, the Veterans Committee, “created a grey area so large that it could never be made dark.”
“You’re entering a grey area,” James did not go on to write, but which you might as well imagine in a Rod Serling voice. “It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. You are entering… The Baines Zone.”
Then Frankie Frisch came along and made it all worse.
Frisch had a strange career in terms of relationships; at times he was both the oppressed and the oppressor. A fleet infielder known as the Fordham Flash, Frisch began his big league career as New York Giants manager John McGraw’s prize pupil, became his whipping boy, and eventually, via a long and semi-successful career as a manager, became a McGraw-ish scourge of players himself. Frisch’s 1962 autobiography begins with these words: “I don’t think the major league baseball players of today can be compared to the old-timers.” That’s the first line. He proceeds to chase Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, and Willie Mays off his lawn for another two pages. “Baseball players today do not have the same old urge, the fighting spirit,” Frisch groused. “The old fire and snap has gone out of baseball.”
A terrific player in the slashing José Altuve style who hit .311 over a long career and also served as the player-manager for the World-Series-winning 1934 St. Louis Cardinals, Frisch was elected to the Hall of Fame by the BBWAA in 1947. Twenty years later, he was named to the Veterans Committee. He swiftly came to dominate it, intent on unilaterally ratifying his belief that his era was the best era by filling the Hall with his contemporaries. And so for the next seven years, before Frisch died in an auto accident on I-95 (while driving back from a Committee vote, no less) the main qualification for getting into the Hall via the Committee was, “Played with/for Frankie Frisch on the Giants or Cardinals.”
Into the Hall went pitcher Jesse Haines, outfielder Chick Hafey, shortstop Dave Bancroft, outfielder Ross Youngs, and first baseman George Kelly. Even after Frisch suffered his fatal crash, the Committee kept picking players from his collection, tabbing first baseman Jim Bottomley, third baseman/outfielder Freddie Lindstrom, and shortstop Travis Jackson. None of these were bad players, but in many cases they are decidedly sub-Baines ones—not any better on a career basis than, say, Tino Martinez or Steve Trachsel.
Not that the Frischians—he had to co-opt 11 other voters—stopped at old pals. During this period they also anointed pitcher Rube Marquard, center fielder Lloyd Waner, right fielder Harry Hooper, and several other soft selections. Waner, Kelly, and Lindstrom rank as the three least-accomplished 20th century Hall of Famers per Baseball-Reference’s formulation of WAR; Marquard and Haines are the least-accomplished starting pitchers.
Note the reliance on the words “least accomplished” rather than “least qualified.” Again, there are no qualifications. There is only fame, and fame can be anything. Big round numbers like 3,000 and 500 and 300 are not only arbitrary, although they are that. They also require flexibility—if the rise of the bullpen means that there are going to be fewer 300-game winners, or none, then that shouldn’t also mean that there won’t be any more Hall-worthy pitchers. All are worthy, all are unworthy: The secret of the Baines Zone is that since fame is undefined, a player’s only true qualification is the story you can tell about him. If you believe Baines is worthy and can construct a narrative that shows that he is, others will believe you. That’s it. In the absence of objective facts, truth is just another argument you can win.
That is much harder to do now than it was when all the Frischians had to do was say, “But Chick Hafey hit .317!” They kept the “back when everyone else hit .317” part sotto voce, naturally—they either didn’t know or they didn’t want to know, because whatever devalued Hafey’s statistics devalued Frisch’s as well. If you hadn’t spent some real time with the Baseball Encyclopedia, you probably weren’t equipped to dispute them.
Post-Frisch, Hall managers tried to rein in the Committee by trying different, theoretically more discerning incarnations; the TGEC is the latest of these. The ongoing expansion of the Baines Zone shows they have failed. In the final analysis, the Hall of Fame is a museum, and museums tell stories. Even the Hall of Fame gallery, where the plaques are hung apart from the bat, ball, and uniform exhibits, purports to tell a story. It goes, in short, here are the best players ever to play American baseball. Because that collection consists almost entirely of players below the Ruth/Mays level, the Hall has always invoked cognitive dissonance—we read “Hall of Fame” to mean Hall of Great, or Hall of Exceptional Accomplishment. But we haven’t defined those terms very rigorously, which means it can also be the Hall of Some of Us Really Like Jack Morris.
The democratization of knowledge necessarily leads to the delegitimization of “expert” committees. We know where the fault lines are. Can you tell the story of modern baseball without Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens? Nope. Can you tell it without Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, and Edgar Martinez? Perhaps, but there would be some significant gaps. Can you tell it without Harold Baines? Hell yeah you can, and everyone knows it.
Our ballplayer-gods are good, or anyway good at baseball, but the priesthood is corrupt. Whatever the religion, whenever the time, we know where that leads. If that condition continues then the church confronts the inevitable, which is a loss of faith among even the most dedicated of believers. That wouldn’t be Harold Baines’s fault, either.
*Correction: the post originally identified the The Hall of Fame for Great Americans in the Bronx as “defunct.” It is in fact still open, although The Cultural Landscape Foundation did recently include the Hall of Fame for Great Americans as a threatened and at-risk cultural landscape.

Steven Goldman is a writer, editor, and host of the Infinite Inning podcast.

Monday, September 24, 2018

Just how do you put Tiger Woods' comeback into historical context?

JOHN FEINSTEIN

Just how do you put Tiger Woods' comeback into historical context? Here's a start

September 23, 2018
By John Feinstein
From the Friday in San Diego—when he birdied the 18th hole at Torrey Pines North to make the cut on the number—to Sunday in Atlanta—when he led the final round from wire-to-wire—it felt as if the entire golf world was on the edge of its collective seat every time Woods teed it up. He failed to win a major championship, though he contended on Sunday both at Carnoustie and Bellerive. He didn’t win the FedEx Cup, although his victory at East Lake jumped him from the 20th in the final standings to second, behind only Justin Rose—who had to birdie the 18th to hang on for dear life to the $10 million bonus.
Those facts make it awfully difficult for those screeching that Woods is “back” to prove their case. Is Woods back to being one of the best players in the world? Absolutely. For a 42-year-old player who has had seven surgeries, Woods had an absolutely extraordinary year: one victory; two seconds; seven top-10s; 12 top-25s and 15 cuts made in 17 events. That’s stunning for a player who last won in 2013 and came into the year not having made a PGA Tour cut since August 2015.
Still, to compare that player in any way to the Tiger Woods who won 14 majors in his first 11½ seasons on tour and won his 79th tournament (in Akron) a little more than five years ago is like comparing that win in Akron to Woods’ 12-shot win at the Masters in 1997. One was good—even very good. The other was historic.
Tiger Woods celebrating on the 18th at East Lake
Chris Condon/PGA Tour
The historic Tiger Woods is gone and may not be seen again ever in golf. But don’t take that as a slight. This Tiger Woods, the one who captivated the crowd at East Lake even with closing one-over 71, is still a sight to behold because of where he’s been the last nine years.
He’s fought injuries and he’s fought his better instincts. He made a complete mess of his personal life and embarrassed himself on more than one occasion away from the golf course. He’s gone through swing changes and swing coaches the way Mickey Rooney once went through wives. And even though he smiles more often now and deals with bad rounds much better, he remains someone who calls his yacht Privacy for a reason.
That said, it was nice to see the genuine emotion he showed after this victory. There were tears, and they were real. Clearly, it meant a lot to him, and the cheers from the crazed crowd brought a real smile to his face.
• • •
It will be fascinating now to see how he performs in the Ryder Cup this coming week outside of Paris. The old Tiger Woods—actually, more accurately, the young Woods—could barely bring himself to care about the matches. Woods has been part of one winning American team as a player—in 1999—in seven Ryder Cup appearances. His record is 13-17-1, remarkably poor when compared to what his career has been. Years ago, it was David Feherty who said, “When Tiger was in kindergarten, his teacher wrote, ‘does not play well with others,’ on his report card.”
It was Phil Mickelson, Woods’s new BFF (talk about how life can change) who pointed out that Woods evolved as a Ryder Cup teammate after the death of his father, who had always counseled him to keep his distance from all other players—even during weeks when they were teammates. That change was most evident at Hazeltine when Woods, in the role of vice captain, played a key role in helping the U.S. win the Cup for the first time since 2008—a year Woods didn’t play because he was hurt.
If Woods plays as well in France as he has played during the tournament season, the U.S. should be a tough out—even on European soil, where it hasn’t won since 1993. If there’s one place where American captain Jim Furyk does not want to see the Tiger Woods of old, it is in Ryder Cup.
For the moment though, East Lake provided the perfect climax to this comeback year. It didn’t put Woods any closer to the record he craves most—Jack Nicklaus’s 18 major titles. But it did bring closure to the (correct) whispers about his ability to close that were heard during the year.
Every time Woods got close to a lead on Sunday this season (Tampa, Bay Hill, Washington, Carnoustie, Bellerive), something went awry and he ended up with a high finish but without a victory. This time, beginning the day with a three-shot lead on Rose and Rory McIlroy, Tiger birdied the first hole and never looked back. Certainly the fact that no one made any sort of move at him, helped. Rose shot a three-over-par 73 and McIlroy’s Sunday miseries continued with a four-over-par 74. Woods could cruise along making pars without having to look over his shoulder very much, if at all.
Tiger Woods
Sam Greenwood
Even so, the fact is, Woods took control of the golf tournament on Saturday when he birdied six of the first seven holes on a steamy afternoon at East Lake to open up a big lead, and no one ever got within serious striking distance of him again.
Of course, Woods will now be installed as the favorite to win all four majors next year—three of them are on golf courses where he’s won majors before. The Nicklaus watch will be on again, even though Woods is no closer to it at this moment than he was when he won No. 14 at Torrey Pines 10 years ago.
To focus on what Woods may or may not do next year or in the next few years is, at least at this moment, missing the point. The greatest comeback in golf history was Ben Hogan’s return from a near-fatal car accident in February 1949 to win the U.S. Open 16 months later and five more major championships after that. Woods’ comeback is more complex because a good deal of it was self-inflicted. But to come back from seven surgeries, including back-fusion surgery that was a last ditch attempt to get him back on the golf course, to play this well, is extraordinary.
One need not compare it to Hogan. Apples and oranges. Different circumstances; different time; different world. Both are worthy of great respect, perhaps even awe. Tom Watson almost won the Open Championship six weeks shy of turning 60—26 years after his last major victory. That surely should garner some attention.
Outside of golf, seven years after he had last won a major championship, Jimmy Connors made it to the U.S. Open tennis semifinals at age 39—which is considerably older in tennis than 42 is in golf. He didn’t win, but like Woods this year, played well enough to make those two weeks memorable.
Watson and Connors made their stunning comebacks in one tournament, not over an entire year. Gordie Howe returned to the NHL at 51 when the Hartford Whalers of the defunct WHA joined the league, and he played in all 80 games, scoring 15 goals. He even played alongside a then-19-year-old Wayne Gretzky in the All-Star game.
Muhammad Ali was denied 3½ years of his peak as a boxer because he refused to be inducted into the U.S. Army and came back to beat George Foreman to win back the heavyweight championship at age 32.
There are, of course, other comeback stories across sports. But what Woods has accomplished this year certainly belongs high on any list of great comebacks.
Where it will lead in the future, no one knows. Woods would be the first to tell you he won’t be all the way back until the day he wins another major title. That may or may not happen. Regardless, what he accomplished in 2018 was a sight for all to see.
• • •
In 2000, at Pebble Beach, when Woods put on the most dominating performance of his career, winning the U.S. Open by 15 shots, he asked then USGA president Trey Holland, for a drop on the second hole during the last round. Holland didn’t allow it and, as a result, Woods only won by 15 shots instead of 16.
Tiger Woods, Joe LaCava
Kevin C. Cox
When Holland congratulated Woods on the 18th green that afternoon he said, “that was the greatest performance I’ve ever seen in golf. Congratulations.”
Woods looked at Holland and said, “I wish you’d given me that drop on No. 2.”
That was Woods then—never completely satisfied, always hungering for the next victory. Woods now may not win as often or as easily, but there’s little doubt that he has finally learned to truly savor success. In that sense, he’s light-years better and—perhaps more important, happier—than the virtually unbeatable Woods of yore.

Sunday, August 5, 2018

Ohio State looked the other way on Urban Meyer from the start


Huddle up! OK, everybody play stupid, on three! . . . Hut! Hut! Hut!
We don’t yet know what Urban Meyer knew or didn’t know, did or didn’t do, but we know what we have known from the day in 2011 when Ohio St. signed him: He wasn’t hired because he runs clean programs.
Meyer’s proclamations of being a deeply spiritual man always reminded me of Sinclair Lewis’s “Elmer Gantry,” a faith-based phony.
Throughout the six seasons, 2005-10, he led University of Florida football, he recruited then indulged “student-athletes” who had no business being in college other than winning football games, making bail and making him lots of money. Those were the wink-and-nod terms of his agreement.
Under Meyer, UF players were arrested at least 31 times. They included Aaron Hernandez, future Patriots’ TE who died in prison after being convicted of murder.
In 2011, Meyer took a year off. To do what? To join ESPN, naturally.
And every man and woman with ESPN, CBS, FOX who kissed his National Championship rings while pretending not to know Meyer represents anything better than the deeply compromised — and were paid to pretend that we didn’t know — can save their current breath and surprise.
In 2012 Meyer landed at Ohio St., his alma mater and a state school, for obscene money and a reported $21 million buyout clause to do the same as he did at UF: win, whatever it takes.
Modal Trigger
Urban MeyerAP
And Meyer has met that single term of engagement, again with full scholarship recruits who lose valuable practice time to police matters and depart the University as socially deficient citizens, the likes of Ezekiel Elliott.
There is no scandal so large or so lasting that it can reverse the reality of Division I basketball and football, of schools operating as fronts for teams, known in other businesses and to district attorneys as racketeering.
Despite the pedophile scandal at Penn State, we-see-nothing sexual abuse and criminal misconduct transferred to Baylor, Michigan State, Louisville. The SEC now requires training to discourage recruits from committing sexual assaults. Imagine recruiting those who don’t yet know.
How did Southern Cal respond to one of its assistant basketball coaches being indicted in that adidas/FBI bribery case? Well, it fired that coach then hired one who just happens to be the father of two Top 40 high school players, which seems another form of bribery.
Is there one among us who feels that the 18-years of no-show classes for varsity athletes at North Carolina, as facilitated by a professor of ethics, no less, is unique to UNC?
Did Meyer know that one of his longtime assistant coaches is an accused recidivist wife-beater?
That’s not the question or the issue.
Rather, it’s did Ohio State know that in Meyer they were hiring a coach who won — and was allowed to win — national championships through the recruitment and indulgence of young men who had no legitimate business being granted full scholarships and the title “Student-Athletes”?
Was Meyer known before he was hired by OSU to run a clean operation?
Well, if I knew, and you knew the answer, and ESPN and the rest of the pandering TV hoards only pretended not to know, then Ohio State knew. Next!