AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
Voting for the Hall of Fame drives me nuts. Make no mistake, I'm honored to receive a ballot as a 10-year member of the Baseball Writers Association of America. But the responsibility of distinguishing between great players is almost overwhelming.
Each of the three years I've voted, I've felt a gnawing discontent when I placed my ballot in the mailbox, uneasy about some of my choices.
Initially, I defined a Hall of Famer as a player who dominated the game for at least a 10-year period. I quickly learned that such a standard is inadequate--that the process is largely subjective, that there is no one definition of a Hall of Famer.
Some players, such as Sandy Koufax, were brilliant enough to make the Hall without longevity. Others, such as Carl Yastrzemski, were consistent over time, compiling Hall of Fame numbers without necessarily dominating.
The difficult part about voting is trying to separate players with comparable statistics. If Carlton Fisk is in, why not Gary Carter? If Don Sutton is in, why not Bert Blyleven? If Tony Perez is in, why not Steve Garvey?
And now, for this year's doozy:
If Kirby Puckett deserves to be in, why not Don Mattingly?