The Cardinal Nation blog

Brian Walton's news and commentary on the St. Louis Cardinals (TM) and their minor league system

The Hall of Fame is not up for taking a stand

I want to preface my remarks by saying I am not angry at anyone. However, I find recent actions – or more appropriately, lack of actions – by the National Baseball Hall of Fame to be worthy of analysis and discussion.

Most recently, it has come to light in the context of cap logos of Hall of Fame inductees. Specifically, two of the six in the Class of 2014 have opted to enter Cooperstown logo-less – Tony La Russa and Greg Maddux – with their apparent wishes honored by the Hall.

Back to that in a moment.

The disinterest of the Hall in helping to deal with thorny issues comes into brighter light each year – as more and more of the Steroid Era stars appear on the ballot. The vague “character clause” is all the eligible members of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America (BBWAA) are given as voting guidance. As a result, some believe the scribes have been set up with a hopeless assignment – to be the sole arbiters of an entire generation of players cast under a cloud of suspicion.

A number of BBWAA members, including voters like Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports and younger members such as Sam Mellinger of The Kansas City Star (still three years from being voting eligible), have come out in favor of the Hall scrapping the character clause entirely, providing the voters direction regarding PEDs and/or simply letting them select the best eligible players without restriction.

Others, like USA TODAY’s Bob Nightengale, aren’t waiting. Nightengale says to just “forget” the character clause. Nightengale clearly did that when he cast his 2014 ballot to include Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and even Sammy Sosa.

The Hall could choose to try to clarify matters, but to date, has left everyone involved twisting in the wind.

I am first to admit that logos on Hall of Fame plaques lack the importance of voting criteria. Yet, there is again controversy which festers because the Hall seems unwilling to stand up and be counted.

For years, the Hall simply accepted the wishes of new inductees regarding their cap logo. However, by the late 1990’s there were persistent rumors that several teams had bought their way onto plaques and more were trying. That came to a head in 2001, when Wade Boggs was voted in.

Amid persistent rumors the third baseman had cut a deal with his current employer, the Tampa Bay Rays, to depict the upstart club’s insignia on his plaque, the Hall was forced to act. It reinforced its authority to make the decision, rather than leave it to the players’ discretion. Boggs went in as a Red Sox, as it should have been.

Yet, here in 2014 in the case of Maddux, the Hall sidestepped a clear opportunity to do what I believe most observers would think is right – both today and I believe over time as well.

Regarding his two primary clubs, the Chicago Cubs and Atlanta Braves, Maddux says “it’s impossible for me to choose one of those teams for my Hall of Fame plaque…”

Then, in this case, the Hall should have exercised its right to make the call. I am not going to cite chapter and verse of Maddux’ illustrious career, but the scales of balance by any reasonable measure are heavily tipped in Atlanta’s direction.

It appears that instead of enforcing its own rules, which state the logo decision should be “based on where that player makes his most indelible mark,” the Hall took the easy way out. They apparently honored Maddux’ view while most everyone else is left scratching their head.

Perhaps Maddux and the Braves parted on less-than-perfect terms and some unhealed scabs remain today. I don’t know if it is true, but I cannot think of any other way to logically explain what happened.

La Russa’s case is different, I believe. While his Chicago days do not stack up in the “indelible” test, the Oakland and St. Louis phases of his career could each stand on its own. Further, La Russa clearly explained in advance why he wanted to be logo-free. I think most impartial observers can understand and accept it.

Even if the Hall had an issue, and I have no evidence whatsoever to support such a contention, would they really risk alienating a high-ranking executive of Major League Baseball over his logo preference?

It seems that in every case, the Hall takes the path of least resistance. Now and then, as in Boggs’ case, baseball as a whole would be better off if it took a stand.

Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.

Follow me

Brian Walton

Brian Walton runs The Cardinal Nation and The Cardinal Nation Blog, covering the St. Louis Cardinals and minor league system.
Follow me

13 Responses to “The Hall of Fame is not up for taking a stand”

  1. crdswmn says:

    I have no idea why I am saying this because I really don’t care all that much, but I don’t agree LaRussa’s case is different.

    It seems to me the easiest way is to either let every inductee choose or let no inductee choose. Splitting hairs about who has a “better case” or who has more influence, or whatever justification you want, is just asking for controversy. Pick a side and stick with it for everyone, no exceptions.

    • Brian Walton says:

      I don’t know if you had time to click on the 2001 article I linked above, but there were a lot of abuses when it was solely left with the inductees.

      On the other hand, if the HOF is going to decide, it will be still be subjective. Them getting input is natural, but they need to have the guts to do what seems right. In my view Maddux is much clearer than TLR. My guess is that most of the people complaining about TLR never saw his Oakland teams play.

      • crdswmn says:

        Then don’t let any of them choose. Including the Tony LaRussa’s of the world.

        • Brian Walton says:

          You mean, always pick one team, no matter what, but don’t accept input from anyone? That doesn’t seem very practical.

          • crdswmn says:

            I mean every inductee should have a team and the final say is the Hall’s. None of this wishy-washy no logo because I want everyone to like me nonsense.

            • Brian Walton says:

              Well, half of it is at least technically true – the Hall has the final say. So, it appears your big concern is being against no logos.

              • crdswmn says:

                I have no “concern” at all. I am just saying if you want it done cleanly with a minimum of controversy, then the no logo is not the way to do it. When you try to please everyone you end up pleasing no one. If the inductee can’t bring himself to pick a team, then pick one for him. You wanted them to do it with Maddux, so LaRussa shouldn’ t get special treatment. They should have picked one for Maddux, one for LaRussa and told them both to suck it up.

                That is my totally worthless and irrelevant opinion.

                • Brian Walton says:

                  I get your point about consistency. No clear answer.

                  I tried to look back to see why Yogi has no logo. The official explanation seems to be that a side view is just what the artist selected. I wondered if it had anything to do with him being the new manager of the Mets in 1972. I listened to his induction speech and he thanked both teams equally, Yankees and Mets, though he was with one for 18 years and the other a few months. It was before his long feud with Steinbrenner, so that wasn’t behind it.

                  Catfish Hunter was the other one in relatively recent times. That story seems very clear. He couldn’t decide and put it off until the Hall finally decided to do the plaque without.

  2. blingboy says:

    Since niether the White Sox nor the As have retired Tony’s number, perhaps the Cards should unretire it, so as not to be seen as claiming ownership. I’m sure Tony would appreciate it.

  3. Bw52 says:

    The players HOF plaques have who the players played for.So its no big deal.

    • Brian Walton says:

      I hear where you are coming from, but there seem to be plenty who are up in arms about perceived disrespect.

      • blingboy says:

        I don’t think it has anything to do with plaques or with respect. It does have to do with revealing the mindset of the individual. Tony chose not to indentify as a Cardinal for reasons that make sense to him and are important to him. He was entitled to make that decision.

        I do disagree with those who think its not a two way street and I suspect that Tony is among them.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.