Realize that you're probably going to see a lot of No votes, because I consider the Hall to be the highest honor in baseball, one that demands a truly enormous contribution to the game; positive, pioneering efforts, repeatably brilliant drafting and trading and team-building, innovative thinking. Winning it all is good – very good, as it is the annual goal – but by itself not enough, unless the trophies pile up in compelling amounts. I like to see contributions made that could have been made only by very few (perhaps no) other people.
In alphabetical order, because it works just fine and I don’t have any better idea for organizing this.
1. Emil "Buzzie" Bavasi
2003 VC ballot: 43.0%
Claims to fame: longtime general manager of the Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers; about a half-century in baseball. Endured 1966 holdout by Koufax and Drysdale, ultimately leading to "no collusion" clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement which since has been violated only by owners. Let Nolan Ryan leave Angels as free agent.
A man brimming with baseball experience and knowledge, probably to the "has forgotten more than you'll ever know" point, Bavasi has been around essentially forever in baseball terms (he's still alive, though retired, as of this writing). A supremely lengthy career with some notable teams – the 1955 World Series champion Dodgers probably the best-known – and involvement in some historical events. Still… anyone who stays involved and active for a half-century is bound to get some headlines here and there. Good executive for an insanely enduring career, but I don't see that as meriting a Hall plaque. Making the ballot is a strong recognition as is, and probably the right maximum for Bavasi.
Chipmaker's vote: no. Can't see anything compelling here.
2. August "Gussie" Busch, Jr.
2003 VC ballot: 13.9%
Claims to fame: longtime owner of the St. Louis Cardinals (1953 to mid-80s; family owned the team until 1995), which now play in the third ballpark named after the Busch family; official MLB executive award named for him; earned his fortune brewing not-very-interesting lager beers and advertising them relentlessly.
I really don't see a lot of need for inducting team owners into the Hall; most of what they do is sign the checks, hire the front office people, and in terms of baseball decisions, the best ones get out of the way. It's running a business, and the Hall is about baseball the sport, not baseball the stricly commercial enterprise. Busch was a friendly enough owner to his players, but he was a notorious skinflint and one of the actors in the controversial Curt Flood deal. He hated, hated free agency – and considering the bulk of the VC is former players, try selling that as a point in his favor. Hanging around baseball for a long time (goodness knows I would if I could) is not sufficient basis for granting the eternal bronze plaque; there has to be substantial contributions made as well. Busch ran a team; ballparks are named for him (which is a rarer honor than a Hall plaque, though much more easily obtained by making huge financial grants). His family is filthy rich thanks to the beer business. That's enough, really.
Chipmaker's vote: no.
3. Harry Dalton
2003 VC ballot: 7.6%
Claims to fame: general manager for nearly 30 years, including the 1966-71 Baltimore Orioles (World Series champions 1966, 1970; AL champions 1969, 1971); built the only Milwaukee Brewers team to reach the World Series (1982); two-time winner of The Sporting News Executive Of The Year Award.
Good executive, as winning divisions, league pennants, and championships demonstrates. Anyone can get lucky once, but continued success requires some design behind it. Dalton provided that. I see a smart baseball mind, but nothing of historical impact in his career, that special, elusive sparkle that indicates Hall-level contribution.
Chipmaker's vote: no.
4. Charley O. Finley
2003 VC ballot: 11.4%
Claims to fame: longtime owner of the Kansas City/Oakland Athletics; often acted as his own general manager, building the 1972-74 three-time World Series champion teams; had any number of ideas (large and small) for improving baseball.
Finley was notorious for a lot of things; he had no shortage of ideas (more in a bit), he wasn't one for toeing the party line among the owner fraternity (he rankled many others, so they voted down his ideas a lot), and he was pretty shrewd at working deals. He also foresaw that free agency would ruin his style, and tried to circumvent that by selling several players in 1976; the sitting commissioner vetoed each deal, claiming they were not in the best interests of baseball (perhaps not, but Finley considered them to be in his own best interests).
Among Finley's concepts: night World Series games, orange baseball for improved visibility, the "designated runner" (he signed track star Herb Washington for two seasons; Washington only ever pinch-ran, and never had a plate appearance nor played defense), and advocated total free agency after every season. Finley saw it as a way to keep player payroll down; the other owners disagreed, not wanting to risk losing their stars. Finley was a walking controversy; his players may have squabbled amongst themselves, but they'd all unite in hating him.
While I have no illusions that a player-heavy electorate will ever see fit to vote in Finley (or possibly any team owner), I like him enough to nod assent. A Finley plaque would be an unofficial insult to many people who deserve such. That's not a very good reason for inducting him into the Hall, and I'd go the other way if pressed, but Finley is not a simple man to evaluate, and damn, did he have ideas. I admire that kind of mind.
Chipmaker's vote: yes (but if I had to drop one name from my eventual ballot, Finley would be the first to go).
5. Doug Harvey
2003 VC ballot: 60.8% (highest return on the ballot)
Claims to fame: National League umpire, 1962-92. Known for being accurate, meticulous, and not upsetting players.
(Shrug.) To me, the umpires are not participants in the game. They are part of the framework. They are there to do their job exactly right, and when they do, they go largely unnoticed (it takes a screwup to make an umpire's name well-known). In general, they don't get a lot of credit. But they're not automata, they are human beings, as are the players on the field, and so they all get to know one another a little bit at least, and if there's a particular umpire or two who stands out for doing his job well and the players see him often enough to recognize his skillful efforts, then I have no interest in gainsaying their collective opinion as voiced through an election. Harvey was the highest-ranked candidate on the 2003 non-player ballot, so a lot of the electorate thinks highly of him, and perhaps this time he'll cross the finish line.
Chipmaker's vote: yes (though I'm just going along with the player crowd on this one; I see little need to honor an umpire, but there's not a lot of evidence to review that would be more compelling, positively or negatively, than the players' opinions, and they like him).
2 comments:
I realized, after posting, that some parts of my review of Finley contradicted some of the sweeping statements I made about team owners under Busch's entry. This doesn't bother me, but to clarify, that's the sort of owner that Finley was. He rarely fit in with the crowd.
Good words.
Post a Comment