THOSE REPEATEDLY MEANINGLESS HALL OF FAME CLICHES

Although we’re quite ready to acknowledge that a great deal of enjoyment can be gained through watching TV baseball and football games, almost countless occasions arise when we’re sorely tempted to grab the remote and click the mute key. This applies especially when those supposedly skilled announcer teams digress into believing themselves to be updated versions of Hope and Crosby or Abbott and Costello. Moreover, when the boys aren’t making with the cornball dialogue, they tend to resort to senseless statistical comparisons dreamed up by their nearby computer-probing colleagues.

What we find equally meaningless in their vocabularial output is the incessant prefacing of past or present-day player names with either the term “Hall of Famer” or “Future Hall of Famer”, whichever the case may be. They are obviously referring to current or potential symbolic inhabitants of Cooperstown, South Bend, and Canton.

We have to ask what real significance is attachable to such past or coming honors due. In our book it amounts to selection by a squadron of self-appointed diamond or gridiron experts, judging a fellow’s qualifications not only due to on-the-field performance, but supplemented with off-the-field or post-playing days behavior for supposedly good measure. To us, this adds up to excessive oldmaidishness, as opposed to pure objectivity in evaluating athletic greatness.

The requisite factors by which a baseball or football superstar might attain this coveted Hall of Fame status has been as laid out below for too long a while.

1. The fellow must have established some impressive batting, strikeout, forward passing, ball
carrying, or whatever other appropriate statistics.
2. He should have been cordial and affable when talking to sportswriters throughout his career, free of temper tantrums and the like.
3. Mr. Right didn’t dare have engaged in off-the-field betting, even when his own team contests weren’t involved, as did Pete Rose, Paul Hornung, and Alex Karras.
4. Our hero should not have used performance-enhancing drugs and lied about the matter, a la home run champion Barry Bonds, mound ace Roger Clemens, and others.
5. The lad should have avoided being an activist in player vs. owner relations, the way Catfish Hunter, Curt Flood, and John Mackey carried on.
6. Said candidate had to behave himself admirably both off the field and in post-playing years, i.e. not competing in a second sport for pocket money like Jim Thorpe, being found guilty of counterfeiting like Billy Cannon, abusing dog lovers’ psyches for needless animal cruelty like Michael Vick, nor committing any other untoward or indecent act
7. A player should never have expressed or exhibited any socialistic leanings, such as Rutgers’ and the NFL’s Paul Robeson.

As far as we’re concerned, category No. 1 is the only one worthy of consideration. How in God’s name do the other six bear on a man’s playing ability? The unfortunate aspect is that the do-gooder element in any selection committee always seems to prevail, causing either lengthy delay or else never-ending exclusion from otherwise deserved honors.

Our review of the current hallowed hall rosters, based on intimate knowledge of both sports gathered over the years, convinces us that these sacred chambers include numerous members whom we deem less than justifiably qualified, rather often because they were such nice guys, a sportswriter would be happy to introduce them to his sister. On the other hand, too many worthy fellows have had to wait an excessively long time before being admitted, or else have been permanently blackballed, due to inability to meet falsely applied moral standards.

Did Babe Ruth’s carousing and womanizing make him a model citizen throughout his playing days? Did Ty Cobb’s fiery competitiveness, exhibited by sliding into bases with spikes flying high, intended to seriously injure an opposing fielder, or his physically assaulting a crippled heckler in the stands render him as an upstanding Cooperstown-worthy gentleman? Why did these two men deserve to be charter enshrinees, when others later on have been precluded for their moral indiscretions?

Pete Alexander, a fabulous pitcher, often took the mound while nursing a murderous hangover. Paul Waner, one of the great hitters, was known to become extremely tipsy during games, from drinking between innings. Why didn’t the tsk-tskers hold such behavior against them? Well, perhaps they actually did, but were outnumbered in the voting.

We thus hold to our steadfast opinion that what count above any other considerations are the four-baggers knocked, the ball carrying yardage gained, the bases pilfered, the pass completion percentage, the opponents fanned, the downfield aerials snagged, the long balls pulled down by sensational fielding, the winning field goals booted, the clutch base hits, the enemy quarterbacks sacked, and whatever else pertains exclusively to a fellow’s diamond or gridiron accomplishments. If he cheated at poker, stole from church poor boxes, started barroom brawls, wrote dirty words on restroom walls, waved the red flag at Communist rallies, or beat up a few wives, none of these factors need have a bearing.

Despite what we say here, our revered TV announcers will undoubtedly continue to bestow their respectful but valueless honor designations upon player after player, in between their inane jocularities and ridiculous statistical comparisons as the seasons progress from year to year. We can do little but offer our opinions in regard to their lack of merit.