Murbles beat me to attacking Bayless's article, which should literally get him (Bayless, not Murbles) banned from sportswriting, but I have to chime in.
Bayless's argument is essentially that when approaching the question of whether or not a player belongs in the Hall, instead of using a combination of: (a) the numbers that a player generates, and (b) a healthy, well-reasoned debate about this player's abilities (compared with others' abilities) and the era in which he played, we should instead use the fool-proof, rock-solid HOF litmus test consisting of whether or not Skip Bayless's gut instinct is that this player is a Hall of Famer. That, and whether or not the millions of idiots who do things like vote David Bell as the starting third baseman for the AL decided to vote for Raffy more than whomever.
Someone explain that.
Can we stop with the all-star game bullshit? This is simply not a valid argument, in any way, shape or form? And how is it that the people who bitch that Raffy never started an all-star game so he shouldn't be in the hall are often the same idiots who complain that the voters are moronic for not voting in Derek Jeter? Either the voters are infallible geniuses whose thoughtful and incisive voting patterns should decide whether or not players receive immortality, or they are drunk USC frat guys who, after loading up on Bud right before the 7th inning stretch beer deadline at the Big A, realize that Adam Kennedy looks EXACTLY like their buddy Snooze from Delta Sig so they call their other buddy Todd "Shitface" Morgan and have him organize an all-night beer pong/on-line vote-a-thon to vote for Adam Kennedy for the All-Star Game and rack up 102,000 votes overnight and force him onto the team while more deserving players sit at home.
And yes, I know Adam Kennedy wasn't an all-star.
The point is, since when does the fan vote determine anything about how good a player was?
And, just because there happen to have been several future hall of famers playing first base at the same time Raffy played first base, does that mean Raffy shouldn't be a hall of famer too? And, I might add, since when did playing at an incredibly high level for 19 years become a BAD thing? Why does Bayless want to punish longevity and consistency?
On a side note, I think that there is a certain kind of sportswriter who really enjoys saying the words "It's not the 'Hall of Very Good.'" This is the sportswriter equivalent of the guy who still thinks it is funny and interesting to point out that none of the things that Alanis Morisette labels "ironic" in her song "Isn't It Ironic" is actually ironic.
Skip Bayless's article, which I highly recommend reading in full, contains not one single good shred of argument for why Rafael Palmeiro should be denied entrance to the Hall of Fame. Murbles has already covered the reasons why, but it needs to be said a thousand times until we actually get one of these people fired.
(EDITED for clarity. Probably not well enough.)
Labels: hall of fame, rafael palmeiro, skip bayless