1/07/2004 11:07:00 AM by Rob

Why is the HOF irrelevant?

OK, let's shove aside the deserving yet imbecilic Ryne Sandberg for a minute.

I would have voted for Molitor, and CERTAINLY I would have voted for Eckersley. Dennis Eckersley is what the Hall of Fame is about. I can sit here and argue that his career parallels Babe fucking Ruth's.

Both men started out as starting pitchers, and both were good. Both were 20 game winners. Both battled addictions. Both had mid-career position changes. Both not only dominated their game, but TRANSFORMED the position they played. Ruth decreed that all corner outfielders worth their salt hit with massive power. Eck would go MONTHS without giving up a run.

Did Eckersley get a unanimous vote? Has anyone? Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Johnny Bench? Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio? Ty Cobb? Babe Ruth? THE names of the game, and none have ever received unanimous backing?

If you are one of the several hundred people entrusted to cast a vote this past year, and remember, you get up to ten votes!!!, if you looked at this year's list and did NOT vote for Eck, then you know what? You're NOT a fan, you DON'T know baseball, you should have your rights TAKEN AWAY, you're an ASSHOLE, a shitforbrains no-good nothingnuts oxygen depleting prissy-ass dicks-shoved-up-yer-chute fuckstain, and the fact that pus-sores like you vote for the HOF depreciate its worth. If you didn't use one of your ten precious votes for Eck, then what did you do? Cast your one vote for Dale Murphy, and send it in like that?

How responsible is that? How constructive is that? How incredibly bull-headed are you?

I understand logic. I know logical people, and I grasp logical concepts. I don't always go that route, but anyway. I do not understand what I call "HOF logic", the principle that states that Ryne Sandberg retired in 1997, came up for vote in late 2002, and was NOT a hall-of-famer according to 51% of the voters. In late 2003, 39% still thought so, but 12% somehow came around to appreciate Ryne Sandberg. Quite possibly, by late 2005, many people will still not see him that way, less than 25%, but still hundreds of voters still will.

What did he do in 2003 to ingratiate himself to 12% of the voting populace? Was it because he refused to pout in public? Was it his great National City ads (BTW, Chuck, how EZ is it to get his autograph?) What is he going to do this year?

The answer is NOTHING, nothing except grow older. The voters, yes the same ones of whom 12% thought that Dennis Eckersley does NOT belong, impose a type of catergorization by their refusal to vote for him. "Oh, I don't think he deserves it now. Maybe next year."

What kind of dumbfuck thought process is that? Either he IS, or he IS NOT. Last year, I went crazy when he was passed over. Since then, I have realized just how stupid, pointless, and meaningless the whole thing is. He seems to be well adjusted enough to realize it, too, or perhaps he is "playing the game" by being coy about it, or in fact, maybe, he's too stupid to be insulted.

But for whatever reason, God bless him, and God also bless Ron Santo, who is NOT well adjusted enough to live content without such an honor, and may end up dying with this piece missing from his soul.

---