Rand defends Gretz; rips JoPo's article
 

RAND: Sympathy for the voters
Feb 08, 2007, 4:24:41 AM by Jonathan Rand

I’m never sure whether to be amused or disgusted by the criticism directed at Hall of Fame voters in any sport whenever a local favorite falls short of induction.

If all the fans and media critics in every city could get all their favorites enshrined, every Hall of Fame would have so many members as to render itself meaningless. If you elect 1,000 players, what you’d have is a gigantic card show, not a Hall of Fame.

Certainly, anybody has the right to question a selection or omission for any Hall of Fame. But why does the criticism have to become personal and even slanderous?

When our own Buck O’Neill was passed over for Cooperstown by a special Negro Leagues committee, we read about some never-substantiated personal grudge that supposedly derailed his chances.

Now that former Chiefs linebacker Derrick Thomas has fallen short of the Pro Football Hall of Fame for the third time, a local columnist belittles the election committee as a “40-man party crew,” as if there’s something reckless or inebriated about its decision making. And, actually, there are two women on the committee now.

This is reminiscent of Lawrence Taylor. The former Giants linebacker, convinced he might be denied election because of a disgraceful series of drug arrests, claimed the electors were hypocrites because most, he said, were drunks chasing little girls on Miami Beach. Because the Pro Football Hall of Fame takes personal behavior off the table, Taylor was a first-ballot inductee in 1999.

This is some party. As a former Hall of Fame elector, I can assure you that serving on that committee is an honor. It’s also a pain in the butt. You spend the Saturday before the Super Bowl, your only free day of the week, cooped up in a hotel meeting room listening to presentations and discussions for all finalists, which numbered 17 this year.

Personally, I would rather walk barefoot on the ice in my driveway than listen to a one-hour discussion over whether former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue belongs in the Hall of Fame. It’s beyond me why you would enshrine an executive because he did for the league — albeit very well — exactly what he was hired to do.

The vast majority of the electors have watched pro football for decades, diligently prepare their homework and care passionately about voting for the right people.

A case for a candidate that might seem overpowering to the average fan may be badly flawed in the eyes of voters who know a sport inside and out. Once you’re caught with gaping holes in your argument, your candidate is finished. If Kansas City representative Bob Gretz can’t make a convincing case for Thomas or any other candidate, nobody can.

The decisions are difficult because you’re often trying to distinguish between truly excellent football players and the all-time greats. This is the border Thomas keeps trying to cross.

Some votes are philosophical. How can you exclude Ray Guy, indisputably the greatest punter of all time? The prevailing sentiment is that a guy who trots in and kicks the ball six times a game and seldom gets his uniform dirty is not a Hall of Famer.

The seamheads who vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame fancy themselves the best informed and most discriminating voters for any Hall, and maybe they are. But they absorb plenty of cheap shots, too.

There was a lengthy Sunday opinion story in the New York Times a few years ago claiming that former Boston Red Sox outfielder Jim Rice keeps getting excluded because of his contentious relationship with reporters. (My few encounters with him were fine.) Nowhere was it mentioned that pitcher Steve Carlton, possibly the most media-hostile star in the history of baseball, was elected to Cooperstown on the first ballot.

Hall of Fame electors must have thick skins, though I must admit even I became offended once. An NFL ex-star once approached me and said he’d been told that he wasn’t in the Hall of Fame because I didn’t like him. He added that he couldn’t understand this because we’d gotten along so well during his playing days.

I never knew the man during his playing days. But you know what? He made almost as much sense as most of the people who rip Hall of Fame voters.

The opinions offered in this column do not necessarily reflect those of Carl Peterson.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2007/02...or_the_voters/

Several of the voters defended Gretz too. Everybody involved said he did a fine job. Derrick Thomas not getting in has NOTHING to do with Bob Gretz.

BS. Peter King came out and admitted that Wehrli and all St. Louis Cardinal fans should thank Bernie Miklasz for getting RW into the HOF.

Miklasz did a great job; Gretz did not. Peter puffer King brings up DT's supposedly one-dimensional play. As Dr. Z said back in 2005, the voters weren't thinking about him being one dimensional until dumbass Gretz brought it up.

I understand his point, but the problem is, he's just flat wrong. No you can't elect everybody to the Hall of Fame, but DT belongs in there. None of those other examples matter, what Jim Rice or Ray Guy or anybody else does has zero bearing on whether DT deserves to get in. Nowhere in the article does he actually say why DT doesn't deserve to get in. Because he does.

Seamheads. ROFL

I heard Peter King tell Soren Petro on WHB, and I QUOTE:

"Bob Gretz did a fine job."

So go ahead and whine some more.

I guess he does kind of address that here, although I wonder what he's referring to. And of course he takes a shot at the "average fan" in the process.

I can hardly believe Rand would defend Gretz. So, where is Rand's paycheck coming from these days?

They both work for Carl. What did you expect?

I know where it's not coming from.

The power of voting for the hall needs to be more balanced with Explayers making some votes.

There are no "gaping holes" in the argument for Derrick Thomas' enshrinement. Except for the one that Gretz invented himself and brought up in 2005 about him supposedly being one-dimensional.

Thomas was a better player than Will Shields or Tony Gonzalez, yet those guys will probably be 1st ballot guys, unless Gretz ruins their chances too.

Absolutely not. Then you're going to have people getting votes just because someone on the committee played for the same team.

Fine - mediocre, okay, average, adequate.

Just like the Chiefs entire organization.

Rand used to be on the committee? Does Rand strike anybody as being extremely football knowledgeable?

Rand also comes off as a complete tool -

"It’s also a pain in the butt. You spend the Saturday before the Super Bowl, your only free day of the week, cooped up in a hotel meeting room listening to presentations and discussions for all finalists, which numbered 17 this year."

I'm so sorry for the big baby that he has to spend 1 day in the host Super Bowl city for 8 hours listening to people debate about HOF finalists. The ****ing horror that the poor guy had to endure. They probably ran short on poppy seed bagels one year and he had to have a plain bagel before being paid to head off and party the rest of the weekend away and watch the Super Bowl.