Rand defends Gretz; rips JoPo's article

[shaneo69]

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/