Aug 23, 2011, 10:00 AM EST
George Vecsey wrote a column on Sunday — and follows up with a blog post today — about Roger Maris, his legacy and his Hall of Fame chances. In both places Vecsey says that he would not vote for Maris for the Hall of Fame if he had the franchise (he doesn’t, because the New York Times does not allow its writers to vote). The blog post, however, features many reader comments in support of Maris for the Hall.
As I said last month, I’m sort of keeping track of this stuff because Maris will be up for consideration by the Veteran’s Committee this December. I think the general shape of this coverage in the Times — “we really need to appreciate Maris’ accomplishments more in light of what happened in the 1990s and 2000s, but I’m not sure he’s a Hall of Famer — will be the dominant one.
I agree with Vecsey. My view is that Maris is decidedly not a Hall of Famer, because two really good seasons is not enough, even when one of them featured a significant record. His career is worthy of celebration, of course, but it’s not like it’s been lacking celebration, especially in recent years as folks have used his accomplishment to draw distinctions between the Steroid Era sluggers and those who came before.
Which is fine if illumination and understanding of these things go is all you’re interested in doing. But if you take the next step and decide that he’s now Hall of Fame worthy because of that comparison, it seems to me you’re making a political argument (“take that, PED guys!”) as opposed to a genuine assessment of Maris’ Hall-worthiness. That assessment was done for years and years prior to the Steroid Era and Maris was found lacking. What has changed?
- Ian Kinsler hopes Rangers go 0-162, calls GM a “sleazeball” (132)
- Albert Pujols was insulted when someone asked him if he can put up Mike Trout numbers (101)
- The politics of “The Cardinal Way” (67)
- Robinson Cano wants the Mariners to bring in Kendrys Morales and Ervin Santana (64)
- Reporter calls Ian Kinsler as self-absorbed as A-Rod (60)