Greg Maddux is absolutely worthy of induction to the Hall of Fame and also most deserving of his status as a “first ballot” Hall of Famer. First ballot recognition is an unwritten, unofficial, but so very real and important designation of baseball’s crème de la crème, reserved only for its most deserving legends. We, as baseball fans, think of Jim Rice and Ryne Sandberg as Hall of Famers. We think of Steve Carlton and Ozzie Smith as first ballot Hall of Famers. There is a difference and Maddux earned the more glorious distinction.
However, that does not mean that everyone with a vote absolutely should have voted for Maddux. Why, you might ask? Especially since it's already been expressed that the man was more than worthy.
The reasoning is simple. There has never been a unanimous selection to the Hall of Fame. Never. Not one. Willie Mays? Nope. Ted Williams? Nah. Hank Aaron? Negative. Ty Cobb? Close, but no cigar. Jackie Robinson? Not even close, barely made it in on the first ballot. Joe DiMaggio? Are you kidding, he didn’t even make it on the first ballot! This could continue with each and every superstar who has ever played the game but that’s pointless because we know he wasn’t unanimous.
It can be difficult to grasp the fact that, of all the legends who have played the game, there has never been one who was viewed as worthy by every Hall of Fame voter. We could definitely have an interesting discussion about the merits of any voting member who thought Sandy Koufax, Mickey Mantle, or Bob Gibson didn’t warrant a vote, but the fact is that because no one has ever been elected unanimously and we do keep track of the percentages, the never- achieved-unanimous vote has attained mythical status. It is baseball’s Holy Grail.
The player who finally gets this honor needs to have a cogent argument to being the best player of all time. Who holds that title right now? Well, we all have our own opinions, which is a great part of being a fan. To me, four men have a legitimate claim, to being the greatest of all time.
Without wasting time with an explanation of my analysis, I will tell you that I believe the greatest ball player of them all was Babe Ruth. Not a surprising choice, I know, but I’m comfortable with it. I’m not saying everyone else should agree. Some fans may in good conscience feel that The Greatest was Stan Musial or Lou Gehrig, or one of the other unquestioned legends.
I have no problem with that as long as, if those fans happen to be Hall of Fame voters, they impose that high standard when it comes to any player who threatens achieving unanimous selection.
That brings us to Hall of Fame candidacy of Maddux. There were grumblings in the lead up to the vote that Maddux might be the one to receive every vote. In the aftermath of the vote, there were grumblings about the fact that 16 voters left Maddux off their ballots. Some writers went public with their reasoning in not voting for the player who was unofficially dubbed to be the darling of this class. Frankly, some of the reasons were plain ridiculous.
But, it begs the bigger question: why would anyone think Maddux should be unanimous? Right now, the player who holds the title of highest vote percentage in the Hall of Fame is Tom Seaver, a fact that I struggle to reconcile with any logic. Nothing against Seaver, or his greatness, but no one in history got more support on the ballot than him? C’mon, people.
When we look at Maddux, it’s hard to make a case for him being the best pitcher of all time or even the best of his generation, depending on how you define “generation” and who you may feel is eligible for consideration, or not. That also assumes that one belongs to the club that considers men who only play every fourth or fifth game as being eligible for the “best player” mantle when compared with everyday players. It’s a club I have not joined.
Using my standard of consideration when it comes to unanimous acceptance, Greg Maddux isn’t even close. In fact, a cogent argument can be made that Maddux wasn’t even as great a pitcher as Babe Ruth. Here’s one statistic for comparison and food for thought. Ruth's lifetime earned run average is 2.28. Maddux's lifetime earned run average is 3.16. Consider also that Ruth won a higher percentages of his starts than Maddux and pitched 29 1/3 consecutive scoreless innings in the World Series, a feat exceeded only by Whitey Ford and, well, you have to agree that it's at least a legitimate question that Maddux was the superior pitcher.When we throw in the Babe’s majestic offensive numbers in a comparison with Maddux, it quickly becomes an act of silliness.
Again, all won’t agree with my standard of Ruth as the benchmark when considering baseball’s highest underachieved and unofficial honor, but no matter what other rational standard you hold, Maddux doesn’t measure up. No shame, most players don’t, including the great ones. That’s the whole point of this debate. I know what you may be thinking: taking argument to its logical conclusion, if everybody thought the way I did then nobody would vote for a deserving player such as Greg Maddux against a Hall of Fame. That would be a travesty! It would be, but the chances of this happening are much less than a blizzard on the 4th of July in Miami.
If I had a Hall of Fame ballot, and a player such as Maddux might flirt with unanimous selection, I would publicly announce my intentions not to vote for him and state why. This would be nothing controversial, as writers who vote often go public with who they are going to vote for, or not vote for, as well as the reasons why. This year we saw a (now former) voter give away his vote to the public.
I would then, no doubt, be the recipient of public ridicule and the rest of my voting brethren would make sure that the deserving player gained his rightful induction into the Hall of Fame without, of course, going in unanimously. Unless that player was better or maybe argued reasonably to have been better than Babe Ruth, in which case I would vote for him and previous two paragraphs are moot.
There would not be many players affected by the implementation of my philosophy on this issue. We all knew Barry Larkin, for example, was going to get into the Hall of Fame. The only question was whether or not he’d be a first ballot Hall of Famer or not. A similar case is being played out now with Craig Biggio, though the issue of first ballot status was answered and all that remains is his certain enshrinement.
My point is that the merely great players are not going to be near unanimous selection so there is little danger of my philosophy having the result of leaving deserving a Hall of Famer out in the cold completely.
The bottom line is unanimous selection to the baseball Hall of Fame is the sport’s highest unachieved honor. The player who attains it should be better, or at the very least in the same conversation,than the greatest of them all, George Herman (Babe) Ruth.
To me, only three men rise to the standard of even being in the same conversation with Ruth as all-around ballplayers. They are, in alphabetical order, Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb, and Willie Mays. However, the question has long been answered in each of their cases as to whether or not they should be the first and only unanimous selection to the Hall of Fame. It was answered correctly, in my opinion.
Greg Maddux, along with every other ballplayer not mentioned in the paragraph above, did not merit the honor of being the first unanimous selection into the baseball Hall of Fame. It is probable that such a player has not been born yet. I believe it is likely that a player that good never will be born.
If I'm wrong and this hypothetical player comes along and proves he is the Messiah while Ruth was merely the greatest of the prophets, then we can talk seriously about unanimous selection.
Don't know about you, but I'm not going to hold my breath.