Why is Bill Mazeroski so obscure?

[BrotherCadfael]

@Ibn_Warraq

Bobby Thompson had a fantastic career and he’s not in the Hall despite his “Shot Heard Round the World”, nor is Bucky Dent, who was also a decent shortstop.

Who is this “Bucky Dent” person you speak of? never heard of him.

I have heard of a player named “Bucky Fuckin’ Dent”, possibly a relative.

I’m not a big sports fan, so it isn’t surprising I haven’t heard of Mazeroski or this “Bucky Dent” guy. I’ll have to ask my wife, a sports nut and a HUGE Red Sox fan. I’ve heard her speak of the other Dent many times…

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Loach

Prior to 2001 the proceedings of the committee were secret. Nothing was released as to who they were considering or what criteria they used. There were some rumors. Yogi fought hard to have his best friend Scooter voted in. Ted Williams fought hard to keep Maz out (successfully) and get Dom DiMaggio in (unsuccessful). Just after Mazeroski got in the composition of the committee changed and the proceedings became much more transparent. You mean to say as a big baseball fan you have never heard of any of this? I see many articles calling Mazeroski’s selection as controversial and saying it was the impetus to have the structure changed. Sure most are sports writers and just giving their professional opinion. But it’s hardly like I just made this up.

You know a lot about the committee considering how its membership is secret, according to you–no, wait, now its deliberations are secret, except you seem to know what was said and by whom, though you still haven’t divulged the identities of Mazeroski’s “buddies” nor their arguments for including him, or their evil motives. Maybe we should just take your word for their malicious motives and their bad characters.

[Loach]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

You know a lot about the committee considering how its membership is secret, according to you–no, wait, now its deliberations are secret, except you seem to know what was said and by whom, though you still haven’t divulged the identities of Mazeroski’s “buddies” nor their arguments for including him, or their evil motives. Maybe we should just take your word for their malicious motives and their bad characters.

You really mean to tell me this is the first time you have heard of the controversy surrounding his selection? It was not a coincidence that the entire process for the veterans committee was changed within a couple months after he was selected.

[RickJay]

@Loach

You really mean to tell me this is the first time you have heard of the controversy surrounding his selection? It was not a coincidence that the entire process for the veterans committee was changed within a couple months after he was selected.

Perhaps you could provide some links to the story.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

I actually know a lot about the Veteran’s Committee, and I disapprove of all the politicking and log-rolling and tradeoffs between friends and enemies over the years. I think it WAS pretty much a coincidence that the process changed at that point, because people had complained about the process for decades (particularly when Frankie Frisch was involved and the HoF suddenly got a lot of his old NYG and St.Louis teammates elected) but that’s different from making vague and scurrilous charges against no one in particular.

[Loach]

@RickJay

Perhaps you could provide some links to the story.

PRR just summed it up pretty good.

[RickJay]

@Loach

PRR just summed it up pretty good.

Perhaps you didn’t read his post very carefully, since he is contradicting your claim.

If you’d like to continue claiming the VC was change because of the Mazeroski selection, you should probably present some evidence. If it was as big a deal as you’re saying that should be easily done.

[Loach]

@RickJay

Perhaps you didn’t read his post very carefully, since he is contradicting your claim.

If you’d like to continue claiming the VC was change because of the Mazeroski selection, you should probably present some evidence. If it was as big a deal as you’re saying that should be easily done.

Read it very carefully. He agrees that there were accusations of croynism and back room dealings throughout the history of the veterans committee. For some reason he believes that the last selection made prior to changes designed to end that is immune from those same problems. I find it difficult to post cites from my phone but if I remember to do so the next time I get to a computer I will. Easy enough for anyone to google. Of course no one involved in back room dealings admits to it so it’s all opinion by those involved in baseball. But PRR seems to have no trouble believing rose opinions when it has to do with Frankie Frisch.

[Loach]

Sneaking this in at work. If I need more I’ll try to find something closer to the date it happened. This is what I got with a quick google search.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-12-04/sports/new04_1_baseball-hall-kuhn-hall-of-fame

The veterans panel has been changed twice since 2001, when charges of cronyism followed the election of light-hitting glove man Bill Mazeroski. The original 15-member panel was expanded to include every living member of the Hall, but that group failed to elect anyone in three tries.It was replaced by three separate panels – one for players, one for managers and umpires and one for executives and pioneers, leaving Miller’s fortunes largely in the hands of the same group he once fought.

“I think it was rigged, but not to keep me out. It was rigged to bring some of these in,” Miller said. “It’s not a pretty picture.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=AywDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=reggie+jackson+cronyism+committee&source=bl&ots=IFInryyWa2&sig=DvKgLW_985KLzuINVZ4wZXTyUF8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Fys5T_KvLdC50QHbksiwAg&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=reggie%20jackson%20cronyism%20committee&f=false

Baseball digest talks about the cronyism is a round about way non-controversal way.

Firefighting: Urban, Suburban & Rural Insights and News

This committee’s election process has been revised and/or pared down several times after 2001 when it became embroiled in controversy after it elected Pittsburgh Pirates second baseman Bill Mazeroski to the HOF; it was the eighth straight year it had elected at least one member. Mazeroski, who was highly regarded by his peers as a personality and who hit one of the most famous home runs in baseball history—the Game 7 walk-off shot to win the 1960 World Series over the Yankees—yet whose great defensive prowess was grossly overshadowed by a noticeable lack of offense (a career .299 on-base percentage and a .367 slugging percentage), seemed to have set a new standard (or low, as some would come to think) for what constitutes a HOFer. His induction led Reggie Jackson and other HOFers to accuse the committee of cronyism, and which led to the first of several changes in its voting methods.

Every Post Season series that ended with a walk off hit

…and Mazeroski’s inclusion in Cooperstown is one of the most controversial ever

http://what-the-hall.info/?mazeroski

The Mazeroski vote by the veterans committee in 2001 was seen (pardon the pun) as so far out in left field and a blatant example of cronyism that the committee was reorganized to prevent a recurrence.

If Mazeroski is a Hall of Famer...

Just for the hell of it, a “great” debate from when he was inducted.

Veterans' Hall of Fame Vote May Be Subject to Change (Published 2007)

The New York Times

The committee was revamped in 2001 after suspicions of cronyism. The new group is larger and includes 61 Hall of Famers, 14 winners of the Ford C. Frick award for broadcasting, 8 winners of the J. G. Taylor Spink award for writing, and a member of the old veterans committee whose term has not expired.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2007-11-08-3019577160_x.htm

USA Today

That wasn’t the first time the vets committee was restructured. It was altered after charges of cronyism when it elected Bill Mazeroski in 2001.

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2008/12/04/a-hall-of-fame-manifesto/

Columnist is SI. Although he does not agree with the cronyism label certainly does show that I didn’t make this stuff up.

Mazeroski, of course, is the man who sort of became the symbol for Veteran’s Committee cronyism — the committee was broken up the year after he was elected. I’ve never been quite sure that’s fair. I mean, Maz was probably the best defensive second baseman in baseball history. I’m a Frank White man myself, but there were undoubtedly defensive things Maz could do better than anyone ever (like turn the double play). Point is: Is it really so tragic to have the greatest defensive second baseman ever in the Hall of Fame even if he didn’t hit all that well? I’m just asking. And he did hit a pretty important World Series homer …

I’m sure I can find more if you need me to. I’m not saying that you must agree with the idea that he got in due to cronyism. But can we put to rest that what I wrote was “more bullshit” and that I want you to take my word for it? I wrote it because if I knew about it then it had to have been pretty widely talked about since I am not exactly a HoF junky. Would like to visit someday, I hear its a nice trip.

[Loach]

After all that is done I’ll re-answer the OP. Mazeroski is not obscure. He will always be remembered as making one of the greatest plays in history. Whenever they compile lists of the great moments in sports it always comes up. It comes up every world series. But he just wasn’t as big a name as Mantle or Maris or Mays when they were playing let alone now. He will never fade away completely like some very good players but he was not on the same level as the great offensive stars. Defense is needed. Offense sells tickets.