Phil Taylor Calls Himself "The Gatekeeper" And It Gets Worse From There

I was innocently reading Sports Illustrated this past weekend when I had nearly finished it and came upon the last page, which used to be Rick Reilly's domain. I tend to read this part now that Reilly has taken his lack of talents to ESPN. Phil Taylor had written about the Hall of Fame and calls himself "The Gatekeeper." Because nothing goes better with a bad idea than a bad nickname that gives the impression your consider yourself to be the final person to decide who gets into baseball's Hall of Fame and who doesn't, I thought I had to read this. And read it I did...now I am writing about it.

A few weeks ago, Dylan wrote this really good positive post about Rob Parker and the Hall of Fame and there was a great discussion about that post. I am the negative guy apparently, so I am going to focus on a negative article about a sportswriter talking about the Hall of Fame. I think every year the public should be able to choose 10 sportswriters to opine about baseball's Hall of Fame in a column. That's it. The rest can't write anything about it. How's that for a "Gatekeeper-like" idea?

The results of the Baseball Hall of Fame voting, which made members of second baseman Roberto Alomar and pitcher Bert Blyleven last week, sparked all the usual debates about snubbed players, outdated balloting procedures and methods of defining greatness. If only the Hall had a gatekeeper, like St. Peter at the pearly ones, to make a final call on who gets in and why.

I'm going to stop you right there. The Hall does have a gatekeeper to make the final call on who gets in and why. They are called the Hall of Fame voters. Instead of having one opinionated asshole who decides which players get in, there are many more opinionated assholes who gets to decide which players get in. This increases the amount of people who vote and decreases the chance one opinionated asshole may do a crappy job of choosing candidates for the Hall of Fame. I don't get why one person voting is better than many people when it comes to a vote about the Hall of Fame.

Consider this my application for the job. In a nod to baseball history, I would attempt to bring to the position the qualities of the sport's two greatest Rickeys, offering both the wisdom of Branch Rickey and the insistence on referring to myself in the third person of Rickey Henderson. Here's how the Gatekeeper would handle some of the thorniest Hall of Fame questions:

First, off I am shocked Bill Simmons didn't think of giving himself the nickname "The Gatekeeper" about five years ago in reference to the basketball Hall of Fame. I feel like his ego really dropped the ball on this one.

Q | Why hasn't [insert the name of your favorite candidate] been voted in? He has more career RBIs than 17.2% of the lefthanded hitters at his position who are already....

A | Stop right there, before you make the Gatekeeper doze off. He has nothing against numbers, either the traditional ones or the newer metrics, but he finds the endless parsing of stats to be an incredible snore.

And naturally if the Gatekeeper finds the discussion of an issue to be an incredible snore then that means that issue has absolutely no value. Right? I find science and medicine to be an incredible boring subject, and really other than the life-saving medicines that have cured diseases and innovations that make our lives easier and increase our productivity and (sometimes) our happiness...what the hell has science and medicine done for us? The answer: It doesn't matter! Who cares? It's so BORING!

So we have established (I am not calling him the Gatekeeper anymore) Phil Taylor is lazy and doesn't want to have to use anything outside of using his own biased opinion to judge players for the Hall of Fame. Not a good way to start an article.

Only in the world of sportswriting is willful ignorance in finding out new knowledge not discouraged by many editors, it actually gets a sportswriter a highlighted spot in the back of a popular sports magazine. "Hey everyone! I have no need to learn anything new! That makes me successful in my industry!"

Make the case with words. Describe the unforgettable moments your would-be Hall of Famer created.

Oh yes, indeed. Do this. That way the Hall of Fame will be consisting of players that created "memories" which naturally also mean this player was one of the greatest players of his generation. It's only logical only the greatest players in baseball history also created unforgettable moments.

Sid Bream created one of my favorite baseball memories. Knock down the walls Hall of Fame! Let Sid Bream in! Edgar Renteria has created two great postseason memories for two separate teams. Give him his own wing in the Hall of Fame!

I have never been able to fathom why "unforgettable moments" and a player who had 1-2 great memorable performances is supposed to overwhelm the entire body of work that player had over his career. As if 1-2 moments of greatness are supposed to make a player one of the greatest players in baseball history, while the rest of his baseball resume that says he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame gets ignored. Here's a great example of this...

You want to persuade the Gatekeeper that Jack Morris should be in Cooperstown? Talk more about his 1--0, 10-inning shutout for the Twins in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series and less about how his WHiP stacks up against Hall of Fame pitchers.

Read this sentence again. (waits 10 seconds)

So talk more about ONE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE that Jack Morris had that says he should be considered one of the greatest pitchers of all-time and talk less about how, you know, he actually compares to the other pitchers who are considered the greatest pitchers of all-time. This is not logical. I am not all about comparing players eligible for the Hall of Fame to pitchers who are in the Hall of Fame and denying them entry if they don't reach a certain level of production. Does it really make sense to take one great performance and say, "Jack Morris is one of the greatest pitchers of all-time because of this performance," rather than take what Jack Morris did over his entire career and compare it to what other Hall of Fame pitchers did?

The Gatekeeper is much more interested in whether a player created a lasting legacy in the sport.

A lasting legacy that 2-3 great performances can create, while a 14-15 year body of work isn't good enough?

Ozzie Smith is in the Hall because he made plays that no one dreamed a shortstop could make, not because of his fielding percentage.

Ozzie Smith is in the Hall of Fame also because he was a great hitting shortstop and a great fielder. In fact, he was one of the greatest players at his position. He also made great plays in the field no one else could make, but mostly he is in the Hall of Fame because he was one of the greatest players at his position in baseball history. So he meets the criteria to be in the Hall of Fame, so that's mostly why he was elected there. I am not sure he was elected into the Hall of Fame solely on the fact he could make plays no other shortstops could make, there were other factors as well.

Everyone who would even be considered for the Hall is impressive in some statistical area. So, enough with making a candidate's case by finding Hall of Famers with comparable stats. If the Gatekeeper wanted to discuss comps, he'd have gone into real estate.

Every player considered for the Hall is impressive in some statistical area? The 2011 ballot with Kirk Rueter, Lenny Harris, and Charles Johnson beg to differ. Bad players? Not at all. Impressive one statistical area...not exactly.

But you do have to compare a player's statistics in some fashion to other players of his generation or compare to who else is in the Hall of Fame. Why is it fine to compare Ozzie Smith's fielding plays to other shortstops, but it isn't fine to compare Smith's statistics to other shortstops?

The Gatekeeper believes the Hall of Fame has too many members as it is. In fact, don't get the Gatekeeper started, because he'll talk your ear off about how it's all part of the misguided tendency in sports to relax the standards of excellence. We don't just lock onto outdated milestones, like 500 home runs, we consider anyone who gets in the neighborhood, causing the bar to fall increasingly lower.

Phil Taylor's "created an unforgettable memory" criteria is one of the harshest set of criteria I have ever read about...in opposite world. Especially since each individual baseball fan probably has several baseball players that created unforgettable memories. Using subjective criteria based solely on the memory of how you felt during a moment would definitely cause the Hall's standards to tighten up by causing middle aged voters to recall how a player's performance perhaps over a decade ago made them feel. Nothing says, "restricted entrance" like relying on a person's memory and feelings for a player's candidacy.

The problem isn't limited to the Hall. Some people want to double the number of teams in the NCAA men's basketball tournament—or even worse, let everyone in. Loosening the definition of excellence is why we have expanded playoffs and expanded All-Star rosters. Does everything have to be devalued, diluted? The Gatekeeper wants a Hall that's harder to get into than his old high school jersey.

Let's not devalue the Hall of Fame by relying on a player's statistics over his entire career. Let's devalue the Hall of Fame by considering a player who created a special memory, as if this were also indicative that he was one of the greatest players in the Hall of Fame. Phil Taylor is loosening the definition of excellence simply by showing a disdain for statistics and basing a player's candidacy on how great of an unforgettable moment he created. It's great a player created an unforgettable memory, but if he wasn't one of the best players at his position during his career, I don't think he should be in the Hall of Fame.

Q | Isn't it unfair to keep deserving players out when they don't meet subjective criteria?

A | Define deserving. The Gatekeeper believes that no one deserves enshrinement in Cooperstown.

It seems Phil Taylor is taking the JemeHill form of sportswriting where he creates a false argument and then disproves it...thereby proving his own intentionally false conclusion as indeed false and impressing the 100 readers who didn't figure out that Phil Taylor just disproved his own argument.

Noted baseball thinker Bob Costas has said that the Hall should be limited to the immortals. The Gatekeeper couldn't agree more. How do we get such a Hall? By asking questions that can't be answered with a calculator. Did the player take your breath away?

Yes, Andruw Jones took my breath away at times. Does this mean he should be in the Hall of Fame? No. John Rocker took my breath away at times (he was a pretty good closer for a short period of time). Does this mean the Hall should call him for induction? Therein lies the problem with the "took your breath away" way of evaluating players for the Hall of Fame.

Phil Taylor's basic argument is we shouldn't rely on the actual statistical legacy a baseball player left behind, but we should rely on exactly how he made us feel. Using this logic there is absolutely no reason Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire should not be in the Hall of Fame at some point soon. Nearly everyone remembers how they made us feel during the summer of 1998.

Is he someone to tell your grandchildren about? The Gatekeeper evaluates an artist by how a painting makes him feel, not by the number of brushstrokes per canvas.

What a beautiful analogy. I just took 15 minutes off from writing to go pick flowers and ponder my place in this world.

Q | Are the writers being fair when they refuse to vote for players they suspect have used steroids, even when there is no concrete evidence they did?

A | The Gatekeeper believes the system would be infinitely better if he alone determined a player's worthiness. But since others have been entrusted with a ballot, shouldn't they be given exactly that—trust? The Hall of Fame doesn't just yank some fans off the beer line to vote.

No, the Hall of Fame takes them out of the retirement home to vote.

I'm just kidding of course. The Hall of Fame delivers the ballot personally to the retirement home in order to avoid any would-be voters from having to drive a car.

Only journalists who have covered the game for at least 10 years are eligible. If they don't feel comfortable voting for a player because, in their opinion, he is likely to have used steroids, the Gatekeeper respects their judgment.

So basically Phil Taylor wants the Hall of Fame election process to be more subjective. He wants less of an interest in using statistics and more of an interest in using unforgettable memories of how good that player was and how he made each individual person feel. He entrusts the writers to deal fairly with players who allegedly, or not allegedly at all but that writer has a certain suspicion based purely on his lifetime of sitting in press boxes and eating free nachos, used steroids while playing baseball.

Q | Are you also going to defend writers who refuse to vote for an obvious candidate in his first year of eligibility because they have arbitrarily decided that only certain players should have the honor of being first-ballot inductees?

Phil Taylor is fine with voters suspecting a player may have used steroids without any type of proof. He is fine with completely ignoring a player's statistics and focusing more on how that player made the sportswriter voter feel, which is a half-ass way of remembering a player's legacy. He is also fine with these same people he has entrusted to essentially make baseless accusations towards a player like Jeff Bagwell about steroids with the ability to not vote for an "obvious" candidate because that voter doesn't want the player to be a first-ballot inductee. This trust ends when it comes to a Hall of Fame voter determining when a player should be in the Hall of Fame.

I don't agree with a voter doing this, but if are going to allow Hall of Fame voters to create the evidence, be the judge, and the jury on steroids...what's the problem with this same sportswriter (who Phil Taylor has given the ability to keep a player out of the Hall of Fame permanently based solely on suspicion of using steroids) from having the ability to differentiate between a first and second ballot Hall of Fame player? At least that player will most likely get in the Hall of Fame in his second year of eligibility rather than be turned away due to suspicion of steroid use.

A | That's where the Gatekeeper draws the line. The voters should not have the latitude to create a special class of Hall of Famer;

But feel free to not vote for a player based on your own baseless accusations of steroid use. In Phil Taylor's mind, and go ahead and not vote for a player if you think that player took steroids, go ahead and not vote for a player because his statistics may be good enough but he never took your breath away. Don't you dare not vote for a player because you don't want that player to be a first-ballot Hall of Fame player. Phil's advocating of subjective criteria stops when it comes a question as to WHEN to elect a player into the Hall of Fame. It is fine to have a bias against a player in not electing him to the Hall of Fame at all, but how dare you make that player wait if he is an "obvious candidate." That's just wrong.

Everything would be so much simpler if everyone would just listen to the Gatekeeper. If they did, Alomar, a maestro at second base, would still have been voted in last week. But Blyleven, who was a fine pitcher for a long time but a great one not long enough, would have been turned away.

This is not true at all. Bert Blyleven repeatedly took my breath away while watching him pitch and he even took his teammates breath away on many, many occasions in the clubhouse.

Hey, the Gatekeeper didn't say there wouldn't be tough calls. You have to bypass the very good to get to the best.

Unfortunately when it comes to reading about how a person should vote for the Hall of Fame you have to wade through a ton of unreasonable junk like this to get to someone who uses actual logic, not memory based hyperbole, on why Bert Blyleven should not be in the Hall of Fame.