Baseball players should get one shot at Hall of Fame

ON BASEBALL

How many times does a man need to be rejected before he gets the point?

Once, twice, 14 times?

Sure, there are the lucky ones. But for most men, the results remain the same.

No, I'm not talking about women (I'm saving that for a future column). This is about baseball, and the ludicrous timetable the Baseball Writers Association of America has for selecting those enshrined in Cooperstown.

In case you haven't heard, former Red Sox star Jim Rice was elected into the HOF the other day ... finally. I'm happy for Rice and not nearly qualified to make an educated judgment on whether he deserves to be in the HOF.

But here's what I can say: The fact that Rice had to wait 15 grueling years to find out — for sure — if his name would be placed alongside the pastime's all-time greats is just asinine. Hell, people die during a decade and a half. Rice is 55; something could have happened to him.

Rice's story is happy; I'm sure there have been plenty of sad ones.

Here's the point: Baseball players become eligible to appear on the annual HOF ballot five years after retiring from the games. Some of them, like Rice, don't find out their fate for another 15 years. Players get 15 "chances" on the ballot. In other words, they can get less than the needed 75 percent of votes 15 times before they're finally dismissed.

Simple question, folks: Are any home runs hit five years after retirement? Are any bases stolen? I mean, I know Rickey Henderson was that good. But even Henderson, the other recently named Hall-of-Famer, hasn't stolen a single base since ending his glorious career.

So why 15 years? Why not one year, one chance, one vote? Don't tell me members of the BWAA aren't knowledgeable enough to make a decision the first year a guy's name comes up. Don't tell me they might change their mind after seven years because he's done a lot of charity work.

A player's eligibility should be based — solely — on his performance on the field. Nothing else. Yes, there might be a few cases when a player such as Mark McGuire ruins his candidacy by basically looking as guilty of taking steroids and lying about them as possible. But even in his case, we knew all that before the five years were up.

McGuire was heavily denied his first year of eligibility. Ditto his second. Why go through this another 13 years?

Hell, this system must even compromise some voters' choices for the HOF. No disrespect to Rice, but there's no way he should have gotten 4.2 percent more votes this year than he did a year ago. Those, to me, are pity votes. It was his last chance, and some voters gave in.

Players should get one chance. Either you're in or you're out. Then they can move on, forget about it and live their lives. After all, most baseball players retire before hitting their 40s. It's cruel for them to be thinking about this well into their 50s and even early 60s.

Let them progress nicely into the next phase of their lives.

Perhaps the saddest case is that of former pitcher Bert Blyleven. This was the 12th shot at the HOF for the man who ranks fifth all-time in strikeouts. And again he missed out, getting just 62.7 percent of the need 75 percent of votes.

But get this: In Blyleven's first year of eligibility in 1998, he received a whopping 17 percent of the votes. What the heck has changed? I'm not saying Blyleven's undeserving, but there's no way a guy should see that kind of increase in votes. He hasn't even saved a third-world country.

For Blyleven's sake and sanity, I hope he gets in soon and can put the whole thing to rest because it's killing him. In an ESPN Radio interview Tuesday after getting snubbed, he lamented, "I feel like crap" and went on to say, "I have a tough time dealing with it from year to year."

Blyleven is now 57. This should have been off his mind when he was a spry 46.

Voters need to make up their minds once for each player — and then move on.

So that the former major leaguers can do likewise.

With two big upsets, expectations skyrocket for Michigan

ON BASKETBALL

It's amusing what two games — 80 minutes of court time — can do for a basketball program and those who follow it, or now follow it thanks to the wins.

A month ago, there was mild optimism surrounding the Michigan basketball team as it got set to kick off its second season under the watch of coach John Beilein. Coming off a 10-22 season, no one doubted that the Wolverines — with almost all their key players back — would be improved. Most, like myself, predicted a winning record and NIT berth for the team.

So much for that.

With wins over a pair of No. 4 teams, UCLA and Duke — now ranked 16th and seventh, respectively, in the latest AP poll — Michigan fans are thinking of one goal for this team. It's something that the program, astoundingly, hasn't reached since a year when Bill Clinton still had two-plus years left in his presidency and Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa were loved like cute puppies.

The year was 1998, and it was the last time the Wolverines smelled the NCAA Tournament.

Now, with Michigan sitting 6-2 and just outside of the Top 25, people in and around Ann Arbor expect big things out of this team. Just visit the Ann Arbor News' message board, where one frequent poster wrote the following:

"I am looking for a final four appearance within five years, maybe sooner."

Final Four? Let's not get ahead of ourselves. An opportunity to go Dancing would be a big, big start.

But don't bet your iPod on it. This team is much, much better than a year ago; this team has the coach and players to consistently perform like it did in Saturday's 81-73 shocker over the Blue Devils, to prove it wasn't a fluke; the two wins will undoubtedly help if Michigan is on the "bubble" come early March...

Let's just see how the Wolverines handle the newfound attention. We should get a good idea of it during the next three weeks. And I, for one, think it's a good thing the team was left out of both top-25 polls; getting at all complacent could be disastrous.

Michigan finishes the bulk of its non-conference schedule with home games against Eastern Michigan, Florida Gulf-Coast and North Carolina Central, and a neutral-court game versus Oakland. The Wolverines will be heavily favored in every game. How will they handle it?

It shouldn't be forgotten that the Wolverines needed overtime to beat Savannah State — in front of a measly crowd — a week before knocking off the Devils, which caused the sellout crowd to storm the court. Will Michigan, playing to similarly small crowds, bring the same energy against lesser opponents?

They better, because a letdown in the upcoming quartet of games would count as a "bad loss" come March.

It's not an easy stretch for 19-year-olds to concentrate during, what with final exams, the holidays and a good portion of the student body home with their families for about two weeks. At the same time, with only the four games during a 23-day period, I'm sure Beilein and his staff view it as a time to really get all the players on the same wavelength and try to set the rotation for the Big Ten schedule.

These are very happy times in and around the confines of Crisler Arena. The memory of a year ago is fading — and with it any doubts that Beilein is the right coach for the Wolverines. The man knows what he's doing. How else can you explain bringing in freshman Zack Novak, who wouldn't get a scholarship from many Division I teams?

And, yep, Novak drilled four 3-pointers, including the two biggest shots of the game, against Duke.

Beilein might not rake in top-10 national recruits, but he'll definitely continue to reel in players who fit his system. And anyone who has followed his career path knows that his system works against the best competition.

So is the program going to continue to get better?

Undoubtedly, as long as Beilein sticks around.

But is this team headed to the NCAA Tournament?

My mind tells me "yes" at the moment, but there remain many more games — some of them very difficult, some of them looking like even matchups, some with the appearance of games this team should win.

If the young Wolverines take care of those "should-win" games and win a few of the even matchups, they'll find themselves back, finally, in the only college-basketball tournament that matters. If they have more lapses, like the five-minute one that lost the game for them at Maryland Wednesday, they may have to settle for that prognosticated NIT berth.

Either way, things are looking up — way up — for Beilein and his kids. The win over Duke was the grandest since an upset of then-No. 1 Duke in 1997.

Just don't think, all of a sudden, that anything is guaranteed for this team. The survival against Savannah State should make that very clear.

The Wolverines earned their wins over UCLA and Duke by playing hard and composed for most of 40 minutes.

They'll have to continue to do the same to continue winning and not put a damper on these highly increased expectations.

Baseball, really, is all about numbers

ON BASEBALL

I was at a slow-pitch softball tournament Wednesday night, so I wasn't surprised when I saw teams scoring 20-plus runs with ease.

When I walked over to the concession stand TV, however, and noticed that Major League Baseball's Texas Rangers had dropped 30 runs on the Baltimore Orioles, I was in shock.

Thirty runs? I knew ESPN statisticians would have a field day comparing that to various football scores... and Big Ten basketball scores — OK, just kidding (but, really, the Big Ten routinely plays games in the 40s).

But back to my point. It didn't matter that the Rangers (now 56-70 after completing the doubleheader sweep) are a pitiful team that hasn't been in the playoff race since April. No one cared that the game had close to no meaning for either team (the Orioles are a mediocre 58-67 — 17 games behind the Red Sox in the American League East).

Rather, late into the night baseball enthusiasts and historians alike were lauding the modern-day record for runs scored in a game. (The Chicago Colts — now the Cubs — scored 36 runs in 1897).

ESPN's Tim Kurkjian was on the verge of euphoria in describing the Rangers' feat. He was just one of many.

Yes, it was a special night for baseball.

A game that's all about the numbers.

What matters most
We can talk all we want about pennant races and the "intangibles," but nothing will ever take away baseball's moniker as a numbers sport.

How else can you explain the ridiculous coverage Barry Bonds' home run chase received this summer? Or even the attention paid to Chase Utley's hitting streak last year when he was still more than 20 games away from Joe DiMaggio's seemingly unbreakable record.

How else can you make sense of the attention paid to steroid use before these substances were proactively banned by commissioner Bud Selig. It's not like the Cream and the Clear were the reason the Marlins won the 2003 World Series. Rather, the use of such substances was ridiculed because baseball's sluggers (Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa and Bonds, etc.) allegedly used them to break baseball's hallowed records.

Players like to say the only thing that matters is winning. And to a certain extent, they're right. But you couldn't look at Bonds' huge smile after No. 756 and believe that he would have exchanged breaking Hank Aaron's record for taking the San Francisco Giants back to the playoffs (coincidentally, the Giants — 55-72 — have been in last place of the National League West all season).

It's a numbers game, and always will be a numbers game.

There are so many statistics kept now, I can't even keep track. WHIP (whipped cream?). Not only OBP and SLG, but OPS (Online Packaging Service?).RC27... XBA... somebody get me a ginger ale, because I'm becoming dizzy.

While we recognize records in football and basketball, they don't receive close to the attention they do in America's Pastime. For instance, we know that Bonds' new record is the most hallowed in baseball, but what's the most revered mark in the other major sports?

Maybe you could say Wilt's 100 points in basketball, but even that's not clear cut. And I can't think of a particular football record that's always talked about. Sure, the all-time rushing record got a little attention when Emmitt Smith broke Walter Payton's mark, but let's not forget that Barry Sanders didn't even bother sticking around one more season to surpass "Sweetness."

I sure can't imagine Bonds hanging up the uniform 10 home runs shy of Hammering Hank. He probably would have played with one arm if he had to.

In the coming weeks, we'll move the Rangers' amazing feat to the rear of our minds' baseball compartment. We'll do likewise with Brandon Webb's 42-inning scoreless streak and instead focus on the Diamondbacks' improbable run to a division title. Pennant talk will dominate the airwaves.

But don't be naive to think that if another remarkable number is posted, it won't garner great attention.

It will. Whether it happens in April, August or October.

Because baseball — dating back to the days of the Chicago Colts — has always (and will always) be about the numbers.