TV Review: Star Trek Discovery

TV Review—Star Trek: Discovery

One of the dangers of trying to revive a beloved but dormant franchise is that you’ve got several million viewers ready to jump on even the slightest error or misstep of interpretation.  You have to be true to what made the previous incarnation great, but be able to innovate in order to reach a new audience.  It is what the creators of Star Trek: The Next Generation succeeded at.  It was what the creators of the new Doctor Who succeeded at. 

It is what the creators of Star Trek: Discovery failed at.

I can’t write off the series based on one episode, but one episode is all that is being provided before the show goes into “access mode” on CBS’ streaming platform.  Based on what I saw, I won’t be signing up.

Where does the show go wrong?  First, there is the inherent problem of setting a series using today’s filming technology ten years before the Original Series was set.  The sets, costumes, and make-up have to look better than they did when the Original Series was filmed in the 1960’s.  The most glaring example—Star Trek: Discovery has characters communicate with people far away by using holographic imagery.  Did Kirk ever use holograms to communicate with Star Fleet?  No, of course not.  So how do you explain Star Fleet having hologram technology ten years before the Original Series but not then?  Of course, the answer is because now we can film scenes using simulated holograms and we couldn’t in 1966, but that’s a meta answer that takes the viewer out of the experience.

Speaking of make-up, the creators of Discovery have decided to give the Klingons yet ANOTHER makeover.  Next Gen famously gave the Klingons a forehead ridge, a development wonderfully mocked in the DS9 episode Trials and Tribble-ations when digital technology was used to insert Commander Worf into footage from the Original Series episode The Trouble With Tribbles (when asked who Klingons used to look more human, Worf replied that it was something Klingons didn’t discuss). 

Klingons have been revamped, and so help me they look like Vogons from the BBC Production of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.  They had a domed, turtle-like head and don’t look the least bit menacing, at least to me.  Their ship, which used to be the height of sparse, utilitarian design, has so many ornate carvings and elaborate moldings that it looks like a Orion brothel (or at least what I assume an Orion brothel looks like, since I don’t believe Trek has ever shown one).

There is also the age-old problem in Star Trek that they have to find ways for there to be problems despite futuristic technology.  The opening scenes show the Captain (Michelle Yeoh) and her First officer Michael Burnham (series lead actress Sonequa Martin-Green) trudging through a desert, and the Captain complains they are lost.  Lost?  My car has a GPS system, you’re telling me that a couple of hundred years in the future Star Fleet doesn’t?  Okay, maybe there is some “magnetic resonance” preventing GPS from working; the fact remains that they could have transported directly to where they were headed instead of risking getting lost in the desert.

What is the most important criterion upon which I will judge a TV show, or movie, or book?  How well does it solve the problems that it sets up?  The Original Series set up problems quickly, then let Kirk, Spock and McCoy wander around for 45 minutes before they reasoned out a solution.  The Next Gen usually had Picard, Riker, et al wonder what the problem was for 45 minutes, then when they realized what it was all Picard had to do was order Geordi to modulate the framistan to create a cascade effect on the whatzitz.  Not as interesting.

Unfortunately, I can’t evaluate how well Discovery solves the problems it presents because the first episode is a freakin’ cliffhanger!  Of all the cheap, manipulative ways to suck people in to signing up for CBS All Access, that’s the only way to find out how the plot of the pilot episode is resolved. 

Since that’s not possible, let me see how they resolve a smaller plot point.  Burnham flies off in an EVA suit to investigate a ship that sensors can’t discern.  Why the first officer and not a more, ahem, expendable crew member (*cough red shirt cough*)?  No idea.  She’s told that the radiation will kill her in 20 minutes, so she only has 19 minutes before she must be back.  She encounters a problem, the ship loses contact with her, and after the deadline her EVA suit reappears but the ship cannot establish remote control.  How is she saved?

We don’t know; they cut to commercial and then pick up with Burnham in sick bay being treated for radiation burns.  There is some hand waiving about how she was brought back on to the ship, but it is a deus ex machina conclusion to a relatively simple problem.  If she can’t be out for more than 20 minutes, then her suit’s computer should be giving her warnings when she needs to start heading back. 

There is also the problem that the ship’s third in command is an alien whose race is, apparently, cowardly by nature and is always recommending retreat.  I am all for affirmative action, but isn’t it a liability to have a command officer who will never engage in hostilities and will probably surrender to any ship they encounter that goes, “Boo!”?

I had low expectations for Discovery and they were NOT met.  The last two movies have been mediocre, and now an all-star assemblage of notables (Nicholas Meyer from The Wrath of Khan, Alex Kurtzman from the Star Trek movie, Bryan Fuller who wrote for Voyager and created the wonderful Pushing Daisies) has created this mess.  I am not subscribing to CBS All-Access; I think my time would be better spent re-watching Deep Space Nine on Netflix.

2017 US Open--the most unpredictable tennis in decades

The 2017 US Open was one of the most entertaining US Opens that I can remember.  The tone of the two weeks was set on the first night when unseeded Maria Sharapova, coming off a 15-month suspension for PED use, defeated the number two seed Simona Halep in the opening round.  Even granted that Maria Sharapova is a former Grand Slam winner, that match confirmed what we knew going in—it would be a wide-open tournament.

That was certainly true on the women’s side, due to the absence of Serena Williams who was otherwise engaged.  One can sum up the situation with the observation that the number one ranked player, Karolina Pliskova, had never won a major.  There are relatively few women players who have won majors, because Serena has won so many lately, and those who have won majors have fallen off after their victory (a surprising lot have trouble dealing with the “pressures of success”).  There were a number of potential favorites (mostly Eastern European women whose last names end in “a”), but the field felt wide open.

The situation was not quite as extreme with the men.  Several possible champions were missing the tournament, namely Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray and Stan Warwrinka.  Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal were the heavy favorites, but both were older players with a history of injuries, so anything could happen.  In the end, in the quarter-finals only 2 of the 8 players would be seeded in the top 10, and only 3 would be in the top 16.

The past 13 years have been incredibly stable for men’s tennis.  If you look at any 5-year period from the start of the Open Era (1968) you’ll find somewhere between 8 to 12 men won the 20 major titles in that period.  Doing some random sampling the smallest number I found in the 20^th century was 7, between the years 1978-1982 (Vilas, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Teacher, Kriek, and Wilander).  However, between 2006-2010 and 2007-2011, only 4 men won a major title (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Del Potro).  The number went up to 5 when Andy Murray started winning majors in 2012, and from 2010-2014 until 2013-2017 each 5-year span has had only 6 major winners (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Warwrinka, and Cilic). 

The opportunity to win a major seemed to energize a lot of the players who otherwise might have just gone through the motions before being eliminated by Serena or Roger.  The Sharapova/Halep match featured inspired tennis on both ends.  Subsequent matches featured a number of upsets, with an unlikely quartet of US women sweeping into the semi-finals.  Venus Williams, seeded ninth, was not quite a surprise, but Madison Keys (15 seed), Coco Vandeweghe (20 seed), and Sloane Stephens (unseeded) were not projected to get that far.

But in the quarter-finals Vandeweghe got past number one seed Pliskova, Williams beat 13 seed (and two-time Wimbledon winner) Petra Kvitova, Keys beat an unseeded player named Kaia Kenepi, and Stephens won a three setter over 16 seed Ana Sevastova.  Pliskova was the only top-8 seed to make it to the quarter-final, a sign of all the upsets that occurred on the way there.

Sloane Stephens, who had been ranked in the low 900’s earlier in the year, decisively beat Madison Keys in the final to win her first major title.

The men’s side was also filled with upsets, with only two top ten seeds (Nadal and Federer) making it to the quarter-finals.  The biggest disappointment was when Juan Martin Del Potro thwarted the chances of the first ever meeting of Nadal and Federer at the US Open by beating Federer in the quarter-finals.  Del Potro won the 2009 US Open title by beating Federer, making him the only player outside the “Big Three” to win a major from 2006-2011, so this was the second time he blocked Federer’s path to the Open title.

It was almost an anti-climax when Nadal beat some guy named Kevin Anderson, the 28 seed at the tournament.  Nadal managed to win his 16^th major, but to do so he needed a field so weak that he never faced anyone in the top 20.  He faced only two seeded players, Del Potro (24) and Anderson (28), which was a lot easier than having to beat Djokovic, Federer and Murray all at the same tournament.

Having a period dominated by possibly the two greatest men’s tennis players ever (Federer and Nadal), along with another all-time great (Djokovic) has produced some incredible tennis.  And having a period of women’s tennis dominated by arguably the best female tennis player of all time (I'd still give that crown to Steffi Graf) has been entertaining.  Predictability is nice, but unpredictability is more interesting.

But after the excitement of the 2017 US Open, I am looking forward to a period where there is a little more variety in the number of winners at Grand Slam tennis tournaments.

TV Review--The Defenders

TV Review—The Defenders

Marvel’s had a good run lately, churning out one successful super-hero property after another.  Their one mis-step was Iron Fist, which got such poor reviews I took a pass on it even though it was technically free for streaming on Netflix.  It may be free, but as the saying goes, time is money.

So I wasn’t very enthusiastic to tackle the Marvel mash-up of The Defenders, which combines crusading blind lawyer Matt Murdock aka Daredevil (Charlie Cox), super-strong PI Jessica Jones (Krysten Ritter) and Luke Cage (Mike Colter) with the protagonist of Iron Fist, Danny Rand (Finn Jones).  I had also skipped Daredevil season 2, because as much as I admired the first season of Daredevil, a lot of that was due to the contribution of Vincent D’Onofrio as Kingpin, and without him in season 2 I thought it would be disappointing.

Of the Marvel/Netflix properties I thought Jessica Jones was the best, with a damaged hero, an intriguing villain who couldn’t be beaten by simply pummeling him and whose threat to the protagonist was more psychological than physical. Luke Cage started out promising, but then killed its antagonist off mid-way through the series and replaced him with a much less interesting villain (the first villain was played by subsequent Oscar winner Mahershala Ali, who was more captivating playing evil slightly understated than the second villain who chewed the scenery; sometimes less IS more).

So, I had not watched two of the five series that were prequels to The Defenders, but I decided to give it a try anyway.  At a trim eight episodes, the series accomplishes what it needs to and then does not overstay its welcome.  The same genius alchemy Joss Whedon used to create the super-team The Avengers is on display here, as a highly disparate group of heroes finds enough common ground to work together.

The most interesting aspect to me was the technique employed when the four of them fought together.  There are two distinct fighting styles at play; Daredevil and Iron Fist are straight out of every chop-socky film ever made, with lots of kicks, flips, leaps, and leg sweeps.  On the other hand, Luke Cage and Jessica Jones just stand around and wait for the opportunity to punch someone really hard.  The combination is effective, mostly because the evil ninjas don’t realize that Luke Cage’s skin is impervious to blades, or that Jessica Jones can hit a lot harder than the typical 115-pound woman.

A second dynamic that the show didn’t seem interested in pursuing was the fact that Luke Cage had slept with three of the woman in the series, namely Jessica Jones, police detective Misty Knight (Simone Missick), and nurse Claire Temple (Rosario Dawson), who presence in each series knitted the various series together before the protagonists met.  His affairs with Jessica and Misty were sincere but casual, but supposedly Claire is something more special (it is clear when he gets out of prison at the start of The Defenders that Luke is REALLY happy to see Claire again).  Luke and Jessica have some casual flirtation towards the end, but by and large they act like they’ve barely met before, and romantic overtones are fairly muted in order to focus on the real threat.

That threat is The Hand, an evil organization that dates back centuries that is really, really evil and led by a woman named Alexandra (Sigourney Weaver).  They live forever thanks to some substance, but they used up that substance to resurrect Daredevil’s deceased girlfriend from season 2, Electra Natchios (Elodie Yung, mostly driving away all memories of Jennifer Gardner from the movie).  They plan to get more of the substance, but their plan to do so would result in untold destruction in New York City.

The Defenders does a good job of setting the pieces in place at the beginning, giving each of the four heroes (one can almost hear Jessica Jones’ eyes rolling at the word) a different path to get to the bad guys.  The four protagonists share one trait—they are all relentless when working on a problem, and this drives them to overcome major obstacles to arrive, almost together, at an executive board meeting of The Hand in episode three.

From then they form an uneasy alliance.  The show’s timeline is compressed; only a couple of days transpire over the eight episodes (or was it only one?).  Even though there are times for conversations and one Chinese dinner, most of the time the pressure on them from The Hand is relentless and the plot moves at a pace that seldom flags.  They get along despite their differences; ex-con and ex-cop Luke Cage finds he likes billionaire Danny Rand, while Daredevil, mostly operating as lawyer Matt Murdock, wears his heart on his sleeve while Jessica Jones sets a record for eye-rolling.

The acting is mostly first rate.  You expect that from pros like Weaver, but Charlie Cox struck me as much more affecting as Daredevil than I recall from season one, and Krysten Ritter inhabits Jessica Jones like a glove.  Mike Colter is not a great actor but projects a needed sincerity, and has the physical presence required to play Luke Cage.  Finn Jones does a nice job of portraying Danny Rand and basically a well-meaning dodo.  The one performance I thought was wasted was Scott Glenn as Daredevil’s blind sensei known as Stick; he seemed to sleepwalk through his line readings, although he might have been trying to show resignation or nonchalance. 

My biggest criticism of the entire project is their choice of the final shot of the series, which undercut a great deal of the drama that transpired at the end. But to say any more would be a spoiler. 

The Defenders not only lives up to expectations, but deserves a place alongside The Avengers in the pantheon of Marvel properties.  The melding of four Marvel heroes into one story could have been awkward or forced, but it was done with intelligence by creators Douglas Petrie and Marcos Ramirez.  I guess before we get a Defenders 2 we’ll have to wait until Jessica Jones 2 and Luke Cage 2; for some reason, I haven’t heard a clamor for Iron Fist 2.

The X-files: Savior or Curse?

“I got a hundred stories, and tabloid lies

I got witnesses to what the government denies

So I headed down to Roswell to wait and see…”

            Sheryl Crow, Maybe Angels

One of the more depressing bits of news about the upcoming television season was the announcement by FOX that, based on the success of the 6-episode mini-series last season, they would be bringing back The X-Files.

Don’t get me wrong, I loved The X-Files during its original run, although I did give up on it sometime before the final episode.  It is easily the single greatest science-fiction TV show ever, running longer than any other show (well, Stargate outlived it by one episode, but who cares?) and winning more prominent Emmys than any other ten science fiction TV series combined. Unlike every other science fiction show, including the Star Trek franchise and even the Doctor Who series, The X-Files was taken seriously, winning Emmys in prestigious categories like Best Actress, Best Writing for a Drama, and Best Guest Actor and being nominated annually in the directing and writing categories along with Best Drama.

So why do I find this news of The X-files’ resurrection sad?  Because it is based on last year’s six episode run, which consisted of 3 bad episodes, 2 mediocre episodes, and one that was . . . sort of good.  The brilliant thing about the early seasons of The X-files was a sense of urgency, a demand that a show about alien abductions, secret government projects, prognostication, fat-eating mutants, and killer cockroaches be taken very, very seriously.  The six episodes from last year missed this mark entirely.

I have been reconsidering The X-files since reading an article in a recent Atlantic magazine cover story examining the explosion in people believing strange things, impossible things.  I don’t mean alien abductions; I mean claims that President Obama caused the Great Recession (which started several months before his election) or that he played golf during Hurricane Katrina (which also happened on George W. Bush’s watch). 

The basic thesis of the article was that starting around the 1960’s, we, as a society, started empowering people who believed in UFOs, or Bigfoot, or whatever you call what hippies believed in.  We sort of used to insist that young people believe in things that made sense, like US Steel, fighting Nazis, and baseball.  But then we started letting people believe that UFOs were alien visitors, or that angels watched over people (one can only assume if this is true that they are really crappy at their job, given all the bad things that happen).  We allowed people to embrace their irrational beliefs, and now several decades later people are demanding that not only must they be allowed to believe, but everyone else must believe too.

Did The X-files contribute to this?  The show threw out all these weird theories about the government conspiring with aliens to create alien/human hybrids to facilitate the colonization of Earth (note—even showrunner Chris Carter admits the show’s mythology got away from him after season 5 or 6).  While the show’s denouements were notoriously open-ended, the general message was that you are insane if you didn’t believe in every headline run by the National Enquirer or Breitbart “News.”

On the other hand, there was something refreshing in the relationship between skeptical FBI Agent Dana Scully and believer FBI Agent Fox Mulder, mainly how they actually respected the other person’s beliefs and tried to win the other over through reason and evidence instead of decibels. Okay, I’d love to re-watch the entire series and keep a running total of every time Scully said the equivalent of, “Mulder, that’s nuts!” but overall they respected each other’s beliefs and tried to engage rationally.  People who think Obama was President when Katrina hit cannot be engaged rationally.

Yes, The X-files perpetuated the belief in strange things, but that’s because in the universe of The X-files, strange things occurred.  How could Scully maintain her skepticism after seeing all the bizarre stuff she witnessed as Mulder’s partner?  Frankly, half way through season 2 she should have joined Hare Krishna or the Moonies.

One of the brilliant things Chris Carter did with The X-files was to build in conflict by establishing the skeptic/believer dichotomy at the outset.  One of the problems with the first two seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation was that creator Gene Roddenberry insisted that in the future humans will have eliminated all conflict, and the writers tried in vain to create interesting plots featuring characters who all agreed with each other.  It wasn’t until Roddenberry left as the hands-on producer that the show dropped the idea that there was no conflict among the crew and the show improved in quality immensely.

Was The X-files a harbinger of the fake-news-believing America we live in today, or is it a model of rationality and civility?  I lean towards the latter.  People who believe in conspiracy theories don’t need a TV show to feed their paranoia, but a program with rational people talking rationally can only help make the conversation about climate change more civil.

Unless of course one side embraces irrationality, in which case all bets are off.  I believe The X-files had a positive message of rationality; but then, I’m rational.

The 2017 Fall TV Season!

Okay, boys and girls, it is September and that can mean only one thing to anyone over 35—it’s almost time for the new TV season!  Of course, millennials will have no idea what I am talking about, as they only know a universe where TV shows come out on Netflix whenever the hell they get released.  But there used to be a glorious tradition of new shows starting in September, right after summer vacation, and then running straight through to the following May, without hardly any interruptions!  That’s right, they used to produce almost 40 episodes per season, then take 12 weeks off while people spent the summers outside, playing and having barbeques. 

Kids had summers off because schools let them out to work on their parent’s farms, so the whole idea of summer vacation is a tad anachronistic (unless you live in a Jeffersonian reality where the majority of America’s population works on a family farm).

Over time the networks went down to producing 28 episodes a season, then 22, until now when 8 episodes is considered a year’s work for some shows.  Slackers.

So what is out there worth watching?  I’m not as tapped in as I was when I would get the TV Guide edition with the FALL TV SEASON PREVIEW, but I’ve heard some things.  Of course, some of the new shows I’ve heard about are on the Audience Channel, and what the heck is that?

Probably the most prestigious new show is the re-launch of the Star Trek Franchise with Discovery.  Early trailers seem to indicate the show has a decent budget, and I am a huge fan of star Michelle Yeoh.  The problem?  CBS doesn’t want to clutter its dominant schedule with this science fiction stuff, so in order to watch Discovery you will have to subscribe to a streaming platform for $9.99 a month.  Memo to CBS: I am Star Trek fan going back to my first convention in 1975, but if you want me to watch a TV show either broadcast it on your network or sell it to Netflix or Hulu.  I am not going to subscribe to a brand-new platform that has nothing to recommend it other than the first Star Trek TV series in 12 years.  Oh yeah, the last two series (Voyager and Enterprise) weren’t that good, and neither was the last movie, Beyond.  Given this track record, I’d be leery about watching a new Star Trek series if it was on free TV.

Incredibly, the new show I am the most optimistic about is a Star Trek parody called The Orville, starring Family Guy creator Seth McFarland in a live-action role.  McFarland’s non-animated track record is spotty (A Million Ways to Die in the West, anyone?), but he is a talented performer (okay, I’m talking about his vocal work; as a voice actor, he really is astonishingly good) and heaven knows the Star Trek franchise is ripe for satire.  This was attempted before with a short-lived sitcom called Quark (not to be confused with the Ferrengi on Deep Space Nine), but that was before special effects became cheap enough for a sitcom to use.  The show co-stars Adrienne Palicki as McFarland’s second in command and ex-wife; her departure from Agents of Shield was one reason for my dropping that show, so I am happy to see her again.

A lot of what is coming can euphemistically be called “recycled.”  CBS is trotting out Young Sheldon, because the character of Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory would be MUCH funnier as a ten-year-old (note—that was sarcasm).  The Good Doctor features a brilliant doctor who is autistic, meaning he’s basically House with even bigger socialization problems (lest you think I am being unfair, this show is created by the creator of House).  There are a bevy of series vying to pick up the mantle of most patriotic supporter of our men and women in uniform (The Brave, Seal Team, Valor).  And, duplicating the success of last year’s APB (more sarcasm) there is Wisdom of the Crowd, where yet another white billionaire uses technology to fight crime.

Speaking of recycled, there are also a bunch of fantasy series vying to cash in on the strength of the Marvel franchise, but none look that compelling (possibly because I am not as versed in the graphic novel genre as the target audience for these shows).  Inhuman is taking the unusual strategy of being released to IMAX theaters before going to the small screen, which I can’t help but think will make the small screen seem even smaller.  The Gifted boasts Bryan Singer as a producer so it should be true to its origins; it also features Amy Acker, late of Angel, Alias, and Person of Interest, so I’ll tune in.  There is another show called Marvel’s Runaways, but since it is on Hulu and I don’t subscribe, I’m not going to get invested.

My nominee for new show with the most interesting premise that can’t possibly last more than a season is Me, Myself, & I, a show about a central character at three points in his life—early teens, mid-life, and senior years.  The fact that the elder version is played by John Larroquette provides at least the promise of inspired acting for one of the segments.  High concept shows like this really have a difficult time surviving once the novelty wears off, but I’ll check it out just in case.

This is not an exhaustive rundown of new shows—given the fluid nature of TV that is almost impossible (does Stranger Things 2 count as a new series, or an old one?).  I’m ignoring shows on platforms I can’t access like HBO or Hulu, I’m ignoring things that just sound too dull to describe, and as I said there are channels I don’t even know about out there. 

I’ll end on a final note—CBS’ Seal Team stars David Boreanaz, coming off of 12 years on Bones, five years on Angel, and three seasons on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  So this makes his 21^st year in a row starring in a network TV series.  Not bad for a guy who was a professional dog walker when he got his big break (and someone whose career I said would be over 5 minutes after Angel was cancelled).

Reprise the Baseball Hall of Fame debate

One of the most fascinating things to debate is who deserves admission to a Hall of Fame, particularly the Baseball HoF in Cooperstown.  You don’t hear many debates over the football Hall in Canton, other than they elect too many quarterbacks and how long will they keep Terrell Owens out?  The Basketball Hal in Springfield, Massachusetts also doesn’t seem to generate the debates that arise every January when the Baseball Writers do their annual vote for Cooperstown.

The reason why entry to the Baseball Hall of Fame creates great discussions is that THERE ARE NO STANDARDS.  It’s like debating which film deserves the Best Picture Oscar, or who was hotter, Mary Ann or Ginger (Okay, that last one is clearly Mary Ann, but as the kids say, YMMV)?  It’s not like the system in place for the LPGA, where you get into their Hall of Fame based on reaching certain numerical career milestones.  Derek Jeter will be a slam dunk, but for anyone else it is debatable.

With the rise of Sabermetrics there has been more emphasis on quantitative evaluations of player careers, and while I do appreciate this I worry when it becomes close to the LPGA model where anyone with, say, a lifetime WAR of 60 gets in.  I’ve written elsewhere about my dismissal of Raphael Palmiero’s HoF resume, even before he failed a drug test after wagging his finger at Congress.  Yeah, he has 3,000 hits and 500 home runs, but what did he ever DO?  He made the post season three times and lost in the first round each time (and was never instrumental in his team getting there); he only led the league in a significant offensive category twice, and that was most hits in 1990 and most doubles in 1991; he never came close to winning an MVP award, and he only made 6 all-star teams in a 19 year career, and only started one. 

To me that is not a Hall of Famer, it is a guy who had a long, injury-free career during a high-offense era, playing in hitter’s parks, who was never thought of as one of the 3 or 4 best players at his position while he was active.  But, had he not failed that drug test, 3,000 hits and 500 home runs would have gotten him in to Cooperstown, probably on the first ballot (I suspect in several years the Veteran’s Committee will start fixing some of the steroid era omission “mistakes” like Palmiero and Mark McGwire).

I like to stress that the institution is called the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of good players who put up good numbers for several years.  In addition to outstanding offensive (or defensive) numbers, I want to know that the player made a contribution other than just showing up to play every day.  The rules for induction (what rules there are) say that entry should be based on a player’s whole career and not on individual season achievements, but those achievements do bolster a player’s Hall cred.

One criterion posited by Bill James in his book Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame was, could you write the history of baseball during the player’s career and NOT mention him?  Some people have criticized the induction of Reggie Jackson, given his low batting average and high strikeout rate; fair enough, but could you talk about baseball in the 1970’s and not mention “the straw that stirs the drink” with the New York Yankees? 

Bill Mazerowski was a controversial inclusion in the Hall, given his frankly anemic batting statistics.  But he is considered the best defensive second baseman, a key defensive position, of all time.  But it helps that he hit one of the most famous home runs in baseball history, a walk-off shot to win Game 7 of the 1960 World Series.  An exceptional career absent post-season heroics may make a player a marginal candidate, but memorable post-season theatrics lowers the bar on how exceptional a player’s career stats have to be.

On the flip side, Jack Morris got a lot of support for induction into Cooperstown (67.7% of ballots on his last year of eligibility, just short of the 75% needed) despite posting fairly mediocre numbers over his career.  But he had two factoids helping him; his 10-inning shutout in Game 7 to help the Twins win a World Series in 1991, and the fact that “he won more games than any other pitcher in the 1980’s.”  But pitcher wins are an overrated stat, the coincidence of the prime of his career coinciding with a decade is just that, a coincidence, and his World Series performance in one game should not be a ticket to Cooperstown absent exceptional performance elsewhere.

It matters a lot to me how players were thought of while they were playing.  How many All-Star games did they go to?  How often were they in the MVP, or Cy Young Award, top 5 or 10, or won a Silver Slugger?  While these things shouldn’t be over-valued (Roger Maris and Dale Murphy both have two MVP awards and deservedly are not in the HoF; Mike Piazza doesn’t have any MVP awards but should have been a first round inductee), but they give a better idea of who was FAMOUS while they were playing than looking over a player’s stats five years after retirement and saying, “Gee, I never realized he was that good.”

ESPN analyst Keith Law, in his book Smart Baseball, makes the point that, while he was playing, Detroit Tigers’ second baseman Lou Whittaker was frequently spoken of as a lock for the Hall of Fame, along with his double play partner Alan Trammel.  Law notes that his lifetime WAR of 74.9 is the highest of any player not in the Hall, and if that new-fangled stat is too new-fangled for you, Whitaker would be in the top 8 among Hall of Fame second basemen in virtually every important old-school offensive category.  Yet, in his one appearance on the Hall of Fame ballot he got only 15 votes, a figure so low it disqualified him from future consideration.

Law speculates on why Whitaker received such scant support, citing a crowded ballot (for many years there has been a backlog of qualified Hall candidates, and since voters are limited on how many votes that can give some players get lost in the crowd), the fact that Whitaker’s skills were atypical for second basemen, and the possibility that there was a hint of racism concerning his attitude toward the mostly white baseball writers.  Here is a case where I would value contemporaneous judgment about Whitaker over the retroactive evaluation after his career had ended and vote him in.

Two pitchers with marginal Hall credentials are Jim Kaat and Tommy John.  I think both should be in for contributions other than their pitching stats; Kaat won 14 consecutive Gold Gloves at pitcher and is considered one of the best fielding pitchers ever (Greg Maddux eventually won more Gold Gloves, but his pitching stats are impeccable), and Tommy John had a surgical procedure named after him that is nearly ubiquitous.  To me these elevate Kaat and John for enshrinement even if their career win totals are slightly less than 300.

I hope there will never be universal agreement on who deserves to get into the Hall of Fame.  Except, of course, when it comes to players like Willie Mays; whoever voted against admitting him should have had his voting privileges taken away.