By MIKE SCHMIDT

Mr. Utley

If you’re a Jimmy Buffett fan, you know of Mr. Utley, as he jams on Son of a Sailor. If you’re a PGA Tour player, you know Stan as putting guru, and if you’re a baseball fan, you know Chase as the best player in the game right now.

Bold statement huh? Well, look over the past few years even before considering this year, where going into May he leads baseball in most offensive categories. This is a second baseman mind you, who was among the leaders in every offensive category in each of the last few years also. Last year, his double play partner Jimmy Rollins won the NLMVP award, not because he out polled the Rockies Matt Holiday, but because Utley broke his hand and missed a month. He was the MVP at that point and came back, after missing 100 at bats, to finish with 29 and drive in 103, and was in the thick of the NL East race against the Mets down the stretch, which the Phils won.

Fact! Chase Utley is a “diamond rat”. To be a “rat”, an endearing term to an athlete, means, you are consumed by the game. Basketball has the “gym rat”, a kid who lives in the gym with his basketball, every free moment he’s working his game, 100’s of jump shots, free throws, drills, in most cases in quiet solitude, as he enjoys being by himself. Chase is baseball’s version, generally early to the park, where the routine starts. He’s quiet, but aware of his teammates and interacts as needed, but steadily works into his daily pre-game schedule, studying video, batting tee and soft toss in the cages. This routine seldom varies. He’s not unique in this, as most players today have a similar physical pre-game, but my sense is that Chase is not only grooving a swing, but a plan of attack for that particular night, not just going through the motions of batting cage repetition, but seeing the game before its played. There in is the difference.

When I went off to be alone before batting practice, with the tee and a bucket of balls, I rehearsed in my mind what I would see at 7:00 PM. I would visualize myself in the box, I’d see myself reacting to pitches on balance. Establishing in my mind positive images as I hit balls off the tee. More important was visualizing pitch sequences from that night’s pitchers, so there were no surprises. This is only a “rat” approach, and over the years there have been a select few of us “rats”, Guinn, Boggs. Molitor, and Brett would be in the rat patrol.

Many would say about me, that I made the game to complicated, I could have had a longer more enjoyable career had I not become burnt out from over analysis. My take is that my “rat” mentality was just a byproduct of my passion for baseball, it helped my team win more games and ultimately, got me to the Hall of Fame. I was possessed with my responsibility and accountability, as the central figure in our offense. If I didn’t make outs, we’d most likely score enough to win. That responsibility I didn’t talk about much, but understood everyday.

Chase is the same. Like I had, he has great hitters around him. Rollins and Victorino up front setting the table and behind, Ryan Howard, though off slow this year, and Pat Burrell, who this year is #2 in all around offense. Legitimate 4 and 5 hitters, and there’s Geoff Jenkins and Pedro Feliz following them (credit GM Pat Gillick). You talk about the “catbird’s seat”, table setters in front of you, and game breaker’s behind you, just the same, hitting #3 is a big responsibility. You must be, all of the above, a table setter, run producer and game breaker, and that’s what Utley has become.

He’s a run producing machine, and a bonus, a run stopper defensively. He comes to the park to beat you. He’ll “take one” for the team anytime, often does, but refuses to wear a pansy elbow pad, like a few names we won’t mention, just for spite. In a recent game against the rival Mets he was hit 3 times, and trotted to first satisfied knowing he had created scoring opportunities, not like so many hitters who need to make a scene after being plunked. Remember, he faces an unusual amount of left-handed pitchers, as opposing managers know they must neutralize he and Howard to beat the Phillies.

Defensively it was once said he wouldn’t have a position, arm was to weak, and his hands were average. Ha! He and Rollins are the best, maybe ever, for sure “ever” if you count offense.

With Utley, Rollins, Howard, and Burrell, you most likely have the annual selection pool majority for NLMVP. Trust me, there are 160 home runs, and 400 plus RBI’s and runs, and that doesn’t count Jenkins and Feliz. Utley is the heart and soul, their leader, their “diamond rat”. He’s the perfect player for the city. I’ll never forget last year when Randy Johnson started a game in Philly, Howard was given a rest, as is the custom for lefty hitters on that day, but who hit cleanup, Mr. Utley of course, because Charlie Manual knows and respects his mental toughness.

What a time to be a baseball fan in Philadelphia. It might be better than the late 70’s and early 80’s, only time will tell. One thing for sure though, no matter how it comes out, considering what baseball has been through over the last 10 years, isn’t it a breath of fresh air to know that a player like Chase Utley is leading us to a new era. Watch him and the Phils this year, you’ll see what I mean. I’ll be watching.

By MIKE SCHMIDT

What a Father’s Day!

It’s a humid rainy weekend in South Florida, the courses are closed, can’t take a boat ride, movies and malls are crowded, however, we’ll be OK, its US Open weekend. In fact, the USGA and NBC have rigged it so we easterner’s have it in prime time. That’s right, six hours from 4-10 PM, with ESPN and Golf Channel framing it with bonus coverage. What a Father’s Day weekend! Let it rain.

Its 9 PM on Father’s day and we all just watched a wounded Tiger, backed into a corner, defy severe odds to make a Rocco tying 15 ft. downhill birdie and force a playoff. He had to miss that putt, there was just to much negative charma. Rocco Mediate, a 45 year old comic, who you gotta love, would have won the US Open if Tiger missed. Come on Tiger, give the guy a break, nobody would have faulted you for hanging it on the lip. It would have made Rocco’s life, and wouldn’t have changed yours. Tiger has won 13 majors in a row when leading going into the final round, but needs an extra day to make it 14. Tiger hit more fascinating, unbelievable shots himself in this tournament, than the entire field, in four rounds.

As I watched and listened to the announcers trying to explain what makes Tiger Tiger, offering some mysterious explanation of why his putts drop and other’s don’t, I also find myself enamored with the Tiger mystique, but heck, who isn’t, including Phil.

I played on a “mock” professional golf tour called the Celebrity Player’s Tour and we had a member named Rick Rhoden, a former pitcher. He won close to 60 times in a ten year period. He won over one half the time he played. The other 59 guys knew they had to beat Rick to win. Can you imagine some of the names we’d call him, some of the stories we’d conjure up, some of the jealousy we exhibited. Sure, we respected his game and he pushed us to get better, but he lived to beat our butts everyday, and did. If only golf was a game where you could physically intimidate an opponent. Its not, but what can happen is you allow yourself to be mentally intimidated. Tiger is the pied piper of intimidation and he knows it, because he earned it. How?

First Tiger has been gifted with natural ability and feel for athletic endeavors in the top 5% of his peers. Second, Tiger has been brainwashed, a term I use endearingly, to believe that he is never going to loose no matter how tough the challenge, a gift no other player has. Third, Tiger has a subtle sense for angles, speed, and mother nature’s influence that maybe 2% of his fellow players has, but you must add to that the ability to apply the physical mechanics of the swing to the chosen shot. Fourth, Tiger understands “intimidation” and its value. He knows it will kick in at some point, that he may not need it on a given day, but if off his game, he knows, if he shows no sign of quitting, “intimidation” will surface to help him. Fifth is the major element of separation, its his charisma. The best way to explain it is from my own experience as a golfer. When there are people watching, an “energy” in which to tap is in the air. In golf, fans want you to succeed, make a great swing, a great shot, they want to see the ball drop in the hole because they want to clap, scream, and go crazy. They want to join you, be a part of it. I have felt this positive energy exchange in my own little miniscule golf tournament experience. Imagine the energy in the air available for Tiger. 99% of golf fans at the tournament, and those watching on TV, want him to thrill them with the impossible shot, the “must” make putt, and the Tiger reaction, and Tiger knows it. He’d never verbalize it, but he knows it and takes supreme advantage of it. No other player has it at this level. Phil experiences it occasionally, but Tiger thrives on it, and this weekend’s display of the impossible can have no other explanation. Add a ton of charisma to all his obvious advantages and you understand his advantage.

Tiger is the single most valuable commodity in the world. Tiger is bigger to golf than Jordan was to the NBA. The only close comparisons are Babe Ruth to baseball, Ali to boxing, and Lemond to cycling. Well, how about Dale Earnheart to Nascar, the Beatles to music, or George Washington to our country’s history? If they expanded Mt. Rushmore to ten faces, Tiger’s would be one, and he’s still a kid.

People love Tiger because he’s everything they would be if they could. Even his PGA Tour adversaries like him and understand his immense value to each of them. He has carried the Tour to its current height in popularity and all have benefited financially.

This weekend has a hidden element we must not overlook, Tiger is a father and its Father’s Day weekend. The most important person in Tiger’s success was his late father Earl who shaped his personality. Now Tiger is a father and father’s day has a new meaning, adding even more charisma to the pot, not a good thing for the competition. Imagine, Tiger no longer has professional golf on top of his priority list, being a Dad has replaced it. I guarantee with all the success he has had, all the big shots at the most pressure packed times, the 15 footer to tie Rocco on his first Father’s Day is at the top.

By MIKE SCHMIDT

Baseball, It’s Time for Replay, Or is it?

“Carroll lifts a humpback line drive to right, should be a play at the plate as Holliday tags at third, he makes the catch, the tag at third and the throw home, Holliday is safe, the Rockies are headed to the post-season. The Rockies bench pours on the field in celebration, but hold your horses, Bud Black has thrown the review flag”.

The scene is surreal, as the expected celebration is halted and the team recoils into the dugout. Can you imagine the shock? Since that play, over two weeks ago, the subject of “instant replay” in baseball has become a daily topic. With the World Series ahead, wouldn’t knowing a crucial play, with a World Championship at stake, was going to be called correctly. With today’s technology available, and the stakes as high as they are, why wouldn’t baseball accept a failsafe opportunity to protect itself?

In the same game, the one game playoff mentioned above, there was another questionable call earlier. What looked to be a Garrett Atkins home run on replay was simply allowed to stand as called on the field, a double. More recently, in game 5 of the ALCS, Manny Ramirez, lifted a 2 out fly ball to right center that carried to the wall and was also ruled a non-home run, after a long huddle by the umpires. It was also hussled into a single by the lethargic Ramirez, but that’s a subject for another time. With “replay”, both plays would be reviewed, and if evidence was indisputable, reversed. Lets now add another play to the mix, fan interference, as happened when the now infamous Bartman interfered with Moises Alou’s catch in the NLCS in ????? Did he in fact reach onto the playing field, or was the ball coming down in the stands? Replay would show it.

Please, no conclusions yet! Read on!

Since its beginning baseball has endured and enjoyed one element that is a fabric of its game, umpires. They are unique characters, we wonder about them. Why would anyone want to be an umpire? Yes, now the pay and benefits are good, the travel is 1st class, the locker room facilities are 5-star, and the hours you work are perfect, but you not only are hated everyday by 30,000 people, you have to stand in one spot for 4 hours without a break. Sure, there are worse jobs, in fact many umpires and referees today have become celebrities. The problem is becoming one of those that get celebrity status because of a bad call that affected a championship game. Probably the most famous for that reason is Don Denkinger’s safe call at first in the 1985 World Series, which led to Kansas City’s Championship, clearly the wrong call on replay. Bruce Froeming’s safe call at first in game 3 of the 1977 NLCS, killed our World Series hopes.

One more I can’t leave out. Some say the 1980 NLCS between the Phillies and the Astros was the most exciting ever. In game 4 there was a play that was called wrong that very well could have decided the series outcome, but luckily didn’t. With men on 1st and 2nd, Maddox was the hitter, and Vern Rule the pitcher for the Astros. Maddox was jammed and hit a soft line drive back at Rule, who short-hopped the ball, and in a panic, mistakenly threw to 1st. This was obvious to all of us in the dugout who had the perfect side angle to see the play. The problem was that Doug Harvey, the home plate ump, reacted to Rule’s mistake and raised his arm and called the batter out. From his view it looked like a catch. Here’s where it gets sticky, the runner on first saw the short hop and went to second, and the runner on 2nd headed for 3rd, opening up an opportunity for a triple play. The Astros argued for a triple play, we saw it as one out at first and each runner moved up. Harvey and his crew huddled and decided that the catch would stand and ruled it only a double play saying the umpire’s call had confused the runners, thus allowing us another shot with two outs and a runner on 2nd. Replay would have shown the short hop and left us with 2nd and 3rd and one out, the correct call.

Still with me?

OK, enough famous “wrong” calls. For every “wrong” one there are thousands of correct ones, that are verified on replay, that we take for granted. However, the opportunity to correct the critical, “incorrect” calls, is available to baseball, but there are serious obstacles. Baseball’s “powers that are”, will site game momentum, stiffening of pitcher’s arms during delays, and tradition and history related to the role of umpires. They don’t worry about any of this when Lou Pinella stops a game for 20 minutes to argue a call.

Let me give you the real reason why “instant replay” and baseball could be a difficult marriage, by dissecting and comparing the plays mentioned above. First you must understand, that in baseball, unlike football, the umpire’s ruling many times is part of the continuance of the play. In the Garret Atkins example, no one was on base, close game yes, and a correct home run call is crucial. Go to the tape and get it right. The Matt Holliday slide at home with the winning run, was a “judgement” call. If rules allowed for that play to be reviewed, it would have been, but there was not “indisputable” evidence to reverse the call. So after the review, the Rockies could storm the field. I say that in jest, but “celebration” by teams and fans is also an issue. Let’s look at the ALCS game 5 Ramirez 410 Ft. single. In review, there was unclear evidence, the play stands, Manny wipes the egg off his face. Finally, getting to the crucial reason, the 1980 NLCS Garry Maddox line drive to the pitcher. Immediately the runners look to the umpires for a call, catch or no catch? Same on an outfield short hop, base runners look to the umpires, then react. If the runners are in motion reacting to an umpire’s call, total chaos could ensue if that call were reversed on replay. In Houston, they got it reasonably correct based on the “wrong” call, but what if in a future World Series game 7, the winning run is on 3rd with one out and a soft line drive to an outfielder is ruled a short hop by the ump, allowing the runner to score the World Championship winning run without tagging up?

Then, what if, they go to the review and clear evidence is shown it was a catch in the air. What now? The winning team and fans are on the field celebrating, but the play is being reviewed. The call on the field is reversed, and it becomes a double play, because the ump signaled “no catch” eliminating the tag up. If the correct call were made, the runner would have tagged and maybe elected not to advance, or have been thrown out at the plate trying. The umpires are now put in a real bind, they must determine what progress the play would have made had the call been the opposite. Imagine, player’s running speed, outfielder’s arm strength, on deck hitters, weather conditions, on and on, all could affect the decision whether or not to tag, and the World Championship hinges on this call! Wouldn’t it be easier to trust the umpires?

Have you come to a conclusion?

Tough call? Here’s how it COULD work.

Each manager gets two challenges per game of which one can be used before the 7th and one after the 7th. A challenge can only be used to review fair or foul ball calls, fan interference, and questionable home runs and short hop plays, with NO base runners. I would also consider one judgement play that could be reviewed, the force out at 1st base, but only after the 7th inning, and with NO other base runners. (As pointed out earlier, keep in mind, not all plays can be reviewed, as base runners often times make decisions based on calls on other runners.) Nowadays, stadium TV cameras are fixed and plays would be easily monitored making process for review simple. The umpire crew chief goes to a monitor behind home plate and looks for “undisputable” evidence that the call should be corrected. Oh yes, the umpires themselves will have to check their egos and understand, like football officials, they are human and sometimes get the play wrong, and should want it to be right.

Even if replay and baseball get together someday soon, umpires will still be subject to critical calls at critical times. The amazing thing is they get it right call 98% of the time. The issue is clearly that in today’s sports mega money environment, with so much at stake, should the human element be the final judge?

Upon further review, the games stands as is, and we love it!

By MIKE SCHMIDT
For The Associated Press

This Barry Bonds thing has got me confused.

I can't make a decision. I get several interview requests each week and questions everywhere I go.

"What do you think about Barry Bonds?"

I'm sure all of the guys in the 500 Club are going through the same thing. Most of the older hard-liners believe he cheated, broke the law, is beating the system, and want nothing to do with him. Apparently Hank Aaron is in that group.

Those guys feel the same way about Pete Rose, too.

The current generation, however, seems to be a little more tolerant. They're willing to accept his achievements as a product of a commitment to fitness, unique hand-eye ability, size and strength, longevity, and whatever is, or was, accepted as normal 10 years ago.

The controversial issue is whether he added size and strength with illegal supplemental help, allowing him not only to do extraordinary things as a hitter, but allowing him to extend his years to the point of challenging the game's most coveted record.

I've gone on record saying if I had played in the 1990s I would have found it hard not to fall to the same temptation, especially when there was no testing and a lax attitude by those in charge. Back then, the game and its players were thriving on the power surge.

Knowing the repercussions as I know them now would have made that decision easy. But being a young player trying to make my mark, be the best I could be, make the most money I could make, get to the top, I'm not sure I would have said no. More power to those that did, and most think Barry was not one of them.

So fans, and some current and former major leaguers, find it hard to give Bonds the respect that should follow this achievement. It is directly related to the issue above, but there are other reasons.

There is the picture painted by the media, and supported through reading Bonds' quotes, that he has a surly "I'm Barry Bonds" attitude and has a different set of rules that those around him must accept.

Quite simply, he appears to have a very arrogant and self-centered existence and, as he approaches the record, he revels in his celebrity with little concern for his image. It seems there is little that would, or could, endear him to all of us in his actions.

Hey, who am I to talk? I was a little self-centered in my day as well. A certain amount of it, I'm sure, comes with the territory.

In general, the perception that today's players have risen to a level of stardom where they have lost touch with the real world seems strong. Television does it. These guys see themselves as rock stars, as entertainers. Maybe they are.

Big Papi is a household name. He's on TV more in one month than Hank Aaron was in his career. These are the times we are in, true. But it creates resentment and jealousy from players of the past who played in relative obscurity.

I see ESPN is televising the arrival of the players at the All-Star game this year. Wow! We can see Manny getting out of his limo! Maybe he'll wink at the camera. Somebody must be watching this stuff.

Oh yes, we get to see the Home Run Derby, where 10 players get to blast golf balls over the fence 340 feet away with maple bats while their peers sit around and act interested. I'm sorry, excuse me, just the old chip on the shoulder. If only they had the money and interest for this stuff when I played.

I had a long paragraph written on the differences in today's game compared to Aaron's era, but I'll not push that issue. But I must ask: Do you think most fans believe the Home Run King should come from that era, when it was much tougher?

Not my era, mind you. Aaron's era. That's the hard thing to accept, that records set pre-1990 are falling like crazy. I was seventh on the all-time home run list just over 15 years ago, now I'm 12th.

Aaron played his entire career when men were fighting for their livelihood on the field. There were no guaranteed contracts and pitchers knocked you on your ass if you overswung at an outside pitch. There were no elbow pads to ease the fear of inside pitches. The game policed itself, and only the strong survived.

Today's players are a happy family, many once were teammates. They understand there is a gigantic pie and plenty to go around. Before free agency started after the 1976 season, players were tied to organizations and forced to be loyal to towns and their fans.

Even through the '80s, many players played for only one organization, which bred a more natural competitive environment. Today's game is competitive, of course, but not nearly as tough as it was back then. Not so much when I played, but Aaron's era and before, when you earned your pay year to year. Every year was a free agent year for them. You don't think hitting was tougher?

It doesn't sound as if I respect today's guys after reading that, does it? Well, I do, but those are facts. Any current player, even Barry, would agree with me.

I don't blame the players. They play in the environment they are given, the environment that today's game has adopted over time. No one forced ownership to pay $20 million a year for a player or build mini-stadiums that eventually would destroy the continuity of the record books. Wealthy, egocentric businessmen and television revenue support this stuff. Don't blame the players, they're just taking advantage of it.

Having said all of the above, the only issue is: Bonds or Aaron? Who deserves the throne until A-Rod or Ryan Howard arrives? When they do the baseball climate will be more ready for a change, and much more comfortable with the modern game. It will be their game, we will be long gone from it.

When making the Bonds-Aaron comparison, one thing everyone can agree upon, and it is central to the discussion, is that it became much easier to hit a home run after 1990.

Harder balls, maple bats, small parks, small strike zones, fewer inside pitches, elbow pads, and yes, bigger biceps, all combined to increase home run totals and thus lessen the appreciation of Barry Bonds' achievements.

As pointed out in my book, "Clearing the Bases," after the building of Camden Yards in Baltimore and the many new stadiums that followed, ending with Citizens Bank in Philly, the difference is close to 10 home runs a year per player.

Barry would need to reach over 900. That's where Hank would be if he played the same number of games in the same environment in which Barry plays today. In its simplest form, over 100 of the balls Hank hit to outfield warning tracks during his career would be home runs today. This is not Barry's fault. Barry understands that comparison, but what can he do, ask baseball to make Hank's mark 925?

Leave the steroid issue out of this. Maybe your eyes tell you one thing, but Barry has never failed a drug test. It's been guilt by association. He's had a long, amazingly productive career, a career that most likely will never be matched. He has been a five-tool player most of his career, combining speed, defense, hitting for average and power. I lost count of his +MVP+ awards.

I say appreciate it for what it is, the greatest career that spans two highly different generations. I say he is the greatest left-handed hitter of all-time, maybe the greatest player - surely of our generation. And I'll bet that he is not that bad of a guy if you got to know him. Remember also, the guy coming after him, A-Rod, will have done it all in the modern game. In fact, he might prove the number 900 is correct.

As for Hammerin' Hank, he is the greatest right-handed hitter of all-time and that's saying something. Of course I'm biased. But facing 70 percent right-handed pitching, well, ask Barry how he'd like to face a lefty seven out of 10 games.

Hank's reign will never really end. He's the old-school King and will, by my generation, have set the standard in baseball's golden era.

I know he's up there in years, but I'm sure he could board a private jet, with Bud Selig, and stop by to shake Barry's hand on the big day. It would be the thing to do.

The experts on ESPN will be everywhere. Barry Bonds the person will be Barry Bonds the commodity, and everyone will see headlines, TV ratings, dollar signs and Barry's lovable smile.

He'll have more friends than he ever dreamed. Every network will create space, no major league licensee will boycott it, media and fans will treat it as a historical happening. By the end of all this, Barry might even win you over.

Let's just hope this one has a happy ending. Baseball needs one.

By MIKE SCHMIDT
For The Associated Press

One of the most popular discussions in all of sports relates to the baseball Hall of Fame - who's in, who will be, who should be and who isn't.

As a member, I am always intrigued by the members' meetings in Cooperstown when we discuss the Veterans Committee ballot.

Everyone has their guy, their crony, a past teammate they feel is being underrated.

That's great that so many people, including the members, are concerned about the guys who just didn't make the grade - not to mention the real vote by the baseball writers, who now have to consider juiced balls, bats and bodies.

Having said that, ponder this question I posed at a recent meeting: Doesn't a voter's opinion on a particular player have a great deal to do with how the voter himself perceives the Hall of Fame?

No one truly believes the Hall is exclusive to the all-time greatest, and no one believes the Hall should honor mediocrity. There is a happy medium somewhere, and where you fall in that range should determine your voting philosophy.

You can't have strict criteria when judging one man and then flexible criteria when judging another. You can't allow politics to enter into it in any way, but in many cases it has made the difference. With all due respect to current members Ryne Sandberg and Bruce Sutter, how can Dale Murphy and Lee Smith be kept out? Their careers are identical and in certain areas, better.

Jim Kaat, again with due respect: How can a guy with 283 wins, 16 Gold Gloves and 24 years as a player and another 30 as a baseball ambassador not be a lock choice? Don't get me started on comparisons related to Kaat! He's even got all the politics covered.

The big issue confronting the writers voting this month concerns Mark McGwire. He was baseball's superman. The public wanted to see his giant biceps and long bombs, and could care less what he was putting in his milk.

Now you want to vilify him because he doesn't want to own up, or admit, or even refute an involvement with steroids? Whoa! I'd ask the voters to look past the basic question, did he or didn't he? and consider the era and what fueled it. More about that on my Web site (www.mikeschmidt.com).

So what does "Hall of Fame" say about a player? How good does one have to be? How can certain guys slide in and others with similar careers can't?

Originally when opened, there were fewer players, a smaller game, so picking Hall members was easy, the best of the best.

Everyone knew the Hall of Fame was for Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Foxx and Young. Then it was for DiMaggio, Williams, Mantle, Musial, Mays, Aaron and all the Robinsons. And as the game grew bigger came Koufax, Seaver, Palmer, Kaline, Killebrew, Jackson, Bench, and then Ryan, Brett, Carlton. Now Gwynn, Ripken and on and on, the best of the best.

That was the plan, but someone decided the baseball writers' vote slighted a few players along the way and the Veterans Committee was created to right what was apparently wrong.

No longer was it cut and dried. If you were passed over you got a mulligan. In the first round, your career was just a little short of HOF caliber; in round two, for some reason, the career got better.

That's OK, because it's a subjective vote and a lot of little things go into it. Maybe you didn't play in New York, maybe you were quiet and didn't look for attention or weren't as cooperative with the media as some.

Maybe you had a Hall of Fame career and voters didn't notice because several others at your position got all the attention. It used to be a small committee of nominated voters whose job it was to identify those the writers forgot. Now it's in the hands of HOF members, who are a might happy with their fraternity's current size.

Try convincing current members that they should relax their standards for entrance. Not likely. Most members I know are of the opinion if you're not a HOFer the first time around, why are you later on?

What's important? Is it keeping the egos of those members who were "no doubters" satisfied? After all, the harder it is to get in, the more the prestige of membership is preserved. Or is it more important how the Hall relates to the fans? It's supposed to be a place for them to appreciate and honor the game's history. Why are Murphy, Smith and Kaat fans made to wait?

The truth is, the members would like to open the doors only to those "no doubters" in the writers' annual voting. Fact is, we have failed to instate any veteran since we got the vote.

It's amazing how your perception changes once you're in! Here's the rub: The borderline guys, and there will always be a few, fought the politics of the voting. So in giving the veterans' vote to the members, the politics were supposed to have gone away. Yet with the politics gone, the members still haven't budged, and I'm one of them.

Again, what does "Hall of Fame" mean to you? Answer that for yourself, and you'll know for whom to vote. Is it the best ever, is it all-time greats, is it the best from an era, is it great defensive players, is it great ambassadors, a few unique careers, strong leaders, great umpires, on and on?

Yes, it HAS BECOME all of that. The Hall of Fame has evolved over time to what it is, all of the above. It is not just the best of the best. It can't be, there are too many great players and many on the fringes that deserve the recognition. Look around the room, there's always someone with stronger credentials than you and me.
So this year, in keeping with that evolution, why not let a deserving few sip our wine? Picture the members' dinner with a few more faces, the smiles will do your heart good.

More guys should get to experience the joy while they're alive. For sure, we can't keep Kaat out any longer and I hope the writers don't do it to Smith, the past all-time saves leader. They are welcome at my table Sunday night.
And consider Santo, Murphy, Herzog, and Harvey, and a vacant chair for Mauch, Hodges and Buck O'Neil (who by the way was just honored by President Bush as an American hero).

I didn't always feel this way. The first few years as a member, I felt very special and deep down, didn't want anyone who was borderline to infiltrate the fraternity.
I came to the philosophy above based on a personal experience. My answer to the big question on Hall membership? It's a reward for being a great player for a long time.

You may not have been the greatest, but you are among the greatest. You may not be the best all-time, but your name comes up in those debates.
More importantly, the experience I had involved a player who was passed over several times and finally got the call.

Gary Carter.

No player ever appreciated that call to the extent he did. The joy it brought him, his family, and friends, especially me, was so real and pleasantly genuine, I ate it up and still do.

He does not take it for granted. He will wear his emotion, from this election, on his sleeve the rest of his life. It's like he had to work for it. His induction actually made me appreciate mine all the more. The Hall of Fame is better for having him. His story could, and should, happen more often.

This year we members and the writers can bring a lot of joy to a few lives. Who's to have the final say on baseball greatness?

In the scheme of life, fulfilling a few more dreams should mean more than exercising your power to delay them.

Don't all of us now wish Buck O'Neil had gotten just enough votes? Isn't a Hall of Fame career a lot of luck, anyway? Heck, in 1971 I could have been drafted by Baltimore, where they had No. 5 at third base.