The hallowed halls of Cooperstown.

Nice turn of phrase.  If you're a major league player they are one of the things you play for.  A chance to join to legends. 

Which is also the argument against people like Mark McGwire joining the Hall.  How can we put a cheat into this shrine to the immortals.

Easy.

The same way baseball put Ray Schalk in.

If you ever saw the great movie "8 Men Out" you know, or think you know, Ray Schalk.  The tough as nails little catcher who saw what was going on during the fixed 1919 World Series and nearly fought his crooked pitchers to stop it.  Old school integrity.

Schalk caught for eighteen seasons, but only 12 where he played as many as 100 games.  Put up the following numbers:

11-594-177-.253.

You read it correctly.  11 home runs, 594 RBI, 177 steals, and a .253 average.

In fairness, Schalk was a very good catcher, rated one of the best of his era.  He lead the American League in fielding percentage for eight seasons and caught four no hitters.

Which makes him an early 20th century version of Jeff Torborg, but hardly Hall of Fame material.  Yet, there he was in 1955 getting his plaque in Cooperstown.  And no matter how much you value his defense, no matter how much credit you give him for trying to stop his teammates from throwing the World Series, you still come back to the same question.

What is Ray Schalk doing in the Hall of Fame?

The answer may go back to 1917.  Baseball players were under the reserve clause and without the leverage of today's free agency they worked for fractions of their value to teams.  If a player challenged the contract he was offered, owners often sent back another lower offer.  Players were bound for life to one team and treated like chattel.

Trying to fight the system, players formed a "Player's Fraternity" in 1912.  It was not a formal union, but it was recognized by the National Association (the primary baseball management group).  It achieved limited improvements in player conditions and focused much of it's attention on conditions in the minor leagues.

In 1917 the fraternity asked it's players to sign pledges not to sign contracts or report to spring training until it released them to do so.  At issue was the "Ten Day Rule" which said teams did not have to pay injured players after they were unavailable for ten days.  

Momentum was behind the players until some began to break ranks.  The first two included Ray Schalk, who had refused to sign the pledge.  Ultimately the attempt failed and emboldened management to refuse future dealings with the fraternity.

Owners like Charles Comiskey of the WhiteSox had the upper hand and played it out to the hilt.  Despite having the best team in baseball, Comiskey paid about sixty cents on the dollar for talent.  Which played a big part in why his players sold out themselves and the game to gamblers in 1919.

Schalk got a day in his honor in 1920 from Comiskey.  Late in his career, ever loyal, he offered to play one last season for a substantial pay cut.  Comiskey rewarded his loyalty by knocking his offer down even lower.  Schalk retired, but later came back to manage the WhiteSox for two seasons.

Then in 1927, Swede Risberg of the "Black Sox" appeared before Commissioner Landis and testified that in 1917 the Sox had gotten together $1100 cash to give to Detroit players to roll over during a pivotal four game series late in the season.  Risberg specifically mentioned Schalk as having contributed to the fund.

How does this relate to a .253 hitting defensive specialist getting a plague alongside Ruth, Cobb, Speaker, Gehrig, Williams, DiMaggio, Mantle, and Mays? 

The Hall of Fame Veterans Committee which elected Schalk didn't have but a single player on it in 1955.  It included the presidents of the American and National Leagues, the minor's Internation League, the secretary of baseball, Branch Rickey (Pirates GM), and three writers.

Harridge was assistant to the American League President back in 1917 when Schalk helped derail the developing strike against baseball.  The others, excepting the writers and former player Charlie Gerringer, were all closely associated with the powers who ran baseball.  And, in 1953 the players had just organized the MLB Player's Association.  There can be little doubt Harridge remembered Schalk's loyalty, or that the others appreciated it.

Was the fix in for Schalk?

Nobody can say for sure.  But it certainly is easier to believe than accepting that a punchless catcher, even one as gifted defensively as Schalk, found his way into the Hall of Fame purely on merit. 

And, you may ask, what is your point?

Simply this.  The idea that the Hall of Fame is so pristine in purity it cannot tolerate the likes of Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds, or Pete Rose or Joe Jackson for that matter, seems a bit absurd.

Ray Schalk was not a bad man.  He sized up life and followed where his conscience lead.  No doubt many steroid users did the same.  We can question them, and Schalk, with 20-20 hindsight.

The Baseball Hall of Fame is alot of things to alot of people.  But if you're going to keep certain players out based on the idea that everyone already in Cooperstown got there without politics and is beyond reproach, you would be mistaken.

Of that I'm at least .253 percent sure.

Fire the coach!

I wanted to be the first to say it, but it's probably too late.  Already there are "dead coach walking" lists all over the internet.

Al Groh of UVA seems to be at the top of most lists.  0-2 after losing to Texas Christian today, William & Mary last week. By most objective criteria, Groh has not achieved a great deal in Charlottesville.

Well, except he has a great deal.  In Charlottesville.

Roughly $1.7 million a season through 2011.

And there's the rub.  How do you fire a coach who is into you for that much money, the year after UVA spent $2.1 million to part ways with basketball coach Dave Leitao?

Firing Groh would be the responsibility of Athletic Director Craig Littlepage.  Which would force Littlepage to walk that long last mile to tell the nice folks at the Virginia Athletic Foundation that large sums of money must be advanced to buy out the coach whose contract he extended after the 2007 season.

How would that conversation go?

"I had the right vision for UVA football and basketball.  It was all coming together.  And then it didn't.  So, I'll need you to dig just a little deeper...."

At which point the VAF will probably begin to wonder how much it would cost to buy out Littlepage.  Which is probably a question which should be asked.

Craig Littlepage isn't exactly Bernie Madoff, but he's done a reasonable imitation, promising unrealistic returns on investment.  Like Madoff's ponzi scheme, the investors in UVA athletics have come to realize the money is gone with little to show for it.

Groh's extension was tied to a vision of national championship contention.  Littlepage sold that vision, which is probably not achievable at UVA, with or without Al Groh as head coach.

Simply put, Charlottesville is not a destination location for the type of players needed to put UVA into one of the major bowls.  There is not history of success, no more of a pipeline to the NFL than other ACC schools, and the ACC itself is not a marquee football conference. 

Could another coach change that?  Butch Davis at UNC is a close comparison, and while Davis is moving Carolina in the right direction it is a multi-year project with no guarantee of anything more than the Top 20.

And Al Groh is no Butch Davis.  A good offensive mind, an experienced coach, someone who should consistently win eight to ten games a season.  But not a national title.

Where does that leave UVA?

With an AD who probably can't pull the trigger, but may be fired himself.  And with a coach who will probably ride out the season before getting a golden parachute from the VAF. 

And lots of unrealized dreams.

Richard Rodriquez can coach.

For $2.5 million a season he had better. 

Michigan has a great strength and conditioning coach.  Mike Barwis is as good as it gets.

Real professionals.

Small problem.  The players at the University of Michigan are not professionals.  They are students first, then football players.  This probably comes as a major shock to most of the people who post to Michigan internet web sites, but it is reality.

And, no, not everybody breaks the rules on the number of hours players can work out, which is the gist of today's stories in the Detroit Free Press which quote present and former players on the extent of the Wolverines' cheating.

freep.com/article/20090829/SPORTS06/9082...

Yes, cheating.

NCAA rules say the most players can be required to work out in the off season is eight hours a week, the most time players can spend in off field activities during the season is twenty a week or four hours a day.  And coaches can't participate in organized off season practices.

It appears from the report Michigan is not just breaking each of these rules, but tap dancing on top of them.

And, no, not every team does.  In fact, if you read the message boards the main reaction to the story has been to complain that Lloyd Carr's staff didn't make these demands of players.

The Free Press story is most damning when players who have not complained were interviewed previously about the off field demands of playing at Michigan.  Not knowing the rules, most described a regime which clearly crossed the boundaries of what the NCAA will permit.

Michigan now says it will self investigate the allegations by going back to the team and interviewing players who already were made to sign statements that the team is in compliance.  But the NCAA can, and should, step in to conduct an independent investigation.

Why?

Because at the end of the integrity of any sport relies heavily on a level playing field.  Sure some schools have more money, better coaching staffs, and state of the art facilities.  But all of them should be working under the same rules.

Rodriquez is undoubtedly a good football coach, a motivator and X's and O's expert.  But how good is he or his program really, if he gets to his goals by taking advantages other schools don't and exploiting young players who don't dare buck the system?

There is something more important to consider.  Something that the Rich Rodriquez' of the world forget.  The players they recruit are not professionals.  The rules are there to protect the players, to make sure they have time to be students.

There is an alternative for Rodriquez and Barwis.  Go play with the big boys.  Take jobs in the NFL with real professionals.  There you can demand unlimited effort from players.  There you have total committment of time and resources.

And thirty-one other coaches with the same advantages.

It is, as Shakespeare said, a consummation devotely to be wished.

Has it come to this?

The St. Louis Cardinals are contending for a pennant and believe John Smoltz can help.  Which could mean a number of things.

The Cards number five starters have been really, really bad.

They are spending entirely too much time reading Dave Duncan's press clippings and consider him the Helen Keller of pitching coaches.

Somewhere Jim Bouton is tuning up his knuckle ball and waiting by the phone.

The front office is afflicted with a mysterious disease that results in an inability to read statistics.

Statistics like these:

Smoltz allowed eight home runs in his last twenty innings with the Red Sox.

Didn't have a single quality start in eight trys.

The RedSox, a championship caliber team, lost six of his eight starts.

The toothpick just popped out.

Smoltz is done.  As a starter.

I'm hedging my bet on Smoltz the reliever, because of his 33/9 strikeout to walk ratio in forty innings, and the stretches within games where his stuff has been commanding.

Then again, the walks are deceptive.  Nobody takes your pitches when they are always right around the plate begging to be driven from the field of play.

So, why is Smoltz not in the bullpen?

Smoltz has a reputation as being one of baseball's good guys and is well known for his charitable work in the Atlanta area.

But he's human and stubborn.  One of only two pitchers with twenty win and fifty save seasons to his credit, Smoltz feels like he's earned the right to come back as a starter.  St. Louis is giving him that chance.

The RedSox offered Smoltz a chance to go to minors, get some work, and return to the bullpen down the stretch.

Did he owe the RedSox?

Boston management won't say it, probably because Smoltz looks better going out the door than coming back in.  But if the RedSox were sincere in thinking he could contribute in the bullpen later this year, it hardly seems gracious to abandon them.

The Braves were right.

Over the winter the Braves front office was criticized by Smoltz, Chipper Jones, and many fans for not outbidding the RedSox to bring him back. 

Atlanta was offering a pitcher coming off shoulder surgery who cost them $14 million in 2008 for 28 innings work a $2 million contract with incentives.  The RedSox offered $5.5 million and incentives. 

Smoltz was offended.

You have to wonder.

The Atlanta Braves had paid Smoltz over $130 million over the years, including $14 million for essentially nothing in 2008.

So he leaves over the chance to make $3.5 million?

It shouldn't have ended this way.

Smoltz should have taken the Braves offer and gotten in shape for whatever role he could fill with Atlanta.  Worked with their young pitchers, enjoyed his status as elder statesman.

If things didn't work out there would be the big farewell send off before a packed house at Turner Field and offers to work with the team in some other capacity.

Instead Smoltz went to Boston and became the equivalent of a 42 year old Willie Mays hitting .211 with 6 home runs with the 1973 Mets.

It won't get better in St. Louis.

The best thing anyone has said about Smoltz signing with the Cardinals was that he possibly, just possibly, could give them five innings of three run ball now and then.

There is also a pretty good chance he won't be able to do that and we'll be writing blogs in a couple of weeks about his retirement from the game.

I've been wrong before.

Not this time.  Buy some replacement scoreboard lights for the Cardinals.

The old ones will be burning out soon.

Jesse Jackson is alot of things. Constitutional scholar?

Maybe not.

In a New York Times article Jackson seems to have found a new constitutional right.  The right of Michael Vick to play in the National Football League.

I missed that one, so I went back and looked in the Bill of Wrongs.  Sure enough, there it was, right next to the right to keep and arm bears:

No football player shall be held to answer for dog fighting, or an otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment by the court of public opinion and ESPN, except in cases arising in the carrying of mammals across state lines for immoral porpoises, or in the now defunct AFL, when in actual service in indoor areneas; nor shall any left handed quarterback be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of suspension or deprivment of shoe contracts; nor shall be compelled in any hearing before Roger Goodale to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or multi-million, multi-year, not cut contract, without consent of Jesse Jackson; nor shall fighting dogs be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Who knew?

Jackson's argument, summarized:

There are worse quarterbacks in football than Vick.

Democracy guarantees opportunity.

Not allowing prisoners to resume their former professions breaks an implied societal covenant with them. 

Like most arguments these days, the deeper you dive the murkier the waters.  For the Reverand Jackson then, first a few practical questions unrealated to social justice.

How much room under the salary cap must an NFL team clear in order to obtain the services of a quaterback who has not seen an NFL defense in over two years?

Given that this year probably won't see Vick starting more than a handful of games, is he willing to sign for more than one year?  Where is the value to signing Vick and getting him back to game shape, only to see some other team reap the benefits in 2010?

Vick's calling card in the NFL has been his open field ability once plays break down, not his passing.  Does he still have that foot speed?  It is hard to imagine penal institutions permitting inmates to be involved in conditioning excercises involving running, an activity normally frowned upon behind bars.

How much film of NFL defenses has Jackson watched lately?  "The Longest Yard", a perenial favorite at Leavenworth, notwithstanding.

Which NFL team will most benefit from a situation where the regular quarterback will perform at a higher level, seeing Michael Vick standing on the sidelines holding a clip board?

Provide the names of past quarterbacks who have spent two years away from the speed of NFL action and came back?

Then we reach Jackson's sociological arguments.

Democracy guarantees opportunity.  Does it really?

Does every accountant who fudged the books get to return their profession?  Do school teachers caught with underage students return to teaching?  Do husbands who cheated on their wives get a guarantee of a new relationship?

Actions have consequences.  Opportunity is a fleeting thing for most people under the best of circumstances.  It presents itself quickly, often with a list of demands on the receiver, and moves on to others if not handled with respect.

Having served his time, Vick does deserve compassion and our best wishes for reentry to society.  Does that automatically mean reentry to the NFL?

Consider it from the perspective of an NFL owner.  The nightmare scenario for the league is now, and has been even back to the 1960s, that gamblers will gain access to players and influence outcomes relative to the point spread.

Are teams going to be elbowing each other out of the way to get in line to sign a bankrupt convicted felon with past association in a sport heavily involved in gambling and narcotics?

Michael Vick will get a second chance for the same reason I play 12-1 shots at the track.  The odds of Vick returning to stardom are long enough to inspire dreams of a big payoff, but not so long as to be unreasonable.

Vick doesn't need Jesse Jackson's help returning to football.  If anything NFL owners, generally multi-millionaires with egos to match, don't like being dictated to.  PETA protestors won't keep Vick off the field, but lectures by Jesse Jackson might delay his return.

I've read about Jackie Robinson.  Michael Vick is no Jackie Robinson.

Reverend Jackson believes it will take the same kind of courage Branch Rickey showed in bringing Jackie Robinson to the majors to bring Vick back to the NFL.  The difference, the one that is keeping Vick unsigned, is that anyone with eyes to see knew Robinson could play the game.

At least for now we don't know that about Michael Vick.