Albright: Japanese Ballplayers: What's Best for Cooperstown?

Hi Jim -

Just read your piece at Baseball Guru. You make an interesting argument, and yes, I agree that some of those arguments against inclusion of Japanese players are very petty. What the Japanese Hall of Fame does or does not do is irrelevant - the question is what the U.S. version of that institution will choose to do.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, as it sounds like some do. On the one hand, I know that baseball is the most international sport America has created, and it seems a shame not to celebrate that in our own Hall of Fame. Further, as you say, more fans from around the globe will be brought into the fold if they can visit Cooperstown and see their own country's greats on display.

And then again, this is a Hall of Fame set up to honor players in American leagues. Forgetting for a moment that its mission statement includes an imperative to help strengthen baseball globally, the Hall is, at its core, a place that celebrates contributions to the American baseball scene. To include players in the Hall of Fame who have never played a day here seems to force the issue of globilization - especially when stars like Ichiro, Matsui and Nomo (to name but three) have made terrific impacts, thank you very much. In fact, should Ichiro and Matsui continue to hit as they have, they will almost certainly find themselves inducted into the Hall on the merits of their output alone. (Ichiro is certainly a lock; Matsui I figure will have to stick around for a few more seasons to build those home run totals.)

Perhaps the answer here is a combination of things. As the Hall celebrates the great American pastime, it should certainly call attention to anywhere that phenomenon has caught on. At the same time, I think only players from American leagues should be included in the Hall's rosters, since that is the Hall's central purpose. What if, as a compromise, there were a permanent addition to the Hall that chronicled the on-going exploits of baseball leagues around the world? A museum to the internationalization of the game, honoring those players that deserve recognition, and serving as an introduction to those who might have no idea how the game is really played in Latin America or Asia?

More than a temporary exhibit, I would encourage the Hall to create a wing for international leagues, a way to bring them under the umbrella of baseball's "home base." Tourists from those areas can enjoy the recognition, and Americans can learn more about the influence one of our homegrown sports has around the world.

Alan Gratz
Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Alan,

Your idea of a separate wing is more constructive than banning Japanese players altogether. I don't know how old you are or how versed you are in the American Civil Rights movement, but such a solution has the bitter flavor of "separate but equal" to my taste. The same offer was made for Negro Leaguers, in essence, and was soundly rejected, rightfully so.

Oh and maybe as many as 15 to 20 other Japanese players in all of Japanese baseball history could hold their own with players of the general quality selected by the BBWAA. The Veteran's Committee(s), in their various forms, have come up with some good picks, but almost all of the truly awful ones. I'm not about to propose using those mistaken selections as a standard for anyone's induction.

Most of those Japanese players would have liked to compete in the majors, but circumstances and, by the mid-1960's, a formal deal between NPB and the majors left that issue solely in the hands of the NPB teams, who uniformly refused to let players come over. It may have been a gilded cage, not constructed by the majors - but the majors clearly weren't going to help anyone who tried to break out of that cage before Nomo pulled it off - and the majors didn't bite then until he was free and clear in the eyes of Japanese law.

The Hall may have been established for the purpose you state - but must it always remain that way? Back in the 1930's they had no intention of allowing black players in, but that has changed. They didn't want to allow players who only played in the Negro Leagues in, and that changed. Does the fact Oh and most, if not all, of the Japanese greats never played more than a few exhibitions in North America really make that much difference compared to the Negro Leaguers? I submit it doesn't.

All of what I've said is before we get to the heart of the article we're referring to. Please look at your proposal in the terms the article talks about - what's best for Cooperstown? I think it's fair to say some people, myself included, see such a proposal as harkening back to the anti-Asian racism of the 1940's and before. I don't believe that is your intent, only that the proposal will be perceived by some in that way. If I am correct, would the furor that almost certainly would follow help the Hall? Of course not. Who other than a bunch of racist nuts would organize a public protest allowing Japanese players in the Hall? Sure, there would be isolated grumbling, but there always is with change of any sort. In a contest between offending racist nuts plus a few isolated souls who can't accept change on one hand and offending pockets of Japanese-American society and perhaps even some in Japan itself on the other, which is better for the Hall? I think telling the racists and the stick in the muds to go to Hades if they don't like it is unquestionably better for the Hall.

It would be nice if the Hall broke from its recalctrant past and made this change before it was forced on it, but I don't expect any such courage or forward thinking from that institution. It pains me to say that, but it's the truth.

Anyway, thanks for the intelligent reply and for listening to my response.

Jim Albright

Hi Jim,

No, I'm not old enough to have experienced the American civil rights movement of the 1960's (I'm 33) but I'm certainly sensitive to how much of a struggle it was, and how far we have to go.

To compare my suggestion, though, to the way black and Asian Americans have been segregated and mistreated in the past seems to miss the point entirely. The Negro Leagues were a significant part of the American baseball scene, and they deserved no less than equal inclusion. They were right to reject a separate Hall of Fame, and I'm glad their accomplishments are now lauded next to those of Major League Baseball.

My point is, MLB, the Negro Leagues, the Minor Leagues, Summer Independent Leagues - these are all part of the American baseball landscape. Japanese baseball is not. I completely agree with you that there are a number of former and current NPB players who are at least equal, if not greater, talents than many enshrined in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. But their accomplishments happened elsewhere.

It's not racism, nor is it nationalism. It's a matter of geography. It doesn't matter where a player is from - if he performs at a Hall of Fame level here in America, he deserves inclusion in our hall.

I do understand that until relatively recently many Japanese players didn't have the opporunity to play in America, but how can that be helped now? It wasn't a matter of prejudice or racism as it was with black players - it was a matter of circumstance. MLB certainly seemed to want Japanese players when they began to break onto the scene; if I understand correctly, it was the Japanese owners who forced the issue and put the moratorium on their players jumping the Pacific. Some even choose not to come now when they get offers. Japanese baseball is not a feeder system for MLB - it is a separate, strong, and independent entity.

Change will never be forced upon the Hall in this matter the way that had to be done for black Americans. The latter was a case of racism - this is not. International players have been, and will continue to be, inducted into the Hall of Fame - based on the merits of their play here in America. Including the players who excelled in other leagues in other countries will only happen if the National Baseball Hall of Fame becomes the International Baseball Hall of Fame.

If that's what you're proposing, I wish you all the best - but as it stands, the National Baseball Hall of Fame is just that. Just because Major League Baseball is considered by many to be the ultimate level of professional competition in the sport doesn't mean that our hall of fame is by default an international baseball hall of fame.

I'm afraid you fixated on the word "separate" in my response and read far too much into it. Put Nippon Professional Baseball memorabilia and plaques all over the lobby, the main galleries, the hallways - but the ranks of the Hall of Fame Roster are for people who made contributions to the American game. Until the Japanese league is somehow made the official AAAA farm system for Major League Baseball (and that's a deliberate joke, everyone!), they have their own Hall for their player accomplishments, and we have one for ours. I'm not sure I see why that's a problem.

Alan Gratz
Atlanta, Georgia, USA

A few points:

The majors weren't at all willing to pursue Japanese players between the settlement of the Murakami affair in 1965 or so and Nomo's "retirement" from NPB before 1995's season. Even before that, the majors might once in a while ask about a Japanese player they'd see on tour, but they really didn't pursue these matters very diligently. If your question about how the majors past complicity in locking Japanese players in Japan can be changed, you're right. But neither can baseball's refusal to let black players compete on the same field from the late 1880's to Jackie Robinson. The only possible redress is an acknowledgment of what happened. A gracious acknowledgement would include recognizing that tremendous talents were excluded from the majors as a result - and the best way to make such a gracious acknowledgement would be to induct worthy Japanese players.

Yes, I would prefer a truly international baseball Hall of Fame. It wouldn't bother me so much if Cooperstown and its supporters didn't act like it has all the best players to play in the world rather than just those who played in the States. In my opinion, Oh would have had a better major league career than Willie McCovey did. Nagashima would have accomplished about what Ron Santo did, maybe a little more. Harimoto would have had 3,000 hits in the majors, too. Kaneda would have won 300+. Katsuya Nomura was the best catcher of the period 1960-1968 anywhere. Ochiai would have accomplished more than Tony Perez. Inao would have been about as accomplished as Marichal. And so on and so on. When Cooperstown excludes guys of that quality, there's no way it can honestly be touted as having all the world's best players.

Again, it goes back to a central theme of my article - what would be best for Cooperstown (and baseball, to some extent)? I think the increasing internationalization of the game is a trend which will continue. That being the case, Cooperstown and baseball should embrace that trend, not resist it. And the sooner they embrace it, the better.

I believe that while it may not occur within your or my lifetime, the majors will have a permanent presence in Japan some day - whether it be through merger, major league expansion, regular baseball World Cup competitions, Japan becoming a major league feeder, or whatever. Maybe even a combination of some of the above, I don't know because the path to the future is, as usual, not that clear. When the majors want to pursue large numbers of Japanese fans, this issue is going to be there like an 800 pound gorilla if it hasn't been resolved before that point is reached.

Why wait? What's the harm if my vision of an international baseball scene never materializes? So long as high quality players from the international scene are selected, there is no harm, only benefits.

I think that what you find frustrating is the narrow parochialism of MLB. The belief that nothing outside America is worth considering. If this is so, then an international aspect to Cooperstown would be a good idea. But I wouldn't hold my breath - a league where the American champions can be described as the "world champions" has a long way to go.

Great point Christopher. And it's not just MLB that considers its champion the "world champion" either. After winning the title in the NFL or NBA or the NHL, the announcers and the players always say that the winners are the "world champs." I always tell my American friends that it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. When I was at one restaurant at the airport in Atlanta, they had a newspaper from 1995 framed with the headline "Braves are World Champs!" I just shook my head and laughed.

I completely agree - I'm always very embarassed when American teams in all sports (but especially baseball) proclaim themselves "World Champs." That's always been silly, but in today's global society, it's even more offensive. I look forward to the day when we have an actual "World Series" or a Baseball World Cup.

At the same time, I don't see MLB as guilty of outrageous parochialism. Narrow-minded? Sure. They are certainly more interested in themselves than anyone else - they are a business venture, after all, and their profits depend on self-promotion. But they are as self-interested as Nippon Professional Baseball, and I find fault with neither organization for that.

Well I remember an incident where Dave Nilsson for the Brewers hit a huge home run off Hideki Irabu of the Yankees. And the parochial crowd started chanting U-S-A U-S-A. I remember thinking at the time it was kind of strange as Nilsson is Australian. What's the USA got to do with any of this?

But one thing about the MLB is that it now attracts the best ball players from around the world, so the term "world champions" is probably not far off the mark.

- But one thing about the MLB is that it now attracts the best ball players from around the world, so the term "world champions" is probably not far off the mark.

Just because you have players from other countries does not make you world champions. You need to play teams from other countries in an internationally recognised competition to be able to claim the honour of being world champions.

Well I didn't actually say world champions was the correct term to use, did I? I said it wasn't far off the mark. Not on the mark, but not far off the mark. There is a difference.

But you implied there was a link between the fact that a side included foreigners and that they called themselves world champions, and also (and forgive me if I misread you) suggested that you agreed with this designation in your comment. The connection you suggest means nothing for the designation of a world champion and is very far off the mark. The number of non-native players you have in your team has no bearing as to whether you are the world champions or not.

I'm sorry, you did misread me.

My point is that MLB attracts the best in the world - if you like, a collection of champions from around the world, hence world champions. It doesn't matter where they're from, and my comment didn't imply that a side had to contain foreigners to be regarded as world champions. I don't know how you read that into it. They could all be from the USA for all I care - as long as they're the best.

I certainly wouldn't disagree that the proper way to determine a world champion team would be to do what you suggest, but until such a competition is established, there's no way of determining such a team. (And in my view, the nature of the sport of baseball makes it impossible to have a meaningful "world cup" or similar tournament in any case, despite the best efforts of some people on both sides of the Pacific.)

Obviously, as an Australian, I sometimes resent the way the Americans talk about being world champions after winning an essentially domestic league, but the fact is, in baseball, the MLB is the place to be if you want to prove yourself against the best in the world. Unlike soccer, rugby, or even basketball, the best in the world are truly in one place. So the term "world champions" is not far off the mark when you think more deeply about it.

I understand what you're saying, but your definition is flawed and doesn't relate to what a world champion actually is. In US baseball there are some of the best players in the world, but not everyone is of this standard, and many players playing in the US today would not make it in the Japanese leagues (for example) and vice versa. The differences between the leagues are too great for your example to be valid.

If we take basketball as an example and look at the performance of the US team in the Olympics, despite their talent, they did not do well. So the concentration of talent is irrelevant. Maybe in competing with other world teams the American baseball teams would do well and sweep the board, but until they do, they do not merit the title of "world champions."

Christopher, my definition is as valid as anyone's. But I reiterate: I never actually said the title of "World Champions" is merited. Close, but not quite. Please read my original post again.

Mijow,

I have a lot of respect for what you say and what you post. However, here your definition is not valid, I'm afraid. It isn't even near the mark at all.

To repeat what I said earlier, a world champion is someone who has won an international contest playing to internationally recognised rules. There is no other legitimate way of defining the term.

Until a baseball world championship is held, no baseball team has the right to be called "world champions." You may like to argue that MLB is the best in the world, which is a different thing and a valid opinion, but you cannot extrapolate from that that this means you are near to being a world champion or similar in nature. I am sorry to keep on about this, but your posts seem to indicate that you do not understand this fundemental point.

Well, Christopher, I won't lose any sleep over this, but I think I'll stick to my original comment, which was simply meant to be a general observation that the MLB consists of the best in the world - a collection of world champions if you will. I know I expressed this in somewhat provocative terms, but the logic is sound.

It looks like some of the "World Champion" bragging rights might be put to rest with the proposed "Baseball World Cup." Looks like MLB will be aboard, although I think the timing right after spring training is a bit problematic in terms of the MLB teams losing their star players for some time. Anyway, I think it is a good move for global baseball in that it provides more direct matchups and mutual exposure to baseball in and out of North America.

Don't be surprised if the Dominican All-Stars win it all.

[News - TSN.ca]

- I think that what you find frustrating is the narrow parochialism of MLB. The belief that nothing outside America is worth considering. If this is so, then an international aspect to Cooperstown would be a good idea. But I wouldn't hold my breath - a league where the American champions can be described as the "world champions" has a long way to go.

There's a lot of truth in what you've deduced. I'm not holding my breath - in fact, I'm expending it to try and sow the seeds of change. I expect the process to be lengthy, as Cooperstown has proven itself even more parochial than baseball itself, and baseball has, IMO, proven itself more parochial than the U.S. as a whole. But, just like the color line, that wall isn't coming down until some people start pushing for it to come down. Well, I'm pushing and seeking others to join me. If I get enough on my side, that wall will come down.

Jim Albright

Pardon my ignorance, but is Hank Aaron enshrined in the NPB Hall of Fame? Maybe Babe Ruth? Cy Young, then?

I am not a racist dolt, but the Hall of Fame enshrines MLB players. I am sure that if Ichiro or Matsui get in their 10 years in MLB, or whatever the rules state, and continue their performance, they will be enshrined.

The old Negro League analogy is a bad one. These American players despicably could not play in MLB. Some were great and were deprived the chance to enter the Hall. That's the sad history. History, as we well know, cannot be changed. One can make amends and the induction of the Negro League greats was a small step in trying to make things right. There's more to do.

NPB greats are prohibited from playing in MLB by their own arcane rules, not by purported American racism some of you alude to. It's quite a joke frankly, some of you from arguably one of the most ethnically closed societies wailing away at one of the most ethnically open societies for American discrimination against NPB. Yes, we had and have our share of racism (and so do you), but I can say with a clear heart that keeping NPB players out of the HOF does not result from racism. They simply did not play MLB, whose players the HOF enshrines.

You have all gone off the deep end!

It appears that you are replying to the comments. Please read the article. The second paragraph is important:

Cooperstown doesn't acknowledge that it has inclinations which put it in both camps [both for and against inducting greats from other leagues]. But it does. The existence of this dichotomy is readily apparent in the very name of the institution on one hand and its mission statement on the other. The name, "The National Baseball Hall of Fame" embodies the side which generally supports the status quo, especially with respect to international players like the Japanese. When the Hall's mission statement discusses a "global audience", it leans in the opposite direction of recognizing the increasing internationalization of the game.

The arguement that MLB greats are not in the Japanese Hall of Fame is moot because the Japanese Hall does not include the "global audience" as part of its mission. The article is about how the National Hall of Fame can fulfill its mission by becoming the International Hall of Fame. This is my interprertation of the article, not Albright-san's words.

The article isn't about the Japanese Hall or what Japanese greats like Oh were or weren't allowed to do during their peaks. It's about what Cooperstown can do to help promote the globalization of baseball, as stated in their mission statement, and to attract a global audience.

Westbay-san:

A very reasonable reading of my article, and well stated. Thank you.

Jim Albright

I have certainly read Albright-san's article, and yes, I am responding to both the article and some of the comments here.

I think some of you are misinterpreting the "Mission Statement" of the National Baseball Hall of Fame. I have reprinted it below:

National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum
Mission Statement

The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is a not-for-profit educational institution dedicated to fostering an appreciation of the historical development of the game and its impact on our culture by collecting, preserving, exhibiting and interpreting its collections for a global audience, as well as honoring those who have made outstanding contributions to our National Pastime.

Through its mission, the Museum is committed to:

• Collecting, through donation, baseball artifacts, works of art, literature, photographs, memorabilia and related materials which focus on the history of the game over time, its players, and those elected to the Hall of Fame.
• Preserving the collections by adhering to professional museum standards with respect to conservation and maintaining a permanent record of holdings through documentation, study, research, cataloging and publication.
• Exhibiting material in permanent gallery space, organizing on-site changing exhibitions on various themes, with works from the Hall of Fame collections or other sources, working with other individuals or organizations to exhibit loaned material of significance to baseball and providing related research facilities.
• Interpreting artifacts through its exhibition and education programs to enhance awareness, understanding and appreciation of the game for a diverse audience.
• Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements.

The opening positioning statement clearly states the goal of showing the impact of the game on "our culture" (i.e. American). The fact that it strives to present this to a global audience does not imply that the focus is on international baseball, but simply as a means to generate appreciation for and an understanding of the history and culture of baseball in America.

MLB is a bit more popular around the world than NPB. That's just a fact, hence the global audience statement. That doesn't necessarily mean that the American baseball shrine should expand to include world baseball. The aim of the Japanese HOF seems to focus on baseball played in Japan and it's impact on Japanese culture. That's fine, but then one cannot assail Cooperstown for a similar approach.

If one truly respects unique culture, one cannot say that both are interchangeable and the same. Each HOF have different objectives and focus. To take this to a ridiculous extreme, one would use the same logic that the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Washington and the Yakasuni Shrine should all honor the world's war dead, not their own, since war is a horrific but "global experience." They don't because each nation is unique and chooses it's own way of enshrinement.

I agree that the notion of "World Champions" is a misnomer and is ethnocentric. There is plenty of good baseball played outside of MLB (US and Canada). I would love to see more international play, maybe a merger of leagues with free player movement. That would require faster transportation (say 5 hours to Tokyo), favorable economics, and more enlightened ownership around the world. I doubt, however, I will see that in my lifetime.

Like I've said before, Duke, it wouldn't bother me nearly so much if Cooperstown didn't try to pawn itself off as having all the greatest players in history. But it does - and it's claptrap! I'm saying that it would be better for baseball in general, and the Hall specifically, if it truly made the effort to have all the greatest players in history. I'm chiding the Hall for its narrowness of mind and focus, but I have a constructive solution.

Jim Albright

- You have all gone off the deep end!

No, we haven't all gone off the deep end. There are three other major team sports in the USA, if we count hockey, though it is on strike. American football is still only an American sport, so it's not relevant to the discussion. Basketball and hockey are international, much like baseball. Guess what - their Halls of fame admit foreign players who never played a game in the top league in North America! Are they off the deep end, too? Or maybe, just maybe, have they figured out something baseball has yet to understand - namely that 1) it's good for the sport to reach out internationally, and 2) if you want to reach out, then do it! And that includes honoring qualified individuals who played internationally.

I agree, the exclusion of Japanese players isn't primarily due to racism. It's the result of business decisions by both the Japanese owners and the major league owners. Granted, that's not as vile as the racism of the color line, but putting filthy lucre ahead of fairness as the major leagues did in this case is still reprehensible in my view.

My comments on racism in this thread were on how a "separate but equal" international wing would be viewed. History has proven separate is never equal. Yes, there are aspects of the Negro League comparison which don't match Japanese League players - but many do. There are no other analogies, at least in baseball, which come as close, so I use it, imperfect as it may be. For one thing, Negro leaguers used to be denied because they didn't play in the majors. Does that argument happen to have a familiar ring to it?

It seems apparent you haven't read the article, but you are channeling Rob Neyer's argument. I dealt with that one in the article, and won't repeat it here. I'm sure you won't appreciate what I have to say about that argument, but I stand by what I wrote in that article.

If you care to explain how your approach is more helpful to the Hall than enshrining qualified Japanese candidates is, I'd love to hear it. If there is no such argument to be made, then how is your approach helping the Hall or the sport? That is at the crux of the argument I make in the article, and the one, I submit, that my approach answers far more satisfactorily.

Jim Albright

The HOF is now in the midst of a complete, and utterly childish, crisis of its own selfish making, compounded by the self-appointed New Model BB Army Cromwells like Neyer (when did he have his brain removed? Was it the only way he could reach a regular national audience?) who wish to avoid polluting it with anyone less than worthy, e.g. Don S. (what an absurd wait he had!) or Tony O., Jim K., Bert B. etc., etc., etc.

All the chickens described long ago by Bill James and others have come home to roost, and the Institution is now a very unfunny joke, like most awards seem in this era: intended only to profit or at least to flatter the givers instead of honor the receivers.

The Foundation has no interest in fixing anything except its bottom line, which means Ichiro will likely get in, if he's eligible, while Oh and the utterly deserving Japanese oldsters will not.

Semajailibfonal (hope I spelled it well enough to be recognizable) wrote in part:

- The Foundation has no interest in fixing anything except its bottom line, which means Ichiro will likely get in, if he's eligible, while Oh and the utterly deserving Japanese oldsters will not.

Please understand that I agree for the most part with the above. But the funny part of what you write is that the addled souls running the Foundation don't get that letting in qualified foreigners would be good for the bottom line! Probably not a lot right away, but over time, it can only help!

Jim Albright

Jim, I read your article. I just don't buy your arguments. We can respectfully disagree, but please don't imply I am illiterate and/or lazy.

On another point, it is impossible to declare, as you have done, that certain NPB greats are better than some MLB greats like McCovey. With the exception of Ichiro, NPB players who come to MLB perform at a lower level than they did in Japan, especially over time. Your baseless declarations like that undermine the sobriety of your other arguments, IMHO.

You're the one who's used terms like "deep end" and stating my arguments on the quality of Japanese players aren't "sober" - and you want respect in return. I didn't think I wrote you were lazy or illiterate anywhere, so I have no idea where that came from. It didn't seem to me at one point you had read the article, and I said so.

So far, though, the thing that most sticks with me about this exchange is that, even though I expressly invited you to do so, you have failed to address the core issue in my article - what is best for Cooperstown?

I put the evidence I used to support my assessments of the quality of Japanese players in my articles, and if you choose to disbelieve that evidence, that is your privilege.

Jim Albright

Jim, IMHO, what's best for Cooperstown is to keep it American. That is its mission. It is a shrine to the American pastime, in America. Anyone from any country good enough and fortunate enough to rise to greatness playing with their peers in MLB has a place in that shrine.

It is impossible to compare players from different international leagues agaist each other.

Japan and other countries have their own baseball shrines. Some things are better off left as they are. If you want to play Don Quixote against Cooperstown, more power to you. I'm just not buying your quest and don't attack me for that. I've said all I can say on this subject.

Duke:

I shall attack inane arguements, such as those by Rob Neyer, tht you are channelling through your insults. From your "the status quo is best" assertion without any supporting arguments, to your nay-saying on the evidence, saying reasonable comparisons of players are possible (I'd particularly love to see you try to prove that negative assertion), all you can say is:

1. you don't believe it can be done, and/or
2. you can't do it, even if you believe my methods are flawed.

However, I'm sure we're all waiting for your wisdom on that point with baited breath.

Jim Albright