WFM’S Chicago Sports Hall of Fame: Part 1: Introduction
“I have never seen a greater monster or miracle than myself,” Montaigne confessed in his final essay “Of Experience.” He postulated that self knowledge is the only true knowledge available to us because it is the only knowledge we can validate by direct witness. Everything else floating around in our brain is based on hearsay, secondhand information or borrowed from other sources. I agree! Direct lifetime experience is the spirit, actually the rule, behind this project. Who are the greatest Chicago professional athletes in my lifetime? It is not an attempt to rank our athletes and competitors by an objective, algorithmic formula. There are many online sources who can do that for you. Instead, it is a Hall of Fame framed by personal witness and testimony. Every name that follows is someone I watched play in person, or far more likely in terms of volume, on television. I have watched the greats from the bleachers, the grandstand, the box seats, the skyboxes, but most often from my couch. I can attest the picture quality has improved radically over the the past 65 years. The ballpark experience has also become more user friendly, but my criteria for assessing player excellence has remained the same over the decades. Greatness radiates- you know it when you see it. It involves athletic talent, great stats and numbers, mental toughness, durability, leadership qualities and performance in the clutch. It is being recognised by your peers. In a highly stratified universe defined by superior talent and skill, the honorees here take it to the ultimate level.
The framework is simple. Eligibility begins in 1961, roughly when my own memory of organised professional sports begins. It runs through today. 65 years of tying my life happiness to the uncertain fortunes of the Chicago Bears, the Chicago White Sox, the Chicago Cubs, the Chicago Bulls and the Chicago Blackhawks. Actually, the results have been rather predictable. 65 seasons for 5 teams means there have been 325 opportunities for these illustrious Chicago franchises to win championships. By my count, the Bears have won 2, the White Sox and Cubs 1 each, the Bulls 6 and the Blackhawks 4. We have won 14 championships in 325 attempts, a success rate of 4.3%. This is a low rate of return and buttresses Amalia’s argument that I have wasted a significant amount of my adult time supporting mismanaged organisations. But, it is fun and sports survives my credibility test. Do they matter? Yes!! The beauty is we can objectively identify the best teams. It is very subjective on who are the best artists, musicians, authors, scientists, professors or politicians. In sports you don’t have to guess who is the best in a particular year or era because the champions have been crowned by objective outcomes on the playing fields. I find this exercise comforting.
Some qualifying comments before we begin our team by team analysis. There are 45 players in my Hall of Fame and 20 who achieve Honorable Mention status. A nice symmetry there- 65 players for 65 years. There was no systematic effort to allocate the choices equally among the teams. I went with my gut. There are 11 Bears, 9 White Sox, 9 Cubs, 5 Bulls and 11 Blackhawks in my Hall. At the Honorable Mention, level there are 2 Bears, 6 White sox, 5 Cubs, 4 Bulls and 3 Blackhawks. Longevity matters and I exclude candidates who may have excelled, but were only here for a cup of coffee. I haphazardly apply a 5 year standard for tenure. People like Denis Rodman are eliminated under that rule. I also require that the majority of a great career have occurred here. This prejudices people like Denis Eckersly, Rich Gossage, Chris Sale who dominated their sport, but did most of their damage for other franchises. Finally, there is probably a slight bias against Old timers. Although I start the clock in 1961 I also required that a majority of the career here be post 1961. Bears Hall of Famers like Doug Atkins, Joe Fortunato and Bill George didn’t survive the cut under this approach.
A closing word from Montaigne. He admitted that he always wrote his essays not to arrive at settled conclusions, but to keep testing his own judgment against experience. Revising our views is natural as your life experiences evolve. This list should be read in the same spirit. It is not a final verdict, but is a working document assembled after six plus decades of watching these five teams. Obviously, it is subject to argument, addition and modification. This is the nature and essence of an honest personal canon. It will stay open as long as I continue to pay attention.
