The Baseball Writers of America did what many had predicted yesterday. They decided that with so many first time inductees on the ballot that were either suspected, involved with, or had any meaningful connection with PED’s and steroids, that this year would be a year where a message would be sent. And what message was that? For one, if you played in that era, there is a cost. Here is the breakdown of how the voting went. The closest to gaining induction was Craig Biggio at (68.2%.). Brian T. Smith of the Houston Chronicle explores the varying national opinions on Craig Biggio, a player who was victimized by playing in the steroid era. Danny Knobler of CBSSports.com makes a strong and valid argument about the voting process that makes too much sense for everyone involved. Jack Morris is probably the biggest victim of the steroid era. He’s a stat-head darling and many who watched him believe that his case is strong but because of the confusion among how to vote with all the steroid era candidates in this year’s ballot, he may lose all the momentum he gained by his strong showing last year according to Minneapolis Star Tribune writer Dennis Brackin. Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated wrote an insightful piece about the mess that is voting for the Hall of Fame and why he rejects any case being made for any player having any link to steroid use. TJ Quinn of ESPN explains why he gave up the right to vote for the Hall of Fame. Its an excellent read. Jonah Keri of Grantland offers a solution to the voting process. A stew of MLB.com writers set their picks, with one inducting all the steroid users. One of the most respected (though since his Joe Paterno book ruined some of his credibility) baseball writers Joe Posnanski of Sportsonearth.com writes about where this year’s candidates for induction are headed towards. Dave D’Alessandro of the Star Ledger writes that the process is just getting out of hand. Mike Vaccaro of the Post writes that the former Mets catcher Mike Piazza’s induction is coming.
I could put a hundred more links up but I’m going to stop there. I understand the varying opinions on why there wasn’t anyone inducted into the Hall of Fame, but it doesn’t mean that I agree. If I read all of these arguments correctly, this was about a few names on the list representing an era that they are vehemently opposed to. But unfortunately they decided to cast that shade of doubt on every single name on that ballot and that isn’t fair. The ego of baseball players to take enhancing agents vs. the ego of sportswriters who have robbed worthy candidates the honor of induction so they could send a message. Want to hear the best part of this whole character clause? These are the same writers who were in the clubhouses where this rampant drug use was taking place.
I am not a sportswriter, I’m a blogger who would like for someday be a sportswriter for a major publication, so I have no idea exactly how much time these guys get in these locker rooms and how much access they have with the players. The era where sportswriters went to have drinks with the ball players after games are over. There’s a very thick wall separating the two, as the salaries of the players shot through the roof making them on a completely different planet than the writers who could once upon a time say that these guys were regular Joe’s like you and me. There is resentment born within that context. How can sportswriters be taken seriously by a group of athletes who are making a ton more money and are worshiped and adored by legions of fans? And how can sportswriters not feel bitter when that access isn’t given by a group of ball players who take their disparate salaries to mean that they are better than the men and women charged with covering them?
The steroid era is a shameful one for the sport of baseball but let’s not pretend like this is a burden carried ONLY by baseball. The problem is that the sport celebrated the era while claiming to not know a single thing. That is my biggest issue with this stance suddenly by sportswriters who claim ignorance. They were the same guys lifting Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa to almost mythical heights. Now, that the Mitchell Report is out and the truth is out in the open, its not cool to associate with the past. Its a time to mourn and subject us to their new found moral and ethical obligation to renounce their names and eradicate any memory of them playing the game. Are we supposed to believe that ballplayers were so covert in their needle-up-their-butts operations that not a single sportswriter ever caught a player juicing? Are we supposed to believe that as Barry Bonds head started to expand and Jose Canseco’s biceps began to get larger and random players began to start showing power that shattered their previous highs, that these men and women with all of their access just didn’t notice?
I have a major problem with that. I hold sportswriters just as accountable as the owners who looked the other way. You can justify a player’s reasoning for using: if they didn’t do what everyone else was doing, they may not have a job. You can justify an owner and GM’s reason for ignoring the issue: the GM had to consider team success to keep his job and anyway a player made himself better he was up for, and an owner like any business owner, looked at the bottom line. More people came to the stadium to see better teams with bigger guys who hit huge homeruns. But where is the sportswriter’s justification for ignoring it? Weren’t they supposed to be the whistleblowers? How many opportunities were missed? So to suddenly claim some moral clause that prohibits them from voting is just plain stupid and self serving.
If they really wanted to send a message, they would have voted in guys like Jack Morris, Tim Raines, and other deserving candidates who didn’t get in because of more deserving players and as years went on continued to get lower and lower. What was Craig Biggio charged with except leaning in too much? IF the Hall really wanted to send a message, it would be that players like Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens would get zero percent of the vote, but that would take a unified stance on the issue and that’s another problem.
Its obvious that this is not something that will go away. Eventually the writers who decided to vote against the Bonds and Clemens’ of the world will be gone and newer and younger writers who have more nuanced versions of the “truth” will think about things a bit differently. I’m not talking about the statheads and new age disciples of Bill James. I’m talking about writers who have no real context of the days of Clemens and Bonds like those that covered them and had to have a conversation with those guys. Remember, there’s a character clause. Its why Kenny Lofton won’t get voted in. Its why Albert Belle won’t get a consideration either. That’s why its easy for reporters to dismiss Bonds, a chilly figure. But that opinion will give way to voters who had no such dealings with those athletes and consider merely the numbers and the era in which they played. What happens then? Will sportswriters who have long passed away and would never think to induct Kenny Lofton start rolling in their graves? Give me a break.
The biggest joke is that character clause. What does character have to do with how the guy plays the game of baseball? Can being a great guy get you consideration into the Hall of Fame? Then Robin Ventura surely will gain admission some day. What about John Olerud? How can anyone say John pissed anyone off? He barely even spoke. So many sportswriters today penned columns building the foundation of their case on the character clause. Yet, its a player’s achievements that get anyone to notice a career in the first place. And its not as though the Hall of Fame is an exclusive club either. One can make the case that the Hall of Fame is inclusive.
I long ago wrote that the Hall of Fame should be a one shot deal. There should be no restrictions on how many guys can enter in a given year. Either you’re a Hall of Famer or you’re not. Think about how much more thought and insight would go into such a decision. I would make the percentage to get in 80% as opposed to 75%. For any player to get a second look, they would have to get atleast 70% of the vote to be considered by a different panel. If you don’t meet either criteria, sorry no can do. You’ll just have to make do with the plaques in your team’s outfield. Think about the outrage and all the carnage it would cause. Then some of these voting frauds would be exposed for the stupid arguments they make. Not only would I make each sportswriter’s name public I would have them write a mandatory piece on why they decided to vote for and against every candidate. People deserve to know exactly on what merit the sportswriter voted for them and against them.
To me, its not so much a gut decision, but any player worthy of Cooperstown shouldn’t take you a long time deliberating. If you don’t think the guy is worthy then he’s not. Its not diminishing the quality of the athlete, its raising the bar by which the Hall of Fame holds itself. The Hall of Fame should be reserved to the GREATEST BASEBALL PLAYERS. It shouldn’t be given to just guys who hung around long enough to put up numbers that made somebody fifteen years from now go “holy crap! what the heck is this guy NOT doing in the Hall of Fame?” That’s the dangerous path that we’re at. If you’re a Hall of Famer that means you achieved something so significant and its a validation that you’re career was one of the greatest in the history of the game. Next year, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, Mike Mussina and Jeff Kent are all first time entries and three out of those five will surely get first ballot status. That’s fine with me. But that should be the Hall of Fame.
The writers have to be held accountable. This morning every sportswriter talked about the responsibility they had to the public to uphold the sanctity of the game of baseball by not admitting cheaters into Cooperstown. Imagine they had the burden of knowing that they only had one year to vote for all of these players. How could they leave out Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds unless they absolutely believed in their heart of hearts that they don’t belong in the Hall of Fame? Then their moral dilemma has some sort of merit. Then I would believe that they stewed over their decision. I want more accountability out of the Baseball Writers of America. I don’t want to rid them from their earned right to vote for the Hall of Fame. If anyone should vote for who gets in, it should be the men and women who covered the game of baseball from a perspective that us sports fans only dream and wish. But I don’t want them to submit empty ballots and write self serving columns as to how their moral compass led them their. Give me a break. Enough of the writers voted to keep them on the ballot and just like any stat padder, eventually they will stay on long enough to one day get entry. But denying them first ballot status was the primary goal. It sent a message that they won’t appease their ego (any longer). The hallowed first ballot status should not be given out lightly. But Hall of Fame admission too often is. Sometimes good guys get in with decent numbers. Look up and down the Hall of Fame’s list and you will see a ton of guys who made it after years and years of having their case argued. In my opinion, and it may be too idealistic for some people’s tasebuds, it should be an open and shut case. Either you’re a Hall of Famer or you’re not.
If I had a vote this year, (and basing it on the archaic BBWA system) my vote would have been Biggio, Piazza, Edgar Martinez, Curt Schilling and Tim Raines. Those guys deserve entry. Now, applying my own one and done rules, I would have voted Clemens, Biggio, Piazza, Curt Schilling and Barry Bonds. That would’ve been my ballot. I don’t think that Clemens and Bonds should be ruled out of the Hall of Fame because they were involved in an era where the drug use was rampant. Is that a good enough reason? No, its not, but that’s the era that they played in. I also believe that their statistics are so great that its hard to say that steroids gave them a greater advantage over others that they didn’t already have. I agree that its more reason to keep them out because they were sure fire Hall of Famers to begin with, but then you’re walking down the morally-righteous path and that’s a very lonely road that none of the sportswriters get to walk. To ignore the era completely and void every player is wrong. The entire era is worth a second look. I’ve said this time and again, if the Hall really wants a compromise to those who have to vote, I would put an asterisk next to each player’s name inducted that was actually in the Mitchell Report. Cooperstown is a museum, a collective history of the game of baseball. The steroid era is a dark stain on the game of baseball but its an era that needs its proper context and its proper history told years and years after the last who covered it are gone. We are wasting time now trying to figure out how to vote in players who were a part of the crime. Let’s admit the crime, and let’s display it for all to see. You want to pay proper respect to the game? Admit its faulty history. There’s a section for the 1919 BlackSox scandal. Pete Rose is in the Hall of Fame without being in the Hall of Fame if that makes any sense. These are all shady parts of the game’s past but its represented in Cooperstown. Why would this era not be?
acebook
witter
The Lazy Eye of Sports 