Hall of Fame Expectations… No Atlanta Braves in 2016
But for the Grace of God Go I
That title phrase above is a reminder that none of us are perfect – far from it. But it’s a point that I hope to make as we continue in this context of Hall of Fame balloting.
Our Dan Horton is a member of the Internet Baseball Writers Association of America (IBWAA), and that (separate) election result will be published this week as well. His ballot can be seen here. I am not, but I would have gone with the following 10-vote group:
- Bagwell. I hated him as an Astro, for he was a Braves’ nemesis.
- Griffey. Yes, though I’m surprised at his sudden decline once going to the Reds. Injuries played a part, but he was never the same after 2000.
- Piazza.
- Hoffman.
- McGriff.
- Raines. Never got enough credit while in the shadow of Rickey Henderson.
- Wagner.
- Martinez.
- Trammell. If I’m limited to 10 names, it’s tough, but given his last year of eligibility, he needs the vote.
- Sheffield.
I also believe Mussina and Schilling belong. Maybe Edmonds. Jeff Kent is probably the next highest “no” vote.
On Clemens and Bonds: I understand arguments from all sides. For me, I don’t want to see a speech on a Summer afternoon in Cooperstown in which either player extols the career they had with the underlying message being that they had the talent alone and deserved to be there. Their numbers are lopsided high because of what they obviously did – and neither player needed it.
I want some acknowledgement of the errors. I don’t want to see that swept under the rug. And that brings me to this…
On Character, Steroids, and the Hall
Yahoo’s Jeff Passan wrote some time ago about the problem of ‘character’ in Hall voting. ESPN’s Buster Olney has been annoyed at Hall voting for a while now – refusing to cast a ballot – and now writes that the writers should not be the ‘moral gatekeepers’ of the process.
“Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played” – Hall of Fame Voting Rule 5.
Well, somebody needs to stand in the gap. Somebody needs to draw a line in the sand and declare that some may not cross.
If there are no police and no courts and no juries, then all criminals run free and run amok. If there are no rules or boundaries, then people with ill intent will abuse the process. If there are no rules against gambling, then more players than the one named Peter Edward Rose, Sr. will cause problems that the game cannot cope with. There are always some people will do anything they can to take the edge to win when boundaries are not employed.
Olney pointed out in a tweet that the “character clause” (shown above) was written by an avowed segregationist. Okay. That was the character flaw of that man. One might also suggest that those who are without sins should be the only ones to throw the stones. Either way, the clause is still there and has merit. Unfortunately, there’s a ton of gray area when making such calls… and that’s precisely the problem.
Where there is bad behavior, there must normally be consequences for actions. Consequences for actions that are detrimental to the game should be noted. And enforced. And brought to the light of day. This should be the job of Major League Baseball. No, it shouldn’t be the writers’ job. But somebody needs to do it.
Unfortunately, MLB continues to kick the can down the road regarding the steroid era. While they will occasionally actually do the right thing by banning Pete Rose for sins that could not be ignored, but now they turn around and tell the writers that Rose’s Hall eligibility is up to the Hall of Fame itself. That’s funny, hearing this now after 20+ years of hearing that it was precisely because of his banning from MLB that kept Rose’s name off the ballot.
I guess they expect popular opinion to make their decisions for them. Just like with the steroid era players.
I frankly don’t care what decision comes to pass here about the steroid era players. I just want leadership in MLB to act like adults and do something proactively to acknowledge the issue, identify a solution, identify those “in” and those “out” with some cogent policy, and then use that to protect the sport going forward. If there’s a character problem, identify it and identify those who don’t make the grade.
This needs to happen, as baseball has effectively empowered the writers’ association to do their dirty work for them. This results in ad hoc choices made among the members with no direction, no rules, no policies. The MLB and the Players’ Association have gotten together and built one of the best drug testing regimes in all of sports. Okay, great: now go the extra mile and let’s talk about the past. Even if it’s nothing more than a Desmond Tutu-style reconciliation and forgiveness tribunal that allows all parties to expose the skeletons in their closets without fear of consequence.
I’m just tiring of this issue being an annual event that everyone attends with no actual resolution. If the result is that all admit their ill-ways and then are granted admission on the merits of their numbers, then so be it. If I’m forced to guess, then I would guess that Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, and Sosa are among the more-egregious users, and if forced to make a call (if I actually had a vote), I would exclude them. But it shouldn’t be left to a voter.
I do think that character and integrity and sportsmanship are elements of a Hall of Fame caliber player. But I also don’t expect those terms to be defined within a vacuum.
Step up to the plate, MLB.