So congrats to him. I couldn't be happier for the guy.
This was a pretty good group of potential inductees, depending on which side of the old-school/sabermetric divide you happen to fall on: Jack Morris, Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Lee Smith, Alan Trammell, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Larry Walker, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Rafael Palmerio and Mark McGwire.
However, it's those last two names that is causing consternation in the voting. You see, Mr. Palmerio and Mr. McGwire were steroid uses: Mark McGwire admitted as much and Rafael Palmerio was actually busted by the new, tougher drug testing policy. Both players--by numbers alone--should have been voted into the Hall on their first ballot (hopefuls can stay on the ballot for as many as 15 years as long as they make a minimum vote requirement); instead, McGwire received 19.5% of the vote while Palmerio received 12.6%.
Sadly, because of their steroid use, these players are not getting their just due in the voting. It's even worse in the case of Jeff Bagwell; he has never been named in any report nor has anyone pointed a finger at him and his numbers don't show a tremendous spike from one year to the next. There is absolutely no reason to think he used 'roids. None of this matters one iota to the voters. Bagwell had big muscles so he must have been a user! I'm going to keep him out of the HOF because I can! Whaaaaa! Jeff Bagwell, leader of the 2005 Houston Astros team that were defeated by my beloved White Sox in the World Series, is getting black-balled from the HOF because he looked stout in a tank top.
Next year, the voting will really go to holy hell because Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, and Mike Piazza--all suspected users--will be joining Craig Biggio and Curt Schilling as first timers on the ballot.
***************
So what's the big deal? Why can't these guys who deserve election get in? Sadly, its the BBWAA. Also, when you get down to it, the HOF themselves don't make it easy on the voters. The voting criteria is amazingly vague: "5. Voting: 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." That's it. And it's the "integrity, sportsmanship, character" section that causes the voters to create their own definition of who is a Hall of Famer and who is not.
You see, you have some of the older generation of voters who take the HOF voting as an opportunity to move forward their own personal agendas. Like a really unimportant version of Congress. They seem to think of themselves as the moral arbiters of baseball. Let's ignore the fact that the guys from the 60's and 70's they so revere were hopped up on everything from cocaine to amphetamines. Let's ignore the fact that rampant alcoholism has been a problem in baseball since before Babe Ruth was born. And lets also ignore all the wife beaters and racists--many long dead--who's plaques grace the hallowed halls in Cooperstown, NY.
Let's ignore all of that and break this down even further: The Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown is a museum. On display in this museum is the history of baseball, warts and all, from the time when only whites were allowed to play, up to and beyond Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier to the "golden age" of baseball and yes, the steroid era. You can't just pretend that the years of 1993-2005 didn't happen (and lets not be naive here and pretend that the steroid era started in 1993 and is--ha!--over now).
In other words, when you go to a history museum in Germany, it's not the "Museum of German history from 1 AD to 1938, 1945-present". Perhaps that was a trite comparison.
Yes, the Baseball Hall of Fame is first and foremost a museum. We should elect guys into the Hall based not on if they were faithful husbands or used drugs--which, incidentally, were not against the rules of Major League Baseball at any point before 2005--let's elect baseball players who were the best of their sport during the eras in which they played.
***************
In 1998, Baseball was in trouble. Fans hadn't shaken the bad feelings that remained after the 1994 strike cancelled the World Series. Hell, I was still bitter because the White Sox were arguably the best team in the majors that year. Attendence was lagging and many, many fans just upped and moved on the football, hoops or, you know, spending more time with their families.
Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa changed all that with a truly epic assault on Roger Maris' home run record of 61 which had stood unchallenged for 37 years. Both eventually shattered the record, with McGwire finishing on top. And that summer lit a fire under fans; basball was back and in a big way. Ratings were up for every Cubs and Cardinals game and people found themselves caring again. These two guys pretty much saved baseball as we know it.
They were also roided beyond recognition and you know what? I don't remember people caring that much back in 1998. Suddenly, when Barry Bonds broke the record a few years later--keeping in mind that Barry Bonds was surly and yes, black--did people start to question the size and speed of today's players. Ignoring the blatant racism involved, people suddenly got on their moral high-horses and started to point fingers. The Mitchell Report followed shortly thereafter and the names within the report started getting leaked to the press. A full-blown witch hunt ensued.
Therein lies the problem. Technically, the Mitchell Report remains sealed but many of the 89 names on that list have already been leaked. So, how on earth can we vote for the Hall of Fame going forward? We don't know who else is on that list. What of the guys that were drug users and didn't make it into the report? Sure, lots of hitters are suspected since power numbers went up so dramatically but what about the pitchers who were juiced too? You never hear about those guys unless their name is "Clemens, Roger". And what about the guys that experienced a leap in power numbers but did so through hard work, lifting weights and a keen batting eye (Bagwell)...how can we fairly judge those guys with an absence of evidence?
What happens if we elect a guy and then later find out he was a drug user?
You know what? We can't fairly judge any of these players. We can't pick and choose who goes to the Hall and who doesn't based on suspicions and hearsay. The only option, really, is to vote on the best players of their era, regardless of names in reports, real or fictional.
Baseball fans are not stupid. We get that Bonds and Sosa and McGwire used the juice. In 2030 when I take my son to Cooperstown, I can tell him all about the era: how much fun it was at the time and the lengths baseball went to make sure that never happened again. I will tell him about Babe Ruth who had the original home run record of 60 and the controversy Commissioner Ford Frick created when Roger Maris launched his assault on the record in 1961.
You know what else I can do on that trip? I can take my boy to the section that covers the 1998 McGwire/Sosa battle because while we may not be able to elect the men, they sure can make a buck off their jerseys and bats.
"Check this out, Vladimir Voorhees Jacklich. This is what hypocrisy looks like."
No comments:
Post a Comment