Congratulations to David Ortiz, whose credentials for the Hall of Fame do in fact speak for themselves.
Congratulations to the Baseball Writers Association of America, who continue to protect a flagrantly translucent, subjective, broken process to saint those who played the game at its highest levels. Thanks to a body with no apparent leadership and no clarion voice, these writers are held captive by the Michael Hunts of the voting bloc: those who send back blank ballots, refuse to defend their position and otherwise treat the process with the disrespect they would otherwise cast upon Barry Bonds.
This fecklessness makes the current United States Senate look, well, downright senatorial.
Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens failed to reach the required 75% threshold on their tenth and final appearance on the Hall of Fame ballot. They have been accused of tainting baseball’s record books by using performance enhancing drugs. They were both tried in relation to — not directly for usage of — PEDs. Bonds pled guilty to obstruction, but the conviction was successfully appealed by a 10-1(!) ruling in federal appeals court. Clemens was indicted, but those proceedings were marred by prosecutorial misconduct and declared a mistrial. A second trial acquitted Clemens outright.
Presumably, a sizable contingency of voters are acting as their own judge, jury and executioner in the absence of a satisfactory outcome.
One might think that the voters might then lend their support to those from that era beyond suspicion: Scott Rolen, Mark Buehrle, Jeff Kent, Jimmy Rollins, Torii Hunter (who was considerably better than you remember.) What better way to make a statement than to say no to Bonds and Clemens and yes to any of those guys?
Nope. Rolen likely gets in next year, while Kent is still a considerable ways from election by the BBWAA and probably gets in via committee.
Friends, AJ Pierzynski got a Hall of Fame vote on a crowded ballot. AJ Pierzynski!
It is improper, and I would argue relatively immoral, to negate Bonds’ and Clemens’ achievements — and despite what anyone may think, they are significant achievements — while denying others’ entry into Cooperstown because they don’t have the counting stats, figures they might have attained had they ingested certain chemicals. I may not agree with the rationale there, but I can at least respect a clear-cut, fair-minded approach.
If what Bonds and Clemens did was such an affront to tHe GaMe, then champion those who played clean. Period.
(Well, maybe not period: is there clear and convincing evidence that steroid use actually improved velocity on pitches or improved bat speed?)
Do we hold someone like Gerrit Cole to this standard, should he end his career with a Hall of Fame-worthy resume, because of his use of foreign substances? In the Statcast era, we can see precisely how — and when — pitchers were manipulating the ball to get improved results.
Do we get a prybar and throw Gaylord Perry’s plaque into the dumpster?
The Hall of Fame can’t be an honor and the vote a privilege if the end result continually turns away worthy candidates by commission or omission. Minnie Miñoso and Dick Allen should be in Cooperstown already, and the committee votes this winter corrected a lot of past sins — except Allen, of course. (grrrrr…)
And if we need these committees to more and more fix the messes the voters leave behind, isn’t that reason enough to show that this entire thing is broken and in need of reform?
The arguments have become less and less about players’ on-field achievements and more and more about first ballots, voting criteria, formulas and writers sniping at each other, their readers and generally farting all over the game they are paid to attend and cover.
Honestly? Perhaps the writers shouldn’t be doing this anymore. Or at least not in whole.