3
2011
Steroids Era and Hall Of Fame Voting Collide
An article by Hojo's Mojo
I love the internet and I spend a great portion of my day just reading my sports feeds, chatting with or emailing friends, and even blogging on this site. However, the internet does have its drawbacks.
Lately there seems to be a wide array of opinions on who should or shouldn’t get into the Hall of Fame. It’s actually pretty difficult to avoid the shocking divisiveness and profanity-laden discourse that is being spewed by those who disagree with the stands some writers have taken with regards to their views on PEDs and the players who used or were suspected of using them.
It never used to be like this, but in the last few years many popular writers and members on the BBWAA have decided that they would share their secret ballots in their columns opening up a Pandora’s Box of mindless rants.
Most of those doing the complaining are the bloggers and fans who don’t have a vote. To them, the BBWAA is just a collection of ignorant, know-nothings who have no clue about baseball and who the game’s best players are.
Ed Price of AOL Fanhouse took a novel approach to all of this non-stop bickering and decided to devote a column just to say he will not share his HOF selections and prefers instead to keep it secret.
Unlike the annual BBWAA awards, Hall of Fame voting is by secret ballot. And while in the past I have published my vote, I no longer believe I should.
And that’s because I don’t believe it’s fair to publicly accuse someone of using PEDs without some evidence. If I reveal my ballot, and it doesn’t include an obvious choice, then I am, in effect, accusing that player because I have made it known I will not vote for a player if I believe there was a reasonable chance he used PEDs. … But for now, I feel I’m following the instructions given me. And I’m not ashamed of my stance. I’ll get plenty of backlash, and I hope for reasoned debate rather than name-calling. Throw all the numbers you want at me—and I like to look at all the numbers—but I abhor cheating, and that takes precedence over all.
Good for you, Ed. I can respect his decision as I’m quite certain he wanted to avoid the abuse and backlash fellow Fanhouse writer, Dan Graziano, got for sharing his ballot and his opinions. In retrospect, I’m sure Graziano regrets his decision to go public.
Nick Cafardo, of the Boston Globe, tries to find some middle ground with how to deal with the deluge of steroid-era players now becoming eligible for the Hall of fame.
“It’s not easy to come up with a stance that fits all,” he said. “But in the case of players who tested positive after the steroid policy was in place, I’m not voting for them. These players were forewarned about getting themselves clean or they’d face suspension and embarrassment for the rest of their careers.”
Many of the popular saber sites don’t really care about whether players did steroids or not citing that they weren’t banned for most of the steroids-era, and of course they are right. There wasn’t an official MLB policy in place until a few years ago, long after most of them retired. “However”, one person told me, “they were still illegal. Baseball doesn’t have an official policy on rape, murder or armed robbery either.”
Craig Calcaterra of NBC Sports devoted much ink to the controversy today, and believes that because the Hall of Fame hasn’t issued any new selection criteria regarding steroids, that it’s a hearty endorsement to ignore the steroids era altogether. He believes that too many writers wrongfully consider themselves the guardians of the sanctity of the game. he calls them the “Morality Police”.
They feel they are protecting some sacred institution, not merely judging one man. The Hall of Fame is capable of protecting itself. It does so by setting its eligibility standards. It could change them in five minutes if it felt threatened. It hasn’t done so in response to the steroids epidemic. That should tell the writers something.
In a completely different spin, Matthew Coller of the Biz of Baseball says that the BBWAA is putting the Hall of Fame on the path to financial ruin by blocking “cash cows” like Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds. Ignoring the PED users and letting mediocre stars in is hitting baseball in the pockets.
There seems to be a good deal of irony in the fact that, in the end, the very thing writers are trying to protect, the sanctity of the Hall of Fame, is hurting the Hall. And, while ignoring PED players may not kill the Hall of Fame, mediocre stars certainly won’t save it.
It just seems that those whose voices are the loudest and whose internet reach is the greatest, have much to gain by their positions. The more they rant the less objective their arguments become.
I believe that when it comes to baseball, everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
I also believe that everyone should feel free to express those opinions without fear of being dragged into the mud or drawn into an all out acrimonious battle that in the end proves and solves nothing.
Ironically, many of the people that are knocking the writers of the BBWAA are the same people who knock the fan voting for the All Star Game.
Neither the fans or the writers are perfect. They are as imperfect as the umpires and the game of baseball itself.
This is what makes baseball such a wonderful pastime – not that it’s a perfect game, but because it’s so gloriously imperfect.
About the Author: Rob Johnson
9 Comments + Add Comment
Recent Comments
- Satish Ram: on Mets Offense Comes Up Empty In 4-0 Loss To Reds: Hey Neil, You'd be surprised how many players...
- Neil S.: on Mets Offense Comes Up Empty In 4-0 Loss To Reds: I hope the players and their families...
- alfred: on Mets Offense Comes Up Empty In 4-0 Loss To Reds: Though looking on the bright side Ike...
- Markcomic1: on Choo Could Be Impact Outfielder For Mets In 2014, But Would Cost A Pick: Choo is a nice player but, Citifield...
- alfred: on Mets Offense Comes Up Empty In 4-0 Loss To Reds: Following team sing 67. Most unwatchable...
MMO Mets Chat
Need Tickets To The Mets Game?
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
5379 Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1269 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
Hmmm I guess my opinion is that if the MLB hasn’t banned the player then they should be on the ballet. As far as wheather they should be voted in under suspecious pretnense I believe it is juvenial to with hold a vote from a deserving player without proof. This is my beef with Mcgwire. No proof never tested positive just black balled. Palmero tested positive so sure keep him off your ballet. But then again these types of decisions are not mine to make.
On further review I do have a little more to say on this topic. Every player from the mid 80′s until 03 is under suspision of using PED’s. That being said will the writers only vote in guys thazt stunk because the suspision is lower. That makes no sense. I’m not saying that every player used PED’s what I am saying is that if you can pick 20 players during this period that performed good-great that are clean without a shadow of a doubt then I have a bridge to sell you. I also want to know how the writers intend on handling Bonds. Statistically it could be argued that he is the best player in MLB ever. how do you keep him out of the hall of fame. And if they vote him in while refusing other guys what kinda message does that send, Don’t cheat unless it makes you really really good. This is a can of worms that could be easily set to rest by the hall or the comish. Guys who have tested positive for PED’s should not be eligable for the hall. This might seem harsh but it takes the burden off of the voters and sends a clear message.
“However”, one person told me, “they were still illegal. Baseball doesn’t have an official policy on rape, murder or armed robbery either.”
To this I say, should the authorities deem it necessary to go around and collect all positive testees and haul them off to the clink, then I’ll drive the truck. Steroids is against the law, and I find it disconcerting that Congress thought it necessary to butt in and attempt to fix baseball, yet ignored this simple fact.
However, suppose Bonds in fact did commit one of those unforgivable crimes. Would his stats be rubbed out or asterisk’ed? I don’t think they would.
We need to keep it in perspective. They commited a federal crime, sure, but not a crime against baseball. Take them to jail, but their stats are just as good as anyone’s.
The whole steroid era was first and foremost achieved with the complicity of MLB. The FBI brought information about steroids to the Commissioner who did absolutely nothing about it until George W. Bush publicly embarrassed both MLB and the Union in a state of the Union Address.
This whole issue with the Hall Of Fame is a direct result of failing to address the issue when it was first brought to their attention and a reason why sweeping the whole thing under the rug IS a big deal.
You cannot tell me that people who were in the game for 50 years did not see things that made them think “what is going on here?”
One of the most surprising things to me is how many of the sabermetric group who’s very research, and labor of love for the game was at the very least corrupted by an unforeseen variable are the most vociferous in their denunciation of those who speak out against the vandalizing of an entire chapter of the Baseball Encyclopedia.
The saddest thing of all is the great players tainted by the stench of their peers using illegal drugs to artificially gain an advantage against them and now THEY are looked upon with suspicion.
Talk about being screwed before and then being screwed again.
Wonder how Mike Greenwell feels about seeing his MVP trophy in someone else’s house and then tell me it should be looked upon no differently than the Deadball Era, or better yet, tell him.
Baseball records are corrupted by a lot of things. Do we throw out Ruth’s accomplishments because he played during segregation? What about all the pitchers before the spit ball was banned? Or hitters who played when corked and weighted bats were legal?
And here is a little history: Synthesized steroids as we know them were first developed in the 1930s. Testing didn’t become a big deal until the 1970s with Olympic weight lifters. Are you honestly telling me players in the intervening 40 years didn’t try them for a “competitive edge”? Even after Willie Mays admitted in his autobiography to just taking a handful of pills with no idea what they were? Only the word of the team doctor that they would make him able to play the next day?
“One of the most surprising things to me is how many of the sabermetric group who’s very research, and labor of love for the game was at the very least corrupted by an unforeseen variable are the most vociferous in their denunciation of those who speak out against the vandalizing of an entire chapter of the Baseball Encyclopedia.”
You used 5 V words in that paragraph, that should be enough for an award or something lol.
I feel the same way as you if not as vehement at least as irritated.
So, if we ban players who took steroids before there was a rule about them from the HoF, can we take away voting rights of BWAA members who covered the so called “Steroid Era” but said nothing at the time? That would show a little consitency.
Fair point. We could also ban MLB executives that allowed them to take root and flourish despite being advised by the FBI because there was money to be made in the long ball.
I concur. If we are punishing the players, we have to punish the enablers. Especially the media who are all high and mighty about this.