2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

Posts like this make me very thankful that you don't have a vote. Unfortunately, many voters seem to take the same silly approach.

(I took out the rest of the post because it's an interesting thought, but not really relevant to my point.)

 

Which is the honest, intelligent approach.

I heard Buster Olney explaining a similar thought process. The host from the show he was on tried to be diplomatic and say there is no right or wrong. Olney wouldn't let that pass, insisting that his way is right. You can tell he is frustrated by people using guesswork, accusation and rumors as if they were facts on their ballots, too.

 

It's not that I would never vote for them.

There's a reason they're on the ballot for 15 years.

 

So, they are going suddenly have more hits or home runs 14 years from now?

 

No, but:

(1) Whether they did or did not use steroids may become more clear during that time span;
(2) What it means, even if they did, may become more clear during that time span, i.e. our evolving views on it.

 

Let's just establish specific stat thresholds, call it the Hall of Milestones and then enshrine any player who reaches one of the magic numbers. Right there in the moment -- pause the game and have Jeff Idelson of the Hall come onto the field to present the guy's plaque. To hell with any waiting period or eligibility years.

We wouldn't need a voting system. Integrity, character, sportsmanship, none of that would matter. Make Cooperstown fully automatic. Problems solved.

 

Quite a few Hall of Fame voters quoted in this story:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/27/sports/la-sp-baseball-hall-of-fame-20121127

 

Yeah, so we wouldn't have to pull Mays' black for his use of greenies by the bucketful, or Cobb's for being a violent racist, or for several white players prior to the 1960s who would not have been considered Hall of Fame caliber if blacks had been allowed to compete against them.

Play and let play, I say. Every era had questionable stuff.

 

Anybody with any sense already knows how prevalent PED use was during their era, so No. 2 is just silly.

I guess we should make every player from the entire steroid era wait, then, because we can't really be sure any of them are clean.

Just ridiculous.

 

I just have a hard time believing guys who aren't voting for Bonds and Clemens now are going to hold that stance for 15 years. So this just seems like them putting the "first-ballot HOFer" designation on the pedestal and making players wait just so they can't say they're a first-ballot HOFer.

If you think you'll probably vote for them in 2020, you should be voting for them now.

 

Here's an interesting point brought up by a couple Atlanta guys (DOB and Jim Powell) yesterday, and I think there's some validity to it:

For any voter who gets up on his/her soapbox and uses the "character" clause as a reason NOT to vote for Bonds or Clemens or McGwire, et al ... why aren't any of those voters using integrity as a reason to vote FOR a borderline Hall of Famer but superb human being like a Dale Murphy (or, I would add, Craig Biggio, who I'm positive will get in on the merits anyway)?

It does seem to be a one-way street, in that some voters are taking pride in shooting down otherwise-deserving candidates for ethical reasons. But few voters are using those same ethical reasons to vote affirmatively for any other candidates.

Personally, I despise the character clause and the way it was added to the criteria in 1991. I think on-the-field accomplishments are paramount, and all deserving ballplayers should be in. I'd also be perfectly fine if the Hall wants to add off-the-field transgressions in the text of the plaque (i.e., some kind of verbal asterisk at the bottom to note that Rose was banned for life for gambling on his own team or Jackson for fixing a World Series or Bonds' career being plagued by steroid allegations. Put it all out there and let everyone see it in bronze forever.)

 

The character clause has been around a lot longer than that. It was instituted by Landis to help the chances for Eddie Grant, a pitcher who was killed in action during World War I.

I think a lot of voters are going to wait to see the percentage of votes Bonds and Clemens get. If they somehow receive more than 50 percent, I think a bunch against this time will switch. But if they end up in McGwire/Palmeiro territory, the naysayers will look at their stance as the majority.