Jan 07

What Goes Through The Mind Of A Hall Of Fame Voter?

What goes through the mind of a Hall of Fame voter? I was upfront with my selections and a good number of my colleagues did the same. That’s not to say I understand the reasoning behind their votes or comprehend the logic behind their agendas, and, let’s face it, there are some with a plan or ax to grind.

I was glad my colleagues hung strong and didn’t vote for those clearly linked to steroids, and we’re talking Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire.

I did not vote for a player directly linked to steroids, either by a failed test; testimony from other players on the record; or mentioned in the Mitchell Report. I don’t put much stock in a player accusing another off the record. That’s gutless.

I don’t buy the argument some had Hall of Fame careers before they were linked to steroids. They still cheated, but how do you determine when the cheating began? I agree these players are part of baseball history and should be recognized. However, don’t acknowledge them in the Hall of Fame unless there is a notation on the plaque and Major League Baseball puts an asterisk by their names and numbers. Given that, I would include Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson, but with the notation being their connection to gambling.

Not only did those players tarnish their names and era in which they played, but continue to do damage to the game. Yes, there are writers with agendas, and one is to eschew voting because they believe the influx of those linked to steroids provided too many qualified players. Granted, if Bonds and Clemens were already in somebody else would get those votes.

It’s a privilege to vote and I can’t understand not voting because you can’t come up with ten under the thinking there are so many candidates. What garbage! After covering baseball for at least ten years any voter should know enough to pick ten players from the list. If he or she can’t, then maybe they aren’t qualified to vote in the first place.

All of a sudden, there are grumblings about increasing the number to more than ten.

This isn’t the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame where everybody seems to get in, even the groupies. If you want to vote for a cheater, by all means that’s your right. But, what I can’t grasp is one writer who voted for Bonds and Clemens – the poster children of the steroid era – but not Mike Piazza, who didn’t make it largely because of circumstantial evidence. We’re talking about the greatest hitting catcher in history.

There are other puzzling ballots.

Some writers refuse to vote for an obvious candidate, say Randy Johnson, who appeared on 97.3 percent of the ballots. How do you not vote for a 300-game winner? Then again, there were some who didn’t vote for Craig Biggio and his 3,000 hits last year.

I’ve heard several explanations, neither of them any good. Their belief is no player is worthy of being a unanimous selection and want to make sure there isn’t. What a crock. Your job as a voter is to vote for a worthy candidate and not ignore him because they don’t believe in a unanimous selection.

Yes, there are players that good. Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Cal Ripken Jr., Hank Aaron and Sandy Koufax to name a few. And, I’d like to ask what those handful of writers were thinking when they ignored Tom Seaver.

Another explanation I heard for the non-unanimous vote was the writer figured others would vote for that player and he or she wanted to save a vote for a personal favorite.

That’s not right, either.

However, to me the worst thing a voter can do is throw away their ballot by refusing to vote because he or she wants to make a statement about the process.

If you want to make a statement don’t forfeit your vote one time, but give it up permanently.

Jan 05

Piazza Got My Hall Vote

He got my vote, but early reports have Mike Piazza falling short of the 75 percent needed for election into the Hall of Fame.

PIAZZA: He got my vote. (Getty)

PIAZZA: He got my vote. (Getty)

Piazza received 355 votes, or 62.2 percent of the ballots cast, last season. That acceptance is based on total votes and percentages is why I don’t like hear when my colleagues decline to vote because they can’t reduce it to ten worthy players as they are overwhelmed by the PED users.

To bad. You earned the privilege to vote after covering Major League Baseball for at least ten straight seasons. After all that time, you would think they could some how come down with ten players.

Piazza made my ballot not just because he’s the career home run leader among catchers. He never was mentioned on the record by another player, manager or coach for using; he never failed a drug test; he wasn’t mentioned in the Mitchell Report or any other official document on PED testing.

What he did have according to some reporters was some back acne. Definitely not good enough by any stretch. None of these reporters that I am aware of are medically qualified to determine steroid usage. The evidence against Piazza is circumstantial.

So, Piazza got my vote this year, and if he doesn’t make it, he’ll get it next year.

 

Feb 10

What I Make Of Piazza Admission

I concede disappointment in Mike Piazza’s admission in his autobiography he took androstenedione, but only because it further lends to speculation he might have used PEDs.

From andro to steroids is the logical, but unsubstantiated conclusion. Once again, Piazza denied using steroids, but this certainly won’t enhance his Hall of Fame chances. Piazza received over 50 percent of the vote, but still was far short of induction. Part of that percentage was from my vote, and for that I still have no regrets.

My criteria was there was no admission of steroid use; he never failed a drug test; was not mentioned in the Mitchell Report; and nobody accused him on the record. There was only the subject of columns pointing out his back acne. To me, Piazza had the statistical career to warrant induction and the acne is only innuendo. As a journalist, I don’t operate on speculation.

Andro was not a banned substance by MLB when Piazza claims to have used it, nor was it illegal. Steroids, however, are different in that before they were banned by MLB, they were illegal in society without a prescription.

Regarding PEDs, Piazza wrote:  “Apparently, my career was a story that nobody cared to believe. Apparently, my success was the work of steroids. Had to be. Those were the rumors. … It shouldn’t be assumed that every big hitter of the generation used steroids. I didn’t.’’

Of course, Piazza could by lying. Lance Armstrong lied. Pete Rose lied. Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa lied. It wouldn’t be a shock, but for now I believe him and do not regret giving him my Hall of Fame vote.

 

Jan 09

Disappointed In Hall Balloting; Biggio Snubbed

I am not surprised at the voting numbers for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa, but I am stunned at there being a total shutout and disappointed at the reasoning of some writers.

For just the second time in four decades none of the candidates were elected, and that is wrong. Craig Biggio, who was on my ballot, had 3,000, which had been an automatic ticket – save PED user Rafael Palmeiro – to Cooperstown.

One explanation I heard, which I vehemently disagree with was this reporter made it a policy to never vote for somebody on the first ballot that is totally off-base. It is a responsibility to vote, and I believe it is irresponsible and an abuse of power to exercise that logic.

Every player’s case should be judged on its own merits and not voting for a player on the first ballot penalizes him as it disregards what he did on the field. Biggio deserves to be in regardless of whom else appeared on the ballot.

I left off Bonds, Clemens and Sosa, and had my reasons for voting for Mike Piazza, Jack Morris, Fred McGriff and Edgar Martinez.

For Piazza, he failed no drug test, did not appear on the Mitchell Report and was never accused on the record. His only linkage to steroids was rumors.

I do not understand how a writer can leave off Bonds, Clemens and Sosa this year as a punishment, but vote for them next time. It is our responsibility as a voter to vote with our conscience, but it becomes abusive to say, “I’m punishing him for this year.’’ You are either against a player using PEDs or not.

I would change my thinking if a player’s steroid-aided statistics were denoted with an asterisk and his plaque mentioned his use of PEDs.

Jan 09

New Parameters For Hall Of Fame Voting?

The outcome of today’s Hall of Fame voting could have far reaching ramifications as to future induction parameters.

I voted for both Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, both with good but not overwhelming numbers. My criteria was not only a long productive career, but that both performed of PEDs in that they were never formally accused, named in the Mitchell Report or failed a test. It was a testament to doing it cleanly. In that regard, I also saluted Don Mattingly, Fred McGriff and Edgar Martinez.

These guys, and Jack Morris, approached most of these numbers the right way. Although he fell short because of injury, Mattingly had several dominating years before he was cut down by injury. Sandy Koufax is another who had a mixed career, mediocre followed by great numbers before an injury cut him down. Mattingly’s career was in reverse, with the numbers spiraling down in the end.

As far as Martinez is concerned, he’s being penalized by an anti-DH bias. Designated hitter is an established position and he was the best. He shouldn’t be discriminated against based on his position.

You know my feelings towards the rest.

Numbers have always played a big part in the voting process, with three historically providing an automatic ticket to the Hall of Fame, those being 3,000 hits, 500 home runs and 300 victories. Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds touched those numbers, but could be left out. Voters in future years could tweak those numbers, but I am not sure how they will go. Will they raise the bar or enforce them even more with a continued anti-steroid bias?

I will choose the latter. I’ll continue to respect the numbers and vote against those who used PEDs until there is a change in the acknowledgement process. I believe the Hall of Fame is a baseball history museum, and history isn’t always clean. Would you have a Twentieth History Museum and not mention Hitler, Stalin or Charles Manson? Of course not. History is also damning.

In that regard, if the Hall of Fame were to acknowledge on their plaques the linkage to steroids and the baseball record books would have an asterisk next to their names and statistics, I could see changing my vote. But to let them in under the present acknowledgement process wouldn’t be right.

It is a lame argument to claim they didn’t break any baseball rules, but they did break the law. Using steroids without a doctor’s prescription is against the law. How else to you explain Clemens getting injections in his hotel room?

Until that changes, I can’t justify voting for those who cheated, and in future ballots that will include Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez and David Ortiz.