And I mean that in the colloquial insulting sense and the literal dictionary sense. If you want to hold back the steroid guys (Clemens, Bonds, Palmeiro, Sosa, McGwire, A-Rod when he gets there etc)...I will disagree with you on some, but I can live with making a statement.
BUT...
They're not just holding back steroid guys. They're holding back any type of player that isn't "their kind of player"
Raines is a SLAM friggin DUNK hall of famer. It's not even KINDA close. Why he's not in? Because some idiotic baseball writers still think the only good kind of player is a slugger or ace starter. You don't get in if you got a lot of your value from defense, walks and steals.
Edgar whiffs on the HOF and will probably never get in...why? Because he DH'ed and some people take their personal dislike of the DH as gospel and use it to ignore even the greatest of accomplishments.
Biggio isn't in. Why? See Raines.
Baseball writers shouldn't be deciding the hall of fame. They are not qualified to do so...they are all too close to the situation to be objective...every last one of them. The hall should be decided by the fans who care enough to cast a ballot just as the AS teams are.
The "correct" 2012 HOF ballot would have had 8-10 names on it. James' ballot consisted of,
.
Raines, Rocket, Biggio, Piazza, Edgar Martinez, Trammell, McGriff, McGwire. Maybe another one or two. ..I dunno.
We sent him this question, this morning:
.
You had eight names for us on your 2012 HOF ballot and "maybe one or two more." I think I've read everything of yours OTHER than the Hall of Fame works -- just have never been super interested in the subject -- but maybe you'd be willing to provide an 'executive summary' of the political aspects for those readers who missed the books.
... The sportswriters threw a shutout, and seemed to enjoy throwing the shutout. They seem to relish going on TV and wallowing in the reasons that Biggio or Edgar or Piazza can reasonably be kept out, and they seem to relish a discussion of why they should appropriately hold this power over the players, and they seem to relish this "first ballot HOF'er" distinction and relish keeping it away from guys like Biggio.
... the motivation here is honestly opaque to me, but whatever it is, it seems to please the Hall itself, also. Care to let us newbies in on the joke? :- )
Here's where my naivete really bites me, because I honestly can't imagine what gratification the writers get from excluding Craig Biggio from the Hall of Fame.
They could try to argue that it was purely intellectual. Nobody's buying that one, babe, not with this ballot. James has EIGHT names going in. Something emotional's going on, and that something emotional is not friendly between sportswriter and player. But what did Craig Biggio or Edgar or Fred McGriff ever do to anybody?
And none of this seems to go on with the NFL or NBA halls of fame. You don't see writers going on with this precious little discussion about how sanctified the NFL hall is and how important it is for Jerry Rice not to go in on the first ballot when that should truly be reserved for Chuck Bednarik. It's something that goes on in baseball, and that truly goes over my head.
Even Geoff Baker, who is not petty or small-minded at all, not envious of players, etc., has weighed in strongly on the side that it's good to have a shutout this year. This adds to Dr. D's confusion.
This year?! James had 8-10 names going in. But, of course, Bill James doesn't have a ballot. They wouldn't want him contaminating the election process.
Maybe YOU guys can let me in on the joke. :- )
Comments
Howard Bryant of ESPN sent in a blank ballot as some form of protest against making hard decisions, or easy decisions, or just making up his own mind without some kind of guidance from the Hall. Chris Jenkins said he only votes for baseball legends, but then didn't vote for either Bonds or Clemens. But the logic of some people who did bother to vote might have been worse (my comments at the *** marker).
-----------------------
Mike Nadel didn't vote for any of these guys: http://thebaldesttruth.blogspot.com/2012/12/hall-call-4-get-my-vote-most...
"EDGAR MARTINEZ … Possibly the best DH ever but his career HR (309), RBI (1,261) and slugging (.515) were hardly eye-popping." *** counting stats and slugging to take down a guy who won two batting titles and has an OBP surpassed only by 3 of the inner-circle HOFers? Of course.
"JEFF BAGWELL … Outstanding career numbers but behind Fred McGriff in most categories. His HR total, 449, is not extraordinary for a first baseman. There is steroid talk but no proof, so my decision on this borderline case was tipped by his poor postseason numbers for a Houston team that desperately needed more from its leader to win pennants." *** Borderline case? OPS+ of 149 to McGriff's 134. And his HRs are keeping him out? # of RH hitters in the hall with more HRs: EIGHT. # of 1B with more: FOUR. Ugh...
MIKE PIAZZA … For now, I’m going to hold off. There are enough steroid questions -- combined with a WAR ranked 179th all-time and a five-year fade at the end of his career – to make him less than a first-ballot Hall of Famer in my eyes *** UGH. Um... # of catchers with more WAR than Piazza: THREE. Did he even bother to check? Obviously he didn't check Jack Morris's WAR (whom he DID vote for) since Jack didn't crack 40 WAR, while 45 pitchers in the Hall did.
--------------------------------
Fun Quotes:
Mike Imrem: "The toughest decision came down to separating three great leadoff hitters — Craig Biggio, Kenny Lofton and Tim Raines. I went with Lofton because for a period of time I considered him one of the top five players in baseball."
Barry Rozner: "Following the guidelines of the vote, I've left off the steroids guys." He still voted for Bonds, though, but not Clemens. In fact, he voted for 3 non-Clemens pitchers: Lee Smith, Jack Morris and Curt Schilling.
Jim Ingraham: basically "Kenny Lofton kind of outhit Rickey Henderson in the 90s." Except Rickey was 31 when the 90s started, so is that something to brag about? Still, he voted for Edgar Martinez and Biggio and Piazza. Bonus points there.
Bob Brookover: votes only for Dale Murphy. Reason for not voting for others: "I've been questioned in the past about not voting for Bagwell, who has openly denied ever using steroids and whose name cannot be found anywhere in the 2007 Mitchell report.
I'm just not sure I believe him, and the reason is because I've watched players lie in front of Congress. If they can lie there, they can lie anywhere about anything. Schilling, one of the more outspoken players in his contempt for steroid users, once was asked if he was still dipping smokeless tobacco during his playing days with the Phillies. He assured the questioners he was not. It was a lie that was revealed by his wife, Shonda, just a few days later.
That's questionable integrity and character."
------------------------
This is really the best that can be done?
~G
... so why does the HOF like having writers vote?
Seriously. The Hall seems to really like its voting constituency and like the way the writers do things - even the 20%+ who haven't been covering the game for 10, 20 years. What does the Hall like about this?
...........
Just grasping at straws here: perhaps the HOF believes that it lends to the Hall's dignity, the more that people like Craig Biggio have to grovel to get in?
... but I'm still adrift as to the general tendency.
Are you saying that the general problem is that baseball writers are not baseball-literate? :: blinks :: They honestly can't discern that Craig Biggio has 170% the accomplishments of the average HOF'er?
............
I guess the question that really interests me is --- > why the writers are biased against election, why they would prefer to say No, what they like about saying No.
The Hall turns to these 1,000 sportswriters as, ostensibly, a body of fair and impartial judges, judges who are reasonably familiar with the subject matter. I literally can't remember the last time I saw of body of judges that was less fair or more partial. The judges' personal preferences completely dominate the outcome. That is annoying.
I know that the original idea of the writers voting was that they would be the knowledgeable ones who interacted with the players and understood the role they played in the games (this was before TV coverage became ubiquitous)...but now...I think they are clinging to the misguided notion that those writers know more about baseball from a "sports in-crowd" perspective and that the fans don't really understand how teams work...it makes them feel like everything is tidy and official and not a popularity contest, per say. And I know many of these types from SABR's historical wing...trust me...you'll never convince them otherwise.
Y'know, 90% of my ire about the steroids era is that the owners have by and large gotten a free pass on the subject.
While I understand fan ire at "cheaters" in general ... the simple truth of the matter is that EVERY sports organization is in charge of writing the rules, hiring the people to police the game, and making sure there is a fair playing field for all involved.
If (as an example), the NBA catches a ref fixing games and tosses him out - that's a league that is doing what it is supposed to do. But, if a league (MLB) deliberately and with plenty of financial calculation ELECTS to have no PED policy at all ... LOOOOONG after every other organized sports has instituted one ... IMO, the problem is NOT what the players were doing during that time frame.
Athletes cheat. This is fact going back to the Romans and before. The idea that athletes are going to be moral stewards capable of self-regulation is either delusional or the height of hypocrisy, (definitely the latter, if you happen to be an owner).
Prior to 2004, the MLB official policy on PEDs was ... NOTHING. The only policy was on "illegal drugs", which was written to specifically target cocaine and heroine ... and which was basically the 108 strikes and you're out policy, which allowed you as many paroles as you were willing to go to rehab.
The rampant use of PEDs in baseball was well documented by 1970, when "Ball Four" was published. And, at the time, the exact same cry of "LIAR!" that Bouton suffered would be the response when Jose Canseco made the same accusations regarding steroids 3 decades later. And baseball did NOTHING about PEDs in response to "Ball Four" - and they did NOTHING in response to PEDs in response to Canseco's book. It literally took Congress holding hearings to convince the owners that they needed to act.
If an ump is calling a huge strike zone, players adjust and start swinging at stuff on the edges or they get called out on strikes. Well ... MLB had established the widest of all strike zones in regards to PEDs. Have all you want ... just so long as you don't do cocaine or pot.
Does it taint all the historical records? Absolutely.
Was it cheating? For me - No. It wasn't cheating because those in charge of determining what is and is not cheating deemed it so.
If you post a speed limit sign saying 70 ... but then under it post a sign that says - "This law is strictly NOT enforced!" is driving 80 against the law or not?
Plenty of admitted cheaters are in the HoF. Gaylord Perry made nice money for his book spelling out his many cheating methods. And, occasionally, cheaters would get caught (nail files, corked bats, thumb tacks), and would get a hand slap minor vacation.
For me - prior to 2004 - NO player should be punished for any PED at all. MLB determined to make PEDs cheating in 2004 ... not before. Before, PEDs were welcomed with open arms by the owners - and the players union - AND the fans -- who cheered every HR that cleared the fence even while gawking at the physiques that Hulk Hogan envied that appeared overnight among MLBers.
Given the complete lack of integrity of the people whose job it was to ensure the integrity of the game, perhaps a Hall of Fame that doesn't have ANY of the best players from a generation is precisely what we all deserve.
No Rose. (at least in his case, MLB did have a very clear and unwavering policy prior to his crime)
No Bonds.
No Big Mac.
No Clemens.
Why bother putting in someone like ... Raines or Biggio ... because let's face it. If you remove completely the accomplishments actually produced on the field from the discussion of who belongs ... then all you've really got is a middle school class president popularity contest.
I don't know what you end up with - but Hall of Fame isn't it. Hall of "likeability"? Hall of "Morally Acceptable"?
Better to head to Cleveland over Cooperstown. I'm sure the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame is much better stocked with people of high moral fiber.
The HOF voters obviously take their vote pretty seriously, even when they're making laughable entries (or non-entries) on the dotted lines. It's not the sort of problem you have with the coaches poll in college, for instance, where coaches don't have the time or interest to watch those other teams play and have an assistant fill out the ballot.
Or in Gold Glove voting, where a guy who doesn't play first base can win an award there (Palmeiro).
They consider it, many write a bunch of words about it, they agonize over it to their peers and the public at large... and then the proceed to screw the pooch to the ballot box and back.
Why is this happening? Why are more executives and umpires being voted in than modern players (10 of the former compared to 7 players born after 1947 on the last six ballots)? Maybe there just aren't HOF-worthy players in the recent classes, and better to vote in no one than to let the lesser lights into the Hall, right?
And here's where the writers go insane: too many view themselves as the only arbiters of truth when it comes to the Hall. The HOF will not provide them with voting guidelines, so each splinter view of what the Hall "should be" rips votes away from players.
Should it be a small Hall? Players lose votes.
Should the first-ballot vote be reserved for the elite? More votes lost.
Should steroids be a disqualifier? Goodbye votes.
Ditto player attitude, playoff performance, teammates... whatever dividing line a voter can find, they will use to chop away at votes. Like you said, many of them like saying no, and feel they are encouraged to say no by the Hall. The excuses can get absurd, but the REASON is that they like to be able to tell you why so-and-so is not deserving. They like being the sword of justice, even if that justice is a travesty.
----------------
When the football HOF votes, you don't hear about the reasons some guys don't make it. Playoff performance matters in football voting (Super Bowl winners get players in) but local reporter coverage also matters: teams in the interior or the corners can suffer compared to teams on the coastal population centers. The Seahawks have 2 players in the Hall who played significant time for them, right? The Broncos have 4, but John Elway was the first in their history. The Chiefs have 8. The Raiders have 13.
Football is a lobbying system. You need an advocate, and hopefully somebody who can sway large chunks of voters from the major population centers.
But football doesn't compare across eras, just within your era. If you were a great in the 70s then your stats, especially on offense, are unlikely to measure up against players from the 2000s. Getting more catches than Biletnikoff is not gonna get you in the hall alone, however.
Baseball prides itself on being able to measure across eras. The game isn't supposed to change much. Of course it has: more homeruns, lower batting averages, pitchers throwing fewer games, changing mound heights, increased usage of the bullpen, the DH rule...
But the voters don't like to ADMIT change, and they talk far more than the voters of other halls of fame. Things should always work as they have before, and for the players turning eligible they will not. Barry Bonds cannot be compared to anyone who came before him. Natural talent combined with training and pharmaceuticals turned him into a singularity. The era is going to make it hard to judge anyone in it by any who came before. More weight training, better nutrition, PEDs, changing ballpark design, all of it made the era something unique.
Voters don't want to change their habits. Most want magic numbers: 500 HRs, 3,000 hits. A baseline for an obvious, easy choice, and they don't have it with this era. And so they're looking for reasons to disqualify. You'd think this would make it easier for players like Jim Rice to get in, since they were not using steroids (just greenies) but nope. Voters seem mad at the 80s players for not being good enough to achieve automatic entry and mad at the 90s players for being too good.
And since the hall won't give them advice they're lashing out the only way they know how: with the ballot.
Voters are throwing tantrums. It's not pretty.
Problem is, I don't expect the tantrums to stop next year. The 90s happened, but as far as Hall voting is concerned it looks like it will be hard to tell that on the hitting side for a while.
--------
There's a tremendous book called "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt, and it talks about how the brain makes decisions. It includes politics and religion and is a fascinating look at how people come to the decisions they do, and how that affects the world around them. One of the chapters in the book deals with how people make conclusions first, and then backfill the decision-making process with rationales that make them feel comfortable with those decisions. (If I could recommend one book, Doc, this would be it. Tremendously interesting)
Voters have decided they dislike opening the doors and are simply searching for any argument that will allow them to keep the doors closed. The fun part is that you can't argue with someone who has made up their mind in that fashion. Even if their arguments are countered, they will still decide that they were right, and just don't have a good way to express WHY they are right.
It's likely to be a long and frustrating journey on this era's HOFers. Writers who are too close to the situation and too biased are going to be making emotional decisions, and there are so many splinter opinions that can steal away votes that they are likely to pass on many decisions to the veterans committee just to be able to wash their hands of their responsibilities.
Not the way I'd like to see it done, at all.
~G