Cleveland, Curveballs and Common Sense Putting 2 and 2 together since 1987.

One must put up barriers to keep oneself intact

Buster Olney wrote an article today (which, incidentally, is available only to ESPN Insider readers. Or you can take my word for it.), in which he asserted that baseball writers should not have the privilege of casting Hall of Fame ballots. Olney is quick to point out that he has this privilege, but he still feels it shouldn’t be up to the writers.

I agree, and there are three players who should be in the Hall but probably won’t be, unless another group of voters is selected:

• Mark McGwire. Potential the original steroid abuser? Sure. Controversial for his non-statements after his career? Sure. Feared hitter? Definitely. Hall of Fame nominees are supposed to get your vote if they are the most dominant player at their position in their era. McGwire didn’t win many Gold Gloves (he actually got one, in 1990, I learned after some research) at first base but for a few years in the 90s, he was the most feared hitter in the game. He broke the single season home run mark that had stood for 37 years, but more importantly he hit 583 home runs in his career – many of them long before his biceps blew up like balloons.
• Barry Bonds. Perhaps the most controversial player in the 2000s, it can’t be argued that Barry Bonds is the all-time career home run leader (762) and single season home run leader (73). If you still have doubt that Bonds was the most feared hitter of his era, he was intentionally walked the most times of any player in history – by nearly 400.
• Pete Rose. To me, this is even more of a slam dunk than McGwire or Bonds. The only reason Rose isn’t in the Hall is for gambling on baseball while he was a manager. This shouldn’t take away his achievements as a player, which includes being the all-time hit leader with 4,256, or having the second longest hitting streak in history at 44. It’d be like if Tiger Woods were barred from the golf Hall of Fame (I assume there is one, and that it’s the same sort of organization as baseball’s) for having too many affairs.

Here’s the point Olney makes and I agree with: writers have agendas. The baseball writers are still upset that they were swindled into the steroids era, and are exacting their revenge on anyone who used or was accused of being on steroids. In Rose’s case, the situation is a little bit different because technically, Rose is banned from baseball, but as the Hall of Fame is a separate organization, they could elect him if they really wanted to.

And another thing: why did it take the writers 15 years to decide Jim Rice was a Hall of Famer? Or what about Burt Blyleven, who’s been on the ballot for 11 years and next year, should finally make it in? What makes him better next year? To me, this is also a sign of voters with an agenda and not voting for the best players of their era. If you’re voting for the best, vote totals should only decrease – you may decide someone is more deserving than that player, but you shouldn’t ever often decide “you know what, this old guy was actually pretty good, I’ll vote for him over this new guy.”

So who should vote? I think it should be all active Major League players with 5+ years of service. These are players who are likely to have played against the newest nominees – who would be better at determining who is the most dominant of their era?

Being elected to the baseball Hall of Fame is the greatest individual honor any player can receive. Let’s take the politics out of it.