The Baseball Writers Association Embarrasses Themselves

There will be no Hall-of-Fame weekend in Cooperstown, no induction ceremony, and no class of 2013. None, zero, zip, nada. No one was elected this year. Some think this is good. I think this is the end of this process being credible.

Let's start with the obvious- what did Mike Piazza or Craig Biggio do to deny themselves a bid? Piazza is the all-time home run king at catcher, and Biggio is a top five second baseman offensively, even if you adjust for eras. There is no cloud of suspicion over them, they should have been first ballot Hall-of-Famers. Curt Schilling, with a bunch of top five Cy Young finishes and 11 post-season wins, to go with an NLCS and World Series MVP award, should have been good for better than 40% of the vote. Jack Morris and Dale Murphy were kept out, Murphy easily, and both had zero to do with the steroid era. This was a blanket statement by a bunch of writers, eager to push their agenda, and to be heard on this issue. It's nonsense. No one cares about their agendas.

This takes us back to the issue of the steroid-scandal figures, namely Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, both of whom would be in for sure without it, but also Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, and everyone else from the 90s who hit eligibility today. The question is not whether or not these folks used PEDs- they did. The question is, so what?  For one, MLB did not have a steroid policy for much of their careers, no testing or penalty system. Sure, it's illegal to use them in society, but it's illegal to drink and drive, does that keep you out? People drink gatorade, a sports drink that supposedly is good for a competitive body, it was just as legal as PEDs were in baseball, so did they have an unfair advantage over players from previous eras? More importantly though, when players like Larry Bigbie and Jason Grimsley become central parts of the steroid debate, isn't it fair to say that nearly everyone in the 90s, or at a minimum a majority of players, were using PEDs, and yet the players we're debating were much better than those players? They were the best in their era, clean or not, and they broke no rule. What's the issue here?

There is a question as to whether the Hall-of-Fame is a cathedral or a museum of history. Ty Cobb was a racist, Babe Ruth a womanizer, Mickey Mantle a drunk, and many didn't like Ted Williams, period. Do these characters belong in a "cathedral?" Does anyone want to remove them now? No, and no. So it's a museum, it's settled. While yes, there is a clause in the Hall-of-Fame eligibility that deals with character, we've essentially taken a precedent we had that the behavior had to break a sacred rule of the game (Pete Rose, who I'd also put in, but that's a different story, for gambling) to disqualify you. Steroid use simply didn't break a rule then. It also wasn't unique to a couple of guys, giving them unfair edges. This whole "moral character" thing falls apart fast when you put it up to any scrutiny, which should be telling.

You can't have a museum of history that cuts out things that you don't like. You may hate Barry Bonds, you may hate what Roger Clemens did to the game, you might wish the 90s never happened, and you might be embarrassed that you cheered for Mark McGwire. That's fine, you have a right to feel that way. You may feel that the whole decade was fake. It kind of was. It happened though. Major League games were played, they counted, stats were kept, and teams won titles. You may think it's awful, and the writers have made it clear that they do, but that's no excuse to keep the best players who played in that era out of the Hall-of-Fame. Don't give me this "they cheated" crap- are you saying no one did in previous times that got in? Of course not. It is the history of the game that men who took steroids played in the 1990s. Now you have to enshrine the guys that were the best amongst them.

I'd like to see this be the last vote by the writers, ever. Just end the process as is. Either the Hall-of-Fame can let their members vote, or you can have the actual guys playing the game vote. Yes, more players will get in this way, I know that, but maybe that's fine. After all, if the players think you were great, wouldn't they understand what great means. They're the best players alive, the guys in "the show." It seems better than letting a bunch of sanctimonious people with journalism degrees make the decision at this point.