Comments on: Hall of Fame Flap Brewing?

By: James

James — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 02:57:45 +0000

unless there is a serious push for Morris, I dont see him getting in next year. He only gained 7 voted from the year before. Then, you have Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine on the ballot (should be automatic votes, but I guess you never know)

Mike Mussina is there and his numbers just look so much better than Morris

then there is Frank Thomas on the ballot, and he should be a no brainer.
then you have the folks who didnt vote for Biggio and Piazza this year because its a first year ballot thing.

I think Morris had to make it this year to make it at all because next year, the deck is kinda stacked against him.

(for the record, I think Morris is a very good player, just not a HOFer. But if he is in, its not an outrage or anything.)

By: Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:43:53 +0000

lisa, I was actually encouraged that Morris didn’t slip down further this year. It turns out there were only five blank ballots returned and I saw at least a couple of guys ONLY voted for Morris… which tells me they might have otherwise done the blank ballot thing but didn’t want to be responsible for screwing him over. It’s going to be VERY close for Jack in his final year next year, I think.

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of the writers being the final people at the end of the line with responsibility for policing because nobody else would. If that group really was so concerned about the purity of the game, where were they when McGwire, Bonds and Sosa were juicing in the 90s? To me, they SHOULD have been the outside eyes keeping players, union and the owners honest, but they seem to have been no more interested in players’ integrity then than anyone else was.

The BBWAA takes a lot of pride in their role as gatekeeper of the HOF. If their job is more difficult now, I believe it’s just as much due to their own past failures as it is anyone else’s.

By: lisatwink

lisatwink — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:13:34 +0000

I wish I could remember who wrote the article I read that made a really compelling argument. Essentially, everyone turned a blind eye during the ‘steroids era’, from MLB to owners to managers to other players and the players’ union. Many folks in positions of power went out of their way to protect baseball from scrutiny. If those in the game refuse to police it themselves, and the buck gets passed, and passed, and passed, the people who get that buck in the end, the BBWAA, have a really tough decision to make. The argument (which I had already strongly agreed with, but hadn’t been able to put this eloquently) was that someone needed to pass judgment, and it should have been done long ago, and it’s hypocritical to blame the BBWAA for doing so now when they’re the last ones in a position to do so.

Honestly, I think “integrity” being one of the criteria for inclusion means the BBWAA has already decided what they think writers should do about the steroids era. And Pete Rose, and Shoeless Joe. Those players aren’t any less famous or remembered for their lack of inclusion in the HoF, and I don’t believe Barry F’ing Bonds or Roger Clemens will be forgotten either…but it might not be appropriate to enshrine them as heroes.

I just wish it didn’t impact Jack Morris, and I hope that the blank ballot protests are over now, and the writers can get back to choosing which players to enshrine based on whether they meet the criteria individually (including the ‘integrity’ criterion).

By: Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:58:33 +0000

I totally agree, Joel. From what I’ve read, though, there seem to be a number of BBWAA voters who want to raise the limit to 15. I just don’t get it. It’s almost like they’re saying, “hey, from this point on there are always going to be a bunch of PED using players that half the writers won’t vote for, so we need to adjust the rules or nobody will ever get in again.”

That makes NO sense to me. EVEN IF the result is that we go 2-3 years without electing anyone, the result shouldn’t be increase the number of guys they can vote for… the result SHOULD be that the BBWAA, as a group, comes together to form a consensus concerning how they’re going to approach the known PED users… either strongly encourage everyone to leave them off their ballots or strongly encourage them to ignore the PEDs. That’s how you would break the logjam. The BBWAA seems to want to retain the honor of being the gatekeepers to the Hall… but they want someone to give them an easy way out of this predicament. As I wrote, I actually don’t believe it’s a predicament at all… and we’ll see plenty of inductees over the next few years, even if there are none this year.

By: Joel Thingvall

Joel Thingvall — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:33:05 +0000

Voting for more players doesn’t make sense. Right now, there is no requirement that a member of the BBWA needs to vote for 10 people. Some vote for 3-4. Some 7. If there was a requirement that they have to check off 10 boxes, then you don’t lose as many people each year, and someone will probably always get in. But as a writer, if I only feel 5 guys meet Hall of Fame qualifications, why would I vote for a 6th, let alone a 15th.