BALLOT POX
Recurring issues make HOF voting a gray matter
IT is Hall of Fame week or what I like to think of as the week I will be called an idiot (or worse) more than in all of the other weeks of the year combined.
Most folks only consider their personal ballots (real or imaginary) pristine, and any deviation is viewed as sacrilege. I have long tried to take the positive from this — that the vitriol represents passion, showing people really care about the Baseball Hall of Fame and, thus, it is a privilege to vote, no matter how often or at what volume I am called an idiot.
I don’t even recommend civility any longer. That’s not coming. Like with politics, folks get entrenched in a position without flexibility. For example, those who think no one should vote for Barry Bonds are met by a near equal amount of those who think he is an obvious Hall of Famer. You will not please everyone and shouldn’t try.
I am always struck by how black and white so many see the ballot. This year I believe there is one nodoubter in Chipper Jones and perhaps 20 others for whom you can make a case for or against depending on preferences about steroids, closers, DHs, large Hall, small Hall, etc.
As always, I will reveal my ballot on announcement day (I believe in transparency). For now, three questions that at least bedevil this voter annually:
1. What does taking steroids mean? I hear that term thrown around, often by folks who I don’t think can give a coherent sentence on what a steroid actually is. But one size does not fit all when it comes to steroid use.
For example, what if someone used for one day? Would that disqualify him? How about one month? One year? When injured to rehab faster? Only late in a career to hold on after the majority of his statistics were achieved?
All of that falls under the heading of “taking steroids” and is different than the stereotypical hulking slugger who got on and never got off. And it is a reminder that even on the rare occasion in which we know someone used, we don’t know for what duration or under what circumstances. We don’t know how many of his confrontations came against hitters or pitchers who also were using. This is not black or white. It is gray. That is, unless there is not only a list of all steroid users somewhere, but how they used and under what circumstances and what impact was derived.
2. What is your borderline? This is really what you do when you get your ballot — you decide whether someone has gotten over what you think is the Hall line.
Remember this: There are just 319 inductees, of whom 222 are former major leaguers. Just 124 of them were elected by the Baseball Writers Association of America — the body whose vote (including mine) will be announced Wednesday.
There have been nearly 20,000 players in major league history. Let’s say 18,000 have been out of the game for five years, we are talking about 124 of 18,000. It is difficult to get 75 percent of people to agree on anything. This is not just a majority. A player needs three of every four voters to see him as a Hall of Famer. Trevor Hoffman received 74 percent last year — a percentage anybody seeking election outside of the leader of North Korea would be thrilled with — and did not get enshrined.
The 400-plus voters have different views on the borderline, influenced by — but not limited to — views on illegal performance enhancers and whether they think the Hall is only for players such as Babe Ruth, Tom Seaver and Ken Griffey Jr. or for the next level or two as well.
The rule is candidates are voted for, no one is voted against, and yet it feels like an insult when a strong candidate falls short of election. Players such as Jeff Kent and Johan Santana are better than just about everyone who has ever picked up a baseball. But we are talking about 75 percent and 124 of 18,000-ish, and that is a heck of a mountain to climb.
3. Should we just vote for the players with the best statistics? Essentially should we accept that players have always looked for an edge, we almost certainly have already elected players who used PEDs and, since there is no way to know who did what and how much and to what impact, why try?
But say, for example, you believe players such as Fred McGriff and Mike Mussina played clean. They were hurt already by playing against dirty players. Should voters now hurt them again by not giving them some points — and, thus, deducting from others? Of course, it means guessing who was clean, which brings us back to the No. 1 issue about “taking steroids” and what that means. Lots of gray, not black and white.