In The Hall, Morality Needs To Go

I have long been a supporter of guys linked to performance enhancing drugs being in the Hall of Fame. Simply put, if you don't believe that players like Barry Bonds and Rogers Clemens are among the best to ever play the sport of baseball, you're unquestionably wrong. Here's where the caveats come in though, morality still plays a role that it has no business playing.

Today I read over a piece by BBWAA member and former Yankees beat writer Wallace Matthews. In it, he calls out Curt Schilling for being a baffon (political stance aside, he absolutely is), and huffs over the burden it is to cast a Hall of Fame ballot. While it's fair and understanding to note where he's coming from, the true burden is one that was cast upon him by the Baseball Hall of Fame itself.

Almost as equally long as I have contended that guys linked to PEDs but still deserving should be in The Hall, I've stated that the character clause is one of the goofiest prerequisites for inclusion at Cooperstown. Listen, the Baseball Writers Association of America should be asking journalists to quantify performance factors, not policing the shortcomings of the Commissioner and Major League Baseball itself. At the end of the day, inclusion in the Hall of Fame should be related to the amount of homers you smashed, strikeouts you tallied, or accolades you compiled while on the field of play.

When participating in Major League Baseball, players have gone through eras with live and dead balls. They have played the sport while certain races were excluded. Long before PEDs were the drugs of hatred, there were amphetamines and other choice vices that were explored. As a collective whole, the reality has always been that asking a group removed from decision making efforts within the sport, to retroactively rule on decisions that were made, was a losing battle.

Looking at Matthews' piece and knowing he isn't the first one to publicly defend his decision to throw away his vote, it's hard not to want something done about the burden he defines. At it's core, it seems quite haughty to come across as being above a privilege granted to so few. While The Hall has imposed the notion that morality be considered, the process involves nothing more than checking boxes of up to 10 players deserving of the game's highest honor.

While trying to be sympathetic to the tone of Matthews' message, it's also a tired one from a group that has so often fallen short of being worthy of give the benefit of doubt. I'm not sorry your journalistic profession has included you among a group of your peers that are tasked with helping us to celebrate baseball's greatest. I'm not sorry that the BBWAA as a whole has seen countless votes cast (or not cast) as personal vendettas or in trying to politic against those that wronged them while playing (or not playing) the game. I'm not sorry that it seems silly to cast votes for those you feel friendly towards, and want to give a final hat tip to. I'm really not sorry for any "burden" you'd like to define as part of the voting process.

If there's something to be sorry for, it is, and always has been, Cooperstown asking you to play morality cop. Most anyone that has ever watched the game can effectively evaluate the performance of a player's career, and a consensus (or at least a 75% consensus) should be relatively straightforward to reach in that line of thinking alone. It's time that morality stop playing such an issue in the voting process, both on the ballot, and in the fallout thereafter.

There have been positive changes from the BBWAA in recent years (removing writers no longer covering the game, accepting MLB.com writers, making ballots publicly available), but the large linchpin remains the character clause. It's time the ballot was simply used as a process of deeming who is worthy based on baseball merit alone, and celebrating that. Pushing writers to do what comes across as a look-at-me thing, while not voting or channeling feelings into their ballots should cease. Really though, it's the BBWAA and The Hall itself who continue to facilitate it all.

Performance Reigns Supreme, Especially On The Ballot

It's that time of year again. The time in which we see the end of season baseball awards announced. More importantly though, it's when we begin to see those special and oh-so revered individuals among the Baseball Writers Association of America reveal their Hall of Fame ballots. It's also the time of year best served to remind you you're probably wrong about PEDs, and that's ok.

Before delving deeper into what is viewed as a controversial topic (it really doesn't need to be), I want to give you a theme to ponder throughout this journey: "Performance reigns supreme." The quantifiable totals of what has happened before, in relation to what may happen in the future, is quite possibly the best unit of measurement in sports. Now to bring in some context, let's dive in.

This year, as with the one before it, and those before that, you will likely see some BBWAA writer proudly share his ballot on Twitter or some other social media avenue. He'll proudly proclaim he's voted for just eight players (with 10 being the accepted maximum), leaving off the likes of Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens. You may see someone else do the favor of voting in Alan Trammel (which is likely warranted), while boasting a snub of convicted felons, er PED users, Bonds and Clemens. In short, you'll watch as a handful do it all wrong.

Among many, there is a belief that the Hall of Fame is a sacred place among baseball lore, and accepting anyone linked to performance enhancing drugs would be the first, final, and only way in which to taint the museum. In baseball terms, that thought process couldn't be more outside.

Forget the fact that Hank Aaron resides in the Hall of Fame (he took amphetamines during his playing days). Let's overlook that Babe Ruth didn't play the game against some of the best athletes the sport had to offer (Jackie Robinson didn't break the color barrier until April 15, 1947, nearly 12 years after Ruth retired). We probably shouldn't shed light on the fact that 146 of Lou Gehrig's home runs came during a period in which the game was played dramatically different (during the live ball era). Honestly looking back through history, each previous era should be discredit for being just that, a previous era.

No. Baseball in and of itself is a sport that celebrates it's past. America's game is a National Pastime because of it's evolution, and it's relevance through the years. The sport reinventing itself has allowed for the growth and continued admiration shown towards such a beautiful game. To go back and negate the game for what it was is a detriment to the history that the Hall of Fame is supposed to be celebrated for.

For whatever good or bad you'd like to attribute to it, the Steroid Era was. Just as amphetamines, racism, live balls, dead balls, and a host of other ways in which the game was played, baseball ushered in a new era. In fact, because of Bud Selig's decision to turn a blind eye to the era that produced some of the most homer filled seasons in history, the sport may be at an all time high.

The year was 1994, and for the eighth time in the history of the game, worked ceased. On August 12, 1994, the season was cancelled, the World Series was skipped, and baseball had endured its fourth work stoppage in the past 22 years. No doubt an uphill battle to regain popularity, the sport needed something, and the next era was about to provide it.

Fast-forward to 1998, and dub the season the year of the long ball. Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa took baseball fans on a journey that is still fresh in their minds. Trading leads back and forth, Roger Mari's single-season home run record was in both of their sights. Eventually, both players would top the heralded 61 total, and McGwire would set a new bar with 70. The sport once again became must see action, and fans around the country made sure not to miss an at bat by either player. With a super-human look to them, McGwire and Sosa had ushered in the newest era.

Since then, players like Bonds, Clemens, Rafael Palmeiro, Alex Rodriguez, and a host of others have been linked to PEDs. Still in todays game, players are handed out suspensions on a near yearly basis. With a need to revitalize the sport, Bud Selig had turned a blind eye to a medical enhancement that allowed for the game to be played at an even higher level. Shutting that door is not an easy task, but it's also one that should not be retroactively punished.

The suggestion is not that there's a ton of players who have used or been linked to PEDs that belong in the Hall of Fame. However, there is no doubt that there are those who have, and belong. Clemens is one of the best pitchers the game of baseball has ever seen. Bonds is the home run king, and played every phase of the game at an incredibly high level. Their achievements are something to be celebrated, and there's no better place for that than in Cooperstown.

At some point, both players should (and likely will) get in. It may take the BBWAA ushering in a new wave of writers, continuing to flush out the past, or an understanding of a new thought process. Whatever the case may be, baseball is a sport that should be celebrated for all of its parts. Past eras have brought the game to where it is today, and trying to change that history only further separates the game from its roots. You can disagree with who a player is, what they stand for, or how they carry themselves. Trying to disagree with how the game was played, and what was achieved is a different story.

We've moved on from the steroid era, and the future is yet to be written, but the past needs to be celebrated in bronze.