It's comments like these that make me lose respect for it:
No, I didn't vote for Jeff Bagwell for the Hall of Fame. Yes, it's for the reason everybody loves to hate. I don't know for sure that Bagwell took steroids or any other performance-enhancing drugs to help him attain his Hall of Fame-caliber numbers. I don't have evidence, like we do against Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro. But I'm suspicious. And this year, that suspicion was enough to make me send back my ballot without the Bagwell box checked. I'd rather withhold the vote based on suspicion than vote the guy in only to find out later that he cheated and I shouldn't have.Is "innocent until proven guilty" not one of the tenets of our country? I just don't understand how a player could have such a great career and possibly be denied induction because some sportswriter, with no evidence whatsoever, is suspicious that they might have taken performance-enhancing drugs. That's the kind of stupid subjective decision that make me lose respect for the Hall.
In terms of how the steroid issue affects the Hall of Fame, I don't know where I stand. Some take the stance that, no matter how great a player was, if he used steroids, he should not be considered. Others take the opposite stance, believing that steroids were ubiquitous for a certain era in baseball, and that Hall of Fame voters should simply not take steroid use into consideration. I guess I stand somewhere in between. If a player was good enough at baseball that their name should be imprinted in the minds of future generations of baseball fans for decades to come, then they should be in the Hall of Fame, regardless of steroid use. Barry Bonds has earned his spot in the Hall.
I have some more problems with the Hall of Fame as an institution, though. There's a fine line between a Hall of Fame player and a great player, and that line hasn't been clearly drawn. Some people use subjective and meaningless milestones -- like the 500-home-run plateau, or the 3000 hits club. Others' opinions have evolved, as they've realized that they must dig deeper through a player's stats to truly understand how great they were. Power numbers and batting averages need to be taken into context, as the rules of baseball change over the years, and some players' stats are boosted significantly by the quality of the teams they played for -- I'm talking about stats like win-loss records, and RBIs. The problem with this is that over the years, as the baseball world is becoming more sabermetrically-inclined and insightful, their standards for the Hall of Fame are changing. And that's simply not fair, because, under different standards, some players who are in the Hall of Fame wouldn't be there, and some who aren't in the Hall of Fame would be there. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are no set standards, and thus, as people's approach to evaluating baseball players changes, the perceived values of names on the ballots change significantly, and players who would get in one year, would not get in if they were on the ballot in a different year.
Looking at the big picture, though, there are different opinions on whether the Hall of Fame should be a very small, select group of people, or an expansive collection of great, but not legendary, baseball players. It's these subjective matters that irritate me when it comes to the Hall of Fame. I guess I'd just be more comfortable if the line was more well-defined.
Lastly, the Hall of Fame is not true to its alleged moral values. The fifth rule for Hall of Fame election is as follows...
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.Must I even get into the fact that players who lack integrity, sportsmanship, and character have been granted plaques in the Hall of Fame? Ever heard of a guy by the name of Ty Cobb? Yeah, well, he wasn't the most moral person. If he's in the Hall, the guy who surpassed his all-time hits record also deserves a place in the Hall. And Shoeless Joe Jackson deserves a place in the Hall of Fame. And Eddie Cicotte certainly warrants good consideration.
The Hall has drawn moral lines for induction, but has not fully stuck to them. And for this, among the other stated reasons, I cannot fully respect the Hall of Fame as a holy institution of baseball, but rather, one of false morals and many but not all great baseball players -- granted induction into the said institution for completely subjective reasons.
Am I suggesting that the Hall of Fame should be conducted objectively, based on whether a player's statistics meet certain determined values? No, not at all. But there has to be a more distinct line drawn here. And moreover, if there's no evidence that a player took steroids, then they should be voted on as though they had never taken steroids. That should be a no-brainer, but apparently it isn't.
---
The Giants have three former players on this year's ballot -- Kirk Rueter, Benito Santiago, and Marquis Grissom. While they've all had good careers, none of them will get inducted (Santiago's steroid allegations will make sure of that, although it is impressive that he managed to put up respectable offensive numbers as a catcher for twenty seasons...not to suggest that he would otherwise merit induction). Rueter's 105 wins as a San Francisco Giant secure his place in franchise history as having the most wins by a southpaw...he was a true Giant, and having been at Kirk Rueter Day, I can speak to how much the San Francisco Giants community of fans and personnel love him; he and Santiago will forever be remembered as crucial members of that great 2002 San Francisco Giants team, and that's certainly something special. Marquis, well, he was part of that great 2003 San Francisco Giants team.
