Today we learned that Major League Baseball will not be enshrining any new members this year, surprising news to some when you consider Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Sammy Sosa were eligible candidates. Under “normal,” non-steroid conditions each of these men would have easily been first-ballot winners, but in response to their performance enhancement usage the majority of sportswriters voting this year decided to shut them out. Herein lies the issue: Sports writers using their own subjective criteria to parse out who should and shouldn’t be elected to the Hall of Fame.
It goes without saying that athletes who cheat accumulate inflated, artificial stats (i.e. Barry Bonds 73 HR’s in a season at age 36 is a perfect example). From that stand point, it’s a no-brainer to not elect players whose numbers are bloated from steroids. But when we begin to discriminate the legitimacy of sports statistics and include steroid users, we are also opening up Pandora’s Box to other former players who corked bats, threw spitballs, and did other things to gain an unfair advantage on the competition. My point is that it’s almost impossible to ascertain to what extent players have cheated over the years (including many who are already in the HOF).
The Complexities of the “Steroid Era”
Making things even more complex is the fact that some have called the 1990’s/2000’s the “steroid era,” with the assumption that most players during that time cheated in some way. Assuming this is even partially true, you could make an argument that the table was level, so to speak, if both pitchers and hitters were cheating. Sure, it compromises the integrity of the game, but if everyone is cheating it balances things out, too.
Sports Writer Bias?
The one factor I have noticed that really hasn’t been discussed yet has to do with the individuals who do the voting – the sports writers. Even in good times I used to question if writer subjectivity could be controlled for when evaluating “bubble players” who the media just didn’t like (Curt Schilling would be an example). This year I have read countless quotes from sports writers voicing their disdain toward the cheating players, and their exhaustion in trying to find a fair and suitable way to decide who should be in and who should be shut out. I believe the zero acceptance rate this year is evidence toward all of this — it seems as though the writers are lost in trying to find common criteria to judge, and tired of the ongoing, year-after-year debates about enshrining cheaters. The result? Nobody got in, and several media personalities boasted about why they didn’t vote. Is this the answer?
Next year new players will be eligible, and we must wonder if the criteria used this year will loosen — or become even more extreme? And I’m not sure if sports writers should continue to be the folks voting on the HOF, as we are seeing increasingly more bias based on the personalities of some players, even at the expense of on-field accomplishments. How did Craig Biggio, a player never accused of using steroids and with over 3,000 hits, not get in this year? And what about Mike Piazza, another player who is not in the HOF yet easily has HOF numbers (apparently many writers believe he might have used, even though there is no evidence of this). Talk about an impossible job! How are these writers supposed to select players when they factor in steroids, personalities, character, and now even mere speculation of drug use??
www.drstankovich.com
