One of these years, the baseball writers who vote for the Hall of Fame will exercise their collective memories of just how good Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were before and during their presumed use of performance-enhancing drugs.
But that time has not arrived in time for this year’s Hall of Fame voting, to be announced on Wednesday. It’s the Chernobyl effect. It will take a while for the region to feel safe from contamination. Bonds and Clemens were Hall of Fame players, with or without the stuff, but baseball has dumped them into the workload of the poor baseball writers, and said, here, you decide. (The New York Times does not allow its employees to vote for awards, sports or otherwise, and I still observe the guidelines. Our job is to report and comment on the news, not make it.) Eventually the writers will get past the sense of guilt, self-imposed and external, and deal with what Bonds and Clemens did on the field, before testing, before penalties. It’s not the writers’ fault that the leaders of the Players Association played upon the weaknesses and needs of the owners and executives and players and sponsors, making drug-testing sound like an invasion of civil liberties rather than the safeguarding of rules. Because baseball kept it all hidden, the voting writers must deal annually with the question of who was guilty, who should pay the penalty. I wouldn’t vote for Bonds or Clemens this time around because of the creep factor of their personalities, plus the things we know about them and their association with unsavory laboratories and enablers. And I certainly would not vote for Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro because I suspect their numbers are inflated by stuff they were taking. There are too many terrific players out there. One thing writers and fans must do is factor in the expansion of baseball from 16 teams to 30, starting in 1961. More teams meant more great players and more great numbers. The high salaries and improved medicine and diet and training allowed players to dominate longer. We cannot compare all players to the greatest players – Ruth, Mays, Johnson, Koufax. There are four or five levels in the Hall of Fame. We cannot hold endurance against players like Frank Thomas, Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Fred McGriff, Mike Piazza, Larry Walker and Jeff Kent. I’d vote for Thomas this time. I also remember the arresting sound of Piazza’s bat sending the ball out in the direction of the dim-sum palaces in downtown Flushing. I’d vote for him -- next year – and would consider Martinez, the epitome of the designated hitter, a position I dislike, but that’s not his fault. This year, Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine were dominant and enduring pitchers who deserve to go in on their first attempt. Both pitchers helped make the Braves the best team in their league – and in return their statistics gained from that dominance. I’d vote for Jack Morris because he won big games and time is running out, and I’d be tempted to vote for Lee Smith because he was one of the great closers of all time. Then there is the matter of Don Mattingly, Donnie Baseball, who carried the Yankees through the bad years. It’s easy to say he would be an automatic if he had not hurt his back in mid-career, which limited his power to 222 homers, while he batted .307 and remained a terrific first baseman. Still, as a New Yorker, I saw Roger Maris, Gil Hodges and Keith Hernandez excelling on offense and defense, and can understand their not being in the Hall of Fame. I also think Pete Rose, the player, belongs in the Hall of Fame. One of Bud Selig’s final gestures should be making Rose eligible for the Hall, despite Pete’s addictive behavior. Put it on his plaque: arrogant blockhead. But Pete the player belongs. Eventually, Bonds and Clemens will belong, too. It’s not the writers’ fault that baseball did not want to know. But give it a decade. Here are other links about the voting: Tyler Kepner: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/sports/baseball/a-backward-rule-and-a-baseball-hall-backlog.html?ref=baseball Hall of Fame candidate biographies: http://baseballhall.org/2014-BBWAA-Candidate-Bios Richard Sandomir from the quiet 2013 ceremonies in Cooperstown: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/sports/baseball/a-quiet-summer-in-cooperstown.html?ref=baseball&_r=0
Craig N. Oren
1/4/2014 09:08:22 am
should Bonds' and Clemens' personalities count against them? You suggest they should, and I am not sure. I can understand journalists disliking a player who does not cooperate, but is this really a criterion for the Hall of Fame?
George Vecsey
1/4/2014 09:23:59 am
Thanks, no, I don't think personalities should count. I can think of several people I did not like or admire -- but so what? Still, the creep factor comes in when there is obvious reason to think about holding off on somebody -- cheating is a real concern, not personal. Bonds and Clemens both come off as unsavory bullies. But baseball never nailed them for infractions, leaving it up to the writers. Good question. GV
Jane Lyons
1/7/2014 03:41:47 am
Jerry Coleman column - pls open for Comments
George Vecsey
1/7/2014 04:54:09 am
Dear Ms. Lyons: thank you. I am planning to write a piece later in the week about people's attachment to public figures....Not sure why they did not open the Coleman obit. . GV 1/7/2014 06:53:09 am
"Peoples Attachment to Public Figures" should be very interesting. 1/4/2014 06:02:49 pm
Rose evoked the Black Sox Scandal in the minds of many in spite of the lack of evidence that any game results were affected by his gambling. On the other hand, the entire game was altered by the Steroid/HGH users. The foundation of trust in the fairness of the game was undercut by the players who cheated and the league that, for so long, turned a blind eye to them.
George Vecsey
1/5/2014 12:57:29 am
Charlie, good point, but I would add, if we worship them in the first place....I never worshiped Rose, but watched him play, and am sure he was straight -- he wanted his hits, and to win. 1/5/2014 02:56:54 am
GV - The point about Nixon was that history never forgets and isn't designed to forgive. What one does for the record is forever a part of that record. Bonds cannot go into the Hall of Fame, nor can Clemens. Palmeiro, Sosa, McGwire, Pettitte ... Braun, if his career doesn't careen off the rails. Anyone revealed in the interim to be a chemical cheater must be disqualified. Membership in Cooperstown is supposed to be an honor. There is no honor in undermining an institution that elevated you and enriched you, and it doesn't matter whether the malfeasance occurred in rookie ball or in a player's final season. There has to be an accounting. 1/5/2014 09:59:52 am
Baseball has changed significantly over the years. Today's ground rule doubles used to be ruled home runs, etc. Also, standards of morality also change.
Brian Savin
1/5/2014 12:57:00 pm
I'm somewhat partial to Clemens, but not Bonds. I'm not sure why. Perhaps because Clemens seems spacey and Bonds more calculating, in my opinion. Bonds beefed up beyond anyone's recognition pretty quickly, and Clemens was more gradual...perhaps. Frankly, I would rather both were ignored by future Hall voters. But we're not talking Times reporters here, as GV reminds us, so who knows.
Sam Toperoff
1/6/2014 01:36:41 am
Some things are simply too egregious to forgive, and so it's for each of us to determine his own egregiousness-quotient. I'm more interested in trying to figure out how to tell if a so-called clean player belongs in the HoF or not. I'm of the school that believes you know a HoF player when you see him. There is that certain je ne c'est quoi that truly great ones have and that I believe most connoisseurs like us can recognize. Problem is we don't get to see enough players enough times and that makes us rely on statistics. I despise statistics. And so, I'm inclined to rely on George, who has seen more of these guys more of the time than I ever could. Rely, yes, acquiesce, no. If he tells me he knows So-and-So absolutely belongs because he has seen that he belongs, I'll probably agree. If he says, So-and-So belongs, just look at the numbers, I'll demur. My eyes tell me that this year it should just be two guys--Maddux and Glavine, and much more Maddux than Glavine. For me it's a shame so many statistic guys are in the Hall, it makes it hard to keep other statistic guys out.
curt schleier
1/6/2014 10:03:35 am
Need to get in touch with you. What's the best way? Curt
Thor A. Larsen
1/8/2014 08:54:18 am
GV,
George Vecsey
1/8/2014 12:32:38 pm
Thor, I'm only saying that baseball let the Association push it around for a long time, allowed all this to happen without adequate testing or penalties, and now asks the writers to make the judgment, moral and professional, on varied players. Having said that, inertia says it could be right -- and rewarding -- to keep a couple of creeps and bullies out of the Hall. But where's the proof that baseball, or somebody, should have validated? I probably wouldn't vote for either.
Thor Larsen
1/8/2014 01:56:36 pm
I do understand your views, George, Thanks!! (We do plan to see you and mutual friends in April.) Thor Comments are closed.
|
Categories
All
|