The 2017 class of the National Baseball Hall of Fame was just elected. The players who received the call were Tim Raines, Jeff Bagwell and Ivan "Pudge" Rodriguez. To be elected, players must be named on at least 75% of ballots. Players who just missed out include Trevor Hoffman (74%) and Vladimir Guerrero (71.7%). These two will most likely be voted in next year.
This year's vote has furthered a very difficult debate. Should players connected to steroids be allowed into the hall of fame? Two such players on the ballot this year, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, 54.1% and 53.8% respectively, have garnered increased support the past two years. With 5 years of eligibility left, they appear to be on a trajectory to make it in. Statistically, Bonds and Clemens were the best hitter and pitcher of their generation. However, the suspicion of steroid use has caused controversy about their potential election.
There are many sides to this debate. Steroids were not tested for until near the end of their careers and the two never failed a test. Many voters believe without a failed test, there is no reason to not vote for them. Only one player on the ballot this year actually failed a performance-enhancing drug (PED) test, Manny Ramirez with two positive tests. This is reflected with Ramirez receiving only 23.8% of the vote. The other side of this argument is that Bonds did admit to using steroids later in his career. An admission of guilt is evidence. Mark McGwire never failed a test but admitted to PED use. McGwire is no longer on the ballot because he did not receive the 5% vote necessary to be considered the next year. If an admission is enough evidence against McGwire, why not Bonds?
Another argument for voting for these players is many believe they were hall of fame players before their suspected steroid use. Supposedly Bonds did not use steroids until after the 1998 home run chase between McGwire and Sammy Sosa. And Clemens did not use steroids until he signed with Toronto later in his career. By this time these two were already on a path to the Hall of Fame and many believe their PED use simply padded their already great statistics. This idea is reflected in the fact that Sosa, whose career did not take off until his suspected use, only received 6.8% of the vote. The other side of this argument is that cheating is cheating. If a player was already a hall of famer and then decided to cheat, that is their own fault. They made the decision and should suffer the consequences.
Further arguments in favor of voting include the fact that recently managers from this "steroid era" have been elected into the Hall of Fame, so why should they be allowed in but the players who played for them be blacklisted? Also in reality, there are most likely players in the Hall of Fame who used PEDs but were not suspected as much. Pudge Rodriguez was connected by association with teammates but his defensive prowess alone would have been enough for him to get in. If Pudge is clean then, there is in all likelihood someone else. Any power-hitter of the time has some level of suspicion, because we simply don't know who did and did not cheat. If the Hall of Fame is already "tainted", many feel it is hypocritical to allow some in and keep some out.
On the other side of the debate, there is a clause in the voting rules which states one aspect on which players are voted is their character. Voters are to be the judge of whether a player's character disqualifies them. Many voters feel they are to do their best to determine if these players cheated or not. So they may not get it perfectly, but they are doing their best to keep the integrity of the Hall of Fame. However, many people think this clause should be removed from the voting policies.
Another reason voters leave suspected players off their ballot is for the sake of the players deemed to have played the game correctly. Most people around baseball agree Fred McGriff did not use steroids. His statistics would indicate he should be in the Hall of Fame. However, these statistics are not as inflated as someone like Bonds, resulting in McGriff being at 21.7%. There is a faction that believes regardless of whether steroid players are elected in, the "clean" players should be rewarded first. But again the other side of this debate would argue we don't know for sure on any player of that era.
So where do I stand on this debate? Honestly I'm not sure. I've spent a lot of time trying to figure it out and I'm still not fully sure. What I have decided is that before I could consider any player highly suspected of steroids, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson should be voted in, followed by Pete Rose. Jackson is banned for being included in a scheme to throw the 1919 World Series. But although he accepted money, there is no evidence he altered his play to allow the other team to win. Rose did break a league rule in betting on his team while he was the player-manager. However there is no evidence he bet against his team. Unless evidence to the contrary surfaces, the player who has the most hits all time should be in the Hall of Fame. So until that happens, I don't believe players who did alter the results of games through their PED use should be allowed into the Hall of Fame.
Hope you enjoyed reading. Even more so than normal, I would love to know what you think. This is such a complicated debate and I love hearing different perspectives on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment