To get this out of the way: If the Baseball Hall of Fame and/or Major League Baseball itself were to eliminate the character clause, yes, absolutely, I'd vote for Barry Bonds and any and all cheaters provided their on-field performance was worthy.
No, for real.
In that same spirit, if I were a selector for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, which has no character clause, I'd vote for O.J. Simpson without a hint of remorse.
And I'd vote accordingly for the Hockey Hall of Fame and the Bowling Hall of Fame, Lawn Dart Hall of Fame and Disc Golf Hall of Fame.
That much clear?
Cool, because that's really as complicated as this conversation ever needs to be. It's the Hall and MLB, jointly, that determine the criteria those of us voting members in the Baseball Writers Association of America are to use. And it's only the Hall and MLB that hold the authority to change that criteria. The writers can't do it, individually or together. Just can't.
Speaking for myself, I stick with the criteria when voting for sports things.
For example, in the NFL and MLB, the Most Valuable Player awards are supposed to go to the best player, plain and simple. In the NHL, the Hart Trophy's supposed to the to "the player adjudged to be most valuable to his team," which sets a different standard. That's why, in 2018, I voted for the Devils' Taylor Hall -- the eventual winner -- even though he wasn't anywhere near the league's best player but, instead, almost singlehandedly carried his New Jersey team into the Stanley Cup playoffs.
The guidelines are there. The guidelines get followed. They aren't my awards. They're the various leagues' awards.
The Baseball Hall isn't my Hall. It's the Hall's Hall. The guidelines are there. The guidelines get followed.
THE BALLOT
So, before ranting further, here are the four selections I submitted toward the Hall's next class before the Dec. 31 deadline, this in my sixth year as a voter:
Todd Helton
Scott Rolen
Curt Schilling
David Ortiz
The first three are holdovers, and I've made the case for each in previous years' columns. The lone newcomer is Ortiz, a first-year candidate.
The baseball case for Ortiz is a breeze: He's got a career .286/.380/.552 line, a 141 OPS+, 2,472 hits, 541 home runs, 10 seasons of 100-plus RBIs, 10 All-Star appearances, seven Silver Sluggers and five occasions of finishing in the top five of American League MVP voting. He's got the counting stats, the rate stats, even the team component with the Red Sox having won three World Series in his time and Ortiz going 11 for 16 in the 2013 Series to claim MVP.
One problem: In 2009, the New York Times reported that Ortiz was one of 104 MLB players who turned up positive for PEDs during anonymous testing in 2003. But no other information emerged from that report, including what substance might've been found. Instead, it later was learned that 13 of those tests turned up false positives ... without knowing which ones since they were anonymous. And because of that, Ortiz, who's passionately maintained his innocence, couldn't have his own request to learn more fulfilled.
The level of support that followed for Ortiz was without precedent for someone facing such an accusation, all the way up to Rob Manfred making this extraordinary statement in 2016 about the 2003 tests: "Back then, it was hard to distinguish between certain substances that were legal, available over the counter and not banned under our program, and certain banned substances. We were not certain it was a banned substance. … Even if Rob Manfred’s name was on that list, he might have been one of those 10 or 15 where there was probably, or possibly, a very legitimate explanation that did not involve the use of a banned substance. I think it’s really unfortunate that anybody’s name was ever released publicly."
T.J. Quinn, an ESPN investigative reporter who'd been breaking stories on steroids at the time, said last month of Ortiz: "We know he was on a list, but we don’t know what he took, if it was banned at the time, what the levels were, whether it was something that plausibly could have become from a supplement. ... If that’s enough to keep him off your Hall of Fame ballot, so be it. But you just can’t equate him with people who were identified as dopers by either a test or non-analytical evidence.”
I agree with these assessments, at least to the extent that what's there against Ortiz is precious little, possibly nothing.
The same, of course, can't be spoken for Bonds, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa and any other known/confessed cheaters on the current ballot. Bonds, in particular, has more documented evidence of his cheating than maybe any athlete in human history this side of Lance Armstrong.
Ortiz has my vote until/if something else were to turn up. Which, under the above circumstances, seems impossible.
THE BACKGROUND
For anyone new here, these are the three standards for voting I’ve set for myself:
1. The research I commit to my ballot is almost entirely my own. I study the finalists’ histories in as many forms as I can find, from old stats to new, from major achievements to memorable impact.
2. The approaches to difficult decisions are based on a combined goal of careful thought, consistent applications of my own precedents, but also an open mind to conceding when I might've missed on a previous ballot.
3. Again, follow the guidelines, which, to the syllable, were the same ones used for the very first class in 1936. Including the character clause, which reads verbatim: '5. Voting: 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.'
QUESTIONS/ANSWERS
There's no column I write all year that prompts more questions, concerns or criticisms, and most of that feedback tends to come with similar themes year after year.
So, this year, for the first time, rather than addressing each one individually on multiple forums, I'll present a few of those here, along with the responses I'd give:
• But Bonds was never caught cheating!
Oh, my goodness, no. Read 'Game of Shadows,' the 2007 book by investigative reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams. The documentation, the interviews, the evidence ... it's overwhelming. There's a reason no one anywhere denies Bonds cheated.
• Well, Bonds was a Hall of Fame player just based on his time in Pittsburgh!
Yep. And?
I was having a routine shopping run through Giant Eagle before I was busted for shoplifting. Guess which one the police will find more relevant.
No, really, all I think about when I hear this one is: If Bonds was so great with the Pirates -- and playoffs aside, he was -- then why'd he need to cheat at all upon getting to San Francisco? He could've just continued being great and adding to the legacy rather than ruining it.
• Everyone was cheating back then!
A lot of players were, for sure. Not everyone. Also, this is immaterial. The volume of cheating doesn't change that it was cheating.
To date, at least to my knowledge, I've never voted for a known/admitted cheater.
• Steroids weren't even illegal back then!
Sure they were. MLB banned steroids in 1991. I mean, there's a reason no one was taking needles to the posterior in full view. They knew they were cheating.
• But steroids don't make you great!
Of course not. But they still give a great player a massive -- and unfair advantage -- in terms of recovery and, depending on the drug, size and strength.
Ken Griffey Jr. was great. Same era. Never grew his cap size. What a thing.
• Who made you the judge and jury?
No one. I'm voting on Hall candidates based on Hall criteria. If the Hall and/or MLB didn't want it that way, they could change it. But they do want it that way.
From that same 2016 interview with Manfred about Ortiz, the commissioner spoke this: “Whatever judgement writers decide to make with respect to players who have tested positive or otherwise been adjudicated under our program, that’s up to them. That’s a policy decision. They have to look into their conscience and decide how they evaluate that against the Hall of Fame criteria.’’
See what he did there?
Laid it all on the writers and 'the criteria.'
That's how this goes. They set the guidelines, expect the writers to follow the guidelines, then point to the writers when the criticism comes.
• Get off your high horse!
I own no such animal, high or low, figuratively or otherwise. It's a vote for a Hall of Fame. I'm not the type to introduce piety to that process.
• You writers benefited at your jobs from the steroids and all the home runs!
This one might be the most preposterous of all, presuming anyone thinks about what they're saying.
Let's suppose that Mark McGwire helps the St. Louis Post-Dispatch sell more newspapers, though I was in that business long enough to know that's not at all how it works to any significant extent. The beneficiary, in that case, are the publishers of the Post-Dispatch and literally no one else. Reporters like Rick Hummel and Derrick Goold would still have their jobs covering the Cardinals regardless because -- wait for it -- someone's got to cover the Cardinals every freaking day, whether they're in first place or last.
This one's ... wow. But I still hear it.
• How can you justify Bud Selig being in the Hall when he turned a blind eye toward all this?
I don't have to. A select 16-person group called the Today's Game committee -- not the writers -- elected Selig with a hilarious total of 15 yes votes in 2017. The BBWAA had absolutely nothing to do with it. Thus, neither did I.
If anyone asks, I'd say it's a stain on the Hall that Selig's in. Abominable commissioner in every capacity.
• You guys just hate Bonds because he treated reporters badly!
He didn't treat me badly at all. In fact, the couple experiences I had with him -- one at PNC Park, one out in San Francisco -- were tremendous.
Regardless, something like that would never be a factor with me.
• Ortiz will get elected because he's a nice guy, and Schilling won't either because of his politics or because he's a jerk!
If I ever dealt with Ortiz, I don't recall it. Definitely don't care, regardless, if he was a nice guy or if he kicked my dog.
I never mix politics with sports, but oh, man, there's a ton of other non-political stuff about Schilling that reeks from the personality standpoint. And yet, he's got my vote, as anyone can see above. Great pitcher. Never cheated. Check mark. Simple.
• Bonds was the best player I ever saw in my lifetime, and you can't take that away!
Who's trying to do that? Everyone's entitled to their opinion.
• You realize this is the final ballot, the final chance for Bonds, Clemens and some others?
Why would that matter? What changed in that scenario since my last vote?
• Hey, you can't tell the story of baseball without including Bonds!
That's correct. And you can't tell the story of baseball without including Pete Rose, either, and his name never even made it onto a Hall ballot because he was banned from the entire sport.
If anyone's priority is to 'tell the story of baseball' in Cooperstown, then maybe a movement should start to urge the curators to carve out a cheater's wing. And I'm almost being serious. Have Ken Burns make a short film that projects onto a wall near a dumpster or something. No plaques. No recognition, but a chance to 'tell the story' of why they aren't enshrined.
• OK, how do you explain how Bonds is getting two-thirds of the BBWAA vote most years?
I don't. I'm responsible only for mine.
• What about Gaylord Perry? Didn't he cheat, too?
Sure. Spitball artist.
But here's the thing: I didn't have a vote in 1991. Nor did I have one in 1936 when Ty Cobb was elected amid later character accusations.
And as a result, I haven't researched either one. Nor do I plan to do that. It'd be an absurd waste of time. I couldn't vote them out, and neither could the BBWAA. That's wholly up to the Hall and/or MLB.
• What about greenies? Or the Astros?
Again, none of that's shown up on my ballot yet. Someday soon, the Astros will. I'll deal with that at the time.
• You should lose your vote! The writers shouldn't vote for the awards!
Compare the results in baseball's Hall vs. the football and hockey versions. Not the vote counts, but the final results, which is all that matters. Ask which of the three gets the best results.
For that matter, compare the results just within baseball's Hall for when writers vote vs. when some goofy-named committee of planted people selects Selig.
• Why don't you vote up to the maximum of 10 players you can put on your ballot?
Because ... I don't see 10 players worthy of the Hall?
• What about these weirdos who submit blank ballots?
Go ask them.
Speaking for myself, I'd only do that if I were confident no one belonged. Which I suppose could happen someday.
• Stick to football/hockey/lawn darts!
Nah. I love baseball. Bottom of my heart. From childhood to the 17 years I've been blessed to cover it.
And I'm genuinely grateful for the interest in the ballot, especially locally, since it signifies that the sport's still got at least something of a pulse around here. Here's hoping people will tune in when the announcement's made Jan. 25 and, more important by far, that they'll migrate to upstate New York and pay the actual institution a visit.
I'll be in comments, as always, but to warn in advance: I'll be doing a lot of copying and pasting from this column for my replies!
