Oh, there are still cheaters. And they'll be there, in one form or other, forever.
But I've got to confess here, I've never felt freer or had more fun in filling out my Baseball Hall of Fame ballot than the one I just mailed back, if only because, for the first time, there was no Barry Bonds, no Roger Clemens, no Sammy Sosa ... nowhere near the preponderance nor prominence of cheaters. And thus, nowhere near the drama nor the digging for info that's got nothing do with throwing, catching or hitting a ball.
What a joy. Seriously.
Alex Rodriguez remains, of course. So do a few others. But they'll never get in, either. None of the known steroids users will. Not after a 2022 that saw Bonds, the sport's home run king in name only, get rejected in his 10th and final year of eligibility by the voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, of which I'm proudly one. And absolutely not after the 16-person Contemporary Committee last month gave a great big thumbs-down to everyone except Fred McGriff, their lone -- and eminently deserving -- selection.
A player needed 12 of 16 votes to make it. McGriff was unanimous. No one else received more than eight. Bonds and Clemens each received fewer than four votes.
And for all those who'd complained over the years that this was some personal thing regarding Bonds, the 16 folks on that committee were: Hall of Fame players Greg Maddux, Jack Morris, Ryne Sandberg, Lee Smith, Frank Thomas and Alan Trammell ... Major League Baseball executives Paul Beeston, Theo Epstein, Derrick Hall, Arte Moreno, Kim Ng, Dave St. Peter and Ken Williams ... and only three media members: Steve Hirdt, LaVelle Neal and Susan Slusser.
Case. Bleeping. Closed.
The real storyline that'd emerge was that the existing Hall of Famers -- and everyone else on that committee -- recognized the same Hall guideline that'd been put in place for the writers with the original class in 1936, one that requires us to consider character. And that committee, clearly, honored that guideline the same way we did and for the same reasons we did.
No doubt, other cheating issues will arise over time. For example, all the pitchers who'd been suspended in recent years for using sticky stuff to get extra spin. Or any of the Astros known to have played a significant role in the sign-stealing scandal. Or whatever else might come up that's new.
But what stays intact is the knowledge that cheating won't be ignored on any path toward Cooperstown, which in and of itself will make a difference, however large or small, when it comes to fair play. And be very, very sure that's the Hall's wish.
THE BALLOT
Before ranting further, here are the three selections I submitted toward the Hall's next class before the Dec. 31 deadline, this in my seventh year as a voter:
Todd Helton
Scott Rolen
Billy Wagner
The first two are holdovers, and I've made the case for each in previous years' columns. The lone newcomer, then, is Wagner, now in his eighth year on the ballot.
So, what did Wagner do to merit making it onto this ballot when he didn't on any of my others and when this flame-throwing little lefty hasn't thrown a ball in anger since 2010?
That's always a fair question/criticism, since it seems silly on the surface. But I've always allowed myself to reconsider adding people as they get deeper into the process under one or both of the following circumstances:
1. He's picking up steam.
Longtime readers can attest I hardly think of myself as some know-it-all. If I see, hear and read that my BBWAA peers are picking up a candidate's momentum, I'll wonder if I might've swung and missed and, from there, consider additional arguments.
2. There's a fresh evaluation.
To be totally transparent, this is what moved my needle on Wagner the most.
Only eight relievers are in Cooperstown: Dennis Eckersley, Rollie Fingers, Goose Gossage, Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera, Lee Smith, Bruce Sutter and Hoyt Wilhelm. That's an exclusive club, one that underscores the ongoing difficulty in recognizing this role as being Hall-worthy.
But here's where it gets good: If you were to insert Wagner to that list, he'd rank fourth in saves (422), second in ERA (2.31), first in WHIP (0.998), and first in K/9 (11.9) by a broad margin. Over his 16-year career, most of that with the Astros and Mets, he was a seven-time All-Star, including, remarkably, his final season with the Braves.
Critics can point to his perpetually poor playoffs, as one can recall used to occur around here regarding Bonds, and that'd be accurate: In 14 games spanning 11 2/3 innings over seven different years, he allowed 13 earned runs for a grotesque 10.03 ERA. And I won't lie: I see that as a real negative. Fair or not, the best players tend to be defined by their biggest games, and Wagner was a mess in those.
But the figure that convinced me, ultimately, was the 0.998 WHIP, or walks and hits per inning pitched. Which, again, would be the best in the Hall.
I've leaned almost entirely on WHIP when citing relievers' stats over the past few years, as I see it as being infinitely more telling than ERA. Plain and simple, when a manager sends a reliever to the mound, whether it's to close or whatever, what's most coveted is keeping runners off the basepaths. And second to that is strikeout capability, a category in which Wagner also was the greatest ever.
I wish him well in the voting.
But ... I wouldn't be a true Pittsburgher if I didn't share here my most powerful personal memory of Wagner:
Sorry, man, but every last one of us in PNC Park that afternoon knew you'd be serving up the four-seamer to Brian Giles. And that he'd annihilate it.
I wish Helton and Rolen well again, too.
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 and criticisms, and most of that comes with similar themes. So, rather than addressing each one individually on multiple forums, I'll always present a few samples 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. Or check out this New York Times collection of all of Bonds' positive tests. 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 stripping off my clothes and shoplifting in the nude. 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 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 a 2016 interview, Rob Manfred spoke: “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 meaningful 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.
• 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 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.
• 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.
• 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 cheaters' 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.
• 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 18 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 a pulse around here. Here's hoping people will tune in when the announcement's made Jan. 24 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!
