To the members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, specifically those who did not vote for Barry Bonds to join the Hall of Fame:
Shame on you. Shame on you for keeping one of the most interesting and talented ballplayers out of the museum of Baseball history. Shame on you for imposing your own morals on the rest of fans. Shame on you for making assumptions you cannot confirm, and for displaying subjective inconsistencies that render your integrity as journalists questionable, at best.
This isn't about my favorite baseball player of all time being denied entry into the Hall of Fame. This is about the Hall of Fame becoming meaningless. We now have a Hall of Fame that lacks mention of the all-time hits leader (Pete Rose), perhaps the greatest pitcher of all time (Roger Clemens), and the all-time home run king (Barry Bonds), who also is arguably the greatest player of all time. It is now a museum that lacks the legitimacy that would make it worth visting.
Let's assume that Barry Bonds did use performance enhancing drugs, starting after the 1998 season (which is the consensus on when he allegedly started). Despite the fact that he had the numbers to be a no-doubt Hall of Famer before that, you didn't vote for him. Let's examine some possible reasons why. Was he a cheater? No. To anyone who says that Bonds and players like him cheated, I ask you: what rule did he break? All the stuff he took was not on any sort of banned substances list at the time he was allegedly taking it. That's a fact. He didn't break any baseball rules. Unlike Hall of Famers such as Gaylord Perry, who have admitted doctoring baseballs to produce an advantage (which is specifically against the rules). But, you may counter, the Hall of Fame instructs writers to base voting on character and integrity along with performance on the field. Even if juiced players weren't breaking any rules, surely they must have known it was wrong. Are you really going to place more weight on character/integrity than on on-field performance? That doesn't fit with past precedent. Here we have the most dominant player the game has seen since Babe Ruth, but you are going to keep him out because he was morally questionable? I guess we better remove Ty Cobb from the Hall then, because he was a documented dirty player and a racist. Bonds was never friendly with the media, but to punish him for not being your friend is nothing short of childish.
And let's not forget that performing enhancing drugs have been part of the game for longer than it seems you care to remember. Amphetamines, or "greenies" as they were known, were commonly used (before being banned in 2006) going all the way back to the 1960's. That means our heroes like Willie Mays and Hank Aaron were getting an extra pep in their step when they really shouldn't have been. Not only that, but they never had to face pitchers who were on steroids, as Barry Bonds and other modern hitters did.
But as I said, this is not just about Barry Bonds. This is also about McGwire, and Sosa, and Clemens, and Piazza, and Palmiero, and A-Rod (in the future), and all the people who dominated during this era. No one player illustrates the ridiculousness of your holier-than-thou stance than Jeff Bagwell does. He had over 2300 hits, over 2500 RBI, and 449 HRs. Looking at more advanced metrics, he had a career OPS+ of 149 (Mike Schmidt's was 147). His career WAR sits at 76.7, ahead of guys like Pete Rose, Joe DiMaggio, and Robin Yount (per Baseballreference.com). He's one of the best first basemen of all time, and he's never been linked to any PEDs. But because he was big and bulky, and played in the Steroid Era, he only got 60% of the vote (75% is needed to get in). Forty percent did not vote for him, mostly based on assumption. And when Ken Griffey Jr. appears on the ballot, he will likely get voted in, based on the assumption that he "did it clean". I'm not saying Ken Griffey Jr. took PEDs. All I'm saying is that we cannot know for sure. Steroids were so pervasive during this era, it's nearly pointless to try to figure out who did what. Remember, it's not just the big home run hitters -- we got a stark reminder of that just this past year when Melky Cabrera got suspended. Also note that he just got a raise.
As Ray Ratto recently pointed out, it is not your duty, responsibility, or even your right to keep the game "pure". Throughout baseball history, players have played under the rules set by Major League Baseball, not rules set by you. Your job is to cover the sport objectively, and without assumption. Speaking of your job, the entire Steroid Era was a gigantic swing-and-a-miss on the part of the baseball media. More accurately I should say you were caught looking on a fastball right down the middle. I'm not saying responsibility for PED use lies with the media, but this was going on right under your noses. You are the ones with the everyday access. You are the ones who had relationships with players, coaches, GMs, and owners. You are the ones with the jobs to uncover the truth and inform the public on what's happening in the sport. So where were you with your moral objections in 1998? And now you wish to sweep this entire era of baseball under the rug as if it never happened.
Should we do the same for the pre-1945 racially segregated era? Think about it -- for every one of our heroes from that era, there is another equally legendary African-American ballplayer we don't even know about. So maybe no one from that era should get in the Hall of Fame. We don't know how Babe Ruth would have done if he had to face pitchers like Satchel Paige. Just like we don't know how Willie Mays would have done if he faced Pedro Martinez. Baseball is a game of eras. The best we can do is compare players to their peers. In a world where not everything can be known, due process--based on facts--is all we have.
And I ask you this: how confident are you that the Hall is not already sullied with a steroid user? Along with his power bat, Ricky Henderson made his money stealing bases during a time when sprinters were not exactly known for their clean urine. Nolan Ryan shared a clubhouse with Jose Canseco, Juan Gonzalez, and Rafael Palmiero; and he relied on a dominating fastball well into his 40's. The only other pitcher to dominate on the strength of a fastball at that advanced age? Roger Clemens. Again, I'm not saying these guys took PEDs (the lack of evidence would make that accusation stupid). I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that we don't know if they did or not, and that anecdotal evidence can be applied to anyone. What we do know is that these guys played well above their competition, and they deserve to be recognized for it, even if it's noted that they played in an era where some players had an edge over others. To doll out that recognition based on hunches and incomplete evidence is simply unprofessional.
When you get your ballot next year, acknowledge the fact that you are not some mythical Guardian of the Game (another Ratto phrase). Take your arrogance down one notch and admit that neither you nor anyone can know who took performance-enhancing drugs, and how much it may have helped those who did. Take a dose of reality and realize that the people you are crusading against never broke any rules of the game. Most importantly, stop denying baseball fans the history museum they deserve.
Sincerely,
Mike Meade
P.S. Let's also remember that the door was blown open on the Steroids Era by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams in their book, "Game of Shadows". A lot of the accusations in that book are based on leaked grand jury testimony. That's right: illegally obtained materials that enhanced the performance of these writers.
No comments:
Post a Comment