Sanctimonious nonsense from Hall of Fame voters

Source

With all the discussion and controversy surrounding the Hall of Fame voting this year, I'd like to propose a new rule: any BBWAA members who were covering the game from the late 1980s to the early 2000s who didn't make a fuss about rampant steroid use while they were witnessing it in clubhouses across the game are no longer allowed to make a fuss about it in their Hall of Fame voting rationale.

I said the same thing this time last year, but it is unbelievable to me that writers who were complicit in the longevity of the Steroid Era through their silence are so incredibly sanctimonious about their votes now that those players are appearing on the ballot.

There's a lot of self-satisfied talk about how the Hall isn't just an honor for players who were the best on the field, but a place for those who were also the most moral and sportsmanlike. It's an admirable wish, but if you're seriously a baseball writer who thinks a violent and racist (albeit incredibly talented) player like Ty Cobb represents the moral and sportsmanlike, even in the context of his era, you should probably take a refresher course in basic baseball history.

Of course, Ty Cobb is an extreme example, but if he was "moral and sportsmanlike" enough to be revered and remembered, who are the BBWAA members to say that players they personally suspect of drug use, or worse, those who just had the misfortune of playing during that time, are unworthy?

It's ridiculous. I don't need baseball writers to teach me about morality, thanks all the same. I want to see the best of the era in the Hall of Fame, and if that includes PED users (and it most certainly does), so be it. Why should some players get the benefit of the doubt, while some get tainted by the brush of their peers?

If a player dominated during his era, if his numbers set him apart from the rest, if he faced the best of his time and beat them, he belongs in the Hall of Fame. Fans understand the nuance of the era, so maybe the BBWAA voters can save the moralizing lectures for their children.

The Complicity of Bud Selig

Photo source

However you feel about the Alex Rodriguez debacle, you have to agree that it makes for excellent baseball television. Personally, I'm quite enjoying the circus - schadenfreude has always been one of my strong suits.

When A*Rod takes the field in Chicago, he'll doubtless face a loud chorus of boos and jeers. After talking to a few Yankees fans, I don't think his reception would be much better at home in the Bronx; Rodriguez has a seriously dwindling list of supporters.

But to focus on Alex Rodriguez at the expense of all the other storylines surrounding the suspensions would be a mistake. Sure, A*Rod's return is somehow both arrogant and brave, and certainly makes for great drama - but there's so much more to talk about.

In light of Bud Selig's singleminded prosecution of Rodriguez and his fellow PED users (which, of course, is warranted given their alleged indiscretions), we should not lose sight of the fact that it was Selig and his power structure who let the steroid era go unchecked for so long.

Selig took the reins at MLB in 1998, when the game was still trying to recover from the strike and cancelled World Series in 1994. So when the home runs started flying out of (publicly funded) stadiums and fans started flocking back in, he looked the other way.

In his defense, Selig was dealing with an at-times uncooperative Player's Union, but he didn't manage to get steroid testing into the game for six years. Selig ignored the problem for more than half a decade. Six years of rampant PED use across the game created a culture of steroids in cities everywhere - and people like Alex Rodriguez realized that the benefits outweighed the risk.

The wide use of performance enhancing drugs is a black eye to the game of baseball, but the sport will recover - just like it has recovered from scandals in gambling, amphetamines, and greed. The reputations of Alex Rodriguez and Bud Selig, however, may be beyond recovery.