VINDICTIVENESS, ARROGANCE CONTINUE TO FUEL BASEBALL WRITERS

      Once again the baseball writers of America (BBWAA) have shown their true colours.  Once per year these writers have an opportunity to enshrine former greats into the hall of fame and once per year they allow personal animosities and narrow thinking to cloud their judgements.  How else to explain only one inductee in a year when there really wasn’t much to choose between for our five former superstars—all deserving a nod into Cooperstown. 

      Do these writers hold grudges?  They most certainly do—and are actually quite enthusiastic about doing so.  They purposely make deserving candidates turn on the spit, year after year—vengeance for being mistreated by these players when they were in their prime.  There are a multitude of stories out there—made public by these tobacco-chewing writers—whereby the athlete is made to suffer for their previous sins.  It is an opportunity for these scribes to get even and they grab hold of that chance with lust and with purpose.  The members of the media seem inclined to view published reports of antipathy to be few and far between, and the writers who do hold grudges say they are not influenced by their personal feelings when casting their ballot.  They also may believe that the hall-of-fame, if they ever got wind of such behaviour would expose the ne’er-do-wells and kick them off the committee.  This, of course, is poppycock.  There is far too much politicking going on for something as altruistic as that to take place. 

      For those media members who do not have a personal agenda—they have a personal opinion gathered simply by looking at statistics.  There is no uniformity of opinion or vote.  Some are voted in because they dominated the game for a short span of time—Sandy Koufax—even if they didn’t play long enough o accumulate sufficient career numbers.  Others are voted in simply because those lifetime numbers are too strong to pass up--Phil Niekro.  This year’s candidates had a combination of both but only one player was deemed impressive enough to warrant inclusion.  The BBWAA hold this hall-of-fame ballot as close to their heart as the members of Augusta hold membership to their club.  Nobody, outside of the members, is privy to the criteria. 

      This year Bruce Sutter, after thirteen years on the ballot, finally got the nod.  It is blatantly obvious that Sutter earned the nomination simply because this year there weren’t any big names eligible for the first time.  Next year, for all the other marginal Sutter-types, will be a lost year as Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. will be at the forefront and steroid-boy Mark McGwire will be on the backburner.  So for Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven, Rich Gossage, Lee Smith and Jack Morris they will have to wait two more years for another kick at the can.  The writers had an opportunity to induct at least two more of these deserving candidates this year, but too many voters stubbornly maintained their view that these candidates were not worthy—for one reason or another.

      Are they worthy?  What about Blyleven?  This is the ninth time Blyleven has been passed over, and the explanation for his continued failure is that he was never a dominant pitcher, never won a Cy Young Award, and did not reach the benchmark 300 victory plateau.   However he did win 287 games, 25th on the all-time list, is fifth in career strikeouts with 3,701, ninth in games started with 685, and ninth with 60 shutouts.   The 54-year-old is the only eligible pitcher among the top 13 in strikeouts not in the Hall. He is one of only two pitchers in the top 20 in games pitched not inducted. Of the top 20 pitchers in shutouts, only Blyleven is not in. Blyleven is also currently 13th all-time in innings pitched with 4,970, and every pitcher ahead of him is a Hall of Famer, along with many who are behind him.  Go ahead writers—explain how you can ignore those numbers?

      Or how about Andre Dawson?  He is one of only four players in history to record 300 home runs and 300 stolen bases.  He was an MVP, a eight-time gold glove winner, was an all-star eight times, finished with 438 home runs and nearly 1600 RBI’s and played most of his career with burned out knees.  Dawson was easily considered one of the best players in the game during his prime.

      How about Goose Gossage?  How does Sutter get in and not Gossage?  Their careers are remarkably similar.  Gossage pitched nine more years and won many more games but they both saved 300, both had E.R.A.’s at or just under 3.00 for their careers, and each accumulated nearly a strikeout per inning.  Sutter had five 100-inning seasons as a reliever while Gossage had four.  Sutter and Gossage are intertwined as men who were at the beginning of the new era of closers.  While Sutter introduced a new pitch—the split-fingered fastball—Gossage was successful through power and intimidation. 

      Jim Rice continues to face his demons with regard to the hall-of-fame.  According to the writers Rice didn’t have a long enough career—even though Sutter only played 12 years.  Rice was among the game’s feared hitters for more than a decade and finished just short of 400 home runs and 1500 RBI’s.  Morris was called the best right-hander in the game during the decade of the eighties, was a four-time World Champion and was easily one the big game pitchers of his time.  Smith holds the all-time record with 478 saves and was a dominant closer for more than a dozen years.

      By what criteria do the writers vote?  It can’t be short-term domination—which is the reason Sutter was voted in since that would be a reason to induct Rice.  It can’t be lifetime statistics because Smith had 178 more saves during his career than Sutter.  It can’t be strictly innovation or a contribution to the game because there are far more worthy candidates who have never even been close to induction.  So, what are the criteria?

      I don’t think even the writers can answer that question.