The Fourteenth Time is Right

When the Monroe Doctrine was resuscitated from its flatline status last year after a brief 16 year break, I harped on the morons in baseball’s fan-base that voiced their opinions on ESPN.com for Hall of Fame selection.

We now come full circle with the morons that actually do the voting. Just before this year’s election results were made public, the Tribune dedicated a page to their writers that had a vote for The Hall. While you could argue with their picks (Fred Mitchell voting for Tommy John; Dan McGrath voting for Alan Trammell; Phil Hersh voting for Don Mattingly;) at least these guys had a logic for their ballot. Then we come to Mark Gonzales. He voted only for Rich Gossage and Jim Rice. OK, fair enough. Personally I think Dawson should have been voted for as well, but that’s my opinion. The problem I have is with the article that Gonzales wrote explaining his selection.

“Someday, Tim Raines may be voted into the Hall of Fame. But not this year, at least not on this ballot. . . . I’m grateful I’ll have more chances to vote for Raines in the future. But after three days of crunching numbers and weighing other considerations, I wasn’t ready to vote for Raines – yet.”

What sense does this make? I can understand the person that won’t vote for a player and then over the years has his mind changed by further number crunching or insightful discourse with his colleagues. But Gonzales freely admits that he most likely will end up voting for Raines, but just can’t do it on this ballot. Why? He didn’t exceed his limit. He only voted for two guys.

This gets to the age old argument of how a guy can be Hall worthy after being eligible for nine years (Gossage, et al.) How did Gossage become better 14 years after he retired or how was he somehow worse only seven years after he retired? Either a player is worthy of the Hall of Fame or he isn’t. I suppose if the rules were changed and the player was only eligible for one ballot, there wouldn’t be as much drama each year. Baseball is steeped in tradition and one of those traditions is each year seeing if a player has risen up the percentage ladder to the magic 75% that grants him immortality. If you go to the Hall of Fame’s website you can see the election results of every election. In a sense it’s fascinating to see who made it and who didn’t each year and to see the progression of the eventual electees.

But from a practical standpoint you have to wonder why it is important to keep a player eligible to 15 years. That just contributes to the problem of the writers being allowed to not vote for a guy who is worthy. “I won’t vote for him this year because I can vote for him anytime over the next fourteen years.”

As with anything in life, it is better to talk about the solution than complain about the problem. I don’t see a clear cut solution. There has been talk that the fans should have a say. Dear god, please don’t. The All-Star game is already enough of a popularity contest.

There has been talk that select Baseball People should only vote (guys like Ernie Harwell, Bob Costas, etc. Gentlemen that actually watch the game and know who the great players are.) I don’t mind this too much, but I would hate to see Costas or any other individual turn into Joe Morgan (former Red/Astro/Phillie/A) and not vote for anyone.

Barring a major change in who casts votes, I think a step in the right direction is that anyone who doesn’t return their ballot or returns their ballot empty should lose their voting rights.

In a way baseball has continued the success ratio. You can bat ten times and reach base safely three times for a .300 batting average and be considered an All-Star. You can also vote ten times for the Hall of Fame, have logic or a certain rationale in your voting and logic three times and still be viewed as enough of a Baseball Know It All that you are allowed to have control over the history of baseball.