I am about to be called an idiot. Often. And, really, I am fine with it.
No other item in North American sports makes the masses go all European soccer hooligan like the baseball Hall-of-Fame vote. Notice the “baseball.” The other three major sports Hall of Fames — and you can throw in the bowling, figure skating and Rock and Roll halls, too — combine to generate near the attention, passion and furor baseball does.
That is why I am so fine with your, um, fervor. It is an honor to vote for something people care so much about, and it is just an occupational hazard now that my ballot will anger about 100 percent of the people who care about such things. Vote for five players someone likes, but not a sixth. Idiot.
Thus, I am fine with no-PED-users-in-Cooperstown crowd yelling at me for voting for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens; the anti-stat crowd yelling at me for voting for Tim Raines; the pro-stats crowd yelling at me for voting for Jack Morris; and the anti-DH crowd yelling at me for voting for Edgar Martinez.
As you can tell, I get screamed at quite a bit by pretty much every entrenched group. If you don’t like it, turn in your ballot. You need thick skin to vote, now more than ever because the Internet and sports talk radio provide forums for pretty much relentless, nasty rebuttal. You won’t get much in the way of tolerant debate. So be it, this is 2013. It is what it is.
Keep this in mind, though: It is tough to get 75 percent of any contingent to agree on anything and that is the percentage for selection needed of the 500-plus writers who vote. And it is tougher now with such entrenched positions pro and con on PEDs and new stats/old stats. That has meant a ballot overflowing with folks you can make a legitimate case for and a maximum of 10 for whom you can cast a vote.
There is no election that makes everybody happy. Just about half the country didn’t want Barack Obama to be president. Can you believe “Ordinary People” beat out “Raging Bull” for the Oscar? So just know that unless you are the only one voting, you probably will not love the results.
And the annual “You’re an idiot” season opened in full Tuesday with the announcement of this year’s Hall ballot, which will include for the first time Greg Maddux, who will get my vote and might challenge Tom Seaver’s all-time 98.4 percent of votes received. Also, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Mike Mussina and Jeff Kent are among the first-timers. I figured I would take you through some thoughts on three players likely to stir controversy. So, gentlemen (and ladies), start your idiots:
1. JACK MORRIS: He received 67.7 percent of the vote last year and this will be his 15th and final time on the ballot. The folks who do statistical metrics hate his candidacy, feeling his career ERA (3.90) and WHIP (1.296) are among his underwhelming stats.
I think there has been retroactive cherry-picking of Morris’ career. In his era, he was valued as an unquestioned ace, a workhorse No. 1, the kind of starter who prided himself on working deep into games, saving bullpens, etc. My friend, Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci, noted last year the righty pitched at least eight innings in 248 starts, which is the most by an AL pitcher in the DH era and represented 52 percent of his starts.
Here is one I note: Sparky Anderson, Tom Kelly and Cito Gaston combined to manage 8,146 regular-season games and each won two World Series. Every time Morris was available to start Game 1, those experienced managers started him. That was six times in seven series. The only time he didn’t was the 1987 ALCS for Anderson’s Tigers. He had thrown nine innings in Game 161 against Toronto to help Detroit clinch at least an AL East tie with the Blue Jays and so wasn’t available until ALCS Game 2.
I guess the sabermetric crowd could know more today about Morris than those three managers knew then, but I am going with the managers.
2. MARK McGWIRE: He has never even been named on one-quarter of the ballots and might never be. So why do I bring him up? To show how I think about voting in regard to those associated with illegal performance enhancers.
PEDs were used before 1995, but as someone who covered the game, it felt like the floodgates broke open after the labor stoppage ended and play resumed in ’95. As if there were a collective, “the hell with this, if he is doing it, I am going to do it” groupthink. Dumpy bodies became more extinct and — anecdotally — a few players told me later there was a greater sophistication when it came to regimens and specific types of drugs.
McGwire had 4,006 plate appearances before 1995 and 3,654 after. He was a very good player in that first half, which he ended at age 30. He had an .869 OPS and a 147 OPS-plus (which accounts for league and ballparks), which is the same as Hall of Famers Willie McCovey, Mike Schmidt and Willie Stargell. But, remember, he should have been in his decline phase at that point. His numbers should have sagged.
Instead, from 1995 on, he had an OPS-plus of 183. The only players who bettered that in their careers were Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. So at a point he should have been fading, McGwire produced like the two greatest hitters in history.
This is my way of saying, I believe, you must factor in what impact steroids had on a career. I accept why folks don’t like this because it really is educated guesswork. But I simply can’t let them all in — or else I have to ignore this problem with McGwire’s candidacy and others — or leave them all out, which I think is too much of a blanket statement.
3. MIKE MUSSINA: He is a tough call. He does not have what old-stats devotees want to see. After all, there is just one 20-win season and 270 wins (not 300) for his career.
If you like Mussina here is the case: We have learned never to say never about anyone when it comes to PED use in this era. But Mussina might rank No. 1 on my “Don’t Suspect” list. So he excelled (nine top-six Cy Young finishes) as a likely clean player, in a dirty era, playing exclusively in the AL East, which was probably the fiercest offensively.