And Sportswriters Wonder Why They Get A Bad Rap
Listed in: MediaA sportswriter from Chicago sent in a blank Baseball Hall of Fame ballot, ensuring that Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, Jr., will not be inducted unanimously.
I can't take this guy seriously. If he's so pissed off at the system, why didn't he abstain from voting and announce that to his audience? Instead, he took the route of pettiness to express his self-righteous indignation. His beliefs seem to dictate that he refuse to vote, period, not that he refuse to vote for obviously deserving candidates that played at the same time as proven cheaters.
Comments
Actually David, I disagree. This makes more sense than scapegoating a few players. Personally, I wouldn't bother with boycotting any player, but if you do want to make a statement about the era, then the right way to do it is to boycott everyone who played in the era.
It doesn't matter that you don't think Gywnn or Ripken used PEDs. There is no way to know, so you don't vote for anyone. It's much better than the Scott Millers of the world who are attempting to raise themselves to the rank of "moral gatekeepters" by keeping Bonds and McGwire out of Cooperstown.
Posted by: Ben Valentine | January 7, 2007 10:59 PM
I'm not saying he should have voted for someone. I'm saying he should have boycotted the process entirely if that's how he feels and that he shouldn't have even sent in a ballot.
Posted by: David Arnott | January 8, 2007 1:50 PM
But if he boycotts, then someone else replaces him who may not share the same message. It's like if you don't approve of a vote in Washington you don't resign your seat in Congress. For him to send a real message, that he doesn't feel anyone from the era should have gotten in, then he has to send in a blank ballot.
Again, I don't agree with it, but I think it's better than scapegoating one or two players.
Posted by: Ben Valentine | January 8, 2007 3:13 PM
I think the analogy is not that someone disagrees with particular legislation (individual players), but that someone disagrees that the US as a whole is still a legitimate country (he's refusing to vote for ANYONE from the "Steroid Era"). Should that person still hold a seat in Congress? No.
Posted by: David Arnott | January 8, 2007 7:27 PM
I'd say I have to agree with Ben, but he's basically using my line of reasoning (so really, he's agreeing with me).
The (sad) truth is that we can't be 100% certain that ANYONE from the "Steroid Era" is clean. Just because Gwynn and Ripken were supposedly great guys and don't fit the stereotype of PED users doesn't equal proof that they didn't use...David, as you're fond of pointing out, absence of proof does not equal proof of absence.
My comment to Ben was that if a voter really wanted to take a stand, they'd declare that they're unwilling to vote for any player who played during the "Steroid Era." Sure, it probably unfairly excludes guys who were clean, but it's at least consistent in its treatment of players from that era. You can keep out McGwire and Bonds with a (fairly) clean conscience because you're not trying to guess who used and who didn't.
Plus, if a number of voters took up the cause it might actually lead to some changes. The Hall of Fame is both a great honor that players crave and a great marketing tool for their post-playing days. Take it away, and they might think twice about using.
Or, if you don't want to tarnish players who had only the tail end (or beginning, I guess) of their careers fall in the "Steroid Era," then just act as if those years never happened.
Furthermore, Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken were very good players, and deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. But both are vastly overrated players, and if the standard has been set that guys like Tom Seaver don't deserve 100% of the vote, than Gwynn and Ripken have nothing to complain about.
Posted by: Zach Geballe | January 9, 2007 1:06 AM