There are two major storylines coming out of the election of Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn to the MLB Hall of Fame yesterday. The first has to deal with the issue of a unanimous election. Ripken received the 3rd highest vote percentage of anyone elected to the hall, which raises the important question - who the hell didn't vote for Cal Ripken Jr.? Two voters submitted blank protest ballots, and I'll deal with that in a minute. But there were some who did not vote for Ripken and Gwynn because they don't think anyone should be unanimous. The argument here is that Ruth, Mays, Aaron, etc. were not unanimous, so how could someone else be? These voters pretend that they have to maintain the standard and tradition that was handed down to them. This, unfortunately, is really stupid. Where did some baseball writers in the 1930s get this moral authority from? I'm sure that was a diverse group including women and minorities that could decide for all future baseball fans what the Hall of Fame meant. They probably all got together and decided who wouldn't vote for each member of the first class so no one would get 100% of the vote, intentionally setting that standard that we must respect for the rest of time. Has anyone ever researched why someone didn't vote for Babe Ruth? Maybe he thought baseball players should be in shape, didn't like home runs, didn't like the Yankees, didn't have a stamp to mail in his ballot, thought Ruth looked at his wife funny, or the Babe didn't wave to him in the hallway after 3rd period. There isn't a good reason, so why have we sanctified that decision? There is no ranking system in the Hall for people who were first ballot vs. 6th, or between guys who got 95% and guys who only got 80%. Give me a break! Ripken is deserving or he isn't, and if you don't think he is, you should be turning in that BBWAA card immediately.
The other major issue of course is the steroids question. The two voters who submitted blank ballots may have completely abdicated their responsibility, but at least they were consistent. I don't know if McGwire belongs in the Hall - I think his legacy and impact on the game has yet to be determined, and I think he was a pretty lousy hitter. The best first basemen of his generation were Jeff Bagwell, Rafael Palmeiro, and Frank Thomas. If McGwire wasn't hurt as often as he was in his career, he would probably be in there for me. I have no problem not electing him this year - I think votes can go up as people reconsider a player's career over time. But more important than whether McGwire is being held out this year, perhaps a valuable statement against a guy with nearly 600 home runs, is the ridiculous stuff that is being said about how he will never get in now. People look at the stats and see how if a player starts with 23% of the vote, he almost never gets in...sure, if we are talking about a normal situation. This is anything but! How many of those voters were just sending a message that McGwire doesn't get in on the first ballot? We'll find out next year, and in the meantime, calm the hell down about McGwire and celebrate the careers of Gwynn and Ripken.
