BWAA Sabatage

So I was going to write this like right after the Hall of Fame voting, but life and work happens. But here I am. Time for another one of my many anti-BWAA blogs. This one I'm going to single out Brewer's Beat Writer Tom Haudricourt. Now I should be clear, I read Haudricourt all the time and generally speaking respect his work greatly. There is a school of Brewer's fans who don't like him one bit or say he is not critical/objective of the Brewers or whatever else, I don't really see that to be the case. But this year when Tom posted his Hall of Fame ballot and his reasoning for it, I had to call him out on the failed logic that he bought into his considerations.

To read Haudricourt's full explanation of his ballot, click here.

Let me sum up the only part that matters: he has joined the movement to leave Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens off of the ballot. Now to his credit it was not because he was not willing to vote for them due to suspicions of PED use, but he let those who do essentially talk him into it. And the reasoning for leaving them off became worse.

I planned to go with Bonds and Clemens and consider my task done but I began reading commentaries and having discussions with respected baseball writers who convinced me that would be folly.

Bonds (34.7%) and Clemens (35.4%) have gained no traction toward election in their years on the ballot and therefore are likely never to be elected. Thus, I was convinced those were wasted votes that should go to others I think are worthy of election.

The reasoning was, because they didn't have enough votes, I wasn't going to vote for them. It became literally a popularity contest! Now to give him a little more benefit of the doubt, the ballot is over-crowded and it wasn't like he only voted for 8 players. But I still have serious issue with this line of reasoning. Here's especially why:

Bonds and Clemens actually HAVE gained ground. This year Bonds came in at 36.8% and Clemens at 37.5%, both of which are an increase from the previous year (and a slight increase from 2 years ago).

Now some will note that they are still a long ways away from the necessary votes to receive induction into the Hall. But we should consider that they have many years to make up for that, IF writers will continue to vote for them. This is the other important thing to note about that increase: they increased their votes even though they lost some. Well, they lost at least one, but presumably Tom H is not the only one who has bought into this line of thinking since he said it came from commentaries and discussions it is safe to say this rationale is being spread among the BWAA. And that is precisely what is so bad about it. It is outright sabotage!

Now I know that sounds extreme. But say Haudricourt looks next year and says the same thing: They haven't gained ground (or maybe it'll be "they haven't gained significant ground" since not gaining any ground would be false). Well it's self-fulfilled prophecy! They didn't gain more ground because writers like him stopped voting thinking they won't gain more ground. It's a circular and unfair logic and what's worse is it hides just how untrue it is. When people like Haudricourt stop voting for someone NOT because they don't think that person is Hall-worthy but because they think they aren't gaining ground, that makes it harder for them to do just that which is causing him to no longer vote for them.

How many writers did not vote for Bonds and Clemens not because of PEDs, not because they didn't think their stats deserved it, but because they didn't think their vote would make a difference? It begs the question, had they all voted would Bond's and Clemens have received 40% votes?

The good news was we had four guys elected into the Hall this year, so hopefully as the ballots get unclogged, more writers finally come to their senses. There is no reason the BWAA should be asking for 12-name ballots. At some point the influx should slow enough. We can only hope.

Congrats to Martinez, Biggio, Johnson, and Smoltz by the way on their well-earned inductions! It is insane to think now how for a significant time the Braves had three hall of famers on their pitching staff. I'm not sure if that has ever happened before, but man is that insane. Especially considering they all did this during one of if not the greatest offensive era of Major League Baseball. Is it any surprise they had won a record 14 straight division titles?