Gettin’ psyched about Hall of Fame voting? I honestly can say that this is the first time I’ve ever gotten excited about it. Then again, this is the first time Tony Gwynn has been eligible.
Tim Sullivan talks about HOF voting history in Sunday’s San Diego Union-Tribune, focusing on the fact that there never has been a unanimous selection. Apparently some writers actually take pride in this. I suppose not voting for, say, Willie Mays is one way to get yourself noticed.
Another way is to turn in a blank ballot, which is what Paul Ladewski of Chicago’s Daily Southtown did this year. His reason for doing so is fascinating:
I refuse to vote for any veteran who played in that period, even if he was not a suspected (steroid) user. In my opinion, any such player had an obligation to blow the whistle in the best interests of the game, even if he did it anonymously. I understand this is an unusually hard-line approach, but I believe it’s my responsibility to uphold the Hall of Fame standards in whatever way necessary.
My initial reaction was one of shock, wondering what the heck this guy is trying to prove by not voting for Gwynn and Cal Ripken. The more I thought about it, however, the more I came to respect Ladewski’s stance. His is the perfect response to anyone who has complained that a select few are being punished for an entire generation’s legacy, and I respect the guy for voting his conscience and trying to uphold standards.
His will not be a popular stance, but the rules for election to the Hall of Fame do include a line that reads, “Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.” If you think an entire generation lacked integrity, then don’t vote for anyone. That’s exactly what Ladewski has done, and while this might be a bit extreme for some tastes, it makes a lot more sense than using one’s voting privilege “as a forum for political protests, petty grievances and personal payback.”
Gwynn, as you would expect, is gracious in his assessment of Ladewski’s decision:
I want him to vote his conscience. I want him to vote how he feels. I don’t want anybody trying to sing my praises. If he feels like I’m worthy enough, then hey. … If he doesn’t, for whatever reason, then don’t.
Of course, in saying this, Gwynn has given us all a perfect reminder of why he belongs in the Hall of Fame. Well, that and the 3141 hits.
More Gwynn HOF Coverage:
- Gwynn known for his hitting exploits, but contributions to the game go beyond batting titles and 3,000 hits (North County Times, Shaun O’Neill)
- Team guys (SDUT, Nick Canepa)
- How our writers voted (MLB.com)
- Here come the fat jokes (Gaslamp Ball, jbox)
- There will be no unanimous choices in the HOF voting Tuesday (The Griddle, Bob Timmermann)
- ‘Dew’ tell: Ripken, Gwynn votes won’t be unanimous (Daily Southtown, Ladewski). His rebuttal is solid up to where he invokes the historical absence of unanimous voting as justification for continuing this practice.
25 Comments
I don’t have a problem w/ his stance, but maybe that’s influenced by the fact that TG is not falling one vote shy of the HAll. If that were the case, I would be outraged, but probably not just against this guy, but against any other voter not putting him on their ballot.
Besides the “whistleblower” aspect to this, there’s also the “can’t trust the numbers” aspect. Again, not relevant to Gwynn and Ripken, but certainly relevant to almost every other player potentially up for election, such as the Raffy Palmeiro’s of the world. Palmeiro has no shot once he’s eligible, following the positive test, but his candidacy would have been controversial without that given the lukewarm feeling about his numbers and how they were accumulated. He is perhaps the best example of how inflated the stats have gotten…not many folks would think of him as one of the most outstanding ball players in the history of the game, which should be the criteria for getting in, yet he has some of the best counting stat totals ever across several categories.
Oh, and count me as “extremely nervous” about the playoff matchup for the Bolts w/ Belichek’s Patriots. Would much rather be hosting the Colts, no doubt about it. Still, could be a great “torch-passing” game, if we play like we’re capable of and win.
I don’t mind a voter not voting for a particular player. But Ladewski was COVERING the game during the steroid era. He was a REPORTER. If anybody was supposed to blow the lid off a situation that was highly suspicious as early as the Canseco-era Oakland A’s, it’s a reporter.
He and many other writers whose careers spanned the Steroid Era are nothing but cowards, passing all the blame to the players when a fair share should be heaped onto the press and the owners, even the fans. We didn’t hear any outraged cries from Bud Selig when the enhanced McGwire and Sosa were chasing Maris in 98, because every game was a sell-out. The reporters see the players 200 days a year, counting spring training. There was ample evidence to start digging deeper, from Big Mac’s striated jaw muscles to Caminiti’s mid-96 development of a bull neck to the massive hamstrings hanging off Sosa’s thighs.
In response to #1, something that still hasn’t gotten much press is the use of steroids (and other substances) by pitchers. Most people only look at the huge HR totals and the behemoths in the batter’s box. The testing policy has caught a proportionate number of pitchers, too. I’m less inclined to punish the hitters if a similar slice of the pitching community added 2 mph to their fastballs through the needle.
Good news for procrastinators … there’s a place in Oneonta with rooms available for HOF Induction weekend!
The bad part is that it’s a college dorm room … plain & simple … 2 twin beds (not much more, ex. no phone or internet) … what a cool idea … well, cool’s probably not the best choice of words, as there’s no A/C in the rooms … so it could get ugly!
I found info about this here … http://www.cooperstownchamber.org/secondary/Induction2007Accommodations.htm … and I just called the guy (Graig Eichler) … and he was very helpful … he’s sent me an email application … and he’s taking reservations on a first-come-first-served basis … and he’s got plenty of rooms available … he thinks he’ll have 200 rooms available and I’m about #15 that he’s sent application forms to. The web page mentions $120 per night … but there’s an $80/night option (if you bring your own “linens”). The dorm will be open for 4 nights … Friday 7/27 thru Monday 7/30 … you can stay 1, 2, 3 or 4 nights …
I’ll mail the application to GY and perhaps he can post a link to it.
I think Ladewski is an asshole and a gadfly. He’s the only voter anybody is talking about and enjoying the spotight at a cost TG, the HF and fans. Hald the UT article is not about TG, but about his damned blank ballot. Completely agree with 3, dude completely ignores his own culpability in the matter. He was a reporter during that era, why didn’t he put down his pressbox hoggy and diet soda and do some damned investigative reporting? If a HOF voter votes no on TG because he didn’t hit enough homers (really the only reason you could), that’s fine, thats his/her criteria. But this asshat punishing all of baseball and all TG fans to make his untenuable point is the hieght of sanctimonious idiotry. The guys a self rightious, narrissistic, contrarian jerk in my mind. Probably has hired a publicist and agent.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gadfly … good word!
RE #2: The Pats are a great team, and a tough first round opponent, but I actually think we match up well against teams that essentially play offense close to the line of scrimmage (they do not have the receivers to stretch the field) with our front 7. I thought the Jets actually wore down the DLine of the Pats yesterday, but then the game got out of hand so they couldn’t run anymore. The key will be Gates or Parker over the middle on play action to force their great LBs to respect the pass and give LT some lanes.
re 7 – I think the key is Rivers. Do we get Good Philip or Bad Philip? Belichek will come up with a way to try to force the Bad Philip to come out, we’ll just have to see if it works
Here’s what Keith Law said (with question) about the Chicago writer in a chat that’s still going.
Bill (Baltimore): Paul Ledewski, writer, Chicago Southside plays the guilt, at least by association card with Ripken and Gwynn, and submitted a blank ballot. In his own words, “In fact, from the contact I’ve had with Gwynn and Ripken over the years, I like them as players and people. And, no, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Gwynn and Ripken helped deprive Chicago of two World Series appearances. In consecutive years, no less. But tell me, except for the players themselves, who can say what they put into their bodies over the years with any degree of certainty? ” In short, he says, “At this point, I don’t have nearly enough information to make a value judgment of this magnitude. In particular, that concerns any player in the Steroids Era, which I consider to be the 1993-2004 period, give or a take a season. ” Can someone argue for me that he should still be in the process at all, since he cannot make an informed decision about it? Another year without a unanimous candidate.
SportsNation Keith Law: (1:47 PM ET ) I did see that – the two-word phrase for it starts with “attention” and ends with a synonym for a lady of the evening. “Look at me! I’m not voting for these guys because I’m thinking of the children! I’m moral and righteous!” No, you’re not, you’re a twit with a podium. No one appointed you the moral guardian of the Hall of Fame. If you can’t be bothered to make the distinction between clean, talented players like Ripken and Gwynn and players under suspicion like McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, etc., just give up your ballot. The BBWAA could address this, at least temporarily, by not counting blank ballots in the denominator of the “percent of ballots cast” calculation.
Thanks, Stephen. Ledewski took a predictably unpopular stance. I would argue that everyone who has a vote is a moral guardian of the HOF, but that’s just me.
The other interesting point in this is one that TW and PM raised: Shouldn’t he have done something at the time? I don’t have a good answer for that, but I do have a question: Given that he didn’t do anything at the time, and assuming that he has more information now than he did then, would it be better for Ledewski to maintain his earlier position of non-action or to revise it based on what he may have learned during the interim? Is it better to maintain a consistent position in the face of new information, or to correct an earlier error and risk being labeled a hypocrite?
I don’t know.
I break out the “hypocrite” card depending on the tenor of the position-changer. I’d also prefer every MLer to speak under oath before Congress about steroids before I confidently say that one player be refused admission into the Hall based on suspicions.
My complaint is his stand that the players who didn’t speak out then are culpable. If that’s true, then anyone else who knew (or even suspected, which is all some players would have done), was similarly culpable. I don’t buy that Ledewski woke up sometime in 2005 and saw that the average major league player was 25 pounds heavier than he was in 1985. I don’t buy that MLB management didn’t know something was going on and kept quiet for their own reasons.
If he wants to say that players of the Steroid Era aren’t as good as those of earlier generations, fine. It’s a lazy way of handling his responsibilities, but he’s not keeping anybody out with his single vote. Where he’s dead wrong is saying that the players bear sole responsibility for the era. No player blew the whistle, but Ledewski left his own whistle dangling on its chain for years.
#12: Gotcha. Absolutely agree that players do not bear sole responsibility. This is on management and ownership as well, and to a lesser degree, writers and fans. As a group, we all looked the other way.
10 – re: Is it better to maintain a consistent position in the face of new information, or to correct an earlier error and risk being labeled a hypocrite?
Clearly it’s better to learn (ie. get new information) and grow (ie. change based on new information) … but being a hypocrite comes *very* natural to me … I don’t want to be wrong now and I don’t want to have been wrong in the past … which often makes for a pretty distorted view of reality …
Thanks for asking
Geoff you are on baseballmusings today…
And I would much rather learn from my past mistakes and change my mind…that shows growth, not hypocrisy. Very different things.
My 2 Cents on this reporter guy is one who is suffering from arrogance and hypocrisy. No Pat, I am not personally attacking him, simply his silly little stunt. I don’t have a problem wil submitting a blank ballot at times, but we have yet to hear a good reason to keep Gwynn or Ripken out. Other years, there may be no good candidates (Sorry Rice, Goose, Morris, Dawson, etc.) and a blank sheet is in order.
I can’t tell you how excited I am to hear the votes announced…I will be there in July to see Fat Tony get inducted.
Go Chargers, but more importantly, we are only 38 days from Pitchers and Catchers reporting!!!
This whole thing is completely stupid. Ledewski is either one of two things: an attention whore or an idiot. Now I fully understand if he’s the first as that’s good for him personally and the newspaper he works for (not so much for the art of “reporting” but I doubt that exists anymore). But then again, he is a sports reporter so there’s probably a good chance he’s the second.
Now if we assume that he’s neither of the above (and that’s a pretty big assumption) can we decide if his stance even makes any sense? And the answer to that is “of course not.” Mainly because of his choice of dates. Why pick 1993? Does he think the only thing that changed from 1992 (4.1 Runs/Game) to 1993 (4.6 R/G) were that all the hitters started to take steroids? There was nothing else that took place that caused runs to rise about 12% per game? It had nothing to do with expansion, a changing strike zone, better bats, different stadiums or changes to a ball? I guess he thinks that steroids were invented in the off-season of 1992.
My main problem with the whole steroid controversy is that fact that only players in the past 10 years have been tarred with the brush of steroid abuse. If you think that a lot of players now are (or were recently) using them, why not players from the seventies and eighties? Is it because people have asked Hank Aaron, Mike Schmidt, Joe Morgan, Tony Perez, Reggie Jackson, etc. and they said that they all didn’t use them (surprisingly the same thing that today’s players say)? And that’s the real problem with all of this nonsense — we just don’t know who used and who didn’t. And all the writers must (we hope) realize this. And yet for some reason they just ignore it. And again, it seems like they are trying to become part of the story instead of just reporting it.
1: I’d say the “can’t trust the numbers” thing is relevant to everyone because the ball was juiced.
17: That in mind, I don’t think anyone should be kept out of that Hall due to steroid speculation. Even guys that have been suspended for use should still be voted in if their numbers are still there (as they have already been punished and had their ability to put up numbers diminished).
I agree with the above on Ledewski.
The key matchup of the Chargers-Patriots game will be the Chargers O-line versus the Pats’ front seven. Rivers has really struggled when he’s been under pressure, but if he gets time he can pick apart the Rodney Harrison-less secondary. The Patriots in the past have been really good at bringing pressure to disrupt a good passing game (ask the Colts).
19: New England is the third best team the Chargers will have played when it comes to sacking the QB after Baltimore & Buffalo.
TW: Gotta go with you on this. I think your assessment is excellent. Reporters had just as much responsibility as players to report on what was going on. To plead ignorance of what was happening in the face of so many obvious clues is not believeable. And I believe his point in not voting for Gwynn or Ripken is not due to his suspicions of their using, but is due to their culpability in not telling on the players who were.
Well, Mr. Ledewski, that is your job to report on baseball. Taking such a righteous stance now is a bit too late. Where were you when PED use was blowing up? Why weren’t you making a stink then? Because it wasn’t popular and now it is? Seems like a tremendously self-serving position he is taking and not a moral one.
Furthermore, it’s a bit late to become the moral guardian of the HOF when Cobb went in with the first group, to be followed by people like Anson and other durnkards, womanizers, and bigots. Honestly the only people not in on moral grounds are two gamblers. I think it’s a bit disengenuous to claim a moral stance if one honestly looks back at the HOF’s inductees.
CM: I already apologized for misreading your comments. Why are you singling me out?
Sorry Pat…was just making a funny. Did not mean to offend.
I generally agree with TW on this one, at least to the extent that this writer is trying to take some sort of moral stand. It is ridiculous on so many levels.
I also am not surprised that at least one writer has come up with such a ridiculous position. I often forget that a small percentage of people in this country are idiots and/or malicious and/or (include pejorative here). That generally means that a writer or two or ten or twenty is included in that idiot/whatever populace. Look at Me Ladewski has cemented his inclusion in that group.
Since EVERY NEW NOMINEE from this point forward played during the his so called “steroids era”, the only logical thing Ledewski could do is to:
RESIGN HIS HOF VOTE EFFECTIVE TODAY.
If he does that…he is a stand up guy that walks the walk. If he doesnt, he is an HYPOCRITE and and IDIOT that was just trying to make a name for himself.
OK, cool. Without the smiley face I couldn’t tell if you were still perturbed with me about something. Cheers.