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.
Recent Comments