Today, Larkin received the call he has been waiting his entire career for, as he will be the newest member elected to the Baseball Hall Of Fame this summer. Do I feel Larkin is a deserving candidate? I'll get to that in a minute. In the meantime, I just can't help but point out how completely hollow this is because there's this GIANT PED Elephant in the room, and he's taking a dump in Walter Johnson's hat.
Let's get some obvious stuff out of the way. The Baseball Hall Of Fame is the equivalent of Penn State football (albeit a less extreme example): The more you find out about Penn State Football, the more you become sickened by it, and want nothing to do with it. The same methodology holds true for the Baseball Hall Of Fame.
The Hall Of Fame's location itself is based on a LIE. The Hall claims that Abner Doubleday invented the game in a pastoral setting in Cooperstown, New York in 1839, and goes so far as to showcase the baseball Doubleday purportedly used, in an exhibit (I have seen it). The Doubleday Myth has been debunked dozens of times, yet Bud Selig and Hawk Harrelson still believe Abner invented the game.
So while the Hall's very existence is enough of a reminder that the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it, I've learned more history about the Hall of Fame itself as I've gotten older, and I've realized it's little more than a tourist attraction. Obviously, there are many who disagree with me on the significance of the Hall. They view it as Baseball Mecca, and election into it is the ultimate measure of baseball greatness. Whatever. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Back to the original question, do I think Larkin is worthy of election? I do, but I hesitate in thinking that because of a few different reasons. It's not so much that Alan Trammell is Larkin's complete statistical doppelganger, yet Trammell received a paltry 36% of the vote. It's not so much that Larkin never led the league in....any...statistical category...ever. As a matter of fact, my hesitation has very little do with Larkin himself. My hesitation mainly has to do with who ISN'T getting elected along with Barry.
Larkin was elected today, but a guy who has 569 career home runs was not (Rafael Palmeiro). Another former player with 583 career home runs was also not elected (Mark McGwire). Same goes with another player with a career .948 OPS and 449 home runs (Jeff Bagwell). Did I mention a lifetime .313 hitter, .965 OPS, with 383 home runs also wasn't elected either (Larry Walker)? All of these eligible players are being denied entry, yet Major League Baseball along with the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) are whistling past the graveyard when it comes to addressing why.
The irony of course, is that 365 days from now there will be even bigger and uglier graves to whistle past, in the form of Barry Bonds, Mike Piazza, Sammy Sosa, and Roger Clemens. There is no question that none of those aforementioned players will be elected on the first ballot, yet there will be no overt reason given as to why they will be denied. It will be sort of hinted at, and strongly implied, but never expressly stated by anyone on the record.
What further complicates the matter, is that the BBWAA has been given a mandate by the Hall Of Fame itself, that there MUST be at least one player elected every year. Other than Curt Schilling, and maybe Tim Raines and/or Craig Biggio, there won't be many names for the BBWAA to choose from if this pattern of election continues.
Which brings me back to my original feelings about Larkin's election. While Barry is a deserving candidate, his election is cheapened by the inaction and silence by both the BBWAA and the Hall Of Fame when it comes to decreeing/classifying PED Use, Admission, and/or Suspicion as it relates to Rule 5 - otherwise known as The Character Clause.
I am now calling on the BBWAA and the Hall Of Fame itself to remove the "Minimum 1 player election per year" mandate. I am also calling for a suspension of voting until PED use, suspicion, and/or admission is determined to violate Rule 5 and is documented on record as such. If that takes one year, ten years, or fifty years, so be it. Just as long as you take the "did he or didn't he" guess-work away from the voters.
I'm quite certain none of my wishes will happen. Still, I feel stridently this must be done before this gets worse. That is exactly why it won't be done however, because this is baseball after all.
Baseball's history is not anticipatory, but rather it is a history of being stubbornly deliberate. Whether it's been issues of racial equality, free agency, revenue sharing, or PED'S, baseball has always been dragging their feet, rather than being ahead of the curve.
The time to change that behavior is now, otherwise this will be yet another error in the handling of The Steroid Era.
No comments:
Post a Comment