Skip to content

Using their logic, the BBWAA has to keep Tom Glavine out of the Hall of Fame, right?

Jan 11, 2013, 9:51 AM EDT

Tom Glavine

Many Hall of Fame voters have said that everyone who played in the steroid era is under suspicion or, at the very least, share culpability because they did not say or do anything to combat the scourge of PEDs during the 1990s. Specific fingers have been pointed at the player’s union and its leadership for standing silent.

Even the publicly anti-PED Curt Schilling has said that, yes, he is partially culpable on these grounds, and that it justifies his exclusion from the Hall of Fame, at least for now:

“If there was ever a ballot and a year to make a statement about what we didn’t do as players, which is we didn’t actively push to get the game clean, this is it … Perception in our world is absolutely reality. Everybody is linked to it. You either are a suspected user or you’re somebody who didn’t actively do anything to stop it. You’re one or the other if you were a player in this generation. Unfortunately, I fall into the category of one of the players that didn’t do anything to stop it. As a player rep and a member of the association, we had the ability to do it and we looked the other way, just like the media did, just like the ownership did, just like the fans did. And now this is part of the price that we’re paying.”

Against that backdrop, J.C. Bradbury makes an interesting point:


I don’t think that Glavine, who was probably the most visible and active player representative during the steroid era, will have a particularly hard time getting in nor should he. But really, if you’re going to play the “everyone was responsible and the whole era is under suspicion” card, you have to give Glavine a hard time, right?  I mean, no less an authority than Curt Schilling has told you that it’s OK to do it.

Watch next December: I bet there will be Hall of Fame voters who quote Schilling here and submit more blank ballots or, at the very least, unreasonable ones, feeling they now have intellectual cover, such as it is, to punish even more players than they’re currently punishing.

  1. seitz26 - Jan 11, 2013 at 9:57 AM

    So Curt says you’re either one or the other, and “unfortunately” he’s one of the guys who just didn’t rat anyone out. If your only choices are “user” and “enabler”, wouldn’t you be fortunate to fall into the category of enabler? He’s such a weasel. Even the word choice of “I fall into the category…”, as if his only choice were to juice or just not do anything about it. No, Curt, you don’t fall into that category, you willingly put yourself into that category. Nice of him to blame the fans at the end there as well. Good statement, Curt.

    • jeremysgordon - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:45 AM

      There’s also the issue that Schilling’s career takes a huge turn once Roger Clemens questions his “dedication to the game” and he becomes a “workout warrior” to harness his talent…. Weren’t most of the words found out to be code for steroids…

      • lordd99 - Jan 12, 2013 at 4:20 PM

        Jeremy, I have no idea which players took what and when, or what it did. I have noticed, though, that it wasn’t uncommon to find out that the players who did speak out against PED usuage were then discovered to be using PEDs. David Ortiz and Ryan Braun are just two examples. A player speaking out against other players, while trying to present himself as one of the “good guys” and above suspicion is pretty damn low. It may be why most players never did come out and say anything. Maybe most were using, or had experimented, so they just didn’t feel comfortable coming out and saying anything.

        I also remember the Clemens connection with Schillling. Wouldn’t be shocked at all if Schilling juiced. One thing the Mitchell Report showed was pitchers seemed to be juicing at a higher percentage than position players, but they didn’t necessarily show the body changes. I’m pretty agnostic on the whole steriod period. I knew it was going on. We all did. MLB did. The front office types did. The players certainly did. The media. Fans. In that, Schilling was right. An environment of acceptance was created, which ultimately forced more players into at least trying it, so I’m willing to give these guys a pass. Not so with anyone who has failed since 2003.

  2. dcfan4life - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:00 AM

    If Tom Glavine doesnt get in next year it wouldn’t shock me. Biggio, Piazza, Glavine, Smoltz, Tim Raines, and Bagwell i think will all be enshrined, but first ballot hall of famers they all may not be. And thats ok. No one looks down on someone who didn’t get in their first time. As long as they get it. Besides, Greg Maddux is a first ballot hall of famer, so someones getting in next year regardless.

    • Chris Fiorentino - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:08 AM

      Why is Greg Maddux a first ballot hall of famer? Is he 100% clean? Really? How do you know that? If Maddux gets in, then Clemens and Bonds have to get in since they failed the same # of drug tests as Maddux…zero.

      • pmcenroe - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:21 AM


        …wait a mintue.. according to ‘Game of Shadows’ isn’t this pretty much exactly what happened with Bonds?

      • dcfan4life - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:21 AM

        Maddux won 4 Cy Youngs in a row. The most for anyone before Clemens. Posted back to back seasons with an ERA under 1.80 for the first time in 80 years. And more importantly, was never once implicated in anything. Bonds and Clemens both were implicated by multiple sources, and both went to trial for it. They may not have been found guilty of anything, yet, but neither was OJ or Casey Anthony. So yes, Maddux is a first ballot hall of famer no question.

      • El Bravo - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM

        Don’t f@ck with the Maddog. He’ll eat your face off. First ballot demigod.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM

        Bonds and Clemens went to trial for what? Steroids? I don’t think so. Maybe perjury or lackthereof, but not for doing PEDs. Either way, you can keep your head in the sand and think Maddux is 100% clean. I’ll choose to believe that nobody was 100% clean and vote for the best of the best from the steroid era. That includes Bonds, Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Sosa, Biggio, Piazza, Palmiero, Thomas, Griffey Jr. Jeter, A-Rod, McGwire, etc, etc.

      • dcfan4life - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:19 PM

        Both Bonds and Clemens trials were the direct result of a steroid investigation. And the writers opinions are thus, Bonds and Clemends definately cheated, Maddux may not have. Based on his stats and their rationale, he gets in the HOF next year.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 AM

        Bonds and Clemens were involved in a steroid investigation, therefore, they definitely cheated. And Maddux “may have cheated” but he should still be voted into the Hall his first time.

        Wow…that’s seriously as idiotic a rationale as anything said by any of the members of the BBWAA.

      • dcfan4life - Jan 12, 2013 at 7:14 AM

        Wow, reread my comment. Im saying thats actually how the BBWAA thinks. I said “their rationale”. Pay attention to whats being said to you before you respond please. And yes, i agree, that logic is idiotic. But with a squeeky clean background and amazing stats, I promise you the BBWAA votes Maddux in first time, no question.

      • wpjohnson - Jan 12, 2013 at 3:00 PM

        I’ve read a lot of truly stupid posts on MLB,com. However, I want to congratulate Chris Fiorentino. His above post is absolutely and beyond any doubt the dumbest post ever to appear on the internet- let alone Man, he must be dumb.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Jan 12, 2013 at 6:31 PM

        You snuck that into you last comment. Your previous two mentioned nothing about the BBWAA. My apologies for missing “their rationale” in your comment.

        wpjohnson…you can go fuck yourself.

  3. randygnyc - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:02 AM

    IMO, the culpability lies with the players, their union and the owners, in that order. I have no problem punishing the players by excluding them from the HOF.

    • jeremysgordon - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM

      I’ve often wondered why the owners and management don’t take more of the blame for the steroid era.

      The Mitchell Report quotes Theo Epstein as wondering if they should trade for Eric Gagne now that he appears to be off steroids. It also quotes Paul Depodesta as saying the Dodgers need to trade away one of their own players now that he’s off the steroids (before other teams figure it out).

      In both cases the GMs are saying the mass usage of steroids is common knowledge and that management approves of its usage. Why the hell did Mitchell follow that thread and ask for everyone’s notes? Because MLB wanted to scapegoat a few players and sweep the rest of it under the rug…

      • lordd99 - Jan 12, 2013 at 4:39 PM

        You are right; it was common knowledge. The Yankees tried to insert some type of steroid-related language when they signed Jason Giambi, I think along the lines providing protection for them if he physically broke down or was shown to be taking steroids. Obviously, the players’ union would have none of it. Yet it shows the front office of teams were very much aware something was going on, yet they obviously didn’t want to address it head on. It was too profitable.

        MLB, from the executive level to the players, and those supporting the game, including the media and the fans, just didn’t care. Just the opposite. They loved the offense and looked the other way, creating the acceptance and further use of PEDs. It’s why I have a problem with the BBWAA’s retroactive crusade. They were part of this.

  4. barrancefong - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:06 AM

    Regardless of PEDs, Glanvine will probably not get in next year because the voters won’t think he is “special” enough to deserve first ballot status.

    • paperlions - Jan 11, 2013 at 12:38 PM

      Well, he wasn’t as good as Schilling was….so….how “special” was Glavine?

      • wpjohnson - Jan 11, 2013 at 5:21 PM

        You can’t be serious. Glavine’s numbers are H of F. Schilling’s numbers are not. And neither are Morris’s numbers.

      • paperlions - Jan 11, 2013 at 5:45 PM

        Then you aren’t looking at the right numbers. Without using pitcher wins, go find something that says Glavine was better. Good luck.

      • thereisaparty - Jan 11, 2013 at 6:28 PM

        Glavine played on a team that couldn’t stop making the playoffs, which helped him reach an arbitrary milestone. This clearly makes him better than Schilling.

  5. jkcalhoun - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:08 AM

    We are experiencing technical difficulties, and therefore the Hall of Fame is closed until further notice. Thanks for your patience.

  6. nategearhart - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:17 AM

    Heyman just twitted that he “can’t wait” for next year’s ballot, with “all-time greats” Maddux, Glavine, Thomas and Kent. This whole fiasco has nothing to do with messing up the playing field, or integrity, or any of that. This is all about 61 and 755. That’s the only reason most of the BBWAA members are pissed.

    • Jeremy Fox - Jan 11, 2013 at 11:52 AM

      Well, except that the BBWAA is also mad at Clemens, who was a pitcher, and a fair number are mad at guys like Piazza and Bagwell, who not only didn’t break any hallowed records but have no evidence against them at all.

      • nategearhart - Jan 11, 2013 at 12:02 PM

        I made sure to say “most”. Look at who get the lowest vote totals…the confirmed steroid guys get fewer votes than the rumored steroids guys, and of the confirmed, the record-breakers get the fewest of all.

  7. Ducky Medwick - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:18 AM

    Probably more likely that Glavine gets in on “the eye test” or some such nonsense, followed by some truly impressive mental gymnastics to explain the intellectual dishonesty.

  8. The Dangerous Mabry - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:20 AM

    Maddux and Glavine were both on a team with John Rocker, who was an admitted steroid user. If Bagwell is “tainted” by being on a team with Ken Caminiti, then aren’t those guys similarly “tainted” by Rocker?

    If not, why not?

    Plus, here’s exclusive footage of them both bulking up to compete with Mark McGwire, which as we know is the whole storyline behind Barry Bonds’ PED use:

    (Yes, I think all of the PED-related discussion is ridiculous)

    • dcfan4life - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:25 AM

      Man i forgot that commercial, too funny.

    • pmcenroe - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:29 AM

      so we both pretty much post the same thing at the same time lol

      • The Dangerous Mabry - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM

        Yep. I saw that. Sure would love to be able to edit one of them out, but you know…edit function….alas.

    • butchhuskey - Jan 11, 2013 at 12:45 PM

      Maddux and Glavine have surprisingly good comic timing

  9. phisticuffs - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:27 AM

    Craig – this post fell apart in the title. Logic isn’t really high on the list for the BBWAA.

    • ramrene - Jan 11, 2013 at 1:10 PM

      It’s very logical…. suspected of PED’s and you’re not getting in. Break one of the “hallowed” records and you’re never getting in.

      Seems plenty logical.

      • sabatimus - Jan 12, 2013 at 2:35 PM

        I agree, no sarcasm. It IS logical. That doesn’t mean that BBWAA is doing the right thing. That’s open to a variety of opinions. I myself am on the fence about it: I don’t want cheaters in the Hall, but if that’s true I’d have to advocate kicking out Aaron, Mays, and Schmidt (among many others I don’t know about, I’m sure) for taking amphetamines. I also think the banned substances list is idiotic on so many levels, and that people like Clemens and Bonds put up HOF numbers before they juiced, and ALSO that the character clause should be removed.

        In short, the fence I’m on is about as wide as the Polo Grounds was long.

  10. raulduke11 - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:28 AM


  11. philliesblow - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM

    Despite the Jack Morris reference in the link, it’s not really about him. This is a great synopsis about the BBWAA:

    • raysfan1 - Jan 11, 2013 at 10:44 PM

      Don’t know why the thumbs down–that link was pretty funny

  12. Ben - Jan 11, 2013 at 11:04 AM

    Let me preface this by saying I don’t know, or care whether Glavine (or Pedro or Greg Maddux) cheated. But this is the argument I’d present to Lance apologists back in the day.

    1. Never tested positive. Doesn’t mean a damn thing.
    2. It’s possible he’s clean. I don’t know. But the fact is that he was consistently beating the best in the whole world, all of whom tested positive at some point in their careers. Now, it’s possible that Lance Armstrong was such a genetic freak that he could beat a doped to the gills Jan Ullrich, clean. But it’s kind of unlikely, isn’t it that he’d be so incredibly much better based on pure genetics and regular sleep?
    3. If Lance and all his competitors were doped to the gills, it was a level playing field.

    Now, this argument has all sorts of deep flaws, but one that it turns out has been born out by fact. Lance was a rolling bundle of PEDs. It’s pretty damn weird that perhaps the best pitching season in the history of baseball was Pedro’s during the height of the steroid era. Does it mean anything? As far as we know, it doesn’t. As far as we know, he was clean.
    It’s also possible cycling and baseball simply don’t comport. Cycling is a really simply numbers game. It’s the number of watts you can produce, divide by your weight. During the doping era, guy with the 4/1 watts to KG ratio won. It’s pretty obvious how EPO and steroids help with that. It’s not clear how steroids help someone catch up to an Eric Gagne fastball though. It is clear that steroids might help someone throw 101 miles an hour though.
    I think if steroids did anything, they didn’t directly contribute to someone’s bat speed. It won’t make you seem the ball better. But it will let you feel on top of your game for the whole grueling season. I don’t know, but I’d guess that steroids didn’t enhance peak performance so much as allow you to perform at your peak for more of the season than before.

    I’m not sure the level playing field argument holds up though. My heart goes out to all those players or cyclists who could have had successful careers, but didn’t want to subject their bodies to steroids, EPO, testosterone, HGH. It’s ultimately not fair to them.

    • louhudson23 - Jan 11, 2013 at 12:29 PM

      Baseballs flew out of parks because of widespread steroid use and now they, by all indications, are not widely used and voila,the ball isn’t flying out of the little ballparks when hit by highly conditioned modern baseball players. Clearly,when it comes to hitting a baseball,steroids do more than put a player “on top of his game”. While I agree this does not follow the logical benefit pattern for steroid use,the proof is in the record book. McGwire,Sosa,Bonds or Brett Boone….they were more than just fresh for the entire season.Pitchers clearly got more of the expected results,quicker recovery etc….and this was always considered the primary benefit of juicing. A weeks worth of workouts in day…..and the day after and the day after……

      • thereisaparty - Jan 11, 2013 at 12:36 PM

        The ball is flying out of the park at nearly identical rates per contact. The increase in strikeouts (less contact) brings down the number of home runs.

        Changes in offense are more complex than just steroids=home runs.

      • Ben - Jan 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM


        Note: the rate of home runs per contacted ball was higher last year than it was in 1998. It was higher last year than it was during most of the years of the so-called “steroid era”.

      • paperlions - Jan 11, 2013 at 12:45 PM

        Yeah, changes to ball composition didn’t have anything to do with it. Nope, using bouncier and lighter baseball, which were introduced in the middle of 1993 and extra springy rubber core and synthetic fibers that don’t absorb as much water as natural fibers, had nothing at all to do with the fact that over night HR rates increased. Apparently, everyone decided to start using steroids on the same day, in 1993.

    • sabatimus - Jan 12, 2013 at 2:40 PM

      The level playing field argument, I think, works for football but not baseball. Because football is much more of a team sport, where there’s 22 guys on the field all jockeying for position at the same time. In baseball, one man at the plate can change the course of a game with one swing.

  13. chaseutley - Jan 11, 2013 at 11:08 AM

    What was with all of that “Chicks dig the long ball” talk?

    I don’t know about you guys, but it’s pretty clear to me that the Braves led the charge on the entire Steroids Era.

  14. yahmule - Jan 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM

    Glavine was absolutely adamant about not having aggressive testing for PEDs. Since he held a position of relative authority, he is far more culpable than the average player who refused to point fingers, either out of loyalty to fellow players, or fear of retaliation.

  15. thereisaparty - Jan 11, 2013 at 11:23 AM

    Curt Schilling was superior to Glavine by almost any measurement (spare me any talk of pitcher wins), especially when postseason play is included. Why should Glavine go in before him?

    • thereisaparty - Jan 11, 2013 at 12:40 PM

      The thumbs down point to me be wrong. Can someone make a case where Glavine is better than Schilling? Or is it simply that one is an ass who is easier to accuse of steroid usage?

      • paperlions - Jan 11, 2013 at 2:36 PM

        No sure how it is that people don’t realize how good Schilling was….yeah, he was an asshat, but he was also a fantastic pitcher. He has the best K/BB ratio since baseball decreased the number of ball required for a walk to 4 (in 1889) of any pitcher to throw at least 1000 innings.

      • thereisaparty - Jan 11, 2013 at 5:14 PM

        And one of the greatest postseason pitchers of all-time. And that is not hyperbole, like when such praise is used to describe Jack Morris.

      • wpjohnson - Jan 11, 2013 at 5:24 PM

        If you have looked at the numbers and you still don’t think Glavine was far superior to Schilling, there is no hope for you.

      • thereisaparty - Jan 11, 2013 at 5:46 PM

        So are you a big pitcher wins fan? Or RA9-Wins? One of these cases is legitimate, the other I will completely ignore.

        Please try to construct a case where Glavine is the superior pitcher.

      • paperlions - Jan 11, 2013 at 5:48 PM

        WPJ, Schilling had a better ERA, struck out guys at a higher rate, walked fewer guys…..he was better in every way except longevity. The differences are more stark if you bother to account for park effects. The only thing Glavine did was pitch longer.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 11, 2013 at 5:50 PM

        If you have looked at the numbers and you still don’t think Glavine was far superior to Schilling, there is no hope for you.

        Schilling – 4.38 (best all time of any pitcher with 1,000+ innings)
        Glavine – 1.74

        Schilling – 8.6
        Glavine – 5.3

        Schilling – 2.0
        Glavine – 3.1

        Schilling – 1.137
        Glavine – 1.314

        Schilling – 3.46
        Glavine – 3.54

        Schilling – 127
        Glavine – 118

        Glavine has the edge in wins (305 to 216), IP (4413 to 3261) and essentially a push in win % (.600 to .597). So what numbers should we look at to see Glavine was much better again?

      • thereisaparty - Jan 11, 2013 at 5:52 PM


        K%, BB%, FIP-, ERA-, fWAR, rWAR, postseason performance all tilt heavily in Schilling’s favor.

        Maybe you can convince me that Tom Glavine is substantially more HOF-worthy than Kevin Brown?

      • thereisaparty - Jan 11, 2013 at 6:00 PM

        I was a little late on the trigger, Church’ and ‘Lions. But look at the numbers!

  16. deathmonkey41 - Jan 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

    Glavine is going to get a plaque in a building far outside the Canton city limits, but MLB officials are going to call it being in the Hall of Fame anyway.

    • kopy - Jan 11, 2013 at 11:33 AM

      Well, Cooperstown is pretty far away from Canton.


      • deathmonkey41 - Jan 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM

        Doh! I got football on the brain!

  17. hojo20 - Jan 11, 2013 at 11:27 AM

    Glavine was a dink when it came to being a union rep, but he’s no doubt a HOFer. I wish him, Smoltz & Maddux would’ve been on the ballot at the same time.

    • 18thstreet - Jan 11, 2013 at 11:57 AM

      Koufax and Drysdale were pretty big dinks, too. And Curt Flood.

      You know who deserves to be in the Hall, though? Bowie Kuhn. Great man.

  18. weaselpuppy - Jan 11, 2013 at 12:07 PM

    .600 winning % ERA+ 117 6.5 IP/start 11.9 BR/9IP 5.3K/IP rate K/BB 1.74
    ,577 winning% ERA+ 105 7.1 IP.start 11.8 BR/9IP 5.8 K/IP rate K/BB 1.78

    one played for a team that averaged 92 wins over 15 years, one played for teams that averaged 85 wins over 15 years

    One is a “no doubt HOF”, one is undeserving….hmmm….

    • The Dangerous Mabry - Jan 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM

      It’s worth noting that there’s a pretty big difference between that ERA+ of 117 and 105.

      Not to mention Glavine had a much stronger peak.

      And when the case for both men is largely based around “winning”, another 51 wins makes a really big difference.

      That said, Tom Glavine won’t be anywhere near the best pitcher on the ballot next season, and is certainly a tier below a lot of the talent that’s coming down the line.

    • thereisaparty - Jan 11, 2013 at 12:38 PM

      Even by selecting the best stats to make your case, it is clear that the undeserving one is indeed less deserving.

  19. klownboy - Jan 11, 2013 at 2:23 PM

    The writers were crazy to leave Bonds and Clemens out. They were Hall of Famers BEFORE the alleged steroid use.

    Besides, doesn’t the HOF have a racist in Ty Cobb, and probably more before integration? Give me a break.

    • ugglasforearms - Jan 11, 2013 at 4:50 PM

      That’s some Klown spamming bro’

    • wpjohnson - Jan 11, 2013 at 5:16 PM

      Baseball had and continues to have many so called “racists” of all shapes and colors. If Ty Cobb didn’t like minorities, what did that have to do with his performance and accumulated numbers? Nothing. To compare rampant use of PEDs with alleged “racist” opinions is the height of stupidity. There is no comparison.

      • thereisaparty - Jan 11, 2013 at 5:58 PM

        The height of stupidity is to interpret Rule 5 of the HOF’s election requirements [“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”] to having bounds outside of PED usage?

        And I don’t think we need to use the word “alleged” when talking about the character of Ty Cobb.

      • klownboy - Jan 11, 2013 at 9:45 PM

        I wasn’t trying to compare the two. All I was saying was baseball writers and purists need to chill with that “integrity” bullshit. Not everyone in the HOF is a saint.

        And I’ll say it before, and I’ll say it again: neither Bonds nor Clemens failed any drug tests. And even if they did, they were HOF’ers long before any alleged drug use – just check their numbers.

  20. Walk - Jan 11, 2013 at 3:10 PM

    I think the issue being overlooked is the collective bargaining agreement. The players agreed to certain testing and other rules and provide their services as outlined in their contracts. To get increased testing they would need to be offered some form of compensation. Increase retirement benefits or base salary or something. The players had no incentive to agree to a new contract mid contract. That is a lot like a player saying he deserved a raise because he had a good year. Now glavine as a player rep is supposed the be the bad guy because the players simply wanted to uphold a written contract? There was more than one signature on that contract. Do not get confused every party involved in baseball had a hand in this stink, from the players to the reporters to the front office, and yes even the fans were indirectly involved as we watched the game come back from a strike riddled and troubled season and poyred into the stands at a great pace to see shattered records. The hall of fame is supposed to recognise the best players of their era and judge them by their peers of that era. As deplorable as i think it is the era of mcgwire and sosa and bonds played in is called the steroids era, judge these players as best you can by their peers and move on.

  21. binarymath - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM

    HOF voters have painted themselves into a corner. They either have to admit that the 2013 “nobody gets in” vote was a one-time protest (which proves once and for all the the subjectivity bias that voters SWEAR they do not have), or they have to keep everybody out, which is even more absurd.

    As fans, we put up with the self-serving “here’s my HOF ballot” vanity articles. But we also watched the players, attended the games, and read the box scores. So his stuff all HAPPENED, and no amount of protest voting can erase that.

    The protest vote also ticked off the town-folks of Cooperstown, NY who depend on the tourism boost during Induction Week.

    So here is what the voters can do for 2014.

    1. stop playing God. You said nothing about steroids when it was happening. Don’t play the self-righteous game now.
    2. vote in no fewer than 5 players a year over the next 5 years (look at the currently eligible players, and the upcoming classes, and then try to tell me there are not 25 worthy candidates.)
    3. eliminate the gutless blank vote farce. Only count non-blank ballots when figuring the 75% requirement for induction. Or better yet, require each eligible writer to vote for a minimum number of players. No more hiding behind a blank ballot.

    If the 2014 vote also inducts no one, I look for someone like Disney/ESPN to open a competing museum. And if the competing museum allows fan voting, it will kill off the HOC.

    • binarymath - Jan 14, 2013 at 9:23 AM

      grrr, I hate it when I have a typo. Last line should be “…kill off the HOF” not HOC.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2783)
  2. G. Springer (2672)
  3. H. Ramirez (2668)
  4. C. Correa (2657)
  5. B. Crawford (2473)
  1. M. Teixeira (2431)
  2. H. Pence (2407)
  3. J. Baez (2349)
  4. J. Hamilton (2281)
  5. Y. Puig (2267)