Larry Brown Sports

Though the writers are taking most of the blame (rightfully so) for no players being elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2013, there is one aspect of the entire debacle that is being overlooked. In one sense, the Baseball Writers Association of America votes represented the feelings of many of the current inductees.

Numerous members of the Hall of Fame have made their feelings clear that they do not want anyone who cheated the game elected to Cooperstown.

Last March, we shared comments from George Brett (inducted in ’99) who said the current members would boycott the hall if a cheater were elected.

“I wasn’t a home-run hitter,” Brett said, “but I know from talking to guys in the 500-home run club, guys like Schmitty (Mike Schmidt) and some other guys like that, if those guys make it in then they’ll never go back. Meaning those guys will never go back and attend (the Hall of Fame inductions) if the cheaters get elected.”

In December, former Cincinnati Reds MVP shortstop Barry Larkin (’12), said cheaters don’t belong in the Hall.

“I think if you cheated, no, you don’t deserve it because I know how difficult it was for me to get there and how difficult it was for me just to compete on an everyday basis,” Larkin said. “I think if you cheated I think you made a decision and I don’t think you belong.

“I look at what has happened with Pete Rose. Pete Rose is not a Hall of Fame player, banned from baseball. But if you go up to the Hall of Fame all of his records, his bats, everything in is represented in the Hall of Fame — 4,256 (hits),” Larkin said. “I see a very similar thing happening with guys that are associated with or been accused of using steroids. I think they will recognize their accomplishments but I don’t think those players will be admitted to the Hall of Fame.”

Larkin doesn’t want to keep out those who aren’t proven cheaters citing the innocent until proven guilty axiom.

Former Detroit Tigers outfielder Al Kaline (’80) was among those who was happy nobody was elected this year.

Read The Rest of the Story…

The fact that no players were elected to the baseball Hall of Fame on Wednesday has everyone buzzing, and the New York Times came up with the perfect way to encapsulate the hype. On the front page of the “Sports” section on Thursday morning, nothing was printed except a headline that read “Welcome to Cooperstown.”

Most people felt as though Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds had no business receiving any votes, while others believed players like Craig Biggio and Mike Piazza belong in the baseball Hall of Fame. It’s possible the voters were simply trying to make a point, but in any event the elite group that resides in Cooperstown is no larger today than it was at this time last year.

J.J. Watt may not agree with it, but neither he nor anyone else should be stunned by the results.

H/T SI Hot Clicks
Photo via Twitter/Kevin Negandhi

Reggie Jackson was always known as one of the more outspoken baseball players during his career, and little has changed since he retired. “Mr. October” was the self-proclaimed “straw that stirs the drink,” and he’s still unafraid to speak the truth.

In an excellent interview for Sports Illustrated’s “Where Are They Now?” edition, Jackson opens up on many topics. Some of his strongest thoughts are about the Baseball Hall of Fame, which he thinks has become too lenient with its standards for admitting members.

“I didn’t see Kirby Puckett as a Hall of Famer,” Jackson told Phil Taylor. “I didn’t see Gary Carter as a Hall of Famer. I didn’t see Don Sutton as a Hall of Famer. I didn’t see Phil Niekro as a Hall of Famer. As much as I like Jim Rice, I’m not so sure he’s a Hall of Famer.” What about Bert Blyleven? “No. No, no, no, no,” Jackson says. “Blyleven wasn’t even the dominant pitcher of his era — it was Jack Morris.”

He also is unhappy about what took place during the Steroid Era of baseball and says no Hall of Famers will attend if a known user is let in to Cooperstown. He’s not the only Hall of Famer who has said that.

Jackson says he plans to bring up the subject of undeserving members at the next members-only meeting in Cooperstown, and it doesn’t faze him that some of the people he believes are undeserving will be in the room.

Of all the players he mentioned, only Kirby Puckett was voted into the Hall of Fame quickly after playing his last game (Puckett’s career was cut short because he had a loss of vision). Others like Blyleven and Rice were notorious for being borderline candidates who were turned down for several years before finally being admitted.

There are many people in the baseball community who probably agree with Jackson’s opinion about Hall of Fame membership, but there are few who would be so outspoken about it. It’s that type of boldness that made him so calm in the face of pressure, and that attitude helped him become one of the best postseason hitters in history.

We went through the same thing a few months ago when Mike Mussina announced his retirement. It’s times like these where we must recognize that the age old standards for induction into the Hall of Fame must change. 500 home runs doesn’t mean anything near what it used to considering two or three players eclipse that mark each year. Similarly, 300 wins is no longer a realistic plateau for pitchers to achieve. With that in mind, it’s time voters started changing their habits and take in the entire picture when they judge players for Hall of Fame worthiness.

Without a doubt, Curt Schilling is a Hall of Famer. Even though he has less than a third of the career wins Greg Maddux had, Schilling had a stretch from ’01-’04 where he was easily one of the top pitchers in the game. Schilling was second in the Cy Young voting three of those four years and finished towards the top of the MVP balloting. Curt even had years after that where he was a very good pitcher, as well as a handful of years with the Phillies where he stood out. But the difference between Schilling and guys like Maddux who have the more impressive career numbers is what Curt did in the postseason.

Until Josh Beckett came along, if you asked me to choose a pitcher I’d want to start a playoff game in the last decade, my answer would easily be Curt Schilling (John Smoltz being a very close second). Schilling was absolutely nails in the playoffs. Let’s start with the 2001 postseason where Schilling shared World Series MVP honors with teammate Randy Johnson. In the NLDS that year, Curt threw a complete game shutout to set the tone in Game 1 against the Cardinals, and then he wrapped up the series with a complete game six-hitter for the clinching win. In the NLCS against the Braves, he threw a complete game giving up just one run for the win. In the World Series against the Yankees, he started Games 1, 4, and 7, and was just about untouchable each time out.

19 career postseason starts, 10-2 record, 2.23 ERA, sub-1.00 WHIP over 130+ innings — that’s where legends are made. Only once (Game 1 of the ALCS in ’04) did Schilling not give his team a chance to win in the playoffs. Every other time that Curt stepped to the mound in October, all his team had to do was score one or two runs and they’d win. That’s what makes Curt Schilling a Hall of Famer, all personal feelings or hatred to him aside. And if you want regular season success, Schilling had two of the best back-to-back seasons by a pitcher in the steroids era from ’01-’02 with the Diamondbacks. His strikeouts to walk ratio approached 10:1 which is unheard of, and he went 45-13 throwing over 500 innings those two years. Most of all, Curt Schilling deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame because he earned it by being one of the most clutch pitchers ever. Three rings says it all.

Now that The Dude has officially called it quits, the discussion begins: will Piazza go into the Hall as a Dodger or a Met? First off, The Dude goes down as the best hitting catcher in the game. He was crappy behind the plate and couldn’t throw out a special olympics hurdler, but man, could he hit. So in my eyes, there’s absolutely no question that he’s a Hall of Famer — first balloter at that. So does he go in wearing that Dodger cap, or the Mets shrouds?

Piazza was drafted by the Dodgers, started his career with the Dodgers, and first made his name as a Dodger. He was a relative of Tommy Lasorda’s — how much more Dodger can you get than that? And if it weren’t for the Dodgers and Lasorda, Piazza might never have been a professional baseball player. Piazza was the Rookie of the Year with the Dodgers, finished second twice in MVP voting with the Dodgers, and was an All-Star in all five full seasons he played in LA. The Dude hit over .318 in every full season with the Dodgers, including a ridiculous .362 in ’97. When Piazza was at his peak, it was with the Dodgers.

On the other hand, a larger part of Mike Piazza’s career was played with the Mets. Piazza played seven full seasons in New York, and spent the most part of ’98 there as well, the year he was traded. He duplicated his 40-homer season in his second year with New York and hit over 33 dingers with them four straight years. His skills declined as the years in New York went on, but Piazza was still an icon there. Most importantly, The Dude led the Mets to the World Series in 2000.

So when it comes down to it, how will The Dude be remembered? I think it’s as a Met, and I think that’s how he should go into Cooperstown. He spent a longer part of his career there, reached a World Series there, and was an All-Star there. And recent history tends to stand out more than ancient history, which is what the Dodgers are in his career. It’s a tough call, but I think The Dude goes in as a Met.

Oh yeah, and if Piazza makes it into the Hall first ballot, second ballot, or before McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, etc., that’s going to upset me. It shouldn’t be so subjective. As long as there’s a place for Mike Piazza in the Hall — which there is — he belongs in the same category as all the aforementioned characters — the steroids wing of the Hall. They were all legends of the game during the same time period and all belong in the same group.

As concerned with morality and integrity as I am when it comes to applying such principles to sports – and all life situations – I must say it bothers me that the greatest slugger of my generation appears to be a questionable (at best) selection to the Hall of Fame. In fact, at this point, it seems more likely that I receive fan mail from Alicia Silverstone before the man in question is inducted.

Of course I am talking about Mark McGwire who took it up the rump by the baseball writers, gaining just 23.5% of 75% necessary to be elected to the Hall. Yes, Big Mac is the epitomy of a potential roider in baseball. Yes, his comments in front of congress were utterly ignorant, idiotic, and downright incriminating. But dammit, he is one of the greatest power hitters of all-time, let alone my generation.

Let’s start the laundry list of over-qualification. Tucked away in McGwire’s belt are 13 All-Star appearances, a Rookie of the Year award, a Gold Glove, 3 Silver Slugger awards, 583 career bombs (7th all-time), and the omnipresent single-season home run record in 1998. Big Mac was in the top 5 of his league in home runs 9 times. 9 times, an entire decade! He was in the top 5 in the his league in OPS 6 times. He led the league in home runs per at-bat 7 times. For his career, McGwire hit home runs at a more frequent rate than any other player who ever batted in the Major Leagues.

Now that we have his qualifications out of the way, let’s get into the steroids debate. I am naive as Mark Mangino is skinny. I know the chance that McGwire’s career accomplishments were performance-enhancer free is smaller than the percentage of votes he received on the ballot. Still, his accomplishments, along with every other deserving (ceteris paribus) candidate from the Steroid Era needs to be recognized.

As much as I doubt the legitimacy of several Hall of Fame deserving players – Bonds, Clemens, Pujols – I am 100% certain that they must be recognized some way or another in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Yes, under current rules, writers who have suspicion that McGwire used steroids were acting wisely when they didn’t vote for Mark. In case you missed it, the Baseball Hall of Fame is different from the halls of fame of other sports.

5. 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.

Breaking it down in simple chat room form, if you feel a player’s accomplishments were tainted by steroids, then in turn you are questioning his integrity, sportsmanship, and character. That’s half the criteria to be elected! So yes, under current rules, writers are doing the right thing. That is precisely why the Baseball Hall of Fame needs to amend its voting rules – as it has the ability to do.

9. Amendments The Board of Directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. reserves the right to revoke, alter or amend these rules at any time.

The solution is simple; the Baseball Hall of Fame must create a separate wing/exhibit (as they already do for the Negro Leagues and women in baseball) where the deserving players may be rightfully enshrined.

How to define the Steroid Era is difficult. My criteria would be anyone whose playing career ran for any ten years in between 1992-2005. ’92 is my arbitrary year that is subject to change and discussion, 2005 is chosen because that’s when baseball began to test for steroids.Bottom line, when skinny punks like Alex Sanchez, Mike Morse, Guillermo Mota, and many others are busted, including several pitchers – who lets be real – none of us suspected – are getting busted, it puts EVERYONE in question.

I believe the majority of players in the aforementioned years used performance-enhancers. I actually feel that players using substances was the norm for that time period. That is why I feel that the Hall of Fame needs to recognize the players who stood out in the Steroid Era, but they need to do so separately.