Should Palmeiro and Bagwell Get Into HOF?

Friday, December 31, 2010

Scott Cordischi, GoLocalProv Sports Editor

The ballots are due today. Who will get in? And what criteria will be used by the voters?

The Baseball Writers’ Association of America must submit their Hall of Fame ballots today. A total of 33 players are on this year’s ballot, 14 holdovers from previous ballots and 19 newcomers.

Any candidate who receives 75% of the vote or more will be inducted into the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY on July 25th, 2011.

The results of the voting will be made public on January 5th and, as you might expect, there are some impressive names on this year’s ballot.

Two of the more notable first timers on the ballot are Jeff Bagwell and Rafael Palmeiro. They also happen to be two of the most interesting players on it as well.

We are now in the beginning stages of players who played in the “Steroid Era” of Major League Baseball becoming eligible for consideration for Hall of Fame induction. But what will the voting members of the BBWA do? What should they do? Interesting questions.

We have already seen one of the poster boys for alleged steroid use - Mark McGwire - be denied the required votes for induction for the past four years. That should, undoubtedly, continue this year as well.

Will Bagwell and Palmeiro suffer the same fate? Probably so.

While there has been nothing but hearsay evidence connecting Bagwell to steroid use, there are many believe that he does not pass the eye or the smell test. Even though his name has never appeared on any list or report involving the use of performance enhancing drugs, the cloud of suspicion hovering over him is a dark one. Bagwell did appear to suffer a loss of muscle mass late in his career which happened to coincide with MLB’s crackdown on steroid use.

Like Bagwell, Rafael Palmeiro is a member of the 400 HR club. Palmeiro actually finished with 569 career homeruns which ranks 12th all-time. He’s also a member of the 3,000 hit club which would seem to make him a lead pipe cinch to get in. Not so fast.

After waving his finger of denial back and forth in front of a congressional committee investigating steroid use in baseball, Palmeiro later tested positive for PED’s and was suspended by Major League Baseball. His excuse was that he received a tainted vitamin B-12 shot from teammate Miguel Tejada.

While it is probable that both will not receive the required 75% of the vote for induction, the question is: what should the voters take into consideration before casting their ballots?

It seems to me that there a few options for them.

1.) They can overlook the cheating or alleged cheating of players in the steroid era by claiming that it is not their responsibility to play moral judge and jury. Their rational also may include an argument which states that they were playing against players who used them so the playing field was relatively even.

2.) They can do just the opposite and say that anyone caught cheating should automatically be disqualified from consideration including those with overwhelming circumstantial evidence against them.

3.) Or they can debate amongst themselves whether or not a player would have been a Hall of Famer without ever touching PED’s.

Three good examples of this would be Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez. All appear to have made the decision to take PED’s later in their careers after they were already established as elite players in the sport. Should that be good enough to get them in when it comes time for their names to appear on the ballot? Or should voters shun them as cheaters and deny them entrance into the Hall?

Unfortunately, there are more questions than answers for the voting members of the BBWA. I certainly don’t envy them as they decide who to cast their votes for.

If I were voting, anyone caught using PED’s would be automatically disqualified from consideration for induction on my behalf regardless of how dominant they were before taking them. Sorry A-Rod, that means you.

In the cases of Bonds and Clemens where neither tested positive for steroid use but the evidence does appear to be overwhelmingly against them, I must admit that they would likely not receive my vote as well. Even though I am sure that they would have had Hall of Fame careers without ever touching the stuff, they knowingly violated both the written and unwritten rules of baseball which, to me, is unacceptable.

I would have a much harder time dealing with the cases of moderate circumstantial or hearsay evidence like that of Bagwell. Would it be fair of me to not vote for him based solely on suspicion? It would have to be very strong for me to leave a player like that off of my ballot.

What would you do?