The sanctimonious baseball writers have spoken and no one on the 2013 ballot is going into the Hall of Fame this summer.
Craig Biggio came the closest, grabbing 68.2 percent of the vote. He'll eventually get in.
But if Biggio gets in say, in four years, why? Did his stats get better in retirement?
If his numbers and career warrents it, why not put him in when he is eligible?
This whole, "First Ballot Hall of Famer" thing is bullcrap. Who cares about that? There is nothing on someone's plaque that says a player was a first time ballot Hall of Famer.
Here's another beef I have.
Some writer doesn't vote for player A in years 1-4. Then he votes for him in years 5-8. Then he doesn't vote for him again in later years.
Once you vote for a guy and determine he was Hall worthy, why would you ever not vote for him again?
Why did Jim Rice and Goose Gossage take forever to get elected? If a writer voted for Rice in year 15, why didn't he vote for him before that? Is it because Rice was salty towards the media? Gossage was always outspoken. You would think the writers would have loved that. But they made him wait too.
The voting process confuses me. A guy who is worthy of being a Hall of Famer gets in but only when the writers damn well feel like letting him in? Is that the way it works?
Now I understand some guys may get overlooked. I understand a writer being pursuaded over time that someone should get his vote. But for surefire Hall of Famers, when there is no debate necessary, why shouldn't he get in right away?
It is a shame that no contemporary player will get inducted this summer in Cooperstown. The Hall of Fame ceremony is always much anticipated and is a wonderful homage to the game in the bucolic setting of upstate New York. But the writers felt compelled to shut the door this year.
The voting needs to change. Voters should explain why they voted the way they did. Hold these guys accountable. Also, when the Hall of Fame voting first took place back in 1936, there was very little electronic media. There was radio of course. But yes, kids, there was no internet, TV, Facebook or blogs. But things are different now.
Vin Scully has been broadcasting Major Freaking League baseball since 1950. He doesn't have a vote. Bob Costas doesn't have a vote. Nor does John Miller, Bob Uecker or Milo Hamilton. Only writers vote on the Hall of Fame so some guy who has been covering the Pirates from some crappy paper in Greensburg, Pennsylvania gets a vote but Scully and other broadcasters don't. Makes no sense to me.
Meanwhile, I have no problem keeping known steroid users out of the Hall of Fame. A vote for Barry Bonds or Sammy Sosa means condoning cheating. If I had a vote, they would not get one. Yet they did get votes so those writers don't care about players using steroids to gain an unfair advantage. The excuse "everyone was using" is weak because not everyone was on the juice. Also, the argument, "he was a Hall of Famer" before using steroids is lame too. It's like saying, "Yeah, Jerry was a great guy before he killed 3 people, so yeah, let him out on parole." Yes, that is probably a stupid analogy but it's the best I could come up with right now. You get the point.
What if a player gets inducted and years later is found to have cheated with illegal performance enhancing drugs? I say, remove him from the Hall of Fame. There is no place for cheaters in the game or the Hall of Fame?
The voting needs to be revamped, there needs to be some criteria and parameters and the writers need to take their heads out of their asses. Not all of them mind you but a great number of them.