While I am a member of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, I have not yet been a member for 10 years, and that means I do not yet vote for the Hall of Fame.
So I dodged that bullet, so to speak.
As no more than an interested observer right now, I look at the writers that do have a vote and wonder how they possibly figure out a way to handle the steroids and/or performance-enhancing drug issue?
I have heard voters who will not even consider anyone linked to PEDs and voters that have very different takes. This year, two players linked to PEDs - Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens - are on the ballot for the 10th and last time. Ãlex RodrÃguez, meanwhile, is on the ballot for the first time.
In the BBWAA rules for election to the Hall of Fame, there is a passage that states: "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."
I would think one voter might interpret integrity, sportsmanship and character very differently from another. And nothing tells a voter, or someone like me a few years away from being a voter, how to weigh those three. Do you overlook character for a player that is clearly among the best ever, but weigh it more for that player that is on the Hall of Fame bubble? Does the better a player was tilt the scale, meaning we can grade character differently for him?
Some would say no to this and I might agree with them. Might. I can't figure out how I will weigh this when the time comes. But for me, that time is not yet.
For the rest, what a balancing act.
Also, how do they weigh those we know used steroids or PEDs - those that failed a test or admitted to it, for instance - against someone that was heavily suspected but never failed a test, was suspended or admitted to use? Is it possible Player A simply got away with it while Player B did not? I guess that is for the voters to judge, too.
This is about a lot more than stats and data, traditional or otherwise.
No doubt there are players already in the Hall of Fame that cheated in some way at some point to boost their stats and performance and lead their team to wins. To further muddy the waters, there may be players we suspect of PED use, and while that usage helped their stats, those players might contend they also faced pitchers using PEDs as well. No doubt some or all of this is true.
How to weigh it all and decide which players to vote for? Good luck.
There is surely no right and wrong here and one man's ballot is equal to another. We do know that part. Each vote counts one. Some writers, over the years, have felt that someone is not worthy of being a first ballot Hall of Famer, but would vote that same player in during his second or subsequent years of eligibility. I've never quite understood that logic.
At the same time, I do understand logic that some years, a player that might be the ninth or 10th a writer would list on their ballot would not make the top 10 another year because the field got stronger with first-time eligible players. I can understand that.
But, yikes, what a process. And the latest Hall of Fame voting will be revealed tonight live on MLB Network.
Where once we could and would mostly debate the importance or lack thereof for wins, why to rate one stat over another or put more emphasis on a player's postseason performance, times have now changed.
Hall of Fame voting is more complicated than ever, it seems.