2016 Hall of Fame

Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Piazza were elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame last week.

Griffey set a new record for percentage of baseball writers who placed him on their ballots.

Piazza was a guy who had rumors circulate around him about the possibly use of PED's. He never tested positive for any during his career and as the catcher who set a record for career homeruns from that position also deserved this inclusion.

Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, two of the most dominant players of their era received about 50% of the votes. Neither of them ever tested positive for drug use during their careers.

So how will baseball ultimately deal with those two? Now there are only ten years a player can be on a ballot instead of 15. A few years have now passed.

Some of the baseball writers I have heard speak their minds who have a vote in the Hall of Fame balloting offer many opinions with which I don't agree. That is all part of the fun when it comes to debating someone's worthiness or not.

There is a process with which I don't agree at all though, and its the Veterans' Committee and the recently formed Expansion Era Committee (I think that's the name of it.) Both of these committees, and any like them, give writers a chance to put in players who didn't make it when they were first eligible. I believe this cheapens the HoF even if there hasn't been an overwhelming number of players who were elected this way.

Of recent note was Joe Gordon. Seriously? Hall of Fame? He never received more than 27% of the votes when he was eligible. He was the 1942 AL MVP but just a career .268 hitter who played for 11 years on a Yankee team for 7 years that was stacked and hit over .300 just once.

There are plenty of other examples as well. I am just of the opinion that the HoF is for the elite and not the almost elite, or 1/4 quarter elite for sure. I understand that there is a financial downside for MLB and the HoF for having years where no one is elected. But that, I believe, makes it even more special and therefore more valuable all around for both entities.

Griffey's new record of 99.3% of votes eclipsed Tom Seaver's old record. A lot was made of that but let's face a couple of facts. While Griffey deserved to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, Clemens and Bonds were eligible also and there were clearly protest votes.

Babe Ruth only received 95% of the writers votes, it should be noted. Was their bias from the writers? Was that because there were far many more players on the ballot? I mean, if anyone should have been on 100% of the ballots, it should have been Babe Ruth.

I have heard some people say that anyone who didn't put Griffey on their ballots should have their voting rights removed. I wonder if the same was said after the Ruth vote, or even last year when Randy Johnson didn't 100% of the votes.

A few writers made some strategic votes knowing that some players, such as Tim Raines, were coming close to being kept out of the HoF. I suppose that could be a valid reason; I am not in anyone else's shoes, but ten names is a lot and when someone looks at the list of contenders and thinks, "Is this one of the greatest players of all time?" and then decides that ten of them are, I have a bit of a problem with that.

By the way, each writer could name as many as ten players on their ballots. Not all chose to place ten names on it. Peter Gammons is a writer who I used to admire but have figured out that he just simply has great access so he gets scoops on stories. He believes that more people should be elected into the HoF.

No.

My votes would have been for Griffey, Piazza, Clemens and Bonds. Let's say that the latter two all did conclusively use PED's. Those two were far better than anyone else who used them so one could possibly conclude that they would have still had great numbers worthy of HoF consideration. Their numbers were great before the PED era was at its height.

Next years ballot contains all of those who are still eligible after this year's vote plus big-name players Ivan Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez and Vladimir Guerrero. Normally all three of those would be first-ballot Hall of Famers. Ramirez had PED problems at the end of his career though. Rodriguez and Jose Canseco were teammates and Canseco named him in his book. Guerrero is probably the only one for whom I would vote...oh man...I just don't know.

It's very confusing. Say Clemens struck out Bonds or Bonds hit a homerun against Clemens. Does either count in the minds of those who watched it happen or read about it because they were both using PED's? Or does it make either feat even more remarkable and thus worthy of HoF consideration?

Each era of baseball had its best players who stood out over everyone else. In these eras rules were different, conditions were different, and training conditions were different. There was a time when it was legal to spit on the ball for example. There was a time when certain substances could be taken which were not illegal then, but were later banned.

How the heck do you sort all of that out? If a pitcher in the spit-ball era and didn't want to spit on the ball and he didn't rack up big stats, did he get cheated from fame? If someone didn't ingest "supplements" when many others were taking them, did he get cheated from fame?

Looking ahead a few more years we can start to talk about Alex Rodriguez. His big problem has been all of the lying. But...wait...haven't they pretty much ALL lied?

Is lying a reason to keep someone out?

Then there is Pete Rose...