25 comments Rob Parker, My Hero

As noted by Bottom of the Barrel, the opinions of many sports columnists are subject to justified ridicule and scorn. But every so often, you stumble upon that rare piece of literature which conveys your every emotion, opinion and feeling. Last week, Rob Parker accomplished this usually impossible task in his discussion of the 2010 Hall of Fame voting.

As a Hall of Fame voter, I both love and hate this day, especially lately. My brothers in the Baseball Writers Association of America have taken too many liberties the past few years instead of simply voting for the best players in the game. That should always be the goal of Hall voters, not playing moral police and making personal statements.

I could not have said it better. Guilt is not a reason to vote someone into the HOF. But every year, we see players who reach Cooperstown simply through longevity. Just because you are on the ballot does not make you deserving. Yet countless writers feel bad for such players, and ultimately vote them in. While these "moral police" tactics may seem like the nice thing to do, it in fact sets a lower standard, allowing for the justification of even worse players to gain entrance into the HOF.

Equally frustrating is the personal statement. For most MLB players, it is plainly obvious whether or not they are worthy of Cooperstown. When a player receives 95% of the vote, one question is never asked: who didn't vote for the player? I would love an explanation from those who decided to make a useless personal statement.

This situation often occurs in the NBA MVP voting. Last year, LeBron James ran away with the MVP Michael Jordan style. Despite the emergence of Kevin Durant and the ever present Kobe Bryant, LeBron, without question, was the most dominant player, both on the floor and statistically. Yet both Kobe and Durant received first place votes. I'll excuse the Kobe vote simply because he is arguably on LeBron's level. Durant, however, was statistically inferior to LeBron in every way. Although he won the scoring title, it was only because LeBron played sparingly as Cleveland eased into the playoffs. Yet some MVP voter, for no other reason than to make some ill-conceived statement, decided to vote for Durant. Again, I'd love a public explanation here.

Roberto Alomar was elected Wednesday with 90 percent of the vote and deserved it. In fact, it should have happened last year. The writers had no right making a bona fide first-try Hall of Famer -- a 12-time All-Star and 10-time Gold Glove winner -- wait a year to get in over one stupid moment with an umpire. For sure, the spitting incident was foul, but he paid for his sin and didn't do it again. People have to get over it.

Again, Parker exactly points out another flaw in HOF voting. Alomar is, at worst, a top 5 2B of all-time. While I can never condone Alomar's umpire spit (although I have played in plenty baseball games where such action may have been justified), it had no impact on his greatness as a player. Once again, the moral police decided to take a stand and not vote in Alomar last year. If a player breaks the rules in any game altering/statistic altering way, an argument can be supported and even validated. But Alomar's spit was merely a moral issue that clouded voters' judgment. As Parker said, "people have to get over it."

I'll say it once and I'll say it again. Why did those 10% still not vote for him? They should seriously require this as a public obligation for HOF voters.

I didn't vote for Blyleven. I don't believe you can be a Hall of Famer after nearly 15 years on the ballot. Jim Rice didn't deserve it last year, either. These are now sympathy votes. Writers are now trying to fill spots and punish players from the steroid era. It's all wrong. If you're not a Hall of Famer the first year, you're not one 15 years later. The numbers and standards haven't changed. This trend is disappointing to me. It simply makes no sense. Either you're a Hall of Famer or you're not.

Rob reaffirms his hero status by blatantly pointing out the sympathy votes that Blyleven and Rice received. More importantly, he makes a statement that cannot be said enough: "If you're not a HOF the first year, you're not one 15 years later." In fact, I think this should be a change for the HOF voting. As it stands now, players a voted in 5 years after retirement in order to allow for "perspective" to settle in on a players' career. In theory, a player who is selected after a few years of eligibility is voted in because there is a better perspective of his career. In reality, the sympathy factor sets in.

I am of the mind that a player should receive one opportunity to enter the Hall. But instead of 5 years, a player would have to wait 10 years before reaching the ballot. With more passed time, voters emotional connection to players is less palpable and more unlikely to impact their voting.

I voted for Mark McGwire but not Rafael Palmeiro -- both got less than 20 percent of the vote. Both careers are tainted by steroids. But here's the reason why I voted for McGwire, who got 19.8 percent. There was never any testing going on when he was doing it and playing. There simply were no rules on baseball's books about steroid use -- whether we liked it or not.

I'm a little torn on this issue. On the one hand, I completely agree with Parker in that McGwire did not technically break any rules. It's unfair to punish someone who simply took advantage of rules that were not in place. In a perfect world, I would end my statement there. But I'm afraid that letting McGwire in the Hall will open pandora's box and enable other steroid users to gain popular support and enter the Hall of Fame.

In Palmeiro's case, he was busted after baseball took steps to clean up the game and put tough penalties in place for violators. Hence, there should be a punishment for breaking clear-cut rules. And it's a hard pill to swallow because Palmeiro -- who got just 11 percent of the vote -- had both 3,000-plus hits and 500-plus home runs. Both are normally automatic entry to the Hall by themselves.

While Palmeiro's stats are impressive, they are tainted. On a less significant level, there's no way to determine how much of an impact steroids had on Palmeiro's stats. More importantly, as Parker points out, baseball made every effort to fix the game. If Palmeiro had been a steroid user before the baseball's cleanup effort, I would have supported his HOF ballot. But he broke the one cardinal rule of baseball when baseball actually cared.

Although each writer is able to vote for up to 10 players, I voted for just three. Sorry, everybody is not great. It's a special place, not the Hall of Very Good.

Only if there were more voters like Mr. Parker. I hate to put a restriction on the amount of votes, but anyone voting for 10 guys needs to reconsider his position. Even more than 5 is a stretch.

By the way, my other vote went to Lee Smith, who was the all-time saves leader when he first appeared on the ballot. I voted for him his first year and will continue to vote for him until his name is removed.

In order to not contradict my previous statements, I would not support Smith getting in the Hall simply because he did not make it in his first try. That said, he deserved it the first time.