No call for the Hall

The old saying goes - cheaters never win.  While many players during baseball's tainted Steroid Era may have used performance enhancing drugs to cheat their way to victories, the voters have made a statement by denying them of a chance at their legacy's greatest victory. 

For the first time since 1996, voters failed to elect a single candidate into the baseball Hall of Fame.  Voters are able to pick up to 10 candidates and a player needs to appear on at least 75 percent of those ballots to gain election.  Craig Biggio came the closest (68.2), with Jack Morris trailing just behind (67.7).  No other player earned even 60 percent of the votes.

This marked the first year of eligibility for some of the biggest stars associated with the Steroid Era, including Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa.  Other notable suspected cheaters like Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro have already been on the ballot and been denied entry before.

We can probably all agree that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs should have no place in MLB.  Players that tested positive for PEDs clearly broke the rules and gave themselves an unfair advantage over their competition.  They have tainted the game, the record books and their legacies, but does that mean they should be denied access to the Hall of Fame?

Many voters appear to have made the statement that as punishment for their crimes, they should be left out.  However, that's clearly not the case in the minds of everyone, since each of the suspected cheaters were given votes - just not nearly enough to get elected.  Clemens had 37.6 percent and Bonds had 36.2.  As long as they continue to earn at least 5.0 percent of the vote, they'll remain on the ballot for up to 15 years. 

We have an idea of what players cheated during this era, but we'll never really know for sure, aside from those that actually tested positive once proper testing procedures were put in place.  Bonds admitted to unintentionally using a banned substance, claiming he had no idea the cream he smeared on his body contained HGH.  Perhaps it's the bulging muscles, eye popping Home Run totals or the fact that his head appeared to grow to twice the size, but in the court of public opinion it was clear to most that Bonds used PEDs and should have known what he was doing.  Whether we trust his word or not, is there ever really any way of knowing if he was lying about his awareness regarding what he used?  Likewise, most people believe that Clemens used steroids, explaining his career renaissance after leaving Boston in the "twilight of his career" before suddenly becoming an ace and multi-time Cy Young winner again in stops in Toronto, New York and Houston.  Yet Clemens was never proved guilty of taking steroids or lying under oath to Congress about it.  Never mind that both players had Hall of Fame worthy careers based on what they accomplished before they were suspected of using PEDs.  The public wants to condemn these men based on what they see, but the truth is, we'll probably never know the truth.

Voters being split on the steroid issue has led to further complications with the voting process.  Since enough voters appear to be unwilling to consider a suspected cheater (which has to be the case this year since if the PEDs issue was ignored, Bonds and Clemens should have been unanimous decisions), it's possible these players may never get voted in, unless the voter's stance on this subject changes at some point over the course of the next 15 years.  Yet some voters still list these players on their ballots, knowing full well that it's likely a wasted vote since the majority of voters are against electing suspected PED users.  Since they are limited to only 10 names on their ballot, those wasted votes potentially take votes away from deserving players like Biggio that just missed the cut. 

Then what do we do about players like Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza, who have no evidence against them suggesting they ever used PEDs, yet almost certainly lost votes due to the suspicion associated with being a bulky slugger that happened to play during a tainted era?  While some believe Bagwell's numbers may fall just short of making him worthy of election, there's no doubting that Piazza is the best hitting catcher in the history of the game.  So what's the case for leaving him out?

For the record, here are the 10 players I would list on my imaginary ballot, based solely on what they achieved, not how they got there.

Barry Bonds - .298/.444/.607, 762 HRs (1st all-time), record 73 HRs in 2001, 7 MVPs, 168.0 WAR
Roger Clemens - 3.12 ERA, 7 Cy Youngs, 354 wins (9th all-time), 4672 K's (3rd all-time), 145.5 WAR
Mike Piazza - .308/.377/.545, 427 HRs, best hitting catcher ever, 66.8 WAR
Curt Schilling - 3.46 ERA, 2.23 postseason ERA, 3116 K's, bloody sock game, 86.1 WAR
Mark McGwire - .263/.394/.588, 583 HRs, single season HR record (until Bonds broke it), 70.6 WAR
Craig Biggio - .281/.363/.433, 1844 runs scored, played C/2B/CF in his career, 70.5 WAR
Edgar Martinez - .312/.418/.515, best DH ever, 69.9 WAR (would be higher if he weren't a DH)
Jeff Bagwell - .297/.408/.540, 449 HRs, 83.9 WAR
Larry Walker - .313/.400/.565, great hitter even before moving to Coors field, 73.2 WAR
Tim Raines - .294/.385/.425, 808 steals, 70.6 WAR

Jack Morris was a tough omission given that enough voters thought him worthy enough to earn him the second most votes this year, but a career 3.90 ERA (3.94 FIP) doesn't exactly scream HOF credentials.  He was good for a long time, but not great.  Sosa's 609 HRs will get his name on some ballots, but outside of his five year peak, his numbers weren't all that impressive aside from the HR totals.  His 64.1 career WAR would easily have been the lowest on this list.  The last few names on my list are on the edge and likely would get pushed off my list in the next few years when guys like Greg Maddox, Pedro Martinez and Frank Thomas become eligible, unless some of the other names above them get inducted or otherwise taken off the ballot.

The majority of voters apparently believe the way to punish the cheaters is to deny them the honor of being inducted, but it's not just the players that are being denied by this decision - the fans are as well.  After all, isn't the Hall of Fame essentially just a museum of baseball history?  What kind of museum can it be if the game's all-time leader in Home Runs and one of its most decorated pitchers are left out?  We shouldn't just try to paint over this era and pretend it didn't happen.  The Steroid Era was an unfortunate chapter in baseball history, but it's still a big part of that history. 

In the world of professional sports, players will always try to find a way to get an edge over the competition.  The Hall is already filled with players from other generations that found their own ways to cheat long before steroids became a part of the sport.  Pitchers like Gaylord Perry used to scuff, grease or spit on the ball to gain an advantage.  Before steroids came around, amphetamines, or "greenies", were widely used by everyone from Hank Aaron to Willie Mays to give players a little boost of energy for the tail end of those long road trips or the back end of a double header.  Players from those eras were still inducted into the Hall, even though they were known to have used methods we now consider to be cheating.

Future generations should have the opportunity to learn about this era by having it showcased in the Hall of Fame.  Give them their own separate wing - call it the Hall of Shame.  Inscribe it on their plaques if they were guilty of cheating and deny them the honor of making an induction speech.  They could even find room for Pete Rose, as long as it's mentioned that he bet on baseball (and that when he became the team's manager he put himself in the lineup at his team's expense on his way to becoming the all-time hits leader).  I don't really care what they do, just find a place for them somewhere.

If you leave out the cheaters then all that accomplishes is cheating future generations out of being exposed to one of the most exciting eras in baseball history.  Mark McGwire may not be here to talk about the past, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore it.