When the subject
of moral standards comes up in connection with the Baseball Hall of Fame, does
your mind wander to a Rogues Gallery unfairly enshrined with Christy Mathewson
and Lou Gehrig?
Do you think
it’s hypocritical to bar the door to Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens after Ty Cobb
and Cap Anson have walked through?
Would there be unintended
consequences to scrapping the morals requirement?
Hall of Fame Voting Rule No.5:
“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.”
The
2013 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot included the names of two players – Barry
Bonds and Roger Clemens – who, statistically, stand shoulder to shoulder with
the most legendary figures of all time. But on January 9, 2013, for only
the second time in 42 years, no candidate obtained the required 75% of the
votes of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA). This came as little surprise. Both have been connected to the performance
enhancing drugs scandal.
The day
the news broke, Robert W. Cohen, author of the 2009 book “Baseball Hall of Fame
— or Hall of Shame?” told the New York Times: “Baseball has always had some
form of hypocrisy when it comes to its exalted heroes,” he said. “In theory,
when it comes to these kinds of votes, it’s true that character should matter,
but once you’ve already let in Ty Cobb, how can you exclude anyone else?”
Commentators
have noted over and over that Cobb was far from the only racist to be inducted,
that Cap Anson was the single most responsible person for the establishment of
baseball’s notorious color line, and that Tris Speaker and Enos Slaughter were
both ruputedly members of the Ku Klux Klan. They have noted that Orlando Cepeda was
charged with drug dealing and Paul Molitor admitted to drug use. Scanning the
Hall of Less-Than-Perfects, critics have even cited Rogers Hornsby as disqualified
under Rule 5 because he was an inveterate gambler.
But life
is not always fair. Have you ever been a juror in a criminal case? Or worse
yet, the defendant? As a criminal
lawyer, in 40 years I’ve never raised the defense that others got away with the
same thing.
We live
in times of ethical challenge, moral upheaval and social change. Would it really make you feel good about striking the words
“integrity, sportsmanship and character” from Rule No.5?
In
2011, Hall of Fame president Jeff Idelson sought to clarify rule No. 5: “Baseball
has historically been held to a very high standard, right or wrong. There’s a
certain integrity required when it comes to baseball’s highest honor, which is
being inducted into the Hall of Fame. The character clause exists as it relates
to the game on the field. The character clause isn’t there to evaluate and
judge players socially. It’s there to relate to the game on the field. … The
voters should have the freedom to measure that however they see fit.”
Bill
James, author of the 1995 book “Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?,” echoed
Idelson’s point of view: “[T]here’s a
real distinction between a player who does inappropriate things not related to
his job and a player who does inappropriate things that affect his job....Being
inducted is an honor, not a paycheck you are entitled to. No one is entitled to
be elected. The voters choose who to honor.”
It has
been pointed out that the Baseball Hall of Fame is the only one with a morals
requirement. But no one familiar with the differences between baseball’s
Valhalla and the copycat versions would see this fact as a convincing reason to
delete the requirement. Further, at least to present date, baseball has been
more scandal-ridden than the other major professional sports.
Yes, morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the
beholder. Yes, there will always be
controversy as to what it means to be “bad.” But I’d much rather hear what you have to say
about what’s bad and what’s not, than have you stop caring.
You say, “A whole generation of players was using steroids,”
or “He was a sure-fire Hall of Famer without them anyway,” or “There are lots
of other shady characters already in”? A
little street-wise cynicism has its place, it won’t rule the day on this subject.
If Bud Selig agrees with you, he’s sure not saying. Too many people take this
stuff far too seriously.
Idelson’s interpretation of Rule 5 reflects the consensus
of the game’s power structure. And
this is the generally-accepted interpretation of the BBWAA, who have rejected bad
character affecting the game on the field (Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose and
the steroids guys) but forgiven the frailties of the human condition (Wade
Boggs, Robbie Alomar and the like) off the field. The cynics are right in this respect: A strict
construction of the rule might keep pretty much everyone out. But what we have,
in fact, is a middle-of-the-road interpretation
of Rule 5. It’s controversial, but, notwithstanding the sparse crowds predicted
for the July 26-29 Hall of Fame induction ceremonies, it’s working.
Furthermore, are you absolutely certain there couldn’t
come a day where even you would agree that a player was qualified based on
performance, but unqualified based on the tactics he used?
And besides, do you really want to stop the controversy?
What fun would that be?
No comments:
Post a Comment