The Hall of Fame Voting Process

I don't have a vote on the baseball Hall of Fame, and my opinion will probably be met with a grain of salt from anyone who has earned the right to have a vote. But I have a problem with those who have a vote and waste it for certain reasons. I also have a problem with how certain guys who don't belong in the Hall of Fame are being voted in.

Last week, Andre Dawson was finally elected into the Hall of Fame by the baseball writers. Now, I have nothing personal against Dawson, and I thought he had a solid career. But as I watched him play growing up and look at his stats now, I never thought of then or think of now Andre Dawson as a Hall-of-Famer. His stats don't scream Hall of Fame to me. Andre Dawson was a very good player. He was not a great player.

I have very high expectations for players who should be in the Hall. The Hall of Fame in my eyes is supposed to be for the elite. It's supposed to recognize those players who had great careers, players who impacted the game in a way that no other player ever did. It's supposed to be for players who dominated the game during their careers. Andre Dawson just doesn't fall into that category for me.

Two players who were on the ballot this year, one for the very first time, should have been no-brainers. Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven. But for some reason, a few of the writers elected not to vote for these players. Some of the reasons why some writers aren't voting for certain players is pretty laughable.

One writer suggested he turned in a blank ballot because he didn't think any of the players on this year's ballot deserved to be in the Hall. That's certainly his opinion, but the facts suggest otherwise. A couple of others didn't vote for any of the first timers on the ballot because they don't think any player should ever get in the Hall on their first try. And some writers didn't vote for certain players because they still hold grudges and are punishing players for their actions when they were already punished by the league.

Now, to say none of the players deserved to be in the Hall is crock of bull. Bert Blyleven's stats speak for themselves. And to have put up the kind of numbers he did (287-250 record, 3,700+ strikeouts, 3.31 career ERA) on such bad teams throughout his career says a lot. If those aren't Hall of Fame numbers then I don't know what is.

This whole thing about writers punishing a player eligible for the first time is pretty comical. I mean, really, good luck explaining why, in 2013, you didn't vote for Greg Maddux in his first year, or in 2014, why you didn't vote for Randy Johnson in his first year. Well, it's pretty much the same thing with Roberto Alomar. Which leads me to my next argument.

Alomar was punished by the league when he spit on the umpire. The league suspended him for 10 games. So why are the writers punishing him, as well? One thing has nothing to do with the other. It's the same thing with the steroid users, at least those who tested positive and were suspended or those who openly admitted they used steroids. Or worst yet, players who have been linked to steroids but have never been suspended or have never tested positive that we know of.

Barry Bonds was never suspended, and for all we know, has never tested positive for steroids. (That's not to say he used something else, such as HGH, that can't be detected through a urine sample. But that's a whole other issue itself.) Yet, when his time comes for the Hall of Fame, the writers are going to shun him because of his ties to BALCO. (If the writers' argument for not voting for him is because he was a regular arrogant prick, then that's entirely different because Bonds was an arrogant prick to a lot of people, the writers included.) Bonds did nothing but put up Hall of Fame numbers with or without using anything. He was putting up Hall of Fame numbers long before the BALCO thing ever surfaced.

Mark McGwire is another example. Sure, he hurt his chances in the eyes of the writers when he refused to talk about his use of steroids at the Congressional Hearings in 2005, and he probably hurt his chances even more last week when he admitted to using steroids the latter part of his career. And also hurting his chances, which should be the real argument for keeping him out of the Hall is the fact, outside of the 583 home runs, he was essentially just that: a home run hitter. He was a below average hitter overall, with just a .263 career average. He was very good defensively at first base. He didn't have a great arm. And he couldn't run. But every other eligible hitter with at least 500 home runs is in the Hall.

Same goes for Roger Clemens. I'm not going to sit here and come up with reasons why he should or shouldn't be in the Hall. Steroids or not, his numbers more than speak for themselves. So do his seven Cy Young Awards, which the writers vote on. So for any writer who voted for him to win those seven Cy Young Awards, or who voted for Barry Bonds to win his five MVPs, and then doesn't vote them into the Hall, they're hypocrites.

And what's even more sad is the fact the Hall of Fame Veterans Committee is already making a stand against these players who are tied to, have admitted to, or tested positive for using some kind of performance enhancing drug. Well I got news for them, as well. Some of them are hypocrites, too. Especially if they don't allow some of these players into the Hall if the writers don't. Because it's no secret that about 50 of them already in the Hall shouldn't be there based on any of my arguments above or because some of them have decided to label the steroid/performance enhancing drug users as "cheaters."

They're not the cheaters. The cheaters are the hypocrites already in the Hall refusing to let the steroid users in even though they themselves cheated in some way, shape or form throughout their careers. And I'm talking about Gaylord Perry and Joe Morgan, two of the most outspoken Hall of Famers.