Unanimous
No doubt that by now you've heard of one Hall of Fame voter - Paul Ladewski, a Baseball Writers Association of America member at the Daily Southtown near Chicago - who turned in a blank ballot, assuring that Cal Ripken's vote total today would not be unanimous. Here is his rationale. His point about the steroid era is not one I disagree with: "... let's suppose a player is voted into the Hall of Fame, then a short time later, a former teammate steps forward to Canseco him. And another. What to do then? Keep him there? Take him out? Drape black crepe over his plaque?'' (For the record, I made the opposite argument back in November and said a vote for the McGwires of the world would send just as strong a message as a non-vote would.)
Still, no beef here with Ladewski withholding his vote on those grounds. It was when he invoked his "no unanimous selections'' rule that it all falls apart. Full disclosure: I've never met Paul Ladewski, never talked to him, don't know if he's a wonderful human being or a genius at writing baseball or anything else. Besides, he's not the only voter who does this. In terms of moronic, pointless sports traditions, this might be the grand-daddy of 'em all.
His words: "Walter Johnson, Cy Young and Honus Wagner didn't receive such Hall passes. Neither did Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. In fact, nobody has in the history of the game. Based on the standards set by the Hall of Fame voters decades ago, is there a neutral observer out there who can honestly say Gwynn and Ripken should be afforded an unprecedented honor?''
Yup, here's one right here. (I've mentioned this previously, before Ripken became a candidate; besides, we're all supposed to be neutral observers in this business, but thanks for the patronizing crack, Mr. Ladewski.)
Just because the boneheads who denied those legends their well-earned votes had their agendas and issues preventing them from doing the right thing, you have to follow their lead and deny other worthy candidates your vote out of some sort of loyalty to the precedent they set? He's got to stay faithful to those warped "standards''?
You think there's some legitimate reason to perpetuate the short-sighted, narrow-minded mistakes your forebears made? They had their own idiotic reasons for reading the list of candidates and saying, "Ty Cobb? Nah. Babe Ruth? What's he ever done for the game? Cy Young? A bum.'' So, seventy years later, let's validate their stupidity and screw our generation's greatest players. Makes a lot of sense.
Besides, many of those same previous voters, whose standards he wants to uphold, also voted in people of horrible character, including several who were subject to the same scrutiny over gambling and throwing games as today's players are of using enhancers. But by withholding his vote this year and in future years due to a character issue, he pretty much breaks with the tradition he holds so sacred. Nice consistency there. Make up your mind: are you going to follow the rules, your own heart, someone else's mistakes, what?
And besides - why is the Baseball Writers Association of America known as the BBWAA? "Baseball'' has been one word for about a century now. God forbid they ever merge with the NAACP and end up writing about "colored base ball players.'' I mean, as long as you're thinking up ways to misuse the Hall of Fame vote, why not vote on joining the 20th century before the 21st gets much farther along?
Sorry, pet peeve, totally irrelevant.
If you want to hear Paul Ladewski explain himself this morning on ESPN Radio's Mike and Mike show, and if you're registered, listen here.
Comments
Hear, hear. David, I couldn't have put it any better myself. The "blank ballot to send a message about steroids" rationale made me roll my eyes, but it's his prerogative. When I read on and saw Ladewski's asinine point about "Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous, so neither should Cal be", it just made me embarrassed to be a baseball fan. How does a clod like that get a vote for the HoF? For all he knows, somebody could have withheld a vote from Ty Cobb because he owed him money...maybe someone else didn't vote for a Sandy Koufax because he was Jewish. By the way, if you want to talk about upstanding citizens in the Hall, I suggest you look up John Clarkson, who was a murderer. Hypocrisy is a beautiful thing, isn't it?
Posted by: Kevin in Columbia | January 9, 2007 11:56 AM
Ladewski and similar writers who do this each year are interested primarily in their own sense of being upholders of tradition, etc. I agree with you altogether that those who vote this way to maintain this warped historical pattern are deranged and in fact, I
plan to petition the Hall of Fame to reexamine its criteria for voters- there should be accountability in every area and in fact there are none in this part of the game. It is a sports writers fraternity club that is not accountable to anyone and that must change I believe.
The part that I disagree with you about, though, is Ladewski's tabloid like smearing of Cal Ripken by stating that "you know he and Rafael Palmeiro were teammates"- this is outrageous and I would think that you as a Baltimore reporter should ask him or report this as such- it is the worst kind of smearing.
And if he just randomly refuses to vote for anyone from the "steroid era" then I would want to know if he voted for Ryne Sandberg- two years ago- he played in the same era- if he did (and as an Illinois paper guy, I would bet money that he did)..then he is a total hypocrite. I think he probably realized that if he didn't vote for Ripken, he would then get his 15 minutes of fame on talkshows/ESPN, etc. (
Posted by: Osfan1966 | January 9, 2007 12:57 PM
While I don't disagree with the gist of your article, I strongly objject to your characterizing people who disagree with you as 'stupid'.
Posted by: David Wilson | January 9, 2007 1:38 PM
I think you've skewered Mr. Ladewski pretty well there, Mr. Steele.
Those entrusted with ballots for the Hall of Fame shouldn't substitute a seperate agenda over their consideration of each player's ability relative to the others on the ballot and to the history of baseball. If men like Mr. Ladewski prefer to pursue their pet issues inappropriately, then their ballots should be taken from them and given to someone who will take the responsibility more seriously.
Posted by: Jason Keyes | January 9, 2007 1:48 PM
I don't know why a "no vote" would count against this. In a general election, only those who CAST ballots get counted. The votes should be recorded as x out of n. If that number is 423 out of 430 then so be it. Why now is there 500+ voters, and years ago only 420+? Hope you in Chicago get what you deserve!
Posted by: cathy | January 9, 2007 1:49 PM
Mr. Ladewski should remember that, at one time, Plessy v. Ferguson ("separate but equal") was Supreme Court precedent.
Posted by: Kate Sinclair | January 9, 2007 1:50 PM
So I wonder how many articles Ladewski wrote over the years attempting to call attention to the steroid issue?
Posted by: mattsway | January 9, 2007 2:19 PM
Thanks, David!
I've been complaining for weeks about curmudgeonly hall of fame voters and how they're all those baseball weird-os that you can't even bear speaking to...
Now I have a name to go with it! How about we ignore the "I won't vote for him on the ___ try" bit and say if you're going to vote for him ever, vote for him now. How about we ignore who else is on the ballot and vote based on the player. How about we ignore the fact that Babe Ruth never got a unanimous vote and vote for a guy because he deserves it. If anyone can argue that Ripken doesn't belong in the hall based on his career... then I can accept him not getting a unanimous vote. But no one argues that way, it's always the BS reasoning like this...
Posted by: Joe | January 9, 2007 3:06 PM
Here's a copy of a letter i sent to Ladewski:Lou Gehrig was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1939 BY PROCLAMATION of the BBWAA. To explain it to you, this means there was no vote; it wasn't necessary. If that's not unanimous, its good enough for me. To state you feel you're upholding tradition by ensuring that neither Ripken nor Gwynn is a unanimous selection is illogical. Mississippi and Alabama once had segregated schools, fully supported by the voters of those states. Is that a "tradition" you'd like to see upheld? Baseball was a segregated sport. Is this another tradition you'd like upheld? You've had your 15 minutes of fame, made the sports shows, "made your point". Now go do some RESEARCH and think about the responsibility you hold as a HOF voter. I hope you either vote, or resign when the next election rolls around. I'd respect a resignation; abstention, not so much.
Ladewski:
Posted by: The Ghost of Hank Bauer | January 9, 2007 10:17 PM