Mazz: An explanation on Hall of Fame voting? I don’t have one

Author Tony Massarotti

January 26th, 2022 9:09 AM

In the case of Barry Bonds, the difference was 47 votes. In the case of Roger Clemens, it was 50. That was the gap between David Ortiz, who got into the Hall of Fame, and the two most notable candidates who did not.

How do I explain that?

I can’t.

At least not with any real justification.

Before we got any further, let me just say this: I’m not trying to be sanctimonious or judgmental here. (OK, maybe just a little.) The whole idea of any election is to ask for different viewpoints. The question in 2022 is how someone could vote for David Ortiz while denying Bonds and Clemens, all of whom were strongly suspected or downright guilty of using performance-enhancers. I wish I could tell you that I have a good answer for that question. I don’t.

• Share

  Purely for the record, I voted for them all: Bonds, Clemens and Ortiz – as well as Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez. They were all great players. And they were all tainted by the steroid era. If you want to maintain any integrity at all, it’s hard to vote for any one without voting for the others. That was my logic, which clearly was not shared by somewhere in the range of 45-50 voters at a minimum.
  
  Remember: Ortiz failed a drug test. Clemens and Bonds did not. (At least as far as we know.) That singular fact is impossible to overcome if you voted for David Ortiz while depriving Bonds and Clemens, which brings us back to politics.
  
  Ortiz was more likable, to the point where he garnered the support of commissioner Rob Manfred, who effectively gave Ortiz a get-out-of-jail-free card. Comparatively speaking, Bonds and Clemens were hung out to dry. And the approximate 50 voters who took the bait – give or take – now stand in the gray area of what constitutes cheating and what does not.

• Share

  Why did they ignore Ortiz’ failed test? Why did Bonds and Clemens fail to get the same latitude? I don’t have a clue. Probably because they found Ortiz more likable. Or because the commissioner told them it was OK. Whatever the answer, it certainly wasn’t because Ortiz was a better player. He wasn’t.
  
  As a baseball fan, you have a right to scrutinize the voting. In fact, I encourage you to. I have been voting for the Hall of Fame for 18 years and posted all of my ballots online this morning (@tonymazz985 on Instagram). In my earlier years, I kept Goose Gossage off the ballot – and then I changed my mind and added him. (I caved.) One of my bigger regrets was saying no to John Smoltz, who got in. I now wish I had voted for him.
  
  The point? I’m not perfect, either. And I won’t be going forward.
  
  When it comes to voting in general, I really do wish we would all just keep it simple. Someone like me got a vote in the first place because I covered baseball for at least 10 consecutive years, which means I saw a lot of games and watched a lot of players. Cooperstown is home for those who made contributions to baseball – not to mankind or humanity. We’re not talking about the Nobel Prize here.
  
  We’ve admitted those with questionable character before.
  
  We denied those with questionable character yesterday.
  
  And if you’re asking me to defend that, I can’t.

Get The 98.5 The Sports Hub Newsletter Delivered To Your Inbox

Stay up to date with the latest Boston sports news and analysis, local events, exclusive contests, and more.

Email *

Subscribe

By clicking "Subscribe" I agree to the website's terms of Service and Privacy Policy. I understand I can unsubscribe at any time.

Author Tony Massarotti

Category:

• Columns
• News
• Red Sox
• Tony Massarotti

Tags:

ballot,barry bonds,commissioner,david ortiz,Hall of Fame,Mazz,rob manfred,roger clemens,steroids,Voting