Reactions to BBWAA, Mike Piazza and the HOF Vote

national baseball hall of fame and museum logoYesterday, the National Baseball Hall of Fame announced that the Baseball Writers Association of America elected nobody to the Hall of Fame.

In his first time eligible, Mike Piazza received 57.9% support, which was short of the necessary 75% needed to be elected.


Here’s some reaction from the local Internets…

Bill Madden, Daily News: “To those critics of the Hall of Fame and the BBWAA, I can only say: Save your breath. The system isn’t going to be changed because it is working — and has worked just fine since the first Hall of Fame election in 1936. … As far as I’m concerned, the process worked — again — and I am confident the BBWAA will elect plenty of deserving candidates in the years to come. As for Bonds and Clemens, they can be happy the BBWAA at least has 14 more years to think about them.”

Matthew Callan, Amazin Avenue: “Mike Piazza is the best offensive catcher of all time. The numbers speak for themselves on this matter. … As far as the game of baseball is concerned, the Hall of Fame can’t give Piazza anything he doesn’t already have.  The Baseball Hall of Fame, on the other hand, is little more than an idea of a ghost of a myth. The Hall’s site was chosen based on a risible fabrication about the game’s origins. Like many unimportant things, it believes it is extremely important, but that does not make it so. The Piazza snub underscores this fact.”

Paul LoDuca, quoted in the Daily News: “Once again, tell the Voters to strap on the gear for 9 innings and put the numbers up Mike Piazza did. I don’t care if he used rocket fuel. … All those voters who never strapped on a jock strap … should take a vote of which owners were complaining during that era. NONE. … I took PEDs and I’m not proud of it, but people that think you can take a shot or a pill and play like the legends on that ballot need help.”

Dave D’Alessandro, Star-Ledger: “It’s always problematic whenever the media is the arbiter of virtue for anything, even something as frivolous as sport. The scribe who appoints himself as an authority on anything — especially how public figures conducted their private lives — treads on slippery stuff.  It’s one thing to appreciate how the poetry of athletic brilliance is transferred to the cold math, and mark one’s ballot accordingly. It’s quite another to quibble over whether the numbers were collected by men of integrity, or whether such a trait had anything to do with this game since Ty Cobb dominated the game’s first quarter-century.”

John Coppinger, Metstradamus: “For the writers who are members of the BBWAA to leave out players who are deserving of the Hall of Fame in the guise of making some grand statement, when the true motive seems to be making the story about themselves is a disgrace. Yes, I sympathize with the difficulty of the choice this year. But when people who have that privilege whine about not being given more specific guidelines for this incoming crop because they want the privilege without all the pesky responsibility, then they lose my sympathy.”

Toby Hyde, Mets Minor League Blog: “The BBWAA failed baseball and the Hall of Fame. … If the Hall has no use for Barry Bonds, one of the three greatest hitters of all time, fans should have no use for the Hall. Same deal for Roger Clemens. Doesn’t matter that those two likely did steroids, they belong in the hall based on what they accomplished on the field. On the whole, I understand writers who could not bring themselves to vote for these two. I think it’s hypocritical, sanctimonious and foolish, but I get where they’re coming from. … I hope that when I next visit, it will start to more accurately reflect Major League baseball of my lifetime rather than becoming an outlet for grudges, half truths and revisionist history.”