Some baseball writers believe they are the morality police

32 Comments

In the course of Michael S. Schmidt’s recent column on Jeff Bagwell, Ross Newhan, the retired Los Angeles Times writer and still-current Hall of Fame voter, describes what he sees as the role of the electorate:

“Somebody said we are not the morality police, but yet I think we are. If we aren’t, who is? Part of our job is that we are custodians of the game’s history.”

I get why someone can think that. The Hall of Fame ballot invites voters to weigh-in on the character of candidates.  But there’s a big difference between passing on a single player’s character and being “the morality police” or “the custodian of the game’s history.”

In the former instance, a voter is merely judging one player.  If limited to that, one must necessarily look at Bagwell’s record and note that there is not a single thing on his professional resume that could be viewed as a character deficiency. In the latter instance, however, voters give themselves permission to read all of baseball’s sins of the Steroid Era into Bagwell’s biography.  They feel they are protecting some sacred institution, not merely judging one man. In this case it’s easy, then, for a writer to explain away the injustice he might visit upon Jeff Bagwell. After all: he believes he is doing something more important than passing on Bagwell.  He’s protecting the Hall of Fame! Even though there is nothing on the ballot or in his marching orders that tasks him with this.

And why would there be? The Hall of Fame is capable of protecting itself. It does so by setting its eligibility standards. It could change them in five minutes if it felt threatened. It hasn’t done so in response to the steroids epidemic. That should tell the writers something. Sadly, it has not.

The Hall of Fame is not heaven, my fellow baseball writers, you are not St. Peter at the gate, and no one — not even Jose Canseco — has written baseball’s book of life.  Have a sense of humility about you. Understand that your role is not to be baseball’s moral arbiters, writ-large.  You are to look at one player at a time and judge him accordingly. If you have nothing negative to say about him, and if his accomplishments are sufficient, vote him in.

Cubs designate Brett Anderson for assignment

Justin K. Aller/Getty Images
2 Comments

The Cubs announced on Wednesday that pitcher Brett Anderson was activated from the 60-day disabled list and subsequently designated for assignment to open up a spot on the 40-man roster.

Anderson, 29, had been out since May 7 with a lower back strain. Across six starts prior to the injury, the lefty yielded 20 earned runs on 34 hits and 12 walks with 16 strikeouts in 22 innings. He has logged just 33 1/3 innings over the last two seasons and has crossed the 50-inning threshold just since dating back to 2011.

Despite his lengthy injury history, Anderson will likely still draw some interest once he becomes a free agent as he throws with his left hand and can be had for the major league minimum salary.

Dilson Herrera has season-ending surgery

Getty Images
3 Comments

Reds infielder Dilson Herrera will undergo surgery to remove bone spurs from his right shoulder. His season is over.

Herrera, you may recall, was acquired from the Mets in the Jay Bruce trade last year. He played in 49 games for the Mets, but spent all of last year and this year in the minors. In parts of seven minor league seasons he’s hit .295/.357/.461 with 67 homers and 87 stolen bases in 631 games.

Herrera, one time a top-5 prospect of the Mets, was expected to play in the bigs this year, but hasn’t. He was expected to challenge for the starting second base job for the Reds next year, but that’s obviously in doubt now. The worst part: he’ll be out of minor league options next year, so the Reds will be pressured to either put him on the big league roster fresh off an injury or else risk losing him via waivers, which I suspect he’d be unlikely to clear.