voting for Papi but not Sosa - - and other inconsistencies
Dec 16, 2021 19:57:56 GMT
klawrencio79 likes this
Post by tristramshandy on Dec 16, 2021 19:57:56 GMT
This is an Athletic piece, so it's behind a paywall. Just wanted to give a bit of it (hey, maybe somebody will get it for Christmas). Ken Rosenthal seems conflicted . . . on a lot of things:
For the latest example of the inconsistencies of Hall of Fame voting, we bring you the question of Sammy Sosa vs. David Ortiz.
This is Sosa’s 10th and final year of eligibility on the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) ballot. It is Ortiz’s first. Their career arcs are similar. Their statistics are Cooperstown-worthy. Their confirmed links to performance-enhancing drugs amount to one reported positive test for each, in what was supposed to be anonymous survey testing in 2003. A test that included at least 10 false positives and did not fully distinguish between certain legal and banned substances, according to commissioner Rob Manfred.
Yet, while Sosa has yet to receive more than 17 percent of the vote, Ortiz figures to eventually reach the 75 percent necessary for induction, perhaps even this year. I voted for Ortiz but still do not vote for Sosa, for reasons that will be explained below. Differences between the two exist, in their eras, their performances, the rules in which they played under. But the wide disparity in their expected vote totals is difficult to justify.
Perception is part of this: Ortiz is the beloved “Big Papi,” while many regard Sosa, fairly or not, as a fraud, a symbol of the Steroid Era. Ortiz also is the stronger candidate. So it’s possible to choose him and not Sosa without invoking the twisted logic that in recent years has made voting for the Hall, an honor writers earn only after 10 years of BBWAA membership, an exercise in increasing futility. The troubling part for me is that I believe allegations of Ortiz’s steroid use are too flimsy for me to withhold my vote, yet I applied a different standard to Sosa even though the known evidence against him is the same.
A year ago, I was so exasperated by my own contradictions and choices of so many candidates of questionable character, I wrote that I was considering no longer voting. Well, I decided to keep at it, accepting that virtually all ballots will include inconsistencies, creating openings for criticism. The process is imperfect. But after 35 years as a baseball writer, I feel I would abandon a certain responsibility if I walked away.
I’m voting for the maximum 10 players, including nine holdovers from my previous ballot — Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Jeff Kent, Scott Rolen, Curt Schilling, Gary Sheffield and Billy Wagner. My only new selection is Ortiz, whom I’m substituting for Omar Vizquel. I was particularly haunted about voting for Vizquel last year just weeks after reporting with Katie Strang about allegations of domestic abuse against him. Vizquel since has been sued for sexual harassment by a former minor-league bat boy.
This is Sosa’s 10th and final year of eligibility on the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) ballot. It is Ortiz’s first. Their career arcs are similar. Their statistics are Cooperstown-worthy. Their confirmed links to performance-enhancing drugs amount to one reported positive test for each, in what was supposed to be anonymous survey testing in 2003. A test that included at least 10 false positives and did not fully distinguish between certain legal and banned substances, according to commissioner Rob Manfred.
Yet, while Sosa has yet to receive more than 17 percent of the vote, Ortiz figures to eventually reach the 75 percent necessary for induction, perhaps even this year. I voted for Ortiz but still do not vote for Sosa, for reasons that will be explained below. Differences between the two exist, in their eras, their performances, the rules in which they played under. But the wide disparity in their expected vote totals is difficult to justify.
Perception is part of this: Ortiz is the beloved “Big Papi,” while many regard Sosa, fairly or not, as a fraud, a symbol of the Steroid Era. Ortiz also is the stronger candidate. So it’s possible to choose him and not Sosa without invoking the twisted logic that in recent years has made voting for the Hall, an honor writers earn only after 10 years of BBWAA membership, an exercise in increasing futility. The troubling part for me is that I believe allegations of Ortiz’s steroid use are too flimsy for me to withhold my vote, yet I applied a different standard to Sosa even though the known evidence against him is the same.
A year ago, I was so exasperated by my own contradictions and choices of so many candidates of questionable character, I wrote that I was considering no longer voting. Well, I decided to keep at it, accepting that virtually all ballots will include inconsistencies, creating openings for criticism. The process is imperfect. But after 35 years as a baseball writer, I feel I would abandon a certain responsibility if I walked away.
I’m voting for the maximum 10 players, including nine holdovers from my previous ballot — Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Jeff Kent, Scott Rolen, Curt Schilling, Gary Sheffield and Billy Wagner. My only new selection is Ortiz, whom I’m substituting for Omar Vizquel. I was particularly haunted about voting for Vizquel last year just weeks after reporting with Katie Strang about allegations of domestic abuse against him. Vizquel since has been sued for sexual harassment by a former minor-league bat boy.