Topp's Tips

Every once in a while I’ll read a piece of sports journalism and think, ‘If I ever write something half as good as that story, I’d be thrilled.’ Of course, every once in a while I’ll also read a piece of sports journalism and think, ‘What utter rubbish.’

Thursday night, I had the latter reaction after reading a column by Dan Graziano, a Major League Baseball Senior Writer for America Online. This is the time of year when members of the Baseball Writers Association of America are casting Hall of Fame votes.

Graziano’s column centers on the fact that he isn’t voting for former Houston Astros first baseman Jeff Bagwell, who is on the ballot for the first time this year. I’m not upset that Graziano isn’t voting for Bagwell (although I personally believe he should be a Hall of Famer, more on this later). Rather, I’m sickened by the reasons why Graziano is withholding his vote for Bagwell.

Despite the fact that there is no factual evidence that Bagwell used steroids, and despite the fact that Bagwell has said he did not use steroids (although this is not exactly surprising), Graziano is not voting for Bagwell because he personally believes Bagwell used steroids. It’s not that Graziano ever witnessed Bagwell juicing or heard from any reliable source that Bagwell used steroids. No, Graziano is withholding his vote for Bags on nothing more than a gut feeling and some “circumstantial evidence” – evidence that he fails to provide any detail on and evidence he admits would never stand up in a court of law. Sounds like pretty poor evidence to me.

Best I can tell, Graziano’s argument boils down to three reasons:

1. Graziano essentially says, “It’s my vote, I can do what I want with it.”

Technically, I guess that’s true. But to me, that’s a very Blagojevich-esque line of thinking. (I have control of this Senate seat, and I’ll do what I want with it!)

It’s an honor to have a Hall of Fame vote. Last year, 539 members of the BBWAA cast votes. That’s really a pretty select group.

Although it is Graziano’s vote and he can do what he wants with it, how the BBWAA votes affects more than just the players on the ballot. It affects every baseball fan who attends Cooperstown each year.

2. Graziano says “I’d rather withhold the vote based on suspicion than vote the guy in only to find out later he cheated and I shouldn’t have.”

Um, what? In what way is this line of thinking rational?

Basically, Graziano is saying he’d rather punish a bunch of innocent players with his voting style, as long as he also punishes some players who turn out to be guilty of steroid use.

My only thought here is that Graziano is trying to protect himself from ever being selected for jury duty. No defense attorney in his/her right mind would ever select for a jury a man who believes it’s OK to punish any person he thinks might be guilty, even if there’s not enough evidence to support it.

3. The real crux of Graziano’s argument is that he’s not voting for Bagwell because he’s “suspicious” Bagwell used steroids, although he also says “I don’t have evidence” to support those suspicions.

Why Graziano is suspicious, he doesn’t really say, other than saying he has some “circumstantial evidence.”

That circumstantial evidence is probably the same circumstantial evidence a lot of BBWAA members will use when keeping Bagwell off their ballots – he played in the Steroid Era, and he looked like a guy you’d definitely want on your side if you got in a bar fight.

Voting this way, however, is dangerous for a couple reasons.

For one, where do you draw the line?

If Bagwell looks like he used steroids simply because he was a hulking figure, does that mean athletes like Frank Thomas and Albert Pujols juiced too? Those two, like Bagwell, also have impressive amounts of strength.

Interestingly, Graziano says he is voting for Barry Larkin and Roberto Alomar. Like Bagwell, they also played in the Steroid Era. But I guess they don’t fit the stereotypical image of ‘roid user, so it’s OK to vote for them.

Yet how accurate is the stereotype? Andy Pettitte didn’t exactly look like a guy who used performance enhancing drugs, yet Pettitte has admitted to using human growth hormone.

I’m not trying to argue that Bagwell didn’t use steroids. Maybe it will eventually come out he did use. Maybe he didn’t. That’s not the point. The point is you can’t just say, “Well he was a big dude with a lot of strength, so he must have juiced,” when there’s really no evidence he did.

And what if Graziano’s wrong? What if everyone who will keep Bagwell of their ballots because they think he used steroids are wrong?

In that case, you are keeping a player who had 2,314 career hits, 449 home runs, 488 doubles, 202 stolen bases, a career batting average of .297, a career on-base percentage of .408 and a career slugging percentage of .540 out of the Hall of Fame.

Those are great numbers and are even better when you consider Bagwell played nine of his 15 seasons, including his prime, in the Houston Astrodome, one of the worst hitters’ ballparks in the history of modern baseball.

Now, Bagwell’s Hall of Fame case does have some flaws. He didn’t reach 2,500 hits or 500 home runs.

His career fell off rapidly after he turned 36 years old.

If voters want to keep him out for those reasons, then that’s fine. But it’s wrong to keep him out of the Hall of Fame simply because he was a home run hitter who played in an era when other sluggers, such as Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire, used steroids. Here’s to hoping not every member of the BBWAA is as cynical as Graziano.