What exactly did the BBWAA mean to say by “character” when deciding the criteria for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame?
This question envelopes the HOF discussion, to the point of smothering, and every year the debate gets bigger, more fiery; but with no concrete answers or viable solutions to the question.
Here’s the exact wording in the BBWAA Rules for Voting:
Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
There’s a lot we can interpret on our own terms. Such as in regarding “integrity.” We hold different things more dear, and to different degrees. We’re not going to agree on all the variables of human behavior. Something you think exhibits a lack of integrity might not affect another person the same. And, as for voters, what they believe about integrity is to their discretion.
As we explore these ideas, weighing all the factors, there’s also not as much variety in the discussion.
A half hour of research of writing on the character question led to just one part of the voting block. And also probably the majority. Every story was written by men, most of them white. Every expression of outrage that character has been interpreted to exclude former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, was mostly made by white men. They dismissed voters reasoning as “political,” or having a problem with his “personality.” One writer clarified his emotional attachment early in his story by calling Schilling “Big Schill,” then wrote that the former pitcher should merely “delete his Twitter account.”
That’s not to suggest that no white men struggle with the inclusion of character, particularly in terms of Schilling. On the contrary. There are many. Among them is Ted Berg, who describes Schilling as a “right leaning political firebrand[whose spent] post-playing days gleefully sharing specious xenophobic, transphobic, and conspiratorial memes.” Berg doesn’t dance around the subject. Schilling’s comments are pure hate in his estimation.
In the days leading up to the HOF inductees announcement, there was actually argument FOR his character as one of the reasons he should be inducted. During his playing days, Schilling was an early leader in MLB in the fight against ALS. He and his wife Shonda were inducted into the Association’s Hall of Fame in 2009, after years of relentless, passionate advocacy. He also won the Roberto Clemente Award in 2001, one of the highest honors an active player can receive. His work on behalf of ALS research and support of those with the disease, and their families, should not and cannot be erased. But neither can suggesting violence against a woman he disagrees with (“Hillary Clinton should be buried under a prison”) or journalists (in response to a Trump fan’s shirt that read, “Rope, Tree, Journalist,” he tweeted, “so much awesome).
We don’t have to reach too far back for examples of Hall voters overlooking terrible behavior. If there’s a standard, it’s not consistent.
Former Atlanta Braves manager Bobby Cox was arrested for punching his wife, and according to police reports, he had a “continuing pattern of domestic violence.” Former Minnesota Twins centerfielder Kirby Puckett allegedly strangled his wife with a phone cord. He was also charged with sexually assaulting a woman in a restaurant bathroom. Both are highly revered, deeply loved by fans and teammates. Both are in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
In researching Ty Cobb’s history, particularly that he was openly racist, is also heavily influenced by the voices of white men. It’s hard to get a full picture when white male baseball fans dominate the conversation, insisting that, no, he was not, and there’s no argument. They write books about it, and flatly deny the experiences of black players who came into contact with him. In his New York Post 2015 piece, Kyle Smith confirms that Cobb was overhead to use “the N word,” but goes on to say, “Today that behavior would certainly brand you as a racist, but racial slurs were commonplace then.” So, according to the white men, he’s been “framed as a racist.” Even though he said racist things, he is not, in their opinion actually racist. Cobb was inducted into the HOF in 1936. Would Cobb be inducted today if baseball writers knew that he’s used racist language? Probably not. In some way, that suggests that “character” is definable when writers vote.
(By the way, When researching sexist abuse by players in the HOF was called, “Feminists, Please Don’t Ruin Baseball,” written by Mollie Hemingway. So…there was that)
The discussion of character can’t exclude those who’ve been inducted. There are men there who’ve beaten women, been blatantly racist, and/or put others in harm’s way in some capacity. Are other behaviors while playing part of the equation? Drinking? Drug abuse? Generally mistreating people around them?
Character was defined differently when Hall voting began in 1936, in that there was no clear definition at all. The rules direct writers to consider “sportsmanship,” integrity,” and “character,” but they’re given no other concrete guidelines. When fans or other writers grumble that certain writers make voting “personal,” well, how can they not? Every baseball writer with a vote has to decide for themselves what character means to them. They have to ask themselves, in the context of baseball, what kind of person the player was, and they have to create their own parameters, and work within them. Even the meaning of “sportsmanship” is likely to become a bigger point of contention, with writers often arguing about how today’s generation of players celebrate home runs or wear their hat to the side.
If Schilling’s character being questioned is criticized, then Cox induction should also be a problem. His history of violence against his spouse wasn’t a secret when he was called to the Hall. Those writers made the the decision to personally define character in their own terms.
When ESPN writer and editor Christina Kahrl’s ballot was released, it was her stance on former pitcher Roger Clemens that likely caught baseball fans, and possibly some colleagues, off guard. Clemens candidacy has been feverishly debated, due to his alleged use of PED’s But it was questions about Clemens relationship with then teenage country singer Mindy McCready that bothered her most. She left him off her ballot. McCready, who died in 2013, was not entirely forthcoming about the details of her relationship with Clemens but she confirmed “an affair.” Kahrl considered the guidelines, and personally defined what character meant to her.
We can debate this forever, or we can ask for character decisions to be more clearly explained. We can ask the Baseball HOF to reconstruct the rules of eligibility. Fans can even ask that a word as subjective as character not be included in the rules, or possibly be expanded in order to be more concise. But what we can’t do is insist that any decision about character not be personal. Because that’s all it can be.
Recent Comments