The Character Clause: Avoid Hypocrisy by Voting on the Stats, Not Your Conscience

Baseball's first commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, kept baseball segregated during his entire 24-year tenure stretching from 1920-1944. He even went so far as to break up traditional Black vs. White baseball exhibitions, whichmany claim was to avoid the embarrassmentthat the Black teams won so often. His inaction delayed the breaking of MLB's color barrier for decades despite several petitions during his time as the head of the league.

In a nod to its now-clear hypocrisy, the higher-than-thou former judge also helped create the Pro Baseball Hall of Fame's infamous "character clause," stating, "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." Simple enough, right? Far from it.

BBWAA writers have a hard enough time voting for players with a 10-player maximum. When you throw the purposefully ambiguous character clause at them, they can't, as a whole, stay consistent with their voting trends. Ty Cobb was a sociopathic racist, but he was part of the Hall of Fame's inaugural class, earning 222 of 226 possible votes. Cobb was one of the greatest players in the game's early history, there's no doubt about that. But he was also one of its worst people.

Cap Anson helped establish baseball's color barrier, Gaylord Perry cheated by using a spitball, Rogers Hornsby was an avid gambler, Paul Molitor had a thing for recreational drugs, and Wade Boggs was a sex addict. They're all in the Hall of Fame. So, how on earth are we supposed to judge players for off-field issues when assessing their worth as a Hall of Famer?

The simple answer, as we've seen proven by BBWAA writers using the "character clause" as an excuse not to vote for steroid users, is that we can't. And for that reason, the "character clause" is detrimental in helping decide who should be enshrined into the Hall of Fame and who should not. In fact, we shouldn't be judging players' off-field issues much at all when determining whether or not they're worthy of enshrinement. It muddies the water too much and has led to inconsistent application of an ambiguous rule.

Do Iwantto see Curt Schilling end up in the Hall of Fame? No. His behavior and political nonsensical views are abhorrent. Calling him an embarrassment of a human being would be an understatement. But he is also statistically worthy of inclusion in the Hall of Fame based on his career numbers. Statues of Confederate generals belong in museums, not being celebrated out in the streets. Baseball's bad eggs, if their on-field success warrants it, belong in a museum where generations can discuss their significance for better or worse.

The worst ones don't deserve to be celebrated but do deserve to be recognized as the players and in some cases assholes they were. They should be recognized for their on-field achievements with the hopes that grandfathers and fathers can have discussions with their progeny not only about the player they were, but themanthey revealed themselves to be. Including statistically deserving, yet morally lacking individuals in the Hall of Fame allows these conversations to happen. Pretending the players didn't contribute anything to the game on the field does nothing.

Yes, I get it. Keeping players like Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame deters others from following in his footsteps. Except, it only deters others in theory. In practice, the BBWAA hasn't applied the character clause to just about anybody outside of steroid users. It's why Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and others have not yet been voted in and it's why Sosa and McGwire will never be voted in. Steroid users' actions were reprehensible, yet worthy of prolonged discussion within those hallowed halls in Cooperstown. Let a mom or dad tell their son or daughter about how these players cheated. Letthemhave those conversations.

It's not for the BBWAA to decide right from wrong because they don't apply it consistently across the board. If they did, Omar Vizquel, who isaccused of serious domestic violenceon multiple occasions by his wife Bianca, who has initiated divorce proceedings, would not be gaining the steam he is. Keep in mind that statistically, Vizquel is nowhere near Hall of Fame-caliber to begin with. Yet, BBWAA writers are still voting for him at a rate that is frankly stunning. He won't gain enshrinement this year, but that doesn't look like an impossible future feat at this rate.

Of course, when it comes down to it, writers are going to vote based on whatever they want. The "character clause" is meant to guide them, but it clearly hasn't meant the same thing to different writers in the past and it's unlikely to in the future. So, removing the character clause may not do much to change voting results. Baseball writers are some of the most stubborn creatures on earth. The next time you change one of their minds about who should be in the Hall of Fame will be the first.

Outside of perhaps Scott Rolen, the Hall of Fame-worthy players of this upcoming class all have major flaws. Schilling is a sad excuse of a man, and Clemens & Bonds cheated the game. But Bud Selig is in the Hall of Fame and he turned a blind eye to the league's steroid problem, evenlaunching veiled threats at reporterswho prodded him about it. So, it seems a bit hypocritical to enshrine the enabler and keep out the enabled. We need to get the romanticized idea out of our heads that the Pro Baseball Hall of Fame is a hall of good men. It's a hall of men who were great at baseball. Many, like Roberto Clemente & Jackie Robinson, were true heroes and icons worthy of praise on and off the field. Most in the Hall were and are not.

The Pro Baseball Hall of Fame is a museum and it should tell the history of the game. We can't tell that history without the game's all-time hit king. We can't tell it without a seven-time Cy Young winner, nor can we tell it without its all-time home run leader. We can't even tell it without the mention of a bloody sock in October 2004.

It's a hard truth that some of baseball's most storied history is so intertwined with some of its most reviled characters. But the misapplication of an ambiguous rule isn't going to change that. The statistically deserving should be enshrined and once they are, they deserve to have their morality or lack thereof, scrutinized as any public figure who sets a bad example should.