I really don't get too worked up about voting for postseason awards or the Hall Of Fame. I appreciate a good subjective barstool debate topic as much as the next guy, but as much as I love the game, I can't get too excited about a sportswriter's ballot. Some people think, "Justin Morneau was only the third best player on his own team! This is an outrage!" I think, "Hmmm... Justin Morneau was only the third best player on his own team. What's for dinner?"

Given my lack of enthusiasm for this particular form of democracy, and my crippling steroid fatigue, I don't know why I decided to read Gwen Knapp's column about her Hall of Fame ballot this evening. But I did. And, boy, is it a doozy.

Early in the column, Knapp discusses the Mark McGwire controversy in a fair and rational manner that gives me faith in the ability of sportswriters to look at a player objectively when marking a Hall of Fame ballot:

McGwire's debut on the ballot brings a host of torturous questions. Did his refusal to talk about the past on Capitol Hill constitute an admission of steroid use? Is it somehow nobler to throw a spitter than it is to juice? Should McGwire be rejected for doing something that so many others did, including pitchers who tried to contain him? How many other users will slip into Cooperstown simply because Congress left them alone?

These are difficult questions that require a great deal of thought, and answering them won't be easy. Oh, wait...

In this corner, the decision is easy. I can't honor a man for a past that he refused to discuss under oath.

Okay, some of you may find this maddening, but I just find it hysterical. Particularly the idea that this was an "easy" decision, as if a bizarre and arbitrary statement such as "I can't honor a man for a past that he refused to discuss under oath" is a time-honored method of player evaluation that has served sportswriters for generations. Ah, yes, I remember the last words Leonard Koppett ever said to me: "You've got to look at the whole package, Gwen. How did he perform in the field? How did he perform under pressure? Most importantly... how did he perform under oath?"

I'm still waiting for the column where Knapp blasts her colleagues Williams and Fainaru-Wada: "Many of my fellow journalists have praised these men for their thorough investigative work regarding the BALCO scandal, but I can't honor men for a past that they refused to discuss under oath..."

Steroids will keep Gwen Knapp from voting for a man who hit 583 home runs, including 70 in one season. I disagree, but it's her opinion, and it appears to be the majority opinion. This doesn't bother me, as long as she is consistent and doesn't do something insane like vote for an admitted steroid user who hit only 239 home runs in an uneven career that was followed by cocaine and alcohol abuse, prison, and a fatal drug-induced heart attack.

The late Ken Caminiti appears on the ballot for the first time this year, along with the record-breaking Bash Brothers, Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco. Only one of the three made real history.

In 2002, six years after he was named the National League's MVP, Caminiti became the first prominent major-leaguer to admit that he had used steroids. He died two years later, at age 41, when a cocktail of drugs sent his already damaged heart into arrest. One of the last pictures of Caminiti showed him handcuffed and wearing an orange jumpsuit, preparing to check out of a Houston jail, where he spent 25 days for using cocaine and violating his probation in an earlier drug-possession case.

For me, none of that rules him out as a candidate.

I couldn't agree more, Gwen. I believe that steroids should not be a litmus test in an era of rampant drug usage. And anything that happened to Caminiti outside of baseball after his retirement is obviously irrelevant. I think you and I would agree that what matters is what he did as a player...

Nor do I care that he hit only .272 with 239 home runs in his career.

Hmmm. Of course not. Hall of Fame voting shouldn't be cluttered by insignificant little facts such as how a player performed on the baseball field.

Oh, and if you're scoring at home...

Caminiti admitting his steroid use: "real history"

Canseco admitting his steroid use: not "real history"

McGwire evading questions about steroids while testifying before Congress: not "real history"

Canseco achieving the first 40/40 season, hitting 462 home runs and winning two world titles, rookie of the year and an MVP award: not "real history"

McGwire's 70-home-run season... well, you get the picture.

I'll admit that I'm a little old school on this issue, as I still believe that there's a difference between "historical acts" and "acts that I find morally admirable." I learned this the hard way in junior high, when my "Why Stalin Was Not A Historical Figure" essay only got a C-.

Anyway, Gwen Knapp is going to vote for Ken Caminiti because of his honesty concerning his steroid use, which some believe was a turning point in how we view steroids. In a way, I guess you could say Caminiti changed the game...

But I'm not voting for Caminiti because he changed the game.

I'm trying to work with you here, Gwen. I really am. In a column full of reasons not to vote for Caminiti, you're going to have to give me at least one "I'm voting for Caminiti because..." sentence.

I'm voting for Caminiti because of who he was, a deeply flawed, widely beloved man.

I absolutely adore this sentence. The problem with McGwire is not the flaw in his personality that caused him to take steroids or the one that caused him to stonewall Congress. It's that these flaws didn't run deep enough. It's tough to find just the right combination on this year's ballot. Albert Belle? Deeply flawed, but not quite beloved enough. Now, Dale Murphy is beloved, but he just doesn't have any deep flaws that I know about. If only he were a pedophile or something.

So, the clearly underqualified Ken Caminiti will receive one Hall of Fame vote this year. (Well, two votes. It would appear that Knapp got this brilliant idea from Tom Verducci, whose reasoning is just as sound, I would guess, and is in no way influenced by the fact that he was the reporter who broke the story about Caminiti's steroid use in the first place.) It's not a big deal, and he probably won't be the worst candidate to receive votes this time around.

But what bothers me is that it's a vote that screams "THIS VOTE IS ABOUT ME! GWEN KNAPP! OVER HERE! LOOK AT ME!" This is nothing new, as evidenced by the fact that five percent of the voters didn't vote for Babe Ruth or Willie Mays when they were elected to the Hall of Fame. Any hack can humbly fill out a ballot based on rational analysis, but an arrogantly misguided ballot, now... that might generate some press coverage!

You write columns for a major metropolitan newspaper, Gwen, so you already have the kind of soapbox that every shrieking talk radio caller in this country dreams about. So use it as such. The column is about you, so keep giving us your unique perspective on the sports world. Give us a "Caminiti Good/McGwire Bad" column every week for a year if that's what burns inside of you.

Your Hall of Fame ballot, however, isn't about you. So try to take a step back and take it seriously.