The Vine: April 25, 2007
Dear Sarah,
I was born and raised in St. Louis until I left for college, and one of the things that I left with was an undying loyalty to the 2006 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals.
Sorry, I’ve been saying it every chance I can get.
Although you’re a Yankees fan and therefore at least 95% evil, you obviously have a great deal of knowledge about the sport; my question to you regards the recent Hall vote.
McGwire didn’t get into the Hall; heck, he didn’t even come close. And if I have to read one more self-congratulatory column by some hack sportswriter clapping themselves on the back over the great service that they have performed baseball, I might have to hurt the Cubs fan I live with, and being a Cubs fan, he suffers enough every year.
I guess my thought is, while I don’t have a particular problem with them keeping McGwire out, to act like each one of them wasn’t busting their nut with every moonshot that Mac and Sosa hit during the home run chase really boggles my mind. I mean, I was born and raised on Whiteyball, so all the home runs never really did it for me as a fan. That having been said, we all turned a blind eye to what was going on for the sake of the money and returning fans after the strike, and now they want to throw these guys under a train. It’s like taking a horse with a bum leg out back and shooting them.
Keep in mind, I agree with you — loyalty to the game is above all, and I don’t condone the presence of steroids in the game in the slightest. But there’s something that really turns my stomach about the fact that baseball used these guys and then turned around and decided to judge them for transgressions that they have no proof of. Now, I’m not naive — I think Mac took
the ‘roids, and his Capitol Hill performance was dreadful.
But the Hall houses known cheaters anyway; just ask Gaylord Perry about the many uses of Vaseline. So, I pose the question; what does baseball do about the Hall, especially with regards to the steroid era and the players who they can’t prove took the stuff? And how hypocritical is the BBWA to suddenly take this “moral” stand now that the ‘roids issue has come to light?
Seeing Redbird over this
Dear Redbird,
I feel like I’ve gotten into this elsewhere, but what the hell…
It is my opinion that McGwire should go into the Hall. My arguments in favor of that follow, more or less, my arguments for putting Pete Rose into the Hall, which boil down to the fact that 1) he did great things in the game, but 2) his contributions to the way we think about the game also qualify him for inclusion. In other words, instead of barring McGwire (or Rose, or Bonds) because he broke the rules, let’s consider that rule-breaking in the context of the game’s history. Let’s look at the “how” as well as at the “what”; let’s separate “important” or “significant” from “good” or “ethically correct.”
The Steroids Question has a lot of smaller questions braided into it to make the rope with which baseball is trying not to hang itself in the present day; I think the context question is one of the more important ones, especially when it comes to talking about the Hall of Fame and who “deserves” to go in, and I talk about it here, framing the Bonds debate. But another question I think baseball fans need to start asking is why baseball writers, and baseball writers only, have custody of the election process. Bill James proposes an interesting alternative in What Ever Happened to the Hall of Fame that involves a year-long, variably weighted voting cycle that includes everyone — sportswriters, execs, fans, players both active and retired, managers and coaches. And I’m not saying I’m right about McGwire, or Rose; it’s just my opinion. But the guys who are ostentatiously leaving McGwire off their ballots — why are they “righter” than I am? I have followed the game for over twenty years. I’ve written fairly extensively on it; I’ve presented a paper at a conference devoted to it. I haven’t covered a sports beat, or gone into the clubhouse and interviewed the players, but you know what else I haven’t done? Devoted yet another fatuous column to David Eckstein’s “intangibles,” which I know for a fact several BBWAA members have done. What exactly about membership in this association qualifies said members to make these judgments, moral or otherwise — qualifies them above the fans, or internet sportswriters, or Don Zimmer?
This is what I mean — the problem isn’t just steroids. It’s an antiquated elections system that doesn’t address the institution’s needs; it’s the fact that the Veterans’ Committee has historically made biased and unworthy selections that then become viewed by many people as the minimum requirement to get into the Hall, versus what they actually are, to wit: poor cronyist picks that should be considered outliers; it’s continuing resistance on the part of older-school baseball guys to sabermetrics, and to the idea that, actually, you can measure most contributions to the game, more accurately than RBI and ERA, and that you can correct for context — pitchers’ parks, the balata ball, James and Neyer and those guys can actually tell you what stats from a bygone era “mean” in relation to stats from other eras, or the present day.
There is no reason an algorithm can’t be written to correct for the influence of steroids on home-run totals, the same way one has been written to correct for hitting stats at Coors Field. There is no reason to let baseball beat writers, who may have it more in mind to sell papers and to attract attention to their columns by taking extreme positions, determine McGwire’s Hall of Fame fate. There is no reason, no reason at all, that thinking people who care about the game can’t look at McGwire and incorporate all the aspects of his contributions to the game, positive and negative — his use of performance-enhancing drugs and the wonderful ride he took all of us on nearly ten years ago, because…it was wonderful. Hearing baseball history getting made on the radio, all those car horns honking on I-87 because we had all heard the game break…it brought a happiness to the game, an excitement. It united the fans. It happened, and it happened that way; barring him from the Hall won’t un-happen it, and pretending it didn’t, and that we didn’t enjoy it at the time whether or not our enjoyment proceeded from (willful) ignorance, is hypocritical. And it doesn’t help; it doesn’t achieve anything.
I don’t think it’s wrong to take a much harder line on McGwire; it’s another opinion. I don’t mean to pick on the average beat writer, either. But baseball does not “belong to” the BBWAA, and for that group to preside over these decisions, which are about and which affect baseball history and our understanding thereof, now and in the future, when some of them have betrayed in their voting a fundamental inability to comprehend the big picture? Is ridiculous.
And that’s my five thousand six hundred and fourteen cents.I’ve left the comments open on this one so let the rotten-veggie-slinging begin.
Amen.
Totally agree-with the first writer. Very hypocritical to use the home run chase and then punish them. What is wrong with putting an asterisk on the bottom of the plaque
*may have bet on baseball, or whatever
he has the most hits in baseball!!! ever!!!!
Same thing happening right now with Bonds. He’s less than 20 HRs away from besting Hank Aaron, and while it’s a nightly tally and highlight on Sportscenter, it’s way more low key than the McGuire/Sosa Summer of Swat.
But I’m seeing Bonds’ run differently, since the steroids argument for McGuire came to the fore after his retirement. Bonds is still active, and hitting like a monster, and has been under investigation for years over his use of steroids, HGH, and whatever else. His level of denial and bullshit excuses are as transparent as the Bush Administration, but like POTUS he’s getting a pass.
Even Hank Aaron thinks it’s bullshit, but he’s to class an act to say so (or he’s being stifled by MLB). He plans to be as far away from whatever park Bonds is in when he hits #756.
I can’t hold Bonds up to the same level I hold this years inductees, Cal Ripkin Jr. and Tony Gwynn. They love the game, and did what they did out of love for the game and continue to give back to the game as coaches, owners, and mentors to the next generation. I think to a certain extent, McGuire and Sosa did what they did out of wanting to play the game better, and Rose did what he did because he loved gambling about as much as he loved plaing baseball.
Bonds, it seems to me, hates the game. But when he hits number 756 he can retire and punch his ticket to the Hall, which seems to be his one and only goal. His affect on the game, for me, is largely negative.
A-FUCKINg-men.
Yeah, McGwire probably juiced, and no, I don’t think juicing can or should be condoned. But we didn’t know (necessarily) he was juicing at the time, and he was such a damn good guy on top of hitting all those four-sackers. Damn, I’ll never forget that SI cover of McGwire carrying a frightened young boy after the ’89 (’89?) earthquake. It was heart-breaking.
Yeah, he juiced, and he always reminded me of Randy the marionette on Pee-Wee’s Playhouse, but…but….he took us on a hell of ride, and was a hell of a lot more gracious about it than Barry Bonds has been.
One other thing–while I agree that Pete Rose belongs in the Hall, I don’t think that the Rose/McGwire situations are analogous. McGwire juiced in order to hit all those home runs; Rose got all those hits despite gambling. I think Redbird’s comparison of McGwire to Perry is much more apt.
The situations aren’t analogous, but in a way, Perry isn’t really analogous either, because he’s already in the Hall. Once they’re in, it’s over, and it’s often tricky to compare potential electees with those who are already in, because those who are already in should perhaps not be the standard (i.e. all of Frankie Frisch’s friends).
In other words, do you want to put McGwire in because he’s “like” Perry in this way, and Perry’s inclusion condones McGwire’s actions implicitly? Or do you want to judge McGwire on his own merits? I think everyone puts the importance of their answers at different proportions; that’s part of the issue here.
As a fellow Cards fan I can completely agree with Redbird’s point. Can’t McGwire be recognized as bringing back thousands to the game while still acknowledge that yeah, he probably juiced. The baseball writers’ collective revisionist history and smug moral judgements are frustrating and insulting to anyone who follows baseball. Why do baseball players need to be saints to be voted into the hall? And does anyone believe that for all the controversy surrounding Bonds that he won’t be voted in? We have a lot more “evidence” of his juicing than McGwire.
I agree that each player needs to be judged on his own merits, which includes his stats and his impact on the game. Can that impact be negative, or should negative contributions take away from the positive? That’s the question I guess–but it is called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Record Holders Who Were Also Great Guys. Should Rose be in? No question. Same with Bonds, for me–one of the greatest players ever (consensus before anyone thinks he started taking steroids) and he’s certainly had an impact on the game. McGwire’s borderline for me–he was always just a home run hitter…he did win ROY, but he wasn’t much more than a 1- or 2-tool guy…but he (and Sosa) sure took us on a hell of ride in ’98. Guys like Raffy Palmeiro (steroids aside)? Uh uh…sure, he has the magic 3000 hits, but he just didn’t leave enough of a footprint. (I’d actually argue, I think, that Sosa will fall into that category too.)
And I’m not so sure about correcting stats for steroids. For things like Coors Field, park conditions, juiced ball, etc., all players are subject to more or less the same effects subject to how often they played under those conditions, which…it’s in the box scores. With steroids, you’re either going to have to tar all players with the same brush, or make judgments about which players were subject to those effects. Not to mention that to really quantify those effects on stats, I’d think you have to know which guys were using (and when) in the first place.
I think the comparison of McGwire to Perry is a good one, myself; they’re both great players who did some shady things (greaseballs, androstenedione if not outright roids) to accomplish what they accomplished. Perry was a great pitcher, and was voted in despite the spitballs. McGwire was an even greater hitter, and I expect him to get voted in despite the chemistry.
One of Bill James’s insights was that, as time goes by, Hall of Fame voting tends to be more and more about the numbers and less and less about anything else. And McGwire certainly has the numbers. So I figure he’ll get in eventually.
Rose is different. At least Perry and McGwire did what they did in the pursuit of winning. Shoeless Joe Jackson (to bring him in for a second) *isn’t* in the Hall because he did what he did in the pursuit of *losing*. Rose isn’t in the Hall because he broke the same rule that Jackson did, only not as hard.
I think Rose should, eventually, somehow, get into the Hall of Fame. I don’t think anybody’s ever suggested that he threw games like Jackson did, so I wouldn’t be offended by Rose’s election. But: the rule Rose broke, about betting on baseball, is a real rule and a serious rule, and it’s one that baseball has for a very good reason. Rose’s ban is legitimate, and not something that should just be waved away. Baseball would be well within its rights to keep the ban on Rose forever.
Few people want that, though, so I think the best thing would be for MLB to set some conditions by which Rose can be reinstated. And I don’t mean just apologies, therapy and community service; that stuff’s all well and good but it’s too easy. Rose should also have to win the war in Iraq, bring in Osama bin Laden, carry the Ring to Mount Doom and solve a series of clues, each more fiendish than the last.
Boy…lots of typos in my last post. That’s embarrassing.
Was just reading on CNN/SI that Selig doesn’t even want to be in attendance when 756 goes out, but will most likely have to be (even under protest). What a statement on Bonds and the doubt of his “natural” abilities when the Commissioner says, “Eh, whatever.”
If McGwire would just come clean and ditch the “I’m not here to talk about the past” codswallop, I’d probably support him for the Hall. If he gets in eventually without coming clean, it won’t be the end of the world. In the meantime, though, I won’t feel too badly watching him get smacked around a little.
My compliments to Seeing Redbird, though–it’s great to see someone say something nice about Whiteyball. I’ve always been an Indians fan first, but Herzog is my favorite manager.
Second favorite is Earl Weaver, which just goes to show.
I agree. Let’s not forget how rockin’ McGwire was on the A’s, too. Bash Bros, 40/40 club, etc.
And, technically, steriods wasn’t banned (the type they were taking) until recently. They found the loophole. I am not saying it is right, but in looking at the context of the game at that point in time…
Well, speaking as a fan so casual I’m barely a fan….it seems to me the sticking point here is that the Hall of Fame isn’t just the Book of Records. It’s an honor; that inherent in the idea of having a hall, and it’s always gonna stick in people’s craws when and honor is awarded to someone who isn’t, well, honorable. I’m sure there’s plenty of guys in the hall who don’t deserve to be there based on their athletic accomplishments, and I’m sure there’s guys in there who were great athletes and giant scumbags. (Ty Cobb springs to mind.)
But the whole idea of putting someone in the hall, any hall, is that they weren’t just important, they were also admirable. I don’t think that if there was a Civil War Hall of Fame that Sherman would be in it, because Sherman was a vicious bastard, professionally speaking. That seems to me a good enough reason not to let McGwuire and Bonds in.
Well, as the one who asked the question in the first place, I appreciate the comments.
The only reason that I brought up Perry in the first place was not to produce an apt comparison. Rather, I just wanted to make the point that the Hall of Fame isn’t the ivory tower that the BBWA makes it out to be. The thing that made me sick about the whole thing was the moralizing hypocrisy that so many baseball writers spewed about the ‘honor’ and integrity of the game.
The idea that Hall voting should be used as some sort of moral judgement on the character of the inductees is what really bothers me. I don’t think that you can make a sound argument that the Hall of Fame should be about moral character, or half the players who got in before Robinson broke the color barrier should be kicked out on their asses. We don’t do that because Ty Cobb, as reprehensible a human being as he was, was a great ballplayer, and that’s what the Hall is supposed to measure.
Everyone turned a blind eye when McGwire and Sosa were hitting moonshot after moonshot. Not just the writers, but the whole of baseball and the American public, and while there is a case to be made that the willful denial of a mass amount of people doesn’t mean that McGwire and the rest didn’t break the rules, you certainly can’t argue that the same sportswriters who voted in the last election weren’t the same ones who were rhapsodizing about how the home run chase ‘brought baseball back’ after the strike.
Christ, that was a long sentence.
Again, the whole reason that I was bothered was the political nature of the vote as opposed to the merits of the players. I love baseball, I’ve loved it since I was a kid listening to Jack Buck call the game while me and my father washed the car, and the extreme ugliness of this whole thing is shameful.
I find Bonds AND McGuire annoying because I find the current insane emphasis on power hitting annoying, but they both should be in the Hall. But if we’re going to put players in that did one thing exceptionally well – in this case hit home runs – why not put in guys that do one thing well that isn’t hitting home runs. Nobody but nobody gets in on defense alone and that seems inconsistent to me if people can and do get in on offense alone. And if we acknowledge that offense is what counts then as far as I’m concerned designated hitters should get in too.
I dunno, Diablevert. If being in the Hall is about being admirable and not the numbers, then Ty Cobb is overdue for the boot, as you point out. So why should it apply for Cobb and not for McGwire? At least McGwire never sharpened his spikes to gouge opposing players on a slide.
“I don’t think that if there was a Civil War Hall of Fame that Sherman would be in it, because Sherman was a vicious bastard” — I disagree. I think he’d be in it because, if you asked the average person to list five figures from the Civil War, he’d make the list every time. I’m not speaking to his honor; I’m saying it’s not an Honor Roll.
(The HoF apparently tried to create an Honor Roll, and called it exactly that, in the ’40s or ’50s, but it didn’t go anywhere, and I’m not sure quite what it entailed or which 39 players were on it. We should create our own.)
Dan Gutman remarks in “Baseball Babylon” that Rose’s absence from the Hall is like a map of the U.S. with Texas missing. I’d have picked a different state, and the simile doesn’t quite translate to the steroids guys, but it’s my feeling that Rose and McGwire’s importance to the game transcends the stats and qualifies them for inclusion.
On a related note, does anyone recall whether this was a discussion in play when Perry was on the ballot? I’m not a hundred percent on this but I don’t think he was a first-ballot inductee; I think it took him several years, at least, to get in, and I’m wondering if anyone can remember *contemporary* discussion of the fact that he was alleged to have cheated.
According to the HoF website, Gaylord Perry was voted in his third year on the ballot, but he was damn close the first two years.
1989, 304 votes, 68.01%
1990, 320 votes, 72.07%
1991, 342 votes, 77.20% *elected to HoF
Are home runs enough of a reason to gain HoF admittance? I’ve heard MMcG’s other stats discussed with some meh-itude, as if the only thing in his favor was the long ball.
I’m just asking.
As for the BBWAA, yeah, there’s no good earthly reason they should have the sole vote. Voting procedures need overhaul, stat.
Don’t get me started on the Veterans Committee, because I might start with ‘Navel-gazing Ego-tards’ and descend from there.
The thing that’s always struck me about this situation is the completely condescending way in which the sportswriters who said they weren’t going to vote for McGuire said they weren’t going to vote for McGuire. And for what? Most of them mentioned his poor showing at the Congressional hearings, and, really, what does that have to do with his play on the field?
Pointing out the fact that Big Mac was a mediocre hitter when he wasn’t bashing the hell out of the ball? That would have been fine by me, but to punish him for his reticence to speak about the past, in particular, about something that he was never accused of, to say nothing of the fact that he was never caught at, strikes me as disengenuous, to say the least.
One thing that a lot of people never seem to remember is that McGuire actually did go on the record about what he was taking back in ’98. Andro, HGH, and creatine were all perfectly legal back then, and he freely admitted using them at the time, and it’s pretty well established that those things will make you big and help you hit the ball very hard. He may have been juicing as well, but it’s never been proven, and it’s more than a little unfair for the writers to jump to the conclusion that he was and punish him according to their assumptions.
Besides that, it’s not as if he wasn’t bashing the hell out of the ball beforehand. McGuire’s mark of 49 HRs in 1987 still stands as a rookie record and was the closest anyone had gotten to 50 home runs in 10 years (a mark that wouldn’t actually be touched for another three seasons). Bottom line is that he probably should be in the Hall, but for the writers’ attempts to alleviate guilt feelings over their past praise of the man.
Isn’t one of the differences between someone like Gaylord Perry and McGuire or Bonds the fact that what Perry did is something that can be caught/identified by other players competing in that specific game and doesn’t carry over to the next, and can be punished immediately? That seems to matter somehow. It’s pushing the edge, it’s maybe unethical, but it’s not dangerous and you can get busted for it right in th eprocess of the game. More the equivalent fo a technical foul in basketball, maybe.
McGuire is a problem for me because he appears to be a liar and I can’t tell what, if anything, in his career isn’t tainted. Bonds is actually an easier case for admission, because it’s so obvious when he started juicing, and he was a HoF’er even before that based on those great years in Pittsburgh.
Rose broke one of the only absolute rules in baseball that undermines the integrity of the game, lied about it for years, and is sorta overrated anyways. (Seriously, at the end of the day he’s a guy who stuck around for a gazillion years to hit singles) In his case, the punishment fits the crime, because he wants to be in the HoF so damn badly.
My biggest problem with the HoF is the fact that Bert Blyleven isn’t in it, frankly.
“Bonds is actually an easier case for admission, because it’s so obvious when he started juicing, and he was a HoF’er even before that based on those great years in Pittsburgh.”
Actually, if you followed Big Mac at all, you can also see when he started using. I am an A’s fan and remember him suddenly getting huge, getting hurt, etc. He was awesome, however, before he started juicing. As stated above, he broke rookie records, he contributed to the overall A’s team in an important way, including the World Series winning 1989 team.
To me, the HoF shouldn’t be a moral judgement. Instead, it should be a judgement of a player’s contribution to the game. The Mac/Sosa race in 1998 revived what was becoming a dead sport. The strike killed much of the well-being of baseball, and saw a sudden resurgence with that race. I am not saying they saved baseball, but they definitely contributed to the revitalization. So, it wasn’t just about HRs. And, as stated above, Mac said what he had used, and it was all legal at the time. So let’s look at things in the context of the times.
I have also heard that despite the fact that he hasn’t been voted in, Pete Rose is all over the HoF.