Mark McGwire has been on the Hall of Fame ballot for three years. He has not been elected. He has not reached 25% in the voting, which is precisely 1/3 of what it takes to be elected. Mark McGwire was a great player. So why would he not not be elected to the Hall of Fame?
There are essentially three reasons that could explain why people would not vote for him:*
1. He was not great enough to merit Hall of Fame election.
2. He was not great for long enough to merit Hall of Fame election.
3. He was a freaking cheater, and as such does not merit Hall of Fame election.
Reason 1, I believe, is patently inaccurate. Or impossible. Either way. Just to run down what this guy did: He won a Rookie of the Year award, finished as high as second in MVP voting (he figured in the balloting ten times), was a 12 time All-Star, broke a 37-year old record twice (well, technically only once, but you know what I mean), won a Gold Glove (who knew?) and three Silver Sluggers.** He led the league: in RBIs once, in homers four times, in walks twice, in OBP twice, in SLG twice, in OPS twice, OPS+ four times, and in intentional walks once. Career-wise, he's tied for 12th in OPS+, ninth in slugging, in essence ninth in home runs (he's technically tied for 8th, but it's with A-Rod, so that's kind of irrelevant), and he's in the top 40 in walks and offensive winning percentage. He leads everyone ever in at bats per homer. Nice resume.
*Actually, four, everyone could just love the other candidates more, but that's just complicating matters.
** This, to tell you the truth, stuns me. McGwire won four home run crowns, but only three Silver Sluggers? I know shortstop is not the same as first base, but do you realize that Derek Jeter has more Silver Sluggers than Mark McGwire.
*** Interestingly enough, even though his 61 home run year, 1961, came in a lower scoring era than McGwire's 70 season, Maris's OPS+ is lower, markedly lower, than Mark's. McGwire, in '98, drew 68 more walks than Maris in '61. That probably has something to do with the fact that Mickey Mantle was protecting Maris while Ray Lankford and Brian Jordan were protecting Mac. Just saying.
In terms of McGwire's not being great for long enough, well, there's a question there. Roger Maris, whose record McGwire broke in 1998, is, surprisingly to some casual baseball fans, not in the Hall of Fame. Quite simply, he had some Hall of Fame worthy seasons, but his career numbers don't reach the mark.*** The truth is that this doesn't really seem to be true. Did he have a very long career? No. He had over 2,000 fewer plate appearances than Ted Williams who lost significant time fighting in Europe and Korea. But what's important to remember with McGwire is that he does not only have great seasonal stats (70 HR) and rate stats (10.6 AB/HR, 162 OPS+), but he also accumulated some pretty serious stats (583 HR). Was McGwire essentially a one-dimensional player? Yes. Was he awesome for a rather short period of time? Yes. But when you consider that the man is 9th in career home runs (or 8th), I think it's pretty hard to trash on his longevity.
So, it seems that if you don't think he's a Hall of Famer, you believe that because "He was a freaking cheater, and as such does not merit Hall of Fame election." Personally, I think that's pretty darned logical. Rob Neyer doesn't. Neyer says:
There have been, for many years, rules prohibiting corked bats and doctored baseballs, but we know there are players in the Hall of Fame who happily violated those rules. We also know that many, and perhaps most of the great players of the 1970s routinely and illegally ingested stimulants with the express purpose of enhancing their performance.
For me, this is the heart of the matter. Like steroids, stimulants in the 1970s (and afterward) were used as performance enhancers. Like steroids, stimulants were generally against the law, but willfully ignored by the Lords of Baseball. I would absolutely love for someone to explain to me the difference between what Mark McGwire (allegedly) did, and what the superstars of the 1960s and '70s were doing.
I think there are basically two things that are up for discussion here:
1. Pre-Canseco drugs
2. corked bats and doctored balls
I'm not going to even touch upon the amphetamines of the 60s and 70s. My opinion on steroids is simple: You cheated. Period. Why should the fact that others were doing it have relevance? If the players of the 60s and 70s were doing the same type of thing, then they, too, should not be voted for.
Neyer's first argument is "corked bats and doctored baseballs," which are of course expressly against the law. I have three thoughts about this. First, simply, three of the criteria for Hall of Fame election are integrity, sportsmanship and character.* I think a clear argument could be made that known cheaters - of any type - should not be admitted to the Hall, henceforth. But Gaylord Perry is in? So what - that was someone else's mistake. Remember, Freddie Lindstrom's in the Hall, too.
Secondly, and this applies to scuffing but not corking, I think there is an intrinsic difference between scuffing a ball (or corking a bat) and juicing. Scuffing the ball is done on the field, and I think that there is a general perception that anything that is done on the field of play, under the umpire's watchful eye, is legitimate. It's kind of like the phantom double play.
Thirdly, scuffing the ball is a situational thing. So is, to a lesser extent. Sammy Sosa** corked a bat. (Assuming that you believe he used it on purpose,) Sammy Sosa is a cheater. But what did he cheat? Well, he cheated in that at bat. And he probably cheated in a bunch of other at bats. But it's a one-time, or two-time or a twenty-time transgression. He's probably playing legitimately most of the time. When a ballplayer juices, he's changing his body. You lose the whole "Man vs. Man" struggle, because that's not what it is anymore - it's man vs. HGH-man. It's essentially man vs. robot man. More, ethically, you're done. You have illegally and unethically changed your body and there is no going back. Assume with me for a moment that Sammy Sosa used a corked bat just that once and used legal materials the rest of the time. Can that be compared with a fellow who changes his chemical makeup turning him into a Superman?
I think not.
*Please. Do me a favor. Don't take those criteria to tell you that Ty Cobb doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. If you're trying to make a conclusion about a bordrline candidate, those traits should certainly be taken into account. Cobb's statistics are so staggering that I don't think there's any relevance as to the fact that he was of bad character.
That argument is akin to claiming, if the Hall of Fame were to be started right now, that there's no way you could vote Ty Cobb in because he hit fewer home runs than Ben Grieve. There's too much stuff overflowing in the other categories (batting average, a triple crown) to make an argument against his Hall of Fame legitimacy.
** I am obviously using Sammy Sosa because I consider him a good example of someone who corked his bat. Not because I consider him a good example of someone who obviously did not take steroids.
No comments:
Post a Comment