Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot Released

"Logic and reason," in this case, allow you to make connections that you may not have the background to make.

For every Mark McGwire you keep the book open on, there's most probably five others already in the Hall who did the same thing, and you just never heard about it.

You'll notice I didn't say steroids are not the voter's problem to deal with. What I AM saying is that they may not be qualified to vote on that basis with the information they have.

And that's what bothers some people the most -- that the players don't come with "STEROIDS" or "CLEAN" stamped on their foreheads.

 

We can't punish them all - so its not right to punish any? Yeah that's the right attitude to take.

 

Yeah, Chris. That's exactly it. And it IS the right attitude to take. No picking and choosing.

 

Interesting point but the "any reasonable person" test would only work for those players who have been cornered (McGwire). Beyond that, voters would be making no more than educated guesses based on rumor, big muscles and maybe some acne. I don't think you want to get to a point where voters are making those types of judgements. So in the end, you're saying that only players who were caught, either by testing or a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, should be kept out. That still doesn't seem quite fair.

 

This isn't quite the same but I'll tell you, those Black Sox players sure got scapegoated for something that a LOT more players were doing at the time (including some Hall of Famers.)

I can't quite see how scapegoating McGwire, Bonds, Sosa and Palmeiro should let everyone else off the hook in the same way. Thing is, we DON'T know who else is involved; maybe Clemens, maybe somebody completely unnoticed like a Maddux.

You either do it right or you don't do it at all. And that's going to take some time.

 

If by "take some time" you mean that it will never sort itself out, then I agree. Because it won't. There will always be questions and suspicions and speculation about this or that player. Time will add more information and hopefully a lot better perspective but it will never be wrapped up in some nice tidy package.

 

Looked long and hard at McGwire's #'s today.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mcgwima01.shtml

Great rookie season (49-118, .289)

But from 1988-1995, could you call Mark McGwire a 'dominant player of his era?'

* .231, .235, .201 in consecutive seasons.

The word dominant is terribly subjective ... especially when considering someone for the Hall of Fame. But it's quite clear that for a 7-year stretch, he was not dominant. Statistics-wise, he was like Dave Kingman, Cecil Fielder, Steve Balboni, etc.

Then came 96-99. As good a 4-year stretch of power numbers as anyone has had in the history of the sport. But there's the question of steroids, which he refuses to answer.

Gwynn and Ripken were dominant at their position, no question. But really, McGwire?

Next question: Anyone else find it weird that you'd pass on voting for McGwire this year, and then vote for him in a year or two? Nothing's going to change ... you either think he has the #'s or he doesn't.

 

The Baseball-reference.com page on McGwire lists Jose Canseco as the 2nd most similar batter to McGwire. Do you see no evil people want to vote in Canseco too? Or does Canseco get punished because he told the truth about steroids while McGwire is on record for not wanting to talk about the past?

The real victim here are players like Jim Rice and Fred McGriff whose numbers look small compared to the inflated numbers of the Canseco's, McGwire's, Sosa's and Palmeiro's

If nobody should be punished in your eyes - what about Sammy Sosa? Who will lead the charge to get him elected?

 

Chris:

The problem here is that, say, you punish Sosa (who I think would deserve to be elected on the merits of his career, unlike McGwire -- who was too one-dimensional -- or Palmeiro/McGriff -- who weren't dominant, ever). You punish him for steroids and don't elect him to the Hall. OK. Fair enough.

Then, 10 years later, it comes out that Roger Clemens -- who was elected overwhelmingly on the first ballot in 2012 -- spent the 1997-2006 decade of his career on performance enhancers. Do you take it away based on new information?

If so, then what about Ty Cobb or Tris Speaker, who gambled on their own teams and had it swept under the rug by Judge Landis? What about Gaylord Perry, who openly acknowledged his cheating? Where does that leave Pete Rose?

Where do you start and where do you stop? Where is the line drawn?

(And yes, I think the real victims are the 1980s stars whose numbers look puny in comparison -- hitters and pitchers alike. Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer. So is Jack Morris.)

 

Talked to a former co-worker of mine who is a Hall of Fame voter. Said he's voting for Gwynn and Ripken and Tommy John. Said he's voted for TJ every year.

As for McGwire, he's of the opinion that yes, he set his records before the stuff was banned by MLB, but the hearings and his no comment were enough to make not voting for him an easy choice.

 

Perfect description of the dilemma.