Simmons defends McGwire, rips Ann Killion

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070103

An excerpt:

<i> San Jose Mercury News columnist Ann Killion wrote that she can't vote for McGwire because she wouldn't be able to explain it to her kids.

She concluded her column with this: "All I can do is cast my own vote judiciously. And be able to look my kids in the eyes when I do it."

Ann, I'm glad you're such a thoughtful mom. Seriously, that's great. </i>

And:

<i> And anyway, part of our country's problem is the shortsighted way we "protect" our kids from life's harsh realities. Janet Jackson's nipple slip was such a traumatic moment for Americans that some live sporting events now run on tape-delay, and Howard Stern fled to SIRIUS to escape the clutches of the increasingly fascistic FCC. Meanwhile, any kid can glimpse Britney's crotch if he or she is even remotely familiar with Google, and <b> anyone can be slandered anonymously on a blog or message board. </b> </i>

Thoughts?

 

just read the column. it's great!

enjoyed the lupica rip.

 

In my humble opinion, I think McGwire would garner a lot of votes if he just simply manned-up and came clean about all the shit he did. That's probably what pisses everyone off: McGwire just doesn't have the courage to own up for his actions. Even though it is tired, the "Ty Cobb is in" argument is valid. Who would you rather have your kids look up to and idolize: Cobb or McGwire?

PS - Simmons has a good damn point about the media and the rest of America being very hypocritical.

PPS - J-Dub, you liked the Lupica rip? GET OUT!

 

From one of my favorite op/ed columnists ...

...Lately, though, it’s become harder to tell the sports page from the rest of the newspaper. Largely due to money and TV celebrity, jocks now draw outsized personal scrutiny once reserved for Hollywood actors, Washington politicians, serial killers and girl singers who misplace their underpants. Mostly, it’s merely annoying to see sports commentators posing as moral arbiters, prosecutor, judge and jury. Then there’s the BALCO investigation in San Francisco, a media-driven probe of alleged steroid abuse by professional athletes that’s beginning to rival Kenneth Starr’s probe of the Very Naughty President for misplaced prosecutorial zeal and dangerous constitutional precedents.
Incredibly, this seemingly endless federal investigation, whose main purpose appears to be to prevent an unpopular baseball player from breaking a “hallowed” career home-run record, or, at minimum, depriving said slugger of public esteem accompanying the feat, now poses serious threats to the First and Fourth amendment rights of all Americans.

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/177611/

 

Agree with that, absolutely 100%.

And to add to that: Bonds earned his way in, too. The steroids are unfortunate -- but if Bonds retires in 1998, he's already in the Hall as we speak.

McGwire, however, is definitely not a Hall of Famer before the steroids. And, arguably, he's not even a Hall of Famer now. He's got one HOF number: 583. Too one-dimensional in my book, regardless of steroids.

 

He probably started using in the late '90s. That's when he picked back up to the kind of numbers he posted early.
His first full season in '89 he hit 49 HRs and was .289. His career average was 50 HRs and .263.
The first six years he averaged 36 HRs, and the last six full years he averaged a little over 52 HRs. He acknowledged Andro use then, which was legal and an OTC supplement at the time but that wasn't cheating. He certainly didn't violate the letter of baseball's law then.
And in the late 90s everyone was hitting more homers, that probably explains a little bit of the bump up. But not all of it.
I just think it is kind of funny that people like Ann Killon, who I'm sure is a fine writer, isn't taking a harder look at any of the current players in any of the leagues. If she wants to look her kid in the eyes years later, she better get on bus and start writing about how most professional athletes are using and abusing prescription pain pills.

 

Does he? I mean, sports journalists can be arbiters when it comes to judging trades and pitching changes, but not otherwise?

To me, it's a column about Honesty, but not Truth. Everything Simmons writes about the "world" about Lupica and Cobb may all be true. But you don't make decisions on the basis of how consistent they are with old decisions, or how consistent they are with the "real world."

 

I thought it was one of his best columns in recent memory.

 

By far one of his best columns in recent memory, but he almost blows it by reverting back to his silly cliches. It almost concerns me that he can't try to make an argument without trying (hard) to make someone chuckle.

To me, McGwire's in. But I believe that the voting outlines considering a player's character, during and after his career, and that's unfortunately what's going to hold him up in a lot of people's minds.