Mark McGwire failed to even get 25% of the vote to be inducted into the basebal Hall of Fame. Considering the stats he put up one might think that is surprising, but of course, it isn’t surprising, considering the cloud of steroid use has been put upon him.
But McGwire was never caught or suspended or tested negative for drugs. He did use Adrostenedione (sp?), but it was a perfectly legal supplement both in the law and in baseball at the time. Jose Canseco made accusations in his book, but at this point there isnothing to substaiate it (doesn’t mean it isn’t true).
So the bottom line here is that the voters have decided that there is enough circumstantial evidence to “convict” him. But I am not trying to defend McGwire, quite the contrary. I also probably would not have voted for him. But that leads to a bigger issue. Who gets in? How much evidence do we need to keep someobody out?
Rafael Palmeiro was already a borderline HOFer (IMO) who tested positive, but what of Barry Bonds? Gary Sheffield? Sammy Sosa? These guys are suspected because they hit lots of home runs and there is other accusations, but little proof. What about Roger Clemens? Ken Griffey Jr.? My question is this, how do we judge players from baseball’s steroid era now, given the precedent set with Mark McGwire?
One sportswriter has said that he’s sure that some steroid users will get into the HoF, due to lack of evidence (circumstantial though it may be) and lack of knowledge. Another said he will add McGwire to the ballot in a weaker year, in much the way that spit-ballers and other ball-doctoring pitchers have made the hall. Personally, I believe many know who uses and who doesn’t, but they don’t want to open themselves to libel without any corroborating evidence.
What are the implications for Bonds? Very good question. Most sportswriters have already convicted Bonds of illegal steroid use. Unlike Palmiero, Bonds would be a first-ballot lock absent these allegations and despite his assholish ways to the media.
I’ve seen a some interviews with sportswriters (and HOF voters) who are, of course, wrestling with this very question.
It’s a tough one, because most suspected MLB steroid users aren’t about to admit to it, so they’re not allowing voters to use the black-or-white factor of whether or not they used steroids into consideration. Instead, they have to rely on rumors, lies and statistics.
My guess is that McGwire, Palmeiro (borderline HOFer to begin with, IMO as well) and Sosa will never make the Hall of Fame because of the lingering image of their testimony (and lack thereof) regarding steroids, and Bonds won’t make it because he’s been less than upfront about his alleged usage (and he’s an ass, which is the reason I’d really like him to not be in the HOF, but there are already plenty of asses there anyway).
I found it somewhat curious that some of the footage of Ripken in yesterday’s reports showed him taking a jog around the field after he’d broken Lou Gehrig’s record – the player giving him a playful shove out of the dugout to start that jog was Palmeiro.
It’s also interesting that at least one sportswriter, from a Chicago-area paper, submitted a blank HOF ballot because he’s reluctant to vote for **anyone ** from that tainted era in baseball.
Clemens? He’s in, in, in. If he doesn’t get caught using, I think he’ll break the record for voting percentage.
Bonds and Sosa are in trouble - I think ESPN did a survey showing that neither has enough support right now, they’re around 50 to 60 percent. Palmeiro was already screwed. Having a cloud of suspicion over you is one thing, but actually testing positive is worse. Griffey Jr. has the numbers and star power to get in, and nobody seems to think he did any steroids, so I think he’s in. Sheffield had one suspicious incident with Bonds, but I don’t think he’s viewed negatively enough to have a problem.
Paul Ladewski. If you happen to be an ESPN Radio Insider, you can hear his interview from “Mike & Mike” yesterday here. Ladewski also said that he wouldn’t vote for any first-timers on any ballot anyway (although I can’t really decipher why), and also that he doesn’t think Ripken or Gwynn “deserved” to have been elected unanimously because “no one else was.” (Not exact quotes, I don’t think, BTW – I’m paraphrasing.)
Maybe, maybe not. He’ll be in on his first ballot, but there are a lot of people who think he’s a jerk*, and they won’t vote for him, figuring (probably correctly) that enough people do like him. For some reason HoF voters right now seem to think they’re arbiters of character, not just of baseball. Which is unfortunate, because in the meantime, Buck O’Neill never got elected.
[RIGHT]** In the interest of full disclosure, I’m one of them, but I’m not a voter, so it’s irrelevant anyway.*[/RIGHT]
Are Sheffield’s numbers good enough for the HoF? During his stint with the Yankees, he never struck me as an HoF-calibre player, but I’m not aware of his pre-Yankee career. And while he’s not in Bonds’ league, he’s not going to win any “nicest-player” awards.
Gordon Urquhart, there were two blank ballots presented. I want to know who didn’t vote for Ripken or Gwynn, and weren’t protesting. These people should not be allowed to vote for future Hall of Famers.
Bonds’ problem is that he is a such an asshole, voters were dying to find a reason not to vote him- being an asshole is not a legitimate reason, and he provided them with it with the steroid thing- his own fault. Ditto Mcgwire- he was apparently fairly well liked, but he screwed himself with that stupid appearance at the hearings. Take those hearings away, and he gets in easy. People cannot ignore the ass he made of himself refusing to answer questions in the most idiotic way. Palmeiro, same thing with the blatant lying. And while Giambi is no hall of famer, public opinion on him turned fairly positive because, while he didn’t directly apologize for using, he did confront the media, answer questions, and didn’t hide behind anything, and then proved he could put up solid stats without steriods.
Yeah, I don’t get not voting for guys like Ripken and Gywnn. For McGwire, the whole thing since that congressional non-testimony is just sad. I wish the debate was about “are 500 homers good enough criteria for getting in”, not “will alledged steriod use keep him out”. Without the home run total, his other stats don’t support his entry.
I opined on this yesterday in another thread. I think it’s incredibly dumb.
If the percentage that a player receives is now somehow a measure of his quality, and even by Ladewski’s reasoning it is, then I think they’ll figure that Clemens deserves that record more than Seaver does. It won’t be unanimous, but there’s no reason on Earth Clemens doesn’t deserve 99 percent.
Are you saying he would be in if he’d 'fessed up, or just that he would have done better if he had declined to answer in a better way? I think any confession would have kept him off 75 percent of the ballots.
I’ll say this for McGwire, not that I think he should have gotten in: at least he had enough respect for the hearings not to lie about what he’d done. He wasn’t big enough to admit it, but he didn’t lie.
Bill Shannon said that he had not voted for Ripken or Gwynn because he knew that they were shoe ins and he wanted to use his maximum 10 votes for some of the other people on the ballot that he wanted to support.
The real good players from this era will probably get in sooner or later, steroids or not.
My concern is with the more marginal candidates. Rice & Dawson are getting a lot of support-
but Albert Belle and Jose Canseco didn’t even reach 5% this year, so are off the BBWAA
ballot for good, even though they probably aren’t any worse than the former. So you aren’t
likely to see the BBWAA elect anyone as marginal as Puckett, Tony Perez, or Orlando Cepeda,
and who knows what the Veterans Committee will do 20-30 years from now when they get
ahold of the likes of Belle and Canseco?
And arrogant, too, I think – to me, he’s using his “power” as a HoF voter to grind his own personal ax(es). Which is crap on a stick, IMO. Either decide that they’re worthy, or not, but don’t qualify it based on some fake made-up criteria of your own devising. It’s not like their stats are going to improve in their retirement.
Yeah, but there’s also no reason on Earth why Ripken doesn’t deserve 100%, either, and we see how well that turned out. Which leads me to …
This is also crap on a stick, I think. If you only get 10 votes, then you should vote for the 10 best people, period. Why try to make a statement? Maybe there’s a reason why some of these players don’t get the required minimum 5% that they need to appear on future ballots. Maybe they don’t deserve to be there as much as some others.
A separate but equally interesting question would be which player had the lowest average percentage of votes by the BBWAA and still made the HOF through the Veterens’ committee.
Is there a listing of voting results available for the players in the Hall for all years they were eligible?
I’m just bummed that Jay “Bone” Buhner only got one vote (probably from whichever voter is from Seattle). Okay, I knew he had only the most marginal chance of making the HoF, but one vote?!
Lemme tell ya, they’d better not pull that kind of crap on Edgar Martinez in 2010!
Oh, and add me to those who wonder which idiots didn’t vote for Ripken and/or Gwynn.