On a related note -not wanting to hijack but I don’t think this is worth starting a separate thread- what was the criteria of the sports writers who did NOT vote for Ripken to make the Hall of Fame?
Cal received 8 no-votes and my question is what sportswriter would look at Ripken’s accomplishments (career numbers and streak) and deem that no, that’s not good enough?
A great many BBWAA writers really don’t know very much about baseball or its history. You’d be amazed at the ignorance of some of them.
Barry Bonds will eventually be in the Hall of Fame and you can bet your house on it. McGwire will probably eventually get in too, and frankly, it’s kind of stupid to not vote for a guy who was never known to use a banned substance and in fact was retired before they clarified the rules and started testing. Sammy Sosa, same thing; if you guys can tell me when Sosa was suspended for using roids, I’m fascinated to see it because I missed it.
Here’s the thing; the fans, overall, don’t much care about steroids. Attendance continues to climb. There’s no undercurrent of disgust or dissatisfaction that seems to be having an impact on interest in the game. Sportswriters, who unfortunately have the initial vote, like to write outraged columns about this sort of thing because it sells papers and people can read the columns and engage in affirmation as they enjoy rage by proxy. Then they continue to buy tickets. Truth is, I don’t care that much - I want them to test, but I’d still buy tickets if they didn’t. Over 70 million people agreed with me last year and I’ll bet you all a day’s pay 70 million more will agree in 2007.
Eventually, the fury over this will subside and the only things that will matter are the facts, and here are the facts:
Mark McGwire was an awesome ballplayer.
Mark McGwire was never caught cheating.
It has always been the case that as time wears on, statistics matter more, and personalities matter less. It will eventually become impossible to deny entry to a player of McGwire’s calibre based on a long-ago scandal where you can’t even point to anything specific McGwire did wrong. Same goes for Sosa.
Rafael Palmiero is a somewhat trickier case because
He was actually caught cheating, and
People were debating his rather unusual credentials long before the suspension.
In the very first election, Dizzy Dean, Charlie Gehringer and a few others who the BBWAA eventually elected got only one vote each - 0.44 percent. However, they were kept on the ballot and eventually elected. Obviously, the earliest elections were different, because the pool of greats was so big, there was no way that writers limited to 10 selections per ballot could get them all. My point is there needs to be a time restriction on your question.
Especially because he basically refused to vote for two guys who, AFAIK, were never under suspicion just because of some “principle” or what have you. How does that even make any sense? I mean, Pete Rose got 4 write-in votes, so it’s not like he wasn’t allowed to propose any alternatives. Why give the guy a chance to vote if he doesn’t want to be bothered? I’ll vote, and I promise to use my vote for good, and not for stupid.
Would I vote for Mark McGwire? No. His numbers definitely merit his election, but there’s no way I’d reward cheating. And despite what RickJay says, there’s no way to look at his testimony before Congress and come away thinking anything but “He cheated.”
Was he the only one? Obviously not. Will other guys who cheated get elected to the Hall of Fame while McGwire is on the outside looking in? Undoubtedly. Is that fair? No, but so what? It’s not fair that millions of people break the speed limit on the highways while only a handful get caught and ticketed. They’re both guilty AND unlucky. Same with McGwire. He’s the one cheater stupid enough and unlucky enough to be held accountable in a tiny, insignificant way.
Why “tiny” and “insignificant”? First, because being kept out of the Hall of Fame a year or two is not a punishment, in any meaningful sense. It’s not even a slap on the wrist. McGwire isn’t going to jail for even an hour, and the scandal isn’t going to cost him a cent.
I say “a year or two,” because unfortunately, most voters aren’t as easily outraged or as moralistic as I am. Far too many of them are idiots who think that delaying McGwire’s election a year or two is “punishment enough,” and most of them will probably vote for him down the line. I think that’s stupid. I think that if a player is deserving, he should be voted in at the first opportunity. Voters who say, “Well, Tony Gwynn is deserving, but I don’t want him to get a 100% unanimous vote because nobody else ever has” are being ridiculous, too. (If you think a guy is worthy, Vote for him! NOW!)
I agree; Bonds was already a Hall of Fame player before steroids. His huge home run totals late in his career obscure the inarguable fact that he had been a truly great player for 15 years before that.
Look, suppose, just suppose I’m a sportswriter who thinks Joe Schmeaux deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I firmly believe that, if Schmeaux stays on the ballot long enough, the other voters will eventually see things my way and vote for him. But for that to happen, Joe has to stay on the ballot, which means he needs X number of votes.
Now, since I KNOW that Ripken and Gwynn are going to win, and my vote can’t really help them, why shouldn’t I cast one of my votes for Joe Schmeaux? It helps Joe and it doesn’t hurt Ripken or Gwynn in the least… unless you think a unanimous vote is of vital importance (which I don’t).
I mean, does it REALLY matter whether Tom Seaver got 98.84% of the vote or 100%? Does Seaver really care? I admit, I think sportswriters who go out of therir way to prevent unanimous votes are being ridiculous… but really, why is it important to anyone that a vote be unanimous?
Bonds would be a hall of famer if he had zero home runs, based on the other things he did well. Agree that when given a chance under oath to say he took no steriods, Mcgwire should be respected for not lying, but not lying in this case is tantamount to admitting guilt. Period. I’m not sure if he could have come out of the hearings any better, but surely he could not have done any worse.
I think I disagree with this. No matter what he said, he would never convince people who think he was a user otherwise. Denying it would only cause those people to call him a user and a liar. Not to mention it would have opened him up to investigation and possible jail time for lying under oath.
I think he was in a catch-22. He might have been able to say “I won’t answer that question” better, but it was the right answer.
I don’t see how, just because he was a Hall of Fmer before steroids Bonds should get in . Unless of course you can induct pre-steroid Barry into the Hall, a players whole career and actions are what get him in. And I don’t see how Barry can be distinguished from McGwire. If anything the evidence against Barry is stronger.
Why does Ripken get a free pass from suspicion of steroid use anyway? You’re telling me that someone could play 2600+ straight games at a middle infielder position without tearing something or pulling something at least once, at least without a little bit of help?
Remember that steroids don’t make you bigger, they aid muscle recovery.
Truth be told, they’d probably be the biggest help to pitchers…woo hoo, a new can of worms in baseball McCarthyism!!!
The fact that he never bulked up, and his durability itself is a little bit of evidence in his favor.
“Steroids don’t make you bigger?” Since when? They can also aid in recovery, yes, but McGwire and Sosa both had their bodies fall apart as a result of their steroid use - the muscles got bigger and, if I remember how this works, the ligaments eventually gave out due to the strain. Bonds has also suffered from problems of that type. That never happened to Ripken. He did the exact opposite: he was freakishly durable.
Conventional wisdom was that they wouldn’t help pitchers, but that lasted about five minutes. Pitchers account for around half of MLB’s positive steroid tests.
Well, maybe Ripken didn’t use steroids (maybe…), but he could have blood doped a la a Tour de France to aid in this recovery…how do I know that he didn’t?
Isn’t this whole Baseball Purity thing supposed to be based on spurrious accusations that dance the line of slander/libel by the use of weasel words? If I make an accusation, it’s up to you to prove me wrong!
Besides, most of the steroid growth COMES from that recovery…you can hit the gym a lot harder and grow a lot quicker when your muscles are able to go that much quicker.
Do you want to try rephrasing that? Why is it “supposed to be” based on those things? There’s a little more than weasel wording behind the accusations against some of these guys.
"He’s been very fortunate to not have what I would call any serious injuries. The only one I can remember – and I can’t remember exactly what year it was (actually 1985) – is the ankle. He stepped on second base and turned his ankle severely. And I thought there was no way he could play, because his ankle appeared to just totally turn over.
But we had a day off the next day, and he came out and got treatment that whole entire day. The next day, when he came to the park, he didn’t even have a limp. Not a limp. No question about it. No concerns. He went out and continued to play as if nothing had happened. And I just said, “Holy smokes, that guy is something different.”
Cal is a very special person. He keeps his little injuries to himself. He makes the trainer swear he will not tell the manager when he’s got a little nick here or a little nick there. He gets his treatment at the times when nobody is around. Even if he has to wait until 2 o’clock in the morning after a ballgame, he’ll get his treatment then and that’s it." - Frank Robinson