Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Artificially Big Mac
I’ve tried to reserve judgment on the Hall of Fame voting because I was curious to see how it would pan out. For Mark McGwire, it did not go well. He ended up with 23.5 percent of the vote, enough to keep him on the ballot for 2008 but over 50 percent shy of what he needed for induction.
Now I ask you ’Meaters: Does McGwire deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?
Personally, I respect the opinion of those who say that they would vote for McGwire because there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence (his forearms, bottles of andro in his locker, etc.) that he took steroids. The same argument will be used for Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and the rest of the suspected ’roid boys (luckily, Brady Anderson never again duplicated his 51-homer season, thus reducing his chances of receiving votes to the Hall of Fame. I say reduce, not eliminate, because Bobby Bonilla got two votes yesterday, which nearly caused my head to fly off my body). But I digress…
The other argument is that, even if they did take steroids, they didn’t break any MLB rules, thus they committed no crime and should be in the Hall of Fame.
I get these arguments, and I don’t care. I wouldn’t vote for McGwire, nor Bonds, nor anyone else I feel reliably certain took steroids. That doesn’t mean they were not great players in some right, and I know I could take a gazillion steroids and never hit a home run, but I feel like they somehow cheated the game. They turned a game steeped in the treatment of numerical records and turned it into a farce. That’s too much for me to swallow.
That said, that doesn’t mean I’m right. Thoughts from the peanut (or cracker jack) gallery?
Now I ask you ’Meaters: Does McGwire deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?
Personally, I respect the opinion of those who say that they would vote for McGwire because there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence (his forearms, bottles of andro in his locker, etc.) that he took steroids. The same argument will be used for Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and the rest of the suspected ’roid boys (luckily, Brady Anderson never again duplicated his 51-homer season, thus reducing his chances of receiving votes to the Hall of Fame. I say reduce, not eliminate, because Bobby Bonilla got two votes yesterday, which nearly caused my head to fly off my body). But I digress…
The other argument is that, even if they did take steroids, they didn’t break any MLB rules, thus they committed no crime and should be in the Hall of Fame.
I get these arguments, and I don’t care. I wouldn’t vote for McGwire, nor Bonds, nor anyone else I feel reliably certain took steroids. That doesn’t mean they were not great players in some right, and I know I could take a gazillion steroids and never hit a home run, but I feel like they somehow cheated the game. They turned a game steeped in the treatment of numerical records and turned it into a farce. That’s too much for me to swallow.
That said, that doesn’t mean I’m right. Thoughts from the peanut (or cracker jack) gallery?
# posted by EJ @ 2:51 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I've never been a big baseball fan (more so since I started drinking beer). I could care less about any Hall of Fame. Halls of Fame are meaningless marketing gimmicks, not churches. I think the very existence of the Rock and Roll HOF illustrates this point most vividly. Recently a new class of inductees was installed in the Rock & Roll HOF. Who really cares? Somehow baseball's HOF has outgrown its commercial genesis and gained a false mantle of spirituality. It's crap - Cooperstown is just another money grab. Furthermore, debating the moral fiber of HOF candidates is an exercise in hypocrisy (see famous racist Ty Cobb). My personal view on McGwire is that his homerun race with Sammy Sosa and their magnanimous personalities resuscitated a dying and anachronistic sport.
If I ever thought of a baseball game as more than a pleasant venue for drinking a beer on a summer afternoon, I would vote Big Mac and Sosa into the HOF for saving the sport. Alas, I just don't care.
Footnote: For his role in saving baseball, it appears Sosa will be banished to Japan.
If I ever thought of a baseball game as more than a pleasant venue for drinking a beer on a summer afternoon, I would vote Big Mac and Sosa into the HOF for saving the sport. Alas, I just don't care.
Footnote: For his role in saving baseball, it appears Sosa will be banished to Japan.
In most sports, halls of fame are pretty meaningless, as are all-star games and most records, but in baseball, these things seem pretty important. As a baseball fan, I never spent much time questioning this, and I'm not going to start now.
Basically, the steriod era has all but killed the offensive record book -- Aaron's mark is the last thing standing, and that could be gone this year. The writers can't repair this, so they're trying to compensate through the HoF voting. But do the writers REALLY know what they think they know? Looking like a steroid user is different from being one, and the writers are bound to make mistakes, unfairly excluding some and unwittingly letting other slide. Palmiero didn't look like a juicer. He looked about as jacked as, well, Cal Ripken.
On the specifics, I think McGwire could still get in; 15 years is a long time. People soften their views. For the same reason, I think Bonds could get in eventually, as long as he is not suspended for steriods before he retires or sent to jail. Palmiero will never get in, in part because he wasn't good but also because he was suspended. Who knows with Sosa.
After talking with Snoop last night, I've come around to the opinion that it's about time they put Jim Rice in the hall, just to remind us of the days when a power hitter had trouble squeezing his hat on his head because of afropuffs, not HGH.
Basically, the steriod era has all but killed the offensive record book -- Aaron's mark is the last thing standing, and that could be gone this year. The writers can't repair this, so they're trying to compensate through the HoF voting. But do the writers REALLY know what they think they know? Looking like a steroid user is different from being one, and the writers are bound to make mistakes, unfairly excluding some and unwittingly letting other slide. Palmiero didn't look like a juicer. He looked about as jacked as, well, Cal Ripken.
On the specifics, I think McGwire could still get in; 15 years is a long time. People soften their views. For the same reason, I think Bonds could get in eventually, as long as he is not suspended for steriods before he retires or sent to jail. Palmiero will never get in, in part because he wasn't good but also because he was suspended. Who knows with Sosa.
After talking with Snoop last night, I've come around to the opinion that it's about time they put Jim Rice in the hall, just to remind us of the days when a power hitter had trouble squeezing his hat on his head because of afropuffs, not HGH.
Good call on Mac's stats. After I posted this I read that he had only 1,600 career hits, which is roughly half Ripken or Gwyenn. And his 1,400-soemthing RBIs are nearly 300 behind Ripken (though more than Gwynn).
Some good points above.
I agree about McGwire's borderline stats. Generally speaking, for a power hitter, the magic number (to me) is 1500 RBIs, which he didn't get. Also, the point that a huge amount of his 550+ HRs was during a 4 year drug haze is well taken. Let's do a Player A v. Player B game.
Player A: 5 season's in the top 10 in MVP voting, 7 seasons with 100+ RBIs, 3 seasons with 100+ runs, 2 seasons with a .300 average, 3 silver slugger awards.
Player B: 5 MVP top 10s, 9 (straight) 100 RBI years, 4 100 run years, 4 .300 years, 5 silver sluggers.
For good measure, I'll add a player C: 9 MVP top 10s (including 2 wins), 11 100 RBI years, 9 100 run years, 9 .300 years, 4 silver sluggers.
A is McGwire. Any guesses at B? That's Albert Belle, IMO one of the most underrated players of the era (though not a HOFer in my book). Belle was also on the ballot this year, but he won't be next year - he only got 3.5% of the vote. McGwire has better career numbers, but Belle was better (and more consistent) while healthy. And don't forget, the HOF isn't entirely for those with long careers - Sandy Koufax had 162 career wins. The point of the A v. B comparison is that McGwire is not a surefire HOFer, as people (away from these comments) seem to be saying.
Player C will be in the Hall. He's the most underrated player of the era, in my opinion. Its Frank Thomas. His numbers and consistency are staggering (while healthy). Baseball-Reference.com has an interesting stat called MVP share which (though flawed, I'm sure) is very interesting. Thomas is 11th. Perhaps you've heard of those in the top ten - Bonds, Musial, Williams, Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Schmidt, Robinson.
Here's an interesting tidbit that I did not know - In the 1920s, the MVP was called the League Award. There were two interesting rules - teams could only nominate one player per team for the award, and once a player won the award, he was no longer eligible to receive it. This explains why Babe Ruth's win in 1923 was his only victory, and why he is 109th on that MVP Share list...
One other note on the HOF. I hate the multi-year voting structure. Its totally BS. If I were a voter, I'd vote the same way for each player no matter what year. Either a player is an HOFer or he is not. I'm sure others will say that its an extra honor to go in on the first ballot. Well, if there were only one vote, that player would receive an extra honor by getting a near-unanimous vote. This 15 year plan makes no sense to me...
Post a Comment
I agree about McGwire's borderline stats. Generally speaking, for a power hitter, the magic number (to me) is 1500 RBIs, which he didn't get. Also, the point that a huge amount of his 550+ HRs was during a 4 year drug haze is well taken. Let's do a Player A v. Player B game.
Player A: 5 season's in the top 10 in MVP voting, 7 seasons with 100+ RBIs, 3 seasons with 100+ runs, 2 seasons with a .300 average, 3 silver slugger awards.
Player B: 5 MVP top 10s, 9 (straight) 100 RBI years, 4 100 run years, 4 .300 years, 5 silver sluggers.
For good measure, I'll add a player C: 9 MVP top 10s (including 2 wins), 11 100 RBI years, 9 100 run years, 9 .300 years, 4 silver sluggers.
A is McGwire. Any guesses at B? That's Albert Belle, IMO one of the most underrated players of the era (though not a HOFer in my book). Belle was also on the ballot this year, but he won't be next year - he only got 3.5% of the vote. McGwire has better career numbers, but Belle was better (and more consistent) while healthy. And don't forget, the HOF isn't entirely for those with long careers - Sandy Koufax had 162 career wins. The point of the A v. B comparison is that McGwire is not a surefire HOFer, as people (away from these comments) seem to be saying.
Player C will be in the Hall. He's the most underrated player of the era, in my opinion. Its Frank Thomas. His numbers and consistency are staggering (while healthy). Baseball-Reference.com has an interesting stat called MVP share which (though flawed, I'm sure) is very interesting. Thomas is 11th. Perhaps you've heard of those in the top ten - Bonds, Musial, Williams, Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Schmidt, Robinson.
Here's an interesting tidbit that I did not know - In the 1920s, the MVP was called the League Award. There were two interesting rules - teams could only nominate one player per team for the award, and once a player won the award, he was no longer eligible to receive it. This explains why Babe Ruth's win in 1923 was his only victory, and why he is 109th on that MVP Share list...
One other note on the HOF. I hate the multi-year voting structure. Its totally BS. If I were a voter, I'd vote the same way for each player no matter what year. Either a player is an HOFer or he is not. I'm sure others will say that its an extra honor to go in on the first ballot. Well, if there were only one vote, that player would receive an extra honor by getting a near-unanimous vote. This 15 year plan makes no sense to me...
<< Home
