The 2009 Hall of Fame voting is in. Congratulations to Rickey Henderson, who received 94.8% of the votes in his first year of eligibility and especially to Jim Rice, who just made it across the 75% line in his 15th and final year of eligibility at 76.4% of the vote. The former Red Sox star had fallen just 16 votes short last year. I’ll leave it to others to argue whether Rice was very good or truly great, however.
C’mon, what were the other 28 writers thinking that didn’t vote for Rickey? I’ve said it many times before and I will continue to repeat that Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) members just damage their own organization’s credibility when they cast dissenting ballots for no-brainer picks like Henderson just to uphold a stupid tradition of no ex-player scoring 100%. Those 28 non-voters are lemmings at best.
Former Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire, coming off yet another year of silence and seclusion following his botched 2005 Congressional testimony, isn’t improving his Hall chances. This time around, Mac received ten fewer votes than in 2008 and 2007 and in the process, dropped a couple of percentage points down to 21.9% support.
| HOF McGwire | Ballots | Named | Percent | Place |
| 2009 | 539 | 118 | 21.9 | 9 |
| 2008 | 543 | 128 | 23.6 | 9 |
| 2007 | 545 | 128 | 23.5 | 9 |
McGwire seemed to hold firm in ninth place, but that really means others are passing him, since five have now been inducted since he first joined the eligibles in 2007. They are Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn (2007) plus Goose Gossage (2008) and now to be joined by Henderson and Rice.
While he is in no danger of dropping off the ballot, the stark reality is that Big Mac is closer to that insult than he is to joining Henderson and Rice up on the stage in Cooperstown. It is no one’s fault but his own that he has become such a polarizing figure and remains on the outside looking in.
Rather than repeat an earlier rant, I will simply link to my earlier articles:
“Giambi Is What McGwire Isn’t: Honest” (2007)
“Has Big Mac Hit Bottom and Can He Rise Again?” (2006)
And in a more positive note, two years ago, we at Scout.com voted McGwire the 22nd greatest Cardinals player of all time. Despite the cloud, I personally voted Big Mac # 19. In an indication of the diversity of opinion, one of our panel refused to vote for McGwire.
Good points. Certainly, I don’t see anyone getting over their objections to McGwire’s place on the ballot on their own.
When you factor in the impact he had on the game it’s very hard to say, for me, that he doesn’t belong in the HoF.
All voters should read this and examine themselves….
Gordon Edes of Yahoo! Sports voted for McGwire this time around and explained why:
“Mark McGwire was among the greatest players of his generation, one that will forever be stigmatized as the Steroids Era. But because I consider it unfair to exclude that entire generation from the Hall, I also think it ludicrous to set myself up as judge and jury about which players were tainted and which were innocent.
“We can now reasonably assume that dozens, scores, even hundreds of players were using performance-enhancing substances in that period. Ken Caminiti, one of the first whistle blowers, estimated that half the players were users. The Mitchell Report, while naming just 86 players, does not discourage that assumption. Neither, certainly, do Canseco’s tell-alls, even if you have to shower after reading.
“The identity of many of those players will never become known to us. There will be no wholesale rush to the confessionals by athletes who were willing to do whatever it took to keep up with their fellow cheaters, just as an earlier generation kept a lid on the widespread use of ‘greenies’ (amphetamines) as a way to stay jacked through a long season.
“So, who among us feels confident they can parse the clean from the dirty? Who can determine that one player’s accomplishments were the result of old-fashioned skill, hard work and toughness, and another’s the product of the right laboratory?”
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/jeffgordon/story/5308F832E4FB872C8625753C007748FF?OpenDocument
If they can then say honestly McGwire doesn’t belong in the HoF, then o.k.
A very compelling argument, but absolutely nothing new. At this point, it doesn’t seem as if that line of discussion is going to change several hundred already-set writers’ minds, since Mac has been on the ballot for three years now and is going nowhere.
In other words, time does not seem to be on McGwire’s side.
What COULD change the landscape?
1) More tainted stars becoming Hall-eligible, guys like Bonds and Sosa. Will them joining Mac on the ballot help or hurt him? I don’t know.
2) Mac stepping forward and making some kind of statement to clear the record. Since he has arguably become the defacto whipping boy for an entire generation, he perhaps could help others besides himself.
Instead, he seems to prefer to ride it out in seclusion. The future remains very cloudy.
The real question, as is pointed out in the original post, is what happens when Bonds is eligible? It would be hard to argue that McGwire is more or less culpable than Bonds. Both were excellent power hitters when they were both “scrawny” guys in the late 80′s and early 90′s. McGwire has a ring, while Bonds does not, although Bonds has those 7 MVPs, of which I would suggest that 4 may be suspect, at least by the criteria which claims that McGwire is unworthy of the HoF. Even subtracting those 4, every eligible 3 time MVP is in the hall. So, a case could certainly be made for Bonds without the 21st century included. However, 70 still stands as an incredible number and I believe that McGwire deserves real consideration. In 16 seasons he posted a career OPS of .982. That is incredible. Plus 583 HR’s. McGwire and Raphael Palmeiro are the only players, currently retired, with more than 500 HR’s that are not in the Hall.
We were certainly in a “live ball” era in the 90′s and early part of this century and this has largely been chalked up to performance enhancing drugs. I am no advocate of steroids, but we need to put things in perspective. There was rampant use of cocaine (allegedly) in the 60′s and 70′s, even a legend about a pitcher on acid, do we need to look at the speedsters of the 70′s in that light? I would say no. At the end of the day, baseball is a one on one sport, particularly when you are looking at HR’s, a pitcher and a batter. If you take Conseco or Caminetti’s assertions, as the truth, than an aweful lot of pitchers were also doping. Does that even things out? I would say it at least makes things, on the whole, a bit more balanced.
We can take the examination of performance enhancing drugs to other levels as well. Should it be against the rules to use lasik to make your eyesight 20-15? Is that an unfair advantage? Certainly when comparing careers, which is what the Hall is all about, it makes it more difficult. Some have argued that Tommy John surgery can add a couple of mph to your fastball and give you better movement. Is it just a matter of time before that becomes an elective surgery to make you a better pitcher? Would you view that pitcher differently than from somebody that had to have the surgery, what about vs. someone who had lasik? Just a few issues that muddy the waters a bit.
Good points, ck, and welcome! I am really looking forward to Bonds reaching his eligibility to see what happens. Though I imagine voters would never admit it, having to revisit the PED question for Bonds may help McGwire’s chances too. Mac surely needs some help of some kind (in the voting, not in his body!) as he has no Hall momentum now.
Very ironic we were just discussing this. Yahoo is reporting that “The Clear”, part of Bonds’ BALCO take, was legal when he used it.
“Bonds blockbuster: ‘The Clear’ was legal“
The entire story surrounding baseball player use of peds is fuzzy and distorted by sensationalism, politics, and ignorance of pharmacology and analytic chemistry.
Consider that it is legal for doctors to prescribe pharmaceuticals for any purposes that they want, even for uses that the FDA has not evaluated and for which there are no substantiating studies. This is a big business.
Go to a grocery store and there is often a big aisle of “nutral-ceuticals” or natural ingredients. All sorts of unjustified, untested claims can be legally made by their makers. They are big business. People buy these things because they believe they are helpful. Either they are helpful (and arguably “unfair” peds) or they are nonsense or unhealthy (in which case why are they for sale to the public?)
There will be molecules normally present in the human body, presumably including HGH, making it very difficult if not impossible to identify who is giving themselves a bit extra. And even if HGH is disapproved for body building purposes, it is still legally authorizable to ballplayers for medical purposes. And it must be easy to obtain by unofficial channels too.
What Mark McGwire was most guilty of was in NOT lying to Congress, as some fans must have wanted him to do. He has been singled out and penalized because of his fame. He made a convenient scapegoat for sensationalists. Or some fans wanted McGwire to offer lame vague apologies like that paragon of virtue, Giambi.
PEDs and baseball have been a big old muddle and fiasco.
Jumbo,
In regards to nutraceuticals, there are a couple of misconceptions in your post. First of all, makers are NOT allowed to make unjustified claims, at least not on the bottle. There is nothing the manufacturers can do in regards to claims made by retailers. In general, it is illegal to diagnose or treat an ailment. Structure/function claims are legal. As an example, you cannot say that Glucosamine Chondroitin treats arthritis, you can say that GC may support healthy joints. Any supplement that is shown to be dangerous, or can gather enough lobby support to remove from the market, is removed by the FDA, who ultimately has jurisdiction over supplements. That being said, the removal of both androstenediol and ephedra from the market was handled in a fairly haphazard manner. While both can be dangerous taken to excess, both were safer than aspirin when taken as directed. Further, both were quite effective.
Jumbo does bring up a great point that there are a great many products on the market that can drastically improve performance (at least in the gym) that are perfectly legal. Ask anyone who has seriously taken a nitric oxide product. That begs the question though, how much do these products benefit the specific skill set needed to play baseball. While adding strength in your quads and wrists helps add power, there is nothing, short of surgery, that can improve your ability to see the spin on a ball as it leaves the pitcher’s hand.
Giambi’s “lame vague apology” was precisely that. He was not virtuous. He had BALCO pressure that was very different from Mac’s Hall of Fame problem. Giambi was an active player, while Mac was safely retired.
Even so, the apology completely and quickly accomplished its objective. It got everyone off Giambi’s back simply because he acknowledged what everyone thought they knew already. He did something that now he wished he hadn’t. Simple as that. Generally, people seemingly want to “forgive”, but need a reason to do so. That staged act also helped allow Giambi to continue his multi-million dollar per year career without even one day of suspension or pay interruption.
As a result, whose name is more tainted in the court of public opinion, Giambi or McGwire? Mac is far from the only one singled out. How about Palmeiro? He caught himself up in a lie that he refuses to admit today. What about Bonds? Isn’t he singled out enough for you?
Palmeiro and McGwire could easily do something similar to Giambi and I truly believe it would help their respective public images substantially. Palmeiro is in deeper than Mac because he would have to admit he lied. Bonds’ legal problems are such that it is probably far too late for him to come forward.
As you note, Mac did not lie. Yet he is apparently too proud to admit what seems obvious to many. Because of his indignant posture, the vast majority of Hall of Fame voters may continue to withhold their support. Mac certainly has had time to weigh his options and has chosen the path he is on, one that seems to be heading nowhere. As such, I do not feel sorry for him personally, but as a fan of the game of baseball, I remain disappointed.
Brian, you are a thoughtful person and have thought hard about McGwire issues. But there are counters to some viewpoints.
Giambi’s “apology completely and quickly accomplished its objective.” You appreciate what he said was “a staged act.” If so, it was a self-interested act of spin, not very laudable. For his part, McGwire expressed negative comments about steroids to Congress. Its hard to think Mark’s testimony was ethically inferior to vague tripe out of Jason.
McGwire is “too proud to admit what is obvious.” Well if it is indeed obvious, then why would it necessitate any comment?
McGwire was retired, kangaroo-courted by publicity hound Congressmen. He has no ethical onus to pander to them or fans. By nature, he is said to be a private person. Instead of pandering for Hall of Fame votes with faux apologies, McGwire chooses to live a private life. That may be unusual, but its ok. A guy cannot accomplish what McGwire did on a baseball field by being weak.
You see his position as “indignant.” I cannot have followed his case as closely, but I am not aware of a reason to call McGwire’s preference for privacy to imply he is “indignant.”
Or “apparently too proud.” Is a lame statement like Giambi’s more admirable in an ethical sense? Is Mark supposed to act in a soap opera in which he apologizes for trying to strengthen his body, though he is an athlete who relies on his body and though he is playing against players also taking PEDs?
Once somebody retires, he has even stronger than normal grounds to a non-public personal life. McGwire once lived in a fish bowl, now he chooses to no longer. That is ok. This does not imply he is clearly proud or indignant. For all I know, maybe Mark is wise, unangry, and accepting. He may not a hungry ego for the Hall of Fame. This may be non-conformist and hard to fathom, but it does not establish he is a bad guy.