Last chance to vote down Garvey

[seawolf17]

Yes
� Bert Blyleven (10)
� Andre Dawson (6)
� Rich Gossage (8)
� Tony Gwynn (1)
� Jack Morris (8)
� Dale Murphy (9)
� Jim Rice (13)
� Cal Ripken (1)

No
� Harold Baines (1)
� Albert Belle (2)
� Dante Bichette (1)
� Bobby Bonilla (1)*
� Scott Brosius (1)
� Jay Buhner (1)
� Ken Caminiti (1)
� Jose Canseco (1)
� Dave Concepcion (14)
� Eric Davis (1)
� Tony Fernandez (1)*
� Steve Garvey (15)
� Orel Hershiser (2)*
� Tommy John (13)
� Wally Joyner (1)
� Don Mattingly (7)
� Mark McGwire (1)
� Paul O'Neill (1)
� Dave Parker (11)
� Bret Saberhagen (1)*
� Lee Smith (5)
� Alan Trammell (6)
� Devon White (1)
� Bobby Witt (1)

[Guest Edgy DC]

Gwreck wrote: I suspect the McGwire arguments will get pretty loud (and repetitive) soon but he's clearly a first-ballot hall-of-famer too. The steroids thing is just stupid at this point. Was he caught? No. If McGwire doesn't get in, I guess that means Gaylord Perry gets kicked out.

Sheesh. If refusing to answer direct questions before Congress isn't as damning as a positive test, I don't know what is.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

So are we all agreed Oh must go (to Cooperstown)? (on a plaque?)

[Guest Edgy DC]

Sure but... does that mean every Japanaese player better than Tony Oiva goes with him?

I imagine at least a dozen Japanese players who never got a chance to play in MLB would've been so good if given a chance.

[Guest Edgy DC]

My ballot:

Bert Blyleven
Rich Gossage
Tony Gwynn
Cal Ripken
Alan Trammell

Guys I'm still thinking about, roughly in the order I'm thinking about them:
Andre Dawson
Dave Parker
Jim Rice
Tommy John
Orel Hershiser
Dave Concepcion

[metirish]

What sucks about the McGwire thing(and he sucks the most) is that a lot of the writers that are now killing him and won't vote for him turned a blind eye toward the steroid question in 1998,his performence before congress was disgraceful,but why weren't more of his peers called in,Piazza,Bonds,A-Rod and I-Rod......how many of those guys would have hemmed and hawed under oath?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Totally valid point.

Let's subpoena them.

[Guest sharpie]

My ballot: Gwynn, Ripken, McGwire, Gossage. I might be swayed by Blyleven.

[Vic Sage]

[u:3e90f92855]My ballot: [/u:3e90f92855]
Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, Gossage

[u:3e90f92855]on the fence: [/u:3e90f92855]
Bert Blyleven, Jim Rice

[u:3e90f92855]Close, but no cigar (for various reasons):[/u:3e90f92855]Dave Parker, Andre Dawson, Mark McGwire, Dale Murphy, Alan Trammell, Jack Morris

[metsmarathon]

hey, we should have our own hall of fame vote thingy!

[metirish]

Yeah,cool idea...make up a table.....

[Willets Point]

The main reason I don't see Japanese league players being inducted is because the official name is the National Baseball Hall of Fame which implies that it is the Hall of Fame for this nation alone. Thus only players who are from the US or play in the US are going to be inducted.

[metirish]

Willets Point wrote: The main reason I don't see Japanese league players being inducted is because the official name is the National Baseball Hall of Fame which implies that it is the Hall of Fame for this nation alone. Thus only players who are from the US or play in the US are going to be inducted.

such an insular country....change the bloody name.....

[Willets Point]

No more insular than Canada or Japan (for example). You'll notice that Babe Ruth (nor any other gaijin) is not in the Japanese Hall of Fame even if it could be argued that his tours in Japan helped popularize the sport there. In a sense, I think it would be arrogant for the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown to just declare themselves the worldwide Hall of Fame. I think it would be better to start an International Baseball Hall of Fame or work things out with baseball federations worldwide first.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Frank O'Doul, an American who brought a touring team to Japan in the 1940s is in the JBHoF. Horace Wilson, the American teacher who was the Johnny Appleseed of Jball is too. Wally Yonamine, a Hawiian, is enshrined. So is that Russian pitcher.


Like I said Ichiro is going to force the NBHoF (national meaning national, not American necessarily) to confront how to recognize Asian professionals and by then I'd be surprised if ties between the pro leagues weren't a lot closer than they are now. Oh oughta be a shoo-in.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Frank O'Doul, an American who brought a touring team to Japan in the 1940s is in the JBHoF. Horace Wilson, the American teacher who was the Johnny Appleseed of Jball is too. Wally Yonamine, a Hawiian, is enshrined. So is that Russian pitcher.

These are enshrined presumably for their contributions to the Japan game. Are Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and Walter Johnson enshrined?

Your points are valid, but there would still have to be a reconceptualizing. I don't think the current concept allows Oh in.

That said, they've reconceptualized before.

[Centerfield]

Mine seems to be the minority opinion around here, but I think every writer should vote for McGwire. It is one thing to deny someone the hall for bad character. It is another entirely to deny someone based upon suspicion of bad character. He has never failed a test and there has been no credible evidence he used steroids. If he had been caught, then I would understand a writer withholding his vote...but since he wasn't caught, I don't think it's justified that a writer withholds simply because he thinks McGwire cheated.

Now, I understand that his answers before Congress were pretty damning...but those crappy answers are no where near enough to establish him as a cheater. He could have answered that way for a number of reasons...it could have been just bad advice from his lawyer. But the reason that shouldn't come into play is only a select few were required to testify. Ripken wasn't asked about steroids. Neither was Gwynn. Do we really know they didn't use? How? Is it fair to penalize McGwire for his answers when the others weren't even asked the question?

We go down a slippery slope here. What if a player denies using steroids but a writer doesn't find his testimonial convincing. Should that writer be allowed to reach the conclusion he used and therefore deem him unworthy of the Hall? Baseball needs to take responsibility here and find out who cheated and who didn't. And if it's impossible to establish that now, then we have to assume everyone is clean. Otherwise this turns into Salem.

[metirish]

I'm with you CF,that's the best argument for McGwire I have read yet...wish I had written it....

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Edgy DC wrote: ="Johnny Dickshot"]Frank O'Doul, an American who brought a touring team to Japan in the 1940s is in the JBHoF. Horace Wilson, the American teacher who was the Johnny Appleseed of Jball is too. Wally Yonamine, a Hawiian, is enshrined. So is that Russian pitcher. These are enshrined presumably for their contributions to the Japan game. Are Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and Walter Johnson enshrined? Your points are valid, but there would still have to be a reconceptualizing. I don't think the current concept allows Oh in. That said, they've reconceptualized before.

I was responding to the assertion above that no gaijin are enshrined in Japan. Of course they made contributions. And my argument is all about reconceptualizing.

I just don't see how Oh and Josh Gibson are all that different other thasn the continents they played on. Both played professionally at the highest level they could play, more or less, and were the best at their level.

[Guest Mr. Zero]

I think the case for Oh might work if he is presented as some kind of cultural emmisary, who eventually paved the way for Ichiro et al . His numbers are so extraordinary that if he were even 2/3s the player in the US as he was in Japan he'd stll be a lock.

I may be mistaken but aren't there Cuban nationals in the HOF? Martin Dihigo?

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

Centerfield wrote: Is it fair to penalize McGwire for his answers when the others weren't even asked the question?

That is an excellent point.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Centerfield wrote: Mine seems to be the minority opinion around here, but I think every writer should vote for McGwire.

'Cept those who don't think his legacy holds up.

Centerfield wrote: He has never failed a test and there has been no credible evidence he used steroids.

You're a better lawyer than I am, but I think the evidence is credible.

Centerfield wrote: Is it fair to penalize McGwire for his answers when the others weren't even asked the question?

Sure. What legal principle says we toss out what we found on one guy because others weren't searched?

Centerfield wrote: We go down a slippery slope here. What if a player denies using steroids but a writer doesn't find his testimonial convincing. Should that writer be allowed to reach the conclusion he used and therefore deem him unworthy of the Hall?

Why not? They're asked to do this because of their perspective and judgment. Let them exercise it. I imagine their standard of criedibility will be pretty high.

Centerfield wrote: Baseball needs to take responsibility here and find out who cheated and who didn't. And if it's impossible to establish that now, then we have to assume everyone is clean.

Setting a standard nobody can reach so we wash our hands of it.

And it's absolutely possible to build credible cases that some have cheated, and has been done. Everybody else, naturally, gets the benefit of the doubt.

It's silly to suggest that, if we can't prove everybody's guilt one way or the other, we throw out the evidence against anybody.

Centerfield wrote: Otherwise this turns into Salem.

No it doesn't.

[Centerfield]

] I went into journalism with the idealistic belief that somehow I could change things, that I could expose the bad guys and elevate the good guys. Over the years, I have learned it often is just beating your fists against a steel door. However, we must continue to try.

Lines like this from Wallace Matthews really get under my skin. It is a wonder one can be in journalism for as long as he has been and still not understand the difference between what he set out to do and what he is doing. If Wally really wants to "expose the bad guys", how about some investigative journalism. How about digging around, finding out what really went down, expose the whole steroid phenomenon and make baseball deal with it. Report some facts, some substance, something we can view objectively and conclude "Wow, McGwire used steroids."

What Wally is doing is sitting back, spouting an unsupported opinion, and then attempting to characterize said opinion as socially responsible. Give me a fucking break. Perhaps the reason the steel door remains strong is because Wally is attacking it with paper-thin arguments.

[nymr83]

]I just don't see how Oh and Josh Gibson are all that different other thasn the continents they played on. Both played professionally at the highest level they could play, more or less, and were the best at their level.

Gibson played in the United States, Oh didn't, thats all there is too it. The National Hall of Fame should include all leagues that play in the Nation (taking into account, of course, the relative importance and difficulty of those leagues.) Letting someone in for their off-the-field activities as an "emissary" or whatever is not the same as letting them in as a player. if Oh really made significant contributions to the American game then let him in, but I'd say he didn't, not even close. Josh Gibson on the other hand was a well-known player in this country and even putting statistics aside he probably contributed alot to the American game.

If they wanted to change the HOF into some sort of international thing thats their business (though i would find it highly unnecessary...we don't need to tell the Japanese who the best players in the history of Japanese baseball were.) As it stands now, Oh has no business with a HOF plaque.

A better idea, if you wanted to promote Oh and others within the existing framework, would be a mutual agreement between the HOF and its counterpart in Japan that created exhibits based on the other country's most famous players.

[metsmarathon]

what exactly prevented Oh from coming to america to play in the MLB?

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Contractural obligations tied him up for many years and by the time he could become a free agent (late 60s) a diplomatic meltdown between MLB and NPB clubs had occurred that wasn't cured until Nomo's arrival in 95. The dispute involved a misunderstanding over the rights to Masanori Murikami, who pitched for the SF Giants in '65 (and made his pro debut at Shea).

The Giants believed they had signed him for 2 years and his Japan club didn't. Masanori's rights were badly abused by his Japan club.

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's long and complex:

http://baseballguru.com/jalbright/analysisjalbright15.html

The Murakami Affair and the

de facto

Ban

In 1964, the Nankai Hawks sent a few of their younger players to the San Francisco Giants to gain experience in the Giant farm system. One of those players was left handed pitcher Masanori Murakami. Murakami pitched so well that the Giants called him up for the pennant drive. His major league debut came on September 1, 1964 against the Mets. He continued to pitch well, though he only got 15 innings pitched in the majors in 1964.

The Giants and Hawks had signed an agreement before Murakami and two other Hawks came over in the spring of 1964. That agreement had a clause which allowed the Giants to purchase the contract of any player who had earned a promotion to the major league club. Murakami qualified, and the Giants were sufficiently impresssed with his pitching to exercise their right to purchase Murakami�s contract.

A full-scale international baseball incident ensued. Hawks officials told Murakami he might never be allowed to play again in Japan if he returned to the majors. Murakami bowed to this pressure and decided to stay in Japan. Major League baseball saw this as a clear violation of their precious reserve clause.

The war of words between NPB and MLB escalated, with threats of lawsuits and Ford Frick's "suspension" of relations with NPB over the matter. The Hawks tried to claim the club's signature agreeing to send Murakami to San Francisco was a forgery. The majors, through Frick, would have none of that. Next, the Hawks tried to claim Murakami was homesick and therefore a clause covering that situation applied. However, Murakami had been quoted on a number of occasions in the press as liking San Francisco and wanting to stay with the team, so Frick nixed that ploy as well. Eventually, the commissioner of Japanese baseball suggeted a compromise: Murakami could play for San Francisco in 1965, but had to come home for good in 1966. Frick declined that offer as well because he maintained such a compromise was still a violation of Major League Baseball's reserve clause.

The Japanese commissioner let things simmer for a while, and then enlisted the help of Murakami's father. The elder Murakami made a plea to San Francisco and Frick for sympathy. Also,

The Meaning of Ichiro

suggests the father's approval might have been needed in 1964 (it wasn't obtaned), but it is unclear if this requirement still had any meaning in 1965, when Murakami was no longer a minor under Japanese law.

Suddenly, the Americans caved in. Frick ruled that Murakami had to play in San Francisco in 1965, but that he could return to Japan in 1966 if he so desired.

The Meaning of Ichiro

advances two possible reasons for the American's sudden change of heart while rebutting the idea of any official governmental action regarding the matter on either side of the Pacific. The first suggestion is that Mr. Stoneham, the owner of the San Francisco Giants, found the plea of Murakami's father touching, and also did not think the matter worth ruining international good will over. Given the callous way the majors often treated players (and Murakami himself), the suggestion about the plea by Murakami's father is hard to accept. As for the larger issue of international goodwill, the majors had consistently framed the issue in terms of the sanctity of their reserve clause. Perhaps a payment by the Japanese, possibly hidden by inflating the purchase price of a player going to Japan could have resolved the matter. However,

The Meaning of Ichiro

provides no evidence of such, nor am I aware any evidence of such exists. Accordingly, I find this to be unpersuasive in explaining the American change of heart in the Murakami affair.

The other explanation presented by the book is that Japanese teams were purchasing player contracts from MLB at fairly good prices. However, no information on the frequency or amounts of these sales is not discussed, and therefore it is difficult to accept at face value.

Furthermore, MLB would have been aware of this aspect of the situation from the get-go. If this is the answer, why was MLB so bellicose early in the dispute if it intended to fold in the end?

It may also be that if San Francisco consulted a lawyer, they might well have been advised that forcing Murakami to come to the States would be impossible (or nearly so) and that collecting a money judgment against Murakami or the Nankai Hawks might be about as unlikely. The majors and Stoneham may have overestimated their allure to Murakami himself.

However, the possibility of back channel governmental or business pressure on MLB is not much explored in

The Meaning of Ichiro

, and Robert Whiting, the author of that book conceded in a post on japanesebaseball.com that such a scenarion was possible. Certainly, if significant business interests of major league owners or the reserve clause were threatened, it wouldn't be surprising if MLB folded in view of the unlikelihood of any meaningful legal success in the matter. A variation on this idea is that the NPB may have quietly informed MLB that if the Murakami matter was litigated, they would challenge the legality and/or enforceability of the reserve clause. I can only say that I expect that some day an explanation along the lines covered by this paragraph or a previously undisclosed payment by the Hawks to the San Francisco Giants will come to light.

Of more importance, though, is the fact that as a result of this incident, MLB and Japanese baseball signed a "Working Agreement" in 1967. The fact the parties felt such an agreement was appropriate in the aftermath of the Murakami affair suggests that perhaps NPB had caused threats to be made against MLB's reserve clause. A key aspect of the agreement was that each side would respect the other's rights to players. At the time, both sets of owners had an enforceable reserve clause which forever bound players. Both groups of owners ruled with iron fists. It can accurately be said that at the time the agreement was signed, the players on either side of the Pacific were well-paid indentured servants.

The major league players escaped this indentured servitude with the Catfish Hunter case, and free agency was born. The majors continued to honor the Working Agreement, however, so Japanese players remained indentured servants. The players remained in that status in Japan in large part because Japanese players and their union were far more docile than their American counterparts. Free agency did not come to Japan until 1993, and player agents were banned from negotiation sessions until 2001. Even when agents were finally permitted, it was under extremely limited circumstances.

The loophole we will discuss in the section on the busting of the

de facto

ban existed from the creation of the Working Agreement. However, it was a fine enough legal point that it took 28 years for someone to find it. Of course, if Japanese players had had agents and/or a stronger union, it might not have taken so long.

Nevertheless, it is extremely doubtful that major league owners would have been receptive to any attacks on any professional baseball reserve clause prior to the loss of their own ironclad enforcement of their reserve clause in the Catfish Hunter case. Even after that, they might have been concerned about setting off a bidding war with Japan for players. In such a situation, it might have been reasonable for them to believe that such a bidding war would put them in a position of having more to lose than they could gain in Japanese talent. Therefore, it is questionable how receptive they would have been to a Japanese player's attempt to come to the majors. In any event, such a Japanese player would have had to found the Nomo loophole, retired from a good paying job, and endured significant Japanese public pressure against the move. After all that, he might face legal maneuvering in the States for a significant period of time. During that time, he would have trouble finding serious competition to keep him sharp. This could easily cost him his career if the legal maneuvering took too long. Even if the player overcame all that, part of his reward would consist of adapting to a new league in a strange new land--at who knows what salary.

The only other road to the majors was simply not going to open: a Japanese team granting a player permission to go to the majors.

The Meaning of Ichiro

documents several occasions in which major league teams tried to acquire Japanese players, all without success.

[Guest Mr. Zero]

]what exactly prevented Oh from coming to america to play in the MLB?

maybe he wasn't asked? The rule used to be a Japanese player had to wait 9-10 years before they could leave Japan to play in the US. Nomo got around that by retiring first. Now Major League teams just have to pony up the bucks.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Dickshot's Memory = Speedy, succinct if not entirely accurate for names and dates
Wikipedia = Slower, more complex, harder to understand.

[Frayed Knot]

metsmarathon wrote: what exactly prevented Oh from coming to america to play in the MLB?

Don't know that he ever tried, but the ultra-restrictive system in Japan would have made it difficult even if he did.
on edit: (FK: even slower and less complete)



On McGwire;
I tend to agree w/CF in that I prefer proof to innuendo before declaring someone guilty of something (particularly for something w/only quasi-illegal status in baseball at the time) -- but it's also a new issue at this point in which we don't know at least as much as we do, all of which would lead me to casting a 'no for now' vote and deal with it on a year-by-year basis.