Last chance to vote down Garvey

[Vic Sage]

CF, you've approaching this issue from a formalistic legal perspective, and to that extent, i agree with you. If we were talking about governmental action (or even private action) that was denying basic civil liberties and due process to individuals, i would wholeheartedly support your position.

But that's not what we're talking about.

Membership in the HOF is a privilege, not a right. More than that, it's a privilege awarded to the privileged. The voting body for the HOF is obligated to take in a whole range of factors, not just career numbers. They have absolute discretion to consider and weigh those factors in whatever way they, in good faith, may determine.

If a HOF voter wants to use unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo and circumstantial evidence to reach conclusions about a prospective candidate, he/she has every right to do so. If those conclusions are so biased, or otherwise unreasonable, they'll inevitably be diluted by more rational voters over time. 15 years is a pretty good amount of time during which rightous flames of indignation can die down, plus the veteran's committee provides a further safety net (in theory).

There have been voters who withheld their votes for the stupidest of reasons. There is no reason why this shouldn't be among them. That Wallace Matthews is the leading exponent of exercising impotent outrage is not a surprise, nor does the appropriateness of the messenger for the message go totally unappreciated.

But in this case, a voter could come to reasonable conclusion about McGwire, inasmuch as he already admitted to using the Andro that sat noticably in his locker during the 98 season, putting aside his non-responsiveness to congress. What a voter chooses to do about that conclusion is, appropriately, up to him/her.

Personally, i think there's been a good deal of scapegoating over the whole steroids issue, and Selig's whole Captain Renault-style feigned outrage ("Rick, I am outraged to learn of gambling going on in this establishment!" "Here are your winnings, monsieur...") is of the most self-serving, hypocritical sort.

Still, i'm okay with Big Mac being forced to endure his retirement in wealthy obscurity. If someday more is learned, and there is a reexamination of the issue (and who, if anyone, is really blameworthy, and of what), perhaps the tide will turn and he'll be invited back into baseball's good graces.

and if not, fuck him.

[metirish]

Stark on McGwire......

] Mac Debate sparks a sad startposted: Monday, November 27, 2006 | Print Entry I used to look forward to the day the Hall of Fame ballot arrived every November. Not this year. It isn't just because the already-ugly Mark McGwire Debate is going to crash what is supposed to be Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken's party, either. It's because this is only the beginning. Looking over those Hall of Fame candidates used to be a time to reflect on the greatness of players -- even the greatness of men we couldn't convince ourselves to vote for. Now all that becomes a subplot to the national sports-talk Main Event. Now, we have to decide if we're ready to become the morality police. With every new name that appears on these ballots now, we're not just going to have to ask ourselves, "Was this guy a Hall of Famer?" We're going to have to ask ourselves, "What are the chances that this guy used steroids?" For some of these players, we might think we know the answer to that question. But what about the players we've just heard an idle rumor about? What about the players whose names have never, ever appeared in the steroid conversations? What do we do about them? And even those guys we think we know about -- how much do we know? Not enough. Never enough. We have no testing results to go by. So how are we going to figure this out? By who got bigger and later got smaller? By whose stats exploded and whose didn't? By which guys made miraculous comebacks from the dead? By which guys showed up in the wrong book or on the wrong subpoena list or on the wrong floor of Congress on the wrong day? This, friends, is a mess. But you already knew that. Except now it takes on a whole new dimension of mess-hood. This is the point when we have to decide where The Big Mess fits in the context of baseball history. Do we let some of these guys in? All of them? None of them? And if we let any of them in, how do we decide which ones? Peruse the index of "Game of Shadows"? Ask Jose Canseco? Paste all the names on a dart board? I think I know where I stand on that question. But I've got a month to kick it around one last time... And then I can keep on kicking it around for the rest of my life. Because this is only the beginning. How many years will this debate hover over what used to be the only Hall of Fame debate? Ten years? Fifteen? Twenty? Thirty? The disgusting answer is: It's going to hover until every last star player from that generation has shown up on the ballot and been voted on or off Cooperstown Island. When you consider that players can't appear on the ballot until five years after they've retired, and then they can hang around that ballot for another 15 years, you realize exactly how long we're all going to be trekking around in this muck. So yeah, it stinks that Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken are going to see their moment get lost in a giant steroid fog bank. But what really stinks is that it isn't only them. They're merely the first of many. Because, sadly, this is only the beginning. And the end is so far off right now, you can't see it with the Hubble Telescope.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I like:

1. how there's 2 conversations happening in this thread at once (three really)

2. Radd's 8 grafs of pure eloquence, summed up with "fuck him."

[nymr83]

leaving aside McGwire for the moment, what happens when Palmiero, who did fail a test, is up for consideration? I suppose his numbers are borderline enough that leaving him out wouldn't be a complete vote against steroids.
so i'll ask, assuming that you believe Palmiero's statistics to be hall-worthy should he get in? If so, what justification is there for continuing to keep Joe Jackson and Pete Rose out?

[metirish]

I like how CF's and Vics contrasting opinions all sound reasonable....I'm torn....

[Centerfield]

We've been at odds ever since Rudolph.

[Guest sharpie]

McGwire doing andro or whatever he did was quasi-legal at the time. Palmeiro did steroids after the ban was in place. Jackson and Rose committed baseball crimes that were well known. I say no to all three of those guys even if I thought Palmeiro was a lock for the HOF, which I don't.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I like: 1. how there's 2 conversations happening in this thread at once (three really) 2. Radd's 8 grafs of pure eloquence, summed up with "fuck him."

The confersaiton about the multipe conversaitons is becoming the fourth.

I'm being a hardass in the two major conversations, but I have probably the most liberal of ballots of those posted.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

Centerfield wrote: We've been at odds ever since Rudolph.

One of my favorite threads ever!

[Centerfield]

Vic Sage wrote: If a HOF voter wants to use unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo and circumstantial evidence to reach conclusions about a prospective candidate, he/she has every right to do so.

I'm surprised you would take that position. Especially knowing how different agendas can affect the rumors and innuendos that may be prevalent. But different strokes, I guess.

I do realize it is a bit counterintuitive to promote a "Just the Facts" approach to a process that is so subjective to begin with. I'm just saying I want my subjective opinions reached as objectively as possible.

[Vic Sage]

]I'm surprised you would take that position. Especially knowing how different agendas can affect the rumors and innuendos that may be prevalent. But different strokes, I guess. I do realize it is a bit counterintuitive to promote a "Just the Facts" approach to a process that is so subjective to begin with. I'm just saying I want my subjective opinions reached as objectively as possible.

I'm not advocating that voters act in such a manner, simply recognizing that they not only DO so, but they're entitled to do so. Like Democracy in general, you hope the special interests, the hidden agendas, the stupidity and bad ideas sort of cancel each other out, and a sensible consensus emerges in the middle. Of course it doesn't always work out that way, but with 15+ years to get it right, i'm more hopeful that the HOF voters can stumble upon the proper course than we seem to have done as a society as a whole.

[Centerfield]

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

I think this is where we differ. The evidence here is simply evading a question. And that wouldn't be enough to get a suspension, much less a denial of the Hall.

By the way, I am working with the premise here that if you don't vote for him, you don't think he's worthy of the Hall. Not simply because you don't think he's a "first-ballot guy". I never really understood that sort of reasoning to begin with.

[Guest Edgy DC]

The evidence is not about punishing hiim, but about denying him baseball's highest honor.

[Guest Mr. Zero]

So let me get this straight, if Mcgwire doesn�t take andro and finds himself peddling some 54 home runs a year for the Yomiuri Giants, he has a more agreeable chance of getting into the Hall of Fame than reindeer have of flying out of Sadaharu Oh�s butt?

[Vic Sage]

The "1st ballot" thing is an effort by some voters to turn the binary nature of HOF membership (in/out) into something a bit more nuanced. "He's a HOFer, but he's not a 1st BALLOT kind of HOFer" seems to me a reasonable (if pointless) distinction.

Ripken and Gwynn? 1st ballot guys. Gossage? Yes, i think he's a HOFer, just not a 1st ballot guy. A 2nd tier HOFer, if you will. Of course, there isn't actually a 2nd tier in the HOF, so the distinction only exists in the voters' minds and in the baseball public's consciousness (for about a week).

[metsmarathon]

so, the difference between josh gibson and sadahura oh is that oh was contractually obligated to remain in japan, while gibson was racially consigned o the negro leagues.

oh's situation is more like if the national league had its own hall of fame, and didn't enshrine babe ruth or ty cobb, or why neither of those players will be in the mets hall of fame.

my question is really, if oh had wanted to, could he have signed with an american team instead of a japanese team, or was major league baseball responsible for prohibiting asian players from entering the game?

[dinosaur jesus]

I believe it was the Japanese leagues that put up the barrier, which is perfectly understandable. They didn't want to lose their most popular players. And still don't, so far as they can help it. The first Japanese player in the major leagues was Masanori Murakami in the 60's, who signed with the Giants when he was 19 years old, before a Japanese team grabbed him. He pitched for a couple of years and was very impressive, then went back to Japan and had a long career.

I think a better comparison than the Negro leagues would the high minor leagues at the turn of the century into the 30's. The overall level of play was lower than in the majors, but some of the best players in the game were held there by contract. Ruth would have been a legend if he'd never left the old Orioles, but he wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. The same with Dimaggio and the Seals.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

That is a better analogy. The point is, I don't think it'd hurt the integrity of the Hall one iota were they to reach out to recognize Earth's best pro players, regardless of the name on the front of the building and how literally some might interpret that.

It's also obvious that NPB and MLB are beginning to make efforts today to involve themselves with one another, and there will be issues soon enough of great players such as Ichiro to consider who may not compile like a MLB HOFer but play like one in the time he was there. And when that happens, you're going to have to consider those who may have played here but couldn;t due to circumstances.

The real point is Oh was a fantastic player, highly influential as a historical figure with ramifications today (where do you think Shinjo got his leg lift?), famous in two countries. He'd be the Josh Gibson-like slam dunk among a new class of potential inductees and they oughta be proactive and do it before he dies. (he's not sick asaik). It's just that bb moves pretty glacially.

I have no objections to an exhibit exchange or other stuff too.

[Guest patona314]

sorry for the silly response but,

Gibson: why can't i find any stats on the guy?
The Goose: yes, give it time (thank you mr. sutter)
Oh: no
Suzuki: 3 more years and yes.

p.s: mark will make it, but i don't mind making him wait for a while (preferably 15-20 years)

[nymr83]

i might be remembering incorrectly but doesn't a player need 10 years in the majors to appear on the ballot at all?

[Frayed Knot]

]... doesn't a player need 10 years in the majors to appear on the ballot at all?

That is correct.

[Gwreck]

Edgy DC wrote: ="Centerfield"]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.

The very fact that you're using the word "evidence" is a problem. There is no evidence. There is rumor, speculation, innuendo, and suspicion. It may a strongly held suspicion. But there is no evidence. To say so is disingenuous.

Evidence of Mark McGwire using performance-enhancing drugs includes admissions thereto, failed drug tests, photographic or videographic accounts documenting such, corrorborated eyewitness accounts or corrorborated hearsay admissions.

I may not like McGwire much either. I think he used steroids too. I also think that he should be in the Hall of Fame. That a Ty Cobb or a Gaylord Perry is in the Hall speaks very clearly to the issues of character or cheating. The Hall honors the best players. McGwire was one of them. Of that there should be no doubt.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think there's plenty that provides a ground for belief. That's evidence. Refusing to answer direct questions before Congress --- not rumor, speculation, or innuendo --- invites me to draw my own conclusions. Invites all of us. Why should we fear that? He didn't even take the fifth, but rather answered every question except the one that mattered.

Sorry about Ty Cobb. Sorry about Gay Perry. The rules explictly instruct voters to weight these issues when considering a player's career.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Part of the reason bullshitting is so epidemic is that we're so happy to let public people get away with it.

[metirish]

The whole thing before Congress was bullshit though....a few people like McCain and Shea talked big for a few days and it seems like they could care less since.....as a fan I cast every player in doubt on steroids...I have accepted that players took the stuff..look at I-Rod...he went from beefed up to slimed down...but in the minds of many he's the best catcher all time...will the same writers that won't vote for McGwire look at "Pudge" the same way.....?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Whether or not the Congressional intervention was bullshit is not the issue before us here, thoughm, unless we want this to be a five-subject thread.

[metirish]

Sure lets go for a five-subject thread..IIRC McCain talked big on reforming boxing....talked big is all..same in baseball......

[nymr83]

the (strong) suspicions of steroid use have to be part of the equation- but only part of it. i personally dont think they are enough alone to keep him out, but i won't criticize any voter who thinks otherwise.
If he had actualy gotten caught by a test for something that was illegal (and i mean ILLEGAL, the fact that baseball didn't ban something doesnt give a player the right to use a substance controlled by Congress) or legal but banned by baseball at the time he used it then i would keep him out no questions asked.

[Gwreck]

="Edgy DC"]I think there's plenty that provides a ground for belief. That's evidence. Refusing to answer direct questions before Congress --- not rumor, speculation, or innuendo --- invites me to draw my own conclusions. Invites all of us. Why should we fear that? He didn't even take the fifth, but rather answered every question except the one that mattered.

I respect your position -- but I think you are still confusing the issue. (Maybe this is me just spending 12 hours at the office today, but) Something that simply provides a ground for belief is not necessarily evidence. In the McGwire case, the suspicion you have that grounds your belief is not evidence.

Why should we fear drawing our own conclusions? Because without a standard, the system's pointless. People can draw conclusions however they see fit. Some degree of uniformity is needed. Evidence should be required. The debate for Palmiero is far different than the debate for McGwire.

]Sorry about Ty Cobb. Sorry about Gay Perry. The rules explictly instruct voters to weight these issues when considering a player's career.

Well, I guess they sure missed the boat on those two.

In all seriousness -- and I do realize this is fundamentally another issue -- the instructions should be modified so that Hall voting is for the best Major League Baseball players.

I don't think there's a problem honoring Cobb or Perry -- or McGwire. I think there's a fundamental contradiction for those who advocate not honoring McGwire while saying nothing about others.

[Guest iramets]

It's funny, because I'm currently serving as foreperson on a jury (Grand Larceny case) where we have just been instructed as to what constitutes evidence. The judge in the case is (rather angrily) responding to our requests to know if we may consider this (a witness's tone of voice) or that (whether or not we feel certain that the amount of stolen goods has been proven to qualify as Grand Larceny) by telling us that what we think is evidence is evidence. We're free, IOW, to say, "I don't know what it is, I think that guy was lying his ass off, don't you?" and if all twelve of us believe the guy was lying, with no basis that we can even put into words to express it, then guess what? The guy was lying.

McGwire was lying. (I just wish I could send McGwire off to jail, and the poor shnook in the case free.) Unless 75% of the HOF voters believe otherwise, then he's not getting in, because his on-the-field record clearly warrants his election.

I believe Rose's ineligibility is a cop-out, btw. I wish he WAS eligible, but that the HOF voters felt that he had violated the "sportsmanship" standard of the HOF--that would be a stronger statement to me than "Well, we wanted to elect him but we weren't allowed to."

As to Cobb and Perry and others, their election could be excused or explained by the fact that they were elected before we became sensitive to gambling and sportsmanship and such. We can't unelect them now, so their plaques stand as relics of an unenlightened era. I can tell my kids, "These guys were scumbags, and I don't want you fellows behaving like them, EVER, but even scumbags get honored sometimes. That dont make being a scumbag, or cheating, or lying about the scummy things you done, okay. But parents like me stand in front of their plaques everyday and explain to their kids what they done wrong, and that's a kind of dishonor, too, that I don't want you guys ever to go through. Do the right thing, and people won't ever have to explain why you were a scumbag. That's all I ask."