Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
November 09, 2006
The Ballot

The Hall of Fame ballot came up on this week's radio show. The topic was, are voters going to put Mark McGwire into the hall with both Ripken and Gwynn?

For the first time, the writers get a chance to punish players for the excesses of the 1990s. In addition to McGwire, Canseco and Caminiti make the ballot for the first time. And while the cases against Canseco and Caminiti based on their stats are strong, the two would normally garner some level of support, probably enough to stay on the ballot. At this point, I wonder if they get any votes.

But the more interesting case is McGwire. Mark posted a very high OBA and slugging percentage for his career, as well as the highest HR/AB ratio of all time. Without the steroid allegations, we'd be hearing Creeque Alley played at the induction ceremony. But I believe things are going to play out very differently.

Once the ballots are distributed, you'll see many stories along the lines of, "The McGwire controversy shouldn't detract from the Gwynn and Ripken induction." (The number of these will easily rival the mass of "David Eckstein is a scrappy little ballplayer" stories that followed the World Series.) Some will argue he shouldn't go into the Hall at all, and I suspect a few will argue for his enshirenment. But I believe the consenus that emerges is, "We don't need to put him in this year, let's wait."

Now, a problem arises. A player needs about 25 votes to stay on the ballot. What if the consensus is so strong that McGwire doesn't even get 25 votes? I assume all the writers don't get together and say, "Okay, you 25 vote for Mark so he stays on the ballot, and the rest of us will leave him off." They argue in their columns. The "don't vote for him this year" argument will be pretty convincing, and I feel there's a high probability that McGwire falls off the ballot.

And that's okay with me. It's my opinion that someone's Hall of Fame credentials don't change from year to year. If Bruce Sutter should be in the Hall, it should have been obvious on the first ballot. It's not like there were 10 better candidates every year better than Sutter before Bruce was elected.

So voters should make up their mind about Mark now. They have the evidence of his career and the evidence of his drug use. If they try to fudge it, they may end up eliminating McGwire's chances for good. The controversy isn't going away. Why is it okay to muck up Tim Raines' induction but not Gwynn and Ripken? No matter what year they decide to add McGwire, he's going to detract from someone's honor. The writers have a chance to send a clear message. They've been much more angry about drug use than the casual fan. Argue in your columns if McGwire belongs in the Hall or not. Don't worry about who else will be at the ceremony. That could lead to unintended consequences.


Posted by David Pinto at 10:30 AM | All-Time Greats | TrackBack (0)
Comments

1. McGwire might make the hall this year because, just as his stats will be the same next year as this year, the lack of evidence connecting him and steroid use will be the same next year as this year. This far removed from his playing career, do you expect a smoking gun to show up, ever? If McGwire's stats get him in, which they probably do, will (credible) suspicion be enough to keep him out?

2. Tim Raines is a first ballot HOFer? Really?

Posted by: josh at November 9, 2006 01:30 PM

> Tim Raines is a first ballot HOFer? Really?

He should be.

One of the best hitters of the 80's, and easily the most overlooked.

Posted by: gordon at November 9, 2006 01:55 PM

How do we know Cal Ripken wasn't on the juice? To avoid (or play through) injuries for so many years.....

Posted by: Yankee Despiser at November 9, 2006 02:19 PM

Raines was a good hitter for a number of years. But to be a first ballot HOFer, don't you have to be excellent? Like, say, winning a major award? Putting up historic statistics? Great defense? Leading a team in the postseason? More than 7 all-star game appearances in a 23 year career?

Posted by: josh at November 9, 2006 02:27 PM

Josh,
Raines is probably the second best leadoff hitter in the history of baseball. Unfortunately, his career overlapped with the best leadoff hitter in baseball (Rickey Henderson). And 7 all-star selections is a lot. And, considering the fans vote for all-stars, I don't think it's fair to use AS selections as criterion for the hall. I mean, Sandy Alomar was a perennial all-star, but a terrible player. And if you don't think Raines put up "historic statistics", I would suggest you look at the record. Raines should be a hall-of-famer; playing in obscurity in Montreal shouldn't count against him.

Posted by: david at November 9, 2006 04:34 PM

Tim Raines is probably one of the more underrated players in baseball history. He was a great on-base guy in an era when on-base ability was not yet fully appreciated by most baseball fans. He was a prolific and highly successful base stealer in an era when home-run driven offense was diminishing the importance of the stolen base. He was the best player on a team that for most of his tenure ranged from mediocre to awful. He played in a city that might as well have been Kathmandu for all the attention that national media paid to the baseball played there, at a point before satellite TV and the Internet made it easier than ever to see games whether the media thought they were worth covering or not.

Raines is like the anti-Joe Carter. That's why he probably won't be a first-ballot HoFer, though I think he'll eventually (and rightfully) get in.

Posted by: cwp at November 10, 2006 01:26 AM

The anti-Joe Carter. I like that.

Posted by: David Pinto at November 10, 2006 07:02 AM

re: McGwire

unlike sosa, there is a lot of evidence to convict McGwire, including the witnesses during 1998 that found andro in his locker. That whole story was denied and McGwire and LaRussa denied that andro was a steroid, and they said it was a "legal supplement". So McGwire, we know, was on andro, a steroid, at least, in 1998, along with creatine, which he bragged about taking.

Then you have the strange incident of his not testifying at the congressional hearing but also not taking the 5th.

And LaRussa blackballing reporters.

And the allegations of Conseco in his book, all of which have now largely proven to be true and confirmed by third and fourth sources.

My view is that McGwire cheated. Does it keep him out of the hall of fame? Hell if I know. Jim Bunning and Don Drysdale and Don Sutton loaded up plenty of spitballs shine balls and vaseline balls, but they're all in there. they cheated. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker bet on baseball. They're in there. Pete Rose is the greatest player I ever saw play the game, but he's been barred. I'd rather have Pete Rose on my HOF ballott than ten mark mcGwires, ten cal ripkens or ten tony gwynns.

what on earth did tony gwynn every win? a pennant and zero world series games? maybe two pennants?

Pete Rose was a winner. He even made the worst team in the world-- the Phillies--into a world series winner in just two years. He took Mike Schmidt, a guy plagued by self-doubt and made him into an MVP and world series MVP into just a year.

Mark McGwire, by contrast, took steroid shots from conseco in 1988-90, and never escaped from that. His body failed him twice, once in the early 90s, and again after 1998, to the point where LaRussa pinch hit for him in a playoff game.

No one every pinch-hit for Willie Mays or Barry Bonds.

I think Mark McGwire is a kind of Dave Kingman on steroids, a one dimensional freak of nature.

In the end, he doesn't belong in the HOF. He hit as low as .210 in a complete season of play. Even lower some seasons. His career was more like Roger Maris' than Mickey Mantles.

If he goes, he barely belongs, and only with an asterisk of some kind, and only after Pete Rose goes in first.

--art kyriazis, philly

Posted by: art kyriazis at November 13, 2006 07:44 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?