December 29, 2006
Heyman on McGwire
Jon Heyman publishes his Hall of Fame ballot, and his reasons for leaving McGwire off:
Some will claim steroids were not disallowed at the time, and that, of course, is 100 percent false. There was no testing for them during McGwire's career, and no spelled-out punishment. But they were neither permitted in baseball nor legal in our society.
Some will say that everyone did them, and I'll agree that many did do them. But I will say first that not everyone did do them, and most who did got away with it. While McGwire has never failed a test or confessed, in my mind he is caught. So on my ballot, his box is blank.
Every vote requires thought and judgment, and it's hard to think any of other explanation for McGwire's 70 home runs or his no-comment stance beyond steroids. If anyone can come up with something else plausible, I'm all ears. Until then, McGwire doesn't get my vote.
So Jon is not keeping Mark out for one year. Heyman won't vote for McGwire until there's evidence to convince the writer that Mark didn't cheat. I wonder how many other writers will take this stand?
Typical hypocritical writer. Didn't care one whit about steroids when McGwire was playing but now that he's retired he decides it's the worst thing in the world. You wonder if the real reason that some writers are leaving McGwire off the ballot is because they want to be the story, not the baseball players.
As for steroids not being legal, during the 1920s many ballplayers drank alcohol despite it being unconstitutional (not merely illegal).
This whole steroids mess is so stupid. Apparently, steroids were disallowed due to a memo by the previous commissioner in the early 90s stating that essentially illegal drugs were not allowed. This is why it was ok for players to take Andro when it was legal, even though it is clearly a steroid.
With this in mind, that it's ok if the steroid is legal, any player who during the offseason trained in mexico and took steroids then could do so completely within the rules of baseball as steroids are legal there. So you basically have a case where it is against the rules to take steroids if you do so in the US but if you took those same steroids in Mexico it is ok. This is a stupid inconsistency which no writer cares to address because there is no answer for it.
This basically all comes down to giving them something to write about and giving them a reason to besmirch those players who they don't like. It's interesting how quickly Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite were out of the news even though their names came up in the Grimsley affadavit.
The bottom line in all this is if they really cared about steroids they would have implemented testing however many years ago. Basically banning something and not doing anything about it is almost akin to not banning it at all.
If it's steroids, then how come McGwire suddently started hitting home runs at a incredible pace when he was traded to St. Louis the previous year in mid season?
In Oakland, 1 HR ever 10.7 AB (about on par with his Rookie year)
In St. Louis, 1 HR every 7.5 AB
Which is actually what he did the next couple years as well.
Wouldn't the more obvious answer perhaps be the lousy pitching in the NL? (Specifically the NL central?) I realize most people think that steroids are some magical thing that makes people into supermen, but a change in mid-season like that doesn't seem too likely for steroids. (Especially since it's much later than his supposed steroid use is started)
It's also funny, how come no stat people ever point this out? They use stats for everything else, except analyzing which players might be using enhancements (or might not be).
Ball Four was published before Mickey Mantle was voted into the Hall of Fame. Does Heyman think that voting in Mantle was a mistake?
The guy was set the USC single-season home run king in 1984, he then set the record for most home runs by a MLB rookie in 1987. Who, exactly, would have been a better candidate to hit 70 home runs at some point in his career, Pete Incaviglia?
I think he probably used, but his 70 home runs is certainly not evidence of this in and of itself.