December 31, 2006
A Yes for McGwire
A few days ago Jon Heyman explained why he voted no for McGwire on his Hall of Fame ballot. Now Mike Lefkow explains why he is voting yes.
Not that it matters when choosing whom to vote for, but McGwire is a decent man whose image has taken a much tougher beating than he deserves. He was a doting father to his son, Matthew. I don't ever remember him showing up late to games, not hustling or being arrested. He made the Maris family an endearing part of the 1998 homer chase.
If he used steroids, and the evidence suggests that he did, it was for the same reason athletes in all sports in all eras have used whatever enhancements were available at the time -- to improve their performances to maximize their value and, yes, help their teams.
So he'll get my vote for the Hall of Fame, 14 more times if I have to. It's not an issue I'm wrestling with anymore. He deserves enshrinement, and I hope he can enjoy it if that day occurs.
I don't buy this argument at all, however:
Not voting for McGwire means you had better leave Ripken and Gwynn off your ballots, too. They played during the steroids era. Ripken played in a record 2,632 consecutive games. Can we be positive Ripken didn't use any banned substances to keep himself in the lineup day-after-day for all those years? Not voting for McGwire is singling him out, making him the poster boy for the 1,500 players or so that Gammons estimates used illegal substances between 1986-2004.
There's really no comparison here. Besides, Gwynn was too fat to have taken steroids. :-)
I'm in agreement with Mike. Athletes of all eras have tried to find and edge to compete. As we throw millions of dollars at these young men & women who prove to be the best of the best, we become part of the problem. If an athlete just can't quite make it but they know that with just a little help they can be a ML ball player making millions of dollars a year, who can blame they for considering chemical assistance. In an interview, Mike Schmidt said that he understood the incredible pressure these young players are under to do whatever it takes. When pressed as to whether he would have used Steriods, he said he thinks he might have given in to the pressure.
Those of you who are withholding your vote should look into your heart of hearts and see what you would have done. I'm not condoning taking drugs or chemicals for any reason. However, it's a lot easier for me to say "I'd never use steriods" since I never got close. However, many young people did get close but didn't make it. It meant the difference between the paultry Minor League salary and the potential riches of a major league contract.
You all better think before you throw the first stone.
I'm sure a lot of people have tried to "find an edge" in dubious ways. And I'm sure that a lot of people would be swayed by the promise of millions of dollars in earnings.
But, to paraphrase Bill James, a lot of people also aren't in the Hall of Fame. If the selection process excludes people who weren't quite able to say "no" as many times as they ought to, maybe that's what's intended.
I find it hard to get too worked up if people are taking that clause about upholding standards and character and interpreting that to rule out steroids users. Just as not all players who have fine and upstanding character deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, neither do all players who accumulate great stats.
Gwynn wasn't that big for all of his career, certainly not when he was stealing 56 bases in 1987.
I personally wouldn't vote for McGwire but can respect Lefkow's decision to vote yes. That last paragraph, though, is unsupportable. It doesn't follow at all from the arguments against McGwire. The argument against him is that McGwire himself fairly obviously took steroids, and then completely whiffed in his chance to come clean. Nobody has ever offered any evidence that Ripken or Gwynn juiced.
That being said, I'd withhold a vote for Ripken as a protest vote against his most well-known achievement being perhaps the most overrated record in baseball. Yes, he still deserves it based on his performance on the field. But that performance is something I had to look up in the history books. The Ripken I knew was a slow old man who was hurting his team by not letting other guys play, taking the rightful place of better players on All-Star teams, etc. and getting nothing but glory for it. Congratulations, Mr. Perfect Attendance.
That's not entirely fair to Ripken. He was 34 when he broke Gehrig's record, and had been a productive player for nearly all of that time -- only in '95 did he reach a point where I would have considered replacing him. It was only the last two years of The Streak when he was really becoming a problem, though the strike probably did something to mask a decline in '94. For most non-Jeter or A-Rod teams, Ripken would have been at least a passable starter through the middle of '96 -- certainly the guy they did eventually replace him with (Mike Bordick) wasn't any great shakes. Toronto and Detroit were still starting Alex Gonzalez and Deivi Cruz around that time.
Ripken stuck around too long, but he was a useful (or better) player for almost all of The Streak. If we withheld votes for everybody who stuck around a few seasons too long, even Ruth wouldn't get voted into the Hall unanimously.
Gwynn is too fat to have used? That kind of writing is irresponsible. Most people that use steroids put on a considerable amount of fat, especially if predisposed to being overweight combined with poor eating habits. Other steroids (such as Winstrol- Raffy Palmiero) make you considerably quicker without adding muscle mass, thats why it is favored by pitchers looking for velocity. You sound very uninformed and should do your homework. Just looking for pumped up gym rats, is plain lazy and short sighted. I think one of you guys should examine the REAL effects of ALL steroids and write about the pitchers who have fallen off these past couple years with testing in place. At least it would be a fresh angle.
Gwynn being fat was meant to be a joke.
Sure, plenty of people stuck around too long. But only Ripken managed to get people to think his sticking around for too long was somehow a virtue.
You're joking, right? Or do you not remember Pete Rose's Captain Ahab-like chase of Ty Cobb, during which he was lionized as a true leader who would bring the Reds, or the Phillies, or whatever team would give him at-bats, playoff success? (Of course, Rose would go on to ruin his Hall chances in a more direct manner.) Remember what a "great competitor" Steve Carlton was in his last few years? Jim Palmer? Willie Mays?
Almost every player who sticks around too long gets his stubbornness treated as a virtue for a while. Eventually, it gets through people's heads that he sucks, and people suddenly wake up to the fact that maybe he's just too stubborn. I see no special reason to punish Ripken just because he got too much good press.
Not that Ripken was immune to criticism during The Streak -- I remember reading a number of times, especially around '90-'91, that he would have been a better player if he'd just rest and get fully healthy more often than every off-season.
The difference is that Ripken's so-called greatest accomplishment is the hanging-around-on-the-field-when-I-should-have-taken-a-rest award. At least Pete Rose had to do something (get hits) to keep his quest to get into the history books alive. And yeah, he got a lot of criticism for it. Just today, Fox Sports online had a list of 10 sports records that will never be broken, and guess who was #1?
Again, I'm not saying he shouldn't be in the HOF. I'm just saying that if I had a vote, I'd withhold it so he wouldn't get the satisfaction of a unanimous ballot. He's a perfectly reasonable HOF selection, but he's not a Pantheon guy like he's made out to be.
It's interesting - Gwynn is one of those rare players who knew when to cut back - his last two seasons he was a pinch-hitter/reserve, when if he'd wanted to give himself a couple hundred extra hits for posterity he could have done so - it's not like the man ever forgot how to hit, even when he was fat.
As far as Ripken goes, sure, Baltimore probably suffered a little for letting him play every day when he was no longer at his best, but here's something to chew on: Do you know who replaced Ripken the day he finally missed a game? It was Manny freakin' Alexander. It's not like the O's were bursting at the seams with quality SS.