Hall of Mirrors
"[Tony] Gwynn said 'we all knew' of players who used steroids. 'All you all knew. We knew. Players knew. Owners knew. Everybody knew. And we didn’t say anything about it.'"
- Jack Curry, January 10, 2007
It's baseball's least favorite debate.
Awkward enough was all the nastiness of congressional hearings, the earplugs worn by players anxious to drown out the booing of fans disgusted by steroid cheats, and the steroid speculation that surrounds any player who has an exceptional season (hello Ryan Howard). The results of the Hall of Fame balloting is an entirely different level.
Indeed, the Hall of Fame balloting is perhaps the most self-reflexive look we've had at the way baseball remembers the Steroid Era.
Of course, it's not MLB that votes on Hall of Famers, it's the writers. The same writers who failed all those years to make mention of the expanding biceps, triceps, and hat sizes of the suspected juicers. The same writers who Tony Gwynn is convinced knew all along.
For me, my hope is that this vote sets the terms for how MLB commemorates those who played in the Steroid Era. Mark McGwire isn't getting into the Hall of Fame, that much seems clear. I hope other players are rejected, too.
Look at Pete Rose. The guy's out for betting on baseball, and a strong precedent has been set. If it were discovered that Cal Ripken Jr. had bet on baseball, he too would be out (and just imagine how much he could have made with those betting when his consecutive games streak would end -- something to look in to, perhaps?)
I hope McGwire sets a similar precedent. I mean, if he'd played in any other era he would have been inducted first ballot. His hit total is lacking and his defense was never stellar, but 583 home runs speaks for itself; it's a number pretty damn close to 600, and historically the rule has been 500 HRs and you're in.
I'm not elated or crushed by the judgment handed down on McGwire, all I hope for is consistency. Truth is, I'm kind of the same mind as Buster Olney on the steroid era.
Because we can't know for sure which players were juicing, how much they were juicing, when they were juicing, etc., you have to assume all players during the era are tainted; or put another way, you have to accept as a fact that some players used steroids and some players didn't, but the fact remains that records were set and accomplishments acheived, and those numbers are certain in spite of the uncertainty of the era.
The alternative is an entirely subjective review of players, one that unfairly relies on rumor and innuendo.
I mean, look at that guy. His arms aren't small, it's plain he works out, but he looks more like Endy Chavez than Mark McGwire. Nevertheless, on April 3, 2005, Alex Sanchez became the first ballplayer suspended under MLB's steroid policy.
If you never would have guessed it about him, then what about Tom Glavine? Or what about Randy Johnson? Or any other rail-thin player? We can suspect the Albert Pujols' all day long, but really, what do we know? And besides, if we come to know that a juiced up McGwire was socking dingers off a juiced up Randy Johnson, what do we do with that?
It all means that subjectivity won't work, and in rejecting McGwire's candidacy, I hope the BBWAA has made an objective decision. Sammy Sosa? Roger Clemens? Barry Bonds? I hope several years down the road that the baseball writers maintain their objectivity and reject each of them for entry into the Hall of Fame.
But of course that'll never happen. Sosa will get the McGwire treatment, but Clemens is a first ballot HOFer.
The writers will tell themselves that Bonds was a great player without steroids, and sure enough he was. He hit 411 home runs through the year "Game of Shadows" alleges he began using steroids (after the 1998 season), was a menace on the base paths when he was younger, and won several gold gloves.
But shouldn't we ask for more? Why should the steriods issue be any different from the betting issue? Both undermine the integrity of the game. Both are illegal, at least on a national level. Is there a difference? Seemingly not in the eyes of Hall of Fame voters.
And in this instance, the eyes of the voters reflect the way baseball sees itself. Bud Selig didn't vote, but surely McGwire's meager tally is consistent with the 50-game suspensions he implemented, the Mitchell Investigation, the non-reception when Bonds passed Babe Ruth on the all time HR list.
McGwire has been rejected. Judgment has been passed on the fact of steroid use which was, as Gwynn noted, for so long willfully ignored. We'll see if baseball honors that judgment in the years ahead.
- A.F.O.M.G.
(Images appear courtesy of mlb.com and sptimes.com)
posted by A Friend of Mr. Glass' at 11:04 AM
6 Comments:
Nice piece, Glass. I do disagree on some central issues, however.
I agree with you that there will never be definitive, formal declaration by MLB as to who abused steroids and who didn't. Accordingly, we have no rational or fair way of clearing the chaff out from the wheat. Your solution to this essential and unresolvable problem, as far as I can tell, is to deny admission to the Hall for anyone who performed in, generally speaking, the 1990s. My basic suggestion, shortly put, is that unless MLB formally declares that a given player is convicted of having used non-medically required steroids before the ban, or any sort of steroids whatsoever after the ban, that you must not deny him admission on the grounds of suspicion. It sets an impossible precedent for gatekeeping, and it continues to perpetuate MLB's fundamental problem, which, in my eyes, is lack of honest self-reflection. I think MLB needs to accordingly let in players who are deemed to deserve admission (this can be relative to a player's contemporaries, mind you: for example, almost 25% of McGwire's career homeruns came from two seasons worth of production when people across both leagues were hitting homeruns at unprecedented, prodigious rates. Without having to finger-point about steroids, we can reasonably say that those McGwire big flies were relatively less significant in light of the rest of the leagues similar successes. Think of it simply as we do ERA vs. ERA+), and I think MLB needs to formally document the rampant drug abuse associated with the so-called Steroid Era. They didn't demand a higher standard for admission of pre-integration White players, even though they had much less competition than post-integration ball players; what they did do is make it clear that records and careers ought to be understood in the light of the historical contingencies. I think we handle the Steroid Era in the same way. Otherwise, I don't think the speculation (as far as it concerns Cooperstown) will ever cease.
Oh, and quickly, you wrote, "Why should the steriods issue be any different from the betting issue? Both undermine the integrity of the game. Both are illegal, at least on a national level." This is not necessarily true. If a doctor was willing to prescribe steroids for McGwire or whomever, then there is nothing illegal about him using them. The doctor could be sued or called on for malpractice or something, but if you're given a prescription you are legally free to take the drug! There is not an equivalency between taking steroids and committing crime: they can overlap but they do not always overlap.
Lastly, this is a very interesting old article: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05135/504781.stm .
I don't think I would have voted for McGwire had I had a vote, but not because of steroids.
Because he was a one-dimensional bopper during a period of time when everyone and their momma was at least a one-dimensional bopper.
Also, very ugly offspring, he has.
The summary of the article I posted above, if it doesn't work, is simply that everybody looks at Bonds' numbers as a smoking gun indictment of his steroid abuse (this has major ramifications, duh), yet Clemens and the Big Unit are certain to be first ballot HOFers. The journalist makes the point that what Clemens and Johnson have done at the tail end of their careers (or what should have been after the tail end) is equally or more freakish than what Bonds has done, but because offense is sexier than pitching, Bonds gets all the love/hate.
If we are sure about Bonds, which we are, I think we have to be sure about Clemens and Johnson too.
I agree with Lister compeletely. As I noted in my ballot, I'd vote for McGwire.
But I do appreciate the way Glass approached this. The one thing that will completely invalidate the Hall of Fame is if Bonds is on the outside, while Pudge Rodriguez, Craig Biggio and Andruw Jones, clearly inferior players, are on the inside.
If you want to get "moral" (though I do not believe this is still a moral issue at all), do what the Southland Daily writer did and exclude all players, including Ripken and Gwynn, who played in the 90's.
I prefer to accept that the 90's are what they are.
Another note - the penalty for gambling on baseball is clear - a lifetime ban. Whether gambling or steroid use is 'worse' is immaterial. Rose should have been aware of this consequence (and, surely, he was and ignored it).
The penalty for steroid use when McGwire played was zero games, because, of course, there were no tests. These trangressions are not the same.
Whether something is legal or illegal in the United States is completely irrelevent. There are plenty of suspected criminals in the Hall of Fame (and, right now, McGwire is no more than a suspected criminal).
the mets are about to sign scott the show schowenweiss to, it seems, a curious 3 year deal
still this guy is versatile and lister, for one, is a fan
he could spot-start for you, pitch in long relief, or be an inning eater to help buoy our 5IP/game starting rotation
THE SHOW IS COMING TO TOWN BABY!
where do i get my jersey (not kidding)?
Like usual KFC, is dead-on. You have two logical options for this era:
ignore steroids completely or don't allow anyone--anything else is subjective guesswork and reeks of hypocrisy.
The baseball writers association is the most hyprotical self-righteous groups of jerks in the world. It's because of their fake moral posturing and rampant illogical rants that we've turned to the oracles of Sip and AFOMG in the first place.
One other thing--big ups to Lister--who was also spot-on in his comments
My favorite thing about the sports media is that they act now like they’re self-flaggellating themselves for not having noticed when baseball players started doing steroids and they really regret not having blown the whistle. Yet at this EXACT MOMENT, it’s painfully obvious that the same tell-tale signs are in place in the NFL and these same sportswriters who are so forlorn that they didn’t the world the great service they could have during the baseball juicing say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the NFL.
With rare exception, I despise the sports media.
Post a Comment
<< Home