McGwire getting a raw deal
Posted: Monday, January 12, 2009 5:23 PM
A Hall of Fame vote has never been on my wish list. I feel neither worthy nor proper in determining an honor that has rewards both emotional and material. For the same reason, I have declined invitations to vote for the Heisman Trophy and in the Harris Poll.
But I acknowledge that to hold this space, I must have a “take.” Thus in that spirit, here goes: Mark McGwire is a Hall of Famer. Today, tomorrow, forever.
His vote total decreased this year, a trend I find surprising. My belief was that, over time, the disclosure of the depth of the use of performance-enhancing substances (PES) during the BALCO era would cast a different light on McGwire’s candidacy. Three years in, I am wondering if I will be right.
More voters are revealing their choices and it’s hard to argue that transparency is bad. I found the comments of a Boston voter puzzling and borderline deceiving. The man in question defended his anti-McGwire stance with the claim that McGwire was “one-dimensional.”
Let’s look at that more closely.
If we accept the premise, then we must ask what exactly is the problem with dominating the most important offensive dimension? McGwire, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa were the greatest home run hitters of their era. Bonds won the career battle but McGwire was the pioneer.
As a rookie, he hit 50 (49 officially -- for one, which I personally called as an Oakland A’s broadcaster cleared the Oakland Coliseum fence and caromed off an iron railing in front of the bleachers back on to the field. The umpires didn’t move as quickly back then and missed the call) and smashed the rookie record (37 by Al Rosen), a sign of dominance.
McGwire was the first to hit 50 home runs in four consecutive seasons, a mark Bonds reached only once.
One-dimensional? McGwire won a Gold Glove, an award often scoffed at by the Numbers Crowd. Although no one should confuse McGwire with Keith Hernandez, the Gold Glove is voted on by managers and coaches.
Another thought rushes to me when I consider the phrase “one dimensional” when used as an insult, the manner in which the Boston writer intended. (Disclaimer 1: here we will violate, mildly, a personal rule against invoking the comparison argument with any present Hall of Famers. It is never the intent here to denigrate anyone already so honored, however…would that writer call Nolan Ryan “one-dimensional?” Ryan’s resume leads with the career strikeout record, which he smashed and, like McGwire, is a symbol of dominance. (Disclaimer 2: I acknowledge that strikeouts are regarded by many voters as significant, a stance with which I don’t agree).
Strikeouts must be the reason Ryan is in the Hall. It can’t be his 324 wins because his career winning percentage is barely over .500 (.526). Surely, no rational person would conclude that seven regular season no-hitters warrant Hall of Fame inclusion.
So I wonder what distinction is drawn between Ryan’s strikeouts and McGwire’s home runs?
Which leads to Part 2 of the Boston writer’s answer -- the segue into steroids. Inevitably, any objection to McGwire’s candidacy reverts to this issue. Let’s check the facts, an uncommon exercise in this matter.
McGwire is mentioned 10 times in the Mitchell Report, eight references are direct to the 1998 discovery of “andro” in his locker. We remind that andro – the steroid precursor was -- at the time, legal without prescription.
The other two references: the A’s suspicions of Jose Canseco’s use and then-Oakland general manager Sandy Alderson’s emphasis that he never considered testing McGwire.
So we have a player “convicted” by our own eyesight (admittedly a valid method) and his horrendous testimony before Congress (McGwire followed sound legal advice that was dispensed by attorneys who were shockingly ignorant or callous towards McGwire’s image. In either case, it was McGwire’s responsibility and he has paid a steep price).
The point: McGwire was not involved in BALCO or Kirk Radomski or the Orlando mail king or any other sordid distribution plot that has snagged numbers of players in recent years. This is not to proclaim his innocence, rather to insure a full understanding of McGwire’s position relative to his peers in Hall of Fame contention. Nor is this meant to minimize or condone the actions of this era.
Instead, I believe there are two points to emphasize:
1) Players should be judged against their peers. The brightest sportswriter I know, Bruce Jenkins of the San Francisco Chronicle, shined the light for me on this idea.
For McGwire, he should be judged within an era where we know with certainty that steroid/HGH use was widespread, both by hitters and pitchers. Thus, if a voter rejects McGwire for ethical reasons, the same standard must be used for Bonds, Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro (failed drug test), Pudge Rodriguez, and even Roger Clemens.
In fact, here’s a hypothetical question: is Jim Thome a Hall of Famer? He has the home run credentials. He wears the “one dimensional” badge every bit as much as McGwire. His name has never been connected with any PES use. But if a voter chooses to use ethics in judging this era, where does he/she stop? What player is above and beyond suspicion? Can a voter declare with certainty that Thome, or any of his peers, attained their numbers without artificial means? (Again, this is not to accuse Thome or anyone else. It is simply asking how a voter can judge some but not others when evidence is overwhelming about rampant PES use).
2) Voters cannot split careers. A particular argument, stunning in its lack of sense, makes the rounds about Bonds. Since suspicions of his possibly using performance-enhancing substances began in the late 1990s, Bonds could be Hall of Fame by virtue of his three MVP awards pre the PES era. Don’t you love that stance: it’s OK for someone to cheat if they’ve already had a fine career but if you’re a marginal player struggling to stay in the big leagues or a Triple-A player watching your peers use any means available to reach the show, you’re out of luck. No cheating allowed.
Any McGwire supporter, and likely the man himself, must be taken aback by the results. The anti-PES crusade, three years in, is showing no sign of slackening. McGwire bears the brunt of this storm. He is the first of his era to appear before the tribunal. (Interesting that Rickey Henderson, a deserving inductee, drew no suspicion. He played with a rock hard physique, no body fat and rippling muscle, until he was 42).
No, this inquisition is about power. It’s about home runs and McGwire has appeared first before the body of writers acting as a collective Torquemada.
