The Message
What happened yesterday with the Hall of Fame voting was nothing short of shocking (and no I'm not referring to the fact that once again, Goose Gossage did not get his props, although that also qualifies as a shock in my book). I did not think there was a chance that Mark McGwire would make it into the Hall on the first ballot. It seemed clear to me that a message would be sent about steroids with this vote and that Big Mac, a certain first-ballot HOF'er given the numbers, would be forced to sit out a year or two as penance for his sins.
But yesterday's voting results have to make you wonder if the message that was actually being sent to McGwire is that he never will be elected into the Hall of Fame. He was named on a paltry 23.5% of the ballots, which does not bode well for his candidacy. I did a quick check and found that since 1980, only two players with first-year numbers as bad as Mac's eventually got elected to the Hall by the writers. In his first year of eligibility, 1982, Cubs' great Billy Williams was named on only 23.4% of the ballots and was elected just five years later with an 85.7% tally. In 1994, Bruce Sutter appeared on the ballot for the first time and received only 23.9% of the votes - he was finally elected last year.
Of those two, I think that only Billy Williams should be considered interesting, because Sutter was caught up in the debate concerning relief pitchers (one that seems to continue to plague one Mr. Gossage). As for Williams - I don't get it. He was a clear-cut Hall-of-Famer. That he started off with such a low percentage of votes seems to me a statistical anomaly. On the '82 ballot were two first-year near-unanimous inductees (Aaron and Frank Robinson) followed by five guys who were voted in soon after (Marichal, Killebrew, Wilhelm, Drysdale and Aparicio). The glut of big names at the top of the list may explain Williams' poor showing.
McGwire's numbers certainly cannot be explained in this way. Of the names after Ripken and Gwynn, likely only Gossage eventually will make it in, maybe Rice and Dawson, but all three of them could go either way. Maybe Big Mac's results will fit more in the Sutter camp - low initial numbers due to an internal debate that will work itself out in time in his favor. But that's a big maybe, and it's ramifications are enormous. The fact of the matter is that without the steroid controversy, McGwire's career gets him into the Hall, probably on the first ballot. Which means that if he doesn't get in, neither does Bonds, and neither does Sosa, and an entire era of baseball is being essentially erased from the annals of history. The mind boggles.
But yesterday's voting results have to make you wonder if the message that was actually being sent to McGwire is that he never will be elected into the Hall of Fame. He was named on a paltry 23.5% of the ballots, which does not bode well for his candidacy. I did a quick check and found that since 1980, only two players with first-year numbers as bad as Mac's eventually got elected to the Hall by the writers. In his first year of eligibility, 1982, Cubs' great Billy Williams was named on only 23.4% of the ballots and was elected just five years later with an 85.7% tally. In 1994, Bruce Sutter appeared on the ballot for the first time and received only 23.9% of the votes - he was finally elected last year.
Of those two, I think that only Billy Williams should be considered interesting, because Sutter was caught up in the debate concerning relief pitchers (one that seems to continue to plague one Mr. Gossage). As for Williams - I don't get it. He was a clear-cut Hall-of-Famer. That he started off with such a low percentage of votes seems to me a statistical anomaly. On the '82 ballot were two first-year near-unanimous inductees (Aaron and Frank Robinson) followed by five guys who were voted in soon after (Marichal, Killebrew, Wilhelm, Drysdale and Aparicio). The glut of big names at the top of the list may explain Williams' poor showing.McGwire's numbers certainly cannot be explained in this way. Of the names after Ripken and Gwynn, likely only Gossage eventually will make it in, maybe Rice and Dawson, but all three of them could go either way. Maybe Big Mac's results will fit more in the Sutter camp - low initial numbers due to an internal debate that will work itself out in time in his favor. But that's a big maybe, and it's ramifications are enormous. The fact of the matter is that without the steroid controversy, McGwire's career gets him into the Hall, probably on the first ballot. Which means that if he doesn't get in, neither does Bonds, and neither does Sosa, and an entire era of baseball is being essentially erased from the annals of history. The mind boggles.
4 Comments:
sosa and mac wont get in.
balco bonds has a chance tho.
if he gets the HR record they wont not vote him in.
unless a commisioner bans him, or he is found guilty at some kind of trial, barry will be there.
i doubt this kind of freezeout will work on him. word to isiah thomas.
I think it's crazy that McGwire and Sosa won't get in. If they used 'roids - so what. 'Roids weren't tested for and weren't technically banned and so many guys used them it was arguably an even playing field. Is this issue going to come up for every player of this generation? If McGwire doesn't get in, then no one in this era should get. His chase of Maris's record, along with Sosa, lifted the game at a critical time. For that alone, he should get in - not to mention the gaudy numbers.
Kurt, I feel you.
I think the best litmus here is the Gaylord Perry test. Perry was a known cheater his entire career, and yet very little was ever proven about his spitball habits, a late-career snafu with the Mariners that could possibly be called the equivalent of a locker-room bottle of andro.
As far as I recall Perry was voted into the Hall in his second or third year of eligibility.
Everyone agrees that for its own profit and gain, MLB averted its eyes from the roids plague in the 90's. Now it wants to punish the players, and basically write off the era as statisitically invalid. I recognize that McGwire, Bonds and Sosa pose a difficult problem, but the type of blackballing that was in evidence yesterday - I don't think it's a fair solution.
there's a sportswriter in stl who justified his vote for mcgwire as saying that he shouldn't have to police baseball, as a sportswriter. why do we need a bunch of little squirrelly dudes from espn poking through lockers then saying "alert the presses boys, i saw it, and he's out of the club!" the problem is with the management, all the way to the top, for doing anything for a buck from the fans (read: home runs). remember, all this stuff only started because congress and john mccain forced it after reading a book by a former 'roider in response to a death of a player. note that today it leaked that bonds tested positive for amphetamines last year (and blamed mark sweeney), and just got a warning.
r.i.p. ken caminiti.
-drew
Post a Comment
<< Home