I heard Peter Gammons talking about what he thought about the whole situation. I was never sure why writers are the ones who get the say on who gets in the Hall. It seems unfair. What exactly do they do that puts them in a position to do that? If anything it seems unfair because they can be very biased, based on who was media-friendly. We saw just last year how Jim Rice was finally voted in, and many speculate it took this long because he was very unfriendly to the media.
Writers often get me very upset because I find that so few have any playing experience, their outlook on the skills of baseball are so skewed, what often comes out on paper makes me want to vomit. The way it works is that the writer must belong to the Baseball Writers Association of America for ten years - then he or she has voting writes.
But back to Gammons, his view on the McGwire situation was very refreshing. Not so much about Mark himself, but on the game of baseball. While saying he doesn't think he would vote for McGwire ever again he states his reason. "It is a form of cheating. Can you award someone with the highest honor in baseball? I say no." I do not necessarily agree with this. If someone would have been great enough to make it anyway, I wouldn't necessarily be upset to see him be inducted, althout it's a tough judgement call. But here's when I fell in love with Gammons.
"You guys know how hard it is to be a major league player." I do believe that some writers don't. "And the Hall of Fame is an honor. It's not a statistical right." This is a brilliant statement in my opinion. While obviously the ones in the Hall have noteworthy stats, not every player with noteworthy statistics are voted in. Example: Joe Jackson and Pete Rose.
Gammons said later that "Writers say, 'well, my eyes tell me he must have done steroids.' There are going to be 1-5 people that were innocent that don't make the Hall of Fame because of the people who did cheat. And that really breaks my heart, knowing how hard all of you worked to get where you are." Marry me, Peter Gammons!
Gammons points out the true crime of steroid users. I think we can all deal with the fact that some guys have ruined it for themselves, but the worst part is how they ruined it for other players. For opposing pitchers (or hitters, if the user is a pitcher) and innocent players alike. And finally, the appreciation for the Major League players. I cannot recall hearing or reading someone just acknowledge the skills, aside for me, of course.
I just hope most of the writers think like him. God bless you, Peter.
"While saying he doesn't think he would vote for McGwire ever again he states his reason. "It is a form of cheating. Can you award someone with the highest honor in baseball? I say no." I do not necessarily agree with this. If someone would have been great enough to make it anyway, I wouldn't necessarily be upset to see him be inducted, althout it's a tough judgement call."
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly the problem with the steroids era - uncertainty. We have no idea how good Barry Bonds' career would have looked without steroids, despite the often-used "He was a HOFer before he juiced". Maybe he was juicing before 1998, which is when everyone assumes he joined the party? It's incredible to me that these same writers who used the McGwire-Sosa HR chase to capture the nation's attention and bring them back to baseball now vilify their "heroes" for performance enhancers. McGwire had andro sitting in his locker, and it was quite clear to players, media, the commissioner, and anyone else involved that there was a drug problem in MLB. Nobody cared, the same way nobody cares now how 75%+ of the NFL is on PEDs. Keeping McGwire out of the Hall would be an absolute crime, because until he admitted to taking steroids this week (which he only did to make the HOF), he was surrounded by the same cloud of uncertainty that should engulf any player of the 90s, and the writers can't keep people out based on their suspicions. Steroids weren't tested for, hence they weren't illegal under baseball's rules, hence Mark McGwire belongs in the Hall of Fame.
How do you go about MLB records? Asterisk? Or ignore the fact that in all likelihood Maris would still be HR champion?
ReplyDeleteI even think Maris should have an asterisk. In all fairness, Ruth had fewer games. It's not fair to Ruth. I know 61* puts Commissioner Ford Frick in a bad light, but I agree with his ruling.