In: Blyleven, Dawson, Gossage, Gwynn, Mattingly, McGwire, Morris, Murphy, Ripken, Trammell
Last cuts: John, Smith
Just missing: Canseco, Parker

Yes, I fill out a full list of 10 every year. I'm overly-generous, I guess.

I did my list in two cuts.  The first cut:

Bert Blyleven, Goose Gossage, Tony Gwynn, Tommy John, Mark McGwire, Cal Ripken Jr., Alan Trammell.  That's seven guys.  (I wanted to list Saberhagen but couldn't.)

The second cut came from amongst Belle, Canseco, Dawson, Mattingly, Murphy, Parker, and Rice.  I can take a maximum of three.  These guys are a really tough group and as outfielders/first basemen they should be compared with each other.  Some of these guys have more glove to offer and a little less bat (Dawson, Murphy, Mattingly) but generally all seven are going more for their offensive prowess than anything else.  I have usually counted Mattingly and Rice out and Parker, Dawson and Murphy in but who knows what I'll do.

To my mind, I am notorious for chaing my mind on these guys every year and I think I've done it again this year with the addition of the two new candidates (Belle and Canseco).  I need to take these seven under advisement, so for now, it's seven, plus three (or fewer) to be determined later.

Who I'd vote for: Blyleven, Gossage, Gwynn, Ripken, Trammell

Who'll get in now: Gwynn, Ripken, Smith

Who'll get in later: McGwire

Who should get in now but won't: Blyleven, Gossage, Trammell

Who'll eventually get in but shouldn't: Concepcion, Garvey, Mattingly, Morris, Rice

Who puts these guys on the ballot? Bichette, Joyner, Witt

There's going to be a ton of articles written on "Mark McGwire, Hall of Famer or Not?" over the coming weeks and months. On the no side will be those who say he used steroids to hit so many homers and doesn't deserve to be honoured. On the yes side will be those who say (a) there's no proof he took steroids, (b) if he did, he broke no rules by doing so, or (c) he broke the rules, but who cares? It'll be quite the convulsion of (self-)righteousness among Hall voters. The end result will see McGwire admitted in '08, or at the very latest, '09. It'll also serve as a promotional trailer for the forthcoming "Barry Bonds" blockbuster.

Who'll eventually get in but shouldn't: Concepcion, Garvey, Mattingly, Morris, Rice

I can see the last four getting in, though of the four I'd probably not support Garvey's candidacy. But Concepcion? Why would you think he'll get in? I mean, I grew up in Ohio immersed in Big Red Machine lore, and never thought of him as a HOFer. Does he get a Rizzuto Induction in 20 years, or what?

No love  here for Harold Baines -- almost 2900 hits, almost 400 homers .... but 1600+ of his nearly 3000 MLB appearances were as a DH. That does him in, huh?

As of age 30 in 1995, Mark McGwire's closest comparable was probably Norm Cash

But that year is cherry-picked - it's right after his injury that cost him most of two straight seasons.  (Cash was also building himself a good Hall case through his 20s, but that's not relevant... McGwire's accomplishments through age 30 are not Hall-worthy because he had been injured).

McGwire's accomplishments after the age of 30 include 345 home runs and 732 walks.  Norm Cash hit 196 more bombs and 496 more walks.  These are not similar. 

For someone not to think Mark McGwire is a Hall of Famer... I'm sorry, I consider it beyond absurd.  Leaving aside the fact that he was a good first baseman, and concentrating on his numbers...

Joe Morgan is in the Hall of Fame, and was elected overwhelmingly on the first ballot.  Little Joe was a great all-aorund player, but I think generally it's agreed that his bat was his predominant skill.  And his central skill at the plate was his terrific ability to get on base.  So Morgan's central skill in a Hall of Fame career, was his ability to get on base.

Mark McGwire had a higher career on-base percentage than Joe Morgan.

Harmon Killebrew is in the Hall of Fame, and was elected overwhelmingly on the first ballot.  Killer was a very good all-around player, and a good all-around hitter, but it's generally agreed that his offensive arsenal rested on the home run... the home run was the dominant force in his offensive game.  Similarly, Eddie Mathews in in the Hall of Fame, and was elected.  As with Killerbew, Mathews was a good all-around hitter (and player) but his central skill was hitting home runs. 

Mark McGwire had more career home runs than Killebrew or Mathews.

Frank Robinson is in the Hall of Fame, and was elected overwhelmingly on the first ballot. F. Robby was a very good all-around player, and a good all-around hitter, but his central strength as a hitter was his slugging ability.  Robby was an all-around slugger and is generally conceded to be one of the greatest all-around sluggers the game has ever known.  It drove his entire game.

Mark McGwire had a higher career slugging percentage than Frank Robinson.

Orlando Cepeda is in the Hall of Fame.  So is Duke Snider, and Duke was elected on the first ballot.  Both Cepeda and Snider built their reputations as RBI men and were renowned, as offensive players, for their ability to drive in runs.  In the case of both players, their reputations were made by RBI totals and the perception of their value was enhanced by that ability.

Mark McGwire had more career RBI than Cepeda or Snider.

Johnny Mize?  An extra-base hit machine.  McGwire had more extra-base hits than Mize.  Hank Greenberg?  All-around offensive force.  McGwire had a higher OPS+ than Greenberg.

Do I need to go on?  Mark McGwire's all-around offensive game was so good, that you can line up a bunch of inner-circle Hall of  Famers, pick their central offensive skill, and McGwire will be better at that skill as often as not... no matter what that skill is.

no matter what that skill is.

Well ... except for batting average (.263) and speed numbers (12 SB, six triples, career) ... but a good argument, otherwise. I think MM is a no-brainer.

Right, but that's included in the "more often than not".  (McGwire's not going to beat out any of the batting average guys)  Nobody's central offensive skill is hitting triples, though.

There's going to be a ton of articles written on "Mark McGwire, Hall of Famer or Not?" over the coming weeks and months.

Some writers, it appears, will find a way to weasel out of having to confront the steroid/creatine issue altogether. Bob Elliott has cited McGwire's 1600 hits as evidence of his not deserving entry (I can't find the link at the moment). For his part, Jeff Blair says that McGwire should go in.

Nobody's central offensive skill is hitting triples, though.

Ahem.

Regarding Baines, I remember him as a fearsome line-drive hitter and a perenially dangerous bat in the middle of the order.  (Cool swing, too.)  I always thought he was about the equal of Billy Williams (and indeed, Billy's among Baines' top 5 comps).

However, looking at both players, Billy Williams is far better than I thought.  He was awesome, and amazingly consistent.  To my surprise, I no longer think Baines measures up.

Anyone not including McGwire is assumably doing it for steroid/performance enhancing drug reasons. I think it's a a tough sell to exclude him because of the drugs, mostly because it has become increasingly clear that a huge proportion of players were/are using them. But a lot of people will leave him off the list, especially those who see "first ballot HOFer" as the ultimate compliment. Any other attempts to rationalize not voting for him are usually pretty tortured.

My picks: Blyleven, Gwynn, McGwire, Ripken, Trammell

Can't decide: relievers in general.

Does he get a Rizzuto Induction in 20 years, or what?

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm expecting -- Joe Morgan will get him the Veteran's Committee Access Key at some point.

Baines, a better player, doesn't have anyone out there agitating for him -- he was a quiet guy on some low-profile teams with no championship rings who happened to be a terrific hitter. He's not a HOFer -- he never finished higher than 9th in MVP voting, and he led the league in an offensive category just once (SLG in 1984) -- but like Lou Whitaker, I think he'll slide off the ballot a lot sooner than he should.

Dos quoth one voter: "McGwire reminds us in a way of Dave Kingman, who had 442 career homers and 1,575 hits."

In McGwire's case, I am satisfied for the this purpose that his performance after age 30 was affected by qualities which I specifically want to dishonour.

You can't respond to this kind of argument, so I won't. 

I will, however, point out that once you head down that road (and I acknowledge that Pete Rose and Joe Jackson mean that we've already headed in that direction) then we have conceded that the Hall is not meant to honour the best baseball players.   I honestly believe that if we say this, you may as well vote for anybody, but I certainly respect others who disagree.

I presume, then, from your response Mike, that you would agree with me that if  you think of the meaning of the Hall is that it honours the players who are good at baseball, that McGwire would be a fairly obvious choice?  (In other words, that his baseball skill, talent and impact are sufficient to elect him...)

quoth one voter

Heh.

Bob Elliott wouldn't know a good ballplayer if one hit him in the face, but this comparison underlines the degree to which the body of voters generally misunderstand the game.  Comparing Mark McGwire to Dave Kingman is equivalent to comparing Derek Jeter to Dave Cash.  If Dave Kingman is like Mark McGwire, then Butch Huskey is like Dave Kingman.

Bob Elliott wouldn't know a good ballplayer if one hit him in the face

We can but hope.

Remember when folks were innocent until proven guilty?  Gosh, I don't.

This isn't some cheap internet forum.  Let's spare each other the sanctimony and treat each other - and each other's positions - with respect.

Cal Ripken will set the record for highest percentage of the votes, but will not get 100%. 

This is an interesting question.  I have to admit, I find it very, very hard to understand the mind of someone who would not vote for Cal Ripken for the Hall of Fame.  I guess there are always one or two in any large group who have an antisocial personality disorder, and will omit a vote for Ripken just for the pure pleasure of having everyone get mad at them.

Whether Cal can pass Seaver will be interesting.  Of course, I can't understand why someone would vote against Tom Seaver either.  These people really are idiots.

Has Ripken ever made an enemy in his life in baseball?  I know there are those who think he's a phony, but any good person will find similar insults hurled their way.  But has he ever made any enemies?

I agree with every comment made by Mike Green on this page about both McGwire and Bonds.

A few points to add...I think only two of the three pro-Mac arguments that Jordan mentioned are valid:  either you think that his evasion on the stand does not constitute sufficient proof of his steroid abuse (which would presumably make you think Palmeiro and Mac should be treated differently), or you don't care whether or not he used steroids (which would mean you don't think Palmeiro and Mac should be treated differently).  I can definitely respect both arguments, even if I don't share them.

But I really think we should get away from the whole "it wasn't against the rules at the time" argument.  That's just incorrect.  If we're going to demand a legal-quality burden of proof, then we also have to bear in mind the legal principle that the failure to specifically prohibit a particular act does not create an entitlement or right to perform that act.  This is especially true where there is a concurrent governing authority, i.e., federal law, that generally made it illegal to purchase, sell or possess anabolic steroids.  (This, to me, is the difference between andro and steroids.)  By this logic, Juan Marichal's act of turning around and bludgeoning Johnny Roseboro over the head with his bat "wasn't against the rules at the time," either.  But it was clearly wrong and justly deserving of punishment.  If it was really A-OK, why did Palmeiro lie about it under oath? 

Also, the oft-unfair treatment of Barry Bonds et al. by the media ought to be separable from, and ought not to justify, steroid abuse by ballplayers (whomever they may be).  Even if you find players to be more sympathetic than cranky sportswriters, it does not follow that players should have carte blanche to artificially enhance their performance.  In other words, you can hate the investigators but that doesn't make the investigation wrongheaded.  (There are at least arguably valid reasons to think that steroids shouldn't be investigated, but this isn't one of them.)

Finally, GrrBear, I apologize if you were joking when you commented on his absence, but Eck is only not on the ballot because he was inducted into Cooperstown in 2004.

By this logic, Juan Marichal's act of turning around and bludgeoning Johnny Roseboro over the head with his bat "wasn't against the rules at the time," either. 

This is not true... umpires have always had the authority to disqualify any player for behaving in an unsportsmanlike manner.

And the taking of performance-enhcnaing drugs is different too... we must remember in discussing these things that during the period when both Bonds and McGwire entered professional baseball and became great players, aside from the Commissioner's Office professional baseball specifically encouraged players to take performance enhancing drugs.  This was not something that was going on behind the backs of the clubs, nor was it something that the clubs were tacitly encouraging.  Club staff went out of their way to make performance-enhancing drugs available to the players.  This was in no way a secret.

If you try to enforce a standard that players are not allowed to artificially enhance their performance, and there will hardly be anyone left in the Hall of Fame from the 1960s onward.  If you acknowledge this but choose to make an example of McGwire because his behavior was egregious, I think you're being unfairly inconsistent. 

The distribution of unlicensed amphetamine was entirely as illegal as unlicensed anabolic steroids as well, but I don't want to argue against you right now on those grounds because I think that's an interesting argument which can be developed.  But I think it's important to point out that to characterize the "culture of drugs" argument as a "it wasn't against the rules at the time" argument is to misrepresent it.  The use of performance enhancing drugs was specifically encouraged by personnel of every major league ballclub during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and beyond.  That's an argument that I think should be met and not dismissed.

One more thought.

The reason why 75% of the writers need to vote "yes" on someone is because we want to be generally sure that the players are deserving of the honor.  Requiring large supermajorities eliminates mistakes and puts a heavy burden on the player.  I think this is entirely apprporiate... as long as a large number of people honestly doubt that the guy belongs, it doesn't hurt him to wait.

So I don't like the fact that 3/4 of the writers (according to the Star's informal poll) won't vote for McGwire... but if they're not convinced, it's not because they're venal.  It's my job to convince them.  This is entirely appropriate (although I'd continue my objection that it's not appropriate that the BBWAA members are the voters, but that's for another day)

Club staff went out of their way to make performance-enhancing drugs available to the players.

Craig, just so I know where you stand, you mean amphetamines, right?  If team trainers were openly and cheerfully passing around Winstrol syringes like they did with "greenies" and "leaded coffee," then that would change my mind.  I am not aware of this, though, and I suspect that club staff viewed those two categories of drugs very differently.

I personally believe there is a major qualitative difference in the enhancement a player gets from amphetamines and from steroids, just as I believe there is a major qualitative difference between the transgressions of Joe Niekro and Eddie Cicotte.  Yes, amphetamines were illegal.  But then again, when you tell your wife you love her new handbag and when you misrepresent the earnings of your public company, both may be lies, but there are vast differences in the implications and consequences of those lies.  This may be a horribly disproportionate analogy...but I honestly believe it may not be.  And that's my defence to the charge of inconsistency if I condemn Rafael Palmeiro but not "greenie-loving" Jim Bouton.

I'd like to meet your argument rather than dismiss it, Craig.  Were amphetamines essentially a gateway drug for steroids in terms of their cultural impact in the clubhouse?  They might have been.  I don't know.

I don't know either, Mike, about the "gateway" thing.  I think it makes sense that they were, and we do know that medical and physical trainers employed by clubs encouraged (and still do encourage) players to take supplements, all of which lie on a spectrum of quasi-legality (both in "sports" terms and often in legal terms as well).  Including steroid precursors like androstenedione.

But that's me putting two and two together.

Anyway, as to your point that "there is a major qualitative difference in the enhancement a player gets from amphetamines and from steroids", I don't believe that that is the case, WADA and the IOC don't believe that's the case, and I guess at that point, both of us not being sports scientists, there's not a lot we can say to each other.  We do know, though, that ballplayers generally believe that speed and (in a narrow way) coke are definitely performance-enhancing, but there is considerable disagreement about the benefits of steroids.

I can assure you with 100% (anecdotal) certainty that cocaine improves athletic performance in the short term, though, because I've seen it happen up very close.  Amphetamine is supposed to have a more obvious and significant effect.

Grr... Geeklog ate my post.  This is happening way too much.

To the contrary, there were any number of players whose careers obviously suffered from its use. 

Yeah, any beneficial side are distinctly short-term.  :)  Many of the heaviest users (such as Raines) showed no long-lasting ill effects, although some others did (Dave Parker's career cratered due to side effects from heavy use).

it is hard to see the impact of amphetamine use (which apparently began in the 1950s) on league statistics. Not so for the most recent generation of steroids

On the contrary; when steroids came into the game in force in the late 1980s and early 1990s (call it 1986 to 1992) there was no real discernible impact on the statistics (home runs, for example, show no change during the greatest period of growth of steroid use according to those who I've seen who have researched the issue).  The home run/offense explosion came after, roughly coterminous with the strike.

Furthermore, as we know, most of those caught since testing was introduced have been pitchers; a higher use of performance-enhancers among pitchers would not be expected to result in an increase in offense.

Mike Green, unsurprisingly, continues to make my arguments more effectively and concisely than I do myself.  Three random points:

1) WADA and the IOC aren't in the business of ranking drugs by effectiveness, but even if they did, the specific athletic enhancements that would most benefit a hitter are different than the case would be for, say, hockey players or biathletes.  It might even be different from pitching.   Of course, I am definitely not a sports scientist.

2) The Schedule II/Schedule III discrepancy also doesn't measure impact on sports.  The Controlled Substances Act in the US evaluates drugs based on their medicinal properties and addictiveness.  (Crack or heroin would be Schedule I -- highly addictive with no redeeming purpose.)  The FDA has determined that steroids are less addictive and more useful to medical caregivers than are amphetamines.  That doesn't make them less relevant to baseball.

3) Jose Canseco's body, especially his back and lower body, was of a very rare type in baseball for low-bodyfat players in the late '80s through to about '92 or '93.  Watch a tape of the '88, '89 or '90 World Series and you'll see what I mean.  I'm certain that there are some players who have built a bodybuilder's physique naturally since then (subject to the supplement continuum Craig describes), but assuming the correlation between drug use and heavily muscled ballplayers, I think Mike Green's timeline is more accurate.

Since this thread has veered into a (well-informed and interesting) debate about performance enhancement, let me try to get it back on its original track with some unofficial ballot results from the 14 Bauxites who have chosen to list HOF induction choices:

Unanimous choices (14 votes):  Blyleven, Gwynn, Ripken, Trammell (IN)
Next Level: McGwire (12 votes), Gossage (10 votes) (MAYBE IN)
(OUT ... )
Moderate support: Dawson (7 votes), John (5 votes), Rice (3 votes) (OUT)
Two votes each: Morris, Murphy, Parker, L. Smith, Whitaker (write-in)
One vote each: Baines, belle, Fernandez, Mattingly, Henke (write-in), D. White
Among those receiving ZERO votes: Jose Canseco and Steve Garvey