First, go read Jordan's excellent "Two Birds" feature. Then come back here for a straight yes-or-no vote on Mark McGwire -- Hall of Famer?
| Straight up: yes, bronze Big Mac |  61 (53.98%) |
| Straight down: no plaque for Mac | 52 (46.02%) |
Throughout his major league career he had tons of power. 49 HR in his rookie year of '87 (no one had hit 50+ in a decade at that point). Peak of the 70 of course, but at age 34. His career ended at 37, fairly early in the modern age. The drop in the middle, 201/330/383 at age 27 is very odd (Canseco left the following year).
He definitely did some drugs as creatine (iirc) was found in his locker. Only Bonds & Sosa rival his peak power. One wonders just what was done when by him. Hopefully he'll write a book after the HOF votes him in letting us all know the truth, thus leading to more understanding. Plus it will create a whole new mess of what to do with a HOF'er who admits to steroid use.
Yo, Mac, the Hall of Fame is ALL about talking about the past!
My own opinion is that either all of the HOF-worthy roid users go in or none do. McGwire and Palmeiro both have HOF-calibre numbers but their accomplishments are tainted, and I would prefer to see them kept out rather than inducted in, but to bring in one and not the other is a wrong-headed idea as well.
I'd still prefer Shoeless Joe in the HOF over McGwire or Palmeiro or anyone else who has been tainted by scandal.
Wasn't creatine legal under MLB guidelines at the time (but not, say, the IOC)?
I wonder if anyone holds Troy Percival's legendary caffiene intake against his performance as an athlete?
Depart from ye cursed, into everlasting fire.
Well, that's a little harsh.
McGwire and Palmeiro were trying to win, at least. Joe Jackson and his chums are as bad as it gets. The absolute bottom of the barrel. Tainted by the ultimate scandal...
I think the big questions are... should players be viewed as non-HOF worthy if they used steroids during the period in which they were legal but no viewed as ethical, and what is that time frame? I think using Ben Johnson as the starting point is reasonable as he was the first high profile athlete caught in North America, and did get noticed stateside. Thus putting 1988 as the starting gate. Fortunately (more or less) that almost perfectly matches the start of Canseco's career (1986 - well, '85 but that was a cup of coffee). Much like how the end of WWII almost perfectly matches the end of the colour line, but instead of making records 'better' (since 47 and on we, theoretically, had a true major league) it makes them worse (mix and match of druggies).
So, in the end, where do I stand? Getting caught on drugs after they were made illegal is wrong and puts all your records in doubt, also weakening your HOF shot (thus hitting Palmeiro but not enough to remove him entirely). If you used them while they were legal though it puts you in (for ease of comparison) a Ty Cobb type of situation, a lousy person ethically but if a great enough ballplayer you still go in (thus McGwire in easily as is Bonds).
Btw, my full stand is let them do whatever they want as long as it is legal by US/Canadian laws. If they break the law let the law deal with it (jail time). I feel the same about the Olympics as well (except based on the laws of the countries the athlete is in or competing in). After all, the testing does not catch the latest and greatest drugs (such as HGH for baseball's testing) thus giving a bonus to the richest athletes which the poorest cannot make up. Who knows, in 100 years the drug testing of this era might look as odd as the amateur rules of the 20's do to us today.
I can understand that position - it makes a lot of intuitive sense - although I don't know that you can extend it across the board. It certainly covers Joe Jackson, who participated in and benefitted from a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud - yes, he was acquited, by a jury in Al Capone's Chicago, but Landis was able to cut through to the heart of the matter anyway.
But Pete Rose is barred because he violated the laws of baseball. Betting on baseball games is not illegal, but there are very good reasons why it's not tolerated in baseball. (Even if Bob McCown can't quite grasp them.)
That way the players culture can adjust to it. Some would say not to allow it, but would you be happy if the rules of your job suddenly changed drastically overnight (ie: no more alcohol, if you are ever caught drinking you lose your job even if it is on the weekend or while on vacation).
I'm not sure how apt this analogy is. Clearly, if baseball is going to introduce new sanctions against the use of performance enhancing drugs, the penalties cannot be retroactive. That is to say, you can't suspend or fine a player for conduct in the past that was legal at the time. It would be outside the bounds of fairness to do that.
But the Hall of Fame is a different matter. Entry into the Hall isn't governed by a player's contract or the CBA - it isn't a workplace issue. I'm not always comfortable with bestowing the role of custodians of the game on the Baseball Writers of America, but since that's the way it works, they have a responsibility to act as gatekeepers. If they take the view that a player's conduct, on or off the field, is sufficient to have brought the game into disrepute, then I have no problem with them choosing not to honour such an individual as one of the game's heroes. People's reputations every day are appropriately stained by engaging in behaviour that may not technically be illegal but is nevertheless discreditable, and players who were using steroids in the past knew their conduct to be unethical, or at the very least inappropriate - otherwise they wouldn't have been concerned about concealing their drug-taking.
The history of baseball will always record the fact that Palmeiro had 500 homers and 3,000 hits, while McGwire broke the homerun record in riveting fashion back in 1998. Certainly the Hall, in its role as curator of the game, should reflect that, as denying it would be absurdly revisionist, sort of like Stalin airbrushing out all his enemies from the pictures featuring Lenin. But insofar as enshrining individual players in the Hall is the functional equivalent of installing new members of the baseball canon, the writers are I think more than empowered to decline entry to drug users.
My personal view is that we simply don't know enough at this stage about how badly compromised Palmeiro, McGwire and Bonds' numbers are by their drug taking (or in the case of McGwire, whether he took any illegal drugs at all). I think there's a substantive difference between a player who used PEDs for the bulk of his career, or whose signature accomplishments were achieved while on drugs, and the player who maybe ingested something briefly during their career.
Were I a writer, I think I would defer electing either one of those three until we had a more complete picture. That would be the prudent thing to do, since they can stay on the ballot for fifteen years, and it avoids any chance of the Hall being compromised by electing a player who is later revealed as having been a systemic cheater. It's not in the player's interest to be elected under a cloud of suspiscion, either.
.375/.394/.562.
Heck, if I was playing in 1919 for Charles Comiskey I'd be tempted to make money anywhere I could get it.
I'm not saying that what Joe did is correct, but I think his numbers speak for themselves and that he deserves to be there more than a drug cheat like McGwire or a person who really did lose on purpose like Eddie Cicotte or (possibly) Pete Rose.
Games Chicago Lost... (via Retrosheet.org)
Game 1: 0-4
Game 2: 3-4 - failed to score from 3rd on an infield ground out, called out on strikes the only time he was up with runners in scoring position
Game 4: 1-4
Game 5: 0-4 (best of 9 remember)
Game 8: 2-5 with 2 runs scored and 3 RBI (solo HR with Cin up 5-0, 10-1 when he drove in the other 2)
So in the games Chicago was to lose he went 6 for 21 (.286). His RBI's and runs scored in those games came with his team down by at least 5 runs. When he had a chance to put his team into a lead or tie it up he always failed to either run home or to get a hit.
That is the danger of betting on your team. Suddenly everything Shoeless did that postseason is in doubt. Every time he fails to drive in a run you have to wonder. Every time he does something good you wonder if it was just because he knew he couldn't blow the loss at the time. I follow Bill James rule on Joe Jackson. Let him into the HOF once you have put in every player who ever played the game without betting on it first, from little leaguers to major leaguers and everyone in-between. Then, and only then, you can hold your nose and put him in.
Heck, even the Old Testament God will forgive you after you die.
But Cooperstown does recognize his accomplishments. Much space is given over to Rose's contributions to the game - it's hardly a Pete Rose-free zone. What the Hall hasn't done is enshrine him as a "Hall of Famer", with his own plaque. I think this is the right balance. His significant impact on the game is recognized, but his crimes against it mean he can never be granted the highest honour the Hall has to bestow.
Once the player has passed away, then the official penalty should be removed and leave it up to the voters for the veterans committee to decide if the player should or should not be in.
Now, for players since Rose who break the gambling rule permanent ineligibility should be the case (even after death) as that is now the rule of the day. I hate retroactive rules, thus letting Rose be voted on once he passes away is fine by me even though I feel he should never work in baseball again. Gambling is the #1 rule in baseball, you break it and you are gone.
But that whole dog and pony show in front of the Senate? What a bleeping joke. McGwire should never be allowed in the Hall, it is pretty damned clear that he used Steriods, because if you didn't you would say you did not use them in front of Congress.
So. I fully beleive he took roids.
He will never be allowed in my HOF.
In the end, thats what really matters.