A lot of very unqualified writers are going to be voting for the Baseball Hall of Fame over the next few months. Unlike the seasonal awards voting process, many of the BBWAA members who vote for the Hall are no longer actively covering the game, and because of this have not been exposed to the baseball information revolution. Generally, Hall of Fame debates follow the quantitative vs. emotional theme (I refuse to call it quantitative vs. qualitative, because they gives too much credit to the people voting against Bert Blyleven and co.), where really scary and memorable players like Jim Rice and Goose Gossage get votes, but objectively better players get left behind.
The Mark McGwire debate is very different. Nearly every writer will probably acknowledge that Mark McGwire was one of the best hitters of his day. Sure, they may point out that he played poor defense, call him “one-dimensional”, or mention his short career. But when push comes to shove, they’ll admit that McGwire’s .263/.394/.588 batting line and 162 career OPS+ (12th all time!) would, all else being equal, qualify him for the Hall of Fame.
Of course, all else is not equal. McGwire has implicitly admitted to using steroids, which was and is considered cheating. This has disqualified McGwire in many minds. I say: so what?
Baseball has always been a cheaters game. One of my favorite baseball books is The Cheaters Guide To Baseball. Some of our favorite Hall of Fame players made their careers through cheating. Former Yankees Whitey Ford and 300 game-winner Gaylord Perry have openly admitted to both scuffing balls and applying all sorts of foreign substances to them. Perry was frequently searched in the middle of nationally broadcast games, and would even taunt umpires into trying to find where he hid his stash of pine tar or Vaseline. Whitey Ford used to bring sandpaper with him on the mound.
And who can forget the great Albert Belle corked bat caper? This has got to be my favorite story in baseball:
The Indians, knowing the bat was indeed corked, dispatched relief pitcher Jason Grimsley to retrieve the bat. Grimsley took a bat belonging to Indians player Paul Sorrento and accessed the area above the false ceiling in the clubhouse and crawled across with a flashlight in his mouth until he reached the umpires’ room. He switched Belle’s bat with Sorrento’s and returned to the clubhouse.[2] During the sixth inning, the umpires’ custodian noticed clumps of ceiling tile on the floor of the umpire’s room, plus twisted metal brackets in the ceiling. After the game, Phillips noticed the bats were different when he saw that the replacement bat was not as shiny and also was stamped with Sorrento’s signature. The Chicago police were called and the White Sox threatened charges against the burglar. An investigation that Saturday was carried out by a former FBI agent flown in by MLB.[3] The equipment room was dusted for fingerprints and the path the burglar took was discovered.
Grimsley had to replace the corked bat with Sorrento’s instead of a clean Albert Belle bat because… all of Albert Belle’s bats were corked. And great Yankee heroes aren’t exempt from corked bats either – Graig Nettles once broke his bat in a game, only to find a bunch of Superballs fall on to the field.
It happens! Cheating is part of the game. Sure, its something that we should police, but there is no precedent in baseball history to punish non-gambling cheating all that much. John McGraw and Ty Cobb were infamously dirty, cheating players, but they are known as some of the game’s best early pioneers. But Mark McGwire (and soon, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, and Sammy Sosa) is held to a different standard. Their method of cheating evokes an emotion in baseball fans that doctoring balls and corked bats do not. Gaylord Perry probably made a Hall of Fame career out of it, but we ignore that.
Like Perry, McGwire would probably have been a pretty damn good player without cheating. He hit 49 home runs in his rookie year in 1987 (an MLB record for a rookie, pre-steroids) and still holds the University of Southern California home run record. The man could hit home runs long before juicing up. Just like Gaylord Perry could probably throw pretty well before doctoring the ball. Baseball, when push comes to shove, is a game of talent and skill; two things that you can’t fake.
I also get a sense from writers that they feel is it their duty to correct history. McGwire and Bonds held and broke records that are held deep in the hearts of baseball fans. When Roger Maris broke Ruth’s record, he was not only threatened, but also was branded with an asterisk to let us all know that he wasn’t really the home run king.
There may be legitimate beef with both record breakers. Sure, Maris did it in more games. But Babe Ruth didn’t have to play against players locked in the Negro leagues, just as Roger Maris didn’t have to hit against pitchers who were pumped up on steroids, nor McGwire or Bonds have to hit against a high mound. My point is that history corrects itself. Writers don’t need to do it with silly little symbolic stands based on emotion.
The question for induction for the Hall of Fame should be pretty simple. How good of a baseball player was Mark McGwire? Was he good enough to qualify as a Hall of Famer. Let the off-field stuff be judged by history, tell-all books, and time. Stop trying to shape history. History shapes itself.
Related posts:
WOW. i have been reading baseball blogs every day for the past few years. i am not exaggerating when i say that this is one of the most interesting pieces i have read to date
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
I agree. I love how the same guys who can tell old stories all day about spitballs are suddenly the moral arbiters of the sport.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
An interesting argument, EJ. There’s a problem though. The main thrust of your argument, I think, can be summed up in the words of your last paragraph:
“The question for induction for the Hall of Fame should be pretty simple. How good of a baseball player was Mark McGwire? Was he good enough to qualify as a Hall of Famer. Let the off-field stuff be judged by history, tell-all books, and time. Stop trying to shape history. History shapes itself.”
So your argument is: judge them by their baseball prowess and let the chips fall where they may.
The problem here (besides your sort-of-weird, quasi-philosophical take on the shaping of history; history shapes itself? Should we all stop trying to shape history? What does that even mean?) is that the Baseball Hall of Fame specifically references “integrity,” “character” and “sportsmanship” as criteria for admittance. The top of the ballot reads:
“Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played.”
So, in fact, the Hall does seek to adjudicate a player based on “off field stuff.” Now I’m not saying that I necessarily agree with the validity of these moralistic criteria…but I bring them to your attention only to rebut the argument that Hall of Fame voting is all about playing ability.
And as for all the evidence of past players cheating but still being inducted: how does that have any bearing on whether or not to admit steroid-takers? Are you arguing that, simply because Hall of Fame voters broke the Hall’s rules and chose players of poor integrity in the past, that it is alright for them to do that again? Besides the fact that this is a fallacious appeal to tradition, wouldn’t the better argument be that voters should take a stand on issues of character and reverse the perverse trend of admitting cheaters? Why argue for the continuation of a practice that is both ethically questionable and against the Hall’s own rules?
Unless of course you’re arguing that the “character” and “integrity” clause should be removed. Which, I must say, I’d find quite appealing.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Moshe Mandel Reply:
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I’d respond by saying that at some point, you have to look past the text of the ballot and look at how the voters have applied the criteria over the years (function over form, if you will). I think it is clear that integrity and sportsmanship have been, at best, minor portions of the analysis.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Jeff Reply:
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 pm
I guess I’m just not sure why we’d need to validate the voters’ application of the rules by “looking past the text.” The more consistent approach, I think, is to look at the text and then look back at each and every decision made to judge whether those inductions were consistent or inconsistent with the HOF’s rules.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
EJ Fagan Reply:
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I think that the character and integrity clauses should not only be removed, but also that they are completely meaningless, and I think that my argument still stands because of that.
How many players of disrepute are in the Hall now? I named Ford, Cobb, Perry, and McGraw, but countless others are in there too. Cheating is inherently unsportsmanlike, but it is also inherent to baseball.
Pretty much the only two people ostensibly held out of the Hall for bad behavior were Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose, both as a codified penalty for an explicit ban on gambling. Can you name anyone else who was voted down for these reasons? Moralism may have always been a criteria on the ballot, but it was never enforced.
Of course, in relation to shaping history I am referring only to the BBWAA [and probably the Commissioner's office]. They believe (I don’t have any links at work, but I’m sure you can find some) that they have a duty to baseball’s history to punish a player for his past sins by voting them down on the HOF ballot. I’ve argued that this duty to history does not exist, and that a player’s history will be determined in time through a thousand different conversations and arguments. But the invention of a moralistic criteria for entrance is completely new.
To put it more succinctly: Jeff, would you kick Gaylord Perry out of the Hall now that he has openly admitted to widespread cheating?
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Jeff Reply:
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Again, and like I said in response to Moshe’s comment: I contend that the HOF voters made mistakes in the past. They let in people who maybe shouldn’t have been inducted. But to ask me if I’d kick them out is a useless question because there’s no procedure in place for un-inducting players. And of course, that’d be a PR nightmare.
However, I would suggest that, if steroid-users ARE going to be let in to the Hall, then their plaque should include the fact that they either admitted to steroid use, were found guilty of steroid use or were under heavy suspicion of steroid use (McGwire). And then I’d also go back and alter the plaque’s of every confessed cheater in the game to publicly display their ethical ineptitude: Ford would have ball-doctoring inscribed on his plaque, Perry would be noted for spit-balling.
But that is a last ditch effort. My original contention stands: steroid users cheated and, according to the rules and guidelines set by the HOF, they do not deserve to be inducted. It doesn’t matter that the voters messed up in the past. They can start to set things right by keeping these druggies out of the Hall and helping to preserve the sanctity of the game (both by refusing to honor cheaters AND dis-incentivizing further cheating by not rewarding steroid use).
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
EJ Fagan Reply:
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
If you can’t trust the decisions of past voters, then what bar do you set to establish whether or not a player is Hall-worthy? What does “player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s)” mean without context?
Jeff, you’re a lawyer. Should a judge, if he believes all past judges wrong, throw out the existing case law and go in a completely new direction? No, he bases his opinion on what people before have done, and makes small adjustments. The system currently includes roughly the top 3% of baseball players during their eras, with no regard to why the players achieved that kind of success.
Cheating is so widespread in baseball that it has and has always been a central part of the game. It has never been penalized before, despite being open and notorious. Except for purging the Hall (or creating a new one), I find it incredibly difficult to change the standards all of the sudden for this generation of players. Don’t even think about Mark McGuire – how about Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens? We’re talking about two of the greatest players at any position ever.
To put another question to it – would you do the opposite? Would you let a player who was not Hall-caliber in performance into Cooperstown based on sportsmanship? Let’s say that Derek Jeter hit more like Edgar Renteria or something, but had all the Jeter intangibles and sportsmanship qualities. Would you vote for him?
Writers have mostly ignored non-performance criteria because voting essentially becomes and arbitrary process.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Jeff Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:01 am
You’re honestly arguing that there’s no discernible difference between doctoring a baseball a few times a game (or perhaps even more) and using steroids? This is not a difference of degree, EJ. It’s a difference of kind.
And to answer your non-sequitur question at the end of the post. No, I would not let a person who is simply a good guy into the Hall. But that proves nothing. Also, I would indeed look to a player’s character to help me make a borderline decision (if that player’s numbers, for instance, are borderline HOF worthy). I think the integrity/character stuff is useful as a disqualifier. It is a small hurdle, easily passable, but working to limit only those who just totally messed up. In other words, let me ask you this, if Ug-y Urbina had HOF worthy numbers and then instead of just being charged with attempted murder, he had actually murdered two men with a machete, would you put him in the Hall? Or would you be concerned about the integrity of the Hall at that point? (I am not arguing here that taking steroids is akin to murder. I’m merely trying to get you to admit that there is SOME basis for judging character/integrity in HOF voting. That it counts on even the lowest, most minimal level).
Mark McGwire didn’t spit on a baseball a few times a game. He didn’t harbor ill-will towards people of different races (probably). He didn’t punch his wife. What he did do (almost assuredly) is inject himself with an illegal substance that made him superior to almost every other player he was competing against. It enhanced the very part of his game that we are now judging. And it didn’t just enhance that part of the game once in a while. It was a continuous, intentional, criminal activity that consistently gave him a substantial advantage over everyone (except those who, like him, cheated – Bonds, Sosa, Raffy). How can you justify letting him in the HOF simply because, decades ago, some other voters let some guys in who hated black people and cut baseball with sandpaper? Are you arguing that, because the standard was so low before, that it either 1)does not exist now; or 2) is even lower today? Or perhaps you think Cobb and Ford were as big of cheaters as the Roid Crew. I’d like to hear that justified.
(Also, as a good law school student, I can tell you that judges throw out existing case law and go in new directions all the time when they disagree with old cases. Your example cuts both ways.)
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
EJ Fagan Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 am
I don’t think that you can characterize steroids as dramatically different from doctoring the baseball or sharpening your spikes (Cobb) or tripping people at 2nd base (McGraw). All are, to one degree or another, adding a major competitive advantage to a player. 2nd basemen would refuse to go for a tag because Ty Cobb would spear them with his cleats. I’m sure he got a lot of doubles out of that, which is a lot of value.
We don’t know to what to extent steroids helped players succeed. There was an offensive explosion following 1996 or so, but that can be explained by a lot of other factors (Bill James lists 10) as well as Steroids. We know that McGuire and Bonds were fantastic hitters before they probably started on Steroids. We also know that their opposition – pitchers – were also taking them, minimizing the harm.
We also know that a very large percentage of baseball players were using them. We have (link below) 127 players whom we think used steroids, and probably many more that we don’t know about. A large enough number of players were probably using it that we can use statistics like ERA+ to compare the value of players. A home run was definitely less valuable in 2001 than in 1987. And again, we don’t know what net effect on offense steroids had. They don’t turn players immediately into superheroes, and we know this because a lot of bad players took them and were still pretty bad.
http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/2003-steroid-list-anonymous-survey-testing.htm
But think about it this way: Gaylord Perry didn’t have much of an arm. He relied on movement and deception to get batters out. It was widely known that Perry threw loaded balls, so he’d often psych a batter out by touching his cap or belt before throwing the pitch, but then throw a straight 90 mph fastball. That’s adding a whole new dimension to pitching, as well as making his stuff move that much more. Think about the character from Major League that was based on Perry.
Judges sometimes go in different directions, but they usually have something to ground their new direction in. How can a voter for the HOF determine anything about a player without comparison and context?
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Matt O Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 am
“I don’t think that you can characterize steroids as dramatically different from doctoring the baseball or sharpening your spikes (Cobb) or tripping people at 2nd base (McGraw).”
That statement could not be more incorrect in so many ways and here is just one. Doctoring the ball can get you thrown out of the game. Tipping pitches will get you a fastball at your head during your next at bat. The players and umps can police every other instance of cheating ON THE FIELD. Using illegal steroids (cork and sand paper are not illegal on their own) to make yourself stronger and faster than you actually are cannot be policed on the field.
(Quote)
Matt O Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
And one more thing, using drugs isn’t even clever or original. If someone spits on the wiffle ball at a picnic, I laugh it off and throw at them next time they’re up. If someone shows up to a picnic all juiced up and standing on top of the plate…they’re just a dickhead. I’m calling for no dickheads in the HOF.
(Quote)
I honestly think McGwire should not be in the Hall. If it weren’t for steroids, I think he would have been out of baseball a lot earlier or he would have been a role player rather than a big-time HR hitter until he was 37. He was a different hitter before the steroids, too (average was a lot lower, for example). In fact, I’d probably go with Jim Thome before picking Mark McGwire.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Kids watch and play baseball. My newborn son and I watch our first season together this year. Kids don’t need to see people poisoning their bodies and being praised for it. You want to fake a catch as a middle infielder on a hit and run? You want to use a corked bat? Fine, be an a-hole. But don’t lead my son to believe that by taking a harmful steroid, he too can fast track himself to the HOF. It’s a shame these men need to be made and example of, but it too dangerous to future players not to.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
I don’t care about off field issues and I don’t have a big problem with steroids. I also think the hall was cheapened 20 or 30 years ago. When guys like Willie Stargell and Billy Williams (and a few others) were elected, I lost interest. I don’t think Jim Rice should be in. All of them were better than Mark McGwire. They are all good players, just not elite.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Gambling, superballs, vaseline…none of these things kill people (although Ty Cobb might be the flaw in this argument). Steroids kill people. Children look up to these athletes and if I caught my kid cheating in one of the “traditional” ways I’d be a lot less upset than if I found a bag of needles and pills. Its about the example these guys are setting…not the statistical variations the drugs may have produced.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Moshe Mandel Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I think parents have a responsibility to explain to kids that these players are not role models. I think Tiger Woods shows us that- they are human beings, flawed like anyone else, and I’m not keeping them out of the Hall because they set a bad example.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Matt O Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
You’re right…and now as a parent I have the pleasure of explaining why all the best hitters in baseball take drugs and have parades thrown in their honor in up-state NY. Maybe the issue isn’t with the drug users but w/ Americans and their values instead. What is your feeling about cheating on the field (tripping, tipping, tar on the ball) that can be policed vs steriods that can’t be policed by the players or umps?
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Moshe Mandel Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I agree that there is a distinction, but not enough for me to say one guy has integrity and sportsmanship and the other guy doesn’t.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
EJ Fagan Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I don’t really make a distinction between policing by umpires and policing by the league.
And I completely agree that athletes make bad role models, and that society overvalues them. We build them up to be angels, but the reality is they are no better or worse than the average person. They just play a sport really well.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Matt O Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
The league wasn’t policing and they may not want to be role models but they are disrespecting America’s past time. And tampering w/ the human body isn’t the same as tempering w/ baseball equipment. This is about gamesmanship vs. performance enhancing drugs. This is like standing on someone’s foot when battling for a rebound vs. a guy who inserts springs in his legs to double his vertical leaping ability. This is like timing the gun at a start of a swim race vs. someone having foot surgery to increase the size of their feet by 50%. If someone has springs in their shoes and gets away w/ it…well, that’s the opposing teams bad. You can always call them out on it. (See George Brett and pine tar) But umps weren’t allowed to draw blood during baseball games and the league looked the other way.
The HOF is for the best baseball players. Baseball players are human (cheats or not). These men stopped being human the minute they injected horse steroids in their bodies.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Matt O Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I apologize now for my views…this is something I feel very strongly about and just can’t get past it. I played sports at every level of my education and I never considered using performance enhancers. Hold my shorts while I’m jumping for a rebound? Fine. I’m going to run shoulder first through the next screen you set and I’ll shake your hand at the end of the game. Take steroids and you’re just an a-hole to me.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
EJ Fagan Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Don’t worry about it Matt. Its a great discussion and you were always civil.
(Quote)
EdB Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I understand the effect of the cheating is the same but not on the effect of the body. There are thousands of kids out there that are almost good enough to play pro sports. Its not he McGwires that you have to worry about its that AAAA guys chasing the dream that is a lot more prevalent. You can teach your kids all you want but when they see millions of dollars and the lifestyle of a rock star its hard to fight. That’s why guys like Jeter and Griffey are such important role models. Cheating happens in everything and to try to apply a color scale to levels of cheating is pointless. However, until the FDA puts a ban on superballs and pine tar for potential negative effects on your health I still maintain there is no comparison.
(Quote)
YankeeGrunt Reply:
December 4th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Gambling calls into question the integrity of the game result itself and whether or not on a given day the players were trying to win. In its most pernicious form gambling is an attempt to gain profit by trying not to win. And an added consideration is the fact that the characters who accompany gambling of that kind can be dangerous. Spitballs and corked bats are at least attempts to maximize performance.
Steroids are too, but in the longer term. My argument about McGwire is that there is no way to say when the steroid use began. It may have become more systematic and effective at building muscle mass after he got to the pros, but plenty of elite HS athletes juice and did when he was in his teens. Who is to say he hadn’t been using for several years when he debuted.
I think eventually McGwire needs to get in, I think everyone would recognize the asterisk even without its being there, but I think a systematic approach needs to be given to the era. Implicated players need to be compared to each other regarding stats and not to historic greats, at least on power numbers. And I think the sportswriters who made money selling column ink and commentary on Bonds and on McGwire vs. Sosa as they were happening need to climb down off their high horses and admit that they should have known, and if they didn’t know it was because they were willfully blind.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Thanks thanks thanks! I was looking for something along the lines of this (baseballs) for hours and couldn’t find it.Cheers
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]