Yeah, I know that this is not going to be a popular position to take. Hang in there for a second.
When the members of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) receive their Hall of Fame voting ballots in the mail they are accompanied with a rather ambiguous set of instructions:
"
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
That's it. So the baseball writers have to interpret a great deal when deciding who to admit to the Hall of Fame- baseball's most exclusive club. And by my count there are more than a few players who are exceptions to each of these categories.
You want to talk about player's record and playing ability? How about
Tony Perez? I don't think he should be a Hall of Famer. He was good, clearly, but by no means great. You can make the argument that Ozzie Smith is overrated and may not be so deserving of his spot in Cooperstown. He played a frighteningly good Shortstop (as his 13 Gold Gloves can attest to) but he couldn't really hit (.262/.337/.328). Sure, he was a popular and well liked guy and made a good deal of All-Star games; I just think one could make the case against his inclusion. Smith is very similar to Omar Vizquel (.272/.336/.352, 11 Gold Gloves), but Vizquel realistically doesn't have a great shot at getting in.
How about integrity, sportsmanship, or character? Did you see
Field of Dreams?
Ty Cobb was an asshole and a racist (though the latter has become a point of
contention), and though it is clear that he had some kind of character, it was not the good kind.* Still, by any statistical measure Ty Cobb is one of the greatest baseball players of all time and he undoubtably deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, character issues acknowledged. Gaylord Perry threw a
spitball- a pitch the MLB had outlawed in 1920- for the entirety of his career (integrity? maybe not), but he is in the Hall of Fame. Where do we draw the line? And what kind of line do we draw?
The BBWAA faces a monumental challenge in the coming weeks to determine how to vote for the names on the Hall of Fame ballot this year. Guys like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, and Mike Piazza are first time guys (though I'm pretty sure Clemens
isn't retired and will probably try to worm his way back on to the Astros if he can), and guys like Jeff Bagwell, Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire are the notable names returning. Each of these players brings baggage and known, or assumed, connections to performance enhancing drugs (PEDs), and guessing how the BBWAA writers will vote (
or not) is going to be relatively difficult to determine. There are many strong opinions either way.
Here is my thinking, and you can agree or disagree, it really doesn't matter. I'm not criticizing any BBWAA voters on their rationale, nor do I think baseball needs to institute the
Willy Mays Hall of Fame. I am simply stating my opinion as, I think, a knowledgeable fan of the game of baseball. I am trying to be objective as possible and not hold grudges against players I may dislike (Clemens) or loathe (Bonds). That's my goal. I'm pretty sure that I can do it.
If I had a Hall of Fame ballot (and it's really a shame that I don't) I would place a check next to five names: Bonds, Bagwell, Clemens, Palmeiro, and Mike Piazza. (Sorry, Kenny Lofton).
I'll tackle these guys in a minute, first I want to address the absence of Sosa and McGwire on my ballot. I don't want you, loyal reader, to think I am a hypocrite for including some steroid guys and excluding others. Sosa has the best case of the two because he was a more complete player during his time in the league than was McGwire. For one, Sosa stole 234 bases, won an MVP (over Big Mac in 1998), and was actually a better pure hitter than Mac (.273/.344/.534 to .263/.394/.588). McGwire walked more (not as inflated by intentional walks as you might think- only 150 career) and struck out significantly less, but was essentially a one tool player for the entirety of his career.
The reason that neither Sosa nor McGwire makes the cut is because they cannot hold a candle to other Hall of Famers at their positions. And by this I mean that they are not even in the same stratosphere as guys we consider all-time greats. Take Sosa, for example: to get in the Hall it is obviously not a requirement to be one of the best (whatever position) of all-time but I think you would be hard pressed to put him in the top 20 or 30. That is to say, I don't think you can consider Sosa great. He was very good at his position but as far as Right Fielder's go the standard is remarkably high: Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Stan Musial, Frank Robinson, Roberto Clemente, etc. In terms of active players I would probably take Ichiro and the future careers of Giancarlo Stanton and Jason Heyward too. I'm not keeping him out because he took steroids and his performance at the 2005 Congressional hearings (though we are supposed to believe he can't speak English when we have proof in this god-awful
commercial?), I'm keeping him out because 600 career home runs really aren't
that impressive anymore. (10 of the top 25 all-time home run leaders have played in the last 10 years) 1876 is generally thought to be the beginning of Major League Baseball, as it was the year that the first official game between two -newly formed- National League teams was played. By 2001 (my calculator app tells me that's 125 years) only three players (Ruth, Mays, Aaron) had reached the 600 home run milestone. There have been five additions since 2002 (Bonds, Sosa, Ken Griffey Jr., Rodriguez, Jim Thome) and a few more potentially on the way (Albert Pujols, Adam Dunn, Miguel Cabrera, Stanton?). Suddenly home runs are no longer this
be all end all of a baseball statistic, as much as they have become relatively common place in today's game. In 1974, the year Hank Aaron broke Ruth's home run record, there were a total of 2,649 home runs hit; in comparison, in 1998, when Sosa and McGwire both broke the single season record for home runs, there was 5,064 hit- or nearly double from 1974. This 1998 total is not even a by product of PEDs either, as 4934 were hit in 2012 (when the PED problem is supposedly solved). As athletes benefit from different training and nutrition strategies the game is likely to get bigger, stronger, and faster. And home runs are just going to be a by product of this.
These same arguments hold true for McGwire as well. He played a position where offense is not at a premium- thus inflating our perceptions of what a great First Baseman looks like- and was exceptional only in his ability to walk and hit home runs. It's funny, Adam Dunn does both of those things at an elite level-maybe even better than Mac- are you putting him in the Hall? It would make for an interesting discussion at least, but I would say no.
Now, for the guys I'm voting for:
The two easiest guys to argue for are Piazza and Bagwell. Piazza is the greatest hitting catcher of all time, period. A career .308/.377/.545 line with 427 home runs and 1335 RBI is elite as it gets from the Catcher position, and he is unquestionably deserving of a a spot in Cooperstown. He has never been cited for PED use, though some people cite his "
bacne" as evidence of PED use, and deserves the benefit of the doubt. Just because Piazza played during a dirty period doesn't make him dirty.
This is America, lest we forget.
Bagwell is a similar case. Bags hit .297/.408/.540 with 449 home runs and 1529 RBI while fielding a rather unspectacular First Base. What is unusual about Bagwell, and sets him apart from others at his position, are the nine seasons he scored more than 100 runs (1517 career) and the two seasons he was a member of the 30-30 club (home runs and steals). He has an MVP and a World Series ring, and was never even so much as suspected of using PEDs. He, like Piazza, is the classic example of a guilty until proven innocent guy just for having playing during the so-called "Steroid Era," but his résumé stands up just as well to anyone in the history of the sport.
Palmeiro, Clemens, and Bonds are all going to be lumped under the same central logic, so let me start by making a statement for each:
In the same Congressional hearing where Sosa misremembered how to speak English, Palmeiro, while wagging his finger and channeling his inner
Dikembe Mutombo, spoke words he likely wishes had never left his lips: "I have never used steroids.
Period." What happened? Five months later he got caught using steroids. Oops. Not only was it disappointing that one of my favorite players ever was a PED user, it fundamentally changed the way history is going to remember him. Bonds? We'll remember those 7 MVP's and home runs hit into
McCovey Cove. Clemens? Those 7 Cy Young's, that 20 strike out game (that time he almost
killed Mike Piazza- the 2:25 mark). Palmeiro? He's got that damn finger wag. It's a shame. His career stats: a .288/.371.515 line, 569 home runs, 1835 RBI, and 3020 hits make him only the 4th member of the 3000/500 club, joining Eddie Murray, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron. Whatever metrics you want to use to determine Hall of Fame players, Rafael Palmeiro is going to be there. Sure, he was never
the dominant guy in any one season (and he only made 4 All-Star teams) but he was nothing if not consistent. He had nine consecutive seasons of 35+ home runs and 100+ RBI, and 10 total for his career. The guy could hit and, unlike Sosa, his peak lasted longer than three seasons.
The deal with Clemens is that no one actually has any
concrete evidence linking him to PEDs. Did he use them? I don't know. Maybe only a handful of people on the planet know the true answer to that question. It's widely assumed that he did, but the league didn't start testing for PEDs until the end of the 2003 season when Clemens was 40 years old. He won the Cy Young with the Astros in 2004, and in 2005 posted his lowest career ERA ever (1.87) while throwing a pretty substantial 211.1 innings. Presumedly, if he was juicing during this period he would have been caught. He never tested positive. But forget about this for a minute and just tune into the stats: 354 wins (9th all-time), 4672 strikeouts (3rd), a career 3.12 ERA, 8.55 or 8.6 K/9 (depending on your source- 7th or 8th). He won 7 Cy Young's (1st) and the MVP in 1986 when he was only 23. He is one of the five greatest pitchers ever, though (for reasons having to do with the "Dead Ball Era") I would personally rank him first.
Next comes Bonds. He
admitted to taking PEDs, though he claims that he never took them knowingly. He is the all-time leader in home runs (762), and walks (2558), collected 2935 hits, stole 514 bases- inventing and remaining the sole member of the 400-400 and 500-500 clubs- while hitting .298/.444/.607. He is probably one of the three best hitters ever, somewhere behind Ruth and in front of Mays, while also being the most feared (688 intentional walks, more than the #2, Aaron, and #3, Pujols, put together). He also has won 7 MVP trophies, including four straight from 2001-2004, and could have easily won another in 2000 if not for his
good friend and teammate Jeff Kent. His résumé is ridiculous. His numbers, just like Palmeiro and Clemens, are there.
But it's not about the numbers, and that's the point. Bonds, Clemens, and Palmeiro are going to lose Hall of Fame votes not because their statistics aren't good enough, it's because they disrespected the game; the
sacred game.
But it's not sacred. Not really. It's the quintessential American sport and our "National Pastime," but the sport has a checkered history with cheating and poor gamesmanship. The spitball was banned from Major League Baseball in 1920 after Ray Chapman was stuck in the head with one and died. Gaylord Perry, Don Drysdale, and Don Sutton all threw spitballs and other doctored pitches (in the 1960's and 1970's!), and they are all in the Hall of Fame.
The 1951 New York Giants? You know, the one's that
won the pennant? They were 13 1/2 games out of First Place with 53 games to play, won 16 straight, and forced a three game playoff series against the Brooklyn Dodgers for the National League Pennant that ended with a Bobby Thompson walk off home run. Well, they were so bad before the winning streak that Giants manager, Leo Durocher, set up an
elaborate system to relay pitches to his hitters. He stole signs to gain a competitive advantage. The same thing happened with the White Sox in the 1980's and, most recently, the
Blue Jays.
You've heard of the "Black Sox." "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and others who threw games in the 1919 World Series and got banned for life are one of the most infamous instances of baseball's sacredness losing to want of cash. The though goes that the 1914 Athletics also (though evidence is lacking) threw the World Series to the Braves for cash.
Pete Rose and former Phillies owner William D. Cox both bet on baseball (and their own teams) and were banned for life.
Albert Belle and Sammy Sosa both used corked bats- a no-no.**
Kenny Rogers used a "
foreign" substance on his hand in the 2006 World Series.
If you want to tell me that this game is sacred go ahead, just know that there is about 100 years of evidence to prove you wrong. I love baseball, and it saddens me to think about this, but cheating in baseball is just as American as apple pie and Chevrolet.
If you want to fix the PED problem in baseball, it's simple: One Strike and You're Out. If you get caught using a banned substance, you get banned from playing baseball. Right now it's a Three Strike and You're Out policy; a policy that says the MLB is okay with players taking PEDs. With the One Strike and You're Out we give the players a chance to appeal the positive test (this is still America. We didn't go anywhere after the last Piazza paragraph) before you ban them from the sport. That would clean up the game. There are many ways to improve how you play baseball- taking PEDs doesn't have to be one of them. Until the MLB makes a more definitive and aggressive stance against those who use PEDs the drugs won't go away. Six Major League players tested positive last year, the third most since the test began. The players aren't scared. The financial successes of playing professional baseball still outweigh the risks of getting caught, and that is what needs to be changed. If the MLB doesn't want its players taking PEDs they can stop it. If the MLB doesn't want them in the Hall, take their names off the ballot. If they don't do that what they are essentially telling everyone is that it is okay to vote for them. And if that is the case, I will.
Baseball is supposedly exiting the "Steroid Era" right now and entering into a new era in the game's history. And while that is true, it is important to look back on the importance and long-term impacts the "Steroid Era" has and will have on the game. Jose Canseco, love him or hate him, is essentially the "Steroid Era" guy. He understood steroids before anyone else and taught many of his teammates how to use those drugs. He is also a nark and a whistleblower, and someone I would never want to be associated with. But as far as information goes, he has been a very reliable source for all things steroids. He told us about A-Rod, McGwire, Juan Gonzalez, Ivan Rodriguez Rafael Palmeiro, and Miguel Tejada; much of what we know about the "Steroid Era" comes from him. He estimated that 85% of players in the MLB were using PEDs. A number that would seem so utterly impossible if it probably wasn't true. Canseco knows. The question is: what does it mean that 85% of the MLB was taking PEDs?
It means that those were the times: players had illegal pills on display in their lockers (Mark McGwire), they stuck needles and injected steroids into their buttocks', and rubbed illicit cream on their bodies. And nearly everyone was doing it. This was how baseball was played in the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's. This was the "Steroid Era." We can compare it to another era of baseball history; the early 20th Century "Dead Ball Era," where offense was almost non-existent. The baseballs themselves during this period were often softer and harder to hit, and the ball parks were massive (the West Side Grounds of the Chicago Cubs was 560 feet to the centerfield fence, and the Huntington Avenue Grounds of the Boston Red Sox was 635 feet to the same spot). It was nearly
impossible to score runs, therefore we see that pitching statistics during this period are inflated as a result. Do Hall of Famers Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, Grover Alexander and Mordecai Brown have asterisks on their career statistics for pitching in an era that
heavily favored pitchers? No. That's just the era they played in. Just like Bonds, Clemens, and Palmeiro and the "Steroid Era."
If baseball's Hall of Fame attempts to preserve history, honor greatness, and connect generations, as it's masthead suggests, Bonds, Clemens, and Palmeiro certainly deserve election. Baseball has faced dark times before, and it has always endured. It has never been afraid of it's own history- it embraces it. For 25-30 years baseball players have been taking PEDs to improve their performance and to transform themselves into the best possible players they can be; to ignore this history would be a travesty. 30-40 years from now young fans have the right to know what baseball was like in 2012, as well as its best players. It was Bonds. It was Clemens. It was Palmeiro. Yes, they broke the rules (the first time baseball players had ever broken the rules, clearly), and yes maybe we can call into question their integrity (again, clearly the first time we've ever done that), but they were the best players of their time. Let them into the Hall.
If you want to put an asterisk next to their name because they did things differently, fine. Let's never change the game. Keep the home run record with Babe Ruth because a 162 game season is outrageous. Lower the mound because that's the way it was when Cy Young pitched, fine. Our game used to be so segregated that
Hall of Famers refused to set foot on the same field as African-Americans- now many of the game's best players (and all-time greats) are black. Players didn't always wear helmets; there wasn't an amateur draft until the 60's (teams used to bid on college athletes); and Free Agency didn't exist until the 70's. The context of the game changes, and we need to constantly redefine what "great" means in these different contexts. If Walter Johnson can be considered the best pitcher in the history of baseball even though he played with a ball that hitters struggled to hit into the outfield, why can't Barry Bonds be baseball's greatest hitter?
If you don't like what they did, kick them out of baseball. Otherwise they are legitimate. Let them in.
*
My favorite "Ty Cobb is an asshole story" comes from 1910. That year the Chalmers Automobile Company was going to give the American League Batting Champion a brand new car. Wages were low at this point, so this was a big deal. Cobb sits out the last two games of the season to keep his .385 average higher than second place Nap Lajoie. The last day of the season Lajoie's Indians played the St. Louis Browns who "allowed" Lajoie to collect 8 hits. (They played their Third Baseman in the Outfield and Lajoie had a few "infield" singles, etc.) For all his best efforts to keep Cobb from winning, Browns manager Jack O'Connor failed miserably. Lajoie lost to Cobb by 9 ten-thousandth's of a percentage point, and the President of the American League banned O'Connor from baseball.
**Albert Belle's situation is equal parts sad and hilarious. How this hasn't been made into a mocumentary is beyond me. Someone needs to get on this.
