The Ol' Ballfield

Hall of Fame breakdown, an opinion nobody is going to like, and some thoughts on parity

The ballot for the 2007 Baseball Hall of Fame inductions has been released, and it looks like this (the numbers after the commas are the years the player has been on the ballot, including this year):

Harold Baines, 1
Albert Belle, 2
Dante Bichette, 1
Burt Blyleven, 10
Bobby Bonilla, 1
Scott Brosius, 1
Jay Buhner, 1
Ken Caminiti, 1
Jose Canseco, 1
Dave Concepcion, 10
Eric Davis, 1
Andre Dawson, 6
Tony Fernandez, 1
Steve Garvey, 15
Rich "Goose" Gossage, 8
Tony Gwynn, 1
Orel Hershiser, 2
Tommy John, 13
Wally Joyner, 1
Don Mattingly, 7
Mark McGwire, 1
Jack Morris, 8
Dale Murphy, 9
Paul O'Neill, 1
Dave Parker, 13
Jim Rice, 11
Cal Ripken, Jr., 1
Bret Saberhagen, 1
Lee Smith, 5
Alan Trammell, 6
Devon White, 1
Bobby Witt, 1

Without doing any thinking about it, these are the players I would vote for (in alphabetical order):

1. Belle
2. Gwynn
3. McGwire
4. Ripken

This is live, folks! Now, I will do some research, and see if that changes anything.

(Go ahead and do something else.)

All right, I'm back. New Ballot:

1. Belle*
2. Blyleven*
3. Gwynn
3. McGwire
4. Ripken
5. Saberhagen*

*Okay, I am really, really torn on these three. The pitchers are pretty much your opposite ends of the spectrum on HOF arguments. Blyleven represents a kind of excellence combined with longevity that is rare, especially for pitchers, but Saberhagen represents utter dominance for a shorter period of time. Think of it as a scaled down version of Seaver vs. Koufax. I won't go into the specifics here, but I would LOVE to get a discussion in the comments going about these two if anyone is interested. I feel like they should either both make it or both be left out. I'm leaning towards left out, can anyone convince me otherwise? (Or convince me I'm right?)

Belle is another interesting one. I'd like to open the debate on him because NOBODY is talking about him. That is, of course, because Belle was a major-league asshole, and not white. As my boss put it, "Belle was a better asshole than he was a hitter; and he was a pantheon-level hitter." Plus he made a lot of money, which no one seems to like. But the only hitter putting up even close to the numbers Belle was putting up during his peak was Frank Thomas, a pretty sure HOFer, who was useless with a glove. Belle was no Gold Glover himself, but he at least managed to register 61 FRAR over his career, compared to Thomas's -12.

I honestly think Belle is a borderline case, although perhaps not as borderline as Blyleven or Saberhagen. But it brings me to a later point, which I will get to later.

There is no dispute about Gwynn or Ripken. Besides Ripken's streak, which is almost enough to get him in alone, he also has excellent HOF numbers for a shortstop. Never a league-leading hitter, he was above-average enough that to be that good for 162 games a year for however many years is outstanding.

Let's talk about McGwire.

Let's talk about the similarities between Mark McGwire and Pete Rose. When Rose's ban came down, it had not been proven that he bet on baseball, as it has not been proven that McGwire was on steroids. Baseball banned him anyway, just as the writers are about to blackball McGwire. Of course in both cases it was pretty obvious that they were guilty; Rose would later admit his guilt, and McGwire would later look like an idiot during a bigger waste of Congressional time than all the applause of all the State of the Unions put together. I happen to believe that Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame, with a mention on his plaque that he was banned from baseball. To me, banned from baseball does not mean banned from the Hall of Fame, because Major League Baseball does not own or operate the Hall of Fame, some family in Cooperstown does. (For more information read Bill James' seminal book, Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?) The Hall of Fame has more of a partnership than an affiliation with Major League Baseball, and exists to honor the game, not the league. For this reason, accomplishments in the game should be honored there, whether or not the player is at odds with MLB.

Some differences between Rose and McGwire: one was a slugger, one was a hustler. Like it or not, writers love hustlers, and don't love sluggers. That's why Tony Perez is in the Hall, that's why Dave Concepcion is in the Hall, that's why Andre Dawson is on the ballot, and that's why David Eckstein will be too. (Just kidding, I hope.) Another major difference: if McGwire was on steroids in the 90's (again, like it or not, he is still innocent until proven guilty, and that charade in front of the House does not count as proof), IF he was on steroids, the Major League Baseball rules at the time were foggy at best. No one knew what the rules were, what the punishments were, what was illegal and what wasn't. It wasn't really an issue; if it was, the summer of '98 wouldn't have been so carefree. Technically speaking (or any kind of speaking, really), McGwire didn't break any Major League Baseball rules. The rule that Rose broke is written in every clubhouse in every stadium in Major League Baseball. It was the subject of the most famous trial in baseball history. If you want to, you can believe that if McGwire was on steroids, he didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Much tougher to believe that about Rose.

And now for the hypocrisy of baseball writers. There are so many self-important "I won't vote for McGwire" columns out there it makes me want to throw up. Jim Caple (I can't believe I'm saying this) wrote a great column on the issue, some of which I will reproduce here:

Without proof one way or the other, it is simply wrong to judge a player on mere suspicion.

What are our concerns with McGwire, really?

If we're worried about letting cheaters into Cooperstown, then how come we voted in Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford, who we know doctored baseballs?

If we're worried about illegal drug use, then how come we happily voted in Paul Molitor, who once had a bad cocaine habit?

If we're worried about performance-enhancing drugs, how come we voted in so many players from the '60s, '70s and '80s without a second thought when we knew how widespread amphetamines use was during that era?

Further, bear in mind that steroids were not specifically banned by baseball when McGwire was a player. I know, I know. Steroid use was (and is) illegal in this country without a medical need. Many writers make the convenient argument that the rulebook doesn't specifically ban arson, racketeering and kidnapping, either, yet that doesn't mean baseball allows those crimes. True. But the rulebook doesn't ban income tax evasion or spousal abuse, either, and yet Darryl Strawberry was allowed to play despite being arrested for both. Breaking the law does NOT mean the same thing as breaking the rules.

What this essentially comes down to is not what we might suspect, but what we know for a fact. And what we know for a fact is that McGwire hit 583 home runs in his career -- more than all but six players -- including 70 in one magic summer.

This brings me to my other point. I have never, EVER heard a whisper that suggested Albert Belle was on steroids. I've heard it about every slugger since McGwire, every one, with the possible exception of Alex Rodriguez. Even media darling Ryan Howard! If you want to keep McGwire out of the Hall because he had an unfair advantage, then you should put in the Hall who WOULD be there without others having that advantage. Albert Belle without question falls into that category. But he won't be talked about, because he was an asshole, because he was a black asshole (which, like it or not, is worse for media relations), and because his accomplishments were overshadowed by a scandal of which he was never part. Now he's not even getting the honor of having masturbatory columns written about why writers are so proud NOT to vote for him, as McGwire is getting.

Steroid testing is at a level now where I believe it has come under control. No more "examples" need to be set. I would vote for McGwire, and I would vote for Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa. If one of them has proven steroid use on his record, put it on the plaque. But for the reasons Caple mentions, to not vote for them is a slippery slope as well as utter hypocrisy.

What's all this about parity?

The National Football League was the first to boast of parity brought about through free agency and the salary cap. Baseball's huge pennant race this year showed symptoms of the same thing. Now we have writers lamenting that there are so few NFL powerhouses, and Joe Morgan has been bitching for years about all the "mediocre" teams in baseball. What gives?

The talent level in these sports has NOT gone down. The problem is NOT free agency and it is NOT the salary cap. The only problem is expansion. More teams = more players = more players that wouldn't normally be in the league. Just because the talent is not concentrated in one place doesn't mean it's not there anymore, it's just more difficult to see (and cover, which might be why the writers are whining about it [sheesh, I'm anti-writer today]). If we truly want fiercely competitive leagues from top to bottom, what we need is fewer teams, so that only the best of the best of the best are competing.

But beyond that, what is so wrong with parity? Sure, there are few dominant teams in football, but what is better for the NFL? Three or four teams at the top so we don't have to pay attention until January, or a slew of teams in all different markets that have a chance all season and keep fans entertained to the end? A more dynastic trend may be better for corralling the "casual fan", but we're talking about three or four weeks a year for that. It's better to keep more-than-casual fans invested for the whole season.

In baseball, St. Louis won the World Series with the worst record of any Series team since the 70s. It's not because of parity that this occurred; it's because of baseball's flawed playoff system. The regular season showed who the best teams were; the playoffs are a free-for-all tournament where anything can happen. This is not a comment on the talent level in the game.

The talent level in both leagues, on average, is not as good as the early 90s because there are more players involved. But the benefit of having more markets open to the game (and keeing them competitive with a cap) outweighs the detriment of having fewer dynamite, powerhouse teams. There may be fewer great teams, but there has been no lack of exciting football or baseball, and after all, ain't that the point of it?

posted by Carnival @ 11/28/2006