What if I said that Baseball Player X hit 583 home runs,
including 70 in one year? Is he suddenly worthy of Hall of Fame
consideration?
Baseball Player X played 16 seasons in the majors. He was a career .263 hitter and had 1,626 hits. He won one Gold Glove, three Silver Sluggers, was a 12-time All-Star and was named Rookie of the Year in 1987.
Does Baseball Player X deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? Probably not. The only thing that’s even remotely impressive in that list of accolades is the point about being a 12-time All-Star, but that’s nothing really special.
Now, what if I said that Baseball Player X hit 583 home runs, including 70 in one year? Is he suddenly worthy of Hall of Fame consideration?
It’s the curious case of Mark McGwire. The andro-riddled first baseman, who played 10 seasons in Oakland, will probably never be elected to baseball’s hallowed hall, and everyone points to the steroid-riddled cloud hanging over his head.
But are McGwire’s numbers even that good to make it into the Hall of Fame, whether he did steroids or not?
While I’m not a baseball writer, nor a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America, it’s quite clear that although McGwire was feared every time he stepped into the batter’s box, he was terribly one-dimensional.
He only had 1,626 hits, and 583 of those hits were home runs. Really? That’s impressive, to say the least, but not necessarily in a good way.
McGwire received 118 votes (21.9 percent) this year, down from the 128 votes he received the previous two years. Jim Rice, who was narrowly elected on Monday in his 15th and final year of eligibility, had 412 votes, more than three times the amount McGwire had.
This could change, of course, but it seems unlikely at this point. McGwire has been through three years of eligibility, and he’s not only losing votes, but he can’t even scrape 22 percent of the vote.
In Rice’s third year, he garnered 37.6 percent of the vote.
What makes McGwire’s case so interesting is the fact that many believe it’s his possible steroid use as the reason for the sub-22 percent vote total. While that may be the case, it shouldn’t be.
I bring this up only because that in 2013, we’ll all be having this conversation regarding Barry Bonds, who will very likely follow a similar path as McGwire in the Hall of Fame voting. But if the Mitchell Report has taught us anything, it’s that steroids were rampant in baseball from the late 80s on. McGwire and Bonds, two players who still haven’t tested positive for steroids –- although speculation and assumptions would prove otherwise –- are only two players. And they didn’t name the Steroid Era after two players, albeit oversized.
You either let everyone in from that era or none of them –- there really should be no in-between.
Remember how everyone thought Rafael Palmeiro was clean, until he tested positive? Well, trying to figure out who was on steroids and who wasn’t during a time in baseball called the Steroid Era seems pretty silly, too.
I actually do believe that both McGwire and Bonds took some form of performance-enhancing drugs. But they weren’t the only ones. And since I left my drug test at home, I’ll keep the pearly gates of baseball’s Hall of Fame slightly ajar, as opposed to the members of the BWAA, who would post a “No Trespassing” sign if they could when McGwire is roaming the neighborhood.
And while many think McGwire’s problem could be swiftly solved with an admission and an apology, which is the approach both Jason Giambi and Andy Pettitte employed, the fact that his numbers are rather sub-par should be the real reason why he’s never elected into the Hall.
Bonds should get in. His numbers are stellar. Whether or not those numbers are stellar because of steroids would make it a different matter, of course, but it’s one that baseball writers simply cannot answer.
