Hercules Rockefeller
01-11-2007, 11:57 AM
Another brilliant article from Mark Knudson, one of the few people left in America to defend McGwire
Denver's problems at the ballot box have nothing on baseball's HoF voting fiasco
by Mark Knudson
The results were as expected. Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. were both nearly – but not quite – unanimous selections to Baseball’s Hall of Fame. Mark McGwire, also eligible for the first time, was snubbed by three quarters of the voters, who also failed to enshrine Colorado’s Goose Gossage once again. It was certainly no surprise that the voters only got things about half right. That’s been par for their course.
I played with or against Gwynn, Ripken, Goose and McGwire. All four are no doubt Hall of Famers. Gwynn was one of the two or three best hitters I ever witnessed; Ripken was the consummate pro – the kind of all-around player that always seemed to step up when his team needed him most. McGwire’s home run stroke was one of the very best in baseball history; and Goose, who revolutionized the role of “closer” in the late 1970s, is still among the best two or three relief pitchers ever.
Yet the writers – two of whom sent back blank ballots – couldn’t see the forest through the trees – again.
First, can anyone who watched baseball actually think that Gwynn or Ripken didn’t belong in the Hall? Evidently a handful did. For some inexplicable reason, Gwynn was left of 13 ballots, Ripken eight. That begs the question: What games did those 13 writers actually see? You have 10 spots on your ballot and you can’t find a place to write the name of the guy who broke Lou Gehrig’s unbreakable record or a guy who hit better than .300 18 times? What was their “beat,” the Japanese Central League? Or were they maybe just trying to make some sort of “statement” about their own importance?
Then, there’s the case of McGwire, where a vast majority of the writers decided to make a statement that they don’t like players using steroids. (For the moment, never mind that the overwhelming majority of fans could not care less about accusations of use of performance enhancers. It’s not like the game is for them, right? We know it’s all about the high and mighty writers.) We all know that players of other eras never did anything outside the rules. They never looked for any sort of an edge. They never enhanced their performance in any way. Does the name Gaylord Perry ring any bells? The BBWAA didn’t seem to have too much trouble putting him in the Hall.
The “moralists” that omitted Mac did so with no actual evidence that he ever broke any rules or laws. Just their suspicions. Just ridiculous statements like Rick Reilly of Sports Illustrated made about Mac’s physique changing dramatically over “one offseason.” Evidently, Reilly didn’t see Mark play much in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I spent time in the gym with Mark McGwire. I saw him putting himself through grinding workout after grinding workout. Those of us who actually watched – or in my case, went up against – the guy saw him get gradually bigger and stronger every year, unlike his counterpart Jose Canseco, who showed up one spring training 40 pounds heavier and had to ask for directions to the weight room.
The voters didn’t care about that. They probably don’t have any idea about Mac’s workout regime. They probably aren’t aware that McGwire’s profile – quiet, unassuming, professional in every way – does not in any way fit the profile of a steroid abuser. These things don’t matter, it seems. The voters went with their gut feeling that they needed to overlook what McGwire did on the field (and in the gym) and focus on what he did before Congress. That’s where Hall of Fame careers are made. Never mind that he bought his “andro” at the local GNC and that it was not classified a steroid nor was it against any rules when he used it.
Could it be that the idea that they have this “power” to decide Hall of Fame status has gone to the heads of some of these writers? Not only are some of these guys trying to make the news they are supposed to simply cover, but they also get to be judge, jury and executioner in McGwire’s case.
Meanwhile, Goose will have to wait at least one more year after falling 21 votes short this year. He’s getting closer each time – despite the fact that he hasn’t pitched in a big league game in more than a decade – which makes you wonder why some voters seem to be changing their minds about him. Who knows, maybe they’re actually taking the time to study up on the history of the game they’re covering. When I talked to Goose the day after the voting, he was relaxed, yet cautious. He knows his time should come next year, but you never know. He could go out and have a bad outing in our old timers game or maybe someone will accuse him of using illegal mustache wax. If/when he gets in next year, it will be 10 years since he became eligible, and 10 years since he should have been in Cooperstown.
All this points out that things continue to be terribly wrong with this whole process. It needs a complete overhaul.
Why is it that only in baseball is there this obsession with what some players – not all, of course (see: Cobb, Ty) – did off the field? Isn’t it supposed to be about the game and how these guys played it? Think about this: Pete Rose the player not only collected the most hits in baseball history, but was never accused of doing anything wrong. Pete Rose the manager bet on baseball. If baseball were to do the right thing in Rose’s case, the player would be in the Hall and the manager would be banned from returning to the game.
And why is it just baseball writers – many of whom never even saw some of the nominees play a game – who vote? Why are other baseball people, like members of the electronic media and long-time executives not included in the voting process? I’d feel a lot better about the outcome if I knew that Vin Scully and Ernie Harwell were voting, instead of some schmuck from a small paper outside Chicago who’s trying to make a name for himself at the expense of those players who matter. If baseball were to get this part right, Scully and Harwell would be voting, and anyone who sends back a blank ballot would have his or her voting privileges revoked. Come to think of it, if baseball were to get this right, maybe Scully and Harwell would be the one’s doing the overhauling.
For more from Mark Knudson, and a look at the regional sports scene, listen to Mile High Sports Radio, Saturday mornings at 8:00 a.m. on AM 1570 KSXT or online at www.milehighsportsmagazine.com.
No one must call Mark's show if he thinks writers are the only ones who care about 'roid usage.
Denver's problems at the ballot box have nothing on baseball's HoF voting fiasco
by Mark Knudson
The results were as expected. Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. were both nearly – but not quite – unanimous selections to Baseball’s Hall of Fame. Mark McGwire, also eligible for the first time, was snubbed by three quarters of the voters, who also failed to enshrine Colorado’s Goose Gossage once again. It was certainly no surprise that the voters only got things about half right. That’s been par for their course.
I played with or against Gwynn, Ripken, Goose and McGwire. All four are no doubt Hall of Famers. Gwynn was one of the two or three best hitters I ever witnessed; Ripken was the consummate pro – the kind of all-around player that always seemed to step up when his team needed him most. McGwire’s home run stroke was one of the very best in baseball history; and Goose, who revolutionized the role of “closer” in the late 1970s, is still among the best two or three relief pitchers ever.
Yet the writers – two of whom sent back blank ballots – couldn’t see the forest through the trees – again.
First, can anyone who watched baseball actually think that Gwynn or Ripken didn’t belong in the Hall? Evidently a handful did. For some inexplicable reason, Gwynn was left of 13 ballots, Ripken eight. That begs the question: What games did those 13 writers actually see? You have 10 spots on your ballot and you can’t find a place to write the name of the guy who broke Lou Gehrig’s unbreakable record or a guy who hit better than .300 18 times? What was their “beat,” the Japanese Central League? Or were they maybe just trying to make some sort of “statement” about their own importance?
Then, there’s the case of McGwire, where a vast majority of the writers decided to make a statement that they don’t like players using steroids. (For the moment, never mind that the overwhelming majority of fans could not care less about accusations of use of performance enhancers. It’s not like the game is for them, right? We know it’s all about the high and mighty writers.) We all know that players of other eras never did anything outside the rules. They never looked for any sort of an edge. They never enhanced their performance in any way. Does the name Gaylord Perry ring any bells? The BBWAA didn’t seem to have too much trouble putting him in the Hall.
The “moralists” that omitted Mac did so with no actual evidence that he ever broke any rules or laws. Just their suspicions. Just ridiculous statements like Rick Reilly of Sports Illustrated made about Mac’s physique changing dramatically over “one offseason.” Evidently, Reilly didn’t see Mark play much in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I spent time in the gym with Mark McGwire. I saw him putting himself through grinding workout after grinding workout. Those of us who actually watched – or in my case, went up against – the guy saw him get gradually bigger and stronger every year, unlike his counterpart Jose Canseco, who showed up one spring training 40 pounds heavier and had to ask for directions to the weight room.
The voters didn’t care about that. They probably don’t have any idea about Mac’s workout regime. They probably aren’t aware that McGwire’s profile – quiet, unassuming, professional in every way – does not in any way fit the profile of a steroid abuser. These things don’t matter, it seems. The voters went with their gut feeling that they needed to overlook what McGwire did on the field (and in the gym) and focus on what he did before Congress. That’s where Hall of Fame careers are made. Never mind that he bought his “andro” at the local GNC and that it was not classified a steroid nor was it against any rules when he used it.
Could it be that the idea that they have this “power” to decide Hall of Fame status has gone to the heads of some of these writers? Not only are some of these guys trying to make the news they are supposed to simply cover, but they also get to be judge, jury and executioner in McGwire’s case.
Meanwhile, Goose will have to wait at least one more year after falling 21 votes short this year. He’s getting closer each time – despite the fact that he hasn’t pitched in a big league game in more than a decade – which makes you wonder why some voters seem to be changing their minds about him. Who knows, maybe they’re actually taking the time to study up on the history of the game they’re covering. When I talked to Goose the day after the voting, he was relaxed, yet cautious. He knows his time should come next year, but you never know. He could go out and have a bad outing in our old timers game or maybe someone will accuse him of using illegal mustache wax. If/when he gets in next year, it will be 10 years since he became eligible, and 10 years since he should have been in Cooperstown.
All this points out that things continue to be terribly wrong with this whole process. It needs a complete overhaul.
Why is it that only in baseball is there this obsession with what some players – not all, of course (see: Cobb, Ty) – did off the field? Isn’t it supposed to be about the game and how these guys played it? Think about this: Pete Rose the player not only collected the most hits in baseball history, but was never accused of doing anything wrong. Pete Rose the manager bet on baseball. If baseball were to do the right thing in Rose’s case, the player would be in the Hall and the manager would be banned from returning to the game.
And why is it just baseball writers – many of whom never even saw some of the nominees play a game – who vote? Why are other baseball people, like members of the electronic media and long-time executives not included in the voting process? I’d feel a lot better about the outcome if I knew that Vin Scully and Ernie Harwell were voting, instead of some schmuck from a small paper outside Chicago who’s trying to make a name for himself at the expense of those players who matter. If baseball were to get this part right, Scully and Harwell would be voting, and anyone who sends back a blank ballot would have his or her voting privileges revoked. Come to think of it, if baseball were to get this right, maybe Scully and Harwell would be the one’s doing the overhauling.
For more from Mark Knudson, and a look at the regional sports scene, listen to Mile High Sports Radio, Saturday mornings at 8:00 a.m. on AM 1570 KSXT or online at www.milehighsportsmagazine.com.
No one must call Mark's show if he thinks writers are the only ones who care about 'roid usage.