In Defense of Mark McGwire for the Hall of Fame
Thomas LyonsThis week, the Baseball Hall of Fame announced the voting results of its induction balloting from 2008. Jim Rice and Rickey Henderson will be inducted into Cooperstown this summer after receiving the required 75% of the vote. Former A’s and Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire, however, will not be inducted; he received 21% of the vote.
Mark McGwire was widely regarded as one of the greatest sluggers of all time during his playing career. Upon his retirement, the debate around McGwire’s Hall of Fame induction didn’t surround whether it would happen, but whether it would happen on his first ballot.
Mark McGwire, however, hasn’t quite been able to detach himself from the label of steroid-user. If he used steroids, the argument goes, we need to disregard his on-the-field play and vote against him for the Hall.
In my mind, there are three and only three lines of reasoning that one can take in order to reasonably justify a vote against McGwire…
1.) We shouldn’t vote for McGwire because his on-the-field performance does not merit induction into the Hall of Fame.
2.) We shouldn’t vote for McGwire because we can presume he is guilty of a sin (steroid use) that Major League Baseball had not outlawed and our desire that the sin in question had been banned by baseball is sufficient cause to penalize offenders retroactively.
3.) We shouldn’t vote for McGwire because we can presume he is guilty of a sin that the law forbids, and that acts that are illegal in law ought to be bound on the performance of an athlete for the consideration of their performance.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that McGwire’s on the field performance warrants induction to Cooperstown. We’re left, then, with assumptions two and three as the sole justifications for a vote against McGwire. Both assumptions are entirely flawed.
Neither assumption holds any water at all unless we can presume McGwire guilty of steroid use. Even granting the McGwire critic a lowered burden of proof, the evidence still remains minimal.
*In his book, former Major League player Jose Canseco (who has admitted to his own use of steroids) mentions Mark McGwire by name as being among those he knows to have used steroids during their playing career. Jose Canseco would be among the easier witnesses to discredit.
*Mark McGwire hit a lot of home runs and if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Lots of players, of course, have hit a lot of home runs. It alone proves nothing.
*McGwire didn’t tell Congress everything he knows when under oath. Therefore, he’s hiding something steroid-related. To this I would say two things. First, one cannot find competent legal counsel who would NOT have advised McGwire to do as he did before Congress. Second, that each of us doesn’t volunteer information to authorities in no way indicts us for crimes we know of. Granting McGwire the same benefit of the doubt is not a courtesy taken too far.
Truth be told, I wouldn’t be all that surprised if it were proven that McGwire did, in fact, use steroids. That’s not the point. The point is to show how ridiculous it is to presume this guilt given how weak of a collection of evidence we have to support it. My naked opinion is not worth discussing. What I can support with fact and reason is.
The second faulty assumption in the McGwire-critic’s case is the belief that the standards of the critic can be applied retroactively. Steroids were banned by baseball in 2002; McGwire retired after the 2001 season. First of all, even given that McGwire DID use steroids, he did not violate any steroids-based rule during his career. If I perform act x in 2009, and x is banned in 2010, I am guilty of no crime. Secondly, the McGwire-critic has no authority whatsoever to legislate the rules of MLB. I might prefer that the DH be banned or that pitchers pitch from 55 feet or that center field fences be at least 420 feet from home plate – but these aren’t my call. I also might have wished that MLB had acted sooner to ban steroids. If I am a Hall of Fame voter, I’m not the rulemaking body; I’m a judge of performances under the circumstances as legislated (or not legislated) by MLB and the Players’ association.
The third bad assumption that the McGwire-critic could take is that acts that are illegal in law are bound on the conduct of an athlete for consideration of their athletic performance. This is the weakest assumption, but one that’s nonetheless possible to make. If steroids were illegal, the argument goes, McGwire should not have used them despite MLB not banning them. We can all agree that we’d prefer our athletes to have clean criminal records. Suffice it to say that many baseball Hall of Famers do not. We have not historically held a player’s criminal conduct against them when considering their playing career; we ought therefore not cherry-pick against McGwire.
If I cannot presume McGwire guilty of steroid use, and I cannot retroactively apply rules as they were written after McGwire retired, OR I cannot hold the standards of the law against McGwire unfairly, then all I’m left with is a great baseball career. Taken as a given that said career is Hall of Fame worthy, all we can do then is vote to put McGwire in Cooperstown.
January 24th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
“The point is to show how ridiculous it is to presume this guilt given how weak of a collection of evidence we have to support it.”
Have you seen pictures of the man early in his career compared to later in his career? This is not definitive evidence, but we are also not talking about convicting him in a court of law (in this discussion). It seems reasonable to me to withhold judgment as well as praise (hall of fame induction) as long as there is reasonable doubt but no conclusive evidence.
And your treatment of the third assumption seems a little weak. Sure, we do not hold every criminal offense against a potential hall-of-famer, but in this particular case, steroid use, if it occurred, certainly is responsible for his performance. This is not at all the same as considering gambling, recreational drugs, or other criminal offenses which presumably would not enhance performance. Steroid use is, as you pointed out, illegal (regardless of the MLB’s official rules regarding the practice). After all, does the MLB need to have rules outlawing everything the federal government has already outlawed for us to hold its players responsible?
Incidentally, did you see McGwire’s brother’s official statement that McGwire did use? I am not sure whether your essay was published right before or right after, but he says some pretty compelling stuff, including the claim that he personally injected McGwire with steroids and HGH.
January 25th, 2009 at 5:40 am
1.) I would contend that when a person gets bigger over a career does not make it reasonable to suspect he’s doing drugs. But, that’s an opinion, so is yours. I can see it both ways.
2.) You ask if MLB should explicitly ban all activities that the law bans. Clearly no. Crimes don’t affect our opinions of players’ performances on the field.
You’ll then say that steroids is different because steroid use helps performance.
One, you might be wrong: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/21/2020?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT
Two, and most importantly, to the extent that steroids help baseball performance is SPECIFICALLY MLB’S JURISDICTION and not that of the authorities. Bumetanide is a completely legal weight-loss drug, but it’s banned in the NFL because it masks other steroids in steroid testing. Why is that cool? Because the NFL wants to protect the integrity of the game. We expect the league to self-regulate. It didn’t. Tsk tsk on MLB, not its players.
3.) This was published before the report of McGwire’s brother. My second point still stands, though: it doesn’t matter, unless we think we can enforce rules retroactively.
January 25th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Where did you find that study? It certainly has flaws.
1. The dose of steroids they administered over 8 weeks:
“On 2 separate days after an overnight fast, separated by 1 week, subjects ingested 100 mg of androstenedione or placebo (250 mg of rice flour), administered in a randomly assigned double-blind manner.”
And why did they choose this dose?
“This dose was chosen based on the previous report that 100 mg of androstenedione increases blood testosterone concentration by 4- to 7-fold in women.” Also, that was in 2 women.
In women…really? It seems to me that androgens might have a more drastic effect in females than in males. And they only gave two small oral doses over the course of 8 weeks. Someone in Mark McGwire’s position would be using more frequently for a much, much longer duration. The next excerpt is from a website offering instruction to beginners on how to use steroids.
“An example of a beginner’s cycle might be 8 weeks of testosterone at 500mg per week and 4 weeks of Dianabol at 25mg daily. This utilises one injectable (testosterone) and one oral (Dianabol). The testosterone would be injected twice per week, i.e. one ampoule of 250mg on Monday, the other on Thursday or Friday.”
To be fair, when the British authors of the above say testosterone, I do not know if they mean actual testosterone, or androstenedione, as is used in the study. However, testosterone is stronger than androstenedione, so these guys are recommending at least twice as much drug as was used in the study. They also mention taking a loading dose later on which is twice the maintenance dose.
2. The designers only tested 20 men, 10 with steroids and 10 without. As is stated later in the paper, a small difference in the groups was measured, but the study was not powered (did not have enough subjects) to back this narrow of a margin.
In summary, this study, while interesting, does not seem to reflect the habits of steroid users who mean it. It appears to make a fairly weak claim about the effects supplemental steroids on muscle strength.
Finally, what is the rush to induct the man into the Hall of Fame? Whose sake is the induction for anyway? Why not wait to clear his name, or not, and then there would be no debate at all.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:21 am
“Finally, what is the rush to induct the man into the Hall of Fame? Whose sake is the induction for anyway? Why not wait to clear his name, or not, and then there would be no debate at all.”
Because it still doesn’t matter if he did steroids or not. He could come out today, admit he was juiced up beyond belief, throw ten thousand positive drug tests at us, give us 58 studies showing he would have been a replacement-level player without drugs, and hand us 100s of player testimonies verifying his story. Guess what…you still put him in Cooperstown.
Even if all that were true, he was not guilty of anything that was wrong during the period in question. You can’t apply guilt retroactively.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
The idea of having a Hall of Fame seems to be honoring the careers of players whose achievements comprised an almost unatainable level of excellence. His record certainly meets that criterion. However, it also should be that case that those achievments were accomplished on the players own merits entirely.
If I invented a bat which had the capability of detecting the movement of the ball and adjusting the course of my swing marginally to make more certain contact with the ball, and I were able to have a very successful, McGwire-esque career doing so, would you vote me into the Hall of Fame? I would not vote myself in, because then this Hall of esteemed achievements would become a Hall for guys who had more average talent and a willingness to use assistance from outside sources. If you would not vote for me, what is the difference between my bat and steroids, other that steroids being illegal.
Also, in response to retroactive guilt, I have a comment and a question:
Q: Were steroids not illegal when he allegedly used them? I mean according to the actual law, not MLB regulations.
Comment: Even if not, I would still not support the entrance of a man into the Hall of Fame who did not get there on his own merits, i.e. steroids or bionic bats, etc.
Anyway, assuming you will disagree with me, I would like to see your support for enshrining the career of a theorhetical man who did accomplish Hall of Fame-like stats with exogenous assistance.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
To me your robot-bat is a difference only in degree from other technologies players have developed to improve their play.
Sometimes, the league steps in and bans something (scuffing a ball, corking a bat). Sometimes, the league lets things slide (thinning a bat handle, batting gloves, weight lifting (Honus Wagner was the first player to lift weights and he had to fend off accusations that he was cheating)). The burden cannot be on the player to decide what is right and wrong; that has to go on the league.
If the league banned the robot bat, and you were caught using one, then yes I put an asterisk in my mind next to how I think about your career.
You ask for a second time if the law can determine for us what a player ought to be obeying and not. Again, no. To the extent that he’s a criminal is up to the state. To the extent that he harmed the game is up to MLB.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
So your position, as I understand is basically that any player who produces good enough stats, regardless of how it is done, regardless of the legality or morality of his actions, should be enshrined in the Hall-of-Fame as long as the MLB has not specifically prohibited said actions. Would you agree with, disagree with, or qualify this statement?
January 28th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I would say that any player who produces a Hall-worthy career, regardless of how it is done, regardless of the legality or morality of his actions, should be enshrined in the Hall-of-Fame as long as the MLB has not specifically prohibited said actions.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Is committing immoral actions enough to ban someone from the Hall of Fame? Mickey Mantle drank like a sailor (a habit that eventually cost him is life) and frequently cheated on his wife. He also played center field better than almost anyone ever. What about being a terrible person? Ty Cobb was, by all accounts, a genuinely bad human being. He was also one of the greatest hitters to ever play the game.
Cobb and Mantle were, without a doubt, unrepentantly immoral during their playing days. Do they belong in Cooperstown?
What about taking unprescribed amphetamines? Probably upwards of 80% of players over the past 50 years have done so (The players called them “greenies”), a fact that has been testified to in court, as well as documented in tell-all books like Ball Four.
Well, neither immoral conduct nor amphetamines were outlawed by MLB during the time when most players played. (Amphetamines were only recently banned by MLB. Being a racist mean-spirited jerk like Ty Cobb is, to my knowledge, still allowed though.) But so what? We don’t like either practice, so we should kick people out who are guilty of them.
Would you agree with that, Benjamin?
January 29th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
The following is an excerpt Baseball Writers’ Association of America (BBWAA)rules for election into the Hall of Fame:
“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.”
They state, and I agree, that some weight should be given to a players actions off-the-field. Regardless of the track record of previous inductions, this is the written standard. Not living up to the standard previously does not excuse a body from the obligation to meet the standard. Of course there is no legal obligation here, only integrity.
My concern is that inducting men who made a career out of illegal actions, even more so that guys who played by the rules and also were jerks, will really erode the significance of the achievement. You would not be electing players primarily on talent. Rather you are encouraging illegal activities and sending the message that we respect the men who are willing to disregard the rules for personal gain, rather than those who worked the hardest and/or had the most skill.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Your point is well-taken. Mmy essay operates on one of two assumptions:
i.) that we heed precedent and similarly ignore the character element,
or
ii.) that the bar is so low on this character element that players who jump into the stands to beat up handicapped fans still qualify for the Hall. (::cough::: Ty Cob :::cough:::).
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Interesting discussion. I agree with Benjamin that can’t we presume that if any activity is illegal on the street, it is illegal within the confines of a major league ballpark? I’ve never bought the argument that because MLB didn’t ban steroids, it was okay (”I’m not guilty your honor, there is no ban on murder in the NFL!”).
Look at Pete Rose, who it appears will never be in the Hall of Fame. Here is a guy that, without question, earned every one of his 4,256 hits. However, because of his actions off the field, he has been blacklisted. If a guy whose actions solely off the field can be banned, can’t a guy whose on the field stats and the sole basis for hall of fame qualification are compromised be a question mark?
I guess the simplest way to leave it is that the sportswriters are free to give the McGwire controversy as much or as little weight as they deem necessary.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
The Pete Rose comparison is flawed. As far as we know, no other manager was betting on his own games. The effect of Rose’s personal actions was potentially much more profound and damaging in part because he potentially had much more control over how those games turned out than any one player did and in part because his offense was so unique. (For the record, I support letting Rose into Cooperstown. The man earned it. He should have absolutely nothing else to do with MLB for the rest of his days, but he should be in the Hall.)
In contrast, the effect of Mark McGwire’s alleged steroid use is both much harder to ascertain and potentially much more muted. We have very good reason to conclude that a majority of juicers in baseball were pitchers (who used them to bounce back faster between starts). McGwire likely batted against pitchers who were as juiced as he probably was. Pete Rose almost certainly never managed against someone who was managing to win bets instead of to win games. That makes a very big difference.
Also, conduct that would be actionable off the field is often commonplace on it. For example, I’d almost never think of running into a guy with the intention of knocking him down in the store: I’d be sued and probably put in jail. But I’m expected to do that on the football field. Many types of vicious contact that’s now illegal in the NFL (and society at large), like horse collar tackles, was quite common in earlier years. What’s the difference, in terms of its illegality, between a horse collar tackle in the 1990s (before it was banned) and a juiced-up fast ball or home run in the 1990s (before steroids were banned)?
February 4th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Paul, in 1905 - John MacGraw wins $400 betting on his team in the 1905 World Series (translate that to today’s dollars). Later, Tris Speaker and Ty Cobb were permitted to resign in the face of allegations of Dutch Leonard that they conspired to throw a baseball game. Every single one of them is in the Hall of Fame. So don’t pretend there is a bright line rule as to gambling.
I guess if cocaine were of assistance in playing baseball, and not banned by MLB, it would be okay to use? Maybe Jeremy can clue us in on how that defense would work in Court. It would be like one of those whackjobs who think they can’t be convicted if the Judge has the wrong style of flag in his courtroom: Your Honor, I do not recognize this tribunal as an authority, being governed solely by Major League Baseball!
February 4th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Your examples of McGraw and Cobb are true. They’re also beside the point. Kenesaw Mountain Landiss did a lot to change the sport, and by the time Pete Rose came along betting on ones own games was absolutely verboten. 1985 was not 1905 (or even 1919, the year Landiss lowered the boom on the Black Sox and went a long way to cleaning up MLB). It would be like trying to make an argument for posse justice by using the Old West as a model. What fit America then simply doesn’t fit it now.
Your example of cocaine somewhat undermines your position, by the way. Ever hear of the Pittsburgh drug trials? That wasn’t something that MLB ignored or swept under the carpet. Several players were suspended for an entire season because of their confirmed drug use. Others were suspended for months. All of them had to forfeit parts of their salary.
[REMAINDER CENSORED BY ADMIN]
February 5th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Paul
You clearly missed the entire point. [REMAINDER CENSORED BY ADMIN].
February 5th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Paul,
My understanding of your position is that you are saying:
1. The Pete Rose comparison is flawed because…
a. Pete Rose ‘probably’ had more potential to affect the outcome of a game as a manager than any individual player.
b. his offense was so unique (I assume you mean offense as in ‘a crime one commits’, and not his team’s batting and base-running strategy), meaning he did not play against other people who were doing anything but attempting to score the most runs (i.e. not throwing games like Rose might have done)
While you state that McGwire’s actions ‘probably’ had less impact on baseball games (or maybe you mean his stat sheet, I am not sure because you are not very specific here) because…
a. he batted against pitchers who used steroids (again, you presume). I assume you mean this levels the playing field and in effect justifies his stats?
2. Also, you argue that some actions which are illegal off the field are allowed on the field, arguing by inference that steroids which are illegal off the field should be allowable on the field. As you point out, the only examples you cite here are of contact. It seems that the purpose of laws regarding assault are to prevent innocent people from being abused or taken advantage of. I can understand how actions which might otherwise be considered assault are permissible in a sport because the parties have entered a mutual implicit agreement that the contact is not ‘vicious’ as you say, meaning with intent to hurt, but rather for the sake of the game, and within the rules of the game. Steroid use however is illegal for its deletrious health effects. Consumption of this product with the intention of using it for competition does nothing to alter its effects on the body, and that is the difference in the two examples. The spirit of the law is not broken in the contact example, while it remains broken with drug use.
Further, yor overarching argument seems to be that there is a spectrum of ability to affect the game, and that somewhere along this spectrum there is a cutoff for determining what actions should be permissible or not. At least that is my conception of your position. If this is in fact what you meant to say, I would like to see some evidence that this position has some validity, or some support for it. Especially considering your argument is based on several presumptions about who is breaking which rules and the relative effects of those infractions.
Keith and I have a much easier position to defend, that being that all people are expected to abide by the law, and that breaking the law is not excusable for the sake of sports. We have support from the Hall of Fame voting guidelines, as listed above, as well as the U.S. Constitution and courts (see Barry Bonds or perjury).
February 6th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Benjamin
Funny that you should mention Barry Bonds. A couple days ago the Judge unsealed calendars seized from the home of his trainer that appear to establish, beyond a shadow of a doubt to anyone other than an OJ juror (first trial, not second), that Barry was doping.
Now, I will go on record as saying that, looking at his stats, and taking into account his defense and speed, I believe that he was the greatest baseball player in the history of the game. He’s the Michael Jordan, the Wayne Gretzky, whatever comparison you want to make.
Paul, if your position is that everybody else did it, or he was facing juiced pitchers, let’s induct Barry Bonds into the Hall of Fame and give him the accolades that are due a Ted Williams or Joe DiMaggio. As for me, I hope the only balls he sees from now on are in the prison shower.
February 6th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Keith: My comments regarding McGwire (which, of course, can easily be transferred to Bonds) very likely facing juiced pitchers wasn’t to justify his decision to use steroids, it was to point out that that decision probably didn’t have as disproportionate an effect on his stats as many in the “no juicers in Cooperstown” crowd often assume.
Such was quite simply not the case with Pete Rose. We don’t know with certainty whether he threw games, but we know of no other manager of that era who had similar motivations to do so. The illegality of the gambling, from a HOF voter’s perspective, might even be secondary. It was clearly prohibited by baseball (unlike McGwire’s alleged steroid use), its assault on the integrity of the sport was like none other of its time (unlike McGwire’s alleged steroid use) and it’s documented (unlike McGwire’s alleged steroid use).
With Bonds and Palmero (and Clemens?), the offense is documented. The conduct was banned before the documentation occurred. For players who never tested positive before the ban was put in place, I personally don’t think you have such a cut-and-dried case against them. (I agree with you, though, that Bonds was just about the greatest player ever. Ruth personally created modern baseball and was the greatest slugger ever, but Bonds’s talent was off the charts. Steroids didn’t help him found the 500/500 club [current members: Barry Bonds], nor did it give him his massive baseball IQ, his quick bat speed, or his speed and savvy on the base path.)
Benjamin: the results of random steroid testing in MLB continue to indicate that pitchers, not hitters, take steroids most often. Assuming that this is not a recent trend, it seems reasonable to conclude that such was the case during the steroids era. This fact doesn’t justify any player’s decision to take steroids, but it does make the argument that juiced hitters had a huge advantage over pitchers (which helped them accumulate ridiculous stats) harder to make. Which makes that particular argument against inducting hitters whom we suspect (but don’t know) juiced less effective.