AP contacted 150 of the roughly 575 Baseball Hall of Fame voters recently. Of the 125 who responded, 74 said they would not vote for Mark McGwire. Note that a 75% positive vote is needed for election to the Hall.
If this stands - and in a secret ballot, who knows? - there is no way McGwire gets into the Hall on the first ballot. It's a major slap to Mr. "I'm not here to talk about the past". The ballot says that character should be considered, and if the voters were only considering stats (and assuming them to be clean) McGwire would be a unanimous lock.
If I had a vote, I'd probably not vote for him either. This year. I don't know if I'd eventually relent - how do you judge a probable juicer against an admitted one, or a suspected one? What value judgments go into play? It makes me glad that I don't actually have a vote.
A rejection this year will force a public debate on the steroids vs. stats and history issue. It will set the tone for Sosa, Giambi, and yes, Bonds.
Baseball will benefit from the discussion, at least.
What I'm reading: Eric Flint, 1824: the Arkansas War
If this stands - and in a secret ballot, who knows? - there is no way McGwire gets into the Hall on the first ballot. It's a major slap to Mr. "I'm not here to talk about the past". The ballot says that character should be considered, and if the voters were only considering stats (and assuming them to be clean) McGwire would be a unanimous lock.
If I had a vote, I'd probably not vote for him either. This year. I don't know if I'd eventually relent - how do you judge a probable juicer against an admitted one, or a suspected one? What value judgments go into play? It makes me glad that I don't actually have a vote.
A rejection this year will force a public debate on the steroids vs. stats and history issue. It will set the tone for Sosa, Giambi, and yes, Bonds.
Baseball will benefit from the discussion, at least.
What I'm reading: Eric Flint, 1824: the Arkansas War