Gwynn, Ripken elected to Hall of Fame

[wormer]

My question is, who are the "you know who's" who did not vote for Cal. Stupid baseball writers.


Gwynn, Ripken elected to Hall of Fame
ESPN.com news services


NEW YORK -- Mark McGwire fell far short in his first try for the Hall of Fame, picked by 23.5 percent of voters while Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. easily gained baseball's highest honor.


Tarnished by accusations of steroid use, McGwire appeared on 128 of a record 545 ballots in voting released Tuesday by the Baseball Writers' Association of America.

Ripken was picked by 537 voters, appearing on 98.5 percent of ballots, falling just short of the record percentage of 98.84 set by Tom Seaver when he was selected on 425 of 430 ballots in 1992.

Gwynn was just behind with 532 votes, 97.6 percent.

Goose Gossage was third with 71.2 percent of the vote, falling just short of the 75 percent needed.

The induction will take place July 29 in Cooperstown.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

[Fios]

The idea of not voting for McGwire is equally stupid, I find it nauseating when sports writers play moral authority

[cleg]

Congrats to Cal and Gwynn. I feel stupid but I have been waiting for this day for years and I plan on going to Cooperstown for Cal's induction.

Next up for me and my stupid trips will be to Canton for Darrell Green. For me, growing up Darrell Green and Cal Ripken were the same to me, just different sports.

[KazooSkinsFan]

The idea of not voting for McGwire is equally stupid, I find it nauseating when sports writers play moral authority

It's not moral authority, he is a cheater. How does baseball say if you cheat we'll ignore it and declare you one of the greatest players ever?

Cal and Gwynn are so deserving though. They were two of the greatest sports, much less greatest sportsmen. Cal local, everyone knows.

What blew me away about Gwynn was when he wanted more money in free agency. The team told him he deserved it, but they couldnt' pay it. They opened up their books, his representatives agreed they couldn't pay it and they negotiated a salary they could afford. That was class.

[cleg]

The idea of not voting for McGwire is equally stupid, I find it nauseating when sports writers play moral authority

It's not moral authority, he is a cheater. How does baseball say if you cheat we'll ignore it and declare you one of the greatest players ever?

Cal and Gwynn are so deserving though. They were two of the greatest sports, much less greatest sportsmen. Cal local, everyone knows.

What blew me away about Gwynn was when he wanted more money in free agency. The team told him he deserved it, but they couldnt' pay it. They opened up their books, his representatives agreed they couldn't pay it and they negotiated a salary they could afford. That was class.

Cal did a similar thing with the O's. They both epitomize what is good about sport - there could not be two more deserving people going into the Hall.

[Fios]

The idea of not voting for McGwire is equally stupid, I find it nauseating when sports writers play moral authority

It's not moral authority, he is a cheater. How does baseball say if you cheat we'll ignore it and declare you one of the greatest players ever?

It's very much casting themselves in the role of moral authority, Bill Simmons said it best:

Normally, I enjoy the week the Baseball Hall of Fame inductees are announced. Not this year. With Mark McGwire's inclusion on the 2007 ballot, we have officially entered the Let's Blackball the Potential-Steroids-Guy Era.

Mark McGwire

McGwire had his shot at a public redemption ... and called for an intentional walk.

Some writers won't vote for McGwire because he probably used steroids -- keep in mind there's never been proof that he did, other than a visible bottle of andro and those 135 pounds of muscle he added from 1990 to 2002 -- which would be fine if they weren't so pious about it.

Not content with simply dismissing McGwire's candidacy and moving on, they need to climb on their high horses and rip the guy to shreds. Of course, many of them would appear on any radio or TV show for 50 bucks and a free sandwich. We're supposed to believe they would refuse the chance to take a drug that would enable them to do their job twice as well and make 10 times as much money? Yeah, right.

These people have now become the self-proclaimed moral arbiters of baseball, and they need you to know that Big Mac cheated, disgraced the game, deceived the public, tainted the record books and pushed the sport into a spiritual free fall. They rush to tell you that they can't vote for McGwire because their conscience won't allow it. San Jose Mercury News columnist Ann Killion wrote that she can't vote for McGwire because she wouldn't be able to explain it to her kids.

She concluded her column with this: "All I can do is cast my own vote judiciously. And be able to look my kids in the eyes when I do it."

Ann, I'm glad you're such a thoughtful mom. Seriously, that's great. But a vote for McGwire isn't exactly an endorsement of drug use. And anyway, part of our country's problem is the shortsighted way we "protect" our kids from life's harsh realities. Janet Jackson's nipple slip was such a traumatic moment for Americans that some live sporting events now run on tape-delay, and Howard Stern fled to SIRIUS to escape the clutches of the increasingly fascistic FCC.

Meanwhile, any kid can glimpse Britney's crotch if he or she is even remotely familiar with Google, and anyone can be slandered anonymously on a blog or message board.

Look, our country is screwed up. Whether we like it or not, people will always gamble, use illegal drugs, drink and drive, cheat on their spouses, cheat on tests, lie and steal, ditch their families, swear and fight, use performance-enhancing drugs. Banishing Mark McGwire from Cooperstown isn't going to make any of that go away.

Let's stop pretending that the Baseball Hall of Fame is a real-life fantasy world -- a place where we celebrate only the people and events we can all unanimously agree deserve to be celebrated -- and transform it into an institution that reflects both the good and bad of the sport. Wait -- wasn't that Cooperstown's mission all along? Shouldn't it be a place where someone who knows nothing about baseball can learn about its rich history? Isn't it a museum, after all?

If that's the case -- and I say it is -- then how can we leave out Pete Rose, the all-time hits leader and most memorable competitor of his era? And how can we even consider leaving out McGwire, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa, the three most memorable hitters of the 1990s? We're supposed to stick our heads in the historical sand and pretend these people were never born? Imagine if the rest of the world worked like this. Word is, JFK cheated on his wife. Should we change the name of the airport and remove all his memorabilia from the Smithsonian?

McGwire boasts some undeniable credentials:

• He was the most famous slugger of his era and one of the most intimidating physical presences in sports history. While he was at his apex, you didn't turn the channel when he was at bat. Under any circumstance.

• He broke an untouchable record (Maris' 61), belted 245 homers over a four-year span, finished with 583 home runs (seventh on the all-time list) and made 12 All-Star teams.

• He appeared in a Bash Brothers poster with Jose Canseco that nearly shattered the Unintentional Comedy Scale.

• He's the most successful athlete of all time with flaming red hair.
Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa
AP
People within 50 feet of this hug would probably fail a drug test.

• When a painful strike canceled the 1994 World Series and nearly killed the sport, two events got people caring again: Cal Ripken's breaking Lou Gehrig's consecutive-games record in 1995, and McGwire's and Sosa's battling for Maris' record three years later. Watch the end of "61*" sometime, or reread Mike Lupica's gushing book, "Summer of '98." (Note: Lupica now argues that Big Mac doesn't belong in the Hall. He never says anything about returning the profits from his book, however.) The home run chase meant something back then. And by the way, when it was going on, we all chose to overlook the fact that McGwire was a can of green paint away from being the Incredible Hulk and that Sosa looked like he was developing a second jaw. Let's not forget that.

• When McGwire finally broke Maris' record, his subsequent handshake-hug with Sosa was the single most awkward sports-related moment since Apollo and Rocky embraced on the beach in "Rocky III." That's gotta count for something.

• His "I'm not here to talk about the past" speech is running in a dead heat with Denny Green's "They were what we thought they were!" rant for the honor of Most Ridiculously Enjoyable Public-Speaking Sports Moment of the Decade.

• Unlike Bonds, McGwire actually seems ashamed about what he might have done.

Forget the fact that there were no testing procedures in place to catch him. If he took steroids, he did break the rules. All that does is give him something in common with Hall of Famers like admitted ball doctorer Gaylord Perry and Ty Cobb, a virulent racist who deliberately tried to hurt other players and was accused of fixing at least one game. Are we really going to play the morality card for Big Mac when Cobb is in the Hall? Who's OK with this?

I hate to break the news to Ann Killion's kids, but people have been cheating in baseball for decades. They've fixed games, stolen signs, corked bats, slimed balls, popped greenies and, yes, injected steroids and rubbed HGH cream. We're told that baseball is America's pastime, the implication being that it mirrors real life. And you know what? It's true. A long time ago, Babe Ruth showed us that athletes, like everyone else, are imperfect. More recently, Rose hammered home the point for any of us who might have forgotten it. What did McGwire make clear? That human beings are always searching for an edge, and when they find it, they use it.

If we really want to do the right thing, let's vote in Rose and McGwire as soon as possible, then inscribe on Rose's plaque that he's a dirtbag who bet on his own team, and inscribe on McGwire's that he almost definitely used performance enhancers and wouldn't answer questions about it under oath. And if that information is too sobering for your kids, well, don't take them to Cooperstown. Take them to Disneyland.

It's a fantasy park.

[KazooSkinsFan]

The idea of not voting for McGwire is equally stupid, I find it nauseating when sports writers play moral authority

It's not moral authority, he is a cheater. How does baseball say if you cheat we'll ignore it and declare you one of the greatest players ever?

It's very much casting themselves in the role of moral authority, Bill Simmons said it best:

OK, I'm not a heavy defender of writers in general or sports writers in specific, so I'll concede more out of indifference to argue this one (see, rare but it does happen that I won't argue a point).

So let me restate, I oppose him because I believe he's a cheater. I liked him and Sammy Sosa very much and despise Barry Bonds, but oppose all three for the Hall of Fame because I think they are cheaters. I am indifferent to the argumet when and how much they cheated and if they would have made it without cheating because to me they gave up The Hall when they decided to become cheaters.

You can't argue that I'm wrong because you would be arguing that I don't think that.

[Fios]

You and I disagree on the purpose of the HoF then, I, like Simmons, believe it should be an honest reflection of the sport. I don't think we should place McGwire in the Hall and act as if his performance was pure and unfettered by anything, I think we should acknowledge what he (probably) did as a part of his admission. I think you take the good with the bad and be as honest as you can about the whole thing.

[Irn-Bru]

Excuse my ignorance, but is it even the case that McGwire et. al. used substances that were banned by the MLB at the time that they used them? I was never able to tell (and obviously not interested enough to follow) whether they admited to using substances that were banned by the MLB at the time that they used them.

If they only used performance enhancers that were permitted by the MLB (but morally reprehensible for other reasons), then I would have to agree with Fios that it is misplaced to place judgment on them by keeping them out of the hall.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You and I disagree on the purpose of the HoF then, I, like Simmons, believe it should be an honest reflection of the sport.

I agree we disagree. You make my head spin though when you use the word "honest" reflection and advocate admitting a cheater, which is a dishonest reflection of the game.

But there is no rigid definition of Hall entry, I'm not saying you are "wrong" just that I disagree.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Excuse my ignorance, but is it even the case that McGwire et. al. used substances that were banned by the MLB at the time that they used them?

He took the fifth under questioning from Congress. Taking the fifth means they cannot compel you in a court of law to present evidence against yourself for criminal prosecution. It is NOT a protection against any and all private concerns. Clearly he is guilty or would not have taken the fifth and there is nothing wrong, illegal or unethical in assuming guilt based on that answer in induction to the Hall.

If you are with Fios and want him in anyway, that's fine. I'm just saying he is a cheater based on that answer and I for that reason would never vote for him to be in the hall.

[Irn-Bru]

Excuse my ignorance, but is it even the case that McGwire et. al. used substances that were banned by the MLB at the time that they used them?

He took the fifth under questioning from Congress. Taking the fifth means they cannot compel you in a court of law to present evidence against yourself for criminal prosecution. It is NOT a protection against any and all private concerns. Clearly he is guilty or would not have taken the fifth and there is nothing wrong, illegal or unethical in assuming guilt based on that answer in induction to the Hall.

If you are with Fios and want him in anyway, that's fine. I'm just saying he is a cheater based on that answer and I for that reason would never vote for him to be in the hall.

In the first place, it doesn't matter to me much either way how McGwire answered to congress -- those hearings should never have happened in the first place.

Secondly, taking the fifth doesn't necessitate that you have self-incriminating evidence. It's simply a right to retain ownership of your own body and not to be forced to answer questions that you do not wish to answer. ("No person shall be held to answer for a . . . crime . . . nor shall any person be subject . . . to be a witness against himself.")


I don't really have an opinion on the subject of whether or not he should or should not be inducted, but it does seem fishy to me that he might be withheld from the honor based on his silence being construed as an admission of guilt.

[Fios]

You and I disagree on the purpose of the HoF then, I, like Simmons, believe it should be an honest reflection of the sport.

I agree we disagree. You make my head spin though when you use the word "honest" reflection and advocate admitting a cheater, which is a dishonest reflection of the game.

But there is no rigid definition of Hall entry, I'm not saying you are "wrong" just that I disagree.

By honest, I mean a full accounting, we can't pretend the '90s didn't happen, we can't pretend McGwire didn't hit a ton of homeruns or that he didn't do something positive for the game. I think the HoF should be a place that tells the entire story of baseball, good and bad.

[Fios]

Excuse my ignorance, but is it even the case that McGwire et. al. used substances that were banned by the MLB at the time that they used them? I was never able to tell (and obviously not interested enough to follow) whether they admited to using substances that were banned by the MLB at the time that they used them.

If they only used performance enhancers that were permitted by the MLB (but morally reprehensible for other reasons), then I would have to agree with Fios that it is misplaced to place judgment on them by keeping them out of the hall.

This, by the way, is 100% accurate ... baseball willingly turned a blind eye to these things, there were hundreds of players who did what McGwire probaby did. For the record, in using probably, I'm not equivocating to be difficult, but the fact remains that no evidence has been offered so all we can do is make assumptions as to what happened.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Excuse my ignorance, but is it even the case that McGwire et. al. used substances that were banned by the MLB at the time that they used them?

He took the fifth under questioning from Congress. Taking the fifth means they cannot compel you in a court of law to present evidence against yourself for criminal prosecution. It is NOT a protection against any and all private concerns. Clearly he is guilty or would not have taken the fifth and there is nothing wrong, illegal or unethical in assuming guilt based on that answer in induction to the Hall.

If you are with Fios and want him in anyway, that's fine. I'm just saying he is a cheater based on that answer and I for that reason would never vote for him to be in the hall.

In the first place, it doesn't matter to me much either way how McGwire answered to congress -- those hearings should never have happened in the first place.

Secondly, taking the fifth doesn't necessitate that you have self-incriminating evidence. It's simply a right to retain ownership of your own body and not to be forced to answer questions that you do not wish to answer. ("No person shall be held to answer for a . . . crime . . . nor shall any person be subject . . . to be a witness against himself.")


I don't really have an opinion on the subject of whether or not he should or should not be inducted, but it does seem fishy to me that he might be withheld from the honor based on his silence being construed as an admission of guilt.

I agree with a lot of what you said, particularly the hearings shouldn't have happened in the first place. But you asked how I know he took them and I answered.

God bless you, you're still an idealist. But in reality, that answer worked against him in every possible way except keeping him out of jail for perjury and he never would have said it if he had not taken them.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You and I disagree on the purpose of the HoF then, I, like Simmons, believe it should be an honest reflection of the sport.

I agree we disagree. You make my head spin though when you use the word "honest" reflection and advocate admitting a cheater, which is a dishonest reflection of the game.

But there is no rigid definition of Hall entry, I'm not saying you are "wrong" just that I disagree.

By honest, I mean a full accounting, we can't pretend the '90s didn't happen, we can't pretend McGwire didn't hit a ton of homeruns or that he didn't do something positive for the game. I think the HoF should be a place that tells the entire story of baseball, good and bad.

We're not pretending it didn't happen, we're not voting a cheater into the Hall of Fame. I've said you can disagree and support his entry, I said it was opinion. I'm not clear what you're saying here unless you are saying I can't oppose someone I consider to be a cheater's entry.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Excuse my ignorance, but is it even the case that McGwire et. al. used substances that were banned by the MLB at the time that they used them? I was never able to tell (and obviously not interested enough to follow) whether they admited to using substances that were banned by the MLB at the time that they used them.

If they only used performance enhancers that were permitted by the MLB (but morally reprehensible for other reasons), then I would have to agree with Fios that it is misplaced to place judgment on them by keeping them out of the hall.

This, by the way, is 100% accurate ... baseball willingly turned a blind eye to these things, there were hundreds of players who did what McGwire probaby did. For the record, in using probably, I'm not equivocating to be difficult, but the fact remains that no evidence has been offered so all we can do is make assumptions as to what happened.

It's not "assumption" I've already said why I believe it.

And while I agree with you baseball did little to nothing, saying that baseball wasn't doing anything about cheating is no defense for cheating. and certainly doesn't mean we have to ignore that and vote him into the Hall of Fame.

[Fios]

You and I disagree on the purpose of the HoF then, I, like Simmons, believe it should be an honest reflection of the sport.

I agree we disagree. You make my head spin though when you use the word "honest" reflection and advocate admitting a cheater, which is a dishonest reflection of the game.

But there is no rigid definition of Hall entry, I'm not saying you are "wrong" just that I disagree.

By honest, I mean a full accounting, we can't pretend the '90s didn't happen, we can't pretend McGwire didn't hit a ton of homeruns or that he didn't do something positive for the game. I think the HoF should be a place that tells the entire story of baseball, good and bad.

We're not pretending it didn't happen, we're not voting a cheater into the Hall of Fame. I've said you can disagree and support his entry, I said it was opinion. I'm not clear what you're saying here unless you are saying I can't oppose someone I consider to be a cheater's entry.

You said my use of the word honest was confusing, I was simply defining what I mean by honest, I'm not questioning whether you are entitled to an opinion on the subject. I can even see your point, I just happen to disagree with it.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You and I disagree on the purpose of the HoF then, I, like Simmons, believe it should be an honest reflection of the sport.

I agree we disagree. You make my head spin though when you use the word "honest" reflection and advocate admitting a cheater, which is a dishonest reflection of the game.

But there is no rigid definition of Hall entry, I'm not saying you are "wrong" just that I disagree.

By honest, I mean a full accounting, we can't pretend the '90s didn't happen, we can't pretend McGwire didn't hit a ton of homeruns or that he didn't do something positive for the game. I think the HoF should be a place that tells the entire story of baseball, good and bad.

We're not pretending it didn't happen, we're not voting a cheater into the Hall of Fame. I've said you can disagree and support his entry, I said it was opinion. I'm not clear what you're saying here unless you are saying I can't oppose someone I consider to be a cheater's entry.

You said my use of the word honest was confusing, I was simply defining what I mean by honest, I'm not questioning whether you are entitled to an opinion on the subject. I can even see your point, I just happen to disagree with it.

Wouldn't his having cheated be part of an "honest" assessement?

[Fios]

I never said otherwise:

You and I disagree on the purpose of the HoF then, I, like Simmons, believe it should be an honest reflection of the sport. I don't think we should place McGwire in the Hall and act as if his performance was pure and unfettered by anything, I think we should acknowledge what he (probably) did as a part of his admission. I think you take the good with the bad and be as honest as you can about the whole thing.

Again, I think Simmons said it best:

I hate to break the news to Ann Killion's kids, but people have been cheating in baseball for decades. They've fixed games, stolen signs, corked bats, slimed balls, popped greenies and, yes, injected steroids and rubbed HGH cream. We're told that baseball is America's pastime, the implication being that it mirrors real life. And you know what? It's true. A long time ago, Babe Ruth showed us that athletes, like everyone else, are imperfect. More recently, Rose hammered home the point for any of us who might have forgotten it. What did McGwire make clear? That human beings are always searching for an edge, and when they find it, they use it.

If we really want to do the right thing, let's vote in Rose and McGwire as soon as possible, then inscribe on Rose's plaque that he's a dirtbag who bet on his own team, and inscribe on McGwire's that he almost definitely used performance enhancers and wouldn't answer questions about it under oath.