No Rush

Among the most popular and troublesome arguments regarding Mark McGwire's Hall of Fame candidacy are the positions that his alleged PED use should count for nothing ( ie add up his numbers and dont ask questions), or indeed, everything (ie summary banishment from the Hall). Both approaches oversimplify and likely distort the role of steroids in modern baseball, by asserting a) their uniform irrelevance, or b) that usage so dramatically altered the playing field as to clearly invalidate particular players' accomplishments and specifically brand them the most disreputable cheaters since the 1919 Black Sox scandal.

Diamondhacks subscribes to neither extreme and to the extent that the still emerging truth about steroids' impact and scope eventually crash lands somewhere in between, it seems to us that discounting Mr McGwire's accomplishments, without moralistically repudiating them, is a prudent way to approach his HOF candidacy. To be clear, the Hall of Fame is full of alleged "cheaters", like Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry and two generations of players quietly popping unprescribed amphetamines. These scalawags are generally looked at more kindly than the Black Sox or Pete Rose, because the former cheated to enhance their play, whereas the latter's cheating compromised team performance (potentially in Rose's case).

With due respect to sportsmanship and personal ethics, let's be clear about this much - the primary job of professional ballplayers is to win - it is not to protect the integrity of baseball, which, at least until recently, was the primary day to day task of umpires and the primary strategic, overarching responsibility of the commissioner.  Players bending rules in order to win is neither new nor particularly alarming, yet the secrecy with which PEDs were administered reinforces the unethical nature of their use. The decision to use steroids should not be without consequence, but let our response be in line with a player's poor personal choice instead of holy indignation over an unprecedented, cardinal stain upon Bud Selig's pristine pastime.

For example, it might not be a bad rule of thumb to cast a pending "No" on all suspected PED users(except Bonds) as they come up for induction; not because they should be moralistically banished, or made to squirm for years as penance, but simply as a practical consideration. The Hall's five year waiting period for induction was designed to crystalize a candidate's case during the player's uneventful retirement years. Embarassing post career events, however, have fundamentally clouded Mark McGwire's legacy and complicated thoughtful voters' task of rightly assessing his place in baseball's pantheon.   

If one agrees to discount McGwire's production, by how much? Was he an intrinsically great hitter, aided by smaller parks and lighter bats as much as by illegal, yet effectively condoned, drugs - or was his entire career a pharmaceutical fraud, including the 49 rookie homers in 1987? Should his gross numbers be pared by 10%? 20%? Fifty per cent? In a couple years, will more evidence about McGwire, or PEDs influence on performance generally, facilitate a more informed judgement? Perhaps, and for that reason Diamondhacks encourages HOF voters (incl MLBlogs' Mark Newman) to vote "No"  on Mark McGwire for now. Big Mac may have a plaque someday - I might even support his candidacy under the right circumstances - but not now. Not amid this choking cloud of uncertainty. The finality of "Yes" vote under current conditions just feels wrong - and, frankly, there's no rush.

The 2006 vote asks only whether Mark's a first ballot HOFer, not whether he belongs in the Hall in an historical sense at all. My answer to the first question is: "I dont know yet." That's tantamount to a "No". As information, scientific and otherwise, emerges on these controversial topics, perhaps we can induct McGwire someday - without the wink and a nod.