Another baseball post

In case you haven't heard, Sammy Sosa hit his 600th home run Wednesday night -- becoming only the 5th man in MLB history to do so. Of course Sammy is also tainted by the whole "steroid thing" (suspicion but no proof) that has hounded Bonds, McGwire, etc. Naturally the experts over at ESPN have opinions about Sosa's Hall of Fame credentials.

For those of you who haven't followed the debate, ... Some players in the last 15 years or so have put up MONSTER numbers that equal or eclipse the all-time greatest players in baseball history -- a LONG history by the way. Normally such numbers would make the players "locks" for the Hall of Fame, but now that people are SHOCKED (think of the guy in Casablanca when he found out there was gambling going on in Rick's) to find out that some of these obscene numbers may have been aided by illegal substances, people are beginning to wonder whether these players belong in the Hall after all. The test case was Mark McGwire. His numbers should have made him a "no brainer" selection, but the voters sent a "message" and only 23.5% of voters cast a ballot for Mr. McGwire -- far short of the 75% required for selection. So far, however, McGwire is the only one of the suspected steroid guys who has appeared on the ballot. Sosa, Bonds, and the rest are yet to come.

My personal feelings are that voters will have to discount the inflated numbers. For instance, hitting 400 HRs used to be enough, by itself, to get a player serious HoF consideration. 500 HRs was a guarantee. That cannot be the case any longer. The Hall is going to have to "keep out" some 500 HR guys because, quite frankly, there is NO WAY some of them can be thought of as Hall of Famers. For instance, Jim Thome is 19 dingers away from 500 and Jim Thome is NOT a Hall of Famer. So how to handle the steroid era players?

Again, this is just my personal feeling, but I think you have to discount the numbers so that there are no more "magic numbers" that guarantee inclusion, but I don't think you can arbitrarily keep everyone from the era out of the Hall. I don't have the exact voting criteria in front of me, but I seem to recall something about "dominant player of his era" being a guideline. Now if you dominate a league in which "everyone" was juiced, well then you're still the dominate player of your era. Plus, something many fail to acknowledge, until very recently baseball had no specific policy against steroids. It really gripes my butt when I hear the old timers talk about these cheating players today and then totally ignore the fact that most (I hear) of the late 1960s and '70s players were all hopped up on amphetamines! So discount the numbers, but don't get all sanctimonious about excluding these "cheating" players. If I had a vote, I'd vote for McGwire, I'd vote for Bonds, and I'd probably vote for Sammy too. I would not, though, vote for Rafael Palmeiro. Without his home run numbers he was simply a very good hitter who played a long, long time.

Regardless, back to Sammy, ... I don't blame anyone for thinking Sammy should be in the Hall. One of the ESPN "experts", though, comes up with some of the stupidest drivel of all time in justifying a Sammy vote. Steve Phillips, former big league GM and current ESPN baseball "analyst", says:

Sammy Sosa is a Hall of Famer. Slam dunk. There is no smoking gun with him. There is just guilt by association. Just because he kept pace with Mark McGwire in home runs in 1998 doesn't mean he should be seen the same way as McGwire. Sosa made a statement in front of the House Committee on Government Reform in which he declared he had never used illegal performance-enhancing substances while McGwire did not. There are no former teammates pointing fingers at Sosa like there are at McGwire. He has never failed a drug test. In fact, consider that Sosa did get busted for corking a bat during his playing days. Why would a player on steroids cork his bat? He wouldn't. Sammy Sosa is one of the most charismatic players to ever play the game during his prime. He will most likely end up with the fifth most career homers. He is a first-ballot Hall of Famer if there ever was one.

This is just nonsense! Yes, Sammy said he'd never taken steroids, but so did Palmeiro. Plus, does Phillips not remember Sammy's sudden inability to understand or speak English during that hearing? McGwire essentially "took the 5th" while Sammy relied on the "I no speak English" defense. According to Phillips, that's more admirable? I don't think so.

Second, how about former teammates? As far as I know, Jose Canseco is the only former teammate accusing McGwire and Jose is accusing just about everyone he ever played with of being on the juice. You can bet he'd be accusing Sammy if they'd ever been teammates. Further, McGwire (and Bonds as well) never failed a steroid test either. They just weren't given when McGwire was in the league.

Finally, though, Phillips really shines when it comes to the corked bat incident. Read it again, "In fact, consider that Sosa did get busted for corking a bat during his playing days. Why would a player on steroids cork his bat? He wouldn't." That's just ludicrous. Would you say, "Oh John Doe would never rob a convenience store. He just robbed a bank a few months ago so why would he need to rob a store?" No, in criminal cases (at least on Law and Order, where I get all my law knowledge) a tendency to commit one crime lends support to the theory that a guy might commit another offense. The fact that a guy has a criminal past is NOT a defense against other crimes!

I can only reach one conclusion. Steve Phillips is a blithering idiot! [Yes, I'm sure he's a nice guy and he knows a lot more than me about baseball. The "idiot" thing is poetic license.]